Softball - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Softball (/thread-13507.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Softball (/thread-13507.html)
Re: Softball - d4cohn - 05-11-2017
Stanford loses the first game of a three game set with Oregon 9-2. Carolyn Lee was pretty effective in the circle, but Stanford's defense was poor in this game. Card commit two errors, leading to 3 unearned runs, while allowing 2 double steals in a game (first double steal led to first Oregon run). Stanford could have had a third error, after a fielder tried to outrun an Oregon Duck to the bag, instead of making the easy throw to first (was scored a hit).
Re: Softball - Cred - 05-11-2017
One run on two hits surrendered by Carolyn Lee in 5 strong innings of pitching, and Stanford wins the first 5 innings of tonight's game 2-1.
Too bad the games go 7 innings.
Re: Softball - d4cohn - 05-12-2017
Stanford loses second game of three game set 8-0 in five innings to Oregon. Card have another awful day defensively, committing 4 more errors, leading to 2 unearned runs. Stanford has now committed six errors in the first two games of this series. Offensively, the Cardinal also struggled, posting only 1 hit and 1 walk. Season finale and senior day tomorrow for Cardinal.
Re: Softball - Cred - 05-13-2017
(05-12-2017, 07:10 PM)d4cohn link Wrote:Card have another awful day defensively, committing 4 more errors, leading to 2 unearned runs. Stanford has now committed six errors in the first two games of this series. Offensively, the Cardinal also struggled, posting only 1 hit and 1 walk.
Not to mention that Stanford pitching over the last 7 innings alone has walked 6 batters and hit 4 (7 of those free passes ultimately converted into runs) and thrown two wild pitches (one of which scored one of those six walks).
Has the team's focus taken a collective hike? Can that focus be recaptured (assuming it's been lost) for one last game?
Re: Softball - d4cohn - 05-13-2017
Softball season comes to a merciful end with a 9-0 5-inning run rule loss to Oregon. Stanford finishes the year 19-32, and 2-22 Pac-12 play. Coach Hanson now 4-68 in Pac-12 play in her first three years on the Farm.
Re: Softball - Mick - 05-13-2017
(03-25-2017, 07:10 AM)Owen Tufornomor link Wrote:[quote author=Mick link=topic=16598.msg190579#msg190579 date=1490445192]
[quote author=Owen Tufornomor link=topic=16598.msg190563#msg190563 date=1490413482]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=16598.msg190527#msg190527 date=1490384478]
[quote author=Owen Tufornomor link=topic=16598.msg190514#msg190514 date=1490361852]
Call me (optimistically) crazy, but I think Hanson over the upcoming 24 just might elevate this team to the 5-win level reached by the crippled Rittman team of 2014.
Rittman's "crippled" team of 2014 went 25-6 outside of league and finished 30-25. I'd like to see any Hanson team hit that total.
But it's a non-issue. Stanford won't win five in league.
[/quote]
Your curt dismissal of my crystal-ball vision notwithstanding, the truth value of your claim will be determined in due course on the playing field; not today, not on this forum.
[/quote]
Yes, that's true for both of our claims.
[/quote]
"True," so long as the pretense that I made a claim rather than expressed an opinion is maintained.
Seems to me that the phrase "it's a non-issue" (that Stanford won't win five) suggests that your opinion (that Stanford won't win five) is beyond challenge, that is to say, it is essentially a fact (beyond challenge) and, as such, the question of the possibility of Stanford perhaps winning as many as 5 is, in fact, a non-issue, i.e., a question the raising of which would be pointless given that the answer already is (supposedly) known.
I take it from your reply that we are nonetheless in agreement on the plain and abundantly obvious fact that the truth value of both of our opinions will be determined in due course on the playing field; not today (or yesterday), not on this forum.
[/quote]
It gives me no great pleasure to say that I was correct, but anyone could see this coming. Two conference wins in 2015, none last year and two this year. So not only did Stanford softball not win five conference games this year, they didn't win them in the course of three years.
I am hopeful that even Bernard Muir can recognize that this disaster must have an end and send Buddy Teevens Rachel Hanson back to Dartmouth as quickly as possible before she does any more damage.
