[martyup]

Regions sorted by average Massey Rating

Wow.  We are in the toughest regional by a magnitude brobdingnagian.

[martyup]

Regions sorted by average Massey Rating

Wow.  We are in the toughest regional by a magnitude brobdingnagian.

[OutsiderFan]

The data out of these regional seedings make it look like a conspiracy against Stanford by any objective measure. Esquer and Muir should be fuming at the NCAA Baseball committee and demanding answers. How can they possibly explain what they did to Stanford?

[OutsiderFan]

The data out of these regional seedings make it look like a conspiracy against Stanford by any objective measure. Esquer and Muir should be fuming at the NCAA Baseball committee and demanding answers. How can they possibly explain what they did to Stanford?

[Mr. Baseball]

The teams that should be upset are UCSB and Mississippi State.

Stanford WILL take care of its business.

[Mr. Baseball]

The teams that should be upset are UCSB and Mississippi State.

Stanford WILL take care of its business.

[OutsiderFan]

Stanford's 20-4 road record for sure makes them a nightmare pairing for Miss State should they both win their regionals.

[OutsiderFan]

Stanford's 20-4 road record for sure makes them a nightmare pairing for Miss State should they both win their regionals.

[Mr. Baseball]

Card fans are complaining...Imagine the buzz in Starkville where, if seeds hold, they will be hosting the No. 3 team in the country as the No. 4 team with only one eligible for Omaha!

[Mr. Baseball]

Card fans are complaining...Imagine the buzz in Starkville where, if seeds hold, they will be hosting the No. 3 team in the country as the No. 4 team with only one eligible for Omaha!

[BostonCard]

Regions sorted by average Massey Rating

Wow.  We are in the toughest regional by a magnitude of immense proportions.

Yes, our two seed is more highly ranked than all but five #1 seeds.  Our #3 seed is more highly ranked than four #1 seeds, and is more highly ranked than all but two #2 seeds (our own, and Arkansas).  At least our #4 seed is merely the second most highly ranked #4 (and more highly ranked than one #3).

BC

[BostonCard]

Regions sorted by average Massey Rating

Wow.  We are in the toughest regional by a magnitude of immense proportions.

Yes, our two seed is more highly ranked than all but five #1 seeds.  Our #3 seed is more highly ranked than four #1 seeds, and is more highly ranked than all but two #2 seeds (our own, and Arkansas).  At least our #4 seed is merely the second most highly ranked #4 (and more highly ranked than one #3).

BC

[d4cohn]

The data out of these regional seedings make it look like a conspiracy against Stanford by any objective measure. Esquer and Muir should be fuming at the NCAA Baseball committee and demanding answers. How can they possibly explain what they did to Stanford?

Our regional assignment can be explained in part on geography, which is considered in baseball/softball in making regional assignments
(in softball at least, the terminology used is maximizing the number of bus trips versus flights to keep the costs of hosting the championship down; hence Fullerton being sent so many times to PA). UCSB, Sac State and Fresno State can all bus easily to Palo Alto. And we finished behind UCLA in most if not all metrics, and in conference standings. Hence UCSB being likely sent to us, as opposed to UCLA. 

I think people's notions of a conspiracy are misplaced. If anything, direct your anger to the policy of prioritizing geography in baseball/softball, as opposed to men's and women's basketball, where geography is generally only considered for the Top 16 Seeds (Top 4 seedlines). 

Furthermore, I am not sure if Massey or other non-RPI ratings are made available to the committee in their evaluation (I know in softball, Massey is not made available, and therefore, explicitly not part of their consideration). As a data scientist, I would love to see the committee follow MBB's lead this year in moving beyond RPI (even if MBB's RPI replacement of NET has its own flaws). I think the committee would also be served by having as many certified metrics available as reasonable/possible.

[d4cohn]

The data out of these regional seedings make it look like a conspiracy against Stanford by any objective measure. Esquer and Muir should be fuming at the NCAA Baseball committee and demanding answers. How can they possibly explain what they did to Stanford?

Our regional assignment can be explained in part on geography, which is considered in baseball/softball in making regional assignments
(in softball at least, the terminology used is maximizing the number of bus trips versus flights to keep the costs of hosting the championship down; hence Fullerton being sent so many times to PA). UCSB, Sac State and Fresno State can all bus easily to Palo Alto. And we finished behind UCLA in most if not all metrics, and in conference standings. Hence UCSB being likely sent to us, as opposed to UCLA. 

