Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 5 of 6     «   Prev   2   3   4   5   6   Next
nolefan

Registered:
Posts: 54
Reply with quote  #121 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurosawa
She's working for Shawna Wright's Softball University as a "professional instructor":

http://www.softballuniversity.com/professional-instructors/

She was also on the 29-person "selection roster" for Team Canada this summer (both her parents are Canadian), but didn't make the final roster. Jocelyn Cater, Victoria Hayward, Danielle Lawrie, and Jenn Salling are on the Team Canada roster.

https://softball.ca/wnt/athletes.htm


Just to clarify, Cater, Hayward, Lawrie and Salling are on the athlete pool list of invitees to the tryouts for selection to the Team Canada roster competing next summer (2018). The final roster will be announced in February, 2018.

__________________
N
Kurosawa

Registered:
Posts: 2,629
Reply with quote  #122 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1janiedough



The article does not say anything about not returning to Udub for her senior season though.


I didn't say it did. It did say she graduated, however, which had not been previously mentioned. My understanding is that she'd need to be enrolled in a graduate program at UW to be eligible to play her 5th year at UW. Apparently, she has other plans. (Note: Whether she could still enroll in grad school this winter quarter and play this spring, I don't know.)
cjs4585

Registered:
Posts: 150
Reply with quote  #123 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3leftturns
I hope cjs isn't a cop and his gun isn't anywhere near where I drive.

Interesting post, including that one line of comedy


She doesn't really throw a fastball (except unintentionally when one of her pitches isn't moving) and anyone who does, generally doesn't last very long. As far as the gun being accurate, I believe it is the same one that had Elish consistently hitting 70 last year. Probably wrong there too [smile] (although I know that's what others had her at as well). 
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 11,435
Reply with quote  #124 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjs4585


She doesn't really throw a fastball (except unintentionally when one of her pitches isn't moving) and anyone who does, generally doesn't last very long. As far as the gun being accurate, I believe it is the same one that had Elish consistently hitting 70 last year. Probably wrong there too [smile] (although I know that's what others had her at as well). 
Stay away from my streets, officer krupke [smile]
cjs4585

Registered:
Posts: 150
Reply with quote  #125 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurosawa


I didn't say it did. It did say she graduated, however, which had not been previously mentioned. My understanding is that she'd need to be enrolled in a graduate program at UW to be eligible to play her 5th year at UW. Apparently, she has other plans. (Note: Whether she could still enroll in grad school this winter quarter and play this spring, I don't know.)


Yes, my understanding is that she'd have to enroll in grad school as well to get her last year of eligibility. I know she had multiple offers to play and go to grad school, but, as you say, she apparently has other plans. 
outofzone

Registered:
Posts: 989
Reply with quote  #126 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjs4585


She doesn't really throw a fastball (except unintentionally when one of her pitches isn't moving) and anyone who does, generally doesn't last very long. As far as the gun being accurate, I believe it is the same one that had Elish consistently hitting 70 last year. Probably wrong there too [smile] (although I know that's what others had her at as well). 


Call it what you want but I'm thinking if she's really throwing 70-71 she's throwing a fastball. 
cjs4585

Registered:
Posts: 150
Reply with quote  #127 
Quote:
Originally Posted by outofzone


Call it what you want but I'm thinking if she's really throwing 70-71 she's throwing a fastball. 


Are you saying it didn't break, so therefore it was a fastball? I could see it was a curve when it left her hand. It certainly didn't break as much as some of her later curves (which were definitely not that hard) but there was spin.  

  
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 11,435
Reply with quote  #128 

Yes, curvature spin--in baseball, softball or tennis--reduces pure velo.

But, spin is much more valuable than pure velo IMO.

Give me movement on 65-66 and a change with a drop-18, and I will show you a 1 ERA against legit hitters

P.S. The best fastballs in the majors do have late tail/fade movement. Indeed, you can be Andy Benes, throwing 99, and get roped over and over because that ball has zero movement other than the organic 15 degree drop that any high-velo pitch has from the mount to the strike zone. Most managers would rather 97 with the late tail. Or Chapman at 101 with filthy movement

outofzone

Registered:
Posts: 989
Reply with quote  #129 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjs4585


Are you saying it didn't break, so therefore it was a fastball? I could see it was a curve when it left her hand. It certainly didn't break as much as some of her later curves (which were definitely not that hard) but there was spin.  

  


Ye pretty much, at that velocity anyway. I agree with 3left. 

