nm

[This message has been edited by sipAGonizer (edited 3/10/2004 12:46p).]

nm

[This message has been edited by sipAGonizer (edited 3/10/2004 12:47p).]

The '89 Ags choked, plain and simple. Other Omaha teams had something that the '89 team didn't have...the ability to win when it counted.

A ninth inning grandslam to beat UTA in March isn't proving anything. Splitting a double header with LSU in May/June at home would have proved something.

Good luck this year.

fyi: the 89 tu team finished 54-18.

i guess they choked too, since they couldn't beat wichita state.

of course, with mack brown, tu is the industry standard on choking.

I thought having "horn" in my name necessarily made me gay. -skihorn, posted 3:27p, 02/16/04

by the way, did you actually go to tu, or like so many others do you just buy a t-shirt and call yourself a horn when they're winning?

I thought having "horn" in my name necessarily made me gay. -skihorn, posted 3:27p, 02/16/04

Was it the '98 team that knocked out clemson in the super-regionals?

For what it's worth, I'm betting on austx being a tshirt tsip.

Although he'll probably tell us how he's a graduate of tu, then tu business, then tu law, and is now a multi-millionaire since everyone smart, rich, and powerful on the internet.

I did graduate from UT. No law or business degree. Not a tshirt sip nor a bandwagon sip either. Although, regarding tshirts, I believe an adult over the age of 30 who wears a jersey with the name of an 18 year old on the back should have his/her head examined.

As for the Mack Brown comment...you and I finally agree on something.




[This message has been edited by austx (edited 3/10/2004 1:43p).]

Ishmael

The bats didn't get hotter until the 90's. In fact I remember hearing Johnson tell the Dugout Club one time that he would have liked to see the 89 team with 99's bats. The 89 team hit 88 homeruns, the next closest team that year was Texas with 56. The bats weren't the issue with that team, certainly not like they were for the 1999 team or even the 1993 team.

The 1998 team didn't have a lot of power. Kuzmic hit 25 homeruns and Schesh was in the mid-teens, but the team had like 85 in a year where LSU hit like 178. If that team had had a lot of power guys they'd have put up over 100 given the bats. The 1998 team didn't even have a lot of good hitters, with a team batting average of .308, right at the national average for that season.


[This message has been edited by LOYAL AG (edited 3/10/2004 1:57p).]

quote:

---

There was also a team in Omaha, who lost in the championship game, who got it's a-s kicked by A&M that season. That same team finished behind A&M in the final polls that season.

---

quote:

---

1. Wichita St.
2. Texas
3. Florida St.
4. Louisiana St.
5. Arkansas
6. Miami (Fla.)
7. Long Beach St.
8. North Carolina
9. Texas A&M
10. Mississippi St.
11. Arizona
12. Michigan
13. Fresno St.
14. Clemson
15. Oklahoma St.
16. Le Moyne
17. Arizona St.
18. Loyola Marymount
19. Oklahoma
20. South Alabama
21. Villanova
22. Indiana St.
23. Notre Dame
24. Illinois
25. Central Florida
26. Southern Cal
27. Pepperdine
28. South Florida
29. Jacksonville
30. UNLV

---

http://www.baseballnews.com/polls/divI/archives/1997to1959/1989ncaadiv1finalpoll.htm

1. The Juiced Bats started in 1996 when the went to the minus 5 ratio, in 1989 they only had minus 3 ratio.

2. The 1995 team did not beat UNC in the Regionals with a walkon pitcher. John Sneed was a stud recruit that was drafted out of high school.

In that game, he pitched 108 pitches, 103 were fastballs, 5 were changeups. He was a true freshmen that had unbelievable movement on his ball.

Rocks you seem to have a handle on the difference (if you could explain ratios that would help). So how did the '89 bat compare to today's?

In 1989 the bats the used were at best minus 3

That means a 34 inch bat weighed 31 ounces.

In 1996 Easton and Louisville started introducing bats that were minus 5, meaning a 34 inch bat weighed 29 ounces.

These bats had the same bat head size, sometimes larger and allowed a much greater bat speed with more control to the hitter.

The bats from 1996-1999 made a huge difference and that is why you saw the numbers produced those years all those players.

uhh bonfire---daylan holt was using the same bat in 2000 as he was in 99...he just wasnt seeing the same pitches because all the pop from the lineup the year before was gone...he was also pressing too hard to match his 99 performance.

Some how, about ten years, I got hold of TU Media Guide. I was surprised to see several years where they had W-L numbers somewhat comparable to the '89 record. That having been said, the '89 was impressive as Hell, and fun to watch. I think I'll go watch the TU doubleheader where Byington became a legend.

quote:

---

uhh bonfire---daylan holt was using the same bat in 2000 as he was in 99...h

---

Are you missing the rest of this thread?

The best baseball team in the last few years was the Mariners team that set the record and lost in the post-season. While I know nothing of the 89 team, I do know that the best teams in any sport in any season are not neccessarily the ones who win it all.