EmptyMessage board »Message Board home »Sign-in or register to get started
Online now: 2 members: Shy, shortstop13; 8 anonymousDetails for Dirty
Real name:
Gary Sommers
Location:
Shaker Heights, OH
Division:
Men's 50
Messages posted by Dirty »Message board home »Start a new discussion
| Nov. 8, 2010 Dirty | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: Combining Divisions Three divisions and maybe five age groups would be more than enough. That would still bive you FIFTEEN 'national' champs, or champions at every tournament. What are there now? 28? Just too many. If everyone is a champion then it just does not have as much value. |
| Nov. 5, 2010 Dirty | Topic: Tournaments Discussion: rules of the game Let's also keep in mind the game is meant to be played with NO run limits, NO courtesy runners, and vertical (NOT horizontal) strike zones. |
| Nov. 5, 2010 Dirty | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: moving up, who decides? Let's keep in mind it appears that most guys don't want to be challenged. |
| Nov. 5, 2010 Dirty | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: Fear the Beard Something to think about. How many of you, if given the opportunity to take pills or even injections that would make you better at your jobs and consequently make a gazillion dollars would not do it? Just wondering. |
| Nov. 5, 2010 Dirty | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: Fear the Beard I am still not so sure that bigger, faster, stronger, and less-skilled makes a player better. And all you can do is judge guys against their peers. Ruth would hit more homers in a season than ENTIRE TEAMS!!! How much better than that can you be? Not to mention the caliber of pitcher he was. |
| Nov. 4, 2010 Dirty | Topic: Tournaments Discussion: rules of the game Combine AA and AAA too. Not that much of a difference. Sure there is some, but not all that great in most cases. |
| Nov. 4, 2010 Dirty | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: Fear the Beard No problem, and same here. |
| Nov. 4, 2010 Dirty | Topic: Tournaments Discussion: rules of the game E4, you want another way? Reduce the number of classifications from 4 to 2, Major and A like it used to be, though the actual names are not important. Or, at least at the younger levels, make the age classes larger. Perhaps 50+, 58+, 60+, and then increase by 5-year increments after that. Or do both. Would make tournaments much more meaningful, would allow for normal length games, you could probably take away time limits and run limits, and play the game the way it was meant to be played. |
| Nov. 4, 2010 Dirty | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: Fear the Beard I thought it was Eck, just wasn't sure if you ahd some other pitch in mind from a different game I wasn't aware of. |
| Nov. 4, 2010 Dirty | Topic: Tournaments Discussion: rules of the game Webbie, how does your team even begin to play defense with "so many guys that can barely make it to first physically"? At some point if guys cannot perform the simple parts of the game anymore it might be time to take up checkers instead of continuing to bastardize the game from the way it was meant to be played. When I was a kid this was a game played by 10 year old girls. It was never intended to be that hard or physially taxing. |
| Nov. 3, 2010 Dirty | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: Fear the Beard No doubt in most all sports today's guys are bigger, faster, and stronger. But I am not so sure about better, well not unless you want to turn baseball, football, and basketball into the decathlon. Who can bunt anymore? Who can steal bases? Who can pitch 280 innings multiple seasons? Who can dribble without palming the ball? Who can take a charge? What DB can actually intercept a pass without hands of stone? Much more athletic? Certainly. More skilled? Questionable. |
| Nov. 3, 2010 Dirty | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: Fear the Beard What pitch did Fingers throw to Gibson? Jackson v. Koufax? Lefty v. lefty. Not a good match-up for Reggie. |
| Nov. 2, 2010 Dirty | Topic: Tournaments Discussion: rules of the game Yes Joe, that is true. It has been done in MLB, he was Eddie Gaedel and Bill Veeck used him back in maybe the 40s or 50s. You throw to the normal height of THAT particular hitter in the box, not to the batter if he is excessively crouching. But each batter's normal stance establishes his own strike zone. And it is different for each batter, NOT the same as the mat forces it to be. Consequently, the mat is a terrible idea for use as a strike zone. |
| Nov. 2, 2010 Dirty | Topic: Tournaments Discussion: rules of the game Joe, I disagree. A good ump will take the height of the batter into account each time. Now the mat does not do this, and forces the same strike zone for all batters. A bad thing in my view. |
| Nov. 2, 2010 Dirty | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: WHAT WOULD YOU DO IN THE SAME SCENERIO stick is 100% correct. |
| Nov. 2, 2010 Dirty | Topic: Tournaments Discussion: rules of the game Does anyone really think guys 5'6" and 6'8" are supposed to have the same size strike zone? |
| Nov. 1, 2010 Dirty | Topic: Tournaments Discussion: rules of the game Don't kid yourself, Utrip was running a LOT of tournaments back then and wanted to keep those games moving too. That was a way for them to try and do that. |
| Nov. 1, 2010 Dirty | Topic: Tournaments Discussion: rules of the game mad dog, a good pitcher will accomplish the same without changing fundamental rules. |
| Nov. 1, 2010 Dirty | Topic: Tournaments Discussion: rules of the game Couple of thoughts. One, the 1-1 count just covers for bad pitching. Good pitching will keep the game moving, and avoid 6 pitch at-bats, and force batters to swing the bat early in the count. All the things guys on here are alleging the 1-1 count does. Two, the mat gives all guys the same size strike zone, no matter if they are 5'6" or 6'8". NOT the way the game was meant to be played. Not at all. |
| Oct. 29, 2010 Dirty | Topic: General and miscellaneous Discussion: Enlightened Understood. I just think he meant no harm, and just got caught up on his soapbox for a bit. Was not meant to be a defense as much as an attempt at an explanation from someone who has gotten to know him a bit to someone who hasn't. |
