Message board »Message Board home »Sign-in or register to get started
Online now: 1 member: TABLE SETTER 11; 169 anonymousDiscussion: survey
| Posted | Discussion |
| Dec. 14, 2017 curty Men's 60 187 posts | survey voted for 1-1, no foul. my reasoning is not just to speed up the game, which I believe it does, but from a standpoint of a hitter and / or pitcher. it's slow pitch softball. 0-0 was meant for baseball where the hitter is at a disadvantage. We play with a larger ball, very little "trickery" allowed to pitchers, slow speed (arc), and of course special bats. I have heard & probably uttered " it only takes one" more than once a game! I believe hitters are extremely spoiled as it is, with most taking a strike (wasted pitch) before preparing to bat. Having played with the 1-1 count for many years i think it is an easy adjustment. Just my opinion as a player, umpire, manager, administer. |
| Dec. 14, 2017 #19 Men's 70 302 posts | curty ... Couldn't agree with you more! See the ball, hit the ball! |
| Dec. 14, 2017 r4pitch 92 posts | Awsome..... |
| Dec. 14, 2017 mad dog Men's 65 4191 posts | yep curty....dead on....ASA has been doing it for years now.....these babies waiting on their perfect pitch....come on.....lets ..let the pitcher be in the game....also i would like to see the height limits go away......its not if the batter doesn't know where the ball has to be for a strike.....it has to hit a mat..... |
| Dec. 14, 2017 Benji4 Men's 55 289 posts | I'm with all of you. Few hitters swing at the first pitch when it's 0-0 anyways. It's a hitter's game............. |
| Dec. 14, 2017 Jawood Men's 50 943 posts | And in other words...just trying to get more game action in the amount of time we're given to play. The 1-1 count will do this! |
| Dec. 14, 2017 OZ40 549 posts | As a voice for the 0-0 count I disagree with the above rationales. It's been my experience as a U-Trip umpire and a player the games are not sped up in any significant manner. As stated ad nauseoum in the previous 300 times this subject was brought up on the forum no two games are identical and not everyone takes the count full so the speed-up-the-game theory is just that: theory. Which game will end sooner, the game with a 1-1 start where every batter takes the count full or the game with the 0-0 start with one-third of the batters offering at the ball in less than 3 pitches? If this were an insurance based argument there would be no actuarial evidence to support granting of the policy. I still say there are better ways to speed up the game if you want to but those are player based initiatives and essentially require merely more hustle and attention to the game being played. But hello, try everything under the sun to "speed-up" the game but all it takes is one injury or lengthy ruling by the T/D that delays a game and a large portion of the bracket is going to be behind anyway. |
| Dec. 14, 2017 DaveDowell Men's 70 4312 posts | OZ40 ... It's very difficult, if not impossible, to disagree logically with your analysis ... Based on 15± years as one of the SSUSA National Tournament Directors, "player based initiatives" simply don't work because way too many players (and occasionally umpires and T.D.'s) are reluctant to look in the mirror to discover the true identity of the time wasters ... We are gathering member preference data to help us as we consider a potential "association based initiative" to address the concept of maximizing innings played ... Despite an inference of conflict in positions, I also agree with the analysis presented prior to yours! ... |
| Dec. 14, 2017 OZ40 549 posts | Point taken Dave. It stands to reason that as players used to the 1-1 count enter the Senior Softball ranks they are entirely comfortable keeping the status quo they have become accustomed to. Perhaps a solution would be to establish a "class" of players such as those now playing 40 or 50 ball and have the 1-1 count follow the bulk of them as they ascend the age ranks thereby phasing out the 0-0 count with the "class" of players now playing 55 and above ball. Another guideline could be any age group born after (insert date here) uses the 1-1 count. As a side note, I retook the survey and this time my choice was accepted so the glitch seems repaired. |
| Dec. 14, 2017 NYGNYY 215 posts | I voted for 0-0 If you really wanted to challenge the full 7 innings of play, there should have been another option of 1 pitch and max 7 run innings until the open inning. At least with 1 pitch I do not feel anyone has an advantage and it will definitely speed up the games and with 7 runs there will be shortened games because of run rules. |
