PGF 2011 - Review and Discussion

[Battle]

Those are very good points. Let me respond if I may...

OK Force '94? They were knocked into the losers bracket 0-11 by a solid SoCal team that was not highly rated and almost all 96s. I think the higher-rated PGF teams would have fared well against them too.

Yeah, you are correct. I don't know what happened to Force. I don't see the Cruisers beating them on a consistent basis like that. I disagree with the last part. IMO Force would have held their own against the top PGF teams. They handled the 2nd and 3rd place finisher at the HOF and both of those teams beat Glory to put them in 4th.

The Lasers made a commendable run through the losers bracket, but they didn't face much competition down there. Name a strong team they beat.

NE Sizzle, Tx Aces, Tx Bombers were all strong.

You can't determine the relative strength of teams strictly on the final order of finish. Cases in point:
- CA Cruisers beat OK Force '94 11-0, yet they finished lower (17th and 9th resepectively).
- Texas Glory finished 2nd in PGF while only going 2-2 against the ranked SoCal teams - and they didn't have to face them before the winners bracket final. The 2-2 record only puts them even with the ranked teams.

In the ASA HOF the Rockers beat OK Force 94 13-4 which put Force in the loser bracket. In the championship game, OK Force beat the Rockers 11-4 and then again 11-7. Now since the Rockers beat Force so bad in the first game, if order of finish doesn't matter, does that mean that the Rockers are a better team? I believe that's the way it went if my memory serves me right.

I'm not saying PGF was definitely stronger than ASA - they both had strong teams. I'm just saying you can't rate ASA as having a better field of teams.

And...PGF can't rate their Nats as having the best teams because it's held in CA. That seems to be the norm here. In your opinion, am I really that far off base?

[PDad]

OK Force '94? They were knocked into the losers bracket 0-11 by a solid SoCal team that was not highly rated and almost all 96s. I think the higher-rated PGF teams would have fared well against them too.

Yeah, you are correct. I don't know what happened to Force. I don't see the Cruisers beating them on a consistent basis like that. I disagree with the last part. IMO Force would have held their own against the top PGF teams. They handled the 2nd and 3rd place finisher at the HOF and both of those teams beat Glory to put them in 4th.

Who was the 3rd place finisher? HOF was in June and teams peak at different times. OK Force was probably better prepared to play in June than teams from states that play HS ball in the Spring.

The Lasers made a commendable run through the losers bracket, but they didn't face much competition down there. Name a strong team they beat.

NE Sizzle, Tx Aces, Tx Bombers were all strong.

The last 2 teams they beat to finish 5th, Sizzle and Bombers, were relatively strong. Were they considered contenders to win it all beforehand?

Prior to this year, it was possible for a solid team to finish 9th in ASA/USA Nats by virtue of a favorable draw. I'd say the weaker field this year, due to PGF, changed that to 7th and possibly even 5th.

You can't determine the relative strength of teams strictly on the final order of finish. Cases in point:
- CA Cruisers beat OK Force '94 11-0, yet they finished lower (17th and 9th respectively). ...

In the ASA HOF the Rockers beat OK Force 94 13-4 which put Force in the loser bracket. In the championship game, OK Force beat the Rockers 11-4 and then again 11-7. Now since the Rockers beat Force so bad in the first game, if order of finish doesn't matter, does that mean that the Rockers are a better team?

No, the 1-2 head-to-head record would indicate otherwise, more so than the order of finish (note: there was a better argument to be made with your example, but you missed making it).

I'm not saying PGF was definitely stronger than ASA - they both had strong teams. I'm just saying you can't rate ASA as having a better field of teams.

And...PGF can't rate their Nats as having the best teams because it's held in CA. That seems to be the norm here. In your opinion, am I really that far off base?

You provide useful info about the southern and midwestern teams because you're more familiar with them, but you don't really have a basis to evaluate the SoCal teams that played PGF.

Neither ASA nor PGF will draw all the top teams as long as both draw a desirable group of college coaches and PGF stays in SoCal. The biggest difference between the two is PGF's field of teams is highly concentrated in talent and their weakest team is at worst an average ASA team. BTW, Coach Hutchins (Mich.) was at PGF and I heard her call the 170+ teams in Chattanooga "crazy."

