Changes in college baseball???

As a college player I have to say that the games are dragging on far too long. I'm all for wood bats to lower the scoring and decrease the number of pitchers used in a game. A 4 hour slugfest can drag on IMO, and the lefty-lefty & righty-righty matchups can make it even worse.

My son just concluded his first year of college ball. He is a left handed hitter. He never started a game when the pitcher was a left hander. The entire season he had only 6 AB's against lefties.

I don't think it is good. Primarily because kids don't develope. I know L/L R/R is statistically valid, but it does little to help the game or develop players. It also puts a "phsycological bug" in the kids head, that is not helpful.

By the way, he was 4-6 against lefties.

As a fan, I've noticed this trend more and more around here as well. I really dislike sitting through a 4 hour college game.

An interesting topic IFDad. The trend might be related to a possible lack of bullpen depth for LHPs, and more hitters available to hit from the left side vs. RHPs.

Numerous times in the last couple of years, I have seen a pitcher going strong and within his pitch count limit. Sometimes it is a starter, and it is in the fifth inning or so. Sometimes a reliever who has only thrown an inning or two. But the pitcher is doing very well. Coach changes pitchers to get the matchup. And the new pitcher comes in & gives up a hit not only to the first batter, but to several following hitters. Strategy backfired.

If the pitcher is going strong, not into pitch count trouble, I just don't believe in pulling him for the "match up".

One thought:

The administrator asks, "Why do you need a roster of X when only Y players get into a game?"

Coach says, "We need to be flexible to give us the best chance to win."

Administrator says, "Well, we have budgets to make. And, since you only use Y players now, that's how many your roster is going to be. Cut the rest."

quote:

The administrator asks, "Why do you need a roster of X when only Y players get into a game?"

Y - X = 15 extra players
15 players x $30,000 per yr x 5 yrs = $ 2.3 million for the bursar ... get a new administrator

Pitchers are usually announced in advance so coaches can work in their line up. Players that need to get experience who are not everyday starters are genereally used for this purpose, so I think it is a good thing for their development to get into the game.
It's known fact our hitters struggle at times against lefties, so lefties are usually put in against son's team.
A pitcher is not usually pulled from his start before 5 innings if he is getting the job done, no matter who is in the line up, no matter if he is a lefty or righty but as he becomes tired in the middle of an inning, in some cases, a releiver is put in specifically for that one match up then pulled. I don't necessarily agree with that philosophy, but that is how I have seen it since son has been to college and lots depends on the depth in the bullpen.
As far as hitting,I asked someone about this today, and you most likely will never see a regular starter get pulled for a match up but maybe for the ones at the bottom of the line up who aren't getting it done.

I don't think it is a trend, but more pressure placed on coaches to win.

It does slow the game down a bit, but also can turn a very close game into a real nail biter.

Bee

That certainly is true at the D-III level. But I believe to a certain extent you're beginning to see it up the ladder. So perhaps coaches are going deeper into their benches because it can be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Those 15 "extra" players, if removed, might make a school's Title IX numbers look better, too. As much as I hate to say it, that is a consideration.

The bet is that some of those cut kids would come/stay to the school even if they didn't play baseball. And if they didn't, so what, we'll find 15 other students.

The unfortunate truth is there is far more willing players than there are places for them. I hope I'm wrong, that it's just a trend of coaches using more players because they believe it's the best thing for them to do. It might not make for good spectating, but it might be good for team chemistry.

But I am afraid there might be something more to it.

The lineup my right-handed son faced over 7 innings last Friday night at Florida State consisted of SIX left-handed batters. The best programs are well-stocked with both lefties and righties...both pitchers and position players...and, as soon as the starter is done, the door to the bullpen starts spinning with alternating lefties and righties. That practice, coupled with the offensive firepower of metal bats, slows the games significantly.

Given the lack of meaningful statistics for most college players, the matchups are just stupid. I have seen college coaches make choices based on less than 20 at bats against a lefty or righty. What do they think they 'know' based on less than 20 at bats?

The problem is the fallacy, bought into by too many coaches, that they can control the outcome of the game. College coaches would do well to learn two truths: First, the practices belong to the coaches but the games belong to the players. Let them play. Trust them. Second, coaches cannot win ballgames for their club but they sure can lose them. And lose them they do.

Coaches over-analyze and and over-coach. Some of it is just a coaching personality: you don't go into coaching if you don't think you can help anybody improve. And some of it is over-reaching and not understanding the nature of the game. I see coaches 'chasing' the batting order every game. Plain silliness.

This is not anything new. For as long as I have been in college baseball this has been happening. Coaches are trying to put their players in positions in which they will succeed. College coaches understand the "nature of the game" so much more than almost every spectator, whether those spectators are parents or other types of fans.

Are coaches only supposed to trust their starters? Should the guys on the bench not be a part of the game? Coaches have helped all of their players to be prepared to play, so why should they not use as much of their roster as they can?

The coaches are not there to make the games go faster so that fans can get to dinner and home earlier.

Coaches do utilize practices to learn about their players; that is why they make substitutions in games. They know the strengths and weaknesses of their players as well as anyone does.

It seems to me that those of you who have problems with this are the ones doing the over-analyzing. Let the coaches coach.

College baseball attendance is at an all time high. Except for some die hards, most people outside of coaches and scouts and university employees only have great interest in college baseball while their kids are being recruited and while they are actively participating. That interest quickly lessens for most people after their sons are done playing.

