03-12-2017, 01:54 PM
Poly wins 1 - 0. Score on a wild pitch in top of 7th.Â
Softball
03-12-2017, 02:00 PM
Team responded well against Lehigh in a 6-4 win. Showcased the pitching depth that Coach Hanson has with this roster. However, today's win against Lehigh aside, the offense really struggled this weekend. Pac-12 conference play coming up in two weeks.
03-12-2017, 03:09 PM
(03-12-2017, 02:00 PM)d4cohn link Wrote:Pac-12 conference play coming up in two weeks.That's a relief! Will be nice to play some patsies for a change. ;)
Owen Tufornomor
Unregistered
Unregistered
03-12-2017, 04:10 PM
(03-11-2017, 09:25 PM)BobK link Wrote:Â
Tomorrow we face ×ÉÉ Poly with an excellent pitcher
Poly enjoys the luxury of having TWO excellent starters. Today's (that is, Sunday's) starter, 9 wins, 5 losses, 1.01 ERA, 9.0 Ks and 0.7 BBs (awesome) per 7-inning game, the other 6-2, 0.70 ERA, 7.5 Ks and 2.4 BBs per 7.
Poly's whitewashing of Stanford today was its 8th shutout win in 10 games. Of its 7 losses this season, three were 2-run losses to ranked teams (Oregon, UCLA and Minnesota), two 1-run losses to teams that clobbered Stanford (Fresno State and Grand Canyon). The remaining two losses were also by a single run. Surprised to see that this team is receiving no votes in the polls.
All things considered, I was more pleased with the near-win this morning than with the fully expected win this afternoon.
(03-11-2017, 09:25 PM)BobK link Wrote:Â
Tomorrow we face ×ÉÉ Poly with an excellent pitcher
Poly enjoys the luxury of having TWO excellent starters. Today's (that is, Sunday's) starter, 9 wins, 5 losses, 1.01 ERA, 9.0 Ks and 0.7 BBs (awesome) per 7-inning game, the other 6-2, 0.70 ERA, 7.5 Ks and 2.4 BBs per 7.
Poly's whitewashing of Stanford today was its 8th shutout win in 10 games. Of its 7 losses this season, three were 2-run losses to ranked teams (Oregon, UCLA and Minnesota), two 1-run losses to teams that clobbered Stanford (Fresno State and Grand Canyon). The remaining two losses were also by a single run. Surprised to see that this team is receiving no votes in the polls.
All things considered, I was more pleased with the near-win this morning than with the fully expected win this afternoon.
03-12-2017, 04:43 PM
(03-12-2017, 03:09 PM)oldalum link Wrote:That's a relief! Will be nice to play some patsies for a change. ;)
My thoughts exactly oldalum. When RPI rankings come out in two to three weeks, it is not going to be pretty to see our non-conference SOS numbers. Our win over Jacksonville could very well be our best win by RPI from the non-conference.
(03-12-2017, 03:09 PM)oldalum link Wrote:That's a relief! Will be nice to play some patsies for a change. ;)
My thoughts exactly oldalum. When RPI rankings come out in two to three weeks, it is not going to be pretty to see our non-conference SOS numbers. Our win over Jacksonville could very well be our best win by RPI from the non-conference.
03-12-2017, 06:44 PM
And I thought I was a negative Nellie....
The team was 13-35 last year. I see no way to change that.
If you were the Stanford coach & doing the Stanford scheduling for this year, FROM BEFORE THE YEAR STARTED. Do you want a top-20 or even top-40 SoS, without knowing you'd be able to pull together to get a team that would even have a 50-50 record against them?
Suppose you're the coach of a potential OoC opponent with a top team when Stanford calls to schedule a game. Would you want to have Stanford's 2017 W-L record in the calculation of your team's RPI? Why, even if they (Stanford) managed to put together a reasonable OoC record, say, 16-10, what are their chances to have a decent record when your RPI is calculated at the end of the year?
Suppose you're a coach on another team in the PAC-12. Would you want Stanford to have maybe a 10-16 OoC record against stronger opponents, or a 16-10 record against weaker opponents? The former will hurt the RPI of every other team in the conference more than the latter.
