Message board »Message Board home »Sign-in or register to get started
Online now: 1 member: TABLE SETTER 11; 73 anonymousDiscussion: To screen or not to screen... (Continued)
| Posted | Discussion |
| May 10, 2010 SSUSA Staff 3490 posts | To screen or not to screen... (Continued) Prior thread closed due to excessive "pitch count" (165 replies) |
| May 10, 2010 21stCenturyCaveman 5 posts | Was that pitch count or bitch count... |
| May 10, 2010 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | Eye strain count, Tired of reading non related crap, I'd think. |
| May 11, 2010 einstein Men's 50 3112 posts | Screens are the way to go if safety is that important an issue to insure players having a good time which is vital to the experience of the game. Screens allow hitting to "have the middle back" and offer pitcher protection of the highest order to the most vulnerable, getting older/slower guy on the field. Screens would be easy to implement and put the BLAST back into "having a blast". |
| May 11, 2010 Dirty Men's 50 1371 posts | Joe, if hitting is all that counts why not just go and play home run derby? |
| May 11, 2010 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | To take issue with that I'll say fine for leagues & BP, but not for TOURNAMENTS or ANY KIND. Find a pitcher who is not afraid to protect his position & has the reflexes, even if he has to wear gear. If mandated, I'd use them but not my preference. Then who will supply them? The assn, unlikely, cost would on;y be added to fees and also upped again for transport to the different parks and fields The team, again i doubt it. Players some might. But again transporting them long distances is a problem. Middle is back. but with questionable rationale. If it came to a vote, be it lessor bats and better balls or the 1.21 and who knows where from there and lessor or same balls, I'd vote U-trip bats. Maybe even down to the bottom with ASA bata grappa. |
| May 11, 2010 tattooball 774 posts | If screens are going to protect the pitchers what is going to protect the rest of the fielders? You can't choose to protect one over the other, and as soon as you put a screen up you admit that the game is dangerous. |
| May 11, 2010 Dirty Men's 50 1371 posts | trump, you are thinking too deeply for the challenged on this board. |
| May 11, 2010 stick8 1992 posts | Einstein the middle came back when the idiotic rule about hitting a ball thru the pitchers box and/or hitting the pitcher was eliminated. |
| May 11, 2010 mad dog Men's 65 4191 posts | it is so sad to hear someone say,that if they can't go hit a ball 400' they can't have fun. what about the backside single to win a game,the diving catch,the good pitch that gets the batter to pop up on a mishit,that doesn't accidentally go over the fence. with the 52-275 ball all of this becomes more of a reality than with this hot bat/ball combo we have now.oh and we can still go middle without killing anyone,unlike the poor guy(a 55 yr old) who died in Virginia a couple of weeks back,by being hit in the throat. |
| May 11, 2010 Rod Sweet Men's 70 53 posts | I'm 72 and speak for only myself. I'm a pitcher and I'm good at what I do. In the 70's there are a lot of guys that can still hit with power. I'm for the use of the screen as I would like to be home for dinner. To elimate some of the dissatisfaction of using the screen I had suggested sometime back that the screen be use in say 65's and 70's. Seventy is a tough age as many things start to happen to your body and you can count the number of years you have left to play (and that's a bummer). In one of the post above it stated if the pitcher is protected how about the other players. That kind of comment is Bush League and not necessary, by taking age into account this would elimate a lot of those kind of comments. Identify 2/3 age divisions and live with it, let the young bucks play their game. |
| May 11, 2010 Dirty Men's 50 1371 posts | Rod, if you feel the game needs more safety and you don't want to make the game a farce, how about getting rid of the special bats? The oldest and slowest group with the hottest equipment? Dumb. |
| May 11, 2010 tattooball 774 posts | Rod, I made the comment. It is a legal issue, if you as an association chooses to protect 1 player and not another they are guilty in any impact injury from any of the other players. When you put a screen on the field you are admitting that the ball speeds are dangerous and the screen will protect the player, what about the 3rd baseman that gets injured? What is really ironic about your post is that you admit that pitching has become dangerous and as we age our bodies can no longer do the things we used to. " I'm for the use of the screen as I would like to be home for dinner." I too would like to be home for dinner and I play third base. Do you mean to tell me that your life is more important than mine? If you can have a screen why can't I have one too. Ball speeds are excessive at third as well. So now we are going to have people play god and determine who can be safe and who can't? If you are afraid to pitch because you may not make it home for dinner maybe you can get your peers to put down their bats, or use a safer ball. I know my life isn't worth some moron stroking his falsely inflated ego. Hell when I'm 70 I'll be happy if I can tie my own shoes. |
