College 3 game series - Best team wins ???

In reverse any team may have one pitcher who can stand any team in the country on their head for seven innings. Then by game three the team is out of pitching. The third game starter has a 6+ ERA.

However, if the away team wins game one and game two I’m not placing any money on them in game three. In their minds they may start the game already won with one foot already on the team bus. They’re playing a team desperate not to get swept at home.

Happens quite a bit, especially when you're talking about 2 mid-majors that may only have 1 truly dominant starter.  Any team can have "one of those days" where nothing goes right....even though you didn't necessarily play bad.  If the stud starter wins game 1....the "one of those days" happens in game two, then you're essentially playing 1 game to split the weekend.  I've seen weekends where a team wins game one 8-0 behind their stud....loses game two 7-3 after their star SS boots two balls in a row, even though he's only had 1 error all year....then game 3 goes 1-0 with two guys on the mound with ERA's of 7+.  It happens....as they say, that's why they play the games.

The problem is you're trying to apply logic to a game that's ruled by chaos. You take a round ball and try to hit it with a round bat. Fractions of an inch and time can greatly affect the outcome. Like trying to predict the weather. Throw in the umps who's balls and strikes can be all over the place and there's just no rhyme or reason.

Good points so far... Remember, I'm talking about one team being clearly better, like, for example, teams in the top third of conferences vs teams in bottom third where there isn't a lot of depth or balance in that conference.  Or ranked teams vs losing teams with similar schedules.  And I'm not talking about P5's where every team is very talented.  It happens a LOT!  

Just a side note, how can some of the better D1 schools be out of A+ pitching by game 3 on an average weekend. 

I believe it’s the 11.7 scholarships, keeping equity to some degree. But most of these teams are carrying 15+ pitchers on the roster so you would think they have enough pitching. Is the A+ pitcher on team 2 going there because Team1 didn’t have enough money left??  Lots of scenarios, but as much as I hate the 11.7 rule, I think it does help maintain at least some balance between programs. 

You can also attribute playing time and other factors, where maybe a kid feels he will get playing time earlier at school 2. But it’s still hard for me to comprehend why a ranked  school would not be able to maintain a full stable of highly capable pitchers. I guess the same would apply to MLB.  

I am not talking about a guy coming in and giving up hits ( that’s just gonna happen) but too many times guys come in that walk, hit batters, wild pitches, etc. again it’s gonna happen sometimes. But it seems to happen too often considering the number of pitchers that teams carry. 

P.s.  I know it is tough, I am glad I am not a coach, and my livelihood depends on what a 18-20 year old kid does on a given day. 

It depends on the level difference. If a team is clearly better it will win most games. If an mlb team would play a HS team it would win 100 out of 100 but at least 99.

But if the teams are somewhat closely matched a 3 game series is just a crap shoot. Even worst mlb team against best mlb team a 3 game series can go either way. I mean the Orioles are probably losing 100 games this year but they are currently 4-1

That is also why mlb post season is such a carp shoot.

I think that there is a lot of human nature that comes through in sports.  A team that gets down in a series should get more desperate and focused, while a team that goes up may let up some.  Just like in real life - once someone achieves some level of comfort its hard to maintain the hunger that got him there.

wareagle posted:

You can also attribute playing time and other factors, where maybe a kid feels he will get playing time earlier at school 2. But it’s still hard for me to comprehend why a ranked  school would not be able to maintain a full stable of highly capable pitchers. I guess the same would apply to MLB.  

As a Reds fan I can tell you that they haven't had a quality stable of pitchers in over a decade

wareagle posted:

Just a side note, how can some of the better D1 schools be out of A+ pitching by game 3 on an average weekend. 

I believe it’s the 11.7 scholarships, keeping equity to some degree. But most of these teams are carrying 15+ pitchers on the roster so you would think they have enough pitching. 

I am not talking about a guy coming in and giving up hits ( that’s just gonna happen) but too many times guys come in that walk, hit batters, wild pitches, etc. again it’s gonna happen sometimes. But it seems to happen too often considering the number of pitchers that teams carry. 

 

Here is my .02.  There is a LOT less development of pitchers at the collegiate level than most realize, and I'm talking about P5 level.  While I realize this is a "broad brush" statement, but I've witnessed it and talked with players from other programs and it seems to be pretty consistent.  When you show up on campus, you are what you are.  Sure you compete in the fall, but come spring, coach is gonna run you out there based on what he recruited and saw in fall.  If you succeed, you will continue to get opportunities.  If you fail, you are at the end on the bench.  Not saying you will not get another opportunity, but it may be 3 weeks before your next outing.  In the meantime, the pitching coach isn't spending time with you working on mechanics.  You better figure it out on your own. He has his starters and main bullpen guys to worry about.

Just go look at any team's roster from last season.  While it is true they carry 15-20 pitchers on staff, you will see 8-10 guys got 90% of the innings.  Most programs will have 2-3 starters and then about 5-6 guys that get significant innings (25-40).  Those other 8-10 pitchers get extremely limited innings and very little work / help during the season.

There are still lots of benefits from going to college.  Just don't go in with eyes shut assuming that your kid is going to get a lot of development going the college route.