You could see it was a curve when it left her hand? Ok, where were you sitting? Were you looking thru a 400mm lens? Not sure how bad she tips her pitches but it wouldn't matter at that velocity. Everybody knows what Barnhill is going to throw & it makes no difference. 

Correct me if I'm wrong but, I can't recall any pitcher who can spin the ball fast enough @ 70+ to make it move East/West. The ball doesn't have time to move, ie: the distance is too short. 

Pitchers throwing legit 65-66 AND moving the ball with any discernable movement are about un-hittable. Sydney Littlejohn probably threw the best breaking ball & she wasn't anywhere near 65.


3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 11,435
Reply with quote  #130 
It's like putting a golf ball with such speed that it drives through the break on the green... Hard to have major movement at that speed, unless you are Ricketts, slinging it from the side to begin with

Cheridan Hawkins is 64/65... but what incredible movement, and the Churve
Kurosawa

Registered:
Posts: 2,629
Reply with quote  #131 
A "fast curve" would be a slider, right?
HenryLouisAaron

Registered:
Posts: 607
Reply with quote  #132 
<< Sydney Littlejohn probably threw the best breaking ball & she wasn't anywhere near 65. >> (outofzone)

By "best breaking ball"... do you mean the one that has the biggest break (the largest amount of movement)..?

If so... check out Michelle Gascoigne's final pitch of the 2013 WCWS final game. 
I think the batter thought it was going to hit her... 
but it was a called strike three - to end the game.
outofzone

Registered:
Posts: 989
Reply with quote  #133 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryLouisAaron
<< Sydney Littlejohn probably threw the best breaking ball & she wasn't anywhere near 65. >> (outofzone)

By "best breaking ball"... do you mean the one that has the biggest break (the largest amount of movement)..?

If so... check out Michelle Gascoigne's final pitch of the 2013 WCWS final game. 
I think the batter thought it was going to hit her... 
but it was a called strike three - to end the game.


By best breaking ball, she throws the best 'flat' curve, true East-West movement. It's not a loopy, drop style curve. Her spin rates must be off the charts on that pitch.

I've never seen Gascoigne, would love to check that out if you have a clip handy, thanks.
HenryLouisAaron

Registered:
Posts: 607
Reply with quote  #134 
<< I've never seen Gascoigne, would love to check that out if you have a clip handy, thanks. >> (outofzone)

They have the entire game compacted down to about 51 minutes on youtube:



Go to 50:38 to see the final batter - as Gascoigne gets her on three pitches for the final out.
It was her 12th strikeout of the game for a complete game shutout (4-0).
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 11,435
Reply with quote  #135 

Yes, Overstreet tried to hip-check that pitch, but that ump's call looks like a guy who has a reservation at Cattleman's in a half-hour and wants his drinks bought for him. Ridiculous.

But otherwise, Gascoigne was amazing

outofzone

Registered:
Posts: 989
Reply with quote  #136 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenryLouisAaron
<< I've never seen Gascoigne, would love to check that out if you have a clip handy, thanks. >> (outofzone)

They have the entire game compacted down to about 51 minutes on youtube:



Go to 50:38 to see the final batter - as Gascoigne gets her on three pitches for the final out.
It was her 12th strikeout of the game for a complete game shutout (4-0).


Thanks, nasty. Especially from the left side. 
cjs4585

Registered:
Posts: 150
Reply with quote  #137 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurosawa
A "fast curve" would be a slider, right?


Analogous to a cutter. Slower curve with more expected movement analogous to slider...
cjs4585

Registered:
Posts: 150
Reply with quote  #138 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3leftturns
It's like putting a golf ball with such speed that it drives through the break on the green... Hard to have major movement at that speed, unless you are Ricketts, slinging it from the side to begin with

Cheridan Hawkins is 64/65... but what incredible movement, and the Churve


The difference in time to the plate between 65mph and 70mph is about .03s. So, sure, a 70mph pitch requires more spin(or better rotational axis or both) in order to move the same amount as the 65, but it's not impossible to have movement. Alvelo, Elish, and other top power pitchers don't have as much movement as Littlejohn, but I think you'd find plenty of opponents to argue that their curves move (and plenty of video evidence as well). Pitchers that don't move the ball at all, even at speeds of 70+ get punished.

Then you have pitchers like Schreyer or Carlson that spin the ball, but throw some of their pitches at angles that enhance the perceived movement. That can be effective too.

