03-26-2017, 12:04 AM
Page 2 of 3
In mid-spring, 2016, having just witnessed a second consecutive year that seemingly reflected a job-security confidence (held by Fearless Leader) of unsurpassably lofty "I don't care if we win..." degree, I couldn't help but speculate with more than a little suspicion that Hanson more than likely had been guaranteed (at least) 3 years upon being hired. Thanks again, Mr. Cohn, for virtually confirming that to be the case.
Coming off a winless Pac-12 season, Hanson now finds herself in the best possible position to match or surpass the +8 (wins) rebound (from 7-13 to 15-5) posted in her "corresponding" 3rd year at Dartmouth. And oh what an impressive achievement that would be if not for Hanson's having "overnight-transformed" a team that had no business regressing to the point of [i]winlessness, to say the very, very least, into the mother of the Mother of All Goose Eggs[/i]. Not even with the assistance of 0-24 in all its infamy can this coach be assured of tasting the sweet(?) mirage of glory of a repeat of that eye-popping-at-first-sight-only feat of four years ago. And when the last pitch of 2017 has been thrown, the last swing taken, I rather doubt it will take a magnifying glass to determine just how far short the effort fell.
Now, here's why that "+8" rebound at Dartmouth was/is hardly as remarkable as it might seem at a mere glance. Take a look at the conference records (in bold below) compiled by Hanson's teams over the past 6 years.
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.
In both cases an obviously better method of measuring progress made (if any) under Hanson's first 3 years of leadership (better than a "tunnel vision" comparison of Year 3 to Year 2, that is) would be a comparison of Year 3 to Year 0 (her predecessor's record). Applying this truer measuring stick, 15-5 represents a comparatively modest (to call it "transformational" would surely be a stretch) upswing of 3 wins (the .611 winning percentage for the 18-game season of Year 0 translating to 12.2 wins [12, rounded] for a 20-game season) for a 3-year period. (Alas, if this year's Stanford team is to match even a rate of progress that modest it will have to produce a "Pac-12" result of 8 wins in defiance of some rather imposing odds. Moreover, whether or not, heaven forbid, this team even will rise from the depths to which Hanson has led it to match the 5 wins bagged by the crippled team of Rittman's final year remains to be seen.)
You may have noticed that Year 4 witnessed further improvement at Dartmouth, record-wise; unfortunately, however, Year 4 marks the fork in the road where the schools' heretofore striking similarity in "pattern" comes to an abrupt end. Why? A few major considerations:
1. The high-impact offensive players of the strongest by far class recruited by Hanson at Stanford--this year's frosh--are approaching their offensive productivity ceiling now. Given that several of them already are making offensive contributions of mammoth proportions, and barring the impossibility that these players may have been blessed with superhuman potential, one's hope of witnessing in these players' post-frosh years a significant surge in their collective offensive productivity (i.e., one sufficient to produce a significant increase in the number of would-be "L"s transformed into "W"s), frankly, seems a pipe dream.
2. Seven weeks down the road this team will be losing 3 core players who proved lethal at the plate in 2017 nonconference play and who as a group play solid and at times spectacular defense to boot.
3. Hanson apparently recruited some good players at Dartmouth (not to mention more good 'uns, post-"Prize Class of 2017", at Stanford), good enough to win an Ivy League Championship in her final year with the Big Green. However, recruiting good players in the elite Pac-12 will land you in the lower half of the conference as a recruiter, and quite possibly near or in the cellar.
Should the current coaching staff be retained indefinitely, somewhat of a narrowing of the gap between Stanford and the upper tier teams can be expected in spite of that most undesired development as the Bigs continue to replace graduating "elites" ("Tens") with more Tens while Stanford sporadically progresses with glacial urgency over the next decade or two from today's level "Seven" or so team to a Seven and a Half, and then hopefully, someday before we all have departed this earth, perhaps an Eight. Should no change at the top be forthcoming in the foreseeable future I'll feign no surprise if Stanford finds itself shut out throughout the next half-century in its quest to secure its next World Series berth, not to mention a National Championship.
All things considered, then, I anticipate that Year 4 under Hanson, should there be one, will be a year of regression. The only question is, regression to what extent? ("The only question," that is, unless one counts the follow-up question destined to spring from succeeding years, just where will it end?)
