Message board »Message Board home »Sign-in or register to get started
Online now: 1 member: TABLE SETTER 11; 108 anonymousDiscussion: 1 & 1 count
| Posted | Discussion |
| Oct. 11, 2006 Gary Heifner 248 posts | 1 & 1 count In the 5 years that I have played senior ball, I would be willing to bet 80 to 90 percent of the players I have talked to would rather start with a 1-1 count than a 0-0 count. In seattle this year, due to the weather, we dropped the 0-0 and used the 1-1 for the 1st five games. The games were more energenic, batters were forced to swing at the 1st decnt strike and we got in all the innings. Most important our pitchers were less fatigued on Sunday. I hate playing in world tournies and with only 4 or 5 innings completed the ump yells out of time-one more inning. I would like to see the 1-1 count become standard. We were in some 1-1 count tournies this year. The games averaged 51 minutes and we got in all 7 innings. Full-shorter games wouldn't be a bad idea in Phoenix next year when the temps are in the upper 90s. |
| Oct. 11, 2006 STONEMAN Men's 50 535 posts | GARY: Some of what u said is good reasoning. 1) But, get more pitchers OR have yer pitchers get in better shape. 2) If, we use the 1-1 count, when the 2nd strike is called, will the batter still have one to waste. In, ASA & NASF, there is no 1 to waste, once one has 2 strikes. 3) GARY, is this another attempt, to lower scores. 4) In most cases the better teams, r the ones that r in shape. 5) If, players would run out to the fields & in to bat, 10 plus minutes would be saved. 6) If, the 1st batter got to the plate w/ in 45 seconds, the game would get done in 1 hr, as long as there was the 5 run rule in effect; No one got hurt; No coaches or players conversations; Teams took only 1 practice ball in only the 1st inning. Get yer Players in Condition...... The STONEMAN.............OUT |
| Oct. 11, 2006 GT Men's 60 162 posts | AMEN Stoneman. More time is wasted going out and coming in and all the talking bs that goes on. 1 and 1 with an extra foul is just ridiculous. Umps need to start calling balls and strikes when its time and guys would move a bit faster. The game was meant to have 0 and 0. Lets stop trying to change it. Just my two cents Greg Thomas Christian Brothers Auto Houston, Tx |
| Oct. 11, 2006 einstein Men's 50 3112 posts | I like the 1 and 1 count from both perspectives, they being, pitching and hitting. Makes me more aggresssive and a better hitter and puts me one strike away from having the batter with 2 strikes. I think it makes games go faster and feel faster. I like it all the way around |
| Oct. 12, 2006 Stones 1B Men's 55 52 posts | IMO... 1 and 1 makes for a more aggressive hitting game and gives the pitcher a chance to do something with 5 pitches instead of 7 pitches. The fields are not left standing around for a batter to take 2 pitches per say. No bonus foul, 3rd strike out. Nothing wrong w/change as long it's for the betterment. At LV for the 50's we go in only 2 games that went the full 7. Had nothing to do about running in and running out between innings. There were just alot of pitches being thrown. But whatever which way any tournament decides to have their count. All teams just need to adapt to the rules. Just conversation on the message board. |
| Oct. 12, 2006 DoubleL10 Men's 70 907 posts | The downside of 1-1; when the Umps are not calling illegal pitches - either fast enough or at all - and the batter takes one that, in their opinion, is too high or low, for a called strike 2, then good pitchers (AC from the Old A's comes to mind) have you at their mercy since the batter does not have any idea of what the Ump will (or will not) call. Any good pitcher just keeps going up higher with the arc until the Ump finally says something. In USSSA it's even worse, since the Umps don't verbalize the illegal pitch call and you're already playing 1-1. We tried 1-1 early this year in our Houston Senior League and voted it out after a couple of weeks due to what I just mentioned. If the Umps are not good or are having a bad day, then the game deteriorates into ugly demonstrations of unhappiness by both teams by yelling at the Ump which, as we all know, does no good. On the plus side, however, I agree with Gary and Joe about being more agressive at the plate with a 1-1 count. The games do seem faster-paced and more innings are played. Also, GT makes an excellent point; too many times I see guys leisurely strolling out to the field to assume their positions OR the first batter taking way too much time getting to the plate. I think the Umps should encourage guys to hustle on and off the field (so do and it does seem to make guys hustle a little more). JMHO Larry Lopez |
