jkag89 said:IMO 8 LOBsters per game is not "out of control" for a team scoring nearly 6½ runs a game.matt.maggio3 said:
LOB count up to 355. Average of 8.07/game.
Couldn't agree more
jkag89 said:IMO 8 LOBsters per game is not "out of control" for a team scoring nearly 6½ runs a game.matt.maggio3 said:
LOB count up to 355. Average of 8.07/game.
So is our LOB/game supposed to be lower than our runs/game? Because being able to lower our LOB/game to 5-6 without lowering our runs/game would be very impressive, but I doubt there are very many teams that have higher runs per game than LOB.matt.maggio3 said:
I've said that anecdotally I've heard from people who played college ball at major programs that 5-6 LOB/game is considered a good range. There is no stat tracker out there for NCAA wide, so hard to prove one way or another. My source has 2 CWS rings though, so I take his word for it. Also just makes sense to me bc I see us easily getting there if we just bring our guys home.
FIFYHoustonAg2106 said:So is our LOB/game supposed to be lower than our runs/game? Because being able to lower our LOB/game to 5-6 without lowering our runs/game would be scoring more runs.matt.maggio3 said:
I've said that anecdotally I've heard from people who played college ball at major programs that 5-6 LOB/game is considered a good range. There is no stat tracker out there for NCAA wide, so hard to prove one way or another. My source has 2 CWS rings though, so I take his word for it. Also just makes sense to me bc I see us easily getting there if we just bring our guys home.
Those numbers are basically what Tech did in that four week period. So those numbers are certainly possible. Still, that was during the Gorilla Ball era of college baseball. Tech accomplished that mostly by having 15, 21, 26, and 20 run game blowouts against New Mexico and the Kansas schools.matt.maggio3 said:
went back and checked his math on his CWS years. They averaged 9.67 and 9.61 runs per game over those 2 years ('96&'97) and 6.9 & 7.11 LOB per game. so a little higher than the 5-6 number, but yes LOB/game CAN and should be lower than R/G if you're scoring the guys you get on.
I hate to bring it up because the argument is kinda oversold, but you have to think that runs/game and especially HR/game were WAY up in 96-97. A HR leads to SERIOUS decrease in LOB.matt.maggio3 said:
went back and checked his math on his CWS years. They averaged 9.67 and 9.61 runs per game over those 2 years ('96&'97) and 6.9 & 7.11 LOB per game. so a little higher than the 5-6 number, but yes LOB/game CAN and should be lower than R/G if you're scoring the guys you get on.