Texas Baseball -- The Day After

by 40AS on May 19, 2008 4:48 PM CDT in Baseball Comment 16 comments

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. Texas swept Texas A&M this weekend, but Texas A&M backed into the Big XII regular season championship and the Lone Star Showdown. We'd mention how fans from both sides acknowledge that the latter is pretty meaningless, but that would be sour grapes, so we won't. Either way, Texas has gone from a possible bubble team a few weeks ago to a possible regional host with a good showing in Oklahoma City.

The schedule for the tournament has been released (get it here) and Texas has some good news. It avoids two of the three Big XII teams it lost series to (Nebraska and Okie State) until the championship game, and gets the other (Mizzou) first thing Wednesday.

Normally the Big XII Tourney means resting starters and preventing injuries, but it is far more meaningful this year, raising some interesting questions:

· Who's the Wednesday starter (our money's on Workman)?

· What's the rest of the starting rotation?

· Who's the second reliever out of the pen?

· How awesome is Chance Ruffin?

· How important does Augie think the tourney is?

· How hard will he push the starting rotation?

If these questions seem pitcher heavy, it's because that's where the majority of question marks with this team lie. For the first time in a while for this team, however, things are looking up.

0 recs | Comment 16 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Very interesting

match up – the first game with Missouri. They swept the Huskers, you swept the Aggies, both of which I didn’t expect but that’s the way it goes.

Missouri really tore up the Nebraska bull pen – their offense has been fairly decent recently while their pitcher hasn’t done as well as was expected.

Go Big Red Nebraska!
Our Cobs Are Bigger Than Yours!

by corn blight on May 19, 2008 5:44 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Wednesday starter

Isn’t it more likely that we have to start Ruffin on Wednesday? The first game in pool play is as close as can be to a must-win, and Mizzou has got to be thinking they’ll throw out Aaron Crow. Texas is clicking, but Mizzou is hot, too (8-2 last 10, sweep of Nebraska in Columbia over the weekend). As mentioned, we swept ATM, and they are in a bit of a swoon, and we won the OU series in Norman (and they barely squeeked in, anyway). Call me crazy, but this first game is the key, based on who follows Mizzou and who is hot now. We should do what we can to keep this momentum going.

Chance Ruffin is teh awesome. Let’s put him in the pressure cooker now so he can get into tourney mode.

by amorphous on May 19, 2008 5:44 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

not quite sure how you can say this

Texas swept Texas A&M this weekend, but Texas A&M backed into the Big XII regular season championship and the Lone Star Showdown.

I don’t see how winning 16 straight conference games (and setting a new conference record) infers backing into anything. Basically, A&M won 19 conference games, and sat back and dared anyone to match them. Despite A&M playing horrible baseball at the end of the season (and Childress taking his annual anal-pounding from Garrido), no one was able to do that. In 2002, ‘04, ‘05, and ‘06, the conference champ only won 19 conference games. Were they backing into the title, too? As for the Lone Star Showdown (I hope we melt the trophy into a doorstop), we didn’t “back into” anything, we beat texas in both track events in Boulder to claim the title. texas only needed to finish higher in the women’s or the men’s team standings, and couldn’t do it. No backing in there. But I guess that doesn’t fit your opening paragraph as well, huh?

by Beergut on May 19, 2008 6:30 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Backed into the baseball Big 12 title...

by having the team in front of you lose their last game in a game they should win. So, generally, when I team loses, but moves ahead in standing because another team loses, people call this “backing in.”

About the LSS, I’m not sure why PB considered that backing in. But if you think he just wrote that because it “fit his paragraph,” and if you think his writing isn’t honest and just serves to denigrate A&M, then why don’t you stop reading? Or at least stop posting?

by hornbone on May 19, 2008 6:47 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

ha, I meant 40AS, not PB. oops.

by hornbone on May 19, 2008 6:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

here's the problem with your explanation

So, generally, when I team loses, but moves ahead in standing because another team loses, people call this "backing in."

