Message board »Message Board home »Sign-in or register to get started
Online now: 1 member: TABLE SETTER 11; 57 anonymousDiscussion: Drum Roll thread closed ?
| Posted | Discussion |
| Jan. 18, 2018 AJC Men's 60 217 posts | Drum Roll thread closed ? Dave or Staff........ im just curious as to why was the thread Oz had started closed. Granted it was getting a little long but it did seem to interest a lot of the members no matter which side of the fence you were on regarding the 1-1 count. All comments were respectful and i did not see anything posted that would be construed as derogatory towards anyone or sny organization. |
| Jan. 18, 2018 Webbie25 Men's 70 2413 posts | AJC-most likely 'Pitch Count'-as Dave would put it-He doesn't let a thread get way too long and this one could go on for a long time. A lot of guys will not take that first strike in 1-1 like they do in 0-0 because you have just given the advantage to the pitcher. Same reason I never automatically take the 2-0 pitch in '1-1' because it is not 3-0, it is really 3-1 and by taking that strike, you have again given the advantage back to the pitcher. I would bet that SSUSA is going to document the number of games that go 7 this year vs. past years and it may be an increase. The question is how much. But one other change that will skew the results is the new ball and how much livelier it is. If the games are higher scoring because of it, then they will take longer and the results may be different........always something........lol |
| Jan. 18, 2018 DaveDowell Men's 70 4312 posts | Webbie25 has a part of it ... No inappropriate content, but the reasons were an [1] excessive "pitch count"; [2] the concise wisdom of tg69's last post in the thread; [3] the "redundancy loop" of the commentary (present company included); and [4] the debate is a moot point for about 10 more months ... If it's an issue that really needs to continue, by all means do so here (for a while) ... |
| Jan. 18, 2018 OZ40 549 posts | Yeah, we kind of really beat that dead horse all over again. It was interesting and as a byproduct, to some extent it helped to pass some time and take a small bite out of our northern winter. From my observations it appears when it comes to 0-0 vs 1-1 the die has been cast, or to use some other applicable well know colloquial phrases the genie is out of the bottle, Pandora's box has been opened. Regardless of whether it proves to save time or not I doubt the correct count will return. I still say we're changing a part of the game that if we took some personal responsibility we wouldn't have to. In my opinion through the poll/vote, limited as it were, we have basically said: we as a group are lazy and even though we are playing this game for among other reasons some measure of exercise we don't want to up the tempo going on and off the field so we can get in 7 innings of exercise, we'd rather you penalize us while we're in the batters box. |
| Jan. 18, 2018 mck71 Men's 60 344 posts | OZ40 - I have enjoyed reading your insight, there are a lot of valid points that you have made including the "passing the time in the cold weather states". Sadly as we grow older, change is indeed inevitable. Back when we were young, there were no time limits on games and hence 0 -0 was the count, no big deal. Then time limits came into effect, bats got better, balls were crazy (anyone remember playing with a Dynacore). Soon there were HR limits, checking bats, changes to the balls, etc. Eventually, it also introduced 1-1 (more specifically in tournaments) and it became almost a matter of time that it would reach the senior game. Like you I am ok with 6 QUALITY innings vs 7 hurried ones (in the past 5 yrs I would say I have rarely if ever played less than 6 innings with 0 - 0). The only thing I would add to this "time logic" is that besides CR's, the main culprit in losing playing time seems to be an onus on "hurrying to your position" or basically taking the field ready to play. My comment on this is I believe it is simply unfair because it puts the onus on the OF (and I am not one) as they have the longest "walks" and sadly they usually are the ones who tend to be the CR (at least on our team). It is nice to have fresh legs but not sure how many teams have that luxury where they have 6 very good OF or even "professional" CR (guys that only run, I know we don't). My ONLY complaint in the past 5 yrs are the teams that actually "stall" when they are up so as to NOT get innings played (doesn't happen too often but it happens, mangers going to the mound, batters step out after every pitch, basically "slow playing" it. It would be nice if there is something that can be done about that but other than that, we are playing 1-1 and hope that at the very least they keep the waste foul (not sure what the Vegas odds on that will be but probably not good). NOTE: I have heard a few "we only get in 5 innings" but seems mostly from M+ who are allowed more runs, more scoring usually = more time, less innings, simple math! |
| Jan. 18, 2018 Crusher23 Men's 55 53 posts | I echo the sentiment of the last two posts here by OZ and mck. Both posts very well said and I couldn't agree more, especially with these two statements: "I still say we're changing a part of the game that if we took some personal responsibility we wouldn't have to. In my opinion through the poll/vote, limited as it were, we have basically said: we as a group are lazy and even though we are playing this game for among other reasons some measure of exercise we don't want to up the tempo going on and off the field so we can get in 7 innings of exercise, we'd rather you penalize us while we're in the batters box." and "Like you I am ok with 6 QUALITY innings vs 7 hurried ones". Personally speaking, I would much rather play six true, quality innings rather than 7 hurried ones, which is what most of the goal appeared to be with the 1-1. |
| Jan. 18, 2018 mad dog Men's 65 4191 posts | i don't see it as time saving with a 1-1 count...but lets help the pitcher out.....you say why....hey look at all the advantages the hitter has now a days.....rocket launchers for bats...with balls to use that are just as bad(micro-cell cheater balls)......how about we go to the 52-300 ball....less worry of serious damage to anyone....the ones with the big egos get to still hit their hrs....and no one gets killed.....now tell me what advantage does the pitcher......none.... |
