College Softball Observation

[default]

There are many college programs out there (all different divisions and conferences) that seem to ride one pitcher the entire year and rarely give innings to the other pitchers on the staff. I have watched games were a Division 1 pitcher pitches the Friday night game, then for the double header on Saturday, pitch both of those games too (usally by the second game on Saturday the pitcher gets hit pretty good). About this time of year, those teams that do this often find themselves with a "spent horse" so to speak and when it comes time to start using their other pitchers, they get into trouble because 1- those kids havn't had enough innings throwing to live batters in a GAME situation and 2- whoever is calling the pitches isn't 100% comfortable with the unknown since they have not used them in so long. To me, this leads to early exits in the post season, or in fact, some teams not even making it to the post season.

So my question to the Board, why do colleges do this?

In my opinion, its not that say the #2 pitcher on the staff could not do an good job in the circle but that it makes whoever's job it is calling the pitches more difficult because now they have to be able to call a good game for two pitchers (or three) which means they have to master/truly understand each pitcher, whats working, what isn't, their quirks etc. and too often its easier just to stick with the same one because you are familiar with her and just "rely on the defense" to get the outs.

thoughts?

 

[default]

I don't do it, but I don't have that dominant ace right now, either. Even if I would have someone who completely dominates, I wouldn't throw her all the time.

But I think the pressure of winning and keeping one's job is the main reason. If you figure your ace at 75% is better than the rest of your staff, you might go with her if she says she can go. Until ADs want to keep close enough track of softball to evaluate coaches based on more than just on their win-loss record, then coaches are going to do what it takes to win games, even if that means pushing the envelope.

 

[default]

Abbreviated response:

I would not want to be in this position as a coach.

I'm speculating that there is a more than average disparity in talent or effectiveness between #1 and #2 to feel the need to have to play it out this way. If the two were relative equals, yet with enough noticeable differences (example: #1 is a Drop/Rise/Change type pitcher, while #2 is a Screw/Curve type pitcher) to give a different "look", then they would probably be splitting games between them throughout the season.

Taking deliberate matchups out of the equation, with a variation between pitchers in WHIP stats, etc., of any significance, a coach also has to consider such things as how solid their defense is, as well as how much run support your offense is generating, in order to get your #2/#3 more time in the circle. Also, if you have a really dry spring where there are minimal interruptions to the schedule and things roll along at an expected pace, riding one pitcher could be doable. With lots of rainouts and reschedulings, this could be disaster if you don't have a solid #2/#3 to go to.

Injuries and overuse are always that potential variable that could catch you unprepared at any time. It's a risk vs. reward type of thing. Best to plan for the worst and get ALL your pitchers as much time as you can as early as possible, while hopefully staying on the positive side of the wins column.

 

[default]

Or they didn't recruit well...

 

[default]

Which programs are you seeing it?

It's become rare at the top D1 level. I think coaches have wised up about riding an ace into the ground being very short sighted and have become more strategic in their usage. The magic number seems to be less than 2/3 of the innings, even when they don't have a regular #2 starter. For example:

- OU's Kelsey Stevens has pitched 64% (163 of 254.2) of the innings despite starting 75% of the games and appearing in 90%. OU has used 6 pitchers and Shelby Pendley has recently emerged as an effective pitcher despite no prior pitching experience in college.

- Tenn's Ellen Renfroe has pitched 61% (162.2/265.2) of the innings, started 58.5% (24/41) and appeared in 73% (30/41).

- Stanford's Madi Schreyer has pitched 68% (176/258.2), started 66% (27/41) and appeared in 80.5% (33/41) despite being the only regular college pitcher on the staff since very early in the season.

Minn's Sara Moulton has pitched a ton of innings each of the prior 3 years (253-278) and this year has only pitched 57.6% (145.2/153) with the addition of a capable #2, Sara Groenewegen.

 

[default]

IMO, the bigger problem is coaches not knowing when to pull (or NOT pull) their ace in a game - not knowing their limits.

 

[default]

It is apparent that OK's Gasso is monitoring Stevens's pitch counts and is getting a good handle on how much she can throw without impacting her ability to pitch the next game. They are putting a big emphasis on Stevens being "efficient" so she keeps her pitch counts down.

OK had a big series a week ago against Baylor. First game, Stevens threw 121 pitches in a 3-2 win. Second game, Stevens threw 100 pitches in a 2-0 win. Miller started the 3rd game and didn't get an out. Pendley and Casey pitched the first 4 innings. OK was leading 6-5, so Gasso put Stevens in to hold the lead. Stevens pitched a clean 5th, but gave up 3 runs in the 6th and OK lost. She threw 45 pitches in just 2 innings.

There was another important series this weekend against TX and both teams started their #1 pitcher all 3 games.

OK won the first game 4-1 with both pitchers throwing complete games. TX's Davis threw 119 pitches in 6 IP and OK's Stevens threw 98 in 7.

In the 2nd game, OK pulled Stevens with 2 outs in the 5th inning after TX took a 6-0 lead on her 93rd pitch. Gasso knew keeping Stevens out there wasn't likely to change the outcome of that game and would reduce their chances of winning the 3rd game. Texas had made an adjustment of being more patient and laying off Stevens's rise. TX Davis threw 103 pitches in 6 IP.

In the 3rd game, OK jumped out to a 4-0 lead in the first inning, extended it to 8-0 in the 3rd and that was the final score. OK adjusted their pitch calling, but TX was still able to be more patient. Stevens threw 93 pitches in 5 IP.