| May 11, 2010 einstein Men's 50 3112 posts | Rod. Great point and shared by a great many of us. The game has always and will always be dangerous. If senior reflexes and reactions are getting slower it makes simple sense to protect them without destroying or taking away the fun of the game for EVERYONE ELSE. The screen protects pitchers who live at the shortest distance to the batter and who are often concentrating on watching pitches land instead of getting ready to play defense. Why change or take away the fun, the essence of the game from the many by dumbing down the equipment to protect the few? It not only doesn't make any sense. It won't work and it's wrong. It's neither intelligent nor American. And who really cares what a bunch of lawyers might decide is either in or not in out best interests going forward??? Again, thanks SSUSA, NCSSA, SPA, Huntsman, LVSSA and others for helping us make a stand in favor of preserving the fun we find essential to playing senior softball and if safety is truly a key issue going forward bring on the screens. |
| May 11, 2010 Stretch14 Men's 50 202 posts | Special bats. That means senior softball is special to. |
| May 12, 2010 Dirty Men's 50 1371 posts | So are certain education classes in high school. Not necessarily a good thing. |
| May 12, 2010 tattooball 774 posts | This has to be your best work yet. I am amazed how self centered, egotistical and self righteous you really are. I am surprised that you are not petitioning the city to erect a monument of you in the middle of the city. Here is a few quotes I would like to elaborate on. "If senior reflexes and reactions are getting slower it makes simple sense to protect them without destroying or taking away the fun of the game for EVERYONE ELSE" Here you admit that senior reflex's get slower as we age, but you only want to protect 1 player. That just happens to be the pitcher, and you just happen to be a pitcher. So as long as YOU are protected you want to use the hottest equipment known to mankind so YOU can stroke YOUR own ego offensively. Here is another good one "Why change or take away the fun, the essence of the game from the many by dumbing down the equipment to protect the few?" Why? Why not make the equipment equal to the players ability to play defense so ALL can play without the fear of being injured by some some self inflated egotistical jerk? Protect the FEW? Hell it would help protect EVERYONE, 100% of the participants in senior softball. "If senior reflexes and reactions are getting slower it makes simple sense to protect them without destroying or taking away the fun of the game for EVERYONE ELSE" "It not only doesn't make any sense. It won't work and it's wrong. It's neither intelligent nor American" It doesn't make sense to the few because they are not sensible people. How is it non intelligent? HOW is it non American? We as a country have been protecting our people since the revolutionary war, and continue to do so today. I guess you never understood that. While AMERICANS were off in S.E.ASIA protecting our freedoms you home playing softball. "And who really cares what a bunch of lawyers might decide is either in or not in out best interests going forward???" I will tell you who cares, THE INDUSTRY cares, you see again you never achieved in business. You think all you have to do is hang a shingle and you are in business. The American Way, we as a country were once great, we manufactured our own products and were stable in the world economy. That was the American way. Since then non achievers have levied lawsuits against the hard working businessman of this country. The laws of this country have been changed to protect the meek, unmotivated scourge of our country. Lawsuits have driven many of our manufactures to produce abroad. Now the EPA steps in and makes that difficult to do. So the moral of the story is: If you don't know what you are talking about, it might serve you better to keep you mouth shut. Have a great day. |
