2010 and 2011 Win / Loss / runs scored comparison

HuskerHacker

HuskerHacker

Banned
2010 Schedule --------- 2011 Schedule

2010 Final Conference Record:

10-17 / 9th place -------- 3-6 / 9th place (the similarity is amazingly apparent)

Texas:

1-2 .................................. 0-0

Runs Scored (NU vs Opp)

13 - 22 .............................. 0-0

Oklahoma:

1-2 .................................. 0-0

Runs Scored (NU vs Opp)

13-14 ................................ 0-0

Okie State: (same result, less runs scored, more give up) NO IMPROVEMENT

1-2 .................................. 1-2

Runs Scored (NU vs Opp)

20-21 ................................ 13-26

Kansas State: Series Win, fewer runs scored but considerably less given up Obvious Improvement

1-2 .................................. 2-1

Runs Scored (NU vs Opp)

13-24 ................................ 10-9

Kansas: (same result, less runs scored, FEWER given up) SLIGHT IMPROVEMENT

1-2 .................................. 1-2

Runs Scored (NU vs Opp)

16-20 ................................ 13-18

Baylor:

1-2 .................................. 0-0

Runs Scored (NU vs Opp)

13-13 ................................ 0-0

Texas A&M:

1-2 .................................. 0-0

Runs Scored (NU vs Opp)

7-16 ................................. 0-0

Missouri:

0-3 .................................. 0-0

Runs Scored (NU vs Opp)

12-20 ................................ 0-0

Texas Tech: (less runs scored, more give up) NO IMPROVEMENT, FEWER WINS

3-0 .................................. 1-2

Runs Scored (NU vs Opp)

25-16 ................................ 23-18

Creighton: Series Win, fewer runs scored but considerably less given up Obvious Improvement

1-2 .................................. 2-0

Runs Scored (NU vs Opp)

31-26 ................................ 10-6

My analysis:

Fans were optimistic and hanging our hopes on the UCLA and Fresno State performances. I personally, if asked, would have assumed our offense was getting better and scoring more runs. I'd have also assumed our pitching had improved. However, after doing the above I learned that both are untrue. (At this point in the schedule, we've scored fewer runs and allowed more.)

Honestly, I am struggling to keep the glass half full and should probably quit looking for ways to provide hope.

edit: I'll update this as the season progresses.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks HuskerHacker.

I would be curious to see what our Hits, On-Base %, and Slugging % changes are, as it does seem that our players have been hitting the ball better, and against better pitching than last year's teams.

All in all, though, this, along with the W/L stats, is more statistical evidence that does not support the gainful employment of one Coach Mike Anderson at NU.

 
As requested and unfortunately, we haven't faced the best teams in the conference yet and our offensive stats are worse. :facepalm:

On the bright side, our pitching is improved.

2010 Stats: .............. 2011 Stats:

Hits: ............. Hits

NU 565 - Opponents 509 ... 339 - 302

On Base %:......... OBA %

.389 - .370 .............. .375 - .339

Slugging %:........ SLG%

.461 - .430 .............. .418 - .389

 
Last edited by a moderator:
HuskerHacker said:
As requested and unfortunately, we haven't faced the best teams in the conference yet and our offensive stats are worse. :facepalm:

On the bright side, our pitching is improved.

2010 Stats: .............. 2011 Stats:

Hits: ............. Hits

NU 565 - Opponents 509 ... 339 - 302

On Base %:......... OBA %

.389 - .370 .............. .375 - .339

Slugging %:........ SLG%

.461 - .430 .............. .418 - .389
Click to expand...
Ugh. That's too bad. Apparently the view of better offensive output is merely wishful thinking.

This kind of pours a bucket of water on the "Erstad for Coach" embers out there...not that it was roaring fire or anything, but Erstad was in the discussion as a dark horse to take over if MA was canned this year.

Regardless, thanks for the hard work HHacker. These numbers don't lie, and they tell a pretty grim story so far in 2011.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nebraska also had 2 extra games apiece against Northern Colorado and North Dakota, plus Doane, to pad their stats this year.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I actually think Erstad has had a huge positive influence on the team as a whole. Yes the numbers are lower but... our pitching has improved (we've given up more runs but I think most agree its improved) and we have fewer strikeouts. Also, recruiting is up. IMO, there is a fine line between winning and losing that can often be corrected by nothing more then chemistry. My concern with MA is his inability to get the most out of the talent and the inability to forge strong team chemistry. I've been asked to point out where I think the chemistry is missing and my first thought always goes to the "ThisIsNebraska" website and the introduction to Husker baseball. Husker Baseball is the "only" program that used freshmen to promote the program. Why? Where were the juniors and seniors? Also, with players like Duensing, Joba, Gordon and.... a golden glove MLB player (Erstad), speaking? Call me crazy but... if I was managing, I'd be pushing these names constantly and constantly asking them to visit and remain a part of the program. I'd also be constantly hounding our former players now in coaching to push their talented youth to the program. (Referring mostly to Will Bolt) From outside the program, one can only speculate and my speculation leads me to belief there is a reason former huskers choose to distance themselves.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Current Conference Standings post the K State Series:

Huskers are 5-7 and in 6th place with Texas Tech, Baylor, KSU, Missouri trailing.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top