BB: USAC: USA South Athletic Conference

[Will2Win]

wow...based upon the apparent lack of talent on the mu squad, it's amazing they finished 3rd in the conference...perhaps coach austin should have been named coty for the miracle he performed

such deserved 1st team by a hair over neeb for his superior power numbers, but that really is splitting hairs...neeb can play

i overlooked krout...he clearly was the top ss statistically, but i think that inghram is better than rahm or jaglowski...amazed that inghram wasn't 2nd team, let alone not even an hm selection

keener vs. thigpen at dh is questionable, as well - here are the numbers:
thigpen
overall: .385, 36 r, 4 hr, 30 rbi, 1.032 ops
conf: .326, 10 r, 1 hr, 7 rbi, .824 ops

keener
overall: .291, 19 r, 4 hr, 20 rbi, .994 ops
conf: .269, 4 r, 2 hr, 9 rbi, 1.066 ops

i see little difference in these 2 in conference contests (keener has more hr's and rbi's and a higher ops, but not by much...while thigpen scored a lot more runs and had a much higher ba) – in that case, i think you have to look at overall numbers, and there really isn't much comparison between the two there...

Depends on how they looked at those "power numbers"....though Such had 9 HRs overall, only 2 came in conference play. Neeb had a HR in conf play to go along with 5 or 6 doubles (Compared to Such's 1) and the rest of the statistical categories show neeb deserved the nod over Such.
Guess it just depends on whether or not ya looked at it through a bias lens or not...



You guys are funny btw, you want to dock me Karma points....yet I see no replies....hmmm

[PNeal7]

I would agree with Such over Neeb at C. I will also agree that I think Ingram should have gotten something at SS, especially over Jaglowski, whom numbers wise did not have much of a year.

[narch]

Guess it just depends on whether or not ya looked at it through a bias lens or not...

such: conference, 4 hr, 11 rbi, 1.176 ops
neeb: conference, 2 hr, 13 rbi, 1.028 ops (with a ba that was almost 40 pts higher)

you can't bias those numbers...such hit for more power in conference games, as well as non-conference games

[Back2Back!!]

There numbers were very close and you could argue it either way. Since the offensive numbers were so close maybe the coaches took into consideration who the better defensive catcher is. Neeb is hands down the better defensive catcher between the two. Looks like finally the the coaches voted on stats and not reputation.


Narch, dont get too caught up in the fact that MU doesnt have any first teamers. If I recall correctly, in the 2009 season we (SU) had 1 first teamer, 1 second teamer, and like 4 or 5 honorbale mentions and we had a decent post season

[Back2Back!!]

As for Inghram....................

Krout-        410BA         3Hr            15Rbi
Rahm-        378BA         1Hr             6Rbi
Jaglowski-   318BA         0hr            9Rbi
Inghram-    282BA         1Hr            5Rbi


Looking at these stats, Inghram got out performed by all three of these shortstops in conference. He hit one more bomb than jaglowski but ill take the four more rbi's over one bomb any day. Thats what happens when coaches vote the right way on numbers and not REPUTATION! So i honestly dont see how you figure he deserved it? Other than the fact your being biased like you have been the last three years I have been reading this board

[Will2Win]

Guess it just depends on whether or not ya looked at it through a bias lens or not...

such: conference, 4 hr, 11 rbi, 1.176 ops
neeb: conference, 2 hr, 13 rbi, 1.028 ops (with a ba that was almost 40 pts higher)

you can't bias those numbers...such hit for more power in conference games, as well as non-conference games

My mistake on the HR numbers Narch....Must have misread them as I was trying to get outta the office in a hurry...

[narch]

As for Inghram....................

Krout-        410BA         3Hr            15Rbi
Rahm-        378BA         1Hr             6Rbi
Jaglowski-   318BA         0hr            9Rbi
Inghram-    282BA         1Hr            5Rbi


Looking at these stats, Inghram got out performed by all three of these shortstops in conference. He hit one more bomb than jaglowski but ill take the four more rbi's over one bomb any day. Thats what happens when coaches vote the right way on numbers and not REPUTATION! So i honestly dont see how you figure he deserved it? Other than the fact your being biased like you have been the last three years I have been reading this board

I've been biased for a lot more than three years, and i freely admit my bias

i think that when you compare rahm and inghram, there is little difference in their conference numbers (other than average, which is somewhat overrated if it doesn't lead to more runs...and in conference, rahm scored one more run and drove in one more)...i've already compared rahm and inghram below (1:51:53 yesterday) - personal bias aside, i think inghram is the better ss

[Back2Back!!]

