Just about 15 months ago, a Stanford frosh performed the remarkable feat of hitting for the "home run cycle" in the virtual "blink of an eye" span of 6 games. (By "home run cycle" I mean solo HR (Feb. 28) + 2-run HR (Mar. 5) + 3-run HR (Mar. 6) + grand slam (Mar. 5).) The latter three of those HRs, part of a .667 BA/5 runs scored/9 RBIs effort spanning a mere 6 at-bats, contributed to Stanford's one and only winning streak of noteworthy duration for Year 2016 (4 games (Mar. 4, Mar. 5, Mar. 5, Mar. 6), its next best "streak" being back-to-back wins on Feb. 25 (a game which, incidentally, saw this (then) frosh, forced into action by injuries sustained by the two players above her on Hanson's depth chart, initiate in highlight-reel fashion the double play that put away #17 Missouri) and on Feb. 26). Indeed this player's fingerprints are all over two of the three "bragging points" for Year 2016 noted in Hanson's profile on the Stanford softball website (defeating a ranked team and posting a 4-1 record in a tournament); and as for bragging point #3, fugetaboutit, I say, unless you first can show me a D-1 team so performance-challenged that it cannot produce at least a couple of "outstanding individual performances" over the course of a 24-game schedule.
Now check this out:
Each row of the above table statistically represents one of the 2016 team's 13 position players. Using a somewhat modified version of the Weighted On Base Average (wOBA) formula (the most significant modification being my dropping of the "reached base on error" factor from the formula since crediting a hitter with success for an at-bat worthy of being recorded as an out doesn't suit my purposes here), I've ranked the players according to "offensive value," for lack of a better term. Column 2 shows the greatest number of consecutive games sat out by each player during the course of the 2016 season (absences due to injury or mandatory attendance of special events not considered). Column 3 represents the worst slump suffered by each of the players during the course of the season. For example, the top row reveals that the team's theoretically best hitter participated in every game for which she was available to play and suffered a 1-for-15 stretch at the plate as her worst slump for the season.
Now, see if you can identify which row in the table represents the player described in the opening paragraph of this post.
Give up? The answer is row 4, that of the conspicuous statistical anomaly. Incredibly, 2016's 4th most impactful hitter per plate appearance--last season's team leader in HRs, RBIs and runs scored per plate appearance (granted, 77% of this player's at-bats came in nonconference play; however, applying the same formula as before, her 2016 nonconference performance would place her 5th among the current team's individual nonconference performances for 2017, a not too shabby "level playing field" ranking)--who, despite posting this triad of team-leading stats, easily ranked dead last among the team's 13 position players in number of times sent to the plate--did not set foot on the field for 13 consecutive games, having been relegated solely to the role of onlooker as the team offensively suffocated to the tune of a 4.3-hits/1.8 runs/1.6 RBIs per-game average over the course of those 13 games.
Amid this prolonged, virtually team-wide offensive drought that cried out, loud and clear, for this team's coach to pull out all the stops in an effort to provide an offensive spark--under circumstances that positively demanded that the hammering, pounding, unremitting call for creative, dynamic, solution-seeking coaching be heeded--how on earth could a "dynamite athlete" (quoting Hanson herself here) who had demonstrated such offensive explosiveness right before this coach's eyes fail to be called upon even once in 13 games, as the unrelenting beat-down of a perfectly steady stream of fast-accumulating losses continued to sap her team of vitality and hope game after game after strategically stagnant game??
Granted, this player did fall into an 0-15 slump (0-8 vs. nonconference pitching, 0-7 conference) just before being packed away in cold storage, but, as revealed by the column 3 figures above, virtually every player on the team endured a struggle of comparable severity at some point in the season. Nowhere, and I mean nowhere but Hanson-era Stanford softball would that 0-15 blemish have prompted a head coach to even think of resorting to the extreme, self-binding move of essentially cutting the player from the team for the better part of the Pac-12 "season."
Of course, no application of coaching strategy, however sound that strategy may be, is guaranteed to "work." Indeed, judging by the quite underwhelming 2017 season this player had (albeit the opportunity given her to establish even an offensive "foothold," much less gather any offensive momentum was quite limited), and also by the fact that the "homerun cycle" of 2016 was achieved against nonconference pitching (though perhaps it should be borne in mind that this season's top 3 Cardinal sluggers collectively hit 10 of their 15 HRs against conference pitching), one might well be inclined to believe that an effort mounted in 2016 to devise and implement a supplemental coaching scheme aimed at maximizing the odds of unleashing yet another individual offensive blitzkrieg--this one leveled against Pac-12 opposition--would have failed. Might have, might not have--with respect to answering the question of what strategic action should have been taken by this team's coach in this instance, it matters not one iota which. For when all has been said and done, there remains but one paramount principle of relevance, to wit:
It is imperative that the captain of a sinking ship make every reasonable effort (such as that described in the immediately preceding paragraph) to save that ship. As demonstrated herein, that did not happen with this "captain" in 2016. Perhaps the sense of urgency due in such circumstances just doesn't strike with force sufficient to motivate to action when one has claim to a contractual life preserver that guarantees the wearer's survival of any storm, including the Perfect 0-24 Storm. over the next several years.
