UW scored 4 runs in B9. Wins game on walk-off wild pitch.
Stats: http://stats.statbroadcast.com/statmonitr/?id=203888&statmonitr=bcs
Stats: http://stats.statbroadcast.com/statmonitr/?id=203888&statmonitr=bcs
BSB Final: UW 6, Cougs 5 (Game 2 of Sun. DH)
- Thread starter ScottHood
- Start date
I ended up watching the end of this game. 3 things:
1. The umps totally ripped us off late in the game. In the 8th or 9th our runner slid straight into 2nd base on a DP attempt where the mutt fielder didn't even throw the ball to first because our runner there was wayyyy safe. Our 2b runner's "tucked in" foot barely clipped the mutt fielder and the ump called our guy out at first for interference, making it a DP. The announcers made a lame attempt at justifying the call but you could tell they knew it was complete BS. Then (I think this was the pivotal 9th), a pitch hit the knob end of the mutt batter's bat, and they called it a hit batsman! You could totally tell by the way the ball bounced off the bat, and the batter didn't grab his hand or even pretend it hit him.
2. Our first baseman is fat. (see my other thread about our fat pitchers). I really question our conditioning. 19-20 year old baseball players should not be fat.
3. Point #1 aside, we totally Couged this game and thus our chance to take the series. 5-2 in the 9th and we let them score 4.
Our results in Year 3 of Lees' tenure are pretty disappointing. He had a great resume coming in (long time asst. at Oregon State then asst at Oklahoma State), much better than our previous string of CC and small college coaches. I guess maybe it takes 4 years to develop a good BB program. We shall see.
The color guy was former MLB and UW shortstop Kevin Stocker. I thought he generally did a good job but couldn't help his purple coming through. On the interference call Stocker even said it was obvious there was no play at first but that any touch is now an automatic call of interference. I'm not enough of a baseball guy to know whether that's valid.
Seems we have good defense, decent offense, and issues with pitching. With the facilities funding almost done maybe that provides a bump to recruiting? Since it's been on the priority list for years I don't know that Lees could really recruit to it. So once they have enough to break ground I would give him at least a year to see if it improves recruiting. As people have said though baseball recruiting is difficult. You can have a good class get blown up by the MLB draft. I don't know enough to know how much that has impacted Lees.
I don't know about facilities. Nothing wrong with the ballpark itself. Yeah a locker room right there would be nice, but they do have that hitting barn thing. And the bubble is right there too. And those fat pitchers could use the trek from Bohler to the field. And back. About 10 times. You could almost use Beasley as the gameday locker room. Face it, the weather itself is the biggest issue.
Sniffing around, I see that Oregon State adding a standing beer deck to their stadium in 2015. So there you go.........
If we're going to give our basketball coach a 5th year, then Lees should get at least a 4th year.
Glad Cougar
Weather is has always been an issue. I don't know how they use it but the bubble looks like a complete waste of money especially given it was to be used by football. The idea of course is to get on the same level as other programs like the UW, Oregon, and even Gonzaga.
It looks like they are closing in on private funding for an addition for baseball calling it Project: Back to Omaha. I think it's been "the plan" for a pretty long time.
"The state-of-the-art facility features a 1,800 square-foot locker room, pitching lab, academic area, team meeting room, along with coaches offices and areas for Cougar equipment and training areas. Additionally, the facility will feature a nearly 1,400 square-foot Hall of Fame area, displaying the greatest players and moments in Cougar baseball history."
http://www.cougarathleticfund.com/facilities/projectbacktoomaha/http://www.cougarathleticfund.com/facilities/projectbacktoomaha/
Your post is equal parts irony and depressing because it's true. That said I still like Lees and his staff for some reason- maybe just a blind hunch- but the results have yet to appear as I would like. Build a nice clubhouse for convenience etc. and recruiting and an IPF for preseason practice and then we can see what Lees can do. Until then the poor guy is coaching with one hand tied behind his back. I would hope that Chun is able to take this into consideration and not make a knee-jerk reaction to the recent W-L records.
Why is the bubble a waste of money? You can't play catch or hit infield in there? Or set up a batting cage with nets? Heck they used to do that in the fieldhouse. And the bubble isn't just for Football. And it does have heat. It's uitilitarian, just not all pretty and doesn't have much infrastructure. Does it even have bathrooms?
And the locker room makes sense. Kinda. But hold on - academic area? training area? BS on those parts. All the academic support is over in Bohler, etc gym. You don't need or want a splinter area for one sport. What's next - academic and training areas at the Soccer field? And what about the beer deck? Get some priorities!
Finally - I for one never suggested that Lees not get at least a 4th year. I would say two more minimum (but no 5 year rollover!)
Like I said I don't know what sports are utilizing the bubble at this point. If you or someone else says it's getting utilized well by multiple sports I will definitely retract the statement. Here's what Moos had to say in a USA Today article on facilities:
>A new indoor facility is considered necessary for competitive reasons and would replace WSU’s “bubble” indoor practice facility that opened in 2002 at a cost of about $10 million. Other schools in the Pac-12 have better indoor facilities to shield them from harsh weather in the fall, including Colorado, which opened a indoor practice facility last year.
This week, WSU’s practice bubble helped shield the team from unhealthy outdoor air conditions caused by nearby wildfires.
