Message board »Message Board home »Sign-in or register to get started
Online now: 4 members: Bob Downs, JohnO28, SupremeAthletics, TABLE SETTER 11; 90 anonymousDiscussion: 1 and 1 with courtesy foul new rule for younger guys
| Posted | Discussion |
| Jan. 24, 2018 rtaven Men's 70 43 posts | 1 and 1 with courtesy foul new rule for younger guys This will lead to much higher scoring games for several reasons. If you can make a higher scoring game shorter, then they know something I don't. This has really slanted the advantage to the hitter.The 1 and 1 no courtesy helps the average and below average hitters tremendously but most hitters don't realize it. I hope it works. The only thing I know that will shorten the game is less runs per inning, 2 outs per inning or additional fielders. |
| Jan. 24, 2018 DieselDan Men's 75 600 posts | More games could get in seven innings with players jogging on and off the field and playing two innings straight. |
| Jan. 24, 2018 OZ40 549 posts | The rule was changed this year based on a low percentage (less than 23%) 'player poll'. I hope I'm wrong but I believe the current crop of 60 and under players will not see 0-0 for a count in SSUSA again. I don't know of any other business models that would base company policy on such market analysis percentages but then again few businesses can claim basically a captive consumer market. |
| Jan. 24, 2018 chico senior Men's 60 134 posts | OZ40 - Why do you think that the results would be different if more or even all SSUSA members voted? I’d bet that the numbers would be very close to what that were with only 23% responding. In my mind 23% is a pretty good cross section and you could assume from it that percentages would remain about the same with with more responsed. |
| Jan. 24, 2018 OZ40 549 posts | Chico, you say you'd BET. I don't want to bet when it comes to changing the game we all like to play. I understand consumer sampling as it relates to a given product and I'll say this and let it go at that: any corporate boardroom or company hierarchy structure would not take a 22.9% consumer sampling to the bank as an argument to secure a business loan, nor would the R & D arm of a given company take that same percentage to management as an argument to get a go-ahead for a particular product. |
| Jan. 24, 2018 DaveDowell Men's 70 4312 posts | Purely theoretically, we're going to side with chico senior on this one ... The entire membership was invited to participate in this member preference survey ... It wasn't a "binding vote", so voter turnout is somewhat irrelevant ... However, another poster here stated with experience in polling that anything over a 15% response rate is considered "good" ... The trend in favor of the "1-1" count has been growing and we believe that the change for ages 60+ and younger reflects a strong (more than 22% in all cases) sentiment for that structure ... In another 10 months or so, we'll have a better factual data array to analyze ... The first chunk of that data is in ... Here's an excerpt from the Bullhead City Winter Classic Tournament Director's report on topic ... "..As to the first tournament with a 1-1 count for the 50 to 60 age group there were 22 games played ALL games went 7 innings, but what was most interesting is I attempted to look at HOW much time was left on the clock of the 65 minutes allotted in pool play; at the end of the 6th inning and found in all cases that there was anywhere between 2 to 13 minutes left when the open inning was announced.." So far, so good! ... There won't be any more rules amendments now until late November, so in the meantime, have fun and play safely ... |
| Jan. 24, 2018 chico senior Men's 60 134 posts | Polls are done all the time - city, county, state, etc. they never ever come close to polling everyone like OZ40 would like. They poll far fewer then 22.9% of the population. Those polls, for the most part, normally end up being pretty close to the actual outcomes. Again, for anyone to complain about the number polled, when you had the opportunity to vote, is bogus. |
| Jan. 25, 2018 OZ40 549 posts | C'mon Chico, I NEVER said I wanted 'everyone' polled, and in essence according to Dave everyone was polled but only slightly more than 22% responded. But realistically you will never have a poll of such a sampling size where 'everyone' responds. We sure saw the reliability of even so called professional pollsters during the recent election cycle didn't we? As I stated in previous posts, I hope I'm wrong and certainly a 1 tournament sampling couldn't be considered a trend but it appears promising, but, that is still no indication of either a final outcome or an indication that the same results couldn't have been accomplished in other ways other than altering the count. |
| Jan. 26, 2018 stick8 1991 posts | Chico, with all due respect polls are only fodders for conversation. It seems as if, as I understand it, the 1-1 count being applied in senior ball is meant to speed up the game, potentially sped up the game--get seven innings in. In 1992 or 93 USSSA put the 1-1 count in with the same intent--speed up the game. It was discovered that it really did no such thing as a vast majority of batters don't extend to a full count while batting. I personally have no objection to playing with a 3-2 count (as we call it in USSSA) but I don't see games going much, if any faster. Whether it's 4-3 or 3-2 you still have to hit, run, play defense and throw |
| Jan. 28, 2018 Jawood Men's 50 943 posts | Last season, 36% of our games went the full 7 innings. I'm quite sure our percentage will go up from that this year with the 1-1 count. Dave stated in the first tournament, EVERY game went 7 innings. I'm not a math wiz but I believe that is 100%! |
| Jan. 29, 2018 OZ40 549 posts | And what percentage would that 36% have to rise to justify changing the count? 37%, 45? 70%? How can you put a figure to an intangible? If you say 50% and someone else says 70%, whose figure is right in terms of changing the count for good for everyone? Was this even given consideration, does the association have a magic number in mind? |
| Jan. 29, 2018 r4pitch 92 posts | rtaven got to ask how does 1-1 no foul(With a foul pasted not no foul) help weaker hitters...the reason more runs score and people have to wear mask is the crazy bats and balls.. lets get bat testing at the senior level...then we can see who can hit.....but i need to know how it helps the weaker hitters???? |
| Jan. 29, 2018 Jawood Men's 50 943 posts | The major consideration by SSUSA to get more game action out of the time that's allotted to play. Pretty simple. Most teams would like to play 7 innings rather than 6, there's your percentage! |
