Hanover Hawks win AAA Title

I heard there was another Freshman warming up in the bullpen too. Looks like Hanover has some strong arms that the coaches are confident in coming up.

Tom, not sure what I can add, as I wasn't there.  I do appreciate your video.  Kind of surprised at the empty seats in the stands, given that it was a Sunday and everyone should've been able to get there.

 

Casey figured to be our area's dominant pitcher this year and he proved true to form.  And folks, we see him for another year in 2014.  Hanover is well stocked to make a run at a repeat.

 

GB did fabulously well to stay in this game with their 3d and 4th guys.  Hanover has a potent offense, so for them to be held to 2 runs -- and to need a squeeze to get that winning run -- says that Coach Townsend knew something that I for one did not about his staff's ability to get the job done.  The pitchers gave them a chance to win, and from that video it looks like they were a few feet foul from maybe having a shot at tying it up there in the 7th?

 

Tom, maybe you could enlighten us as to how VHSL ruled and what the talk was there at the field.  Honestly, I think GB would've been justified in playing the whole game under protest, but I'm sure they didn't do that, and it probably would've been futile anyway.  All I can say is, if VHSL meant the rule to be applied that way, it should've written it that way -- to allow a pitcher to throw "to the limit of the rule" after ANY four day period, not after "four days OF REST". 

 

It's true that Casey was held to 14 innings in a 7-day period, but the rule has several requirements, and you have to comply with them all.  I don't see how VHSL ruled that he met the "four days OF REST" requirement, as you can only get there by categorizing Saturday, a day when he pitched, as the fourth day of rest.

 

As our English teachers all used to tell us, "How am I supposed to know what you mean if you don't say what you mean?"  The way the rule is written and the way it was applied today are two different things, so if today's application is what they intended, they need to revise the rule for next year to match that intention in word as well as in deed.

The game was poorly attended with most of the stands by the backstop full, but very little of the left field stands and perhaps 50% of the right field stands.   Two years ago, the park was packed.

 

To me the key was the "3rd out" strikeouts achieved by Casey.  As Tom said, 5 of Casey's innings were ended with strikeouts stranding a total of 7 runners.  In 4 of the 5 innings, the GB runner was in scoring position.  At the critical time each inning (2 out, runners on), Casey delivered.

 

Mathews was terrific for GB.  The sophomore entered the game with a season ERA in the low 2's and showed why.  He pitched well continuing to change speeds all afternoon.  Only in the 6th when perhaps he was getting tired did he run into trouble and it was enough for Hanover.  Hanover took advantage of the opportunity and it paid off, especially on the go ahead squeeze bunt. 

 

Congratulations to GB who was picked 2nd-3rd in their district and came within a few runs of winning states.  Congratulations to Hanover who played very well today.   While D.Casey rightfully will get most of the accolades for his pitching (and he should), Hanover as a team never quit, represented themselves well and pulled out a big victory.  Congrats on their state championship.

Midlo Dad: I think we were on the same page as to the reading of the rule.  The letter of the law is silent on the topic.  However, the most reasonable parsing would suggest that throwing one inning is not a "rest" day.  Having said that, I think the rule makes more sense as it was applied today.  The problem is that's not the way it was written.  As I said a few days ago, I anticipated an ad hoc ruling if this came up, and it did, and we got one.

 

As for the poor attendance, I noticed that in the semi-finals as well.  I remember when James River won up there in 2008, and there was hardly a seat to be had, even in the expanded seating.  Today, the primary stands were close to full (the two closest to the press box), but the additional stands were fairly empty.  I was sitting in the stands farthest down the left-field line, and there were maybe 10-12 people there for most of the game.  I shot from the exact same spot when JR won in 2008, and those stands were packed.

 

My theory is that the VHSL is a victim of its own (broadcasting) success.  When the broadcasts were done by the GameDay Sports folks, they weren't as well-known across the state, because that was a NoVa-centric company.  The same actual people still do the broadcasts, but they now work for PlayOnSports, which is a VHSL-blessed company, and promoted as such as a broadcast partner.  So, if you're a GB person, you can either pay for another night at a hotel and stick around, or, if you're not already there, drive up +/- 5 or 6 hours, OR you can watch it on your laptop.

But, that's just a theory.

There was a lot of chatter from the broadcast guys that they thought the ball that Cody hit in the bottom of the seventh was a fair ball home run.  I was down there, and I didn't think it was, but they seemed convinced.  The GB parents weren't riled about it or anything, either, so I'm not sure how close it really was.

Congratulations to Charlie Dragum and his Hanover Hawks!  I've said it before and will say again... any team he coaches will be a tough team.  Combine that with the roster he had this year and he's a state champ!

 

Funny thing about a team from the beach and a team from Richmond playing in NoVa.... low attendance shouldn't really be a shocker.  Play that game in Richmond, Virginia beach or say William & Mary (about half way) and I bet you its a mad house.  Will championship locations be predetermined next year in the new realignment? 

 

Rich

www.PlayInSchool.com/bus_tour

www.twitter.com/PlayInSchool

The ball Cody hit was a foul ball and not a homerun.  It was a very good, hard hit, but neither over the fence or fair.

 

Rich,

Great point on location.  I'd favor a Richmond based location as it is central to all.  Clearly Westfield has nice facilities for parking, a gate, etc... which help with all the logistics, but there have to be other locations that make this easier for all.  Just my opinion.

They want to have the whole thing at one site, for better or for worse.  Of course, that will be tough next year with six sets of state titles.  I'm guessing there will be one in Richmond (5A, probably), while 6A will likely be at the Beach or up north.

 

Not convinced we can chalk up poor attendance to it being Richmond vs. the Beach.  The semi-finals (which each featured one school from Northern Virginia) were both so-so, and that 2008 final had a packed house from James River.

Stop your whining.  If you say the stands were empty, why didn't these teams fans make the trip to see the game today.

We just addressed two possible explanations.  1. Geography.  2. Broadcast of the games.

Congrats to both teams.  I had a feeling that those two would end up playing each other.  All that said....I'm not aware of anyone that picked GB to finish anything but 1st in the SED!

 

I would expect both of these programs to be in the discussion, as two of the top teams in the state again next year.  Bring on "The Great Realignment".

 By fans do you mean high schoolers? A 4 plus hour drive (a couple of hours less for Hanover kids) one way, plus a $10 a pop gate fee is a little steep for most kids. Especially after they have paid to watch several district and regional games. Not whining, just observing. 

Congrats to Hanover and Great Bridge for a fantastic year!

 

As for the attendance question, there are many reasons why folks like me weren't there. I'm a huge high school and college baseball fan but there is just too much going on with life right now.  

 

Graduation, graduation parties, adult athlete leagues, American Legion games, kids starting summer jobs, super regional at UVA.   It is summer.   This time of year is unbelievably busy.  I would have loved to see the game, but logistically it wasn't doable.   I'm not sure what the answer is but it is understandable to me that people are busy.  Driving two hours from Richmond or four hours from the Beach to NoVA with the current price of gas to see a high school game that my son isn't playing in is a tough sell to "the boss".  Y'all know what I mean.

 

I know the Beach and NoVA folks don't like the idea of Richmond hosting, but it is kind of difficult to argue with a central geography if the VHSL goal is to drive attendance at a final.  If the goal is not attendance, then VHSL should keep doing what their doing

Hardly think it is whining to address the issue.  One item I don't believe has been mentioned is the cost of a hotel stay.  Those traveling to support Great Bridge, who played on Saturday AND Sunday, would have had to cough up the cost of a hotel.  If the games had been in a more central location, such as Richmond, traveling to support Great Bridge would have been a day trip. It certainly isn't that Great Bridge doesn't have fans.  At the district tournament, the stands were full and fans were lined all the way down both sidelines.

 

The $10 cost for the state playoffs as well as the $7 cost for districts is too high for students to have to pay.  I found it very sad a couple of years ago when a high school baseball player, from a team that had not made the district playoffs, showed up to watch the district playoffs (he was in the entry line ahead of me.)  He left without entering because he just could not afford to pay the entry fee.

 

I also concur with GoHeels.  I thought that everyone picked Great Bridge to finish first in the SED.

My son plays 3 sports... and of course I'm hit with the entry fee for everything, plus more!

I think a no brainer that every student in the VHSL system should have a free pass themself to go watch any and every event they want to visit... stupid when a JV player is expected to pay entry to watch their varsity play...

Cross town rival players should be welcome as well...

The players actually would appreciate more a crowd of their peers and rivals, than anything.

It's difficult to sustain the argument regarding location fairness, as it will be inherently unfair to some subset of schools relative to a particular location.

 

The larger argument has to do with (surprise) money: generating it and saving it.

 

On the cost side...

Remember that there are 6 different Spring sports being contested simultaneously at the AAA level for States. If you want to reduce costs associated with management, human resources, other resources (e.g., third party service providers), press management, etc., you need a location that can handle all of these events and the associated crowds (esp. soccer and lacrosse fans). Separate sports at different venues drive up your costs. One location, one entrance, one parking area, etc., makes a significant difference.

 

On the revenue side...

I was struck by the number of outside vendors with tents around the WHS grounds. And I was impressed by the number of advertisers in the program. Dawned on me that sponsorship dollars are a significant source of revenue. Fairfax and Loudoun Counties per capita is very high nationwide, and with that comes a wide variety of businesses and advertisers, and with that comes increased media spending. If you want to maximize your sponsorship dollars, you want to go where there is the most advertising dollars available.

I say this a bit tongue in cheek, but maybe people stayed away because of the migraine-inducing "music". I have never seen anyone in any booth get so carried away before...banging sounds between every pitch?? "Funny" comments after a player gets beaned? Annoying at best, unsportsmanlike at worst. Even the players commented. Apparently it was as bad last year. I'll endure a headache to watch someone I know play, but would not return as a spectator.

 

This may be fodder for a separate thread, but since this is the "State Title Game" thread...

 

My personal opinion is that we do it all wrong in the state of Virginia.  A couple of other bordering states run their state championship in a way that I believe works better, for a number of reasons.

 

I feel that a state championship tournament would be better served by either having a final 8 with a double elimination format (like the college world series), OR at the very least having best of 3 "Championship Series", OR some combination thereof.

 

I am confident that two of the very best (top 5ish) teams in Virginia played for the title in 2013.  But that's not necessarily the case all of the time.  I've said it before, in a single elimination format, matchups mean everything.  I think it is a better product, and more meaningful to the kids to allow themselves the opportunity to test their TEAMS vs. running the risk of facing a singular superior arm. A double elimination format would allow for that, and also, in this case, potentially allow for a Connor Jones to pitch against Hanover in one of three potential games.

 

It would also allow for a Kellam, who I aso believe is one of the best teams, to work their way back into the fold, having had a matchup with Casey in the 1st round.

 

The logistics can be debated, for sure.  I do think that the baseball community, at large, would prefer something along these lines though.

 

Perhaps with the new realignment, and two teams making the state tournament from each the North and South (this is my understanding)...they could then have a double elimination format for the final four.  Like a super-regional in college ball.

GB narrowly misses doing something that hasn't been done in 30 years by winning the baseball and softball championship in the same year.

 

Expect both to tough again next year as GB baseball is loaded with Jr's and Soph's and the softball team has a Soph pitcher that starred for them.

 

For what it is worth a 9-10 hour round trip drive from the Southside to the DC wrapped around a 2 hour game is more than all but friends and family will likely do.  In this case anything in the Richmond area makes the most sense from a travel standpoint.  It is the Capitol BECAUSE it is the most centrally located city in the state. 

I'd like to see a Best of 3 starting at Regionals.  It would show the true best team.  I know VHSL will never adopt this, however.

You guys should allow Hanover to enjoy their efforts and State Championship. Everyone puts out nine fielders, nine batters, and coaches rotated pitchers as they saw fit? The best teams have more than one pitcher and the young man from Great Bridge threw a really good game.

Also the freshmen pitcher from Hanover who close out GB top of the order did his job. Congrats to Hanover's TEAM effort. Congrats to GB for Great season!

Over at PilotOnline, they discuss the issue we discussed at length leading up to the title game: The VHSL pitching rule.  Coach Townsend joked about getting it in writing before the game, but I wasn't kidding at all.  Interesting insights here.

I don't think anyone wrote anything that takes away from Hanover's accomplishment this year.  I also don't think anyone here is not allowing them to enjoy their efforts.  I'm quite confident they had a very happy ride home, and will reflect on this season for years to come.

Here's the Blog from Tom Robinson at The Pilot:

 

Was Great Bridge High’s baseball team beaten Sunday for the Group AAA state title by an illegal pitcher?

As the new Virginia High School League pitching rules are written, the answer appears to be ‘yes:’ Hanover High’s ace Derek Casey shouldn’t have been allowed to pitch six innings of the Hawks’ 2-1 victory.

But because the rule regarding rest between outings was interpreted as it was all season, Casey was good to go.

Confused? (Yes, very!) Well, it lies in poor wording of the rule rather than vague intent.

Pitchers this year could throw 14 innings in seven days (the old rule allowed 10 innings over two days). According to Great Bridge coach Sean Townsend, the VHSL meant to make pitchers who threw seven innings wait four days before they could max out their 14.

Ah, but from there it’s clear as mud. The rule also says the guy who throws seven can rest two days and throw two more . . . rest three days and throw three more . . . or rest four days and pitch to the limit.

Casey? He threw seven in Tuesday’s quarterfinal. But then he threw an inning in Saturday’s semi. So because he “rested” only three days, shouldn’t that have barred him from maxing out Sunday? Technically, yes. Officially, no.

“It’s hard to explain how an inning can be a day of rest,” Townsend said. “But as far as the rule is concerned, it’s considered a day of rest toward those four days.”

Townsend said that loophole was obvious in a scenario that arose at the local coaches' preseason rules meeting with a VHSL rep. Rather than jump through the hoop of rewriting the rule at that point, though, the rep told the coaches to go by what the VHSL actually MEANT.

Got that? That’s why when Townsend, as a formality, called a VHSL official Saturday night to triple-check whether Casey was eligible Sunday, he got the answer he expected.

“It’s confusing, and he admitted it,” Townsend said. of the official.  “The rule was not written well, but it was enforced consistently throughout the year.”

It’s why Townsend said he didn’t play the game under protest.

“If I was the Hanover coach, I almost would’ve wanted to have it writing, or have a lawyer look at it” to avoid a forfeit, Townsend joked. “Here it’s the last game of the season and people, some very intelligent people, are still confused about it.”

Rules are rules, but obviously, it’s not always that simple.

Before next season, Townsend said, “yes, the rest rule probably ought to be tweaked.”

 

VHSL should clean up the rule before next season....the debate will rage on!

 

 

 

 

It's wrong for The Pilot to accuse Hanover of winning the State Championship game by using an illegal pitcher.

Hanover played by the rules... They did nothing illegal. The rule may not be written very well, but the fact is that Hanover applied the rule in the State tournament the same way VHSL allowed it to be applied all season.

Once the rain day occurred all four coaching staffs in the semi knew what this meant and how the rules could be applied. Both Great Bridge and Hanover were aware that the extra day now meant increased availability of the ace pitchers Conor Jones and Derek Casey.

The fact is that Great Bridge chose to throw their Ace for 2 2/3 innings on Sat afternoon, which ended any chance of him throwing on Sunday. The Great Bridge staff was well aware of this when they did it and clearly felt comfortable with their decision knowing what very few others did... Chris Matthews is one heck of a pitcher.

Hanover on the other hand made the decision to throw Derek Casey for 1 inning which they knew would allow him 6 innings... Legally I might add... On Sunday.

Saturday night the hoopla began by those online discussing the rule and how it should be enforced. The fact is... How it SHOULD be enforced and how it HAD been enforced all season were two different conversations. 

The SHOULD conversation is absolutely irrelevant as it pertains to the 2013 State Championship and Hanover's win. The Pilot should not be indicating to anyone that Hanover illegally used Derek Casey, because that is simply not true.

The coaching staff at Hanover understood the rule as VHSL enforced it all season and planned their pitching strategy accordingly. Their plan paid off and they are now the 2013 State Champions. In no way was anything illegal done.

If the Pilot would like to write an article referencing the wording of this rule and how it is unclear and should be adjusted then by all means do so. But indicating that Hanover won with an illegal pitcher is incorrect and should not have been d

Done.

Here Here!  As I stated earlier Let them enjoy

Here's the thing:

 

1.) When did the VHSL's INTENDED meaning of the rule become subservient to fans, parents and random bloggers' understanding of the language? We've blown this up with our opinions rather then just listening to VHSL who, it seems, has been consistent all along in the interpretation (even if they need to work on their legal jargon.)

 

2.) The blogger's opening comment is just a method to get website hits. It's sad, unethical and even reprobate when thinking about the kids that competed, but it's the media landscape we live in. It's as old as Yellow Journalism itself. Happy someone posted here so I didn't have to click on the link and help out. And I'm happy the reaction to it has been appropriate. It's poor journalism, period. Funny thing is Coach Townsend even acknowledged that he KNEW this is how the VHSL had intended the rule to be interpreted since the preseason! So if it had worked out the other way, he would have been using Jones for 6 on Sunday as well. I'd have loved to see the blogger's story then!

 

3.)In the end, the blog is meaningless. The opening comment is meant to entice readers, and while it's really dishonest and distasteful for the blogger to characterize Hanover's actions the way he did, I believe the entire article actually contradicts that statement and actually definitively shows that Hanover and Great Bridge were on a completely equal playing field in regard to the rule. (Even if that wasn't the author's opinion.) Based on Townsend's comments it's now apparent that all the coaches were informed of the correct interpretation of the rule as far back as the preseason and both Hanover and Great Bridge played within those interpretations throughout the entire state tournament (and rest of the year), according to Townsend himself. Hanover came out on top in accordance with those rules and Great Bridge competed with the same knowledge and opportunities.

 

The only regrettable fall out from this is that people who may not have as much knowledge of the truth, or may be biased towards one team or the other, may gain an untrue perception of what happened this weekend. Unfortunately, journalism has become more and more of that kind of profession recently. Selling mouse clicks is now more important than the truth, especially when the truth really isn't as exciting as a drummed up controversy. ...ESPN anyone?

The one thing I got out of the Pilot article was the information about the VHSL preseason meeting where this scenario, according to Coach Townsend, was explicitly discussed and a rule interpretation was given that was then followed all year.

 

That's nice to hear, because what it means is that everyone knew the rules going in and nobody got ambushed.

 

That being said, to me there is no ambiguity in the rule as written.  If they meant to say something other than what they wrote, they need to go back to the drawing board and write it the way they meant it, instead of handling it as they did.

 

And FWIW, I happen to agree with the way it is written, not the way it was applied.  The whole point was to create a system of mandatory rest/recovery intervals for the purpose of protecting pitchers' health.  The interpretation undermines that goal by counting a day when a guy pitched as a rest day.  That's not ambiguity.  That, they would say in the schools, is a reading comprehension deficit.

 

What I think is unfortunate is that, in my mind, the interpretation of the rule heavily influenced the outcome of the title game.  I honestly cannot imagine that Hanover would've held GB to 2 runs or less had Casey been allowed to go only 3 innings.

 

But again, if it was the rule all year long, and everyone knew that full well and had ample advance notice of it, then there is nothing illegitimate about the victory.  When you play by the rules and you win, that's completely kosher by any standard.

Personally, I'm not a fan of the headline of the blog at pilotonline.  Especially in light of the fact that the actual content of the blog is actually pretty even-handed and not slanted in any way.

 

Having said that, one must remember that this is a media outlet dispursing information to an uninformed public.  99% of which are not even aware that there are such things as "VHSL pitching rules".

 

In any case, I don't think anyone can justify "intent" or "in practice" when it comes to rules, and how they are enforced.  If there is a governing rule, in writing, then the rule should be carried out as such.  The fact is, there have been multiple cases where coaches trying to interpret a part of the rule, called the VHSL, and received one response from person 'A', and a completely different response from person 'B'.  This constant state of confusion is to be expected when a nice idea is poorly executed, and comes with unintended consequences.

 

Hence the problem when one has too many rules.  Rules, beget more rules.  Hopefully, they'll go back to the drawing board and fix the scripture.  And in the process, I hope someone with some common sense will simplify the whole thing.  (ie, LESS rules)

One thing I'd like to say is, two guys who come out of this looking great are the two head coaches, Dragum and Townsend.

 

Dragum -- knew the rule, planned well, executed the plan, won the championship.  Boom.

 

Townsend -- knew the rule, planned well, had faith in his 3d and 4th arms, and then has shown the utmost in class -- obviously given the opportunity by the nature of the reporter's inquiry to whine, and made absolutely no moves in that direction. 

 

The two of them combined to put on a game that was nip-and-tuck all the way and in doubt until the very last out.  No matter what might be said about the VHSL, this was a classic dog fight game and both teams, as well as their coaches, showed themselves well.  I only wish I could've been there, I love watching a game like that, particularly when it's for all the marbles.

A column in today's Times-Dispatch now says Townsend did not know Casey would be allowed to throw more than 3 on Sunday, and that this influenced his decisions in the semifinal game.  See http://www.timesdispatch.com/s...4c-f5dd14883124.html

 

Not sure this is an accurate statement, though.  It's not accompanied by a quote, and also ... didn't the Hanover game come AFTER the GB game?  Had Casey not thrown in the later game on Saturday, then there would've been no question as to his availability to throw more on Sunday -- in fact, then he could've gone all 7.

I've looked through the slides from the pre-season rules clinic and they don't support the idea that 1 inning equals a day's rest.  In fact, in every interpretation example, the pitcher gets the full number of days rest earned.  Can anyone tell me in what other instance this "intent" was applied.  The rule itself defines day of rest as rest from competitive pitching.

The VHSL rule reads:

“If a pitcher pitches four to seven innings in one day that pitcher shall have two calendar days of rest from competition pitching … Further restrictions regarding this section include:

 - After two days of rest a pitcher may pitch a maximum of two innings.

 - After three days of rest a pitcher may pitch a maximum of three innings.

 - After four days of rest a pitcher may pitch to the limit of the rule.”

The three restrictions are not linked by an "or", and under no other condition is the pitcher allowed to pitch to the limit.  To pitch to the limit of the rule requires four days of rest from competitive pitching. 

What precedent has been established by the VHSL ruling?  If after two days the pitcher pitches 1 inning can he now pitch to the limit?  Why after 3 days is it ok if it isn't also ok after only 2 days.

What does this now do to pitching safety?