Superman can leap a tall building in a single bound. Everyone else has to take steps to get there.
If the team can have a good season against the PAC-12, then they can look forward to next year when things will be more Stanford-like and presumably a better SoS.
The team was 13-35 last year. I see no way to change that.
If you were the Stanford coach & doing the Stanford scheduling for this year, FROM BEFORE THE YEAR STARTED. Do you want a top-20 or even top-40 SoS, without knowing you'd be able to pull together to get a team that would even have a 50-50 record against them?
Suppose you're the coach of a potential OoC opponent with a top team when Stanford calls to schedule a game. Would you want to have Stanford's 2017 W-L record in the calculation of your team's RPI? Why, even if they (Stanford) managed to put together a reasonable OoC record, say, 16-10, what are their chances to have a decent record when your RPI is calculated at the end of the year?
Suppose you're a coach on another team in the PAC-12. Would you want Stanford to have maybe a 10-16 OoC record against stronger opponents, or a 16-10 record against weaker opponents? The former will hurt the RPI of every other team in the conference more than the latter.
Superman can leap a tall building in a single bound. Everyone else has to take steps to get there.
If the team can have a good season against the PAC-12, then they can look forward to next year when things will be more Stanford-like and presumably a better SoS.
And I thought I was a negative Nellie....
The team was 13-35 last year. I see no way to change that.
If you were the Stanford coach & doing the Stanford scheduling for this year, FROM BEFORE THE YEAR STARTED. Do you want a top-20 or even top-40 SoS, without knowing you'd be able to pull together to get a team that would even have a 50-50 record against them?
Suppose you're the coach of a potential OoC opponent with a top team when Stanford calls to schedule a game. Would you want to have Stanford's 2017 W-L record in the calculation of your team's RPI? Why, even if they (Stanford) managed to put together a reasonable OoC record, say, 16-10, what are their chances to have a decent record when your RPI is calculated at the end of the year?
Suppose you're a coach on another team in the PAC-12. Would you want Stanford to have maybe a 10-16 OoC record against stronger opponents, or a 16-10 record against weaker opponents? The former will hurt the RPI of every other team in the conference more than the latter.
Superman can leap a tall building in a single bound. Everyone else has to take steps to get there.
If the team can have a good season against the PAC-12, then they can look forward to next year when things will be more Stanford-like and presumably a better SoS.
The team was 13-35 last year. I see no way to change that.
If you were the Stanford coach & doing the Stanford scheduling for this year, FROM BEFORE THE YEAR STARTED. Do you want a top-20 or even top-40 SoS, without knowing you'd be able to pull together to get a team that would even have a 50-50 record against them?
Suppose you're the coach of a potential OoC opponent with a top team when Stanford calls to schedule a game. Would you want to have Stanford's 2017 W-L record in the calculation of your team's RPI? Why, even if they (Stanford) managed to put together a reasonable OoC record, say, 16-10, what are their chances to have a decent record when your RPI is calculated at the end of the year?
Suppose you're a coach on another team in the PAC-12. Would you want Stanford to have maybe a 10-16 OoC record against stronger opponents, or a 16-10 record against weaker opponents? The former will hurt the RPI of every other team in the conference more than the latter.
Superman can leap a tall building in a single bound. Everyone else has to take steps to get there.
If the team can have a good season against the PAC-12, then they can look forward to next year when things will be more Stanford-like and presumably a better SoS.
03-12-2017, 08:07 PM
Still 16-10 is better than I expected. The future for this Pac-12 season is very unknown. 5-6 wins may be an accomplishment.Â
Btw the starting pitcher for the # 1 HS team in the county has signed with Stanford
Btw the starting pitcher for the # 1 HS team in the county has signed with Stanford
Owen Tufornomor
Unregistered
Unregistered
03-12-2017, 08:53 PM
(03-12-2017, 08:07 PM)BobK link Wrote:Btw the starting pitcher for the # 1 HS team in the county has signed with Stanford
Who dat?
(03-12-2017, 08:07 PM)BobK link Wrote:Btw the starting pitcher for the # 1 HS team in the county has signed with Stanford
Who dat?
