I haven't seen a baseball team
- Thread starter 1vagamecock
- Start date
Somehow, we managed to hire a coach who should be paying us!
What's it going to take for Tanner to make the move?
What's it going to take for Tanner to make the move?
I thought we shouldāve fired him last season. We only advanced to supers because we got the easiest draw imaginable for a regional.
Tanner has managed to make 2 successive bad hires for head baseball coach. I shudder to think who he will hire if he cans Kingston.
It's my fault. I started watching in the 7th. I turned it on just when we had a chance to tie the game. And didn't. Should have turned it off then. But no.
Just a question please from an old man and baseball fan. Has the game changed so much that in the late innings and 1 run behind and you get 1st 2 men on base and not bunt them into scoring position. 1 take out d p 2 ability to score from several different ways. 3 bottom part of order that could not hit out of a wet paper sack. all under 200. not baseball to me, too anilitical and computerized. who cares how fast a home run goes out of park or what angle it goes at. remember start of season no worry about offense just who will pitch on week end!!!. going to be a LONG season.
We still have a baseball coach that is searching for a philosophy he can call his own. No luck yet
I will say what myself and many have said for years. Tanner should never have been AD, nothing will change as long as he remains. How many coaches, that he has hired, have proven to be a consistent winner? We've had Muschamp, Holbrook and Kingston that were bad hires. Paris is in year 2 and the verdict is out on him, we will see in a couple of years if his success continues. Beamer "overachieved" his first 2 seasons but dropped off last year and will likely have another difficult year.
I seriously doubt that Tanner will fire Kingston, what would that say about Tanner, supposedly a baseball expert, with 2 straight bad hires? We will remain mired in mediocracy in baseball, despite the glorious expectations that Kingston regurgitates every pre-season. Also, Tanner needs to extend his contract again before firing him.
I agree that we need someone else as AD. Ray is a good fund raiser and thatās about it.
Tanner did not make a bad move in hiring Holbrook. Those who truly believe that either didnāt follow baseball closely then or is an idiot. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a bad hire.
I am not sure what was in Kingstonās file that warranted his hire however.
Holbrook was an absolute no-brainer. Heād have been dumb not to hire him.
I want Tanner to coach baseball not be AD. That being said, some of you are completely ignorant. Under Hyman, a PROFESSIONAL AD, we sucked at everything except Football and Baseball. Who do you thing had more to do with our success in those sports Spurrier and Tanner or Hyman. Hyman also extended Odom and Walvius's contracts, hired Horn and gave him an extension.
Tanner has hired several successful coaches in other sports. His failures are Football and Baseball. admittedly those are huge areas. The Holbrooke hire is excusable. Even Muschamp, and Kingston are somewhat excusable as they are who we had to settle for. Tanner had Kirby Smart but UGa made a move. Tanner had Lincoln Riley but Oklahoma made a move. He had Tom Herman but he correctly guessed he get the Texas job the next year. In baseball, he tried to hire Kevin O'Sullivan who is arguably the best in the game. Kinston resume indicated that he had overachieved at two stops.
Muschamp turned out to be a disaster and Kingston is a bad hire. But both had better resumes than Lamont Paris and right now that looks like a home run.
I know this is surprising but the University doesn't have limitless funds and it is illegal to force someone to work for you.
We are finishing the highest in the Overall Athletics rankings ever. Tanner deserves credit for that. He also deserves the blame particularly for the Muschamp and Martin buyouts.
Tanner has hired several successful coaches in other sports. His failures are Football and Baseball. admittedly those are huge areas. The Holbrooke hire is excusable. Even Muschamp, and Kingston are somewhat excusable as they are who we had to settle for. Tanner had Kirby Smart but UGa made a move. Tanner had Lincoln Riley but Oklahoma made a move. He had Tom Herman but he correctly guessed he get the Texas job the next year. In baseball, he tried to hire Kevin O'Sullivan who is arguably the best in the game. Kinston resume indicated that he had overachieved at two stops.
Muschamp turned out to be a disaster and Kingston is a bad hire. But both had better resumes than Lamont Paris and right now that looks like a home run.
I know this is surprising but the University doesn't have limitless funds and it is illegal to force someone to work for you.
We are finishing the highest in the Overall Athletics rankings ever. Tanner deserves credit for that. He also deserves the blame particularly for the Muschamp and Martin buyouts.
Strongly agree. We replaced the best AD we ever had, who himself had replaced the previously best AD we've ever had. Eric Hyman is the type of professional administrator and business person we need in the role.
I love Ray Tanner as a Gamecock, but I think we pulled the ol' "legendary coach becomes AD" trick 20 years past its expiry date.
I don't think it's accurate to represent that Tanner nearly had Lincoln Riley or Tom Herman.
I do think we were *this close* on KOS. And yes, the Holbrook hire is more than excusable - even with hindsight it's a 100% hire based on what was known at the time.
Was having dinner with a close friend in Austin the other night - he's an LSU Tiger and rabid baseball fan. Even all these years later he wonders if we should have doubled down on Holbrook.
No one in Holbrook's lineup could bunt when they had to... and I mean no one. Championship teams can lay down a bunt. We were not that. And that used to be a big deal... being a championship team I mean.
Championship teams don't have to be able to bunt. They just have to be able to hit.
Championship teams are not one dimensional. Tanner didn't win a championship until he decide that playing more smallball when he needed to was a good move. I dont know why anyone would think more tools in the toolbox was a bad idea. This weekend Vandy should be a good example of a team that does more than just hit. We have our work cut out for us.
Last edited:
The funny part about this is that both championship teams is they had iconic moments in Gamecock history centered around our hitters bunting. The championship winning run in 2010 by Wingo was set up by bunting him over to 3rd base. In 2011 the Virginia game we won to advance to the finals, possibly the most amazing Carolina baseball game in history, was won on a sacrifice bunt.
You canāt make this stuff up.
My point is that being able to bunt isn't going to fix this team. They have to start hitting first. Being able to bunt a guy from 1st to 2nd, or 2nd to 3rd, is irrelevant if you can't get the ball in play after moving them over. There's nothing more frustrating than watch a batter give the other team an our with a sac bunt, then have the next two hitters proceed to strike out and fly out.
Besides the development of excellent pitching staffs, Tanner's championship teams were loaded with spark plug type players like Wingo, Marzilli, Matthews, Morales, Mooney, Beary, Enders and Thomas in addition to stars like Walker, Bradley and Merrifield.
Although we have some really good players now, that group played together as a team with a much different team chemistry than we have now.
Although we have some really good players now, that group played together as a team with a much different team chemistry than we have now.
I don't have a problem with our bunting capabilities on this team (far better than Holbrook) other than it can be a head-scratcher when Kingston does or doesn't decide to use it. Kingston on hitting... I think we can probably agree on a lot of what is and what's not going on there.
Nobody is claiming Holbrook's teams were acceptable or that he shouldn't have been fired, only that the hire was the logical one to make at the time. There are probably 100 ADs around the country who would have promoted Holbrook to the HC position if he was on their staff when their legendary coach moved on. Holbrook turned out to not be championship HC material, but there was nothing controversial about the hire.
Never said I was against the hire. No one was probably as surprised as I was to see our hitting fundamentals decline under Holbrook... especially given he was the guy responsible for hitting during Tanner's tenure.
No problem. I thought you were offering up the bunting woes as a reason the hire was dumb. I see it was simply a change of topic.
(I do that sometimes too)
Yeah not hire... moreso failure.No problem. I thought you were offering up the bunting woes as a reason the hire was dumb. I see it was simply a change of topic.
