quote:
In my opinion, that is the bias of Cali players. They have to prove over and over that they can't play while a kid from a small state doesn't meet the same burden.

This simply isn't true.

Everyone needs to step back and take the blinders off.

This is the biggest and most absurd conspiracy of all LSU sports. So basically we have a coach and a staff that recruited Dawson because she was a good athlete who didn't know how to play. You say that the staff has put down and diminished her accomplishments, to make her seem average and not dependable. All in order to secure Connies spot at 2B for her senior year. And you are now saying Dawson isn't playing because certain players from certain state are allowed to f up a lot more than others?

People don't seem to understand the importance of these practices which no one sees. Yes Doyle was going to see opportunities regardless because of how much potential she had at the plate, this team desperately needed more power. She has looked great in practice according to Torina. She doesn't freak out over fall games or small scrimmages because things change drastically

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by timlan2057

In the Shadow of Tiger Stadium

Member since Sep 2005

17073 posts

Posted on 3/2/17 at 4:57 pm to Tigerbait357

If that is not a misprint in her bio and Dawson is indeed 20 years old, I can see why she was so dominant in high school. Yes, she is extremely talented, but she was also playing against many players 4 and 5 years younger. Get to big time college softball and yes, it's a different game. Torina knows what she is doing, personnel-wise.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by LSUAshlyn

Baton Rouge

Member since Jul 2013

616 posts

Posted on 3/2/17 at 8:02 pm to Tigerbait357

Dear Bayou Bum and Tiger Bait,

No, just no.

The Doyle analogy and California was based solely on both of yall's arguments that were contradictory.

First off, yes, Cali kids are seen as better players that have typically seen better competition. It is always assumed that a kid that has success in Cali high school or travel ball is more prepared than kids from other states. Do you dispute this?

Secondly, I used the Doyle comparison as a direct rebuttal on both of you saying that one player's high school career or success is irrelevant and it only matters what you do in college. Yet in the next post, you both said that Doyle is receiving at bats because she showed great "potential". Potential being another word for upside, high ceiling and ability to grow into a better player.

History absolutely matters in recruiting and it matters in development. It matters in professional contract negotiations. What you did at the previous level is what gives you the opening to get to the next level. Players that have had great success, like Amanda Doyle, are more likely to have great success as they continue up the ladder. Doyle had 2 hits all fall, 2! How did Beth know to stick with her? Because of her "potential" that you both mentioned and the very fact that she played on a high level travel ball team, high level high school team and always has had success.

Even after this, in the next breath you both say that nothing in the past matters and it is only what you do on the college level. More than once I read "it's not high school" yet it is solely what was relied on in the Doyle case since she was so ineffective in her initial college games. So which is it?

So back to the original question that no one seems to want to give an opinion on (forget Dawson if you can).

If we are using a "servicable" Sr. player that will hopefully not continue to make "countless errors" with a low ceiling that has failed to produce again through almost 1/3 of the year, why do you believe the staff accepts this instead of playing a higher ceiling, younger player with more "potential" that will make us better in the long run? Sanchez, Cunningham, anybody that has the ability to be more productive at this position?

Thanks for all of the wonderful insight. Believe it or not, I enjoy it.