Rutgers vs Michigan State Thursday at 11 a.m. ET in an elimination game
- Thread starter Tango Two
- Start date
Inability by RU to get big hits with men in scoring position is astounding. Sure, walks, hit batsmen and errors result in runs, bit somehow, like yesterday, big opportunities get missed. Let’s see what MSU does, bases loaded , 2 outs, top of 8 th. Key at bat.
Well after #14 gave them some decent relief the bullpen strikes again in the 8th. Make the other team beat you swinging the bat versus walking in runs. The lack of control is astounding.
It’s not just pitching… we are a team that depends upon the long ball but in todays college game you also need to play small ball. Rutgers doesn’t play small ball. It doesn’t know how to. In a game where pitching and your opponent is good you better be able to do so. I like Owens and am sure he will rectify the problem . One of the most experienced posters on here said this very same thing earlier in the season.
Stats do lie. RU pitching ranks #2 in the Big 10 in ERA and near the top in most other pitching categories. The bullpen was an epic disaster in the clutch for most of the season and particularly embarrassing in this tournament. They simply gave games away.
What bothers me is it feels like we lose every game … in B1G soccer won the title, MBB had 1 win and WBB 1 won .,. 0 wins in any NCAA or NIT game … such a downer after last year.
The pitching stat is a false one. You think you know baseball? You don’t … there is much more to pitching stats especially in high school and college. Hitting and defense is a greater stat to go by.
Two days in a row our relief pitchers gave a game away by walking and hitting batters. What a letdown. I can only imagine how Coach Owen as well as our hitters feel. We cannot have this happening in the future. It just keeps happening. At this level pitchers must have better control and be able to throw the ball over the plate.
Last edited:
I think it has always been difficult for Northern teams to find good pitching. I mean that is more of a general statement about finding good baseball players but pitching talent seems a bit more scarce. Was Bobby Brownlie out of Edison the best one we had under Fred Hill?
The # of HBP's the last two days indicate just how bad their control was. I agree that stats can be misleading if we supposedly had the second best ERA in the conference.
The # of HBP's the last two days indicate just how bad their control was. I agree that stats can be misleading if we supposedly had the second best ERA in the conference.
Final BIG 10 Pitching Stats
Overall Pitching Stats
Pitching
Overall Pitching Stats
| Index | Team | ERA | W-L | G | SHO | SV | IP | H | R | ER | BB | SO | 2B | 3B | HR | AB | B/AVG | WP | HBP | BK | SFA | SHA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Iowa | 4.11 | 41-13 | 54 | 5 | 9 | 466.1 | 350 | 237 | 213 | 279 | 570-135 | 62 | 8 | 33 | 1679 | .208 | 61 | 81 | 3 | 12 | 11 |
| 2 | Rutgers | 4.55 | 33-23 | 56 | 5 | 18 | 494.1 | 450 | 279 | 250 | 276 | 517-152 | 72 | 6 | 51 | 1837 | .245 | 42 | 77 | 5 | 19 | 22 |
| 3 | Nebraska | 4.74 | 32-22 | 55 | 2 | 11 | 476.2 | 464 | 297 | 251 | 187 | 455-134 | 77 | 12 | 55 | 1838 | .252 | 54 | 66 | 2 | 21 | 20 |
| 4 | Indiana | 5.07 | 41-17 | 58 | 2 | 20 | 513.1 | 508 | 332 | 289 | 250 | 550-132 | 109 | 5 | 62 | 1969 | .258 | 49 | 78 | 6 | 20 | 19 |
| 5 | Michigan State | 5.44 | 33-21 | 54 | 0 | 12 | 468.1 | 478 | 315 | 283 | 219 | 394-118 | 114 | 14 | 61 | 1785 | .268 | 32 | 72 | 3 | 37 | 21 |
| 6 | Ohio State | 5.63 | 31-25 | 56 | 2 | 12 | 481.0 | 468 | 339 | 301 | 285 | 514-162 | 103 | 12 | 56 | 1838 | .255 | 44 | 85 | 8 | 12 | 19 |
| 7 | Purdue | 5.75 | 24-29 | 53 | 2 | 10 | 457.0 | 494 | 351 | 292 | 217 | 385-104 | 95 | 18 | 67 | 1792 | .276 | 56 | 46 | 4 | 19 | 19 |
| 8 | Maryland | 5.84 | 39-19 | 58 | 1 | 22 | 511.2 | 542 | 395 | 332 | 279 | 474-113 | 101 | 11 | 88 | 2022 | .268 | 38 | 51 | 6 | 16 | 13 |
| 9 | Illinois | 5.86 | 25-27 | 52 | 1 | 11 | 462.0 | 506 | 334 | 301 | 199 | 431-136 | 98 | 13 | 68 | 1819 | .278 | 37 | 81 | 5 | 12 | 23 |
| 10 | Michigan | 5.87 | 28-26 | 54 | 0 | 12 | 470.2 | 500 | 343 | 307 | 232 | 430-109 | 92 | 22 | 62 | 1843 | .271 | 45 | 52 | 4 | 20 | 13 |
| 11 | Minnesota | 5.99 | 17-35 | 52 | 2 | 14 | 464.1 | 477 | 363 | 309 | 247 | 396-120 | 94 | 20 | 53 | 1789 | .267 | 68 | 85 | 1 | 30 | 19 |
| 12 | Penn State | 6.12 | 25-25 | 50 | 0 | 7 | 432.2 | 483 | 344 | 294 | 241 | 411-125 | 87 | 13 | 47 | 1706 | .283 | 46 | 93 | 1 | 24 | 20 |
| 13 | Northwestern | 8.53 | 10-40 | 50 | 1 | 2 | 430.1 | 553 | 454 | 408 | 218 | 371-116 | 126 | 27 | 82 | 1760 | .314 | 48 | 89 | 11 | 23 | 23 |
I agree with this, when it comes to college baseball. There are too many different situations in which managers, knowing their teams, choose to sacrifice pitching statistics for longer-term competitive advantage.
For instance, if Rutgers is beating Eastern Schmoe College 15-0 on a Tuesday game, Owens is going to put the cannon fodder/future prospects on the mound and win 15-10, in order to save the important arms for the weekend conference series. Those 10 runs are insignificant, despite how they drag the stats down.
Also, some teams pile up impressive pitching stats playing against a weak schedule, while others give up more runs playing better teams. So comparing statistics is not always entirely useful...
Agreed 111%; it seems like whenever the chips were down this season the Rutgers bullpen threw batting practice.
Joe P.
Last edited:
My point exactly. RU pitching stats were illusory. When it mattered most, in clutch situations, it failed miserably.