| Dec. 14, 2017 DaveDowell Men's 70 4312 posts | OZ40 ... As just one vote on the 13-member National Rules Committee, I don't envision seven votes are there to change to the "1-1" count for every age group ... I do, however, see a reasonable probability of counting to seven to change some of the younger age groups ... With or without the courtesy foul, by age group, will be the debate topic in my view ... Five years ago, the "1-1" was preferred by ages 40+, 50+ and 55+, which would, all things being equal (and they seldom are), translate to likely support affecting ages up through age 60+ today ... In a week or so, we'll have a better sense of the membership's preferences by age, by gender and by geographic Club and Leagues regions ... NYGNYY ... There is absolutely no desire by SSUSA to "speed up" or to "shorten" the games ... This potential change is being evaluated in response to the (almost) unanimous desire by players to maximize innings played within the same time limits currently in place for non-championship games ... One-pitch is not the answer ... |
| Dec. 14, 2017 DieselDan Men's 75 600 posts | Since one of the biggest delays is the players walking off/onto the field and if you want to have a great debate, discuss playing two innings at a time. |
| Dec. 14, 2017 NYTX Men's 65 55 posts | DieselDan - I have been saying this for 5 years!! Playing 2 innings at a time is the only way to insure more ball is played. There is so much time LOST with guys slowly walking in and out each inning. Just play 2 at time for the first 6 innings and then play the 7th. There would be no other rule changes needed. I estimate this would add 10-12 minutes of playing time, which in a 60 minute game thats more than 15%. It could also possibly do away with the dreaded flip flop. This seems so simple - what am I missing? |
| Dec. 14, 2017 Rainmans 42 posts | So many people stomp, pout, and spew anger and insults around because they don’t get their way, feel they’ve been slighted, they’re irritated about the rules, politics (as I was told senior softball consists of clicks and politics), disagree with coaches, umpires, directors… this has been born out of the sheer growth of this sport. But, here is the thing! This is slow-pitch softball. It’s not personal. And if it is personal, and awful – then why stick around!?! There are no scouts in the stands and we ain’t as young or good as we once were – you don’t know what you’ve got until you lose it but, you knew exactly what you had; you just thought you’d never lose it. Given that preamble, it appears people are troubled with (not all inclusive – enter your own): • Getting 7 innings completed before the allotted play time • Being bored (the game is too slow) in the field waiting for the batter to swing at the ball • Taking too long for the team(s) to get from the dugout out to the field and vice versa • Taking too much time for the batter getting into the batter’s box (performing an elaborate ritual) • Scheduling of the tournaments (2-3 days) is too long/expensive •Incorporating baseball format/rules (as someone stated, “…this softball not baseball…”) • Trying to put that braid in your hair but realizing it was a mistake after the first time you take off your hat Here are some suggestions (i.e., grist for your mill) to consider that could potentially resolve some of the aforementioned concerns(not all inclusive – add your own): • Use a 1-pitch format – this would speed up the game, reduce boredom, reduce the time of each game (30-35 minutes), get more games played per day, reduce some tournaments to 1-day • Use an over-the-line format – same as the above, also reduces injuries from having to run bases (hit and sit) • Use a 1-pitch over-the-line format – same as above • Use a 1-pitch and/or over-the-line format with plastic bats and nerf balls – same as above, and also reduce the cost of equipment I’m being somewhat facetious but in my own skewed perspective I’m also being serious. There will be those who see the cynical humor and others will take offense – some are offended because someone didn’t offend them. |
| Dec. 14, 2017 Fabe Men's 65 456 posts | Mahalo Staff for this survey! Been playing ball against Young Guns for years n many of our games don't go past 5 innings...of course we play open innings thru out the game n this is always using 1 n 1 count. I agree that this is a hitters game...I hit good pitches...count doesn't not bother me unless many walks are occurring. I also agree that many need to hussle in n out during the game! But I hope we just enjoy our health, abilities n resourses to play this game! Remember every swing we take n every inning we play could be our last! Aloha, Fabe |
