Jump to content

Palo Alto Super Regional: Texas @ Stanford


Horny Bull

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Gut Wagon said:

Annoyed that Campbell's 38-game hitting streak ended, especially with him being shorted on those last two times at the plate. But in the big picture of things, it's all good. 

Seems like if an intentional walk is involved the streak should be continued.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine someone tells you after the Vandy game in Arlington that this team would be one win from Omaha 4 months later.

I would’ve laughed in their face. I was at that disaster. They showed no ability to perform even the fundamentals of the game.

This team has come a loooong way.
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, DanTheHorn said:

Well shit I wish I knew now I have to root for us not to make it to the CWS due to an unfortunate draw.

 

 

Actually after a bit more thought will everyone talking about the draw shut the fuck up and let the rest of us enjoy an awesome comeback and this super regional.

Who the fuck said anything about not wanting to advance and no shit about enjoying it. I was simply responding to the idea that after last night this team is just going to roll. It only gets harder, by design. We are playing with house money at this point, I have no expectations. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Rickylovesweed said:

Funniest part of this game was listening to the broadcasters talk about Morehouse. I think they saw his stuff and were legitimately confused how his ERA was so high. 

Well, we knew about his ERA and were legitimately confused at the strikeouts.  So it goes both ways.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, The Earl of Texas said:

Rewatched 9th from last night this morning.

Stanford’s reliever who opened the 9th got some very generous strike calls from the ump. Probably threw 13 of first 15 pitches for balls if they’d been called correctly.

Over on TexAgs, they are claiming almost every ball called should have been a strike.

OK, aggy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

Am I the only one that doesn't really give a shit about Director's Cup?

No. Most people in all of college everywhere don't give a shit. I like it- it's cool that we are awesome in it, but I'm not hanging on every finish because of it.  

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gut Wagon said:

Annoyed that Campbell's 38-game hitting streak ended, especially with him being shorted on those last two times at the plate. But in the big picture of things, it's all good. 

He has a 39 game streak of reaching base. That’s not the same thing, but it’s not nothing. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Am I the only one that doesn't really give a shit about Director's Cup?

I think most people care pretty equally, probably you included.  If we win it, cool, that's great.  If we don't, oh well.  And Stanford is a cheat code in it anyway because they play every damn sport, and public universities can't really do that

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Am I the only one that doesn't really give a shit about Director's Cup?

They have it. So why not win it? 

It’s a sign of overall athletic department excellence. I think it’s kind of cool. At the same time we wouldn’t be in it if they didn’t change the rules to limit it to points scored based on the top 20 sports finishes. Stanford was the only winner with their 31 sports for a couple of decades. 

But I think it’s fun we’ve won both of them after the rule change and have a remote shot at a third one with the last sport deciding its champion. 

But if they’re in the championship game in Omaha and it’s coming down to the wire, I’m going to care about winning the baseball national championship. Not the implications for the Directors Cup. That shit is just extra. 

But I also don’t care if anyone else follows it or not. It’s not an end all be all. 

  • Hook 'Em 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

No. Most people in all of college everywhere don't give a shit. I like it- it's cool that we are awesome in it, but I'm not hanging on every finish because of it.  

While all schools can only submit like 19/20 sports to be counted standford has some really niche ones like women’s squash and fencing they can easily stack to get cheap points for. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, uoftorange said:

I think most people care pretty equally, probably you included.  If we win it, cool, that's great.  If we don't, oh well.  And Stanford is a cheat code in it anyway because they play every damn sport, and public universities can't really do that

Stanford fields 31 sports. Ohio State leads the country with 35. I wouldn’t say it’s a private/public university issue. Stanford sees part of their mission as preparing Olympians. Texas has made an emphasis on excellence and superior funding in every sport we field. It’s just a difference in philosophy. 

I do think west coast schools naturally field more programs because of all the niche sports popular there. But who gives a shit? I like the way we do it. 

If I had my way they never would have changed the rules for the Directors Cup, though. This makes it fairer, but it makes no sense to me to create a metric that does anything other than encourage universities to field more sports teams. But it’s to our benefit, so I’ll take it. Also, fewer people paid attention when it was basically the Stanford Cup. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

But more importantly, how the fuck does Stanford come back from that?  I'd like to see a good game but I'm expecting panic. 

Personally I’d love to see another 9th inning collapse by Stanford. That was a fun way to win last night. My favorite was the fly ball caroming off the right fielder’s glove. I had that on repeat for a while. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

But more importantly, how the fuck does Stanford come back from that?  I'd like to see a good game but I'm expecting panic. 

Same way they came back in the regional and super regional last year and the regional this year.  I'd rather be in our position but I'd still give them around a 1 in 3 chance.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, uoftorange said:

I think most people care pretty equally, probably you included.  If we win it, cool, that's great.  If we don't, oh well.  And Stanford is a cheat code in it anyway because they play every damn sport, and public universities can't really do that

Yup, Stanford has like 30+ sports where as we have like 21 or so

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

Stanford fields 31 sports. Ohio State leads the country with 35. I wouldn’t say it’s a private/public university issue. Stanford sees part of their mission as preparing Olympians. Texas has made an emphasis on excellence and superior funding in every sport we field. It’s just a difference in philosophy. 

I do think west coast schools naturally field more programs because of all the niche sports popular there. But who gives a shit? I like the way we do it. 

If I had my way they never would have changed the rules for the Directors Cup, though. This makes it fairer, but it makes no sense to me to create a metric that does anything other than encourage universities to field more sports teams. But it’s to our benefit, so I’ll take it. Also, fewer people paid attention when it was basically the Stanford Cup. 

Eh I'm not sure it's because of Olympians. A lot of private high schools do the same shit to rack up trophies with no competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BurntOrange&White said:

Yup, Stanford has like 30+ sports where as we have like 21 or so

The've ALWAYS had a team for like ALL of the Olympic sports. That's why have always won the Cup because they have gotten points for sports that most Universities can't afford to do or there isn't a reason or need to field a team where there is no interest. My attitude has always been if we win it, great. If we don't, nobody notices.

My last post on that ^ subject as this thread is about the baseball team and that they are ONE WIN away from their 39TH APPEARANCE at the CWS!! Let's GO !! 🤘

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bevo14 said:

Eh I'm not sure it's because of Olympians. A lot of private high schools do the same shit to rack up trophies with no competition.

It's been their stated objective. 

They did have a brief moment where they proposed cutting down on the number of sports they fielded a few years ago. The alumni went apeshit and raised a bunch of money to keep any programs from being shut down. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

That's the real idiocy it creates.

It's still valuable information regarding batters and fielders, or at least it was back in the day. At the highest levels of baseball now they can calculate xwOBA so I'm sure they could extend xFIP to be based on exit velocity and launch angle given up to get a true measure of what a pitcher is achieving on his own. But we should all agree that Daly doesn't deserve a 2 RBI double on his stat sheet for that play. I mean good on him for driving in a run with a sac fly in a pressure situation but that's what he really earned by himself.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

Am I the only one that doesn't really give a shit about Director's Cup?

It's alright. It's cool when we win but it's no big deal if we don't.

At Texas it's hard to think we really had a great athletic year while our football team continues to suck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, chase25 said:

Early Texas was definitely getting the shaft, had a real small strike zone. As the game went on seemed it was more of an issue with lefties specifically left on left. If you were a left handed pitcher against a left handed batter, you were not getting the call on that outside fastball.

agree with this. except I will say the zone was small high/low. He did like the high curve. the righty stanford starter had the greg maddux outside corner big time.  it did even up a bit late for us, IMO.  zane never gave the ump a chance to fuck us.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...