Softball: Stanford 11 Cal 10 - 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: Stanford 11 Cal 10 (/thread-17456.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: Stanford 11 Cal 10 (/thread-17456.html)
Softball: Stanford 11 Cal 10 - Viking_Guy - 03-24-2019
Okay, that was an interesting finish.
Stanford broke out with a 6 run top of the first, but the pitching couldn't hold. With Dwyer on the mound, the Bears scored 2 in the bottom of the first, then Maddy gave up 4 singles against one out in the bottom of the third, and Pancino gave up a game-tying single. 6-6 through 3.
Stanford got back on top, scoring a single run in the top of the fifth, but leaving runners on second and third. Pancino gave up two rockets, the first ending in a great catch at the wall in right by Cowles, then a rocket just over Cowles glove to tie the game. After a Pancino walk, she was lifted for Lee, who got out of the inning.
Stanford's offense, mostly dead in the water after the first, had a walk, but nothing threatening, in the top of the sixth, then Lee ran into issues in the bottom, a first pitch single, a four pitch walk, then a ball to short that bad-hopped Young. A sac fly to left scored the go-ahead run, advancing the runners, then Sparacino, who Cowles had robbed in the fifth, had one heck of an at-bat, finally hammering the ball to right past Burks, and scoring the two insurance runs.
Then came the truly weird top of the seventh. The Bears' starter from yesterday, Conley, who had entered the game after the original starter had failed to record an out in the top of the first, finally got gassed, giving up a single and three consecutive walks. Then the strangeness started.
A line drive to center field, with the Bears' CF coming straight toward homeplate and making the catch. Burks bluffs from third, but a strong throw is on the way and she probably would've returned to third. Except the Bears' 1B, trying to cut it off, DIVES across the pitching circle and tips the ball away from the catcher up the third base line in foul territory. Burks scores, Howell to third with one out.
Then weird play #2. A hard ground ball to second, with a drawn-in infield, and the throw comes home high. Howell, sliding to avoid the tag, slaps her left hand down on the plate just before the sweep tag hits her shoulder. Tie game.
Except the umpire inexplicably says she didn't touch the plate. He was probably unsighted by the sweeping tag arm, but Howell's hand hit the center of the back of the plate well before she was tagged and went across. It wasn't really that close; he just missed it.
Which makes weird play #3 that more karmically satisfying. With the blown call, it's first and third, two out. Cowles bloops a ball to right center, just over the 2B and in the hole between her and the CF and RF. Young scores from third. The Cal CF reaches down to pick the ball, and has it hit her leg and move about 2 feet away. She reaches down again with the glove and drops it. Reaches down a third time and picks it up with her bare hand, stands up...
And looks in toward the catcher, who has been literally jumping up and down in frustration. Because Horeczko, with Allister windmilling her on, has been sprinting from first, and crosses the plate standing up just as the CF finally stands up with the ball. 11-10, Stanford.
An uneventful bottom of the seventh (fly to left, liner to short, soft blooper to short), and Stanford has won its first Pac-12 series in I believe SIX years.
My goodness.
Back to basketball,
VG
RE: Softball: Stanford 11 Cal 10 - BobK - 03-24-2019
Great descriptions and some video and photo in twitter showing what you So actually described
Yes 6 years. Wow.
RE: Softball: Stanford 11 Cal 10 - terry - 03-24-2019
That's awesome!
Thanks for the write-up.
RE: Softball: Stanford 11 Cal 10 - Viking_Guy - 03-24-2019
Game being replayed on Pac-12 national this evening, if anyone wants to watch.
I may, just for fun :).
VG
RE: Softball: Stanford 11 Cal 10 - chrisk - 03-24-2019
F
(03-24-2019, 07:38 PM)Viking_Guy Wrote: Game being replayed on Pac-12 national this evening, if anyone wants to watch.
I may, just for fun :).
VG
Looking for a sweep tomorrow
RE: Softball: Stanford 11 Cal 10 - JJJ - 03-24-2019
Thanks for the recap! I may watch the replay now that I’ve read it.
RE: Softball: Stanford 11 Cal 10 - d4cohn - 03-24-2019
(03-24-2019, 07:38 PM)Viking_Guy Wrote: Game being replayed on Pac-12 national this evening, if anyone wants to watch.