So which is better, speed or movement? All of the above and location and consistency too [smile] There are many ways to skin a cat. Look at Barnhill, Carda, Gourley for instance. KB has the best rise movement I've seen even though she throws it 67-70 consistently.  Carda spins her curve,drop etc well enough at upper 60's+ but her rise spin is not good, just slightly off bullet. Her pitch variety and off speed make her rise more effective. Gourley, 64-65, works vertically and has an otherworldly changeup. I was talking to a couple of Husky hitters and they said her change and hard stuff looks identical and the pitching coach Mike Roberts said it's the best changeup he's seen in women's softball. Then you have someone like Chelsea Wilkinson, who hardly ever threw more than 60, had very good movement, and could hit spots like crazy with amazing consistency. All different, all very effective (Wilkinson maybe less so but she was an AA and drafted to NPF).

3LT, it's interesting that your prototypical pitcher is basically Megan Kleist [smile] I think Megan is and amazing pitcher and person, but she doesn't have a 1 ERA against top-level hitters (1.96 last year against top 25 rpi, not as good as a FR). Those numbers are skewed a bit as well (as are FL's) because a better staff will lead to lower ERA (if things are going wrong there is a viable alternative). So too with Cheridan Hawkins (who I also think is awesome). Her career ERA against top 25 rpi is 2.35. I doubt there is a perfect pitcher... that would probably look a lot like the men's game with Pete Meredith and some of his compatriots. 1-0 games that go 15 innings, fun once in a while, but not all the time.



3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 11,435
Reply with quote  #139 

https://www.huskiesnewera.com/sb-husky-fall-classic/photos/4240179

Excellent photo gallery. Lots of Atlee and of Plain.

Plain's first photo.... third-base blues gonna have a lotta coaches in the ear.

 

cjs4585

Registered:
Posts: 150
Reply with quote  #140 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3leftturns

https://www.huskiesnewera.com/sb-husky-fall-classic/photos/4240179

Excellent photo gallery. Lots of Atlee and of Plain.

Plain's first photo.... third-base blues gonna have a lotta coaches in the ear.

 



They did for Manti too. I saw Plain jump a couple of times but she doesn't consistently, at least as far as I could tell from the 3rd base bleachers. It's quite easy to find counter-examples on most teams which is why you didn't see any calls last year. We'll see.
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 11,435
Reply with quote  #141 

I will take an ERA in the 1s any day against Top 25.

Probably how I should have phrased it. A 1.00... darn near a pipe dream against T25 with major innings.

Yes, Gourley was one of my prototypes in my realm, and she had the bonus being a lefty. But we are splitting hairs... I will take a great one, no matter. Yeah, Alvelo is damned good.

And Kleist finished the final month with a 1.33 ERA against T25 teams (8. FSU, 18. Kentucky, 4. Washington, 9. Baylor, 11. LSU, 6. Oklahoma).

So, we will see if that was a sharp finish, or evolution. I believe the latter, heading into junior year.

3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 11,435
Reply with quote  #142 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjs4585


They did for Manti too. I saw Plain jump a couple of times but she doesn't consistently, at least as far as I could tell from the 3rd base bleachers. It's quite easy to find counter-examples on most teams which is why you didn't see any calls last year. We'll see.
Saw plenty of calls in the Pac. The SEC? I might agree with that

I will say, the Pac is pretty damned legal relatively.

Trying to think of a top-two pitcher in the conference with that runny nose for the replant -- the trailing knee pointed toward CF instead of at the dirt in the pitching lane

outofzone

Registered:
Posts: 989
Reply with quote  #143 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjs4585


The difference in time to the plate between 65mph and 70mph is about .03s. So, sure, a 70mph pitch requires more spin(or better rotational axis or both) in order to move the same amount as the 65, but it's not impossible to have movement. Alvelo, Elish, and other top power pitchers don't have as much movement as Littlejohn, but I think you'd find plenty of opponents to argue that their curves move (and plenty of video evidence as well). Pitchers that don't move the ball at all, even at speeds of 70+ get punished.

Then you have pitchers like Schreyer or Carlson that spin the ball, but throw some of their pitches at angles that enhance the perceived movement. That can be effective too.

So which is better, speed or movement? All of the above and location and consistency too [smile] There are many ways to skin a cat. Look at Barnhill, Carda, Gourley for instance. KB has the best rise movement I've seen even though she throws it 67-70 consistently.  Carda spins her curve,drop etc well enough at upper 60's+ but her rise spin is not good, just slightly off bullet. Her pitch variety and off speed make her rise more effective. Gourley, 64-65, works vertically and has an otherworldly changeup. I was talking to a couple of Husky hitters and they said her change and hard stuff looks identical and the pitching coach Mike Roberts said it's the best changeup he's seen in women's softball. Then you have someone like Chelsea Wilkinson, who hardly ever threw more than 60, had very good movement, and could hit spots like crazy with amazing consistency. All different, all very effective (Wilkinson maybe less so but she was an AA and drafted to NPF).