Re: Softball - Cred - 05-13-2017
(03-26-2017, 12:04 AM)Owen Tufornomor link Wrote:
Year Dartmouth Stanford  0   11-7 5-19  1  10-10  2-22  2   7-13 0-24  3   15-5   ?  4   18-2
Notice a pattern here? In each of the two cases illustrated above ("Dartmouth" and "Stanford") Hanson in Year 1 falls short of reaching her predecessor's wins total (see Year 0 results above). Then in Year 2 Hanson again comes up short, this time failing to reach her own wins total from the previous year. And then last, but hardly least, after the 2-year decline comes the Year 3 rebound.
Well, the "?" in the table above can be replaced with a "2-22" now. The "rebound" from Year 2 to Year 3 here at Stanford was hardly the seemingly impressive (at first glance) 8-game rebound (from the 7-13 depths to which Hanson took the Dartmouth program in two years' time) that played out in Hanson's 3rd year at Dartmouth, was it. Nonetheless, the "down-down-up" pattern (from 5-19 "down" to 2-22, then from 2-22 "down" to 0-24, then from 0-24 "up" to 2-22) of the past 3 years still (roughly) mirrors the down-down-up pattern of Hanson's first 3 years at Dartmouth. Should Hanson be retained for a 4th year, heaven forbid, and should the pattern be "mirrored" again next year, as would be my guess, I suspect that, just as the Year 3 "up" (2-game improvement) at Stanford was a fraction of the Year 3 "up" (8-game improvement) at Dartmouth, so likewise will the "up" realized in Hanson's 4th year at Stanford be a fraction of the "up" (3-game improvement) realized in Hanson's 4th year at Dartmouth.
Under Hanson in 2018, I would set the over/under for Pac-12 wins at, oh, 3 1/2 ? Are you getting goose bumps all over in sheer anticipation? I know I am.  :-[
I do so hope I am wasting my time speculating on how things might go with Hanson at the helm for another year. Heaven forbid.
Re: Softball - winflop - 05-13-2017
I hope the only question left is whether Hanson is fired today, tomorrow, or Monday. This isn't even Dawkins-esque mediocrity it's just bad.
Re: Softball - Goose - 05-13-2017
While I am about as far from expert regarding Women's Softball as it is possible to be, it is clear that the present situation isn't working. Even if one for some reason thought it wasn't Hanson's "fault", the current coaching situation is untenable. You can't expect athletes to continue trying to compete when there is no chance they can have even moderate success. Changes must be made, and the Coach is about the only change available.The ADÂ must take action to preserve any remaining credibility in the program. It may not help, but to do nothing is really not an option.Â
Re: Softball - oldalum - 05-13-2017
After watching Muir dither on Dawkins too long, I'm expecting no action this year on Hansen.
Has Muir actually fired anyone other than Dawkins since coming to the farm?
Re: Softball - winflop - 05-13-2017
(05-13-2017, 08:18 PM)oldalum link Wrote:After watching Muir dither on Dawkins too long, I'm expecting no action this year on Hansen.
Has Muir actually fired anyone other than Dawkins since coming to the farm?
Rittman :O
I really don't think he's gonna dither this time. The evidence is overwhelming.
Re: Softball - d4cohn - 05-13-2017
(05-13-2017, 08:18 PM)oldalum link Wrote:Has Muir actually fired anyone other than Dawkins since coming to the farm?
He also "fired" John Whitlinger, based off of what I was told. Whitlinger's decision to retire was apparently not a mutual decision.
Re: Softball - BigEasyCard - 05-14-2017
(05-13-2017, 09:38 PM)d4cohn link Wrote:[quote author=oldalum link=topic=16598.msg193094#msg193094 date=1494731916]
Has Muir actually fired anyone other than Dawkins since coming to the farm?
He also "fired" John Whitlinger, based off of what I was told. Whitlinger's decision to retire was apparently not a mutual decision.
[/quote]
I'd have been thrilled if Softball's recent performance had been anything like Whitlinger's record:
"Since taking over head coaching duties in 2005 from legendary coach Dick Gould, Whitlinger guided Stanford to a 160-85 (.653) overall record and nine NCAA tournament appearances. Six players earned All-America accolades during his tenure."
http://www.ncaa.com/news/tennis-men/article/2014-05-29/stanfords-john-whitlinger-retires-after-10-seasons-nine-ncaa
Perhaps there's more to this story...