I think people's notions of a conspiracy are misplaced. If anything, direct your anger to the policy of prioritizing geography in baseball/softball, as opposed to men's and women's basketball, where geography is generally only considered for the Top 16 Seeds (Top 4 seedlines). 

Furthermore, I am not sure if Massey or other non-RPI ratings are made available to the committee in their evaluation (I know in softball, Massey is not made available, and therefore, explicitly not part of their consideration). As a data scientist, I would love to see the committee follow MBB's lead this year in moving beyond RPI (even if MBB's RPI replacement of NET has its own flaws). I think the committee would also be served by having as many certified metrics available as reasonable/possible.

[BostonCard]

I agree that this is not an issue of conspiracy, but rather an issue of the fact that all the breaks went against us.

Let's see... the committee decided to deviate from the RPI, but did so to move us down.  It would have been one thing if the committee stood pat on RPI, but it made the elective decision to downgrade us.  On what basis?  There was no other metric in which we performed worse than RPI.  Not any of the polls, not any of the other computer rankings.  Nothing.

But OK, maybe the committee makes up for the fact that it underseeded us by pairing us with someone who was overseeded in the super-regional.  Then at least it is acknowledgement that despite the underseeding, in terms of practical aspects, we would play one of the easier teams in the super regional.  But no, Mississippi state is also underseeded, and is probably better than the 6th seed it got.  By RPI, they are #4, for example, as they are by Massey rating.  So, the committee did no favors to Stanford (or Mississippi State either) by pairing two teams that were under-rated.

So maybe the committee makes up for the fact that it gave us a tough super-regional opponent both by underseeding us and underseeding our opponents.  Surely they will make up for it by giving us a clear path to the super-regional by pairing us with easier regional opponents.  But nope, the committee screwed us, again, by giving us a particularly difficult regional.

This was brutal.

BC

[BostonCard]

I agree that this is not an issue of conspiracy, but rather an issue of the fact that all the breaks went against us.

Let's see... the committee decided to deviate from the RPI, but did so to move us down.  It would have been one thing if the committee stood pat on RPI, but it made the elective decision to downgrade us.  On what basis?  There was no other metric in which we performed worse than RPI.  Not any of the polls, not any of the other computer rankings.  Nothing.

But OK, maybe the committee makes up for the fact that it underseeded us by pairing us with someone who was overseeded in the super-regional.  Then at least it is acknowledgement that despite the underseeding, in terms of practical aspects, we would play one of the easier teams in the super regional.  But no, Mississippi state is also underseeded, and is probably better than the 6th seed it got.  By RPI, they are #4, for example, as they are by Massey rating.  So, the committee did no favors to Stanford (or Mississippi State either) by pairing two teams that were under-rated.

So maybe the committee makes up for the fact that it gave us a tough super-regional opponent both by underseeding us and underseeding our opponents.  Surely they will make up for it by giving us a clear path to the super-regional by pairing us with easier regional opponents.  But nope, the committee screwed us, again, by giving us a particularly difficult regional.

This was brutal.

BC

[d4cohn]

I agree that this is not an issue of conspiracy, but rather an issue of the fact that all the breaks went against us.

Let's see... the committee decided to deviate from the RPI, but did so to move us down.  It would have been one thing if the committee stood pat on RPI, but it made the elective decision to downgrade us.  On what basis?  There was no other metric in which we performed worse than RPI.  Not any of the polls, not any of the other computer rankings.  Nothing.

But OK, maybe the committee makes up for the fact that it underseeded us by pairing us with someone who was overseeded in the super-regional.  Then at least it is acknowledgement that despite the underseeding, in terms of practical aspects, we would play one of the easier teams in the super regional.  But no, Mississippi state is also underseeded, and is probably better than the 6th seed it got.  By RPI, they are #4, for example, as they are by Massey rating.  So, the committee did no favors to Stanford (or Mississippi State either) by pairing two teams that were under-rated.

So maybe the committee makes up for the fact that it gave us a tough super-regional opponent both by underseeding us and underseeding our opponents.  Surely they will make up for it by giving us a clear path to the super-regional by pairing us with easier regional opponents.  But nope, the committee screwed us, again, by giving us a particularly difficult regional.

This was brutal.

BC

I definitely understand your point, but what about geography, which I also refer to. From my perspective, you can consider it from all of the "metric breaks" lining up against us as you said, or perhaps, the simpler explanation: Fresno State, Sac State and UCSB are all very close to PA, and the teams that can bus to Stanford all happen to be particularly strong, perhaps even more so than usual.