Well, ignorance breeds failure, and now, 2 wins and 46 losses worth of largely wasted-away time later, the game-day potential of this player two years in remains a negligently under-explored unknown. It's called inferior coaching.
Inexcusable. Unacceptable. Unpardonable.
Now check this out:
| #1Â Â Â | 0Â Â Â | 1-15Â Â Â |
| #2 | 0 | 0-14 |
| #3 | 0 | 2-21 |
| #4 | 13 | 0-15 |
| #5 | 3 | 1-14 |
| #6 | 1 | 0-14 |
| #7 | 1 | 5-52 |
| #8 | 2 | 1-23 |
| #9 | 2 | 1-20 |
| #10 | 1 | 0-11 |
| #11 | 2 | 0-18 |
| #12 | 5 | 0-16 |
| #13 | 5 | 1-16 |
Each row of the above table statistically represents one of the 2016 team's 13 position players. Using a somewhat modified version of the Weighted On Base Average (wOBA) formula (the most significant modification being my dropping of the "reached base on error" factor from the formula since crediting a hitter with success for an at-bat worthy of being recorded as an out doesn't suit my purposes here), I've ranked the players according to "offensive value," for lack of a better term. Column 2 shows the greatest number of consecutive games sat out by each player during the course of the 2016 season (absences due to injury or mandatory attendance of special events not considered). Column 3 represents the worst slump suffered by each of the players during the course of the season. For example, the top row reveals that the team's theoretically best hitter participated in every game for which she was available to play and suffered a 1-for-15 stretch at the plate as her worst slump for the season.
Now, see if you can identify which row in the table represents the player described in the opening paragraph of this post.
Give up? The answer is row 4, that of the conspicuous statistical anomaly. Incredibly, 2016's 4th most impactful hitter per plate appearance--last season's team leader in HRs, RBIs and runs scored per plate appearance (granted, 77% of this player's at-bats came in nonconference play; however, applying the same formula as before, her 2016 nonconference performance would place her 5th among the current team's individual nonconference performances for 2017, a not too shabby "level playing field" ranking)--who, despite posting this triad of team-leading stats, easily ranked dead last among the team's 13 position players in number of times sent to the plate--did not set foot on the field for 13 consecutive games, having been relegated solely to the role of onlooker as the team offensively suffocated to the tune of a 4.3-hits/1.8 runs/1.6 RBIs per-game average over the course of those 13 games.
Amid this prolonged, virtually team-wide offensive drought that cried out, loud and clear, for this team's coach to pull out all the stops in an effort to provide an offensive spark--under circumstances that positively demanded that the hammering, pounding, unremitting call for creative, dynamic, solution-seeking coaching be heeded--how on earth could a "dynamite athlete" (quoting Hanson herself here) who had demonstrated such offensive explosiveness right before this coach's eyes fail to be called upon even once in 13 games, as the unrelenting beat-down of a perfectly steady stream of fast-accumulating losses continued to sap her team of vitality and hope game after game after strategically stagnant game??
Granted, this player did fall into an 0-15 slump (0-8 vs. nonconference pitching, 0-7 conference) just before being packed away in cold storage, but, as revealed by the column 3 figures above, virtually every player on the team endured a struggle of comparable severity at some point in the season. Nowhere, and I mean nowhere but Hanson-era Stanford softball would that 0-15 blemish have prompted a head coach to even think of resorting to the extreme, self-binding move of essentially cutting the player from the team for the better part of the Pac-12 "season."
Of course, no application of coaching strategy, however sound that strategy may be, is guaranteed to "work." Indeed, judging by the quite underwhelming 2017 season this player had (albeit the opportunity given her to establish even an offensive "foothold," much less gather any offensive momentum was quite limited), and also by the fact that the "homerun cycle" of 2016 was achieved against nonconference pitching (though perhaps it should be borne in mind that this season's top 3 Cardinal sluggers collectively hit 10 of their 15 HRs against conference pitching), one might well be inclined to believe that an effort mounted in 2016 to devise and implement a supplemental coaching scheme aimed at maximizing the odds of unleashing yet another individual offensive blitzkrieg--this one leveled against Pac-12 opposition--would have failed. Might have, might not have--with respect to answering the question of what strategic action should have been taken by this team's coach in this instance, it matters not one iota which. For when all has been said and done, there remains but one paramount principle of relevance, to wit:
It is imperative that the captain of a sinking ship make every reasonable effort (such as that described in the immediately preceding paragraph) to save that ship. As demonstrated herein, that did not happen with this "captain" in 2016. Perhaps the sense of urgency due in such circumstances just doesn't strike with force sufficient to motivate to action when one has claim to a contractual life preserver that guarantees the wearer's survival of any storm, including the Perfect 0-24 Storm. over the next several years.
Well, ignorance breeds failure, and now, 2 wins and 46 losses worth of largely wasted-away time later, the game-day potential of this player two years in remains a negligently under-explored unknown. It's called inferior coaching.
Inexcusable. Unacceptable. Unpardonable.