| Oct. 12, 2006 Nancy Allen Men's 55 1438 posts | I have never liked the 1-1 count, never have, never will. When it was instituted here, it was just another way to cheat the hitter on their at bat, and let's face it, hitting is what softball is all about. No one can hardly wait to put their glove on again like they do an at bat. If you like the 1-1 count with a foul to waste at the end, USSSA is set up that way, and they do have sanctioned leagues and tournaments to participate in. I promise to not say a word on changing to a 1-1 count if MLB goes to it first. |
| Oct. 12, 2006 Fred Scerra Men's 80 542 posts | As a pitcher and a hitter I hate the 1 and 1 count. I wish I had kept it but someone did a study on the 1 and 1 vs 0 and 0 and play 15 games with each and the total difference was I think around 15 min. If you are worried about the clock then the easy solution is to eliminate the throwing the ball around btween innings and give the pitcher 1 warm up pitch then batter up. We do that in one of my leagues and all games are played in an hour or so. |
| Oct. 12, 2006 einstein Men's 50 3112 posts | Nancy, I love your spunk and definition and accountability. You're the bomb and all by yourself represent real women so well for all of us. Yet, you say "hitting is what softball's all about." Not for me. I love, prefer defense. Always have and always will. We played the Old A's in Salem this year. Our first real opportunity to show our Vaunted Kelly's team to the universe. We laid 40 runs on the Old A's and put on a show of hitting many were watching. We lost the game 41 to 40. Stay cool, Nancy. |
| Oct. 12, 2006 crusher Men's 75 524 posts | We use the 1&1 in Tulsa. I can not wait to get to a tournament and play the 0&0 count. I try not to hit up the middle, however with 1-1 sometimes you do not have a choice. The1-1 count really takes a lot of fun away when I am batting. When pitching I have a small advantage I feel. Not much as it does limit throwing some trash pitches. I agree with some above that we should speed up getting ready to play before the clock starts and pick it up getting in and out between innings. (sometimes tough when you are in the losers bracket). Have a good winter. C |
| Oct. 12, 2006 Nancy Allen Men's 55 1438 posts | Einstein, thanks. I have never met anyone who actually owned up to liking defense better. Well, now I have. I just have a real problem with anything that I perceive as cheating the players especially if it is in the interest of commercial softball (less game for more dollars). Of course as an umpire the 1-1 count really speeds up a game, but I still do not like it because it changes the game. If that is all that matters, go up to the plate with a full count. That will really move it along (we use this for tiebreakers in leagues). I am pretty much a softball addict, but I think that senior softball is the best facet of the sport that I have been involved with. I have always had a theory that when players are ready for 80+ that they get a form that congratulates them and asks them to pick one of the following as what they want to be able to do: 1) running, 2) hitting, 3) fielding, 4) throwing. I thought that everyone picked hitting. So when you turn 80+, I know that there will be at least one with fielding picked. |
| Oct. 12, 2006 JOHN BOB Men's 60 76 posts | I am against the 1-1 count the main reason is the difference in the arch limit very's by each umpire sometime's as much as 2 feet+.In most worlds games are scheduled every hour & 15 min's sometime hour half. I can remenber a lot of game's were both teams are ready to play but no umpire's,they will take 10 to 15 min break in between games this comes from doing to many game's in a day |
| Oct. 12, 2006 Robo2 238 posts | I would like to say that I have come across players that have used illegal bats in national tournaments and qualifiers. I believe the sound of a UII is unique and I have seen almost an entire team hand one bat over from one player to the next. In one of my leagues, one player (from another team) told me that he knows someone that could alter any bat to have more life than a UII for the price of $100. It's a shame that players need to cheat to perform at an artificially eelevated level. By the way, I have played against Einstein for several years. I still remember him stealing a line drive off me at third in Des Moines a few years ago. I believe he is a credit to the game and I enjoy reading his comments. Hope to beat you next time. Joe Lobman Robo2 Sweet Construction out of New Jersey |