Regarding the super regional assignment, yeah, geography doesn't factor there. Our national seed number seems to be a by-product of our RPI number, and perhaps a weaker non-conference schedule (did we beat any tourney teams in non-conference play? I don't think we did, other than a Fresno State midweek). In softball at least, those are the two things a National seed can ill-afford, as a weak non-conference schedule, coupled with a lower RPI number, will get you downgraded like Alabama did in softball, leading our placement in the Gainesville Regional, as opposed to being sent to Tuscoloosa.

[d4cohn]

I agree that this is not an issue of conspiracy, but rather an issue of the fact that all the breaks went against us.

Let's see... the committee decided to deviate from the RPI, but did so to move us down.  It would have been one thing if the committee stood pat on RPI, but it made the elective decision to downgrade us.  On what basis?  There was no other metric in which we performed worse than RPI.  Not any of the polls, not any of the other computer rankings.  Nothing.

But OK, maybe the committee makes up for the fact that it underseeded us by pairing us with someone who was overseeded in the super-regional.  Then at least it is acknowledgement that despite the underseeding, in terms of practical aspects, we would play one of the easier teams in the super regional.  But no, Mississippi state is also underseeded, and is probably better than the 6th seed it got.  By RPI, they are #4, for example, as they are by Massey rating.  So, the committee did no favors to Stanford (or Mississippi State either) by pairing two teams that were under-rated.

So maybe the committee makes up for the fact that it gave us a tough super-regional opponent both by underseeding us and underseeding our opponents.  Surely they will make up for it by giving us a clear path to the super-regional by pairing us with easier regional opponents.  But nope, the committee screwed us, again, by giving us a particularly difficult regional.

This was brutal.

BC

I definitely understand your point, but what about geography, which I also refer to. From my perspective, you can consider it from all of the "metric breaks" lining up against us as you said, or perhaps, the simpler explanation: Fresno State, Sac State and UCSB are all very close to PA, and the teams that can bus to Stanford all happen to be particularly strong, perhaps even more so than usual.

Regarding the super regional assignment, yeah, geography doesn't factor there. Our national seed number seems to be a by-product of our RPI number, and perhaps a weaker non-conference schedule (did we beat any tourney teams in non-conference play? I don't think we did, other than a Fresno State midweek). In softball at least, those are the two things a National seed can ill-afford, as a weak non-conference schedule, coupled with a lower RPI number, will get you downgraded like Alabama did in softball, leading our placement in the Gainesville Regional, as opposed to being sent to Tuscoloosa.

[BostonCard]

That only explains why we were paired up with those three in the regional.  It doesn't explain why we were under-seeded (unless the committee wanted it to look not quite as bad that they had such highly ranked teams playing together).  It certainly doesn't explain why we were paired with Mississippi State (#4 by RPI) in the regionals, or awarded MSU the 4 seed and moved Georgia and Arkansas down 1.  The committee could have awarded us the 10 seed that our RPI would have predicted and shipped us to Louisville.  Or it could have given us a 9 seed and sent us to Texas Tech. Or (gasp) it could have recognized that having gotten a really tough regional, that it might make it up by hosting the super regional.

Or it could have shipped #34 ranked (by RPI) Fresno State to be the third seed at UCLA and sent us #77 Loyola Marymount, to make up for the fact that we are getting #21 Santa Barbara and they are getting #32 Baylor (I recognize that LMU is in UCLA's backyard, but Fresno is almost equidistant, and Santa Barbara is certainly closer to LA than to Stanford, while it's a wash for Baylor).

BC

[BostonCard]

That only explains why we were paired up with those three in the regional.  It doesn't explain why we were under-seeded (unless the committee wanted it to look not quite as bad that they had such highly ranked teams playing together).  It certainly doesn't explain why we were paired with Mississippi State (#4 by RPI) in the regionals, or awarded MSU the 4 seed and moved Georgia and Arkansas down 1.  The committee could have awarded us the 10 seed that our RPI would have predicted and shipped us to Louisville.  Or it could have given us a 9 seed and sent us to Texas Tech. Or (gasp) it could have recognized that having gotten a really tough regional, that it might make it up by hosting the super regional.

Or it could have shipped #34 ranked (by RPI) Fresno State to be the third seed at UCLA and sent us #77 Loyola Marymount, to make up for the fact that we are getting #21 Santa Barbara and they are getting #32 Baylor (I recognize that LMU is in UCLA's backyard, but Fresno is almost equidistant, and Santa Barbara is certainly closer to LA than to Stanford, while it's a wash for Baylor).

