The Past Decade: Revealed

[Jaromir Jagr]

When a highly rated national seed Miami loses, then Omaha is random. Nothing we can do.

This is your argument.

Nobody predicted Miami and Florida to both go 0-2. Unpredictable. Random.

If Arizona wins it then it's laughably random.

If the # 1 overall seed wins it then it's not random. It was perfectly predictable.

It's sad watching you flail at something so simple.

I love it. You keep saying it. You don't even bother denying it.

Jim Morris wins - perfectly predictable
Jim Morris loses - crazy randomness

Jim Morris does not lose baseball games. He either wins, or there was nothing he could do.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

Has Jim Morris ever just lost when he should have won? Is it possible for the Hecht shills to admit that?

I've said this before. You're just being purposefully obtuse.

He's been a 1-seed 17 times.

He's failed to advance twice.

2012 and 2014.

Other than that his record is pretty much unimpeachable as the favorite.

He shouldn't have won against Arizona, UCSB, Texas Tech, Georgia, Stanford, etc?

 

[Brian Piccolo]

If the better team loses, it's not because they played poorly in a big situation. It's because of randomness.

Those are not mutually exclusive.

If the better team proved itself to be better by being consistently good and they play poorly in one situation at the end against a lesser team then that's random.

A small sample size and an unpredictable outcome.

You still utterly confused by simple concepts.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

Miami wins - we were better, and we have a great leader
Miami loses to a top team - they were better, and our great leader can't be expected to beat better teams
Miami loses to a lesser team - man, the post-season sure is random, our great leader had some bad luck

Brian has gone on record as agreeing with the above post. No effort at all to dispute anything in it.

 

[Brian Piccolo]

When Jim Morris wins as the better team, it's all to his credit as a great manager.
When Jim Morris loses as the better team, there's nothing he can do about it because it's random.

The better teams are supposed to win. It happens far less frequently in baseball because of the nature of the game and even less frequently in Omaha.

When they do nothing needs to be explained. It happen exactly how it should have.

When they don't win then there are other factors.

This is common sense to most of us.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

If the better team loses, it's not because they played poorly in a big situation. It's because of randomness.

Those are not mutually exclusive.

If the better team proved itself to be better by being consistently good and they play poorly in one situation at the end against a lesser team then that's random.

A small sample size and an unpredictable outcome.

You still utterly confused by simple concepts.

So what happens if you have a CWS-caliber program and you find yourself in that crazy random small random sample size every single year? Keep truckin' along. Nothing we can do.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

When Jim Morris wins as the better team, it's all to his credit as a great manager.
When Jim Morris loses as the better team, there's nothing he can do about it because it's random.

The better teams are supposed to win. It happens far less frequently in baseball because of the nature of the game and even less frequently in Omaha.

When they do nothing needs to be explained. It happen exactly how it should have.

When they don't win then there are other factors.

This is common sense to most of us.

You're saying that it's probable, maybe even likely, that the lower seeded team is going to win pretty often in baseball?

 

[Brian Piccolo]

.I love it. You keep saying it. You don't even bother denying it.

Jim Morris wins - perfectly predictable
Jim Morris loses - crazy randomness

Jim Morris does not lose baseball games. He either wins, or there was nothing he could do.

I'm explaining randomness to somebody who's clearly lost by the concept and you keep interjecting Jim Morris into the larger context.

If you insist on it then fine.

Nobody should need an explanation for why the 1999 and 2001 championship teams weren't random. It would be insulting to explain it.

When the best team doesn't win (we had a case in 2004, 2008 and 2016) it can chalked up to any number of factors.

Whiny fanboys choose stupid cliches and I choose unpredictability and randomness.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

.I love it. You keep saying it. You don't even bother denying it.

Jim Morris wins - perfectly predictable
Jim Morris loses - crazy randomness

Jim Morris does not lose baseball games. He either wins, or there was nothing he could do.