| Dec. 14, 2017 DCPete 409 posts | Why not let teams play 1-1 in Any division whenever both managers agree to it rather than being forced to play with rules neither team wants? |
| Dec. 14, 2017 mad dog Men's 65 4191 posts | oz40 really....you think everyone takes it to the full count in u-trip....also in u-trip you get the extra foul...which is completely ridicules......go ahead and try to get a full count with a 1-1 count and no foul to have...when i'm pitching....really would love to see it...... |
| Dec. 14, 2017 Omar Khayyam 1357 posts | I'm a little confused. On the resent survey, it says that I should answer the "following questions and e-mail your answers" . I only had one question which required one answer. Were there actually two questions (or more)? |
| Dec. 14, 2017 AJC Men's 60 218 posts | Omar, there was a 2nd question only if you voted for the 1-1 count. It was with a foul to give or without one. Id like to see the 1-1 count. We already get to use the hottest bats on the planet with balls to match. After playing for years with the 1-1 count and even our senior league which uses ASA rules which uses the 1-1 count, the full count does seem to slow the game down. Granted there are many ways to speed the game up somewhat as mentioned above but the at bats seem pretty obvious. Ive seen many guys step in the box with 1 hand up, mark off 3 steps from the plate then mound a neat line of dirt for there back foot then finally when ready sit and watch pitches go by until they have a strike. Some at bats seem to go on forever. Im sure this will never be put into place but also agree this would help in getting all 7 innings almost every game played ( i think this would have the biggest impact on the average of innings played ). That would be to play 2 innings before switching sides. For instance if you score your limit of runs for the inning, the other base runners come in and you start your next inning. This saves so much time while saving your outfielders legs. We use this in our senior league without a complaint from anyone, in fact everyone enjoys it better. |
| Dec. 15, 2017 HAT MAN Men's 50 229 posts | As I had mentioned in detail before. Bottom line is its simple math. a 1 and 1, none to waste will guarantee more innings played 98.9% of the time. |
| Dec. 15, 2017 DaveDowell Men's 70 4312 posts | DCPete ... Because it's a fundamental requirement for ratings analysis consistency that all teams are playing the same rule set for qualifiers and championship events ... Support on either side of the "1-1" issue has, and will likely always be, variable based on age and geographic region ... Any possible expansion of the "1-1" beyond the 40-Masters will be uniform across specific age group(s), but it's highly improbable for us to allow a multiple choice approach ... HAT MAN ... Your estimate is probably a bit low ... 40-Masters AAA Men at the 2017 World Masters was 100.0% on 7-inning games ... |
| Dec. 15, 2017 softball4b Men's 70 1248 posts | Most of the time if I can reach I eat it, I mean hit it. IDC. |
| Dec. 15, 2017 stick8 1991 posts | Two ways a game might save some time a bit: 1) After the 1st inning no "coming down" before each half inning. Pitcher gets one warm up pitch and it's right back to the pitcher 2) After each infield out no throwing it around the infield. Right back to the pitcher. Now if only players would hustle off the field and not make errors that would save lots of time!!😀 |
| Dec. 15, 2017 marcster13 102 posts | I like the 1-1 count. It is better with a foul but I'll take either. It changes the mentality of the batter. Especially if it is 1-1 no foul. In general the batter is much more aggressive at the plate. The down side is there are more hits up the middle with 2 strikes. |
| Dec. 15, 2017 stattad Men's 65 235 posts | I also vote for the 2 innings at a time! |
| Dec. 15, 2017 DCPete 409 posts | Thanks Dave; figured you would say that but it is a fair point |
| Dec. 15, 2017 OZ40 549 posts | MD- Obviously you missed the entire point of my post. My posted analogy was to illustrate my point- no two softball games are exactly alike. To predicate a new rule based on an assumption that cannot be proven is folly. Sorry I didn't spell it out better, my bad. Personally I don't get the fascination with speeding up the game to begin with. I'd rather play a quality 5,6 or 7 inning game than play all artificially accelerated 7 inning games. When I retired I thought it meant a more leisurely lifestyle. To drive 75 mph to a tournament, check into a hotel, keep up with everything and anything on Facebook or a smartphone, and now a proposal to enter the batters box with a ball and strike already on you before you even see a pitch, finish out the tournament and then get back on the racetrack to head home is in my opinion not a means to that end. Again JMO |