If I had to pick a SS for my team and had to chose between those two then I would take Inghram b/c I agree that he probably is the better shortstop....

But all conference voting should be based on the numbers they put up THIS year.......

If Rahm has 1 more rbi and 1 more run scored with a batting avg that is almost 100 points higher I dont see how you can disagree with this selection.

[Back2Back!!]

Guess it just depends on whether or not ya looked at it through a bias lens or not...

such: conference, 4 hr, 11 rbi, 1.176 ops
neeb: conference, 2 hr, 13 rbi, 1.028 ops (with a ba that was almost 40 pts higher)

you can't bias those numbers...such hit for more power in conference games, as well as non-conference games

My mistake on the HR numbers Narch....Must have misread them as I was trying to get outta the office in a hurry...

Bossman dont act like you got an office job

[narch]

If I had to pick a SS for my team and had to chose between those two then I would take Inghram b/c I agree that he probably is the better shortstop....

But all conference voting should be based on the numbers they put up THIS year.......

If Rahm has 1 more rbi and 1 more run scored with a batting avg that is almost 100 points higher I dont see how you can disagree with this selection.

you're arguing out of both sides of your keyboard here...if neeb is deserving of 1st team because he's better defensively (despite inferior offensive numbers than such), why is it that inghram can't get the nod over rahm despite 1 fewer run and 1 fewer rbi in a 12 game sample (his overall offensive numbers were better than rahm's in almost every offensive category) despite being a clearly better defensive shortstop? you can't have it both ways...

[NoVa Baseball]

Enough already about the all-conf picks.  It's over - congrats to the picks and now let's talk about what really matters - the conference tournament.   Anyone willing to post their picks in the first round?  I'll give mine:

Game 1) I think GC can beat AU in a single game - GU
Game 2) Toughest match-up - NCWC upset if Knowles pitches - otherwise MU
Game 3) CNU
Game 4) SU over GC

[Back2Back!!]

Neeb has 2 more rbis and 8 more runs scored than such. So I dont think that you have an agrument there. Either way, all four are good ball players. Perhaps I am being a little biased myself.

[forheavendial4999]

It seems to me the tournament would make more sense to put #6 vs #7, then have the loser of that play #1. Then you could have #2 vs #5, and #3 vs #4. I find it strange that 2 middle of the pack teams might have to play twice in the 1st day. With that logic, it's better to finish #7 than it is #4 or #5.

Maybe that's too much of a giveaway to the 1 seed?

And no it's not better to finish at the 7 because you would then have to play a better team in the first round.

You can look at it the other way...if you beat the 1 seed, then you're in quite decent shape for having lost a game.

[Back2Back!!]

It seems to me the tournament would make more sense to put #6 vs #7, then have the loser of that play #1. Then you could have #2 vs #5, and #3 vs #4. I find it strange that 2 middle of the pack teams might have to play twice in the 1st day. With that logic, it's better to finish #7 than it is #4 or #5.

Maybe that's too much of a giveaway to the 1 seed?

And no it's not better to finish at the 7 because you would then have to play a better team in the first round.

You can look at it the other way...if you beat the 1 seed, then you're in quite decent shape for having lost a game.

I see what Pneal7 is saying.........more than likely the 4 or 5 seed will be sent home after the first day while the 7 seed is going to be back for the second day........It really doesnt make much sense to me either that the 4 seed will possibly be going home after day one while the 7 is guaranteed a second day

[PNeal7]

I would say it's clearly better to finish #7, than it is #4 or #5. If you finish as a #7 seed, if you lose on Day 1 at the tournament, you still get to play in Day 2. As a #4 or #5 seed, if you lose the early game on Day 1, you have to come back and face the #1 seed and their ace. I agree with you that if by some chance the #4 or #5 seed tops the #1 seed in that late game, they are in decent shape for losing a game; BUT, they've already burned through their #1 and #2 pitchers, and likely logged some IP on their top notch arms in the bullpen.

For years I've said the ultimate "this sucks" feeling had to be being the #4 or #5 seed when Kenny Moreland was a SR; knowing that if you lost the morning game your reward was facing him that evening in an elimination game (No Offense Back2Back, I know this was you all). I'm also sure the same goes for the team that gets to face SU in the night game this year; although, with what they did last year, I doubt that Van Sickler will be on the bump on Thursday night.