Baseball: A statistical breakdown of Parkview-Brookwood series

Parkview and Brookwood are playing for the Class AAAAA championship series in baseball beginning Monday at Parkview with a double-header. A third game if necessary would be played at Parkview on Monday.

Here’s a statistical look at each team:


Batting order

CF Cedric Mullins – .426-5-28 (8 SB, team-leading 35 runs, 21 extra-base hits)
RF Jordan Dykes – .307-0-17 (6-for-6 in SB, team-leading 4 sac bunts)
3B Michael Gouge – .395-2-24 (team-leading 16 doubles)
1B Ryan Woodard – .324-0-27 (team-leading 17 walks)
P/DH Lucas Sims – .364-1-30 (11 doubles)
C Clint Carr – .264-0-12 (4 RBI in semifinal series)
LF Garrett Reynolds – .413-0-11 (team-leading 10 SB)
2B Zach Moon – .265-2-16
SS Blake Schuck – .241-0-5


SP Lucas Sims – 7-0, 1.18 ERA (91 SO, 70.1 IP, committed to Clemson)
SP Allen Tokarz – 4-5, 2.66 (only 13 BB in 55.1 IP)
SP Ryan Woodard – 6-3, 2.29
RP Michael Ranieri – 1-0, 0.95 ERA (4 saves)


Batting order

SS Edwin Arias – .386-1-23 (43 runs, 7 SB)
CF Josh Hart – .395-2-19 (29 SB, 43 runs, committed to Georgia Tech)
1B/P Matt Olson – .396-9-49 (signed with Vanderbilt)
C Jarrett Freeland – .333-4-21 (committed to Georgia)
DH Hunter Thornton – .355-3-15
RF Ryan Blanton – .298-0-18
2B Jack Esmonde – .326-1-20 (signed with Georgia)
LF A.J. Davis – .241-0-7
3B Rob Youngblood – .304-3-22


SP Matt Olson – 11-1, 1.79 ERA (82 SO, 6 BB in 78.1 IP)
SP Jess Foster – 11-0, 2.06 ERA
SP Mac Marshall – 2-4, 5.10 ERA
RP Jack Esmonde – 4-1, 3.06 ERA (6 saves, 37 SO in 32 IP)

2 comments Add your comment


May 25th, 2012
5:33 pm


June 16th, 2012
12:45 am

, Zionists control the media, I react one way, and I’ll be very supoicisus of what that person is really trying to say. If someone says, The U.S. media is biased toward Israel, I react differently and feel like I can have a productive discussion about that. But it’s not always that easy to say why one statement is problematic and the other isn’t and to know how to express that in a way that still allows for discussion, as opposed to silencing.Maybe this doesn’t belong in a theoretical framework. Maybe it’s just one of those things that happens that needs to get worked through by dialogue between individuals. But if someone thinks a particular argument or statement is antisemitic, I don’t think it expresses or enacts hatred of Jews is always going to be really adequate to expressing what the problem is. Often, an assertion like that would just be met with confusion.(And I know you said you weren’t going to respond any more, so I don’t mean to put you on the spot. I think the questions you are raising are valid ones. But I do wonder if some of your statements here set the bar too high.)