| May 12, 2010 einstein Men's 50 3112 posts | I'm truly glad you're finally comfortable enough to contribute on the board again with your statements, positions, interests and influence. You are as legitimate and valuable a member of our softball community as any of us and we're are all in this together as I have said many, many times. Remember, Kevin, I play and have played senior softball for 12 years running now and have seen and experienced it first hand as lots of us have. First, saying our game isn't inherently dangerous and shouldn't be is denying or being unaware of the nature of our sport. It's part of the adrenaline/excitement aspect of the game. It's fundamentally the same game from little league that we play, today at 50 and over. A hard ball and a hard bat, running, throwing fielding, colliding, sliding are all aspects of the game we have ALWAYS loved to play and hitting a ball hard, far, fast and well is and has ALWAYS been integral to our experience and nothing should or ever will change that. Dumbing down our equipment significantly from present standards will destroy the game we love to play at any age and should be resisted as have NCSSA, SSUSA, Huntsman, SPA, LVSSA and others have. I think you rather than me represent true self interest in your position regarding increasing safety measures. It's your liability/profits your concerned about first and foremost and there's nothing wrong or illegal about it given the nature of our society and freedom of speech. But I disagree with you that what truly defines our sport, the joy of hitting a ball hard, fast and far along with the fundamental risk involved with playing should ever be compromised for any reasons by any one at any time. We can disagree, Kevin and that's no crime of any kind and we can discuss and reveal ourselves, concerns, interests and reasons for making our decisions to the senior community for the growth of our community. Welcome back. |
| May 12, 2010 tattooball 774 posts | As usual alot of print with no content. Please address each and every point seperatly so the common man can understand your position. Let's hear your point about protecting only 1 player. Lets hear your point about why with deminishing reflex's you should use the hottest equipment. Lets hear your point on on why making a safer game will ruin it for everyone. Please explain to us why you only want to protect a select few. |
| May 12, 2010 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | I can hardly wait to read the answers, if they come... |
| May 12, 2010 frampton Men's 55 55 posts | The "protecting only one player" point is a red herring, IMHO. The pitcher is the closest to the hitter, and the requirement that he be in the box when he delivers the pitch limits how far he can get. First and third basemen can start deeper, and the other players are obviously further away in the first place. Also seems like it's always a balancing act -- we could play with sock balls and nobody would ever get hurt, but I'd rather play with better, harder balls. And it's not because I'm such a home run hitter -- I've hit three balls over the fence in 5+ years playing senior ball. |
| May 12, 2010 Dirty Men's 50 1371 posts | Or we could play with something in-between sock and wood bats and the special bats. Everything is not just a matter of extremes. There is plenty in-between to choose from. The hottest bats for the oldest/slowest group is absolutely stupid if it means silly rules and worse screens. |
| May 12, 2010 titanhd Men's 60 639 posts | The statement that I have a problem understanding is "have the middle back".I consider myself a good hitter.I hit for average,power and hit my share of homeruns but I have never found it necessary to "hit the middle". Even when the homeruns are used up I have bat control that allows me not to hit the ball up the middle.Experienced as we all are -we should all have that ability. "have the middle back" ? |
| May 12, 2010 gott2play Men's 60 212 posts | Hey SSUSA Staff, time to close this thread too. How many times can a group of people continue to discuss the same subject over and over and over again? Like a cockroach or a bad penny, it just keeps coming back. I was in a rollover car accident 10 wks ago, had 3 surgeries on my left leg, and am fortunate that I'll be able to play ball again down the road. During my time off, I saw this "hot bats", "PPR", and "screen or not to screen" issue discussed at nauseum. That said, just play the game....better yet, be happy that we all still can. |