| Oct. 12, 2006 Fred Scerra Men's 80 542 posts | einstein is not the only one that likes defense. I find a good low scoring game more exciting than a 28 - 25 game. I use to watch the Frost Bite games on Sun but I stopped going. By 2nd inning it is 15 - 12 and both teams have used up their 7 HR's. What is the excitment in that type of game except to satisfy players egos. Give me a good 2 - 1 game where every play, every ball pitch or hit means the game. |
| Oct. 12, 2006 Joncon 328 posts | I prefer the 1 and 1 count. They should go to it in the MLB :). It is already a hitters game and giving them an extra pitch to look at makes it more so. It is SLOW pitch. The ball is hurling in at 5MPH. You don't really need to look at more pitches. Hit it or don't and move on. |
| Oct. 13, 2006 Bob50 Men's 60 242 posts | I'm for the 1 & 1 count. My reasons-- 1) Its enough of a hitters game with todays bats. 2) I prefer to play more innings instead of watching hitters wait for a first strike before they decide to swing. 3) I don't like home run derbys. 4) I prefer the game to move along faster. 5) What's wrong with defense and yes a pitcher means a lot in this regard. 6) 55 or 60 minute time limits on games. Run limits per inning. You get the idea. Bob Schulz Formerly Chicago Classics 55's |
| Oct. 13, 2006 Bob50 Men's 60 242 posts | The reason for a 1 and 1 count is not to hurry to get games over rather it is to try to get 7 full innings of softball to play. This translates to more at bats and more fielding opportunities. The bottom line is that it means playing more softball on offense and defense. I don't want to argue with anyone either since we all have opinions and many are different not neccesarily better. Mine are no different in that regard. I don't believe however that we broke anything. Technology now allows all of us to hit the ball longer. The technology balance has swung to offense. The 1 and 1 count will attempt to put that back in balance. If you need more pitches to choose from you will probably be opposed to this. In the Midwest, most leagues that have time constraints to the games, so batters start with a 1 and 1 count. Will the number of hits and home runs be reduced. Maybe on a per inning basis but probably not on a per game basis if you factor in an extra inning of play that teams may be able to get in if the count is shortened. It seems more hitters are prone to hit the first pitch when starting with a 1 and 1 count compared to starting with a 0 and 0 count. It seems to me that a change to a 1 and 1 count doesn't change the game any more than a game limited by time. Bob Schulz |
| Oct. 13, 2006 Joncon 328 posts | For me it has nothing to do with the LENGTH of the game, rather the PACE of the game while playing defense. You are out there...ready...on you toes trying to determine where the ball willl be hit so you can get a jump on it......ball one. OK...get ready...on your toes...watching...waiting...trying to anticipate...ready....ball two. I yell "MIX IN A STRIKE" and the pitcher tells ME to come and pitch. I decline and get ready again.....waiting...waiting...ready.....batter takes strike one. I yell "SWING THE BAT" and batter gives me some kind of signal with his middle finger extended. OK, I've made a new friend. Waiting for the ball...is he going to hit it to me? I haven't seen his swing so I have no idea. I can barely see him from right field because I am old. Waiting....ready.....FOCK...ball three. I have no one else to yell at so I try and strike up a conversation with right center but he is old too and cant hear sh!t so I just get ready again...on my toes....well...kind of on my toes at this point. Waiting....waiting......SON OF A....This guy took strike two. H ehas WAY more patience than I do. The GOOD news is theat this will be the last pitch so I am waiting...waiting...back on my toes again.....freaking ball four. Now more people are chiming in with "wswing the bat" and "throw a strike" and a bunch of old guys are kicking dirt and puffing up the chests and grumbling and killing more time. Next batter comes up and some jackass in the dugout says "make him trow you a strike"........ahhhh...good times. |