[ontheblack]

Neither ASA nor PGF will draw all the top teams as long as both draw a desirable group of college coaches and PGF stays in SoCal. The biggest difference between the two is PGF's field of teams is highly concentrated in talent and their weakest team is at worst an average ASA team.

Dead on!

While Cent nailed it with the "feel" and experience of leaving SoCal for an ASA Nationals, PGF had a much different feel to it. IMO the biggest difference at PGF was the focus and intensity. Not sure I would trade 12U ASA for 12U PGF, but at 14s and above, the intensity at PGF was awesome. I think the smaller and more competitive field (top to bottom) and two games a day lent more energy to the event.

I would prefer that even if PGF played outside of SoCal and the weather sucked.

[joemcq51]

If PGF was to move out of Cali. Lets say to a site not frequented by ASA. They also keep all of the ages groups together. So , same tourny as this year, just a different location. I'd bet that most of the teams that participated, still would try and qualify. There would be a few more teams from the east that may try and qualify. It would still be a great tournament and a huge draw for college coaches. I wonder if the Pro ASA teams would then consider it a stronger field? You would replace the last few teams that got in the field with top teams that earn a berth from qualifying. Might just be what PGF needs to push it over the top. I think we all agree that half the field should be from Cali. It is the other half of the field that needs to represent the rest of the country. Put it on a 2 year rotation. California one year, anywhere USA next.

[bracketologist]

IMO the biggest difference at PGF was the focus and intensity. Not sure I would trade 12U ASA for 12U PGF, but at 14s and above, the intensity at PGF was awesome. I think the smaller and more competitive field (top to bottom) and two games a day lent more energy to the event.

We played PGF two years in a row now and playing in Irvine and HB on fields we play all year long, cheese grater temp fences, no scoreboards, no announcers, going home every night , etc, made it feel like just another weekend showcase. We only played one non CA team and that was in pool play.I know our girls did not play with the intensity they have shown in the past at Nationals. Of course, our finishing placement showed where that got them.

I like the idea of PGF - but you hit it on the head! A number of teams displayed normal So Cal Friendly intensity not ....... Nationals! Second all the talk was about the "scouts" not on competition. I miss the folks from SEC land, the "big stage atmosphere - during pool play", the crying after elimination etc ........

I hope PGF can secure some more teams and learn that a format that is acceptable for 18U Nationals is not necessarily the best format for 12U, 14U, 16U.

[ontheblack]

Do you think playing in Tenn would have made a difference in their level of play?

[ontheblack]

IMO the biggest difference at PGF was the focus and intensity. Not sure I would trade 12U ASA for 12U PGF, but at 14s and above, the intensity at PGF was awesome. I think the smaller and more competitive field (top to bottom) and two games a day lent more energy to the event.

We played PGF two years in a row now and playing in Irvine and HB on fields we play all year long, cheese grater temp fences, no scoreboards, no announcers, going home every night , etc, made it feel like just another weekend showcase. We only played one non CA team and that was in pool play.I know our girls did not play with the intensity they have shown in the past at Nationals. Of course, our finishing placement showed where that got them.

I like the idea of PGF - but you hit it on the head! A number of teams displayed normal So Cal Friendly intensity not ....... Nationals! Second all the talk was about the "scouts" not on competition. I miss the folks from SEC land, the "big stage atmosphere - during pool play", the crying after elimination etc ........

I hope PGF can secure some more teams and learn that a format that is acceptable for 18U Nationals is not necessarily the best format for 12U, 14U, 16U.

I didnt see that at 14s. Specifically, I saw some pitchers raise their game. CA Lockman's ace was better than ever. SCAs #1 had two incredible games. BB Black's #2 did not give up a run at PGF. I didnt see a single team at 14s play pool games with the mindset that they didnt count.

[ontheblack]

Do you think playing in Tenn would have made a difference in their level of play?

Yes, but as a team they needed to figure out a way to get past what they are used to and play like they were supposed to.

Thats interesting. I know that for many 14U teams, going to ASA instead of PGF was falling short.

Do you really think it was the location or perhaps a letdown from playing well at 18s in San Diego the week before?