BC

[OutsiderFan]

The geography consideration almost makes the entire OOC season pointless and makes a mockery of the regular season. Why bother playing tough teams like Texas and CSF if beating them 5/7 games and winning both series get you an 11 seed after finishing #2 in a Top 3 conference?

[OutsiderFan]

The geography consideration almost makes the entire OOC season pointless and makes a mockery of the regular season. Why bother playing tough teams like Texas and CSF if beating them 5/7 games and winning both series get you an 11 seed after finishing #2 in a Top 3 conference?

[Mick]

Seven SEC team in the seeded sixteen.
Their combined conference record against those 16 teams:
4-7.

Three Pac 12 teams in the seeded sixteen.
Their record against those teams:
8-5.

That was such a good point, I called the NCAA to complain.  Here's their response:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg

[Mick]

Seven SEC team in the seeded sixteen.
Their combined conference record against those 16 teams:
4-7.

Three Pac 12 teams in the seeded sixteen.
Their record against those teams:
8-5.

That was such a good point, I called the NCAA to complain.  Here's their response:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg

[d4cohn]

The geography consideration almost makes the entire OOC season pointless and makes a mockery of the regular season. Why bother playing tough teams like Texas and CSF if beating them 5/7 games and winning both series get you an 11 seed after finishing #2 in a Top 3 conference?

That is part of the problem re our seedline (not necessarily the teams in our regional). CSF and Texas weren't tough teams this year, and both missed the tournament, finishing way below their typical standards. Unlucky in scheduling, yes. But neither was a tough team this year.

[d4cohn]

The geography consideration almost makes the entire OOC season pointless and makes a mockery of the regular season. Why bother playing tough teams like Texas and CSF if beating them 5/7 games and winning both series get you an 11 seed after finishing #2 in a Top 3 conference?

That is part of the problem re our seedline (not necessarily the teams in our regional). CSF and Texas weren't tough teams this year, and both missed the tournament, finishing way below their typical standards. Unlucky in scheduling, yes. But neither was a tough team this year.

[M T]

I definitely understand your point, but what about geography, which I also refer to. From my perspective, you can consider it from all of the "metric breaks" lining up against us as you said, or perhaps, the simpler explanation: Fresno State, Sac State and UCSB are all very close to PA, and the teams that can bus to Stanford all happen to be particularly strong, perhaps even more so than usual.

What does "numerically" mean in the NCAA Division I Baseball Committee's statement about how teams are assigned to regions?  I think it has to be the measures of quality of the teams, and is present to deal with a situation such as this year.

However, teams may be moved outside their regions, if necessary, to balance the bracket numerically, or if the proximity to an opponent outside the region would be comparable and a better competitive matchup would occur.

Regarding the spreadsheet that shows the disparity of the Massey rankings in the regionals:  Is this just a different view of how the western schools' results are devalued in the RPI?  That is, if someone does the same spreadsheet for RPI, will it look much more balanced?

Another way to balance things out would have been to choose UCSB (RPI #21) as a top 16 seed rather than Ole Miss (RPI #22).  (Of course, I would point out that the top-16 are supposed to be chosen only on their ranking, not by region of country or how it balances the regionals.  If anyone on the committee says otherwise and that's why they chose a SEC school, then they need to re-read their own documents.)   Of course, Ole Miss would have the weight of the Baseball Committee chair from the SEC, while there is no one from the WAC in the Baseball Committee to push its case forward.  (Does the a conference get extra money from a member school hosting regionals, perhaps from TV rights?)

[M T]

I definitely understand your point, but what about geography, which I also refer to. From my perspective, you can consider it from all of the "metric breaks" lining up against us as you said, or perhaps, the simpler explanation: Fresno State, Sac State and UCSB are all very close to PA, and the teams that can bus to Stanford all happen to be particularly strong, perhaps even more so than usual.

What does "numerically" mean in the NCAA Division I Baseball Committee's statement about how teams are assigned to regions?  I think it has to be the measures of quality of the teams, and is present to deal with a situation such as this year.

However, teams may be moved outside their regions, if necessary, to balance the bracket numerically, or if the proximity to an opponent outside the region would be comparable and a better competitive matchup would occur.

Regarding the spreadsheet that shows the disparity of the Massey rankings in the regionals:  Is this just a different view of how the western schools' results are devalued in the RPI?  That is, if someone does the same spreadsheet for RPI, will it look much more balanced?

