I thought this deserves it's own thread. We've all been talking about the 1-0 games, the lack of offense. The post on the CWS thread linking to the article on the lack of offense says it all statistically.

Then there is this from Sorenson:

Quote:Late in today’s second game, like in the 13th inning or so, I walked in front of the TCU dugout in order to get to the 1st base photo well. But as I passed in front, Horned Frog head coach Jim Schlossnagle said to me, “Eric, you’ve got to write a story about this place. There are no home runs here.”

I thought he was sort of making a joke as I jogged by. But I soon found out, he wasn’t.

Unfortunately after the game, I had to shoot a video with Mitch Sherman for ESPN.com about the first four days of the CWS and couldn’t go to the post-game press conference. It turns out that was were Schloss apparently opened his portion of the press conference by calling the NCAA out for deadening the bats far too much and “making a travesty of our sport.” Yes, he said that. Right there for the NCAA to see and the national media to hear.

Except me, ‘coz I was out there shooting a video for ESPN.

When I got to the press box after shooting the video, I began to hear of Schlossnagle’s opening comments and couldn’t wait to read what I had missed. But lo and behold, when the press box workers handed out the transcripts of the entire press conference, the “travesty” part was gone. Stricken from the record. Nixon-style. No sign of his tirade against what the NCAA has done with the offense of the game we love.

Nonetheless, I WAS there to hear coach Schlossnagle’s pleas during the game, of all times. I hear you coach. I am not the biggest proponent of lively bats, but at the same time, do I really have a dog in this fight? Shouldn’t I just shut the hell up when it comes to those type of things and let the powers-that-be handle that part?

Well no matter which way your moral compass is pointed on this matter, the last thing I’m going to do is to shuffle this important issue into the rubbish bin or cut the conversation out of the public record. It’s too important to the future of our game. I’ll look into this more after the CWS, but coach Schlossnagle got my attention tonight and the attention of everyone in charge of our sport.

Damn, I wish I was there to hear it in person before it was left off the transcribed papers to us reporters at the College World Series.

Aaron Fitt's take. He was there at the presser (and Kendall's report reinforces this):

Quote:Until that point, both offenses were frustrated by the huge arms—and by the sheer difficulty of generating offense in a beautiful ballpark that faces the wrong direction, with impotent bats in their hands.

“Premium arms—it’s hard to get upset at your offense when you’re facing that kind of pitching,” TCU coach Jim Schlossnagle said. “I’ve got to be careful here before I say some things about this ballpark that I’ll regret. It’s just a travesty what we’ve done to college baseball.

“But it’s very impressive by Howard. Very impressive by Ferrell. Very impressive by (Trey) Teakell. Very impressive by Lewicki.”

That laudably honest statement captured a sentiment shared by so many people who watched the game, and so many others who love college baseball but were probably too tired of seeing the same kind of game played on repeat over and over in Omaha to watch Tuesday. The brand of baseball played at the College World Series is dreadfully out of balance.

Quote:It’s a shame that Omaha’s beautiful $131 million ballpark has become the punch line to a cruel joke at the expense of hitters, and at the expense of bored fans who shelled out good money to watch a product with no variety. How much longer will they be willing to do so? Attendance is down this year.

The ballpark and the bats shouldn’t overshadow brilliant pitching by supremely talented arms. But it did on Tuesday.

And that is a travesty.

And again, I should mention, this is what Wayne Graham said over a year ago when he pushed for new baseballs. We'll see...

The new balls will help next year, but that ballpark is just so cavernous, not sure it will help the CWS enough. They need to move the fences in.

Todd Whitting does not think the ball change is going to help as much as everyone else does. While the ball will travel further, it is also easier for the pitchers to spin. In 2 years, they will go to an MLB ball and then 2 years after that wood composite bats. I still think the solution is MLB subsidizing regular wood bats for D-1. The money is there.

I still think the answer is to going to slightly more lively metal bats. Why the big push for wood or composite? I just don't get it. This isn't MLB or MiLB. No need to simulate those games just to make scouting hitters easier. The college game should have its own niche where guys can hit homers at a reasonable pace, elite hitters put up elite numbers, and elite pitchers can still dominte without fear that a 5'6" middle-infielder can hit a HR off the end of the bat. There is balance to be found without trying to make younger, weaker, less-talented college players hit with equipment meant to mimic professional baseball.