| May 12, 2010 einstein Men's 50 3112 posts | For the record, I don't favor screens or extra equipment as a way to resolve any issue in Senior ball. I favor unlimited HRs and making HRs walks after an equalizer which promotes more hot balls being hit left and right of the pitcher and underlining the unwritten rule of power hitters, i.e. stay off the pitcher. I've said so numerous times. I also favor raising the pitcher's arc, extending the rubber both ways and making the plate bigger to help offset the short distance between hitters and pitchers and I've said these things numerous times. And I've also said and mean that if you REALLY want to protect the pitcher more from being hit by any batted ball then screens would be/are better than dumbing down the bat/ball combo which would punish ALL who play. I've said these things zillions of times, Kevin and mean them loudly and clearly. It's you who has the burden of proof. Kevin, why with all the ways of safeguarding the pitcher available you only promote one way and that is to dumb down the ball/bat combo which would punish all players. Why are you doing this? What other interests/investments might you have that could influence your judgment and decisions regarding player safety? We're listening and waiting, Kevin. Lively bats and balls are integral to the enjoyment of playing softball, whether senior or open. How can you endorse a solution that could damage, disturb and destroy the experience of playing softball for most players? |
| May 12, 2010 Omar Khayyam 1357 posts | It’s hard to believe that einstein keeps defending the past 7 years as his example of the only way to have fun: hit the ball “hard, far, fast and well”. Never mind defense as part of the game, strategy, base running, and so on—it is all about hitting. Never mind safety with bats getting better and better, lively balls—it’s all about hitting the ball “hard, far, fast and well”. And this from a man who says he has been playing since he was 8! In the 50s, I played league and tournament ball every year. We had wooden bats, and balls that tended to get soft after a few innings. We always hit the ball “hard, far, fast and well”. But the result was that a power shot flew maybe 240 feet (fences were only 260). So we hit it hard, far, fast, and well. At least we hoped to hit it well, since the sweet spot was incredibly tiny compared to the special bat of today. We had fun and softball was booming as a sport. In the 60s, I continued to play and have fun, despite the wooden bats, and slightly better balls. The fences remained adequate at 250 to 260 feet, although a real home run hitter could occasionally hit one out. Softball continued to grow in popularity and new fields were added. In the 70s, wooden bats continued, but there was a hint of aluminum bats! The main advantage of them was that they didn’t break as easily as wooden. They didn’t hit the ball much farther. There were a few introductions of lively balls such as the blue dots, but they were banned in some recreation departments because they were too dangerous to pitchers and infielders. But did we ever have fun. I played every year and looked forward to spring and summer. Funny that I didn’t realize that hitting the ball “hard, far, fast and well” wasn’t fun because I wasn’t clearing the fences. My fun was hitting the hole (not easy to do with a slower speed ball), trying to hit down both lines, hitting behind the runner. Softball was still very popular and new fields were built and women began to play more and more. Fences stayed at 260, even on the new fields, although there was a movement to go to 275 to account for lively balls. In the 80s, it was the age of aluminum and the bats improved—not that they hit the ball farther, but they were better balanced, more weights were introduced, and they had hot names that implied you could really slug the ball (like golf clubs). Softball now passes bowling as the most popular participation sport. Everyone had fun and it was a much safer sport than today. My team had only 4 team bats and we all shared them depending upon our preferred weight. Hitting the ball “hard, far, fast and well” continued to be what we thought we were doing! In the 90s, the titanium and other exotic bats began to appear. Some were quickly banned in many areas because the ball speed was dangerous, but the genie was out of the bottle. Along came double walls, and suddenly 275 foot fields were inadequate. Fences were raised, balls were dumbed down, normal fielders began to show their inadequacies on defense as balls flew farther or got by the infielders more rapidly. Hitters were still having fun, but the game began to be imbalanced. It wasn’t as much fun for fielders and pitchers. Despite, the “preferred right” of the “vast majority” to hit the ball “hard, far, fast and well,” softball participation began to decline. It was too dangerous for many players and they retired, or their skills as defenders were no longer as valuable and they lost interest. In the past decade, the composites ruled. Now the game was totally offense-driven and it was much more dangerous. Recreation departments everywhere began banning composites except for older players. Pitching distances were moved back. Arcane rules to protect the pitcher were developed. For the first time in my 50+ years of playing, pitchers wore shin guards, then knee guards like baseball catchers, then