Baseball at Cal - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Baseball at Cal (/thread-19014.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Baseball at Cal (/thread-19014.html)
Baseball at Cal - JJJ - 02-25-2020
1-1 B4. On Pac-12 Networks. Just tuning in. Dieter now on the mound.
Madera86 - Madera86 - 02-25-2020
2 errors already. If the Bad News Bears could turn it around, why can’t we?
RE: Baseball at Cal - JJJ - 02-25-2020
Dieter is dealing. Just struck out Darren Baker (Dusty’s son). 21 pitches, 2 shutout innings.
Dieter: 3IP, 5 Ks. 1-1 after 6.
RE: Baseball at Cal - JJJ - 02-25-2020
Dang. We dropped the non conference contest 4-8.
https://gostanford.com/news/2020/2/25/baseball-seventh-proves-costly.aspx
RE: Baseball at Cal - StanfordMatt - 02-26-2020
In my opinion, Esquer demonstrated over the last two seasons that he’s a very good bench coach. I wasn’t a fan of his hire initially but he won me over very quickly. I thought he got just about everything he could out of those two teams. The players seemed to respond positively to the change in leadership style from Marquess and Esquer also generally pulled the right strings from an in-game management perspective. All that said, most of the talent was already in place upon his arrival. His ability to recruit and develop remains an open question in my book and this year’s start is not promising on those two fronts.
On a positive note, I should have a lot more free time this spring. After living and dying with every pitch the last several seasons, I’ll be content to just check the box scores this season.
RE: Baseball at Cal - CTcard - 02-27-2020
(02-26-2020, 07:10 AM)StanfordMatt Wrote: In my opinion, Esquer demonstrated over the last two seasons that he’s a very good bench coach. ... All that said, most of the talent was already in place upon his arrival. His ability to recruit and develop remains an open question in my book and this year’s start is not promising on those two fronts.
A small breakdown on these issues.
This year's seniors and fifth years played their first year or two under Marquess. (there are a couple of 5th years)
This year's juniors played their first year under Esquer, but would have been recruited exclusively by Marquess' staff.
This year's sophomores would have been officially Esquer's first class signed, but obviously much of the ground work would have been under Marquess.
This year's frosh would have been finishing their sophomore years in HS when Esquer was named coach. I would think that would be sufficient to call it fully Esquer's class, but in another thread Bobk thinks that title should be to the class coming in this coming fall: Help on the way.
So, Esquer would be responsible for two years of development for everyone (or, as long as they have been at Stanford if shorter). His responsibility for recruiting the current team is mixed.
The current frosh class doesn't have the kind of guys who walk in the door as stars, but seems to have potential. However, there are probably too many frosh starting at this point.
The contribution from current second and third year players, typically the heart of a top level college baseball team, is not what one would hope - particularly among non-pitchers. Third year starters are Christian Robinson OF (bat avg 0.232, OPS 0.567), Nick Breuser 1B (0.172, 0.622), and Tim Tawa SS (0.188, 0.525). Second year starters include nobody regularly but Brandon Dieter originally was starting at 2B (6 starts: 0.133, 0.321), Andrew Kretschmar has had two recent solid starts at 2B (0.545, 1.400 on small numbers), Grant Burton has had two starts in the OF (0.167, 0.542).
The second year class is also rather small. I think we're going to have to wait for the current frosh class to develop before the baseball team is good again.
RE: Baseball at Cal - BobK - 02-27-2020
I’ll use Perfect Game for this
The 2018 class was ranked 57th with one top 100 player
The 2019 class was ranked 32 with 2 top 100 players. Almost all if not all were committed to Stanford when Mark was the Head Coach. These are the Frosh. Toomer isn’t playing baseball football only. Our top recruit didn’t get accepted. Last name Diamond.
The 2020 class is ranked 32 with 2 top 100 players both of whom could go in the first 2 rounds. However this ranking of 32 is before the June draft where many commits will go pro thus changing the ranking quite a bit
The 2021 class almost 9 months away from signing and almost certainly none yet accepted is ranked 30 with 9 commits 1 is top 100. These athletes have just started their JR year of HS baseball
The 2022 class, all HS Sophs, is ranked 17 with 7 commits and 2 top 100
Baseball is an early commit sport as you can see.
Softball just changed their rules as did another sport or two where offers are not not allowed until after May 15 of their Soph or as in many states right after their soph year.
RE: Baseball at Cal - BobK - 02-27-2020
More on early commits.
2022 commits Toran O’Harran a pitcher committed the last day of his Frosh year
His Travel team catcher Malcolm Moore committed about the same time. Maybe a month later
RE: Baseball at Cal - BobK - 02-27-2020
Former commit not accepted Derek Diamond is at Ole Miss.
RE: Baseball at Cal - CTcard - 02-27-2020
(02-27-2020, 08:57 AM)BobK Wrote: I’ll use Perfect Game for this
The 2018 class was ranked 57th with one top 100 player
The 2019 class was ranked 32 with 2 top 100 players. Almost all if not all were committed to Stanford when Mark was the Head Coach. These are the Frosh. Toomer isn’t playing baseball football only. Our top recruit didn’t get accepted. Last name Diamond.
The 2020 class is ranked 32 with 2 top 100 players both of whom could go in the first 2 rounds. However this ranking of 32 is before the June draft where many commits will go pro thus changing the ranking quite a bit
The 2021 class almost 9 months away from signing and almost certainly none yet accepted is ranked 30 with 9 commits 1 is top 100. These athletes have just started their JR year of HS baseball
The 2022 class, all HS Sophs, is ranked 17 with 7 commits and 2 top 100
Stanford baseball, like most Stanford sports, tends to have smaller incoming classes and less churn than most other programs. Thus, in these ranking systems Stanford tends to rank higher on a per player basis than on total points. Which actually matters more for eventual team quality is unclear (and the subject of numerous board discussions), but one way or the other it is something to consider in analyzing Stanford recruiting.
So, to supplement Bobk's numbers above (all from Perfect Game):
Class of 2018 was #57 overall, #19 player avg, 8 players
Class of 2019 was #32 overall, #22 player avg, 11 players
Class of 2020 is #15 overall (so far), #2 player avg, 11 players
Class of 2021 is #30 overall (so far), #31 player avg, 9 players
Class of 2022 is #19 overall (so far), #26 player avg, 7 players
(especially for 2022, the player avg is kind of meaningless, some teams near the top have a single player committed.)
RE: Baseball at Cal - Treefence - 02-27-2020
(02-26-2020, 07:10 AM)StanfordMatt Wrote: In my opinion, Esquer demonstrated over the last two seasons that he’s a very good bench coach. I wasn’t a fan of his hire initially but he won me over very quickly. I thought he got just about everything he could out of those two teams. The players seemed to respond positively to the change in leadership style from Marquess and Esquer also generally pulled the right strings from an in-game management perspective. All that said, most of the talent was already in place upon his arrival. His ability to recruit and develop remains an open question in my book and this year’s start is not promising on those two fronts.
On a positive note, I should have a lot more free time this spring. After living and dying with every pitch the last several seasons, I’ll be content to just check the box scores this season.
Honestly from what I saw I really hated almost all of his decisions. He constantly showed a predisposition to play small ball, bunting in every situation imaginable. It seems he has no desire to follow any analytics based strategies which to me means we are working with an incomplete deck. Overall using analytics isn't going to make a great team bad or a bad team great, but it is very alarming to me that we are having a bad start in Esquer's third year. I hope it's just a small bump in the road, but almost every game we've played hasn't been close, except our 1 win , and a 1 run loss vs Santa Clara.