Another way to balance things out would have been to choose UCSB (RPI #21) as a top 16 seed rather than Ole Miss (RPI #22).  (Of course, I would point out that the top-16 are supposed to be chosen only on their ranking, not by region of country or how it balances the regionals.  If anyone on the committee says otherwise and that's why they chose a SEC school, then they need to re-read their own documents.)   Of course, Ole Miss would have the weight of the Baseball Committee chair from the SEC, while there is no one from the WAC in the Baseball Committee to push its case forward.  (Does the a conference get extra money from a member school hosting regionals, perhaps from TV rights?)

[CTcard]

Regions sorted by average Massey Rating

I like the table a lot. Gives a great overview of the different regionals.

That is Massey's own computer power ranking, not the Massey composite (not that you said anything different, just for clarification). I started doing a similar table with Boyd Nation's ISR, but it was similar enough that it wasn't worth the effort.

It's worth looking at the same table based upon RPI. I think that will tell us something about how the committee went about their business.

Host                 1 seed       2 seed       3 seed        4 seed          Average
Stanford             10              21               34              117            45.5
Oregon St           20             23               39                96             44.5
Mississippi         22             28               38                78              41.5
Georgia                3              37               50              107            49.25
Vanderbilt           1              24               86              126             59.25
Ok State               7             29                35             100             42.75
Texas Tech         11            25                27              150              53.25
N Carolina          12            14               40               147              53.25
LSU                    16            33               45               138             58.0
W Virginia          13            15               44               135              51.75
Arkansas              6            30               59               184              69.75
UCLA                   2            32               77                198             77.25
Louisville             9            36               26               187              64.5
Miss State            4            17               73               206              75.0
E Carolina            5           18                56               177              64.0
Ga Tech               7            19                57              235              79.5



For the most part, you can see that the committee built the field on the RPI.


Among the 1 seeds, OSU and Mississippi have been heavily discussed as the two hosts who were promoted vs their RPI.

Among 2 seeds, the only teams notably promoted above their RPI ranks were Florida Atlantic in the Georgia region and Indiana in the Louisville regional. The latter is part of the one odd swap, as the committee penalized the third seed in the Louisville regional, Illinois State, vs their RPI to the point where Indiana and Illinois State would appear to be swapped as seeds. While the non-RPI computer rankings don't think the two were swapped, I don't know enough about midwest baseball to know what the committee was thinking there.


At the other end of the 3 seeds, vs 4 seeds, there's a single minor swap but pretty much true to RPI.

[CTcard]

Regions sorted by average Massey Rating

I like the table a lot. Gives a great overview of the different regionals.

That is Massey's own computer power ranking, not the Massey composite (not that you said anything different, just for clarification). I started doing a similar table with Boyd Nation's ISR, but it was similar enough that it wasn't worth the effort.

It's worth looking at the same table based upon RPI. I think that will tell us something about how the committee went about their business.

Host                 1 seed       2 seed       3 seed        4 seed          Average
Stanford             10              21               34              117            45.5
Oregon St           20             23               39                96             44.5
Mississippi         22             28               38                78              41.5
Georgia                3              37               50              107            49.25
Vanderbilt           1              24               86              126             59.25
Ok State               7             29                35             100             42.75
Texas Tech         11            25                27              150              53.25
N Carolina          12            14               40               147              53.25
LSU                    16            33               45               138             58.0
W Virginia          13            15               44               135              51.75
Arkansas              6            30               59               184              69.75
UCLA                   2            32               77                198             77.25
Louisville             9            36               26               187              64.5
Miss State            4            17               73               206              75.0
E Carolina            5           18                56               177              64.0
Ga Tech               7            19                57              235              79.5



For the most part, you can see that the committee built the field on the RPI.


Among the 1 seeds, OSU and Mississippi have been heavily discussed as the two hosts who were promoted vs their RPI.

Among 2 seeds, the only teams notably promoted above their RPI ranks were Florida Atlantic in the Georgia region and Indiana in the Louisville regional. The latter is part of the one odd swap, as the committee penalized the third seed in the Louisville regional, Illinois State, vs their RPI to the point where Indiana and Illinois State would appear to be swapped as seeds. While the non-RPI computer rankings don't think the two were swapped, I don't know enough about midwest baseball to know what the committee was thinking there.


At the other end of the 3 seeds, vs 4 seeds, there's a single minor swap but pretty much true to RPI.