| Dec. 15, 2017 AJC Men's 60 218 posts | Oz, the last thing i want is a watered down version of what we already have. Actually my thinking is a way to get more of what we already have. Just thinking of ways of scrubbing down time that is taking away from actually playing the game and getting in more innings and at bats for everyone. I do not want to speed the game up at all, just cut down on the standing around and wasting time. My thoughts are we already get to use crazy bats and balls ( which is hard to believe that these are allowed at 50 and over ) and even with that it isnt good enough. That we have the advantage of knowing that if we dont get the pitch exactly where we would like it, we will just let it go and get to see another pitch. Again, this is of course is my personal opinion, but if the pitch is going to hit the mat we should be able to hit the ball amd put it in play. It has absolutely nothing to do with getting the game over sooner or rushing thru a tournament, its more of wanting to have less wasted time and being able to play 7 quality innings of softball instead of 5 or 6 innings like we have now. |
| Dec. 16, 2017 OZ40 549 posts | I agree but the point I alluded to was no two softball games are exactly alike and neither are the players themselves. Therefore, to think that uniformly adopting a 1-1 count is some sort of panacea leading to softball nirvana is simply incorrect. I have played in plenty of 7 inning games and also many 5 or 6 inning games, each was unique unto itself and none were anymore enjoyable than the other simply because we reached the promised land of the 7th inning. Many posts are made to the effect that 1-1 is no big deal, fine. If 0-0 is no big deal make a rule allowing the individual batter to say to the umpire "I'll start with a 1-1 count", see how many players step up. |
| Dec. 16, 2017 boston Men's 60 355 posts | The 1-1 count would definitely help the game from my perspective. By the grace of God I'm still able to play OF in utrip leagues & tournament at age 63. I love the action knowing the kids are coming out swinging with 1-1 no courtesy. The arc is also only 3-8 ft so the ball comes quicker & pitchers hop, skip, jump & pump fake to deceive you. Which makes for interesting at bats when your older. The senior game with the 6-12 arc, a mat that helps the batter easily identify strikes, the hottest bats & when using Rocks the hottest ball on the planet makes the game easier for the offense. The pitcher and defense have very few advantages. As an outfielder it gets so boring watching a batter go 3-0 then take 2 strikes and walk. I personally don't travel 100's of miles to a tourney to watch good pitches go by to walk. It's slowpitch softball swing the bat. It's true many utrip games only go 5 innings due to the fact every inning is open. With the 1-1 count it takes less pitches to walk or swing the bat. Even if the batter goes to a full count. The 1-1 count no courtesy would speed the game up to a point. The player and umpire initiated actions would also need to come into play. We would still need umpires to get batters into the box and ready to hit quicker. Definitely, get fielders into their defensive positions quicker. I have seen too many pitchers be the last one out of the dugout then slowly walk to the mound. Stay Thirsty My Friends Tony Mitchell |
| Dec. 16, 2017 OZ40 549 posts | If the mat is such a huge advantage to the batter then why doesn't the pitcher hit with the first two pitches and we wouldn't be having this conversation? I've seen pitchers basically being a human rain delay, always arranging outfielders, walking off the mound, positioning infielders, and at 50 plus years of pitching, how many warm-ups if any do you need between innings? Why is it at the batters expense that we seek to "improve and speed-up" the game? |
| Dec. 16, 2017 Omar Khayyam 1357 posts | OZ40, I've got 60 years plus experience in pitching and I treasure my warmups. Wind conditions change; sun angles change; wet weather may have changed the mound conditions since the previous innings; etc. Also my older arm benefits from a couple of warmups. Some associations have a "one minute" warmup time for each inning. I value this so when the previous half-inning ends, I have my gear on and I hustle out to get my minute of pitching and insist that my catcher be out there also. The major argument against not giving the pitcher any warm up is that it is sometimes a couple of minutes before outfielders, especially older fellows like my peers, or those who were on base when the inning ended, stroll out to their positions. Why not warm up while they are positioning themselves 250 feet away? |
