[Cred]

[quote author=Cred link=topic=16598.msg191780#msg191780 date=1492320795]

The quote you pulled from my post was my "interpretation" of  terry's reply to paloalto's claim that "Stanford needs to recruit two elite (top 10) pitchers..." The term "elite" here refers specifically to "top 10" pitchers. None of the pitchers you mention qualifies (or even comes close). I find it next to impossible to conceive of this team going winless in 2017 Pac-12 play were it blessed with a pitching staff anchored by a single elite (top 10, as defined by paloalto) pitcher, not to mention a pair of them.

Therefore, I would reject the following claim:

"The latter two reasons explain why, barring a road win against Oregon State next weekend, we are likely headed toward a second consecutive 0-24 Pac-12 record, not the number of stars associated with our pitching staff."

I would add, however, that I doubt the quest to acquire a pitcher or pitchers of such caliber in recent years has been a whole lot more of a realistic goal than will be acquiring a top 10 coach this summer.

I first want to clarify that my comments were in response to the notion that our team "lacks elite pitching prospects", and as such, there would be nothing that our coaching staff could do to make up for those deficiencies to avoid a winless conference season; by quoting your interpretation, I was not attributing the notion described above to you, Cred. I also agree with you, Cred, that undoubtedly a team with two Top 10 pitchers would not go winless in conference year.

However, I also don't think that a team that does not have two Top 10 pitchers is doomed to a winless, or otherwise, bad conference season (all but a very small number of programs do not have two Top 10 pitchers). As such, in clarifying the final line from my previous post, I was basically saying that the coaching staff's inability to develop our pitchers and come up with a coherent offensive gameplan is the reason we may end up with no wins in Pac-12 play, as opposed to a non-zero number of wins. Stated another way, the raw talent and ability of our pitching staff should be good enough for at least one conference win, if not more. Therefore, I attribute any winless season solely to failures in development and strategy by the coaching staff. In essence, I intended, but failed to clearly re-state one of your earlier points that I wholehearted agree with:

"While I very much doubt the best coach in the nation could have squeezed double-digits conference wins out of this team this year, I also very much doubt that that coach would even have sniffed the stench of 0-24 last year. Tell me if you think a coach of at least microscopically detectable competence might have stood a chance of pulling a win out of the following game from last season's simply inexcusable 0-24 performance: A career sub-.200 hitter mired in a 5 for 45 slump finds herself starting in the "clean up" position. She goes 0 for 5 with 3 strikeouts in the heart of the lineup, as Stanford loses 3-2 in 10 innings."

I appreciate all of your contributions to this thread, Cred, and the contributions of everyone else to this thread too.
[/quote]

Gotcha, D. Thanks for the clarification.

Separately, I cannot let the weekend go by without noting what an otherwise ( :() wacky one it was. Washington wins 2 of 3 vs. Oregon, Utah 2 of 3 vs. Arizona, Oregon State 2 of 3 vs. UCLA.

Will wonders never cease? Let's hope not.

[Cred]

[quote author=Cred link=topic=16598.msg191780#msg191780 date=1492320795]

The quote you pulled from my post was my "interpretation" of  terry's reply to paloalto's claim that "Stanford needs to recruit two elite (top 10) pitchers..." The term "elite" here refers specifically to "top 10" pitchers. None of the pitchers you mention qualifies (or even comes close). I find it next to impossible to conceive of this team going winless in 2017 Pac-12 play were it blessed with a pitching staff anchored by a single elite (top 10, as defined by paloalto) pitcher, not to mention a pair of them.

Therefore, I would reject the following claim:

"The latter two reasons explain why, barring a road win against Oregon State next weekend, we are likely headed toward a second consecutive 0-24 Pac-12 record, not the number of stars associated with our pitching staff."

I would add, however, that I doubt the quest to acquire a pitcher or pitchers of such caliber in recent years has been a whole lot more of a realistic goal than will be acquiring a top 10 coach this summer.

I first want to clarify that my comments were in response to the notion that our team "lacks elite pitching prospects", and as such, there would be nothing that our coaching staff could do to make up for those deficiencies to avoid a winless conference season; by quoting your interpretation, I was not attributing the notion described above to you, Cred. I also agree with you, Cred, that undoubtedly a team with two Top 10 pitchers would not go winless in conference year.

However, I also don't think that a team that does not have two Top 10 pitchers is doomed to a winless, or otherwise, bad conference season (all but a very small number of programs do not have two Top 10 pitchers). As such, in clarifying the final line from my previous post, I was basically saying that the coaching staff's inability to develop our pitchers and come up with a coherent offensive gameplan is the reason we may end up with no wins in Pac-12 play, as opposed to a non-zero number of wins. Stated another way, the raw talent and ability of our pitching staff should be good enough for at least one conference win, if not more. Therefore, I attribute any winless season solely to failures in development and strategy by the coaching staff. In essence, I intended, but failed to clearly re-state one of your earlier points that I wholehearted agree with:

"While I very much doubt the best coach in the nation could have squeezed double-digits conference wins out of this team this year, I also very much doubt that that coach would even have sniffed the stench of 0-24 last year. Tell me if you think a coach of at least microscopically detectable competence might have stood a chance of pulling a win out of the following game from last season's simply inexcusable 0-24 performance: A career sub-.200 hitter mired in a 5 for 45 slump finds herself starting in the "clean up" position. She goes 0 for 5 with 3 strikeouts in the heart of the lineup, as Stanford loses 3-2 in 10 innings."

I appreciate all of your contributions to this thread, Cred, and the contributions of everyone else to this thread too.
[/quote]

Gotcha, D. Thanks for the clarification.

Separately, I cannot let the weekend go by without noting what an otherwise ( :() wacky one it was. Washington wins 2 of 3 vs. Oregon, Utah 2 of 3 vs. Arizona, Oregon State 2 of 3 vs. UCLA.

Will wonders never cease? Let's hope not.