masks, then helmets. And now, I am having less fun. Oh, yes, I hit the ball farther than I could as a young man, but how? Technology-driven special bats and lively balls. But the game has always been more to me than a home run derby. I miss the fun I used to have with a balanced game. I miss making a difference snagging a line drive as a pitcher and doubling a runner off first. I miss going second to home on a single and being one of few runs where every run counted. I miss plating the runner from third with a sacrifice fly to right. Why even try that when I can blast away and run little risk of being stopped (my batting average has gone up 200 points in the last ten years—I’m older, slower, weaker, more blind, but now I’m a better “hitter??”). So sad that some (and einstein is not alone) can only have fun with a super bat and a lively ball so they can brag about the distance of their home run shot. And that this is the only definition he recognizes of hitting the ball “hard, far, fast and well”. einstein, my fellow player, we have been hitting the ball “hard, far, fast and well” for 50 years before today’s super bats and we, and millions of others, had fun. |
| May 12, 2010 einstein Men's 50 3112 posts | What a great argument for why intellectuals are effete and should never be given real power in the affairs of men. They think they're smarter and understand stuff like our game better and more significantly than the majority of us who play, participate in and love it. They don't have the integrity to stand by their views and be counted or the courage to not participate in something they espouse is unworthy of support. These are your allies Kevin, your fans and audience. Not the whole of us, senior ballplayers and I hazard, open ballplayers who have spoken over and over again. And what have we said? NCSSA, SSUSA, LVSSA, Huntsman and SPA. We like lively bats and balls and won't be deceived or herded or scared by intellectual arguments that don't exist in the real world or thuggery and cajoling in any form or by folks who just have it dead wrong for any variety of reason and self interests. Lively bats and balls forever and if safety is a true issue and not one manufactured by ignorance and self interest bring in the screens and let's have some fun. |
| May 12, 2010 mad dog Men's 65 4191 posts | enistein,ok so your saying all of us that would like to see a little defense,safety and such are all intellectuals (the smart ones)and your side are the dumbies b/c you won't care if someone is killed or very seriously injured,and you make it a requirement to hit the hottest equipment you can get your hands on.ok i guess your right. OMAR your post is basically historically right,the only add would be in the mid 80's the Cu-31 aluminum was used to make bats and the trampoline effect of the walls of the bats were first used.i used my first one in 86 +/- a yr,you could tell the difference right away,between the older bats and these new al bats. |
| May 12, 2010 Omar Khayyam 1357 posts | mad dog, thanks for the correction. I was just travelling down memory lane and maybe no one in my league was wealthy enough for the new technology. I remember how shocked we all were when one of our bachelor players (who had more disposable income than most of us) bought a titanium bat—the price seemed unbelievable at the time! And now some players routinely spend hundreds per bat in their search for the hottest equipment available. |
| May 13, 2010 DoubleL10 Men's 70 907 posts | Omar, I appreciate the trip down memory lane! Although I did not play slow pitch in the 50s, I did start in the early 60s. I experienced everything you and mad dog referred to and had a great time chasing balls in the outfield (open fields in Atlanta then). I, too, remember when some guys had this new titanium bat in the 90s. I also remember they cost around $500 back when I didn't pay $100 for my bats! |
| May 13, 2010 JohnBob Men's 65 256 posts | Hey guys lets just back off,enistein is not going to change his mind. The common sense thing to do is go to the 52-275 ball that will protect the whole infield and the HR hitters will still hit thier's. Putting up a screen would change the game why to much. We need to let Terry H and others know our feeling and Joe and the other 5% of senior players that want the hot ball will whine some but will join the fun! |
