We havent been .500 in the SEC this late very often lately- 2007, 2003...
- Thread starter Coach34
- Start date
Too many people worry about how we get wins or how we get on base. All I care about is that we get wins. People bitched and moaned last year and we almost ended up in the CWS. We've won 7 of our last 8 and we've positioned ourselves to get a 2 seed in a regional. Anyone that thought we couldbe in abetter position than that is an idiot.
One good thing lookingforward is that UK has lost5 of its last 6 and 4 straight in SEC play. That series is lookingpotentially winnable, especially in our ballpark with our pitching. We may not make it to a Super Regional this year, but a 2 seedfrom this team shows me improvement and shows me all I need from Cohen about the long term. We find ways to win. We've been doing enough to get wins, we've gotten great pitching, and we've battled the injury bug for almost the entire season. Yet, through all of that, Cohen and this team have still managed to find a way to be tied for 2nd in the West and tied for 5th in the SEC. My hats off to them for doing what they needed to do so far during this stretch.
One good thing lookingforward is that UK has lost5 of its last 6 and 4 straight in SEC play. That series is lookingpotentially winnable, especially in our ballpark with our pitching. We may not make it to a Super Regional this year, but a 2 seedfrom this team shows me improvement and shows me all I need from Cohen about the long term. We find ways to win. We've been doing enough to get wins, we've gotten great pitching, and we've battled the injury bug for almost the entire season. Yet, through all of that, Cohen and this team have still managed to find a way to be tied for 2nd in the West and tied for 5th in the SEC. My hats off to them for doing what they needed to do so far during this stretch.
Never care how we do it, but just that we do it.<div>mstatefan88 said:
</div><div>To have as many key guys out this year on a team that was already replacing a lot of starters in the field and doing this is definitely better than what I was thinking. If you'd told me we would lose a guy like CT and do this I would have laughed in your face.
</div>
It's just how it is. We can't do anything about injuries.
What's encouraging to me is we know how to create runs already. We will be better next year when we are more experienced and healthy. When we started SEC play, I think our lineup had a grand total of 17 SEC games played among our starting lineup- CT and Daryl were out at that time too. Our hitting and our power hitting should improve by next year.
I'm hopeful that Detz guy that we just got a commitment from can fill the hole that we have at second base offensively. Even filling that one hole will help out a lot.
What's encouraging to me is we know how to create runs already. We will be better next year when we are more experienced and healthy. When we started SEC play, I think our lineup had a grand total of 17 SEC games played among our starting lineup- CT and Daryl were out at that time too. Our hitting and our power hitting should improve by next year.
I'm hopeful that Detz guy that we just got a commitment from can fill the hole that we have at second base offensively. Even filling that one hole will help out a lot.
It has been ugly, but we have been winning and that is all that matters in the end. Our pitching staff is ridiculous, if we can get in a regional and hold Stratton for the second game we have a good chance to win it. I wish our hitting was even mediocre and we would have a legit chance to win it all, as it is we have a chance to make another Super this year. <div id="myEventWatcherDiv" style="display:none;"></div>
How many successful SEC teams have hadas little experience between their guys as we did going in? Frazier and CT got most, if not all of those games in the field last year in SEC play. Renfroe, Norris, Slauter, Rea, Fullerton, Porter, and Britton.None of these guys played the field in an SEC game last year if I'm not mistaken. I think Norris may have pitched once or twice, but I don't think he played 3rd. Relying on that many guys to come in immediately and start from day 1with that little experience is tough, and unfortunately that's what happens when you havea bunch of seniors that play like we had last year.
With that being said, we've found ways to do the things necessary with these guys to win. People think it's bad to rely on HBPs and walks to get on base. To me, it shows just how damn good this team can be going forwardbecause they find ways to get to 1st base without getting hits. That's baseball smarts, and this group of guys has it. Add to that solid pitching, and this is the type of baseball that can beat any team on any day.Wins are all that matters period, andwe are doing thatright now.
With that being said, we've found ways to do the things necessary with these guys to win. People think it's bad to rely on HBPs and walks to get on base. To me, it shows just how damn good this team can be going forwardbecause they find ways to get to 1st base without getting hits. That's baseball smarts, and this group of guys has it. Add to that solid pitching, and this is the type of baseball that can beat any team on any day.Wins are all that matters period, andwe are doing thatright now.