But in the long run, Moos said the turf in the bubble “I don’t think is real safe, and the lighting isn’t good.” A new facility also would help in recruiting, much like the five-story football complex in the stadium’s end zone.
“I think Mike (Leach) would rather practice out in the cold – and it was cold last December – than risk losing players in the bubble,” Moos said. “If we’re going to be in bowl games, hopefully in late December or early January, we’ve got to have a place to practice.”
The last statement appears to have some validity. I remember Leach saying something around not wanting to use the bubble although I don't whether Moos was taking those comments/thoughts out of context.
So was it a waste? We spent $10M on the facility and even at the time it didn't appear relevant. My recollection is Sterk couldn't raise the money necessary for the planned facility so we went the bubble route. Cheaper sure but I wonder whether that was the best use of money. Maybe "uitilitarian" has it's value to going all "fancy pants" but getting an adequate "return" on the investment (using that loosely here) is also important. When the primary tenant (football) doesn't appear to want to use it 10-15 years in, it's said to not be safe for them to use, and it doesn't enhance recruiting I would question the investment.
I was 99% sure that the bubble did not cost $10 million. But I was wrong (article below). But they did put in the foundation for a permanent structure when they put it in. Geez - they spent 9.7 million instead of the 14 million a perm structure would have cost. Does not sound very prudent.
http://dnews.com/local/wsu-athletic...cle_1144defd-d595-5de2-8563-37aea91a55af.html
So Pat Chun stated today that in the next 2 weeks, he's expecting some movement on the Baseball facility. His quote is "It will happen".
Nice. Then the Bubble will be next.
Nice. Then the Bubble will be next.
The good news on spending the money on the bubble is the foundation is in place for the IPF. The article I read (LC's or USA Today's) said we just need to expand it. No idea how much that would knock off the cost of the IPF or whether they can really use it. I'm definitely not bringing a lot of knowledge in this area.
On another somewhat related note is anyone aware of a startup company called Katerra? They are a Menlo Park, CA company that has expanded into Washington (both Seattle and I believe a factory in Spokane). They are working with EWU to do some facility work for them in Spokane. I bring it up because they see themselves as a technology company in the architecture and construction space with the hope of reducing the overall cost of projects. I doubt they have done this type of project but wondered whether it might be a fit?
On another somewhat related note is anyone aware of a startup company called Katerra? They are a Menlo Park, CA company that has expanded into Washington (both Seattle and I believe a factory in Spokane). They are working with EWU to do some facility work for them in Spokane. I bring it up because they see themselves as a technology company in the architecture and construction space with the hope of reducing the overall cost of projects. I doubt they have done this type of project but wondered whether it might be a fit?
The big thing that they are doing is their cross laminated building structures. It's not approved here in WA but Spokane is in the works to be have a test building downtown within the next couple years. Incredibly stable product with lots of promise and lower costs.
From one of the articles I read entering the Spokane market was a natural fit due to trees they want to thin anyway. They say the cross laminating process can replace "concrete and steel"? Environmentally friendly, cost effective.
Sort of a connection of a connection. I started to do a bit of research on the company and their story was pretty compelling but obviously not necessarily a lot of objective information out there since it's so young. I also wondered whether there was any way WSU might connect with them for future facilities although given the approval status not at this point.
I figured someone on here would know the company.
Got'cha. I know of a couple projects in the Spokane market that are in the Capital stage. A couple/few years and there will be some construction going. FYI, there is a company in Colville that is starting the same kind of cross lamination. Vaagen. They have a bit more "growing" to go before they get into bigger projects but I'm sure they'll get there. Would be nice if they were up and ready. Would love to support local, rather than some Cali company
Interesting and wondered whether the process was at all proprietary. It also surprised me a Washington/NW company wouldn't be a leader in this area. Hopefully Vaagen does get there.
As I understand it, it's a process that's been around for quite a while (Europe). But it's only recently (10/15 years) that the US has started to investigate it. East Coast has been doing it for a bit now. So if there is some sort of ownership to the technology or process, they've figured out a way around it OR… they're just paying for the technology.
If I had to guess, with a lot of these kinds of things, it isn't proprietary per se. The company that figures this stuff out puts patents on the industrial equipment that MAKES the products. Haven't a clue about this specifically, though.
Laminated beams in general are not exactly a brand new concept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glued_laminated_timber
"Cross laminated" is the key. And like I said, it isn't a brand new concept. Thanks for playing.
Ahh, cross laminated. Gotcha.
The conversation perked my interest because 30-odd years ago my Dad put a cathedral-style framed structure over his pool, and it was made of laminated beams. Three 2x6's or 2x8's thick. Curve-cut beams, you could see where the individual pieces of wood started and stopped. Like they glued them together in some huge layout and took a big jigsaw to the array to make the curved pieces, 25+ feet long. Does that make sense?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-laminated_timber
Yep. I have a planer in my garage. The initial purpose is to make it perfectly smooth and level on one side so I'm able to glue other pieces to it. You go with the grain. That's what your thinking. Basic.
The cross laminated is to have a 2x6 going North-South. Then glue a 2x6 with the grain going East-West to the N-S piece. Then do it again until you get the strength you need. Over simplification (and honestly wrong with the idea of 2x6 but it helps with the visualization) but you get the idea. It allows a weaker wood (pine) to have stability in every axis.
Similar threads