03-12-2017, 09:05 PM
(03-12-2017, 03:09 PM)oldalum link Wrote:[quote author=d4cohn link=topic=16598.msg189880#msg189880 date=1489352419]That's a relief! Will be nice to play some patsies for a change. ;)
Pac-12 conference play coming up in two weeks.
[/quote]
Yeah, look at all of those winnable matchups - http://pac-12.com/softball/standings
Tough conference.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
(03-12-2017, 03:09 PM)oldalum link Wrote:[quote author=d4cohn link=topic=16598.msg189880#msg189880 date=1489352419]That's a relief! Will be nice to play some patsies for a change. ;)
Pac-12 conference play coming up in two weeks.
[/quote]
Yeah, look at all of those winnable matchups - http://pac-12.com/softball/standings
Tough conference.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
03-13-2017, 06:03 AM
(03-12-2017, 08:53 PM)Owen Tufornomor link Wrote:[quote author=BobK link=topic=16598.msg189889#msg189889 date=1489374442]
Btw the starting pitcher for the # 1 HS team in the county has signed with Stanford
Who dat?
[/quote]
Not sure if this is the recruit to whom BobK was referring, but if it's not Maddy Dwyer of Orange Lutheran, then the future for Stanford softball is even brighter.
http://www.flosoftball.com/article/33533...MaXYbHoe9o
Geaux Cardinal!
(03-12-2017, 08:53 PM)Owen Tufornomor link Wrote:[quote author=BobK link=topic=16598.msg189889#msg189889 date=1489374442]
Btw the starting pitcher for the # 1 HS team in the county has signed with Stanford
Who dat?
[/quote]
Not sure if this is the recruit to whom BobK was referring, but if it's not Maddy Dwyer of Orange Lutheran, then the future for Stanford softball is even brighter.
http://www.flosoftball.com/article/33533...MaXYbHoe9o
Geaux Cardinal!
Owen Tufornomor
Unregistered
Unregistered
03-13-2017, 04:51 PM
(03-13-2017, 06:03 AM)BigEasyCard link Wrote:[quote author=Owen Tufornomor link=topic=16598.msg189892#msg189892 date=1489377206]
[quote author=BobK link=topic=16598.msg189889#msg189889 date=1489374442]
Btw the starting pitcher for the # 1 HS team in the county has signed with Stanford
Who dat?
[/quote]
Not sure if this is the recruit to whom BobK was referring, but if it's not Maddy Dwyer of Orange Lutheran, then the future for Stanford softball is even brighter.
http://www.flosoftball.com/article/33533...MaXYbHoe9o
Geaux Cardinal!
[/quote]
Thanks, Mr. Big. I figured that must be the case (but only after realizing I had misread Bob's "#1 HS team in the county" clause as "#1 HS team in the COUNTRY"). ::)
(03-13-2017, 06:03 AM)BigEasyCard link Wrote:[quote author=Owen Tufornomor link=topic=16598.msg189892#msg189892 date=1489377206]
[quote author=BobK link=topic=16598.msg189889#msg189889 date=1489374442]
Btw the starting pitcher for the # 1 HS team in the county has signed with Stanford
Who dat?
[/quote]
Not sure if this is the recruit to whom BobK was referring, but if it's not Maddy Dwyer of Orange Lutheran, then the future for Stanford softball is even brighter.
http://www.flosoftball.com/article/33533...MaXYbHoe9o
Geaux Cardinal!
[/quote]
Thanks, Mr. Big. I figured that must be the case (but only after realizing I had misread Bob's "#1 HS team in the county" clause as "#1 HS team in the COUNTRY"). ::)
Owen Tufornomor
Unregistered
Unregistered
03-13-2017, 05:03 PM
BTW, just for comparison's sake (to get a feel for the talent level of Maddy Dwyer)...
FloSoftball ranks Dwyer #52; they had Nikki Bauer, the highest ranked pitcher among this year's recruits, at #96.
FloSoftball ranks Dwyer #52; they had Nikki Bauer, the highest ranked pitcher among this year's recruits, at #96.
BTW, just for comparison's sake (to get a feel for the talent level of Maddy Dwyer)...
FloSoftball ranks Dwyer #52; they had Nikki Bauer, the highest ranked pitcher among this year's recruits, at #96.
