Are you mixing rum with your Cadbury eggs? Cuz you went WAY over the line there, my friend.
-
You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.
HuskerMax readers can save 50% on Omaha Steaks .
Doubt
- Thread starter Husker Eponymous
- Start date
Are you mixing rum with your Cadbury eggs? Cuz you went WAY over the line there, my friend.
Agree, as we've talked about this before. To have success at this Nebraska, NU needs studs toeing the rubber, and a deep staff. If our 1 & 2 are pitching mid-week, that means the 3,4 & 5 are going on the weekend. How do you think NU's 3, 4, & 5 would fare right now in the B1G?
You hit the nail on the head here. Don't expect this conference to change anything soon. Its almost a vicious circle though: You recruit kids with the hope of playing in the CWS, but you need to show them that its possible to play in the CWS from the B1G to get them to begin with.
Again agreed, but even the most ardent fan would have to admit that Friday nights game was a very poorly coached game.
I don't know how much coaching relationships would've helped keep those kids in state. Regardless of the relationship, if NU was still in the Big 12 they at least would've had a chance to keep one of these kids, if not both. The B1G? No way.
Think about what you are saying here. This was a poor coaching move all the way around. If you are taking a chance on an out, why not take the chance on the out at first and not home? You call that a SAFETY SQUEEZE.
Wow. So what I gather from reading this thread is that there is no hope for Husker Baseball....ever! Fromunda says that since were in the B1G now, theres no chance of ever getting instate/regional talent to come to NU. So why do we even have a program now? Is the only way to erase these "doubts" to not have coaches who send runners on 2nd and 3rd with no outs??...
So please, Weatherman, Formunda and others: Do you like being "highly critical" of what sounds like a hopeless situation? I don't get it... Boy, new BBall coach Miles doesn't stand a chance here. He's inheriting a program in shambles,(like Erstad) and God forbid he plays zone defense at a point in a game when he should have run man to man. Geez, how many DOUBT threads will that generate!
Solutions people! Detailed SOLUTIONS please!
So please, Weatherman, Formunda and others: Do you like being "highly critical" of what sounds like a hopeless situation? I don't get it... Boy, new BBall coach Miles doesn't stand a chance here. He's inheriting a program in shambles,(like Erstad) and God forbid he plays zone defense at a point in a game when he should have run man to man. Geez, how many DOUBT threads will that generate!
Solutions people! Detailed SOLUTIONS please!
It depends how you define "hope." Would I much rather have Erstad and staff than Mike Anderson? Absolutely. I believe the odds of ever seeing match or exceeding the Van Horn era are slim to none. And as I stated, a lot of that has to do with playing in the Big Ten. Being in a nationally relevant conference -- and being prepared by having played top notch talent in April and May when June rolls around. The Big Ten hasn't been nationally relevant for about 30 years or more. However, if hope is defined as competing for conference championships (even if the conference is the equivalent of the Sun Belt in football), then there is (or darn well better be) hope. And I can envision the Huskers returning to the NCAA Tournament -- I just doubt we'll see the run of CWS appearances like a decade ago. Oh, we might sneak in an appearance at some point, but it won't be like the Van Horn era... it will be more like Creighton making it's rare CWS appearance in the 90s.
There's always hope -- but it depends what your expectations are. If your expectations as a fan are to match or exceed the Van Horn era, I think you're bound to be disappointed. Sure, you are more than welcome to believe that will happen (or hope it will), but I'd rather not -- as a fan -- let my emotions expect to see such a feat. Feel free to surprise me, Huskers. No doubt I'd enjoy it. And again, I say this as a fan. The team itself should have the highest of aspirations. Any team that doesn't shouldn't be playing.
And by the way, if you follow me on the hoops forum, you will see plenty of praise from me regarding the Miles hire. Doesn't mean I expect NU to be a Final Four regular, but there is hope for better success than the last couple of coaches.