Alternatively, and more expensively, move the fences in at every college ballpark in america (except for the few that are bandboxes with the current bats). If all the fences were moved in ~10-15 feet all the way around, that would certainly return the college game to its previous levels of excitment while still letting scouts see how well college players hit without juiced bats.

(06-18-2014 07:35 AM)grol Wrote:  I thought this deserves it's own thread. We've all been talking about the 1-0 games, the lack of offense. The post on the CWS thread linking to the article on the lack of offense says it all statistically.

And looking at the graphs in this link, I really think the mid/late-2000's had a good balance. Obviously the gorilla-ball of the late-90's spike was crazy. But why wasn't banning of composites sufficient? And this was basically the same level as in the mid-90's before the gorilla-ball years. I was there for the late 90's and the bats were a little ridiculous. Letting college players like Lance Berkman and Bubba Crosby hit with those things wasn't really fair. And way too many guys could get jammed or hit the ball off the end of the bat and get rewarded, when it was the pitcher who should have been rewarded. But the pendulum has swung way, way, way too far.

Oh yeah, and sac bunts are boring.

(06-18-2014 10:04 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I still think the answer is to going to slightly more lively metal bats. Why the big push for wood or composite? I just don't get it. This isn't MLB or MiLB. No need to simulate those games just to make scouting hitters easier. The college game should have its own niche where guys can hit homers at a reasonable pace, elite hitters put up elite numbers, and elite pitchers can still dominte without fear that a 5'6" middle-infielder can hit a HR off the end of the bat. There is balance to be found without trying to make younger, weaker, less-talented college players hit with equipment meant to mimic professional baseball.

Alternatively, and more expensively, move the fences in at every college ballpark in america (except for the few that are bandboxes with the current bats). If all the fences were moved in ~10-15 feet all the way around, that would certainly return the college game to its previous levels of excitment while still letting scouts see how well college players hit without juiced bats.

I agree with your first statement, but not your second. Moving in fences and making all college parks bandboxes does not help the game, IMO; rather, it hurts the inegrity of the game. Routine fly balls should not become homeruns. The problem we've had the past several years is that well hit line shots have become routine outs, as they do not carry...and, similarly, well hit, deep fly balls stay in the park. Change both the balls (check!) and bats; not the parks.

One of the worst things about all this is not the low scoring, but that ESPN is determined to make the low scoring, rather than the teams and the games themselves, the story. Of course, that's consistent with their entire approach to college baseball: that it cannot be appreciated in its own right; it's only value is the extent to which it approximates (or not) / prepares players (or not) for the pros. College football and basketball also have differences from their pro equivalents, but the press does not make those differences the theme of their coverage; they cover the college games as interesting in their own right. It sure would be nice if the baseball press could do the same.

I have some friends who are big baseball fans and have been following the CWS some, but what they used to say was that they couldn't take the metal bats seriously, the "ping" made them associate it with the LLWS, or just disassociate it with MLB baseball. So I can see why shifting away from metal bats could attract more fans. I think some fans prefer wooden bats and low scoring games to metal bats and high scoring games, as it resembles real (pro) baseball more. The current bats are neither wood nor high scoring, so...

(06-18-2014 10:14 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(06-18-2014 10:04 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I still think the answer is to going to slightly more lively metal bats. Why the big push for wood or composite? I just don't get it. This isn't MLB or MiLB. No need to simulate those games just to make scouting hitters easier. The college game should have its own niche where guys can hit homers at a reasonable pace, elite hitters put up elite numbers, and elite pitchers can still dominte without fear that a 5'6" middle-infielder can hit a HR off the end of the bat. There is balance to be found without trying to make younger, weaker, less-talented college players hit with equipment meant to mimic professional baseball.

Alternatively, and more expensively, move the fences in at every college ballpark in america (except for the few that are bandboxes with the current bats). If all the fences were moved in ~10-15 feet all the way around, that would certainly return the college game to its previous levels of excitment while still letting scouts see how well college players hit without juiced bats.

I agree with your first statement, but not your second. Moving in fences and making all college parks bandboxes does not help the game, IMO; rather, it hurts the inegrity of the game. Routine fly balls should not become homeruns. The problem we've had the past several years is that well hit line shots have become routine outs, as they do not carry...and, similarly, well hit, deep fly balls stay in the park. Change both the balls (check!) and bats; not the parks.

