Home Blog Page 378

Blog Milestone: 100,000 Hits

By
angry
-
27

Anytime there’s a big milestone like this I’ll use it as a chance to thank you guys, and, like the Obama administration, keep my books transparent. Being proactive, honest, and transparent gives the detractors a lot less ammo to use against.

Thanks to all who follow the blog and mostly those who contribute their good thoughts and responses. Without the latter, this blog would be a man blathering to himself and thus a less interesting place to gather. I’m sure some will argue that is what it is anyway.

This blog started as an experiment to see if there existed a need for an alternative viewpoint in the media, or if all the forums from which I was ostracized were right in that my viewpoint was that of a lone wolf. I think the number of hits and the intelligent and mostly respectful discussion here suggest that the fan base desires more criticism from the mainstream media. It also suggests a latent rage that exists in every beavlet, whether directed at the team’s performance or [shots at] the messenger.

My critics will scoff at the notion, but within the past year I’ve noticed more objectivity and criticism from Beaverblitz, my biggest rival (how’s that for a play on words). They hired a new guy, Travis Rice, who is trying to dissect the practices and tell you when a guy is performing poorly, but a fan still has to read between the lines to get to it. For example, instead of, “this lineman is so bad he couldn’t block his ex-girlfriend on Facebook” (sorry Wilder McAndrews), you’ll get “McAndrews needs to improve if he wants to ward off the youngsters”)…things like that.

So yeah, since we’re being transparent, it’s quite clear that Mamma Machado had a talk with her writers and asked them to be more critical and objective. Hey, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Or something. Thanks, Angie (I mean Keith Pankey’s mom). *Cough*

Some numbers:

Total views: 100,000

Busiest day: 1,570

Posts: 138

Comments: 3,117 (dispersed among ~100 unique commenters).

Subscriptions: 31

Average views per day 2009: 262

Average views per day 2010: 348

And as wordpress notes, “we don’t count your own visits to your blog.” I read that they don’t count any user who is logged in, either. Sorry, detractors.

So in short, it’s been a good first nine months. The numbers show a steady growth in the blog’s fan base and following. The upcoming football season presents, on paper, much opportunity for criticism, from the starting QB job to the scheduling and beyond, so I don’t see anything but good times ahead. I’m going to continue doing this as long as I feel the passion; my only request of readers is to spread the word so that in the future we have even more lively and interesting debate.

Cheers,

Angry

Stanford @ OSU

By
angry
-
21

Apologies, but this is going to be a lazy post, mainly created to have an on-point discussion area for the weekend series with Stanford. I’ve been too busy this week to crunch numbers or come up with a slant for this series.

My gut feeling is that since Stanford isn’t an elite team, the Beavers will take two of three to even out last weekend’s loss.

As I write this, “KRhod” gives up a two run jack to give Stanford a 5 run 7th. I’m still sticking with my prediction though, because I feel like winning versus inferior opponents is the Beaver’s Modus operandi.

Historical Analysis: Oregon State–A Football, Basketball, or Baseball School?

By
angry
-
47

If you hang around sports fans enough, you'll eventually hear sentences such as so-and- so "is a great football school" or so-and so "has great basketball tradition" when describing a particular university. Rarely do you hear the phrase "baseball school" uttered, but I suppose it happens if you're at a Rice alumni dinner. See what I did there? Rice…dinner. Aah, but I digress. When thinking about Oregon State, I think first and foremost it's a football school, but that notion is derived mostly from the fact that, for me, football is the most interesting sport to watch, has the most prestige (i.e. "bragging rights") amongst fellow college sport fans, and therefore it gets the most relevance and notoriety nationally. In other words, it's a football school because I want it to be, and the football team is relevant right now. Additionally, I've only begun following OSU athletics within the past ten years. Which leads me to my next point: if I asked an old-timer, he or she would probably tell me OSU is a basketball school. Basketball is the second most prestigious university sport, and OSU has an impressive resume, including two final fours, but these were in 1949 and 1963, prompting my old-timer comment above. The least prestigious men's sport is baseball. However, OSU has a long-standing tradition of success on the diamond transcending many decades. For example, in 1962 OSU was ranked 15th in the nation; 1963 saw them 10th; 1985 (29th); 1986 (23rd); and of course the recent string of 2005 (7th); 2006 (1st); 2007 (1st); and 2009 (24th). Even before polls were instilled, the Beavers won 13 conference titles dating as far back as 1908. So what type of school is OSU? Here are some numbers that might shed light on the question. The following numbers are as of the last completed season for each respective sport:

  • Baseball| National Titles (2); Conference Titles (22); College World Series Appearances (4); Tournament Appearances (10); Ranked Teams (8); All-time wins (1990, which is 39th all-time); Winning Percentage (.600, which is 50th all-time).

*A point to note when examining any sport is that winning percentage is a better measure of success than total wins, as many programs have more wins due to longevity. A perfect example of this is Fordham, who has the most DI victories, but they have fielded a team for 149 years, where as the Beavers have laced them up for a century.