FloSoftball ranks Dwyer #52; they had Nikki Bauer, the highest ranked pitcher among this year's recruits, at #96.
03-13-2017, 09:19 PM
That's no excuse for not coaching these girls to a higher level of play. 16-10 at mid-season is not an indication of what will happen in the upcoming buzz saw. They could have easily won 6 or 7 games they lost vs. inferior opponents. Coach Hanson has padded her soft pre-league schedule to make her record look better in her contract renewal yr. People are crazy if they think any recruit can come in next yr and replace the loss of an All-American like Kayla Bonstrom. What about replacing the likes of the 3 starting seniors who are tearing it up so far? 2-46 Pac-12 record in 2 yrs not acceptable. If they play .500 ball this yr, they will likely have an overall record close to or below .500. .500 in the buzz saw is optimistic and maybe not realistic! We'll see but my opinion is: THE FOR A CHANGE IN STAFF!
That's no excuse for not coaching these girls to a higher level of play. 16-10 at mid-season is not an indication of what will happen in the upcoming buzz saw. They could have easily won 6 or 7 games they lost vs. inferior opponents. Coach Hanson has padded her soft pre-league schedule to make her record look better in her contract renewal yr. People are crazy if they think any recruit can come in next yr and replace the loss of an All-American like Kayla Bonstrom. What about replacing the likes of the 3 starting seniors who are tearing it up so far? 2-46 Pac-12 record in 2 yrs not acceptable. If they play .500 ball this yr, they will likely have an overall record close to or below .500. .500 in the buzz saw is optimistic and maybe not realistic! We'll see but my opinion is: THE FOR A CHANGE IN STAFF!
Owen Tufornomor
Unregistered
Unregistered
03-14-2017, 09:18 PM
(03-13-2017, 09:19 PM)STG50 link Wrote:Coach Hanson has padded her soft pre-league schedule to make her record look better in her contract renewal yr.
This is Hanson's contract renewal year? Do you know for a fact that that's the case?
(03-13-2017, 09:19 PM)STG50 link Wrote:Coach Hanson has padded her soft pre-league schedule to make her record look better in her contract renewal yr.
This is Hanson's contract renewal year? Do you know for a fact that that's the case?
03-15-2017, 08:55 AM
(03-14-2017, 09:18 PM)Owen Tufornomor link Wrote:[quote author=STG50 link=topic=16598.msg189940#msg189940 date=1489465155]
Coach Hanson has padded her soft pre-league schedule to make her record look better in her contract renewal yr.
This is Hanson's contract renewal year? Do you know for a fact that that's the case?
[/quote]
Man, I hope she doesn't come back. 0-24 in league last year, first time since -- well, let's just say it -- pre-Rittman in 1994.
Team batting average in Rittman's last year, .314. It fell almost 40 points in "Coach" (and I use that term loosely) Hanson's first year to .277, then fell almost another 40 points to .235 last year. Every single frosh and soph hit below .240 in 2016. two of the Top 50 recruits batted under .200.
But don't listen to me, listen to Stanford Daily reporter Alexa Philippou:
http://www.stanforddaily.com/2016/05/19/...n-the-axe/
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(03-14-2017, 09:18 PM)Owen Tufornomor link Wrote:[quote author=STG50 link=topic=16598.msg189940#msg189940 date=1489465155]
Coach Hanson has padded her soft pre-league schedule to make her record look better in her contract renewal yr.
This is Hanson's contract renewal year? Do you know for a fact that that's the case?
[/quote]
Man, I hope she doesn't come back. 0-24 in league last year, first time since -- well, let's just say it -- pre-Rittman in 1994.
Team batting average in Rittman's last year, .314. It fell almost 40 points in "Coach" (and I use that term loosely) Hanson's first year to .277, then fell almost another 40 points to .235 last year. Every single frosh and soph hit below .240 in 2016. two of the Top 50 recruits batted under .200.
But don't listen to me, listen to Stanford Daily reporter Alexa Philippou:
http://www.stanforddaily.com/2016/05/19/...n-the-axe/
Audaces fortuna iuvat
03-15-2017, 11:54 AM
Our team batting average is 326 this season. Sorry for the facts.