| Jan. 18, 2018 Garocket Men's 55 259 posts | I was playing and directing tournaments for the young guys back when USSSA went to the 1-1 count. All players said this would ruin softball. Some associations went on a marketing campaign that said play ( Blank ) we still use the 4 balls and 3 strike count. Well after a few months the players figured out that the 1-1 count was a much better game. Seemed to move a little faster and became a much more of a hitters game. Other associations then moved to the 1-1 count because that is what the players wanted. I was one of the hold overs that ran tournament and used the 0-0 count and teams and players started telling me how dumb I was for using the 0-0 count. They said they much preferred the 1-1 they said it put the pitcher back in the game. This was back before time limits were used. But they all wanted the 1-1 because as they put it the 1-1 is a much better game. I can honestly say that as a player and person that still runs a few tournaments that I prefer the 1-1. My question is if baseball was never invented and someone came up with a game that someone pitches you the ball under handed with a slow arch do you think the inventor would say LETS SEE HOW MANY PITCHES SHOULD HE HAVE 7? Everybody would more than likely say 3 only 3. Just a little humor but I think you see what I mean. |
| Jan. 18, 2018 DaveDowell Men's 70 4312 posts | Hey, the good news is you all have about ten months to submit qualifying commentary for the Rules Committee to consider ... All email and snail-mail correspondence on any Rules topic(s) are accumulated and passed to the Committee Chair in mid-November for potential Agenda inclusion ... Remember, Message Board posts are specifically excluded from consideration by the Committee ... In the interim, SSUSA will be gathering good empirical data on innings played and observing how effective the "player initiatives" for more efficient play are progressing, if at all ... Good luck this season! ... Carry on! ... |
| Jan. 18, 2018 B.J. 1105 posts | Dave, "empirical" data... couldn't you just use normal data... now i have to go and google that |
| Jan. 18, 2018 DaveDowell Men's 70 4312 posts | B.J. ... I'll save you the effort ... empirical = based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. |
| Jan. 18, 2018 B.J. 1105 posts | Dave, lol, thx |
| Jan. 18, 2018 OZ40 549 posts | Crusher-mck-71 I appreciate the kind words. I guess it's about playing the game as intended is the reason why I am so passionate on this particular issue. I guess maybe that softball including senior softball is being remade just as our country's history is what with the removing of Civil War monuments and such acts. Change I believe is inevitable in all aspects but that doesn't mean we have to like it. I too remember the earlier halcyon days of softball. I remember as a kid watching my uncle playing softball in various old company owned coal patch towns in PA using kapok center yarn wound balls, wooden bats and a 250' foot fence on a scratched out diamond with little more than a backstop, a couple of wood plank benches and an old RC Cola cooler as the concession stand. All things must change with the exception of my Rockwellian memories of my youth. :-) PS: I don't care what anyone says, I wouldn't trade my youthful days for what today passes as a "childhood" for money, marbles or chalk! We did have it good, didn't we?! (yes it's 15 degrees outside today, more rambling on my part) |
| Jan. 18, 2018 Omar Khayyam 1357 posts | I usually agree with OZ40—he is a thoughtful and experienced player (and is also wise enough to agree with my positions most of the time). lol But I take one exception to his analysis of slow play as being "lazy". As a member of older teams for some time (playing 80s this year), my observation is that it is not laziness that slows down the start of each half-inning—it can be the nature of an older player. Here is a sampling of comments from the dugout that go beyond the understandable inability of an older outfielder after one game played to "hustle" out by running 250 feet to his position. "Where's my glove? Who has my glove? I can't find my glove! Oh, here it is, behind the bench." "Man it takes forever for [the pitcher] to put on all his protective gear." "Is Bob in the men's room again? He's supposed to be out in left field." "It's not my turn to play left center this inning. You have another inning to go." "Bill! Bill! Get back in here. It's Mick's turn to rotate in right field." "Let me just get my wind back, fellas. Going second to home took a lot out of me." "I'm not going to run for him again. My legs are giving out." "Where are my dark glasses? I know I laid them right here! I can't see without them in this sun." "Where's my bat? Who used my bat? I can't find my bat! Oh, here it is. Someone put it in the corner." You get the idea. |
| Jan. 18, 2018 OZ40 549 posts | Maybe as the ages advance there should be a 'quickie sub' rule for a half inning because (fill in the name) is still in the restroom....maybe call it rule "P"-1 |
| Jan. 18, 2018 Omar Khayyam 1357 posts | OZ40, great idea! Not only would the rule be frequent, but there could be a second rule when restrooms are more than 100 yards away (which happens more often than it should on some fields). This could be the P-1b rule and allows the missing player to return to the game at any time, at bat or in the field, once he has caught his breath from running a 100 yard "dash"...which might be a couple of innings later. |
| Jan. 19, 2018 maskedman Men's 60 51 posts | the problem with the 1-1 count is the umpire. but senior ball has practically eliminated that problem with the strike mat. plus with the courtesy foul i dont think we will even notice the change. |
| Jan. 19, 2018 Sr.Canuck 3 posts | I find Umpires take up a lot of time with score board population |
| Jan. 20, 2018 OZ40 549 posts | When I was umpiring one of the first things I said in my pregame conference with the managers is the home team keeps the official book, it is up to the visiting team's scorekeeper to check with them after every half inning to assure the correct score and such is on both sheets. My job as I saw it was to call balls, strikes and outs and to rule on situations that presented themselves (fair-foul, etc.). I'm the umpire, not the scorekeeper. Of course most tournaments have an official scorekeeper assigned to the diamonds. |