I'm not advocating moving in fences, but I don't see how moving them in hurts the integrity of the game. What's the practical difference between tweaking the bats & balls so the ball gets hit further and moving in the fences slightly but keeping the same bats & balls that don't travel as far? The only goal of this suggestion would be to allow some of those well-hit balls that look like they should be a HR to actually become a HR. Again, its a ridiculous suggestion on my part since the cost of moving in all fences ~10 feet for almost every stadium in the country would be much more than the benefit and certainly much more costly than tweaking the bats & balls.

I haven't been watching the CWS to fault or applaud ESPN's coverage. But when head coaches are calling out the bats & balls during and after the game, I think there is a legit story.

(06-18-2014 09:49 AM)Mademen Wrote:  Todd Whitting does not think the ball change is going to help as much as everyone else does. While the ball will travel further, it is also easier for the pitchers to spin.

I would have thought that the lower-seam ("flat-seam") ball would be more difficult for pitchers to spin.

Here's what Aaron Fitt said last year:

Aaron Fitt Wrote:Pitchers will need to adjust to the new seams, which could make it harder for pitchers to spin breaking balls but could lead to more movement on two-seam balls, according to some pitchers we consulted who played in both college and the minor leagues.

That article later had a quote from New Mexico's Roy Birmingham, who worried about the demise of soft-tossers' effectiveness:

Quote:“I love this game, and this game’s for everybody, not just for the elite guy with the elite arm. I want that little lefty that throws 82 mph to get some enjoyment out of the game, because he can change speeds and turn over that changeup. If you take those seams off, only special people can do it. I think right now a kid that’s 88 mph can pitch can beat you, and that scares people.”

... which was quickly countered by a soft-throwing lefty:

Quote:Of course, one of the best college pitchers of this generation—or any generation—was Michael Roth, a lefty who worked mostly in the low-to-mid-80s at South Carolina. Roth rocketed to the big leagues in his first full pro season this year, and he said he prefers the lower seams of the professional ball.

“Pro balls are way better,” Roth said this summer. “I can’t throw a straight pitch if I wanted to (with the flat-seamed ball).”

The flat-seamed ball also should result in fewer serious blister issues.

(06-18-2014 10:17 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  One of the worst things about all this is not the low scoring, but that ESPN is determined to make the low scoring, rather than the teams and the games themselves, the story. Of course, that's consistent with their entire approach to college baseball: that it cannot be appreciated in its own right; it's only value is the extent to which it approximates (or not) / prepares players (or not) for the pros. College football and basketball also have differences from their pro equivalents, but the press does not make those differences the theme of their coverage; they cover the college games as interesting in their own right. It sure would be nice if the baseball press could do the same.

Well, to my ear that all pretty much begins and ends with Karl Ravech, who was calling the TCU/UVA game from last night. Pretty much every comment he makes references the MLB, and the differences between that and CBB, often in a belittling way. He's by far the worst about it, and ESPN continues to put him in the CWS. He really has no knowledge of the college game. All he's got is comparisons to the MLB and questions about the same to tee up to the color analyst.




On the offense issue -- Moving fences in should be the last resort, and is pretty clearly not necessary given the known effect of adjusting the bats. The game is suffering for this, I know there are some that like the low-scoring variety but it's gone too far, and removed an element of suspense and excitement from a game that is already not terribly high on suspense and excitement. Right? Baseball is the game you can watch more leisurely while conversing with your seat neighbors (and/or gorging on concessions).

So, make the bats at least equal in performance to the MLB wood bats. And make the darn balls the same or very nearly the same. I've never understood the discrepancy there. It's not like college player's hands are smaller or something. If it makes it harder to have a nasty curve/slurve, so be it. A squared up mistake ball should be heading over the fence or be on a rope somewhere, not a routine fly or grounder.

The announcers frequently lamented that there would not likely be a walk-off HR to end the game.

(06-18-2014 10:17 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  One of the worst things about all this is not the low scoring, but that ESPN is determined to make the low scoring, rather than the teams and the games themselves, the story. Of course, that's consistent with their entire approach to college baseball: that it cannot be appreciated in its own right; it's only value is the extent to which it approximates (or not) / prepares players (or not) for the pros. College football and basketball also have differences from their pro equivalents, but the press does not make those differences the theme of their coverage; they cover the college games as interesting in their own right. It sure would be nice if the baseball press could do the same.