| May 13, 2010 Webbie25 Men's 70 2414 posts | Great trip through history Omar. I remember the first time I hit with the 'Ultimate Weapon'. My gosh, I hit several farther than I ever thought possible. I thought it was great, but it didn't guarantee a HR every time. Why can't we go back to something akin to that combination? It was plenty lively, but not crazy like it is now. Einstein repeatedly says 'most players'. I don't see that out there, talking to a lot of players, and I have NEVER met anyone who felt slowing the game a couple notches would damage,disturb, or destroy the experience of the game. I HAVE talked to a couple ex-players that are not playing any more because they felt that they could not keep up with it any more, that it had gotten too fast. They were good players, too, both offensively and defensively. They enjoyed playing both sides (O and D). How many more like them are out there as we look for players to fill rosters and create more teams? |
| May 13, 2010 Omar Khayyam 1357 posts | Webbie, great point. I was talking to an early hall of fame player last week, and asked about his brother, whom I had never seen play, but heard about. He told me that his brother was better than him, but stopped playing a few years back, because he felt he was too old. Not too old to run or hit or field, but too old for the hot technology that lessened his ability to field. He didn't want to just be a slugger (especially an artificially enhanced one with the senior bat), and he was embarrassed that he couldn't cope with the new ball speeds. Sad. What a roster pickup he would be if we returned to standards of just a decade ago! |
| May 13, 2010 stick8 1992 posts | Titanhd, as long as baseball and softball has been played middle is part of the game. 99.9% of players who hit the middle are not going up there with the intent of drilling a pitcher. Unless teams play 5 man infield the middle is the biggest hole in the infield and players are looking to hit ti thru there for a hit. It's also risky with a runner on first with less than two outs--one hop to the pitcher and it's likely a double play. |
| May 13, 2010 tattooball 774 posts | The best part of all of this is that it iis just a game, really no different than checkers. 2 sides and 1 wins. Last I checked nobody is getting rich playing softball. How come we have to let technology make it far more dangerous than it has to be. Are feeble minds and falsely inflated egos really that important? |
| May 13, 2010 #6 Men's 60 1173 posts | stick8, I completely agree with you.I was taught at a very early age, hit the middle.and I still do. I would "never" want to hurt a pitcher at any age.but that is where I hit.......2 strikes and Iam middle.......matter of fact no strikes and I am middle. |
| May 13, 2010 titanhd Men's 60 639 posts | Stick.I agree that middle is part of the game.I was taught to hit the middle too too,but at that time I wasn't using a composite missle launcher to do it.At some point common sense has to enter the picture.Stick I've seen you play and played against you.With the PREMEIR bat control that you have-you don't have to hit the middle.Five man or not. Stick and #6 you've both made my point with the statement."have the middle back" When did it ever stop being used? |
| May 13, 2010 #6 Men's 60 1173 posts | titanhd, You must be the"best" hitter in senior softball ! If you can "always" hit the ball where you want, that adds up to a .1000 batting average in every tournament. Maybe you should come and teach the rest of us, how to do that !By the way, the answer to your question, "have the middle back",we quit using it when they introduced the PPR !Except in SPA. Good luck ! |
| May 13, 2010 stick8 1992 posts | #6, it should always part of the game. This may sound a bit far fetched but do asny of the 60+ over teams ever play 5 infielders? I do realize speed in the of isn't exactly prevalent but perhaps once in a while on a certain type hitter? |
| May 13, 2010 stick8 1992 posts | Appreciate the props titanhd but I'm no one special, just lucky. When you say common sense wouldn't it be common sense to at least consider hitting thru the middle--espec if you have to keep it fair and the SS and 2b are playing over in the hole? If it's not too much to ask where did I play against you and who were you with? Hope I didn't stink the place up too much!! lol |
| May 13, 2010 #6 Men's 60 1173 posts | I haven't played against a team this year that played 5 infielders. |
| May 14, 2010 Webbie25 Men's 70 2414 posts | I also pretty much quit going up the middle with the advent of the composites, for 2 reasons. One was a few shots that went by pitchers so fast that they reacted well after the ball was by them. Thankfully, I didn't hit any. Two-I have found if you just hit the ball hard every time up, unless you hit the ball right at someone, it will get through. We don't have to revert to 'crappy' balls, just cool it a couple notches. |