| Dec. 16, 2017 OZ40 549 posts | Understood Omar, by that same token would you begrudge the batter who maybe hasn't swung in 3 or more innings the option of maybe seeing a pitch or two to re-acclimate and get comfortable at the plate? You know, sauce for the goose-sauce for the gander, tit for tat, quid-pro-quo....... |
| Dec. 16, 2017 mad dog Men's 65 4191 posts | oz..i don't think i said they were all alike......so now you want the pitcher to be predicable for the batter.....come on.....its slow pitch.....not fast pitch.....using a baseball count is not needed....3-2 full count is more than adequate....no need for the extra foul either..... |
| Dec. 17, 2017 Omar Khayyam 1357 posts | OZ40, I agree that the batter should have a couple of pitches if he needs it. That's why I prefer 0-0 instead of 1-1. |
| Dec. 17, 2017 Allan55 102 posts | I have heard numerous points for and against the 1/1 count. I know the 1/1 count will allow teams to play more innings. That's due to the simple fact that more players are making outs. However, even many of those games that get in 7 innings, still use the full amount of time. So what is gained? I like to play. As long as I get my allotment of time, I am happy. Now if you are really wanting to play 7 innings with a 0/0 count, there is a simple solution. Most people look at the batters taking too many pitches. I can agree with that. However, the pitchers are taking too much time to deliver the pitches...and it is not the pitcher's fault all the time. How many times have you seen a catcher hold the ball and argue pitches, or the catcher throwing the ball over the pitcher's head into the outfield on the return throw, or the catcher slowly walking after a pitch he failed to catch, or the pitcher talking to his fielders every other pitch, or just walking around? I would like to see a time limit between pitches. Then the pitchers would be forced to pitch more often. That would pick up the pace of the game. There are too many pitchers who are human rain delays. |
| Dec. 17, 2017 OZ40 549 posts | Had our sport of choice and it's cousin baseball needed time constraints the inventors of the sport would have introduced such at it's inception. I agree due to the volume of games needed to be played in a tournament or demand for field usage in leagues we cannot play open ended games so we now already have a time limit that serves nicely. Play the game within that time allotment. Speaking for myself only: I've played games not going the full 7 innings that were far more exciting and/or enjoyable than games that went the full seven. I'll go out on a limb here and say many of you have experienced the same thing. This all goes back to my initial point that no 2 games are exactly alike. Take each unique game as it unfolds and enjoy it and make the most of it. What next? A 5 second timer to deliver a pitch? A countdown timer to exit and enter the field between innings? Why not, these would "save time" more so than the 1-1 count..... |
| Dec. 17, 2017 r4pitch 92 posts | sorry oz 1-1 saves time ..plus much better game .....to allan 55 come on .......smh |
| Dec. 17, 2017 mad dog Men's 65 4191 posts | hey oz......MLB is starting to use time constraints....batters not allowed out of the box....pitcher mound visits are under 30 seconds now....pitchers in the minor leagues pitchers have a 20 second clock to pitch.......and they are close to bringing it up to the majors....to speed up the game.... but i'm not for 1-1 count b/c of time use.....i want it b/c i don't think we need the full count for slow-pitch softball..... |
| Dec. 17, 2017 NYGNYY 215 posts | r4pitch---I assume you are a pitcher...sorry but 1-1 favorers the pitcher even the less talented ones. Not sure how this national vote is going to go but I would rather have 1 pitch with no foul instead of 1 and 1. At least with 1 pitch no one has an advantage and as I have been told above the 1 and 1 count is not intended to speed the game up. |
| Dec. 17, 2017 DCPete 409 posts | Oz, the team that loses a 5 or 6-inning game ALWAYS wishes that they had the chance to play the full 7 innings the way the sport was always intended to be. And NOBODY goes to a tournament hoping they get to play less innings or have fewer At Bats. If that was the case they could just stay home. Now get back on your yellow brick road & stay there. |
