Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
InboxChat RoomChat Room (0 fans in chatroom)

Another (?) scout's view of Stanford

Posted: 02/25/2012 7:07 AM

Another (?) scout's view of Stanford 


The Baseball America preview of the Stanford Texas series. 

The Stanford part is mostly quoting a Scout's view of Stanford from the Vandy series.
Thinks the Stanford lineup is very powerful, mostly offensively.
Likes Gaffney as our sparkplug but says it's "ugly", which I think is supposed to be referring to his swing, but not clear.
Doesn't like Stanford pitching. Repeats that Appel got hit hard by Vandy in first three innings. Says that it seems Mooneyham goes to 3-2 on every batter (which was previously true - didn't see Vandy game). Likes Schmidt.

Reply | Quote

Posted: 02/25/2012 7:15 AM

Re: Another (?) scout's view of Stanford 


the scout said of Stewart "I dont know how much he is going to hit" and that he expects Gaffney to eventually bat lead-off for Stanford.  Well, Stewart proved him wrong with Friday's game - he did just about everything.  3 hits including a HR and a bunt single as well as a stolen base.  Looked like a pretty good lead-off guy to me.

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 02/25/2012 8:08 AM

Re: Another (?) scout's view of Stanford 



CTcard wrote:


Repeats that Appel got hit hard by Vandy in first three innings. 

Appel has pitched 14 innings, has given up 5 hits, 15 strikeouts, opposing batting average .106, ERA 1.29. I just don't get this talk about his getting hit hard.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 02/25/2012 9:23 AM

Re: Another (?) scout's view of Stanford 


Appel was NOT I say again NOT hit hard until the 5th on opening night.  Then 3 balls hit hard, IIRC two were outs. 

So happy booties care more about some unknown that this great team.   eek1
Thank ya, thank ya kindly
Reply | Quote

Posted: 02/25/2012 1:06 PM

Re: Another (?) scout's view of Stanford 



terry2 wrote:
CTcard wrote:


Repeats that Appel got hit hard by Vandy in first three innings.

Appel has pitched 14 innings, has given up 5 hits, 15 strikeouts, opposing batting average .106, ERA 1.29. I just don't get this talk about his getting hit hard.


I was assuming that the unnamed scout in the Baseball America article was either the same guy (Keith Law) discussed in the other thread, or significantly influenced by him. The comments not only seem very similar, but seem divorced enough from reality that it is hard to see them arising independently. 

In those first three innings mentioned in the BA article, the play by play has:
First Inning: ground out, ground out, fly out
Second Inning: ground out, fly out, reach on error, walk, strike out.
Third Inning: fly out, fly out, strike out.

Now it is possible that some of the fly outs were hard hit balls (I am far away from Palo Alto, and the all-access video wasn't working for me until last night) but it is mostly certain that the ground outs (and errors) were not and I'm pretty positive the strike outs were not hard hit balls. 
The first "lined out" note in the box score is from the fourth, and of course in the fifth Vandy got a couple of doubles.  

As a Stanford fan, I can handle having my team led by a "not very good" future first rounder with a 1.29 ERA and a 0.106 opp batting average.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 02/25/2012 4:46 PM

Re: Another (?) scout's view of Stanford 


our P, other than wildness, has been pretty good against 2 very different teams.  Vandy came in with a good reputation from last year -- combination of power and speed.  cheatin' Augie's team feature small ball.  it has been very small ball so far.  hopefully their current success will continue for the remainder of the series..
Reply | Quote

Posted: 02/25/2012 7:19 PM

Re: Another (?) scout's view of Stanford 



I'm pretty sure Keith Law does NOT write for Baseball America.

He writes for ESPN,  and currently, there is no overlap.    In other words,  ESPN doesn't offer links to stories written on BA,  or vice versa.

So,  I suspect the BA writer is independent of Law.....  whether his work is influenced by Law,  I don't know.


MF
Reply | Quote