| May 14, 2010 einstein Men's 50 3112 posts | You're clueless, Kevin. Our game is the same as CHECKERS. Our game is the same as WHAT? Our game is the same as checkers, you said. Our game is the same as checkers only to those who don't play it, don't get it or don't want to get it. We've been playing this game, America's pastime, since we was babies. It's fundamentally the same with all it's fundamental cultural and physical dynamics as little league and hitting a ball as Clatta says, dead center as hard as you can, is intrinsic to the positive experience of it. Always has and always will be. We, the senior softball community have spoken loudly and clearly in favor of lively bats and balls and a more copacetic and targeted approach to safety concerns. SSUSA, NCSSA, Huntsman, SPA, LVSSA, all have chosen for lively bats and lively 44x375 balls and if safety is forced upon us by outside concerns it looks to me we'll go to screens and continue to enjoy our game. |
| May 14, 2010 tattooball 774 posts | Yep same as checkers. 2 sides play and it is for recreational enjoyment. |
| May 14, 2010 taits Men's 65 4548 posts | Ok, I made it to your side 'king" me.... lol |
| May 14, 2010 E4/E6 Men's 70 873 posts | I'm waiting to see which side of the fence the genius' among us falls to. There seems to be some contradiction. As much as I would dislike seeing Mandatory Armouring up, it would seem to make more sense then a screen. If we are to keep our Senior/UTRIP bats. Like many rules in our lives, protecting a play against himself is sometime necessary for the good of the masses. Like it or not. "Cooler Balls for a more balanced game" |
| May 14, 2010 Dirty Men's 50 1371 posts | Again, this would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. |
| May 14, 2010 E4/E6 Men's 70 873 posts | I prefer to think of it as compromise. There will probably never be a one sided change in our playing lives, so I think the best we can hope for is something in between. Hopefully without a screen. |
| May 14, 2010 #6 Men's 60 1173 posts | Dirty, help me out here! Are we ever going to quit talking about......to screen or not to screen ? I have said this before, I have talked to a lot of pitchers and they have "all" told me "NO SCREEN".THEY SAY IF THE PITCHERS WANT TO ARMOUR UP, THAT'S THEIR DECISION.........BUT PLEASE NO SCREENS.This is coming from the horses mouth, sort to speak. |
| May 14, 2010 einstein Men's 50 3112 posts | Hey John, Let me tell you how terrific it is to post to someone who's accountable and shows up for what he says. 5 per cent are the guys who won't mind going to a significantly lesser ball like the 52x275. The great majority like me won't like it one bit and most of us won't play. Why do you think all the major associations haven't collapsed to the pressure to go there by safety zealots and liability freaks? Think about it, again. The answer is obvious. Because guys won't pay to come to tournaments with an unsatisfyingly performing bat/ball, that's why. Seniors softball has spoken. NCSSA, SSUSA, LVSSA, SPA and Huntsman all endorse senior bats and good 44x375 balls. That's game, set and match. But of course there's the whiners, the self interested and the bone ignorant few who don't play, love or understand our game and always have something small to say. |
| May 15, 2010 JohnBob Men's 65 256 posts | Joe,whether we like it or not Liability is a big concern for SSUSA-SPA etc in today's world. I do not know if the 52x275 ball is the answer or not but one thing I do know and that's a screen is not because most good defensive Pitchers will not play. They love to field their position as much as you like to hit a ball out of sight and do not want to hide behine a screen. One Question I have is you say that a great majority agree with you,do they not post on here? I don't know if your last sentence was directed at me but I'm player/manger play 3rd base 60M and love and understand our senior game as much as anyone and do not let my ego get in the way of common sense. |
| May 15, 2010 mad dog Men's 65 4191 posts | like johnbob has said,to much ego in the way.why do we have to hit a ball 400-450' for it to be fun.with fences in the 300-325' range i ask why again.again there is no majority,it is all in his small little mind.he is pumping this up for himself so he can the BMOC(big man on campus).the 52-275 ball would be the easiest way to go for the $ and still be able to use the current bats we use. and oh i'm not bone ignorant and not self interested as there is no money in this for me,just some common sense before another gets killed(like the 55 yr old in Virginia). |