In mid-spring, 2016, having just witnessed a second consecutive year that seemingly reflected a job-security confidence (held by Fearless Leader) of unsurpassably lofty "I don't care if we win..." degree, I couldn't help but speculate with more than a little suspicion that Hanson more than likely had been guaranteed (at least) 3 years upon being hired. Thanks again, Mr. Cohn, for virtually confirming that to be the case.
Coming off a winless Pac-12 season, Hanson now finds herself in the best possible position to match or surpass the +8 (wins) rebound (from 7-13 to 15-5) posted in her "corresponding" 3rd year at Dartmouth. And oh what an impressive achievement that would be if not for Hanson's having "overnight-transformed" a team that had no business regressing to the point of [i]winlessness, to say the very, very least, into the mother of the Mother of All Goose Eggs[/i]. Not even with the assistance of 0-24 in all its infamy can this coach be assured of tasting the sweet(?) mirage of glory of a repeat of that eye-popping-at-first-sight-only feat of four years ago. And when the last pitch of 2017 has been thrown, the last swing taken, I rather doubt it will take a magnifying glass to determine just how far short the effort fell.
Now, here's why that "+8" rebound at Dartmouth was/is hardly as remarkable as it might seem at a mere glance. Take a look at the conference records (in bold below) compiled by Hanson's teams over the past 6 years.
| Year | Dartmouth | Stanford |
| Â 0 | Â Â 11-7 | 5-19 |
| Â 1 | Â 10-10 | Â 2-22 |
| Â 2 | Â Â 7-13 | 0-24 |
| Â 3 | Â Â 15-5 | Â Â ? |
| Â 4 | Â Â 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.
In both cases an obviously better method of measuring progress made (if any) under Hanson's first 3 years of leadership (better than a "tunnel vision" comparison of Year 3 to Year 2, that is) would be a comparison of Year 3 to Year 0 (her predecessor's record). Applying this truer measuring stick, 15-5 represents a comparatively modest (to call it "transformational" would surely be a stretch) upswing of 3 wins (the .611 winning percentage for the 18-game season of Year 0 translating to 12.2 wins [12, rounded] for a 20-game season) for a 3-year period. (Alas, if this year's Stanford team is to match even a rate of progress that modest it will have to produce a "Pac-12" result of 8 wins in defiance of some rather imposing odds. Moreover, whether or not, heaven forbid, this team even will rise from the depths to which Hanson has led it to match the 5 wins bagged by the crippled team of Rittman's final year remains to be seen.)
You may have noticed that Year 4 witnessed further improvement at Dartmouth, record-wise; unfortunately, however, Year 4 marks the fork in the road where the schools' heretofore striking similarity in "pattern" comes to an abrupt end. Why? A few major considerations:
1. The high-impact offensive players of the strongest by far class recruited by Hanson at Stanford--this year's frosh--are approaching their offensive productivity ceiling now. Given that several of them already are making offensive contributions of mammoth proportions, and barring the impossibility that these players may have been blessed with superhuman potential, one's hope of witnessing in these players' post-frosh years a significant surge in their collective offensive productivity (i.e., one sufficient to produce a significant increase in the number of would-be "L"s transformed into "W"s), frankly, seems a pipe dream.
2. Seven weeks down the road this team will be losing 3 core players who proved lethal at the plate in 2017 nonconference play and who as a group play solid and at times spectacular defense to boot.
3. Hanson apparently recruited some good players at Dartmouth (not to mention more good 'uns, post-"Prize Class of 2017", at Stanford), good enough to win an Ivy League Championship in her final year with the Big Green. However, recruiting good players in the elite Pac-12 will land you in the lower half of the conference as a recruiter, and quite possibly near or in the cellar.
Should the current coaching staff be retained indefinitely, somewhat of a narrowing of the gap between Stanford and the upper tier teams can be expected in spite of that most undesired development as the Bigs continue to replace graduating "elites" ("Tens") with more Tens while Stanford sporadically progresses with glacial urgency over the next decade or two from today's level "Seven" or so team to a Seven and a Half, and then hopefully, someday before we all have departed this earth, perhaps an Eight. Should no change at the top be forthcoming in the foreseeable future I'll feign no surprise if Stanford finds itself shut out throughout the next half-century in its quest to secure its next World Series berth, not to mention a National Championship.
All things considered, then, I anticipate that Year 4 under Hanson, should there be one, will be a year of regression. The only question is, regression to what extent? ("The only question," that is, unless one counts the follow-up question destined to spring from succeeding years, just where will it end?)