I'm honestly asking. I wasn't around these parts back then and I'm just curious.
If you did ***** during that 4 year run then the irony in this post is so thick it could choke a roided up broad with a fat ****.
If you did ***** during that 4 year run then the irony in this post is so thick it could choke a roided up broad with a fat ****.
were benched at times throughout the year. Hunter played a few SEC games, but he really struggled and he only played a handful of games. Rea would have been our first baseman last year had he not been hurt- probably sharing time with Ryan Collins- but he spent all of last year rehabbing.
Slauter and Porter were in JUCO and Fullerton and Britton were in high school.
Norris played first all year mainly because of Jarrod Parks.
Slauter and Porter were in JUCO and Fullerton and Britton were in high school.
Norris played first all year mainly because of Jarrod Parks.
I guess I was just trying not to come across as an arrogant prick. Like peaches does most of the time.
during basketball season because of your 'agenda'. and i think that you still have had one with this baseball team. however, your post have been damn good as long as it pertains to baseball and i pretty much agree with what you post. just look as this team and it's previous experience and there's no way you can't be overly impressed. the thing i tonight is that over the past few weeks i fully expected us to win friday night. no question. that's something that can't be said for any night, mid-week or sec, in a long, long time.
I became Sicpack's most hated when i proclaimed Rick Stansbury would never lead us to a Sweet 16. You could just see the errors he made and realize no team of his would ever advance. And of course, we didn't. Xavier "got hot" and we were just "unlucky again in the NCAA Tourney"
You can't say that about Cohen- he's already made it
You can't say that about Cohen- he's already made it
I have simply stated back in 2003 I didnt think Stansbury was a very good coach- and there was no way he would get a team to the Sweet 16. Sixpack posters attacked me like the Sioux Indians after Custer- only difference is I won because I was right.
With Cohen, I simply stated he is a good coach and will get the program turned around after Polk left him such a turd. And I have caught alot of flak for it from many very uninformed baseball fans. But as usual, time is proving me correct once aGAIN- and people are seeing the good job Cohen is doing. I'm just sorry they cant see things as early as I do.
With Cohen, I simply stated he is a good coach and will get the program turned around after Polk left him such a turd. And I have caught alot of flak for it from many very uninformed baseball fans. But as usual, time is proving me correct once aGAIN- and people are seeing the good job Cohen is doing. I'm just sorry they cant see things as early as I do.
Fans should be ecstatic that we have a team now that finds a way to win.
But...
For you to keep saying that Cohen has made a "Sweet Sixteen" is only applicable in numbers left in the tourney. It is no where near the prestige of making the Sweet Sixteen in the NCAA basketball tourney. To actually make it to Omaha would be a better comparison and he just might do it this season.
As far as you having an agenda goes, you still have his picture in your avatar.
But...
For you to keep saying that Cohen has made a "Sweet Sixteen" is only applicable in numbers left in the tourney. It is no where near the prestige of making the Sweet Sixteen in the NCAA basketball tourney. To actually make it to Omaha would be a better comparison and he just might do it this season.
As far as you having an agenda goes, you still have his picture in your avatar.
forget or didn't know to begin just how bad we were when Polk left.
We were the worst program in the SEC when he left. Climbing out of the bottom of the best conference in the NCAA isn't like getting better in conference USA.
People need to get over Polk's wanting Raffo to take over (which was stupid) and move on. That is what drives some of these little bitches.
Polk demonstrated what Polk was about and why he drove MSU to the bottom of the SEC.
We were the worst program in the SEC when he left. Climbing out of the bottom of the best conference in the NCAA isn't like getting better in conference USA.
People need to get over Polk's wanting Raffo to take over (which was stupid) and move on. That is what drives some of these little bitches.
Polk demonstrated what Polk was about and why he drove MSU to the bottom of the SEC.
Good point. The SEC isn't a conference where you can realistically turn things around in one season. It takes time and patience, especially with how well some of the other teams have been over the years. A promising sign would just be a step in the right direction. Anything above and beyond that is just a plus.