3LT, it's interesting that your prototypical pitcher is basically Megan Kleist [smile] I think Megan is and amazing pitcher and person, but she doesn't have a 1 ERA against top-level hitters (1.96 last year against top 25 rpi, not as good as a FR). Those numbers are skewed a bit as well (as are FL's) because a better staff will lead to lower ERA (if things are going wrong there is a viable alternative). So too with Cheridan Hawkins (who I also think is awesome). Her career ERA against top 25 rpi is 2.35. I doubt there is a perfect pitcher... that would probably look a lot like the men's game with Pete Meredith and some of his compatriots. 1-0 games that go 15 innings, fun once in a while, but not all the time.


At 70+ the only thing helping movement, if any at all would be spin axis. Pitchers just can't spin the ball enough at that speed. I would typically agree with your statement that pitchers without movement get punished...but not so much when you're throwing 69+. Barnhill blew it past the best hitters, as did Megan Good when she threw straight heat. I'm all ears if you can name me any pitcher throwing consistently 69+ who got "punished". 

And if you see ANY movement in Barnhill's rise, get some glasses. Or any pitcher's rise for that matter. You gotta know it's all an illusion, one which works well on many batters. Maybe you think a rise "jumps"...physics won't allow for that. Not a person alive on this planet able to spin the ball enough to actually create lift. Chelsea Wilkenson probably threw the best 57-59mph rise when she pitched. Osorio probably has the best one now thrown under 70 anyway. Barnhill seems to be able to locate a low, mid & high rise @ 70 which puts her in a different class. A rise is nothing more than a pitch thrown from a low point to a higher point. Not rocket science. But most likely the best strikeout pitch there is along with a good change.
outofzone

Registered:
Posts: 989
Reply with quote  #144 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjs4585


They did for Manti too. I saw Plain jump a couple of times but she doesn't consistently, at least as far as I could tell from the 3rd base bleachers. It's quite easy to find counter-examples on most teams which is why you didn't see any calls last year. We'll see.


Looks like Plain is the second coming of Barnhill mechanics. At least in those few pics I saw she clearly leaps & replants. While the SEC coward Umpires turn a blind eye towards Barnhill, will be interesting to see how the Umps respond to Plains trainwreck mechanics. I agree with 3left, the 3rd Base Blue better be deaf cuz he will get an earfull every time she pitches. At least there is a West Coast Jackrabbit now. 
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 11,435
Reply with quote  #145 
Interesting.... the unis still have the WCWS logo on them

In all seriousness.... what a flipping top-notch photo gallery
spazsdad

Registered:
Posts: 5,078
Reply with quote  #146 
Man some of those photos show throwing mechanics that make me cringe.
__________________
#SCOTUS
YAY!!is GAF
cjs4585

Registered:
Posts: 150
Reply with quote  #147 
Quote:
Originally Posted by outofzone


At 70+ the only thing helping movement, if any at all would be spin axis. Pitchers just can't spin the ball enough at that speed. I would typically agree with your statement that pitchers without movement get punished...but not so much when you're throwing 69+. Barnhill blew it past the best hitters, as did Megan Good when she threw straight heat. I'm all ears if you can name me any pitcher throwing consistently 69+ who got "punished". 

And if you see ANY movement in Barnhill's rise, get some glasses. Or any pitcher's rise for that matter. You gotta know it's all an illusion, one which works well on many batters. Maybe you think a rise "jumps"...physics won't allow for that. Not a person alive on this planet able to spin the ball enough to actually create lift. Chelsea Wilkenson probably threw the best 57-59mph rise when she pitched. Osorio probably has the best one now thrown under 70 anyway. Barnhill seems to be able to locate a low, mid & high rise @ 70 which puts her in a different class. A rise is nothing more than a pitch thrown from a low point to a higher point. Not rocket science. But most likely the best strikeout pitch there is along with a good change.


If you think a rise is nothing more than a pitch thrown from a low point to a higher point it is you that needs glasses. Although you can't get enough spin to completely overcome gravity and the drag on the ball, you can get plenty to drastically alter the flight.  Any amount of spin will create lift due to the Magnus effect, it's just a matter of how much.