College coaches are like people in other professions. They know their business significantly better than people who do other things for a living.

quote:

The coaches are not there to make the games go faster so that fans can get to dinner and home earlier

If you don't care about the fans...how about the players who have that little thing called homework to do . (At a few colleges, the athletes are actually at school to study)

quote:

Originally posted by grateful:
This is not anything new. For as long as I have been in college baseball this has been happening. Coaches are trying to put their players in positions in which they will succeed. College coaches understand the "nature of the game" so much more than almost every spectator, whether those spectators are parents or other types of fans.

Are coaches only supposed to trust their starters? Should the guys on the bench not be a part of the game? Coaches have helped all of their players to be prepared to play, so why should they not use as much of their roster as they can?

The coaches are not there to make the games go faster so that fans can get to dinner and home earlier.

Coaches do utilize practices to learn about their players; that is why they make substitutions in games. They know the strengths and weaknesses of their players as well as anyone does.

It seems to me that those of you who have problems with this are the ones doing the over-analyzing. Let the coaches coach.

College baseball attendance is at an all time high. Except for some die hards, most people outside of coaches and scouts and university employees only have great interest in college baseball while their kids are being recruited and while they are actively participating. That interest quickly lessens for most people after their sons are done playing.

College coaches are like people in other professions. They know their business significantly better than people who do other things for a living.

I am not really sure I understand the negative comments. Most of us spend lots of time and money trying to get our sons to play at a higher level (in this case college) with the hopes that possibly they will reach the next level (pro ball).

Personally, I may not always agree with coaches decisions, but I am glad that my sons coach and the teams we face play the game at that level.

College baseball is NOT HS baseball.

bordeau


What you call homework should be taken care of before game time ----

I am with TPM --this aint HS baseball


And I cannot believe a player cares how long or short the game is as long as they win

Grateful.....that may be one of the best post that has been on here in quite some time.

I believe it is a trend but why interfere with coaching strategy or lack there of.
Some teams believe in using their bull pens and closers. Many times I see that strategy blow up but that is BB. Pros do it all the time and that could be the model.

grateful, I always pay close attention to your posts. I know you know your business.
I want to make sure that my post is clear. The point of my post and this thread is not to second guess college coaches. They are the ones getting paid to win and too many get fired when they don't.
What really provoked me to even post on this subject was a game I watched on Sunday, that reflects what I am seeing, having watched upwards of 30 or so college games this season. What occured on Sunday was a player inserted into the starting lineup at 3B. I don't think he has played there this year, but did last season. This season he has less than 10 innings played and some DH appearances. But he is a lefty hitter and the lineup was stacked against a righty pitcher.
First inning, 2 outs, runners at 2nd/3rd and a ball is hit to the 3B. You guessed it, E-5. The ball isn't through the kids legs and the right handed hitting 3B gets out of the dugout and starts to warm up not 20 feet from where this kid is trying to regain his composure.
I agree with you that coaches "need to know" the relative strengths and weaknesses of their players. From watching WCC, Pac 10, some WAC and lot of III baseball over the past several years, I believe situation substitutions and lineups are increasing dramatically.
Personally, I don't like it. As a fan, I can leave after the 3 hour mark or not buy a ticket. But this isn't about me or the college baseball fan.

The point of this thread is to question whether this type of trend will impact college recruiting and the decision making of players/parents. Will players begin to look at professional baseball and the development you can get there as a more viable option? Will players, in making college choices, opt for those where situation substitutions are not the norm, except in late innings where they clearly make sense? Will the variations in "substitution patterns" and this particular way the college game is coached, impact the player and his family in choosing which school to attend?

It is called "due diligence" --- doing your homework regarding the program in question--not every program is right for every player -- we take no offense when a player says he does not want to play for us---we may not be right for him and his needs---better this way than to have a kid on the bench ****ing and moaning

infielddad.....

I know that your original post was not intended as a criticism of college coaches; I also have tremendous respect for your posts and opinions. Most of what I wrote was intended as a response for some of the other posts.

It is possible that you would not have made your original post if the third baseman had made the play early in the game; I'm fairly certain his fielding percentage is probably higher than .000.

Everybody has a different idea of the kind of game they would like to see. I would like to see pitcher's duels every day, but I don't get to.

When I was an NAIA head coach for several years, my philosophy was to try to use my players for the strengths that they possessed. In the NAIA, there is re-entry for starters except for the pitcher and the DH.....therefore you will see even more subtituions in most NAIA games.......it is a great way to keep the entire bench involved in the game.

Again, infielddad, your posts are always good!!

TRHit, To begin with, you could try spelling my name right . By the way, I am not taking a position on the original post or anything else here, except that we all know that the game is not about the fans (at least I hope it's not!)--it's for the players. But, I am always on the side of academics over baseball, which I know makes me a distinct minority on this board which is why I won't post any more

Bordeaux...Hope I spelled that right. As a high school coach, I have made the statement many times about how the game is not about the fans, coaches, adms., parents, etc. It is about the kids between the lines playing. That got me to thinking......At what level/point in baseball does it become about the fans? As soon as the players start to get paid? What about college and trying to put people in the seats and selling merchandise to support the program? Or is it always about players? I think this is too big of a business to just be about the players all of the time. Even private coaches are sellsmen, and when you are selling something it is about $$$. That means it is about something other than the kid. Please, I am not bashing guys that give lessons, most coaches do that (myself included), that is how we make a living......just rambling and thinking aloud.