| Jan. 29, 2018 DaveDowell Men's 70 4312 posts | OZ40 and Jawood ... The "number", in retrospect, was a 20% or greater spread in member preference, by age group and by those choosing to express that preference, favoring the "1-1" count ... It's pretty obvious you were in the minority preference group and Jawood was in the majority preference group ... Regardless, the 2018 playing rules are set and will not be the subject of potential change until late November ... If you would like to see change at that time, your probable best course of action would be to take a leadership role in getting the "player initiatives" implemented to a greater degree, starting with your own team ... There's probably only one "association initiative" left: NO waste foul ... We believe the membership strongly prefers a game structure designed to maximize innings played in the available time ... No amount of redundant posting here, absent an increased player contribution to efficiency of play, will create a mandate to revert to the "0-0" count for those playing it this season ... |
| Jan. 29, 2018 OZ40 549 posts | Dave, points well taken. I didn't initiate any of the 0-0 vs 1-1 posts after the survey results were made public. I will however respond when others broach the subject. ALSO, the percentage I was referring to in my above post was the percentage of games (36%) referenced by Jawood he cited as the amount of games he played last year that went a full 7 innings. NOT the recent player poll voting percentage. So basically if a 3% improvement over last year or a 10% improvement on games going the full 7 what is the number? The question I asked was 'what percentage in improvement of games going the full 7 this season compared to last season justifies the 1-1 starting count? |
| Jan. 29, 2018 chico senior Men's 60 134 posts | I don’t understand OZ40. He wants to know what percentage would indicate a change to a 1-1 count would increase the likelihood of playing a 7 inning game. Jawood indicated that last season his team only played 7 innings 36% of the time. I did not keep track of how many games over the 18 years I have played senior softball but my guess that our numbers would be somewhere near 50%. Also, the 40’s at Vegas this past year the number was 100%. Oh yeah, that’s right, they played with a 1-1 count. Is that a large enough sample? |
| Jan. 29, 2018 OZ40 549 posts | Gosh Chico, I'm not 40 years old. You're comparing apples and oranges. I never ever said I wanted the younger divisions not to play 1-1. Sheesh! Go back and reread my question. I'll try and rephrase it. How much of an increase in percentage of games going a full 7 innings as compared to the percentage of games last year that went a full 7 innings will make the switch to 1-1 worth keeping? Is it an increase of 1%, 20%, 35% ? And not to over-complicate it but of the games played, how many that didn't go 7 were because of a 0-0 count and how many were due to other reasons? |
| Jan. 29, 2018 DaveDowell Men's 70 4312 posts | OZ40 (and pay attention my friend chico!) ... Got it ... There won't be any comparison figure or target number to "make it all worthwhile" for Jawood's (or any other) team until they have some game experience this Season under the new rule ... But to answer your specific inquiry, there is no desired or expected improvement threshold on the issue of 7-inning games ... However, the change for the 2017 Season that was in place for the 40-Masters Divisions did yield a significant increase in games going the full 7-inning format, approaching 98% or higher ... It that a pure predictor for the older groups this time? ... Probably not, since the 40's played "no waste foul" and generally play a "faster" game than us older guys! ... And in a very small data sampling from Bullhead City recently, ALL games went the full 7-inning format, which is another favorable indicator, but in no way statistically compelling either ... The real answer is going to come from 20-20 hindsight this fall! ... Historically, there has been an annual drum-beat to go to the "1-1", for any number of reasons, and it's been both age and geographically biased ... We have surveyed this on multiple occasions over the past 11 years, and this was the first time the proponents of "1-1" were in the aggregate majority ... In those groups where the majority preference exceeded 22% (which generally fits into the election category of a "mandate"), we went with the change ... Nothing complex or even risky about that for us since we simply implemented what they wanted! ... At the end of the season, we'll know whether, as I posted previously, this goes in the folder marked "Brilliant! ... Why Didn't SSUSA Do This Sooner?" or the one marked "Be Careful What You Ask SSUSA For, You Might Just Get It!" ... |
| Jan. 29, 2018 The Screamer5 Men's 60 69 posts | As a player, long time umpire and big fan of our game, I don't care as much about getting 7 full innings in...but I'm for ANYTHING that "may" make the batter put the ball in play a little sooner than he would've normally. I want to see more game "action" in the allotted time. Let's give starting 1-1 a chance. Like Mr. Dowell stated, we will know whether or not it was a good decision at the end of the season. |
| Jan. 30, 2018 Axemansa 17 posts | I just played in a USSSA National tournament that had some distinct differences in game play. They used a net to protect the pitcher, lower pitch limits in heights, allowed faking in delivery of pitches and a 1-1 starting count. Every single game that I played in and observed went the 7 innings unless abbreviated by run rule. The amount of action was much more constant and made for an enjoyable game. I have to say I was not a proponent of the net but after playing games with it this past weekend I see no issues. It actually created some new dynamics to the game that one can use both offensively and defensively. My point being, give these new rule changes a chance before drawing judgements. If you are open minded, you might be in for a pleasant surprise. |
| Jan. 30, 2018 OZ40 549 posts | Axeman- I played and umped USSSA at the time of count switch, didn't like it then, don't like it now. U-trip became almost a semi-modified pitch game with their lower strike arc so I know as far as the changes in the tournament you played I wouldn't care for that aspect either. So been there-done that. No problem with the pitching screen, maybe take another poll and make it optional for a season. If this 1-1 experiment turns out to be the panacea to lead us all to 7th inning nirvana and it's so darn good for the game why not just go ahead and institute across the board and show the older levels the ecstasy they've been missing? |