| Oct. 18, 2006 Robo2 238 posts | I am not for changing the rules for the most part. However, if one needs to speed up the game and still separate the good teams to go to higher levels or not as competitive teams to good to a lower lever, then don't mess with the pitch count or limit HRs. You want to speed up the game and still differentiate team levels. Go to 7 runs per inning with no limit of HRs. There will be less hitting up the middle and the innings will not be prolonged due to HRs counting as singles. The issue of illegal bats can be avoided by allowing the UII and installing a screen in front of the pitcher. If it hits the screen, it is a live ball. No need for the pitcher to back up. I use a screen during our batting practice and it is easy to assemble. |
| Oct. 18, 2006 GT Men's 60 162 posts | omg. Nothing personal Robo2. That is one big step into ruining this game. A Screen in front of the pitcher. I for one hope that day never comes. We use it in batting practice in our leagues. Its fine for just that. Personally, I would never play in a tournament that uses a screen during a game. Enough said. Just my two cents GT Still in Houston, unless it has floated away recently, which is quite possible. |
| Oct. 20, 2006 Robo2 238 posts | GT, while I agree that I am not 100% in favor of a screen, I thought it might be one possible suggestion to get unlimited HRs through. Once again, I firmly believe that limiting HRs only mask good teams from moving up. It is a regression to the mean. In other words, allows lesser teams to stay in the game even though they probably have no chance of winning a tournament. I never see a A or AA team. If we really want to differentiate teams into 5 brackets then allow the game to be played as it was orignially intended. The idea of a screen was only to eliminate the issue of power hitters from going up the middle, using lousy balls, and restricting bats (which only foster the use of doctored bats). The other idea of doctored bats in major tournaments is to have bat manufacturers provide bats clearly marked for this tournament and no other bats can be used. The mfg could then sell them at the end of the tournament or allow the tourn. directors keep them for the next tournament. I would think that the only people that would object to that are those that would use a doctored bat. |
| Oct. 20, 2006 GT Men's 60 162 posts | Basically I agree with you. Something needs to be done but not involving a screen. Lets face it, cheaters will cheat and teammates will not stop it. If anyone disagrees with that please let me know when you turned a teammate in. I know I can honestly say no one on any team I have played with has used an illegal bat. If we can play by the rules, no reason everyone can. Robo2, I hope my words did not come across as offending you. Not my intention. I've just played this game too long maybe. I pitch but would never want a screen. Just my two cents. GT Houston, Tx |
| Oct. 20, 2006 Robo2 238 posts | GT No offense taken. It's OK to disagree. That's one of the thngs that makes this country great. Many times people possibly teammates use illegal bats without the rest of the team knowing. I don't and have no knowledge of anyone else using one on my team. However, I have reason to believe some of the teams I have played against have use them. Mostly in leagues here in NJ the younger guys who need to hit the ball 350+ and don't like losing to us old guys. I did come across a team in senior softball in Plano in 2005 that used one bat and passed it from batter to batter even though the dugout had 8 to 10 bats lined up. And the sound the bat made was like a UII. You know the sound. I'm glad the SPA went to allow the UII. It leveled the playing field. I wouldn't care if the UII was made illegal if the bats at the national tournaments were supplied by the tournament and kept everything legal and even. I am not a big HR guy but I don't like that restriction. It takes away from the game. If someone wants to limit the time, put a 7 run per inning in place. To me ther is no reason to limit an individuals ability. I also pitch from time to time. For the most part, players do not try to hit the pitcher, it is the easiest place to get a hit. But if power hitters are limited in HRs, even if not yet used up, they tend to hit the middle rather than hit a solo. It's a topic that could go on forever and many different ideas are out there. Joe Lobman, Sweet Construction, NJ |