[Clamato]

Do you think playing in Tenn would have made a difference in their level of play?

Yes, but as a team they needed to figure out a way to get past what they are used to and play like they were supposed to.

Is it possible your excpectations for them exceeded their ability? If so, they probablly would have placed higher in ASA due to the lack of ability in the competition.

However, I agree that its hard to perform well with temporary cheese grater fences, no announcers, and for goodness sake NO SCOREBOADS! How on earth could they excpect the girls to play with intensity if they don't even know the score?

Have you ever heard what excuses are like?

If you haven't - They all stink and every ones got one.

[Battle]

OK Force '94? They were knocked into the losers bracket 0-11 by a solid SoCal team that was not highly rated and almost all 96s. I think the higher-rated PGF teams would have fared well against them too.

Yeah, you are correct. I don't know what happened to Force. I don't see the Cruisers beating them on a consistent basis like that. I disagree with the last part. IMO Force would have held their own against the top PGF teams. They handled the 2nd and 3rd place finisher at the HOF and both of those teams beat Glory to put them in 4th.

Who was the 3rd place finisher? HOF was in June and teams peak at different times. OK Force was probably better prepared to play in June than teams from states that play HS ball in the Spring.
I don't remember the 3rd place finisher but it happened. So now you're saying that Glory came to the HOF with a weaker team than when they went to PGF or Force was just better prepared? Nope...Both came to the HOF and one got 4th while the other got 1st. That's the bottom line. Anything else is a presumption.

The Lasers made a commendable run through the losers bracket, but they didn't face much competition down there. Name a strong team they beat.

NE Sizzle, Tx Aces, Tx Bombers were all strong.

The last 2 teams they beat to finish 5th, Sizzle and Bombers, were relatively strong. Were they considered contenders to win it all beforehand?
Prior to this year, it was possible for a solid team to finish 9th in ASA/USA Nats by virtue of a favorable draw. I'd say the weaker field this year, due to PGF, changed that to 7th and possibly even 5th.
That's stating the obvious again. Anybody knows that if the teams all played one Nats, then the competition level rises. The same is also true for PGF as with ASA.

You can't determine the relative strength of teams strictly on the final order of finish. Cases in point:
- CA Cruisers beat OK Force '94 11-0, yet they finished lower (17th and 9th respectively). ...

In the ASA HOF the Rockers beat OK Force 94 13-4 which put Force in the loser bracket. In the championship game, OK Force beat the Rockers 11-4 and then again 11-7. Now since the Rockers beat Force so bad in the first game, if order of finish doesn't matter, does that mean that the Rockers are a better team?

No, the 1-2 head-to-head record would indicate otherwise, more so than the order of finish (note: there was a better argument to be made with your example, but you missed making it).
Well I'm certainly glad you pointed out me missing something. Just another +1 for ASA. I stated the example that I wanted. By your own admission you said that finishes doesn't matter. I say it's the only thing that matters and it sure matters more than individual scores. Your fairly strong SoCal team barely cracked the top 20 while Force made the Top 10. You proved my point more than I did.

I'm not saying PGF was definitely stronger than ASA - they both had strong teams. I'm just saying you can't rate ASA as having a better field of teams.

And...PGF can't rate their Nats as having the best teams because it's held in CA. That seems to be the norm here. In your opinion, am I really that far off base?

You provide useful info about the southern and midwestern teams because you're more familiar with them, but you don't really have a basis to evaluate the SoCal teams that played PGF.
Neither ASA nor PGF will draw all the top teams as long as both draw a desirable group of college coaches and PGF stays in SoCal. The biggest difference between the two is PGF's field of teams is highly concentrated in talent and their weakest team is at worst an average ASA team. BTW, Coach Hutchins (Mich.) was at PGF and I heard her call the 170+ teams in Chattanooga "crazy."

One of your weakest team didn't qualify for either ASA nor PGF so your example of worst PGF being avg at ASA has no merit. You admitted that most of the strong Socal teams are even with Glory in the rankings, so that would put them ranked around 6th or 7th at ASA at best. I understand that you had college coaches at PGF but ASA had coaches also. Ask them why they didn't go to PGF and they would say...why go to a showcase when I can go to the real National that has been held for years and proven to be the most competitive.