I'm explaining randomness to somebody who's clearly lost by the concept and you keep interjecting Jim Morris into the larger context.

If you insist on it then fine.

Nobody should need an explanation for why the 1999 and 2001 championship teams weren't random. It would be insulting to explain it.

When the best team doesn't win (we had a case in 2004, 2008 and 2016) it can chalked up to any number of factors.

Whiny fanboys choose stupid cliches and I choose unpredictability and randomness.

All you have to say is "yes, that is what I am saying". It's okay. Jim Morris does not lose baseball games.

 

[Brian Piccolo]

So what happens if you have a CWS-caliber program and you find yourself in that crazy random small random sample size every single year? Keep truckin' along. Nothing we can do.

More questions because you're clueless.

That's what happened from 1994-1999.

We started 2-0 in Omaha twice (1995 and 1997) and failed to reach the final. We went 1-2 in 1994 and 1998.

To you these are utter failures. Disgraceful outcomes.

But they got there and kept getting there many more times. What would you know? They won it a couple of times because of it. You can't win it if you're not there.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

You're saying that it's probable, maybe even likely, that the lower seeded team is going to win pretty often in baseball?

 

[Brian Piccolo]

You're saying that it's probable, maybe even likely, that the lower seeded team is going to win pretty often in baseball?

And more questions because, well, you're clueless.

And this time your question is so stupid that it makes my head hurt.

The best teams win but in baseball it's far less likely than any other sport. And baseball needs more games to determine the better team than any other sport as well.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

You're saying that it's probable, maybe even likely, that the lower seeded team is going to win pretty often in baseball?

And more questions because, well, you're clueless.

And this time your question is so stupid that it makes my head hurt.

The best teams win but in baseball it's far less likely than any other sport. And baseball needs more games to determine the better team than any other sport as well.

Oh, it's a loaded question, trust me.

Miami has lost to a lower seeded team 12 times in the past 10 years.

Miami has beaten a higher seeded team 0 times in the past 10 years.

Good god.

Since baseball is so crazy random and lesser teams beat the good teams so often, one would think that Miami could manage to sneak in one win against a better team. But I have a feeling that this is where we revert to "better teams are supposed to beat lesser teams" after an hour of preaching that "it happens far less frequently in baseball".

Not if Jim Morris is coaching, big dog. Not one time has Jim Morris led his team to an upset. But Jim Morris has been upset 12 times. Holy bejeezus. But we came back 20 times in the regular season, so shut up delusional fanboy. We know. It doesn't change. Coastal. 2001.

My work is done here. Thanks for making it easy.

 

[canesproponent]

You had a point between 2009 and 2013. Morris went from averaging 46 wins a year to 38, which is a marked drop off (~17%). Something was wrong. The counter-point was that the results are normally much worse in NCAA baseball when the the game "passes a coach by" (i.e. Dedaux, Garrido, Wichita state guy and Stanford's guy).

In 2014, however, Morris won 44 games and lost to an Omaha-bound team (Texas Tech). He then produced the two second-best squads in the NCAA during 2015 and 2016. There is ZERO justification for firing Morris now. Based on the past two seasons, he is the second best coach in the NCAA.

I am not going to look up Piccolo's stats because it is late, but when a #1 team enters the tournament the probability of reaching Omaha are 44% (sic), when they reach Omaha the odds drop to 12.5%. THAT is what you need to understand.

 

[Zbrod95]

You can also flip a coin for 10-years and, you know what, heads is going to come up 50% of the time.

If they sent 4 teams to Omaha and you had two, 3-game series, then you can blame Morris.

Morris is not doing anything different in Omaha than what he does during the regular season.

You can criticize Morris for not fixing the Recruiting coordinator position until the 2012 season- that is perfectly valid - but the 2014 was a definitively top-10 team, and his last two squads were the 2nd best teams in the country. You do not fire a coach producing at such a superlative level.

except his teams somehow play their worst baseball of the year

 

[Zbrod95]

It's as simple as this.