I may, just for fun :).
VG
I am definitely watching. :) I was flying home to San Diego, so I had to follow the end of the game on game-tracker. Thanks for handling the summary of this remarkable game VG. If this team makes the postseason (or maybe even hosts a regional as a top 16 seed, with their RPI at 22 prior to this weekend's series), sharpie this game along with the LSU game.
This game was all the more impressive (given it is on the road, in packed stadium, against the archrival who we haven't beat since 2014, and won us our first series in 6 years), as well as the fact that this game was Cal's season. They threw their ace for a second straight game after their #3 spotted us a 6-0 lead because their RPI was #69 prior to this weekend's series, and they had already dropped a road series at Utah (who is by far the worst team in the conference this year). If they lost this game, they would lose a home series, and with a very difficult remaining Pac-12 schedule (UA, UCLA, UW, ASU all on the docket, and only Oregon remaining as an easier series), their postseason hopes would be all but over.
Ninemire throwing Conley for a second straight complete game, on top of 150+ pitches she threw yesterday, was the equivalent of her pushing all of her chips into the center of the table in poker. And even though I wouldn't have gambled like that, particularly when Cal had to dig itself out of a 6-0 hole, it nearly worked for her and Cal. Until it didn't. :)
Stanford is in great position to sweep, because Ninemire really has no good options to start tomorrow, and our ace Carolyn Lee only threw 39 pitches in relief, so she should be good to go for at least a significant part of tomorrow's game. Though Ninemire might get bailed out by the weather report (rain is forecasted for much of the day in Berkeley, so I wouldn't be surprised to see a postponement to Tuesday).
If you all watch one highlight, watch Teghan's seemingly 50th great catch in RF. And it ended up being more than
just an outstanding play; the run she robbed from Cal ended up being the margin in this game.
https://twitter.com/StanfordSball/status/1109986779614990336
RE: Softball: Stanford 11 Cal 10 - M T - 03-24-2019
(03-24-2019, 05:07 PM)Viking_Guy Wrote: Then weird play #2. A hard ground ball to second, with a drawn-in infield, and the throw comes home high. Howell, sliding to avoid the tag, slaps her left hand down on the plate just before the sweep tag hits her shoulder. Tie game.
Except the umpire inexplicably says she didn't touch the plate. He was probably unsighted by the sweeping tag arm, but Howell's hand hit the center of the back of the plate well before she was tagged and went across. It wasn't really that close; he just missed it.
The replay tonight shows clearly her hand coming down fully on the plate well before the tag, sliding across the plate, and sweeping up dirt as her hand got to the dirt. Then you hear the ump yelling something such as "... missed the plate".
How he missed the hand on the plate, I don't know. It appears he should have a clear view of the hand on the plate.
Not only does the ump miss the touch of the plate, he also misses that the catcher apparently tagged the runner (after the touch of the plate), so he declines to call the runner out, forcing the catcher to tag the runner again.
But, even so, is he supposed to yell out a non-call explanation, or remain silent until there is something to call. The catcher kneeling on the plate, looking up at the ump, doesn't appear to ask for an explanation. Is this like an ump yelling out that the pitcher doesn't have the ball when a team attempts a hidden ball trick?
Did you notice that the official tying run missed the plate and had to come back to step on it. The runner had turned her head to look at the play of the ball, and when she turned around, she was one stride from the plate and the catcher's foot (and body) was about 2" off the opposite side of the plate from her. To avoid running over the catcher she broke her stride and landed short of the plate with the foot that should have landed on it. The player and the catcher both twist their bodies to minimize impact. The ump clearly saw the missed plate and watched the runner come back, but failed to call obstruction. While I don't really know how such situations are normally handled, from the rule book, this appears to be fielder obstruction (by the catcher impeding the path of the player, 9.5.3.1) and that the ump should have signaled a delayed dead ball (which he did not signal). When the player comes back and tags the plate, there is no further action required, but the obstruction should have been already called, and a delayed dead ball signaled.
Quote:9.5.3 Fielder Obstruction.
9.5.3.1 A fielder who is not in possession of the ball nor in the act of fielding
a batted ball shall not impede the runner.