We don't have the pitching to do great. Hoover would be a Sr she has been to the World Series at LSU, but she and family are pro Rittman. Â
Our frosh class has 4 top 100 players.
The team was destroyed and people wonder why didn't we get a great coach. The answer of course is how we got
Walt Harris. We were at the bottom of desired jobs.Â
We don't have the pitching to do great. Hoover would be a Sr she has been to the World Series at LSU, but she and family are pro Rittman. Â
Our frosh class has 4 top 100 players.
The team was destroyed and people wonder why didn't we get a great coach. The answer of course is how we got
Walt Harris. We were at the bottom of desired jobs.Â
Our team batting average is 326 this season. Sorry for the facts.
We don't have the pitching to do great. Hoover would be a Sr she has been to the World Series at LSU, but she and family are pro Rittman. Â
Our frosh class has 4 top 100 players.
The team was destroyed and people wonder why didn't we get a great coach. The answer of course is how we got
Walt Harris. We were at the bottom of desired jobs.Â
We don't have the pitching to do great. Hoover would be a Sr she has been to the World Series at LSU, but she and family are pro Rittman. Â
Our frosh class has 4 top 100 players.
The team was destroyed and people wonder why didn't we get a great coach. The answer of course is how we got
Walt Harris. We were at the bottom of desired jobs.Â
03-15-2017, 01:21 PM
(03-15-2017, 11:54 AM)BobK link Wrote:Our team batting average is 326 this season. Sorry for the facts.
Why are you apologizing for facts? I don't...Oh, I get it now. You're being snarky. You think you're repudiating the results from the last two years.
Tell you what Bobb. Let's have a bet as to batting average at the end of the season. I think team batting average will fall below .326. You, reporting the .326 fact, can back that number or higher. And after all, every single one of Rittman's teams between 2010 and 2014 batted .297 or better. Why shouldn't Stanford bat .326 for the year?
I'll take that bet for literally any amount of money. Are you game?
BTW, as an aside, I despise the fact that the softball program has sought to obscure the success and results from the Rittman era. Here's the statistics links for the years 2010-2014. Tell me if you have any more success than me in finding Rittman-era results:
2014 statistics link: http://www.gostanford.com/404-1.aspx?url..._id=872264
2013 statistics link:Â http://www.gostanford.com/404-1.aspx?url..._id=825746
2012 statistics link: http://www.gostanford.com/404-1.aspx?url..._id=782352
2011 statistics link: http://www.gostanford.com/404-1.aspx?url..._id=782352
2010 statistics link: http://www.gostanford.com/404-1.aspx?url..._id=782468
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(03-15-2017, 11:54 AM)BobK link Wrote:Our team batting average is 326 this season. Sorry for the facts.
Why are you apologizing for facts? I don't...Oh, I get it now. You're being snarky. You think you're repudiating the results from the last two years.
Tell you what Bobb. Let's have a bet as to batting average at the end of the season. I think team batting average will fall below .326. You, reporting the .326 fact, can back that number or higher. And after all, every single one of Rittman's teams between 2010 and 2014 batted .297 or better. Why shouldn't Stanford bat .326 for the year?
I'll take that bet for literally any amount of money. Are you game?
BTW, as an aside, I despise the fact that the softball program has sought to obscure the success and results from the Rittman era. Here's the statistics links for the years 2010-2014. Tell me if you have any more success than me in finding Rittman-era results:
2014 statistics link: http://www.gostanford.com/404-1.aspx?url..._id=872264
2013 statistics link:Â http://www.gostanford.com/404-1.aspx?url..._id=825746
2012 statistics link: http://www.gostanford.com/404-1.aspx?url..._id=782352
2011 statistics link: http://www.gostanford.com/404-1.aspx?url..._id=782352
2010 statistics link: http://www.gostanford.com/404-1.aspx?url..._id=782468
Audaces fortuna iuvat
03-15-2017, 01:36 PM
Raise your hand Mick if you wrote Bernard and Earl last May that a change was needed now â. Yes I did.
But the facts are still important
As is 0-24.Â
No we will not bat 300 this season let alone 326. Â
But the facts are still important
As is 0-24.Â
No we will not bat 300 this season let alone 326. Â
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »