SOFTBALL: Panthers ousted in first round by North Torrance
Friday's First Round
Division III
Los Altos 11, Arcadia 1
Division V
Temple City 5, Fillmore 0
Schurr 15, Flintridge Prep 4
North Torrance 5, Pasadena Poly 0
South Pasadena 5, Big Bear 2
Whittier Christian 6, Keppel 1
Division VI
Alverno 2, St. Monica 0
San Gabriel Mission 16, Lancaster Desert Christian 8
By Scott Galetti, Staff Writer
PASADENA - With the home-field advantage, Pasadena Poly's softball team had to feel good about its chances Friday.
The home field, however, came with a catch as the Panthers hosted North Torrance, which finished No. 3 in the final CIF-Southern Section Division V rankings.
North Torrance made itself feel right at home as the Saxons jumped out to an early lead and rode the pitching combination of Danielle Castro and Hayley Rodriguez en route to a 5-0 victory over the Panthers in the first round of the Division V playoffs.
The Saxons (20-10) out-hit Pasadena Poly (13-10) 9-3, and the Panthers didn't help their cause with four errors.
"It was a struggle the first couple of innings," Pasadena Poly coach Jeff Taylor said. "We made a couple of fundamental mistakes out there that led to a couple of runs, and you just can't do that against the third seed in the division."
North Torrance scored a pair of runs in the first inning.
Leadoff batter Olivia Alvarez singled to center and scored on a three-base error by Panthers center fielder Laurel German for a 1-0 lead.
Castro then sent a towering fly ball past Panthers left fielder Michelle Tanner for a home run and 2-0 lead.
North Torrance scored in the second, third and fifth innings to make it 5-0.
The five-run cushion was more than enough for Castro and Rodriguez. Castro (5-4) worked four innings, allowed one hit and struck out five to earn the win.
Rodriguez pitched the final three innings, gave up three hits and struck out five.
"The two of them have been very steady all year and they're a good one-two combination," North Torrance coach Howard Miller said. "Sometimes one starts and the other relieves, or we flip flop it."
Poly freshman pitcher Stephanie Tercero (10-5) worked all seven innings, allowed two earned runs, nine hits, three walks and struck out three.
"We just dug ourselves a hole and Stephanie came back and threw a good strong four or five innings after that, and we played pretty good defense," Taylor said. "We just couldn't get the bats going."
Poly finished the year with a Prep League championship and an eye toward the future.
"We're relatively young with a freshman pitcher and, all in all, I think we really came along during the course of the season," Taylor said. "My job is not to start winning right off the bat, but to just kind of build on things as the season goes."
Wednesday's wild card
Division III
Arcadia 10, Hawthorne 6
Division V
Serrano 15, Rio Hondo Prep 2
Keppel 5, Duarte 4
Mayfield 7, Malibu 2
Ridgecrest Burroughs 3, La Cañada 2
Division VI
St. Monica 3, Ramona Convent 1
Thursday's First Round
Division V
San Jacinto 6, Mayfield 0
Division VI
Oxford Academy 10, Gabrielino 6
Comments
AC,
Of coarse the private schools want to excel athletically. But there is absolutely no formal process (or informal process for that matter) by any of these private schools to go out and obtain quality softball players. Also, none of these private schools will allow any sacrific academically for the furtherence of athletics.
You are just plain wrong. There is not a single private school softball coach in this area that has any influence with their respective admissions departments.
Name 1 single kid that was "recruited" to play softball at a single one of the area's academic private schools.
La Salle
Mayfield
Flintridge Prep
Flintridge Sacred Heart
Poly
Westridge
Also, the overwhelming majority (probably around 95 to 99%) of the kids who go to these area private high schools, come from private elementary schools.
The only one of these schools that has even consistantly had the same coach is La Salle ... the recruiting has apparently worked real well for them hasn't it!
4 of the other 5 schools have had a new softball coach almost every year so your "youth program" observation is ridiculous. The 5th school (Poly) has had 2 coaches in the past 4 years.
Also, the softball programs at these 6 private schools goes from Feb. to early May. Also, the majority of the softball players at these private schools don't pick up a softball after May until Feb. The only one that remotely thinks of softball from May to Feb. is La Salle with their coach's youth summer camp. All of the others typically have had annual coaching changes and none do a summer camp or provide an off-season venue for playing or practicing softball.
Moreover, I think MS's issue had more to do with chkyrslf's broad brush and poor choice of words in describing private school kids as elite and public school kids as non-elite.
There is only one of these private schools that even remotely competes with the area public schools in softball.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 8:59 PM
MS,
What dream world are you living in?
Of course private schools recruit players in every sport...they just have to make sure the athlete can qualify academically!
Private school coaches are always looking for players that can boost their programs. That's why you see them out at youth sporting events! Every coach in every sport is always looking for that special player that can take them to the next level!!!
Just because a school is academic doesn't mean they don't want to succeed on the field of play!
Posted by: AC | May 28, 2008 9:48 AM
La Salle is actually the biggest private high school as compared to the other high level academic private high schools in and around Pasadena.
Mayfield
Flintridge Prep
Flintridge Sacred Heart
Poly
Westridge
Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 1:02 AM
Also, to correct your misunderstanding that LaSalle is only "200 girls". Truth be told, there are actually almost double that.
Don't you hate it when the facts get in the way of impressions!!!
Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 12:46 AM
Opps ... Del Rey League in CIF division 4
Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 12:29 AM
Who do you view as the top "public" teams that La Salle competes with?
In 2007 they were 1-7 in league, and 10-18 overall.
In 2008 they were 0-8 in league, and 12-17 overall.
They did have a very good success 3 years ago in the 2006 season. Then for the 2007 season they were moved from the very weak Sunshine League in CIF Division 6 and jumped up to a very strong Del Rey League in CIF division ... since then it has been a struggle for them.
Frankly, they haven't competed well.
For example, this season they had 6 games (i/c 1 pre-season) with area "public" schools in what was a very much weaker Rio Hondo League they went 1-5, and their 1 win came against an extremely weak Monrovia team (1-11 in league and 6-14 overall) and they barely squeezed by.
Hardly considered "success" by any standard.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2008 12:14 AM
MS
how do you explain La Salle's success in the past? they competed with many of the "top" public teams when they only have 200 girls to choose from
Posted by: jdkdld | May 23, 2008 2:05 PM
chkyrslf,
At times, I find your comments very insightful.
Other times, I wonder what the heck you are talking about.
I don’t know which point-of-view is scarier!
First off, I take issue with your choice of words … “elite kids”. Personally I would not broad brush and describe private school kids as “elite”, and public school kids as “non-elite”. Frankly, other than a poor choice of words … I think that is a pretty dangerous and insulting way to look at it.
Generally speaking, the average family income of private school kids is higher than the average family income of public school kids. But if you mean high average family income defines a kid as "elite", that is pretty insulting too.
Also, it is not an objective of a private school to “weed-out”. All of the kids that a private school admits are expected to fit in to their curriculum … once admitted there is no "weeding out" process. Also, the overwhelming single factor that is considered for admissions to a private school is “academic” ability. Certainly other factors are considered but none are considerable factors without high level academic ability.
Both private and public schools have kids that are “academic” and “athletic” (or I guess as you term, “elite”).
I would agree that in a private school, when considering a private school’s total student body, there is a much high percentage of kids that excel academically (but I would not say that there is a much high percentage of kids that excel athletically).
Also, in a private school vs. in a public school, a higher percentage of the athletes also excel academically (but I would not say that a higher percentage of the academic kids also excel athletically).
You’d have to be crazy if you think in just raw numbers there are a larger number of athletic kids in private schools than in public schools. Just thinking of softball in our area, the average private school is 200 to 300 girls, the average public school is 1,000 to 1,500 girls. There is a pool of 5 times as many girls to find 9 athletes on a softball team. It is ridiculous to think it’s possible to find more athletes out of 1/5th as many kids.
One might also suggest that in raw numbers there are a larger number of academic kids in certain public schools than in private schools. Take La Canada High School or San Marino High School for examples, don’t you think that there at least 300 (the total student body size of a local private school) really academic kids out of their total student body of 1,200 to 1,800 kids. There are certainly at least 300 kids in these public schools that are just as academic as all of the kids in any private school.
chkyrslf, weren’t you also the one that previously claimed that private schools recruit kids for their athletic ability. At least for softball in our area, that is an absolute fabrication … the private schools do not “recruit” softball players.
Last point, you say, “every few years they (Prep League schools) put together an extremely talented team that can compete with anybody”. You are dreaming if you believe that statement. They compete fine within the Prep League when playing themselves, but they have never competed well against most public school teams … and more times than not when they play they are slaughtered.
Posted by: MS | May 22, 2008 11:59 AM
The Prep school problem is that they tend to attract elite kids, both in athletics and academics, because the school is designed to weed out the non-elite. Therefore every few years they put together an extremely talented team that can compete with anybody. This puts them up high and then the quality of the specific sport wanes at the school but CIF doesn't recognize the drop.
Posted by: chkyrslf | May 18, 2008 1:39 PM
Exactly, chkyrslf, it's all about being able to compete. Playing against much larger schools doesn't make sense when the same schools are in lower levels in the rest of the sports.
Posted by: Scott Galetti
|
May 17, 2008 10:16 PM
The Prep League needs to move up to DVI to do well in CIF. I hope they do, they deserve it.
Posted by: chkyrslf | May 17, 2008 5:26 PM
Although the Prep league was swept out in the first round, this league should improve next year.
Of the 4 teams that made the playoffs 3 have freshman pitchers. Prep's Lydia Kay will be a senior next year, but I understand Prep will also be picking up some pitching help next year. Mayfield has 2 pitchers who next year will be a Junior and a Sophomore. Poly and Rio Hondo's pitchers will be Sophomores next year.
I expect the competition within the Prep league to be strong and hopefully they will fare better in CIF next year.
Congratulations to all the schools that made CIF, great job!
Posted by: Bob | May 17, 2008 9:58 AM
South Pasadena 5 Big Bear 2
Whittier Christian 6 Keppel 1
Alverno 2 St Monica 0
Posted by: chkyrslf | May 16, 2008 11:42 PM