Cabbagedad;

How are you? Many, many years ago during my time at MSU and College World Series, our Assistant Coach "charted" all our pitchers. If a pitcher threw more than 14.6 pitches per inning, we LOST the game. When Nolan Ryan pitched the opposing team during the 1st 3 innings made Nolan to up his pitch count to 18-20 pitches per inning. Forcing Nolan to "last" only 5 innings and then the opposing relief pitches were force to pitch.

When we travel Internationally I instruct our coaches to pitch our best pitchers the 1st three innings and final 3 innings. We play 12 games in 15 days. We use position players to pitch the middle innings. Dave LaRoche former NY Yankee was our pitching coach.

Bob

I have seen this discussed on the D3boards. 

If a coach believes he is out matched. Does he throw his number one guy in the first game or save him for a later game where e matches up better. 

Of coarse you then have to buy in to the fact that the coach is trying to eek out a win the series instead of win the series. 

Specifically this has been discussed as a possible strategy for Cal Tech. No proof they ever used it, just discussion if they should. This went back to the days of their epic losing streak. 

BishopLeftiesDad posted:

I have seen this discussed on the D3boards. 

If a coach believes he is out matched. Does he throw his number one guy in the first game or save him for a later game where e matches up better. 

Of coarse you then have to buy in to the fact that the coach is trying to eek out a win the series instead of win the series. 

Specifically this has been discussed as a possible strategy for Cal Tech. No proof they ever used it, just discussion if they should. This went back to the days of their epic losing streak. 

Not naming names, but I have definitely seen it done.  In the case of Cal Tech last week, their #1, who is a senior, did pitch Friday, and lost badly. The kid who went Sunday is a Frosh, so looks like they have their new #1 for the next few years.

K9 posted:

I think that there is a lot of human nature that comes through in sports.  A team that gets down in a series should get more desperate and focused, while a team that goes up may let up some.  Just like in real life - once someone achieves some level of comfort its hard to maintain the hunger that got him there.

This is mostly in line with what I was thinking.  While, idealistically, "every baseball game is a fresh start, a blank sheet of paper", in reality, that is just not the way it plays out.  I think the better team typically shows up and plays good focused baseball, wins game 1 and then tends to mentally relax a bit too much with that same opponent in game 2 and 3.  In their minds, the subsequent wins are almost a foregone conclusion and they tend to "mail it in".   Once that competitive edge is softened, it becomes hard to just flip the switch back on until the environment changes (next opponent/next series/jolt of the loss to lesser opponent, etc.).  I think there are a number of factors but I think this is a biggie.

As Somebaseballdad points out, baseball is quite difficult to play successfully - even more so when you are not fully focused and engaged.

BLD mentions the strategy of adjusting the pitching matchups, i.e. - saving your #1 for their #2 or #3 in efforts to take one game of the series.  I thought of this and, undoubtedly, it happens from time to time.  I have not dug deep enough to really know to what extent.  But, I think this is relatively an exception scenario as compared to what I describe above.  I do know some college coaches who's egos are just too big to allow themselves to take that strategy.  And, besides, it sort of sends the wrong message to your team, even if true (our only chance is to win one game by sending our best starter against their worst starter).  Also, there is usually a set rotation that tends to remain consistent for proper rest purposes.

cabbagedad posted:

K9 posted:

I think that there is a lot of human nature that comes through in sports.  A team that gets down in a series should get more desperate and focused, while a team that goes up may let up some.  Just like in real life - once someone achieves some level of comfort its hard to maintain the hunger that got him there.

This is mostly in line with what I was thinking.  While, idealistically, "every baseball game is a fresh start, a blank sheet of paper", in reality, that is just not the way it plays out.  I think the better team typically shows up and plays good focused baseball, wins game 1 and then tends to mentally relax a bit too much with that same opponent in game 2 and 3.  In their minds, the subsequent wins are a bit of a foregone conclusion and they tend to "mail it in".   Once that competitive edge is softened, it becomes hard to just flip the switch back on until the environment changes (next opponent/next series/jolt of the loss to lesser opponent, etc.).  I think there are a number of factors but I think this is a biggie.

As Somebaseballdad points out, baseball is quite difficult to play successfully - even more so when you are not fully focused and engaged.

BLD mentions the strategy of adjusting the pitching matchups, i.e. - saving your #1 for their #2 or #3 in efforts to take one game of the series.  I thought of this and, undoubtedly, it happens from time to time.  I have not dug deep enough to really know to what extent.  But, I think this is relatively an exception scenario as compared to what I describe above.  I do know some college coaches who's egos are just too big to allow themselves to take that strategy.  And, besides, it sort of sends the wrong message to your team, even if true (our only chance is to win one game by sending our best starter against their worst starter).  Also, there is usually a set rotation that tends to remain consistent for proper rest purposes.

Completely agree.

I never thought it was a good idea. My son was the #1 at his school, and he always wanted to face the other teams best. If he ever thought that he was getting moved out of the #1 slot, for that scenario, he would not have been happy. 

This scenario would be more likely for a team on a long losing streak, who desperately needs a win. 

The other time I could see this is if a team needed one win to make it into the conference tournament or some such. But that can still backfire.