Geaux Cardinal!
Re: Softball - d4cohn - 05-15-2017
No news on the coaching front today, which means there is a non-insignificant chance that Bernard and Earl don't make a change. If that turns out to be the case, I just keep thinking back to a quote from the AD three years ago that appeared in the SF Gate: "The resignation, announced Monday by athletic director Bernard Muir, may be a sign that the bar is being raised much higher for sports on the Farm. According to sources close to the athletic department, most Stanford teams are now expected to contend not just for postseason tournaments but for national championships."
Link: http://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/article/After-18-seasons-Stanford-softball-coach-resigns-5523792.php
I hope I am proven wrong, but keeping a coach who has gone 4-68 in Pac-12 play in three years is antithesis to the pursuit of excellence that has defined Stanford and its AD.
Re: Softball - Mick - 05-15-2017
(05-15-2017, 06:09 PM)d4cohn link Wrote:No news on the coaching front today, which means there is a non-insignificant chance that Bernard and Earl don't make a change. If that turns out to be the case, I just keep thinking back to a quote from the AD three years ago that appeared in the SF Gate: "The resignation, announced Monday by athletic director Bernard Muir, may be a sign that the bar is being raised much higher for sports on the Farm. According to sources close to the athletic department, most Stanford teams are now expected to contend not just for postseason tournaments but for national championships."
Link: http://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/article/After-18-seasons-Stanford-softball-coach-resigns-5523792.php
I hope I am proven wrong, but keeping a coach who has gone 4-68 in Pac-12 play in three years is antithesis to the pursuit of excellence that has defined Stanford and its AD.
I always think it's funny when authorities make nonsensical comments. In 2004, Mayor Dinkins of NYC said "Things are not out of control and this isn't Dodge City" about New York and its violence level. Murders in NYC in 2003: 597. Average annual murders in Dodge City during reference period of extreme western violence: 3.
Re: Softball - winflop - 05-17-2017
I'm absolutely stunned that Hanson is still employed by Stanford.
Re: Softball - Goose - 05-17-2017
(05-17-2017, 05:46 AM)winflop link Wrote:I'm absolutely stunned that Hanson is still employed by Stanford.I don't understand it either. Even if it could somehow be "proven" that it is totally not Hanson's fault (which obviously is impossible), a change must be made. You can't expect players to come into such a bad situation without some kind of expectation that things will improve. You have to change something, or why should you expect better results in the future? That is why coaches get fired all the time. Sometimes you go through a few coaches before things improve. Sometimes the coaches that got fired do real well elsewhere. That is just the nature of the business, best case. Now, I do think it probable that Hanson is greatly responsible for the level of futility, but even if she wasn't, she must go! The next coach may get better results (They almost can't get worse), or it may be the same. But at least, until that point, there is hope. With no changes, there is no hope. It would be different if we were playing .400 ball. Not great, but there is a way ahead. Where we are at now, there is no way ahead.
Re: Softball - BobK - 05-17-2017
My thought is if we don't hear news by 5pm tomorrow, we won't ð¡ð
Re: Softball - 2006alum - 05-17-2017
Is there any chance Muir is trying to put out feelers about possible replacements and essentially have someone close to locked up before making the decision? I imagine given how scarring the last hiring process was that he won't want to pull the trigger unless he can be assured of something better than what he has now?
Re: Softball - winflop - 05-17-2017
(05-17-2017, 08:06 AM)2006alum link Wrote:Is there any chance Muir is trying to put out feelers about possible replacements and essentially have someone close to locked up before making the decision? I imagine given how scarring the last hiring process was that he won't want to pull the trigger unless he can be assured of something better than what he has now?
How could he not have been putting feelers out for the last several weeks? It's been pretty clear for at least a month that there wasn't going to be material improvement from the last two years.Â
A good AD should always have a list of potential replacements for EVERY head coach. Great ones will have other programs chasing after them with potentially bigger paychecks, poor ones will need to be replaced, and you never know when one is going to do something stupid and get themselves fired.