| Dec. 17, 2017 OZ40 549 posts | We are by no means major league baseball players but MLB game times are about 12 minutes less (down to about 3 hours) since their "speed-up" rules were enacted. A 7 inning softball game without MLB commercial breaks and the usual time wasters involved in an MLB game is not a valid comparison even though for those of us who favor 0-0 those MLB numbers probably play out in our favor. MD, I understand your point as you mentioned that YOU do not believe we need the full count for slow-pitch softball. Bear in mind that you, me or any individual are not the sole arbiters as what any of us "need" in Senior Softball. Eventually as more and more "younger" seniors enter the sport they may want the count that they are used to follow them into the senior ranks, so be it. I think a good compromise would be for the lower senior age groups to play with the 1-1 and say 55+ keep the 0-0, as the older senior groups advance into the still higher age brackets thus phasing out the 0-0 count over time as they eventually cease playing. r4pitch- there is no evidence that 1-1 saves time, ISA did a game length study before they were absorbed by USSSA with inconclusive results. That you say with 1-1 it a much better game, well that's your opinion and you're surely entitled to it. DC-yes and the team that won a "shorter" game (same time length, less innings) thinks the game was just fine. This 0-0 versus 1-1 is good discussion fodder up here with 8 inches of snow on the ground it's something to do. Of course it's all just a rehash of all the other posts and previous arguements dealing with this and I'll hazard to say that basically the two sides of this equation haven't shifted much over the years. Here's another prediction, whatever comes of this issue, whatever camp you're in God willing we'll all see each other on the fields next season because we love the game too much to do otherwise. |
| Dec. 17, 2017 Gavin5 Men's 70 30 posts | Played with both 0:0 and 1:1. Prefer latter. Faster games, with or without courtesy. For those advocating 1-pitch format, consider the 2:2 count. Faster game than 1-pitch because fewer walks which really slow the game. Really works well, gives pitcher two chances to throw a strike. |
| Dec. 17, 2017 OZ40 549 posts | I too have played with both counts. I prefer the 0-0 for reasons stated previously over the years in the numerous times this subject was threaded just on this board alone. On your teams how many players do not swing until they absolutely have 2 strikes on them and how many of them usually swing within 3 pitches? I'm betting on the 3 pitch swingers vastly outnumbering the 2 strike/full counters. That alone makes the full count an anomaly to the game rather than the norm. So, what saves more time, 1-1 or just plain attentiveness and hustle? Why should the conscientious players that are always ready and hustle on and off the field pay the price in the batters box for those that don't? |
| Dec. 18, 2017 r4pitch 92 posts | nygnyy so the hottest bats and the rock ball is not enough for hitters???? Lets make some hitters work on there game...Anyone under 65 played 1-1 for years ... |
| Dec. 18, 2017 DieselDan Men's 75 600 posts | Stick 8 2. If the ball goes right back to the pitcher, they would still be waiting for the next batter to get to the batters box. It might take around five seconds to throw the ball around the infield. |
| Dec. 18, 2017 OZ40 549 posts | For the sake of argument let's say by "hitters" you mean those of us that seem to rank their hitting skills somewhere above their defensive skill set. The vast majority of "hitters" I'm acquainted with DO work on their game hitting several times a week. If all of us as you say have the hottest bats and the rock ball, which we do, why isn't everyone hitting 770-900 on tournament weekends? A recent post jokingly claimed that games could be shortened by making less errors and mental mistakes. How many pitchers do you know that practice under handing softballs to several different buckets placed on a strike mat? Aside from that, besides standing in the outfield chatting and catching the occasional fly or grounder hit right to them how much defensive practice do players take? |
