We go to the ballpark on any given day and I might be better than you, regardless of how good you actually are. It's a total ripoff to the teams. Ole Miss isn't any better than us, they caught us on a day when we weren't playing good ball, and it cost us two games instead of one. The weather this spring has really screwed us over.
This is why I HATE double headers
- Thread starter GOOD_DAWG2.0
- Start date
Whatever guy. MSU has no one to blame but themselves. Just a terrible, terrible effort. Nobody to blame but ourselves when we do not host a regional.
Excuses really suck
You must have gone to the John Cohen school of determining who is the better team. We lose 2 of 3 to Kentucky, but we're still better than them. We are getting dick slapped by Ole Miss today, but we're still better than them. Must be nice to live in that world.
You must have gone to the John Cohen school of determining who is the better team. We lose 2 of 3 to Kentucky, but we're still better than them. We are getting dick slapped by Ole Miss today, but we're still better than them. Must be nice to live in that world.
When we got shut out in game 1, I had a feeling we were done. They wanted this series more and it shows.
Absolutely. I'm not saying we don't deserve to lose. I'm saying that we're losing because we're not playing ball well today (generally speaking we play better than we have today). Therefore since we're only losing for that reason, the sample size is going to be a lot larger than a normal bad ball day (2 games instead of 1). Catch my drift?
Like the Vandy series? I guess the weather did affect them, but the turf was a clear advantage for them. So yes.
Actually doubleheaders usually end up being split...
..most baseball doubleheaders end up going 1-1. I'm not the Will James statistics guru on this; I've just watched enough MLB & college baseball to recognize the trend. The fact MSU swept a doubleheader vs. Bama & OM swept a doubleheader vs. us is an exception instead of the rule.
..most baseball doubleheaders end up going 1-1. I'm not the Will James statistics guru on this; I've just watched enough MLB & college baseball to recognize the trend. The fact MSU swept a doubleheader vs. Bama & OM swept a doubleheader vs. us is an exception instead of the rule.
Double Headers are Great! Not for teams that play **** small ball and depend...
On timely hitting though. We have one great hitter, and a couple more good hitters. That doesnt win.
If Renfroe does something other than DP with bases loaded in first game, we are probably taking 2 today. If we score at least one there its a diff ballgame. OM killed our momentum with the DP and came right back and scored. Complete momentum swing in that sequence of events, which almost always carries over into the second game of a double header.
Cant continually rely on one player to carry you.
I will say it again, SMALL BALL WILL NEVER GET US TO OMAHA. If you score 0 runs, you cannot beat anybody.
On timely hitting though. We have one great hitter, and a couple more good hitters. That doesnt win.
If Renfroe does something other than DP with bases loaded in first game, we are probably taking 2 today. If we score at least one there its a diff ballgame. OM killed our momentum with the DP and came right back and scored. Complete momentum swing in that sequence of events, which almost always carries over into the second game of a double header.
Cant continually rely on one player to carry you.
I will say it again, SMALL BALL WILL NEVER GET US TO OMAHA. If you score 0 runs, you cannot beat anybody.
I would easily argue that the NCAA tournament format is unfair if all of the teams weren't subject to the exact same format. The OP's logic would dictate making March Madness like the NBA format to keep the "better team" from having a poor 24 hours.
Last edited:
You say the struggle is due more so to having a bad day than having two bad games. So, why not turn tournaments where your team can be eliminated in a single day into tournaments where you have to lose games on two different days? If the tournament were trying to determine the "better team," and we're determining the better team by how good they are minus their ever so rare bad days.
But I think (by definition) great teams simply don't have bad games when the games get more meaningful.
But I think (by definition) great teams simply don't have bad games when the games get more meaningful.
Last edited:
I guess my answer to that is that baseball and basketball are two completely different sports. A great MLB team still loses 60+ games.
That's fair. The point I'm getting at is that we didn't get credit for winning two games when we won the first, still had to win the second. Other point about great teams and meaningful games still stands. I think a lot of the 90's Braves teams had great seasons but weren't great teams because meaningful games couldn't be won.
I mean it's pretty obvious to me y'all caught us on a bad day. Not trying to say y'all couldn't beat us on a good day. All I'm saying is on a good day we don't get two hit and give up 10 runs. It's just not gonna happen.
In ladies' lacrosse if one team wakes up on the wrong side of the bed they just agree to reschedule the game when the girls feel like playing. Much fairer system.
Maybe you should shut your **** face up, I'm not even about to begin to worry about your punk assed little "baseball team". We will beat y'all when it matters most, and don't think for a second you are even close to being as good as us. Hunter Renfroe has more talent in his left pinky than your entire team does. Rot in hell you rebel *******.
"Shut your **** face up"? That doesn't even make sense. You must be having a bad cuss word day. Try to get a good night's rest and see if you can't string together a cogent insult tomorrow. It's so unfair being forced to swear when you're having a bad cuss word day.
Obviously it might be hard for someone with a 7th grade education to understand that "**** face" means your face looks like ****. My bad.
I agree
w him in saying we are better than UK. Granted, they won the series, but I think we would take them at a neutral site. Hell, we gave them one of the games.
w him in saying we are better than UK. Granted, they won the series, but I think we would take them at a neutral site. Hell, we gave them one of the games.
Really dude? We choked the **** out and got beat. We played like **** and got beat.... twice. Double headers have nothing to do with it. We played like pussies and theres nothing else to say about it. **** them and if they want to host a regional they better get off their ******* asses and win tomorrow.
Your starter will be a first round draft pick. You have a really good team
under Bianco again. Doesn't that about cover it?
I hope this reassurance helps when you still don't make it to Omaha.
under Bianco again. Doesn't that about cover it?
I hope this reassurance helps when you still don't make it to Omaha.
I think I addressed what you wanted to hear and I didn't need your permission to bring up Omaha.
Of course no permission is needed to bring up things that aren't relevant to an argument. The questions were: What evidence will there be that points to State being the "better team" after the sweep this weekend, and which team is better with aces on the mound. Omaha is inconsequential to this discussion, but feel free to continue bringing it up.
If you think MSU is playing anywhere near their potential right now, you're wrong. Ole Miss, however is pretty much at their ceiling right now, and it won't last long.