ESPN's announcers won't get the college game until there is enough coverage for there to be "college announcers" who follow the game all season. Right now we get (mostly) guys who get moved around from event to event thru the year. When they show up in Omaha they're looking for stories and usually find the wrong ones. Kyle Peterson and Mike Rooney are as near as we have to college commentators who understand our sport.

In the print (web) media we have Eric, and to some lesser degree Kendall, who focus on the college game. Because of Eric's sole focus (and style) I think he's the best print ambassador. Aaron is very good and likes college ball, but he has to follow BA's prime directive and concentrate on college as a feeder to the pro game.

Aaron and John Manuel are tackling some of the issues that we need to address to help college ball:

Move the MLB draft to after the postseason
Do something about TDAmeritrade Park
Do something about the bats and balls to increase offense
Discussing pitcher abuse

(06-18-2014 10:17 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  One of the worst things about all this is not the low scoring, but that ESPN is determined to make the low scoring, rather than the teams and the games themselves, the story. Of course, that's consistent with their entire approach to college baseball: that it cannot be appreciated in its own right; it's only value is the extent to which it approximates (or not) / prepares players (or not) for the pros. College football and basketball also have differences from their pro equivalents, but the press does not make those differences the theme of their coverage; they cover the college games as interesting in their own right. It sure would be nice if the baseball press could do the same.

See this:

Quote:But still: watching every [College] World [Series] game . . . this weekend, it was hard not to realize just how wedded ESPN remains to everything else about The Brand that so dumbs down its coverage of every other sport to which it owns the broadcast rights. Anchors holding a tenuous familiarity. Soft-focus features high on emotion and low on data. An aversion to analytics and a commitment to game breakdowns based on intangibles, delivered by the "authority" of ex-jocks. A pathological fear of politics or social context whatsoever.

Excerpted and paraphrased from http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree...4-analysis

(Although it does give a shout-out to KLaw in pointing out how ESPN has finally started addressing its weaknesses in covering other sports such as MLB).

I'd be interested in seeing television ratings and attendance numbers for the last 15 years. I can't imagine college baseball has become more popular since the introduction of BBCOR. MLB has been steadily declining in popularity since the mid 90's. Baseball as a whole needs to give itself a reevaluation. It's becoming a niche sport with an older and older viewership that isn't capturing younger viewers. I think Whitting is right, flat seems won't make much of a difference. NCAA took two steps backwards and now they're only taking one step forward.

We of all teams should of been crying foul for the use of composite bat doctoring in 2008 & 2009 by being direct victims of the composite bat main beneficiaries, Fresno State and LSU. All the NCAA had to do was outlaw composites and keep the same bat standards from before.

BA Rant about the lack of offense (about the first 15 minutes of podcast)

Quote:See this:

Quote:But still: watching every [College] World [Series] game . . . this weekend, it was hard not to realize just how wedded ESPN remains to everything else about The Brand that so dumbs down its coverage of every other sport to which it owns the broadcast rights. Anchors holding a tenuous familiarity. Soft-focus features high on emotion and low on data. An aversion to analytics and a commitment to game breakdowns based on intangibles, delivered by the "authority" of ex-jocks. A pathological fear of politics or social context whatsoever.

Excerpted and paraphrased from http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree...4-analysis

Some other really nice quotes there:

Quote:...all the cynical reasons so many ESPN personalities retain a death grip on your TV: to wring every last drop of content from a cheap commodity, to try to convert stubborn ubiquity into a brand and to refuse to acknowledge mistakes.

Quote:...the network exists as a narrative delivery device. Sometimes that means navel-gazing about narrative's absence until a narrative develops about the need for one.

"A squared up mistake ball should be heading over the fence or be on a rope somewhere, not a routine fly or grounder."

Spot-on; this is it.

(06-18-2014 05:01 PM)owlsfan Wrote:  "A squared up mistake ball should be heading over the fence or be on a rope somewhere, not a routine fly or grounder."

Spot-on; this is it.

??? A truly squared up pitch off the bat will either be a rocket of a grounder or a line shot-- even with today's ball and bat. The issue is that those line shots tend not to carry as far as they should under the current set-up. We have seen more than our share of "ropes" hit; unfortunately, they're either hit right at fielders or they don't carry over the OFers heads.