The fanboy whiners have made basically two really stupid claims recently to try to explain our losses in Omaha.

1) 'We're soft! When the bright lights come on we fold!'

This team had 20+ come from behind wins. They did it in the regular season. In the ACC Tournament. In the regional. In the Super Regional. To say that they were soft is utterly preposterous and an embarrassment to anybody who would say such a thing.

2) 'When we play the best competition we come up short!'

We have the most wins (23) in the country vs. the top 25. The two teams in Omaha weren't the best we played this year. Not by a long-shot. So that's another silly and irrational claim.

WHO CARES !!, have you not realized yet that doesn't mean dyck unless you do something in Omaha?? Neither do conference championships or 50 wins seasons or the stupid national seeds you love so much( which wouldn't matter if the postseason is "random" anyways ) if you can't win more than 1 game in Omaha when the goal is to win a national championship, not just get there.

And you say we're inept at understanding competitive sports when I can tell you've never even played sports at any level in your entire life.

No one, NO ONE, who's had the success that Miami's had or has their talent level settles for just Omaha. The goal is to win the trophy, not get to Omaha to play two games and go home. They lost to Arizona and UC Santa Barbara because they got outplayed, there's no such thing as randomness in any sport. It's called being outplayed and it doesn't matter if it's UF or UC Santa Barbara. Maybe you should get a clue.

 

[Brian Piccolo]

Miami has lost to a lower seeded team 12 times in the past 10 years.

Miami has beaten a higher seeded team 0 times in the past 10 years.

Good god.

And the 1999 and 2001 teams didn't beat higher seeded teams either. That's because they didn't play any. You are once again drawing far-reaching conclusions based on something that is out of most teams' control.

To repeat: The best teams don't play higher seeds since there aren't any higher than them. The 'not-so-best' teams (like 2013) only play higher seeds because they're not very good. Therefore they are highly unlikely to beat said higher seed.

 

[Brian Piccolo]

Since baseball is so crazy random and lesser teams beat the good teams so often, one would think that Miami could manage to sneak in one win against a better team. But I have a feeling that this is where we revert to "better teams are supposed to beat lesser teams" after an hour of preaching that "it happens far less frequently in baseball".

A common refrain from the clueless fanboys who don't understand randomness.

The fact that other teams have won such games does not mean that we will. No matter how many times you try to say it.

I'm still amazed that you care so much whether the 2011 or 2013 teams beat higher seeds one time in a single game. Those teams were not expected to win. What difference does it make if those lesser teams pull off an upset?

The 2014-16 teams. Those teams have to win.

Why the **** are you so insistent on talking about teams from 3-5 years ago that weren't very good?

It's amazing.

 

[Brian Piccolo]

Not one time has Jim Morris led his team to an upset.

Your standards for judging coaching success are so bizarre and silly that it's incredible.

Jim Morris is a legend and Hall of Famer because his teams have so frequently been the better team. That's being a great coach. That's a standard worth setting.

He has so infrequently been the lesser team. And why would you care if the 2011 team won a single game against Florida? That Florida team went to the CWS championship series. Miami was a 38-win team.

If he had won that extra inning game and went 3-2 while being eliminated in the regional would that have impressed you? Would you therefore drop your criticisms?

The that fact that none (which isn't true) of his 2009, 2011, 2013 type teams have won a single game over a higher seed is such a minor thing.

7-for-7 as a national seed in reaching Omaha.
15-of-17 in advancing as a 1-seed.
Only # 1 overall seed to win the national championship.

He's basically coached against expectations better than anybody in the history of the game.

But some of his 2-seed teams didn't win single games against CWS opponents. So he's suspect.

Get outta here with that garbage.

 

[Brian Piccolo]

except his teams somehow play their worst baseball of the year

You could take any two games from any sample size and get an 0-2 result like we had in Omaha this year.

Your conclusion is that we play our worst baseball of the year in Omaha instead of the truth. Which is we just played two bad games in those three days.