EFFECT—(9.5.3.1 to 9.5.3.6)—Whenever obstruction occurs, whether a
play is being made on a runner, obstruction shall be called and a delayed
dead ball is signaled.
If the obstructed player safely reaches the base she should have reached
had there been no obstruction or she is put out at a base beyond the
base she should have reached had there been no obstruction, no further
action occurs.
I hope this umpire gets a full review and his qualifications for this level reconsidered.
RE: Softball: Stanford 11 Cal 10 - Cred - 03-24-2019
(03-24-2019, 08:42 PM)d4cohn Wrote: [T]his game was Cal's season. [Therefore], [t]hey threw their ace for a second straight game [on top of 150+ pitches she threw yesterday] after their #3 spotted us a 6-0 lead....
Stanford is in great position to sweep, because Ninemire really has no good options to start tomorrow....
D, I'm struggling to make sense of what you posted above.
Cal's pitching stats prior to Sunday's game:
K. Dung 8-4, 74.1 ip, 2.17 era
Z. Conley 6-6, 69.1 ip, 3.84 era
A. Perez 5-0, 40.1 ip, 1.39 era
Where is Dung (whose '19 stats more closely resemble that of an "ace" than Conley's) in all this? Is there possibly an injury situation of which you are unaware that effectually forced Ninemire to go to Conley when Perez proved ineffective?
Re: Ninemire's starting options tomorrow, again, first and foremost, what's the story on Dung? Secondly, should a pitcher who, in spite of getting hammered in Sunday's game, nonetheless still sports a 2.26 era (only slightly higher than Dwyer's following her early exit Sunday) necessarily be written off as a "no good option" for game 3? Though very lucky to avoid getting tagged with the loss Sunday, she remains, after all, undefeated.
RE: Softball: Stanford 11 Cal 10 - d4cohn - 03-24-2019
(03-24-2019, 11:00 PM)Cred Wrote:(03-24-2019, 08:42 PM)d4cohn Wrote: [T]his game was Cal's season. [Therefore], [t]hey threw their ace for a second straight game [on top of 150+ pitches she threw yesterday] after their #3 spotted us a 6-0 lead....
Stanford is in great position to sweep, because Ninemire really has no good options to start tomorrow....
D, I'm struggling to make sense of what you posted above.
Cal's pitching stats prior to Sunday's game:
K. Dung 8-4, 74.1 ip, 2.17 era
Z. Conley 6-6, 69.1 ip, 3.84 era
A. Perez 5-0, 40.1 ip, 1.39 era
Where is Dung (whose '19 stats more closely resemble that of an "ace" than Conley's) in all this? Is there possibly an injury situation of which you are unaware that effectually forced Ninemire to go to Conley when Perez proved ineffective?
Re: Ninemire's starting options tomorrow, again, first and foremost, what's the story on Dung? Secondly, should a pitcher who, in spite of getting hammered in Sunday's game, nonetheless still sports a 2.26 era (only slightly higher than Dwyer's following her early exit Sunday) necessarily be written off as a "no good option" for game 3? Though very lucky to avoid getting tagged with the loss Sunday, she remains, after all, undefeated.
Dung is having the better year, but Conley has led this staff for at least the last 2-3 years (Dung is a transfer from Fresno State). And yes, Dung is very likely hurt (When Dung didn't start either today or yesterday, it was pretty obvious that's what happened; I don't expect to see her tomorrow.). However, when you are down 5-0, Ninemire didn't have to turn to Conley; she could have written off the game, started Conley tomorrow, and either leave Perez in to somehow eat innings, or turn to Kourtney Shaw. Sure, either Shaw or Perez would have likely resulted in a Cardinal run-rule, but you save your best remaining pitcher to try to steal Game #3 when the deficit isn't six runs (despite our struggles in the circle today, and Cal's solid lineup, I generally don't place good odds on overcoming a six run deficit).