A&M didn’t “move ahead in the standings” after another team lost; A&M was already in first place. I believe A&M entered the weekend with a 2 1/2 game lead on Oklahoma State, and a 1 1/2 game lead on Nebraska. Neither team was able to capitalize on A&M’s struggles this weekend, which is why they stayed in first place and won the conference championship.
Like I pointed out already, teams have won the conference with only 19 conference wins before; this was not something new.

by Beergut on May 19, 2008 7:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think the point that you're trying to make...

... is that choking in your last five conference games to win the championship is infinitely more respectable than having someone else choke and give you the championship because you didn’t choke, probably because you didn’t think you could win the championship. Not only is it more respectable, but it’s worth a whole argument if someone says you got handed the championship when, in fact, you tried your damnedest to choke it away.

Good point, Beergut.

--Horn Brain--

by Horn Brain on May 19, 2008 8:01 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs

sat back and dared anyone to match them

What?????

You may be enjoying yanking the chains of these Longhorn guys, but sitting back, as you say, may have cost them a national seed and with it a real good shot at the CWS. If they don’t get the national seed, the road before them is that much tougher.

Sat back and dared anyone to match them…. Well, if that’s what happened, you have the dumbest baseball team in the U.S.

Go Big Red Nebraska!
Our Cobs Are Bigger Than Yours!

by corn blight on May 20, 2008 9:22 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

honestly, I don't think a national seed and hosting rights for a SR

will do anything for us, if we somehow are chosen as a Super Regional host.

First, we have to somehow get out of this funk we’re in, and try to win some games in the Big 12 Tournament and then in the regional we’ll host.

I don’t think we have the pitching depth to make it to the CWS, and even if we somehow miraculously make it there, I don’t think Childress is capable of leading us to anything spectacular.

I may be in the extreme minority in this view, but I remain unimpressed with Childress, and don’t think he is the man to get us where we want to be, i.e. winning the CWS.

by Beergut on May 21, 2008 3:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Other Half of 40AS here...

The only real problem I have with your comment is the misuse of the word “infer.” Sorry, pet peeve.

There’s no question that 19 wins and first place in the one of the premier college baseball conferences is a fantastic season, and we didn’t mean to IMPLY that it isn’t. See below for more explanation as to what we meant by “backing in,” but perhaps “limped into the Big XII regular season championship” would be more appropriate semantically?

Let’s go with that. You guys are certainly limping. Deal?

by 40AS on May 20, 2008 9:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

what is your problem with "infer"?

Just curious.

As far as I know, infer and imply are synonymous.

by Beergut on May 21, 2008 3:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

difference

“to imply” is to insinuate something additional to what you are saying

“inferring” is a response or conclusion to the statement/facts presented

..i guess

by WacArnolds on May 21, 2008 1:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

WacA is correct...

If you “imply” something when talking to me, then I can “infer” it from listening to you. The implication is made by the speaker and the inference by the listener.

by 40AS on May 22, 2008 12:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

5 straight conference losses = backing in

A&M was unreal through 22 games then backed into the title by losing 5 straight, there’s no way around it. That doesn’t denegrate the fact that they’re conference champs, but right now Texas A&M is anything but hot (not saying they can’t get hot and win a bunch of games in the postseason, just calling a spade a spade).

And the LSS thing…If there’s one thing that both sides can agree about, it’s that nobody cares. The only reason we said “backing in” was because A&M got destroyed in the high profile event of the weekend and only late Sunday evening clinched the thing. If you need congrats from a Longhorn, then by all means: congrats on the title! But it’s all just semantics about a worthless award.

by 40AS on May 19, 2008 7:00 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

there is a high profile event in track?

Really? What is it?

I don’t need congrats for the LSS award, I am aware it is just a marketing ploy to get more money for both schools, I just thought it was humorous that you said we “back in” to winning.

In baseball, we “backed in” b/c no one could catch the big lead we built in the conference standings, and in track we “backed in” b/c we didn’t finish ahead of texas in the standings until late Sunday? Okaaaaaay, nice logic there.

by Beergut on May 19, 2008 7:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs