I'm assuming when you wrote in point C, "In the NCAA," you meant in the Big Ten tournament. If so, in that game against the Gophers, Schwartz threw 98 pitches to 25 batters, or 3.92 pitches per batter. In the Michigan game that followed the Gopher sweep of Wisconsin, Schwartz threw 112 pitches to 29 batters, or 3.86 pitches per batter. So your point confuses me.MN was losing hopelessly to WI, too. (Strange a pitchers' duel at 1-0 could seem so one-sided.) MN also needed to make changes. I saw none. I would've done this:
A) In game 3 v. NW, MN started Pease; she gave up 3 runs immediately & the game was essentially over after only one half inning. In the NCAA, MN again started Pease v. WI; she gave up one run in inning one & that lone run was all WI needed. Like they say about a dance, you go home with the one that brung you there. In the DH v. Wi, Leavitt pitched 10 innings and won both games. So I would have started the pitcher that brung me to 2 wins over WI, i. e., Leavitt. Why in the world would Ritter not start Leavitt again v. WI? Too often this year Pease has needed a couple innings to get loosened up in a game. In crucial single elimination games, that's too late. The game will already be decided by the time the pitcher is loose.
B) Also, Cox got the deciding hit v. WI in a 1-0 game the week before. I would have started her hitting second rather than Jensen and before DenHartog and Evans. Jensen's BA has dropped steadily the second half of the season. Jensen in her old form? Yes! As she's hitting now? No way. And if I did start Jensen, I sure as heck would've used Cox to PH for Jensen in inning 7 of game 3 v. NW. I would've had Cox in the NCAA game v. WI from the beginning and let her see Schwartz 4 times.
C) In the NCAA, I'd have had MN hitters working the counts really hard v. Schwartz inning after inning. That's what MI did against her in the next game and they handled her ok. That game seemed a given for MI as it moved along.
D) I'd have had MN hitters shorten their swings v. Schwartz and hit more defensively and swing less for the fences (since I believe Schwartz is a drop ball pitcher), to keep balls in play and force WI infielders to make more difficult plays. After all, for most of the game, MN needed only one run to pull even. In the final, NEBR did to Storako what MI did to WI's Schwartz --- they kept the opposing pitchers working hard until their one hot hitter got her chances to swing for the fences and make it pay off. Maybe MI and NEBR have smarter hitters or better hitting coaches than MN? Well, you asked me. That's my answer, off the cuff. Correct me if I'm wrong. All I know for sure is that the MN team that showed up v. WI in the NCAA wasn't the same one as in the DH. What happened?
Of course, maybe you're saying that Michigan batters worked the count against Schwartz in the early innings, and that led to being able to swing more freely in later innings, thereby taking the overall pitch per batter figure down. But if that's not what you're saying happened, the data simply doesn't back you up on this point.