That doesn't change the fact that it's within 10-15% of being just as difficult to accomplish. You just consider it differently, because of our history and geographic advantage.
Of course someone will argue parity... But there has been JUST as much parity lately in college baseball. There are way more legit "mid-major" powerhouses in baseball. Of course, this is offset by the fact that the B1G is mostly irrelevant...
Overall, if you run the numbers, there have been very nearly as many different teams make the top 16 in baseball the past 10 years as basketball.
Of course someone will argue parity... But there has been JUST as much parity lately in college baseball. There are way more legit "mid-major" powerhouses in baseball. Of course, this is offset by the fact that the B1G is mostly irrelevant...
Overall, if you run the numbers, there have been very nearly as many different teams make the top 16 in baseball the past 10 years as basketball.
if you have a bad day in basketball, you are done.
If you have a bad day in baseball, you live to fight another day.
This isn't to excuse Stansbury for never getting there but I think overall - it's easier for a team to make a super than the Sweet 16.
If you have a bad day in baseball, you live to fight another day.
This isn't to excuse Stansbury for never getting there but I think overall - it's easier for a team to make a super than the Sweet 16.
Baseball one "bad day" and your potentially done as well. No one player can impact a basketball game like a dominant pitcher can effect a baseball game.
The "difficulty" of the accomplishment is something that is hard to quantify. But the number of teams that have accomplished it(and thus the "expectancy" of accomplishing it) is easy research that I've done before. I just don't have access to the numbers from the road.
The expectancy of making a "top 16" is very, very similar between the sports, at least over the past 10-15 years.
The "difficulty" of the accomplishment is something that is hard to quantify. But the number of teams that have accomplished it(and thus the "expectancy" of accomplishing it) is easy research that I've done before. I just don't have access to the numbers from the road.
The expectancy of making a "top 16" is very, very similar between the sports, at least over the past 10-15 years.
that hardly anyone outside of your own school's fanbase will remember if you made a Sweet 16 after a few years. There will be some exceptions for mid-majors who pull a stunning upset. Otherwise, that's about it.IBleedMaroonDawg said:
Quick, who made the Sweet 16 in 2000? 2008?
Same things go for Super Regionals....unless you're UM, and your inability to get past that level is becoming legendary.
in basketball than it is for a school with lots of historical baseball success to make the Sweet 16 in Baseball....Heck they didn't even have a Sweet 16 in Baseball until just over a decade ago.
It was easier for Cohen to reach his first Sweet 16 than it was for Stansbury. And he has a chance to do it in back to back years....with putrid hitting. That statement right there should show how much easier it is for MSU to make Baseball's Sweet 16, especially, since, besides outstanding pitching, they have very little talent that would be starting at any other SEC school to speak of.
C34 made a sarcastic reminder of how hot Xavier was when they knocked MSU out, but Xavier has been to something like 4 of the last 5 Sweet 16's. Xavier's basketball history is much richer than ours. But how many Xaviers are there making baseball's Sweet 16? I guess you can call Cal State-Fullerton an Xavier type program, but good grief, there are so many baseball players in California, you could field a team of walk-ons out there and have some success.
The consistent programs are there in both sports though, so neither is an easy task.
If Cohen makes a Sweet 16 with these crappy hitters, then he better give Butch Thompson a huge raise(and fire that useless Mingione while he is at it). I am not sure Stansbury ever had a "Butch Thompson" on his staff though.**
It was easier for Cohen to reach his first Sweet 16 than it was for Stansbury. And he has a chance to do it in back to back years....with putrid hitting. That statement right there should show how much easier it is for MSU to make Baseball's Sweet 16, especially, since, besides outstanding pitching, they have very little talent that would be starting at any other SEC school to speak of.
C34 made a sarcastic reminder of how hot Xavier was when they knocked MSU out, but Xavier has been to something like 4 of the last 5 Sweet 16's. Xavier's basketball history is much richer than ours. But how many Xaviers are there making baseball's Sweet 16? I guess you can call Cal State-Fullerton an Xavier type program, but good grief, there are so many baseball players in California, you could field a team of walk-ons out there and have some success.
The consistent programs are there in both sports though, so neither is an easy task.
