Message board »Message Board home »Sign-in or register to get started
Online now: 2 members: RAO99, TABLE SETTER 11; 103 anonymousDiscussion: 70' Bases
| Posted | Discussion |
| Jan. 9, 2013 Pricer Men's 50 621 posts | 70' Bases For the sake of asking, what is the reason for all the love for 70' bases? For me, it makes no sense based on the reasons I have heard. We don't need to run any further than we do already. If any infielder can snag one of these rockets going thru the infield, it is almost surely a double play at the distances we use now and almost none of the fields we played on in the last couple years have not been cut for the 70' distance. So we are looking at a lip to deal with if the infielders were to move back to compensate for the new distance. Am I missing something here? |
| Jan. 9, 2013 Omar Khayyam 1357 posts | Pricer, maybe the answer is that some fields are set up ONLY for 70 feet (all of Nevada, it turns out), so making that the distance solves some complaints (teams are used to 70 feet by the time they hit Las Vegas). I can tell you from discussions with 65 and older (my peers) that most of them like the 65 feet for the reasons you state. Wouldn't seem that an extra five feet would make that much difference, but then we didn't like the change from 60 feet to 65 feet. The major complaints seem to be from fast, but ground ball hitting batters, who get thrown out by a step at 70 feet; from all runners who try to stretch a hit to a double (the ball doesn't go any farther) and find 10 extra feet gets them thrown out at second; from winded runners who find that 20 extra feet to run on an inside-the-park home run, or second to home on a single, is too much; etc. I know the responses: get in better shape; easier to turn a double play; infielders back farther will reach more ground balls (they can't play closer because the ball comes too fast to intercept); etc. But loving the change? Nope. Living with it? Maybe, but your point about the smaller infields and the dangerous lip problem is a real one. |
| Jan. 9, 2013 Fabe Men's 65 456 posts | Will play with any rules for the love of our game n not agreeing or disagreeing with this rule. Yet this rule impacted the Vegas Worlds tremendously...it appears to favor the defensive over all the other variables which lean towards the offensive stats in our game. Aloha, Fabe |
| Jan. 9, 2013 swing for the fences Men's 50 1224 posts | New rule fabe supplies beer all usa touneys ;) |
| Jan. 9, 2013 Pricer Men's 50 621 posts | Swing, the best rule mention on this site to date! |
| Jan. 9, 2013 swing for the fences Men's 50 1224 posts | Pricer, figured since Fabe is going to play with any rules, we might start with the Fabe/Beer rule! ;-) |
| Jan. 9, 2013 Fabe Men's 65 456 posts | Ok you got me! How about free surf lessons when visitn the Islands? Fabe |
| Jan. 10, 2013 Webbie25 Men's 70 2414 posts | hehe-Fabe-with my knees the only 'surfing' I do is channel surfing! Will take a beer though! On the 70' bases-as a defensive outfielder I love it. In our hugely offensive game, it give the outfield a shot to throw some guys out and takes away the 'automatic' stretch double for a lot of guys that can still run. Infielders have that split second more to make the play on the infield. The slight bobble can still result in an out, and double plays really come into play. As a reasonably fast runner-it takes away the automatic double on a lot of balls. If that extra 5 feet per base makes that much difference in your conditioning-work a little harder to get in condition. I will be doing that. I can see revisiting the 70 foot bases for the older leagues at a later date, though. |
| Jan. 10, 2013 leftyodoul Men's 65 106 posts | I agree with Webbie25. I am in favor of this rule because it helps out the defense. So many of our existing rules (senior bats and lively balls, etc) already favor the offense. |
| Jan. 10, 2013 stick8 1991 posts | Fabe, I'll take Heineken!! lol |
| Jan. 10, 2013 swing for the fences Men's 50 1224 posts | Sure fabe however I prefer beer! ;) |