OK has a couple of midweek games against some weaker teams, Central Ark and N. TX. I expect Stevens will only pitch one game.

Stevens is the only pitcher OK has that can keep top-ranked teams under control for multiple innings. OK is only going as far as she is able to pitch effectively.

 

[default]

This is something that we looked at when my dd's were looking at schools. If the coach rode one horse then we'd move on. If they spread the work around and made sure that even a freshman got some innings then we'd be much more interested in that school/coach/team.

Most schools will play in excess of 40 games but less then half of those will be in-conference, the others are just exhibitions. A coach doesn't need to throw their ace in half of the games that they play....yet they do.

If a school that throws 3 or 4 pitchers your dd will get a chance and that they might not get hurt by overuse.

The iron maidens that are throwing all these innings at the high D-1 level are going to pay the price sooner or later; nothing is free.

 

[default]

Nonconference games are not meaningless - they affect a team's ranking which affects getting at-large berths and seeding, not to mention the job security for the coach. They are where the other pitchers get a lot of their innings because the preconference schedule often requires more pitchers to handle the weekends of 5 games in 3 days. The pitchers that do well in their opportunities earn more opportunities and will be tested against stronger teams.

When looking at schools, take a hard look at the game schedule to see how manageable it is for classes because schedules vary a lot. Some schools/conferences schedule more doubleheaders which can be more class friendly by reducing the number of weekday games and shortening trips. DH's should also result in teams using more pitchers.

Gasso is responsible for only having one pitcher capable of pitching effectively at their level. I find it very odd that 2 position players, Casey and Pendleton, are more reliable than the other 3 pitchers on their roster. For whatever reason, OK has not been able to develop those 3 players that were recruited as pitchers.

On the other hand, you have Michigan which is very successful at recruiting and developing pitchers.
- Haylie Wagner was not expected to contribute much as a freshman in 2012 as they completely overhauled her mechanics. She was only throwing high 50's in the fall and ended up taking them to a Super Regional where they fell to AL 4-1 and 4-3.
- Sara Driesenga, the other freshman pitcher that was expected to carry most of the load in 2012, made huge strides in 2013 and they went to the WCWS.
- Megan Betsa, a freshman pitcher this year, has improved over the year and pitched a complete game 7-2 win over #12 Minnesota yesterday.
- They have a top pitching recruit, Tera Blanco, coming in next year. She has been the top pitcher for Tony Rico's Firecrackers the last 3 years. There is going to be a lot of competition amongst the 4 pitchers next year because there won't be enough innings to keep all of them sharp and satisfied. That's an enviable position for a coach.

 

[default]

IMO, the bigger problem is coaches not knowing when to pull (or NOT pull) their ace in a game - not knowing their limits.

See it all the time. Good to have you posting Sammy

 

[default]

SoCal; Most of the teams compete in conferences that will only send the conference champion to the NCAA/NAIA tournaments. The conference W/L are used for seeding and then it is typically a double elimination tournament that determines the champaign. The conference champaign is the only team that moves on. The second place school from the North Atlantic Coast Conference is unlikely to receive an at large bid regardless of how solid their overall record maybe.

My point is that the majority of games can be used to develop pitchers without much risk to the team or the coach's livelihood. The coaches can protect their stud from over-use, everyone is healthy for the conference tournament and maybe facilitate a deep run into the NCAA/NAIA tournaments.

 

[default]

Yes, most of the berths go to conference champions - roughly 45 of 64 for Div III. However, overall Div-III W-L% is the first criteria for selecting at-large teams (see 31.3.3.2.1). Wittenberg is currently in a better position at 18-6 (.750) than DePauw at 20-14 (.588).

 

[default]

So Cal
Does strength of schedule come into play at the DII/DIII level or is it just the straight W/L record for the at-large bids?

 

[default]

SOS is the 5th criterion. The scope of the criteria was just changed from in-region/out-of-region to overall D-III/Non-D-III, but there was no change in the criteria within primary and secondary.

31.3.3.2.1 Primary Criteria—Ranking and Selection (All Contests Leading up to NCAA Championships).
(a) Won-lost percentage against Division III opponents; (Adopted: 4/15/03, Revised: 7/24/12 effective 8/1/13)
(b) Division III head-to-head competition; (Revised: 7/24/12 effective 8/1/13)
(c) Results versus common Division III opponents; (Revised: 7/24/12 effective 8/1/13)
(d) Results versus ranked Division III teams as established by the rankings at the time of selection. Conference
postseason contests are included; (Revised: 7/24/12 effective 8/1/13, 1/16/13 effective 8/1/13)
(e) Division III strength of schedule (see Bylaw 31.3.3.2.3); and (Adopted: 1/13/10, Revised: 7/24/12 effective
8/1/13)
(f) Should a committee find that evaluation of a team’s won-lost percentage during the last 25 percent of the season is applicable (i.e., end-of-season performance), it may adopt such criteria with approval from the Championships Committee. (Adopted: 7/24/12 effective 8/1/13)
31.3.3.2.2 Secondary Criteria—Ranking and Selection.
(a) Non-Division III won-lost percentage; (Revised: 7/24/12 effective 8/1/13)
(b) Results versus common non-Division III opponents; and (Revised: 7/24/12 effective 8/1/13)
(c) Non-Division III strength of schedule. (Revised: 7/24/12 effective 8/1/13)