If Cohen makes a Sweet 16 with these crappy hitters, then he better give Butch Thompson a huge raise(and fire that useless Mingione while he is at it). I am not sure Stansbury ever had a "Butch Thompson" on his staff though.**
gets me about the Cohen bashers is that they completely discount how good our pitching and defense is. Yes we aren't the best team in the league offensively, but if you don't give up any runs, you can't lose.
George Mason made the Final Four- you want to show me their history of deep Tourney runs? VCU???
To develop history- you have to do it. It's that simple. Richard Williams accomplished it without any previous history. Stansbury couldnt. It's that simple. He did some good things at State and brought consistency, but he was never going to accomplish anything big. He just wasnt that kind of coach. Stansbury took over a program that had made the NCAA's 3 times in 8 seasons, advancing to a Sweet 16 and then a Final Four the next season. He and Williams had spent 2 years rebuilding after losing almost all of the 1996 team- and had put together a pretty good group for Stansbury's 1st season.
Coaches and teams simply have to get the job done- whether it's basketball or baseball. Your history doesnt matter when the game is on the line and you have to make the big play to win the game. Stansbury and his teams couldnt. And I'll have to check again, but he is the only coach in the last 25 years from a BCS school to coach as long as he did without making one. That's pretty telling
To develop history- you have to do it. It's that simple. Richard Williams accomplished it without any previous history. Stansbury couldnt. It's that simple. He did some good things at State and brought consistency, but he was never going to accomplish anything big. He just wasnt that kind of coach. Stansbury took over a program that had made the NCAA's 3 times in 8 seasons, advancing to a Sweet 16 and then a Final Four the next season. He and Williams had spent 2 years rebuilding after losing almost all of the 1996 team- and had put together a pretty good group for Stansbury's 1st season.
Coaches and teams simply have to get the job done- whether it's basketball or baseball. Your history doesnt matter when the game is on the line and you have to make the big play to win the game. Stansbury and his teams couldnt. And I'll have to check again, but he is the only coach in the last 25 years from a BCS school to coach as long as he did without making one. That's pretty telling
It only takes two good days in basketball to make the sweet sixteen, or one good day and a day when the other team is off. It's really apples and oranges. On the one hand, the one and out format of basketball makes it a lot easier to get caught having a bad day, or get lucky and get in. On the other hand, good basketball teams don't get upset the way good baseball teams do. A basketball team that is overmatched physically usually won't win, even if the other team plays relatively poorly and/or they get hot from 3. The margin of error in baseball is a lot smaller, but you also get double elimination, which evens that out some.dawgstudent said:
As far as stansbury goes, other than the game against washington, I don't think he ever had a team that was totally unprepared. His teams with good seeds didn't get to the Sweet 16 because of a combination of bad luck and slightly below par (but not atrocious) coaching. Bad coaching usually shows up at the end of games, which is why Stansbury seemed to lose so many close games come tournament time, but there are plenty of teams coached as poorly or worse than Stansbury's teams that advanced in the tournament. What killed Stansbury was that he had two teams that should have been in the 4/5 slot end up in the 8/9 slot. Both those teams played well once they got to the tournament, but had awful matchups because the teams underachieved so much in the regular season. Combine that with the teams that should have been in the tournament as 11/12 seeds but missed, and Stansbury basically threw away 5 chances to get to the Sweet 16.
Coach34 said:
You were right about Stansbury?
you may have been part of the problem rather than part of the solution. I hope I'm wrong, but it will be years before we return to prominence in the SEC, much less nationally. You were part of running off one of the winningest coaches in MSU history. In the 14 years Rick was head coach NO ONE came to the Hump thinking they had a sure win. The gaul of you thinking that you "won". Go gloat some where else.
lack of discipline
questionable moves at the ends of games
terrible offensive strategy
constant transfers from good players- not just bench-fillers
And the kicker- we fired him.
You cant seriously say I was part of the problem. His problems I mentioned above had nothing to do with anything I posted over the years or other alums I talked with close to the program.
questionable moves at the ends of games
terrible offensive strategy
constant transfers from good players- not just bench-fillers
And the kicker- we fired him.
You cant seriously say I was part of the problem. His problems I mentioned above had nothing to do with anything I posted over the years or other alums I talked with close to the program.