| Dec. 18, 2017 HAT MAN Men's 50 229 posts | I think its clear OZ40 doesn't want a 1-1 count lol With respect your reasoning is simply personal not an overall better for the game thought process. The reason for this vote has been made clear but some still arent getting it as well. No one from SSUSA wants to speed up and rush players they want to give more teams the opportunity to play 7 innings more consistently. They are not saying its 100% guaranteed or everything is exact. They want a majority answer so they can move forward. Clearly I am for 1 and 1 as much or more then Oz isn't. As I mentioned before the only things that change is more innings played. Simple math says if you take out 12 pitches an inning you save time. We can all spend countless hours debating the what ifs but as I said before I played all year long and never felt rushed, never felt cheated and always played 7 innings of softball. Vinny |
| Dec. 18, 2017 JBTexas Men's 70 434 posts | Hat Man, I think you will find out the majority of over 60 players are with OZ40 and will vote to keep the 0-0 count. Glad you like it but most of us don't. Better pitching is the key to everything, throw first pitch strike and everyone is swinging not wanting to be down 0-2. |
| Dec. 18, 2017 HAT MAN Men's 50 229 posts | JB I get wanting the 0/0 but simply based on your opinion above you actually want the one and one. If a first pitch strike is thrown and everyone is swinging not wanting to be down 0-2 then there is no need for the 0/0 count |
| Dec. 18, 2017 SSUSA Staff 3483 posts | We did this survey 11 years ago and the membership preference was 55%-45% favoring "0-0" ... Five years ago, it was the same preference by 54.9%-45.1% ... While that was technically a trend in favor of "1-1", it certainly wasn't a dramatic shift in numbers ... Five years ago, the 40's, 50's and 55's favored "1-1" and the 60's were essentially a break-even at 51.8%-48.2% for "0-0" ... The 65+ and older groups were strongly in favor of "0-0", with over a 20% spread at 65's and increasing thereafter ... Three of the 12 Club and League Regions favored "1-1" last time, the other nine did not ... With the passage of five years, it's possible that similar trending will move the break-even age line to 65+, but we'll see in a few days ... Just a reminder, this is simply a non-scientific member preference survey ... Results are not binding on the Rules Committee, who will meet in a special telephone conference call on January 9th to consider this, and other research, on the issue ... Thanks to all who chose to participate! ... |
| Dec. 18, 2017 OZ40 549 posts | HATMAN-It's not simple math because there is no guarantee that 12 pitches an inning will be eliminated, how do you eliminate 12 pitches if 3 batters come to the plate and swing at a total of 5 pitches before heading back out to the field? Likewise, how much time is saved if a team plates their 5 (or 7) runs and still leave the bases loaded? I agree though, toss that first pitch for a strike and this is a moot argument. I know exactly 1 player that absolutely will not swing until he has two strikes on him. I still stand by the 1-1 count for the younger guys such as yourself and you guys can keep it as your class of players move through the ranks and we older guys move on through the ranks taking the 0-0 with us until it's phased out as your group as a whole moves up to the older age levels. |
| Dec. 18, 2017 HAT MAN Men's 50 229 posts | I say simple math because it is very very rare the following happens consistently. 1. 3 batters swing at 1st pitch and all get out then the same happens in the bottom of the same inning 2. you have a 1,2,3 inning on both halves of the inning 3. 5 or 7 runs are scored every inning by both sides. With that said as teams get older other factors are harder to enoforce realisticly. Such as getting on and off the field and getting runners. Simply, we get slower as we age. Since you cant change Father Time you look to other areas. The big question for me would be what are the percentages per division that caused SSUSA to take a look. I doubt the 40s had a lot of complaints that they werent getting all 7 innings in. My guess is the older age groups are the ones who had more 5 and 6 inning games in the time allowed. So lets say 40s were 10%, 50s 20%, 60s 40%, 70s/80s 30%. How do you achieve a happy result to meet the complaint? cant make people move faster then father time lets them, one way is the NEW CR rule but after that what else? |
| Dec. 18, 2017 djs_1964 8 posts | Just a thought: Let's say we move to 1-1 and after a couple years, it's determined that games are indeed finishing sooner. You know what MIGHT happen next? "Hey. We can knock another 5 minutes off the time limits and get an extra game in on each field." While I do NOT believe this the intent, that is exactly what has happened in every league that I play. |