And normally, I would agree with you that it would be potentially premature to write off Perez; however, she gave up 5 runs without recording a single out, whereas Conley is a RS Senior, who has led the staff for most of her career, and showed today that she can be effective in stretches. However, turning to Conley tomorrow (presuming no rainout) who has logged all 14 innings and 250+ pitches isn't a great option, on top of the fact that the Cardinal have seen her at least 6-7 times through the lineup. Dung is hurt, so she very likely won't be the pitcher tomorrow. Perez couldn't even record an out in her previous start the day before, and is a freshman (regarding her ERA, it also matters what competition she faced. When Dung was healthy, her and Conley faced the top competition in Cal's non-conference schedule, such as ULL, Notre Dame, Oklahoma State etc.; Cal doesn't have the player game-by-game stats working, so going through a couple of box scores for Cal's best competition, I only saw one significant appearance by Perez against Texas where she also got tagged for 3 runs while only recording 4 outs at the end of 10-0 run rule loss.)
As the #3 option, Perez recorded those stats against the Incarnate Words of Cal's non-conference schedule. So I would expect her (and Cal) to have not lost any of those games. It was very clear watching the first inning that Stanford's lineup was the best lineup she had faced in her collegiate career.
And while Maddy may have gotten tagged for runs today, she has far more experience against top competition, with some proven results, over Perez (including an effective start against UCLA last year, 2 1/3 scoreless innings against LSU on the road to win that game etc.)
Let's hope for good weather tomorrow, but I like Stanford's chances for a sweep with C Lee getting the ball against either a tired Conley or a freshmen Perez who hasn't faced much of this caliber of competition yet in her career. If the game is moved to Tuesday, then I think that mitigates the advantage for Stanford.
RE: Softball: Stanford 11 Cal 10 - Viking_Guy - 03-25-2019
A couple of edits, now that I've rewatched.
Misremembered the sequence in the seventh - it was single to left, walk to Burks, and then what I should've posted as weird play 4 of the inning. Howell bounces a ball up the middle right toward the shortstop breaking to cover second base. Might have been an easy double-play ball. But the 2B breaks in front of the bag and deflects it away, toward the shortstop hole. No one advanced, but that was the break that loaded the bases.
The other one was to give props to Young, who worked a 1-2 count into a walk, including not biting on a VERY close 2-2 pitch.
And yes, looking back at the ump's blown call, I don't know what the heck he was seeing. The catcher's arm was well out of his line of vision to the left, and he appeared to be staring straight at Howell's hand as it slapped the plate.
VG
RE: Softball: Stanford 11 Cal 10 - BobK - 03-25-2019
I umpired softball for 8 years and while last game was2012 I never heard of a rule where the umpire says no call. It s only safe or out.
RE: Softball: Stanford 11 Cal 10 - d4cohn - 03-25-2019
Stanford up to #18 in RPI, and #20 in Massey, after yesterday's dramatics.
Forecast looks a bit better in Berkeley, at least with regards to the duration of the
expected rain showers (this game almost undoubtedly won't be played at 2pm,
but it looks like they probably could start the game around 5pm or 6pm once
the rain showers have subsided).
Bobk, I just thought of something though: does Levine-Fricke Field have lights?
That would potentially complicate things if no.
RE: Softball: Stanford 11 Cal 10 - M T - 03-25-2019
(03-25-2019, 10:09 AM)d4cohn Wrote: just thought of something though: does Levine-Fricke Field have lights?
That would potentially complicate things if no.
Yesterday's broadcast shows no light poles along any of the outfield fences.
Sunset is 7:24 PDT
WeatherUnderground shows 80% chance of showers at 4PM, 30% at 5PM, 20% at 6PM.
RE: Softball: Stanford 11 Cal 10 - d4cohn - 03-25-2019
(03-25-2019, 11:35 AM)M T Wrote:(03-25-2019, 10:09 AM)d4cohn Wrote: just thought of something though: does Levine-Fricke Field have lights?
That would potentially complicate things if no.
Yesterday's broadcast shows no light poles along any of the outfield fences.
Sunset is 7:24 PDT
WeatherUnderground shows 80% chance of showers at 4PM, 30% at 5PM, 20% at 6PM.
Thanks MT. Yeah, that is problematic that there are no lights. This looks like a likely postponement.
Though just checking the radar again, looks like we might get lucky. The worst of the showers look like they
will pass just north of Berkeley. There is still an off-shore band that will almost undoubtedly bring rain,
but the showers in Santa Rosa look much heavier and wider.