Ross Mitchell

[Will James]

you know what, this is stupid. I'll actually take the time to put together the numbers tomorrow or tuesday. What is the criteria. RISP with the game within 1 run? 2 runs? Tying run (renfroe) at the plate? What is the criteria?

Hell you tell us what criteria you want. And you have to compare that to someone else. Are you using all year or just SEC? If there are only like 4-6 plate appearances regarding your criteria will it really be meaningful? Prolly not. I make sure to get a large enough sample size criteria. I roast small sample sizes.

[Esmerelda Villalobos]

Ill put together a bunch of scnenario stats and you just pick. Obv, 4-6 isnt a large criteria.

[Will James]

Ill put together a bunch of scnenario stats and you just pick. Obv, 4-6 isnt a large criteria.

Just what exactly are you trying to prove? Decide that and look it up

[CadaverDawg]

Just what exactly are you trying to prove? Decide that and look it up

That's kind of what I was wondering too. What are you trying to prove, Ennis?

[Esmerelda Villalobos]

That's kind of what I was wondering too. What are you trying to prove, Ennis?

I guess there is no certain thing. My thing was always clutch, or when it counted. How do you measure that. Im asking. It cant be RISP, just like ERA cant be a total measure. That is why I was thinking RISP, with the game tied, 1 run or 2 runs or tying run at the plate (renfroe)???

[State82]

Well, think about this, too. Early inning rbi's, and enough of them, will keep you from even being in a clutch situation in the latter stages of a game. So, which is more important, getting hits with RISP in the early innings to make a game more "comfortable" or getting hits with RISP in the 8th/9th/10th inning when the game is tied or we are down a run or two? And what would be the difference between the two scenarios? I don't see how this argument can be realistically settled. But, I will look forward to the data regardless. Good night, gentlemen.

[Sandman14]

There seems to be a lot of trash in this thread, but I'll add that Ross Mitchell's effectiveness is in the first time the lineup turns over. You don't want him out there facing guys for the 2nd time, generally speaking. And that's Cohen's view as well, which is the correct view. You want him to get you 6 or 9 outs max.

As for Renfroe, you guys should lay off. It's obvious he's our best hitter, and it's also obvious he's in a slump. He's had big hits before, and hopefully he will catch fire here in the post-season. Right now would I want him up in the most clutch situation? No. I'd want Frazier...then we have guys like Pyrtle and even Rea who have been clutch. CT is rippin now. But basically Renfroe is up there and he just needs to get out of this funk. He's a top 15 major league draft pick. You can point out he's been struggling, but who cares? It's obvious. Here's another obvious point: If he doesn't start coming around, we have zero shot at Omaha.

[Will James]

another obvious point: If he doesn't start coming around, we have zero shot at Omaha.

You look at baseball like football. It's not like a quarterback going down. We just beat a damn good SC team essentially without Renfroe. Our percentage of making it to Omaha without him on the team is probably 1% lower.

WAR is a cumulative stat. Over 162 the MLB league leaders are around 6-9. Statistically it's probably impossible to rack up 1 WAR in a regional or super. So statistically and percentage wise, because that's what it's about, we have essentially the same odds of making Omaha whether he even plays or not.

[Sandman14]

Our percentage of making it to Omaha without him on the team is probably 1% lower.

Do you really believe this?

[Sandman14]

Does WAR take into account that Renfro is batting like .370 with 15 bombs to lead the league and is our best chance to score on the team from 1st or 2nd to home (base running), that he's got the best hose in the nation from right field, that he so fast he can play center very well, and that he gets walked intentionally an incredible amount of time? It's cumulative, right?

[Will James]

Do you really believe this?

Yes. I'm not talking oddsmakers like PTI. I'm talking actual percentages.

[Sandman14]

WAR in talking about Renfroe giving us a 1% better chance to go to Omaha.. That's good stuff.

Memo to you guys, don't try and get so money ball that you start saying things that don't make sense.

[Sandman14]

Will that is hilarious. I've been watching your shenanigans over on 6 pack for awhile. Good stuff with the bunting debate. I actually agree with you to a limited extent, although I like small ball when we need it or if we think we can get an edge in a particular spot by applying pressure. But this is actually just ridiculous. I want to make sure I'm clear. you actually believe that if renfroe were to get hurt and out for the season, our team would have a 1% less chance of making Omaha? That is asinine.

[Will James]

Just as an opinion, I feel that we have a 60% chance of winning a Host regional. I have no idea what the actual number is but with 4 teams competing at various skill levels I'll just say 60%.

Going to a National Seed's house for a Super Regional, love our team but I'm saying 30%. Look at Vandy Ark UK OM on the road. So taking 30% of 60... Means I feel that currently we have an 18% chance of going to Omaha.

Do I think Renfroe, a single position player, is worth more than one whole percentage point to make me change off of 18%? No. In fact, I'd say losing Pollo Graveman Lindgren or Holder would be statistically more costly than losing Renfroe.