Consider a 65mph rise with a 4deg launch angle from 1.5ft off the ground, with no spin that ball ends slightly below the 1.5 ft mark at the plate (and looks almost flat to the batter). With roughly 24rps of backspin (achievable by a good pitcher), that same pitch ends up slightly more than 3ft off the ground at the plate. In the first case, the ball doesn't rise throughout it's flight path but rather goes up and down slightly. In the second case, it rises throughout its flight. Those two pitches would look drastically different to the hitter. Just ask the hundreds of strikeout victims of KB who have continually swung under pitches similar to the second case. If you threw a few of those first case pitchers(or maybe not even that many), you'd be in trouble with decent hitters. It could be an effective counter pitch after throwing a few of the ones with spin, since the first several feet would look almost identical.  Here is a paper that describes the physics and shows some of the interesting ball flight paths (BTW the physics uses newton's 2nd law... also used in rocket science, just sayin...) http://www.bates.edu/physics-astronomy/files/2013/09/AnalysisOfFastPitchSoftballPitchesMay28.pdf

As for pitchers that pitch 69+ and get punished look at Grace Moll (AR. 8.26 ERA against SEC hitters). Nerissa Eason and Meehra Nelson (OSU) throw about that hard with 4.23/5.87 ERAs respectively in the pac. 
lovsofbal

Registered:
Posts: 1,503
Reply with quote  #148 
Tell Nancy Evans that a ball won't rise.
3leftturns

Registered:
Posts: 11,435
Reply with quote  #149 
The retardation of the time when the ball drops certainly plays like a rise
outofzone

Registered:
Posts: 989
Reply with quote  #150 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjs4585


If you think a rise is nothing more than a pitch thrown from a low point to a higher point it is you that needs glasses. Although you can't get enough spin to completely overcome gravity and the drag on the ball, you can get plenty to drastically alter the flight.  Any amount of spin will create lift due to the Magnus effect, it's just a matter of how much.

Consider a 65mph rise with a 4deg launch angle from 1.5ft off the ground, with no spin that ball ends slightly below the 1.5 ft mark at the plate (and looks almost flat to the batter). With roughly 24rps of backspin (achievable by a good pitcher), that same pitch ends up slightly more than 3ft off the ground at the plate. In the first case, the ball doesn't rise throughout it's flight path but rather goes up and down slightly. In the second case, it rises throughout its flight. Those two pitches would look drastically different to the hitter. Just ask the hundreds of strikeout victims of KB who have continually swung under pitches similar to the second case. If you threw a few of those first case pitchers(or maybe not even that many), you'd be in trouble with decent hitters. It could be an effective counter pitch after throwing a few of the ones with spin, since the first several feet would look almost identical.  Here is a paper that describes the physics and shows some of the interesting ball flight paths (BTW the physics uses newton's 2nd law... also used in rocket science, just sayin...) http://www.bates.edu/astronomy/files/2013/09/AnalysisOfFastPitchSoftballPitchesMay28.pdfphysics-

As for pitchers that pitch 69+ and get punished look at Grace Moll (AR. 8.26 ERA against SEC hitters). Nerissa Eason and Meehra Nelson (OSU) throw about that hard with 4.23/5.87 ERAs respectively in the pac. 


Ok Copernicus...so you going to pull out the Coriolis Force also? That would go further in explaining slight East/West movement on a Rise, Coriolis Effect. Shoot, (no pun intended) it works on bullets fired over long distances why wouldn't it have the same effect on a 6.5oz Softball release @ 38ft? 

With the Magnus Effect, the theory states the ball will rise. I'll agree but any "rise" due to actual "lift" wouldn't hardly be measurable, especially with a softball. And certainly not enough to alter a swing plane because of any visual corrections by a batter. 

Now Doc, let's tackle your launch angle dissertation. It's flawed to begin with because nobody can throw a 65mph softball with no spin AND, even if they could, the reason it ends up below your 4deg launch angle is because of GRAVITY. There is zero spin to maintain flite path. More likely the ball would "tumble" through the air.  With the nominal 24rps, and 4deg launch angle just goes to prove my initial point. At that speed & spin rate, the ball will automatically end up higher BECAUSE of the launch angle, NOT because of lift due to spin rates. The spin only serves to maintain altitude in this situation. Gravity is a non-factor from that distance & speed.  Again, humans are incapable of creating the necessary spin rates to create actual lift. 

Batters swing under rise balls because they are swinging to a spot but, YOUR launch angle provide the the altitude which causes that. Reaction time is a huge factor also. A 65-70mph mid rise looks flat & right down the middle 15 feet from the plate. Called pitching in tunnels. (credit: Rick Pauly)


Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.