| Dec. 18, 2017 DaveDowell Men's 70 4312 posts | djs_1964 ... The most recent change in playing time was an increase by five minutes each for seeding (65 + Open) and non-championship bracket (70 + Open) games ... This survey is solely in the context of considering a possible change for some age groups to help maximize innings played in the same time slots, nothing more ... We have no desire to "speed up" or "shorten" games ... The goal is to achieve "more innings = more at-bats" ... As the SSUSA's National Scheduling Consultant, I can't envision, and would oppose, a change to squeeze in another round of games ... That may happen in local leagues, but is impractical, at best, in National Tournament play ... Stay tuned! ... |
| Dec. 18, 2017 OZ40 549 posts | Granted my scenario was an over simplification of circumstances, but the point is the same. Unless you're Nostradamus no one can predict the amount of pitches in an inning or game, no one can predict what course of events will transpire in any given game that will delay or speed up that game. Again, no two games are exactly alike so to say game "A" will play out like game "B" because everyone has a 1-1 count is also an over simplification to say the least. |
| Dec. 18, 2017 k man Men's 65 326 posts | Not sure if this information is available (would probably require someone spend quite a bit of time) but in each age group in a tournament what percent of seeding games/bracket games went 5 innings, or 6 innings, or the full complement. It would be a statistics geek playground, and might shed some light on what some perceive to be the problem. |
| Dec. 18, 2017 rtaven Men's 70 43 posts | As a pitcher I feel the biggest delay of games are errors. ha ha. I feel I have advantage in full count games over any other for various reasons which I will not disclose. |
| Dec. 19, 2017 ace42850 Men's 70 20 posts | A great way to speed up the game is to greatly reduce walks, walks are boring, but the team that gets the most walks has distinct advantage, so if you want your team to win, you should take the walk. This can be addressed by increasing the mat size. The batter is more aggressive since the chance of walking is significantly decreased. The fewer the walks the better the game for all. |
| Dec. 19, 2017 DaveDowell Men's 70 4312 posts | ace ... For about the 8th time, there is NO intention to try to "speed up the game" ... Same is true for the similar "shorten the game" theory ... The ONLY thing the National Rules Committee is considering is a potential change to maximize innings played within the current time frames for seeding and non-championship bracket games ... Thanks! |
| Dec. 19, 2017 Dirtball Men's 70 24 posts | As a pitcher the most wasted time I see is when a batter is trying to hit the left or right field foul lines and the ball goes foul. Now, the outfielder needs to chase the "game ball" down, then we need to wait till the outfielder needs to get back into position. Remember when the ball goes foul that outfielder is not running at 100% to chase it down and get back into position. With 0-0 count the batter has 2 chances to hit the lines, if he misses 2 times the batter next will hit up the middle, watch out pitchers. With a 1-1 count batters might take 1 try at the lines, but most batters like to take a strike before they swing. |
| Dec. 19, 2017 OZ40 549 posts | D-Bag When batting the main objective is to get on base. Shame on that batter for trying to hit a line and get on base to help his team. You say "with a 1-1 count batters might take 1 try at the lines, but most batters like to take a strike before they swing". Okay so a batter goes "up the middle" one pitch sooner. If we agree that the main objective of the batter is to reach base then why wouldn't he take a strike before swinging and why should the batter already be handicapped with a strike against him? Again, all the pitcher has to do is throw that first pitch for a strike. It amazes me some of the first pitches I see. As if after playing softball for 50 years I'm going to swing at a first pitch so ridiculously delivered and placed that a blind man wouldn't swing at it. |
| Dec. 19, 2017 OZ40 549 posts | Opps! My bad, I meant to say "D-Ball". My apologies! If someone lets me know how to edit my post I'll do so. |
| Dec. 19, 2017 Dbax Men's 65 2100 posts | LMAO! |
| Dec. 19, 2017 DaveDowell Men's 70 4312 posts | The Member Preference Survey has closed, and based on the last couple of posts [grins] for comic relief, now is as good a time as any for • THREAD CLOSED |