[JJJ]

In case anyone missed this (which I kind of doubt):

Write-up from gostanford.com:

No. 4 Stanford welcomes UC Santa Barbara, Fresno State and Sacramento State to Sunken Diamond for an NCAA Regional, beginning Friday at 1 p.m.

It is the third straight season Stanford has played host to a regional and the 18th time in program history. The Cardinal (41-11, 22-7-0 Pac-12) opens the regional when it takes on Sacramento State in the opening matchup at 1 p.m. on Friday, followed by a duel between UC Santa Barbara and Fresno State at 7 p.m.

The double-elimination format continues through Saturday and Sunday with Monday's game only to be played if necessary. Stanford Regional central, which includes all game times, broadcast information and team information, can be found at GoStanford.com.

http://gostanford.com/news/2019/5/28/bas...egins.aspx

Stanford Regional Central (also referenced above):

http://gostanford.com/sports/2019/5/27/s...ntral.aspx

[JJJ]

In case anyone missed this (which I kind of doubt):

Write-up from gostanford.com:

No. 4 Stanford welcomes UC Santa Barbara, Fresno State and Sacramento State to Sunken Diamond for an NCAA Regional, beginning Friday at 1 p.m.

It is the third straight season Stanford has played host to a regional and the 18th time in program history. The Cardinal (41-11, 22-7-0 Pac-12) opens the regional when it takes on Sacramento State in the opening matchup at 1 p.m. on Friday, followed by a duel between UC Santa Barbara and Fresno State at 7 p.m.

The double-elimination format continues through Saturday and Sunday with Monday's game only to be played if necessary. Stanford Regional central, which includes all game times, broadcast information and team information, can be found at GoStanford.com.

http://gostanford.com/news/2019/5/28/bas...egins.aspx

Stanford Regional Central (also referenced above):

http://gostanford.com/sports/2019/5/27/s...ntral.aspx

[JJJ]

And accolades for the team including Co-Defensive POY Maverick Handley!

Catcher Maverick Handley was named Pac-12 Co-Defensive Player of the Year and eight other Cardinal earned places on the Pac-12 All-Conference teams, as announced Wednesday.

Handley, a native of Lakewood, Colorado, shares Pac-12 Defensive Player of the Year honors with Oregon State's Adley Rutschman, and was also a member of the All-Conference team. Handley (bioengineering) leads the Pac-12 in pickoffs (7), yielding just three passed balls on the season while throwing out 10-of-26 stolen base attempts against him – Stanford has also allowed a league-low 17 sacrifice bunts this season. Since his freshman season in 2017, the Cardinal is 97-23-0 (.808) when Handley starts behind home plate.

First baseman Andrew Daschbach, pitcher Jack Little, the versatile Will Matthiessen, who has served as the designated hitter in all 52 games while making 14 appearances on the mound, and Brandon Wulff joined Handley on the All-Conference team.

Duke Kinamon, Kyle Stowers and Tim Tawa were named All-Pac-12 honorable mention while Daschbach, Handley and Stowers were named to the All-Defensive team. Nick Bellafronto and Kinamon were named All-Defense honorable mentions.

https://gostanford.com/news/2019/5/29/ba...nized.aspx

[JJJ]

And accolades for the team including Co-Defensive POY Maverick Handley!

Catcher Maverick Handley was named Pac-12 Co-Defensive Player of the Year and eight other Cardinal earned places on the Pac-12 All-Conference teams, as announced Wednesday.

Handley, a native of Lakewood, Colorado, shares Pac-12 Defensive Player of the Year honors with Oregon State's Adley Rutschman, and was also a member of the All-Conference team. Handley (bioengineering) leads the Pac-12 in pickoffs (7), yielding just three passed balls on the season while throwing out 10-of-26 stolen base attempts against him – Stanford has also allowed a league-low 17 sacrifice bunts this season. Since his freshman season in 2017, the Cardinal is 97-23-0 (.808) when Handley starts behind home plate.

First baseman Andrew Daschbach, pitcher Jack Little, the versatile Will Matthiessen, who has served as the designated hitter in all 52 games while making 14 appearances on the mound, and Brandon Wulff joined Handley on the All-Conference team.

Duke Kinamon, Kyle Stowers and Tim Tawa were named All-Pac-12 honorable mention while Daschbach, Handley and Stowers were named to the All-Defensive team. Nick Bellafronto and Kinamon were named All-Defense honorable mentions.

https://gostanford.com/news/2019/5/29/ba...nized.aspx