Last edited:
But in reality how significant a play is Fresno now....and how significant were they ever? The answer is, beyond and upset here and there, not really significant at all. Maybe you just picked the wrong program...maybe NU will be Boise State. I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm saying it's highly highly unlikely.
What's over the line? Calling his a "red-arse"? Maybe you are thinking that's an insult? Not at all. Back when erstad was in the majors and I still listened to Jim Rome that was a common term Rome used for Erstad. It was how Rome described how Erstad played and carried him self...very serious, intense, focused..almost p***ed off. It's that attitude that made him a great player. I'm simply saying that that attitude isn't ALWAYS conducive to being a great coach. That can wear thin if not used in the right way. Again, I'm not saying he can't use it correctly...just saying he will have to.
Appreciate the honest and open thoughts HW. Unlike the weather, you are always consistant!
I'm not going to continue to argue about this I guess...you see it the way you want. However, I will respond to the bolded part. The reason you do the contact play rather than the safety squeeze is probabilities. The contact play actually has a pretty good probability of success. Second, with the safety squeeze you are much more limited in your possibilities (i.e. there is only one way you can score). However, with the contact play, you don't take away the at bat from the hitter. The hitter can have a normal approach to his at bat and it gives you multiple possibilities of scoring (e.g. a deep fly ball, a base hit, a ground ball in the infield). Obviously, the ground ball in the infield is not a guarantee, but it gives you a better probability of scoring. As stated before, two of the best times to do this is with 1 out or with runners at second and third.
Last edited:
[
Saw it with no outs and a runner in third in the Cubs opening day disaster. It does happen, but then again it is the cubs.
Saw it with no outs and a runner in third in the Cubs opening day disaster. It does happen, but then again it is the cubs.
Again, poor coaching. How about this if you don't want to take the bat away from the hitter: Let the hitter hit without sending the runner. Remember, there are no out. If the hitter gets a base hit, one run scores with men on first and third.
Yes, this is "how I see it". The play didn't work, it was a poor coaching decision in a tight game. With runners on second and third with no out, the odds are in Nebraska's favor that the runner will come home somehow without the runner being sent on contact. By sending the runner, you took those odds and threw them out the window. So you can see it how you want, this was a poor coaching move, I don't know why you are trying to justify it.
This makes no sense. You are sending the runner on contact. How would he score on a deep fly ball? He has to tag up. The runner would score anyways on a base hit. A ground ball in deep in the hole the runner would score. Again, with no out this was a poor coaching decision and it proved to be when the runner was thrown out at home.
Anyone that follows Nebraska knows that BSU doesn't hold true to the scheduling philosophy that Pat Hill has used in Fresno. And considering they play in the WAC and have very little recruiting prowess they have done well for themselves, but I get your point. And I happen to believe that it is both possible and likely that NU takes a more aggressive scheduling approach to boost their RPI and regularly face the nation's best -- most often in their house.
Sorry. I thought you were calling our new baseball coach an a$$. My apologies.
Last edited:
Do you follow much baseball?
On the contact play, he only goes when he reads a downward trajectory on the ball (i.e. a ground ball). The runner would still freeze on a line drive and tag on a fly ball.
The point was, if you do a squeeze (as you stated) you eliminate the possibility of a base hit or fly ball to get the run in....with the contact play those possibilities remain intact.
If the runner does not go on contact (ground ball), the only way he scores is on a ground ball deep in the whole, which is not even a guarantee. Going on contact in certain situations gives you a significantly better chance of scoring on a routine ground ball.
As I said before, this is a common play in baseball. You have to pick your spots, and sometime it gets blown up.....that's baseball. Its a way to try to create a run, but it is much more conservative and higher percentage that a play like a squeeze.
Last edited:
No, I don't know anything about baseball. Thanks for enlightening me. On second thought, helluva coaching move by Erstad, especially considering it didn't work.
Again, poor call.