  • Basketball| National Titles (0); Conference Titles (20); NCAA Tournament Appearances (16), Final Fours (2); Elite Eight (6) Ranked Teams (13), All-time Wins (1,594 which is 15th all-time), Winning Percentage (.575).  The basketball team under Slats Gill, was by all accounts, the glory years of OSU athletics. The 1940's saw some great Beaver teams, and they would have more in the "ranked" column above if not for the fact that the NCAA didn't begin college basketball polls until 1949.
  • Football| National Titles (0); Conference Titles (5); Rose Bowls (3); Ranked Teams (11); BCS games (1 offical, 4 if you count the 3 Rose Bowls); Heisman Trophy Winners (1); Wins (494, which ranks 70th all-time); Winning Percentage (.483, which ranks 95th). As many know, the football program holds one of the more humiliating records in college athletics, having a losing record for 28 seasons. Rice had 28 "non-winning" seasons, which included two .500 campaigns, thus allowing OSU to hold this humiliating record to themselves.

My initial thought after crunching the numbers is that OSU is first and foremost a baseball school. After all, the teams +60% winning rate is highest of the three major men's sports and they earned the school's only national titles. What better way to gauge success? But then I had to consider the dominance of the basketball team under Slats Gill and Ralph Miller. Gill has the most wins in school history, and Miller has the highest winning percentage. And then there is football. For me, the 70s and 80s ruined what was once (and could have been) a glorious and prestigious record book. The Beavers futility coincided with the advent of sports television, which ingrained the loser perception into the national media until this day. As much as we fans love football, and it's the sport that garners the most posts, attention, and response on this blog, I have a really hard time saying OSU is a "football school" after looking through the record book. My ranking would be:

  1. Basketball
  2. Baseball
  3. Football

Agree or disagree? I'd like to hear the perspective of some old-timers who lived through the glory years of all these respective sports. I'm sure they can shed some light on it.

Beaver Baseball: UCLA @ Oregon State

By
angry
-
49

This is a big weekend for the baseball team. They can declare themselves contenders, or fold like pretenders. The game’s first pitch is about 30 minutes away as I write this, and I have to say, this is about as psyched as I get for a regular season series.

First let’s look at how the teams compare in the vital statistics:

Team batting| .347 vs .271. Advantage: UCLA

Team slugging| .510 vs .408. Advantage: UCLA

Team OBP| .429 vs .380. Advantage: UCLA

Runs per game (offense)| 8 vs 7.2 Advantage: UCLA (if there’s a reason for Beaver fans to hope, it’s that this number is relatively equal).

Team ERA| 2.43 vs 2.94 Advantage: UCLA. A statistic you’d think would be won by the Beavers is not.

Opponents BA (pitching)| .192 vs .228. Advantage: UCLA

Fielding %| 9.72 vs 9.70 Advantage: UCLA

UCLA has the edge in every statistic that matters, but to me, the most glaring mismatch is that of slugging percentage. In college baseball, extra-base hits win games, while peppering the outfield with the occasional single does not.

Just like the football and basketball programs, the Beavers baseball team is not ready to win this kind of series. Though to be fair, they are more capable than the other two programs. Earlier this season I said the Beavers would win three-games series (i.e. 3-0 or 2-1) versus weak or equal competition and lose series (i.e. 0-3 or 1-2) versus elite competition. I’m holding steady with that prognostication, and thinking that at home, the Beavers find a way to eke out one victory (think something close, like a 4-3 score). After all, what statistics do not show is that the Beav’s baseball team has the best coach at Oregon State, and Oregon State has the best  coach in college baseball. That’s worth at least one win, right?

Projected Starting Lineup

By
angry
-
31

Last year after the Cincy game I nailed down what the starting lineup should be, and a few weeks later it came to fruition and the season improved greatly. This year, I’m going to put it in writing even earlier. You guys can judge my ability to see (or not see) talent; I’ll lay it on the line for the sake of good discussion.

QB–Ryan Katz

RB–Quiz

FB–Darkins

WRs– (1) Rodgers, (2) Wheaton, (3) Nichols (slot), (4) Catchings/Bishop

TE–(1) Joe H. (2) Camp

OL–Phillip, Pohl, Alex L., J. Andrews, Remmers/Enger

DE–(1) Miller (2) Taylor Henry

DT–(1) Paea (2) Oldander

MLB–Tony Wilson

OLB–Dwight Roberson

OLB–Doctor

LB (backup)–Akuna

CB–Hardin

CB–Poyer

CB (nickle)–Dockery

SS–Collins

FS–Mitchell

KR–Keynan Parker and Jordan Poyer (save James’ legs/reduce injury; these guys can do an equal job).

PR–James Rodgers

P–I guess it’s Hekker since we forced our best punter to transfer.

Barring injury, this should be the starting lineup come kickoff. Will it be?  I doubt it. I have a feeling we’re going to see an Unga or two thrown in, Dockery in the starting lineup, Grant Johnson on the line, maybe even Burke. I’m of the opinion you (almost) always take talent over experience and “coach up” the greenhorns, but we’re going to see a less talented lineup on opening day because Mike Riley prefers experience. Plain and simple. Let’s just see how long it takes him to make the corrections and put the right players on the field.

1...377378379...401Page 378 of 401