| May 15, 2010 einstein Men's 50 3112 posts | No, John. I wasn't referring to you. I think you're caring, sincere, accountable and making intelligent arguments. We all learn from discussions with people like you. I'm a pitcher, too and wouldn't prefer screens on the field but I firmly believe that they would be better than restricted flight softball for the whole of senior ball even though it would serve my interests as a pitcher/defender. What's more, most everyone to everyone will play with screens but a huge exodus from tournaments with dumbed-down equipment will occur if/when the over zealous and self interested few, have their way. We've seen this time and again in NorCal where NCSSA mandates senior bats and 44 x 375 balls and what happens when one of the TD's loses his mind or tries to cheap out or back out of the agreement. He will lose his tournament for next year and the support of NorCal community going forward. Softball has always been dangerous, John. A hard ball, strong well practiced guys, egos from heaven and hell. It's the right thing to say that we want to safe more seniors from getting bonked. It's like we all want to save the penguins, don't we? Who can argue but in reality it doesn't and won't work. Lively bats and balls are the key, the grist, the wheat of senior ball whether we're pitchers or not and our game must be fun/satisfying and make sense for the MOST of us, John, not just the few. There's been lots of posts by guys who have played with screens, like me, and say the game is fine, fun, competitive and not negative at all. And there's lots more of them who don't/won't ever comment on or read this website. And lastly, for now, I firmly believe that the underlying cause of bat/ball abuse is not the innate cheater in all of us as some suggest which comes from a cynical and unenlightened and low expectation version of who/what we All are but the desire to not be cheated by cheap or near sighted TD's who buy crappy balls or by the other team who whip out "dirty bats". Cheating is situation and needs to be addressed like policemen do speeders on a highway and not drop the speed limit and punish everyone. Remember we tried that back in the 70's. A idea that couldn't and didn't work. So let's keep our heads and our right to enjoy a game we love to play and not fall prey to plans that don't and won't work for us. |
| May 16, 2010 Webbie25 Men's 70 2414 posts | I just got a new grey Ultra. I could not believe the disclaimer on it. It says "WARNING:This high performance bat is capable of producing batted ball speeds that present a risk of serious injury OR DEATH to players, coaches, and spectators." We have now come to the point that Miken feels they have to have that warning on these bats. Does that shift the fault to the batter if something happens? SSUSA-does that attempt to shift the culpability to you for allowing the bat in competition? I'm speechless. |
| May 16, 2010 E4/E6 Men's 70 873 posts | The continued defense of anything only makes it look more guilty. Hot Bats, Lively Balls, Screens, the cynically disillusioned, The Mythical Majority...... We play the game because we love the game, not because we ONLY love to hit. If thats all there is for some I pity those few. All ball games are based on balance between Defense and offense. thats the game I love and would love to see again. If thats self interest, ok. If thats ignorant, ok. If thats over zealous, ok. If I can save one penguin or whale by slowing the game down a bit thats ok too! |
| May 16, 2010 einstein Men's 50 3112 posts | As ignorance is bliss there's at least a couple of people walking around happier than me and I must say I'm jealous. But not enough to change or lose my mind regarding my understanding and assessment of the game I've been playing for some 12 years now, Senior softball. There is NO reasonable doubt, none at all that the great majority of senior players want, deserve and will demand lively balls and bats. I've NEVER found a player in any league or tournament at any level who wanted to or would play with restricted flight balls. Yet, there's still some self interested and ignorant few who would argue that players do want and will accept dissatisfying bats/balls. Law SUITS. LAW suits. LAW SUITS...(sounds like Alan Iverson when said correctly) Who gives a rats rump what some lawyers who are paid for by self interested entities have to say about ANYTHING we do. Lawyers make legal points to sway legal arguments that oftentimes have nothing to do with what is good, right, of the majority or in our best interests. We been playing our game since we was babies. We know who we are and what we want. Lively bats and balls are KEY to our experience and we must, should and will resist/step around anyone who want to take them away, just like we do in NCSSA. |
| May 17, 2010 JohnBob Men's 65 256 posts | None of us wants to hit Crappy balls Joe,but if I remember right last fall there were a tourney in Vegas and a real hot ball was used and that's what started this stuff about screens and some wanting a more balance game. I'm fine with the 44x375 ball but nothing hotter than that should ever be used with the senior bats,but also feel that a toned down ball would be better. Its crazy that a Pitcher makes a good pitch and batter miss hits ball and it still goes out of ballpark. |
