Oakland Park Baseball

This post is going to be very long, but for those of you who only want the main points here you go.

-If at the end of any inning the score differential is 10 runs or more, a trade should be proposed. If after 3 innings the trailing team hasn't made progress, another trade should be proposed.

-If at the end of any inning the score differential is 20 runs or more, the game should be called and (if possible) a new game should begin.

-I'm always going to try to logic something out and I have no reason to lie to you guys about my motives. If people show that they are beyond logic, I will more than happily remove myself from the situation.

-A bunch of other random stuff about score keeping and mental mistakes that should probably be in another thread, but...
===

The first two points are pretty self-expanitory. I don't think there's gonna be much disagreement about making trades, so I'm not gonna bother explaining my logic on that one.

The reason I think we should call a game if one team is leading by 20 is that I really think that that's the point that the game is out of reach. A game that is out of reach is demoralizing for the losing team and supports poor sportsmanship in the winning team in the forms of half-hearted play and running up the score. The problem is that, there's no middle ground here. Once you're up by 20, if you're giving all you've got... that's going to result in running up the score, and if you're not... well... then you're playing half-heartedly. I think in a friendly/competative environment neither of these things are appropriate.

I would always prefer to discuss a disagreement out, which of course requires honesty about the source of a disagreement. I'm never going to lie to you guys about my logic behind a decision (which is something that several people accused me of yesterday). I really don't appreciate that. Regardless of the fact that Peter clearly flew off the handle, I feel like no one was willing to take my statements yesterday at face value and instead of discussing the issues that I was bringing up, people kept saying things like "you're such a poor sport", "you're just mad becuase your team is losing", etc. I've been on the losing side of countless games with this group. Losing was clearly not the issue here. I'm sure that there were a lot of emotions going into what was being said, but I expect any issues that I bring up in the future to be discussed respectfully by anyone involved. If you can't argue your point logically and respectfully, then it's best that you keep your thoughts to yourself. I think I bring up a lot of problems of the forums and at the games because when I see something that is being done poorly I want and expect it to be done better. There's always confrontation when change happens, but when all sides present their points logically the optimal result is usually achieved. I think we can all agree that a lot of the "gripes" that I've brought up have directly resulted in significant improvement of our games (which is always the point).

There were a couple of situations in yesterday's game (that had nothing to do with the obvious situation) that I feel were handled poorly. If at anytime the offensive pitcher does something questionable, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the defense. There was one play where the pitcher failed to cover home when a runner was scoring. I think the runner should always (i.e. 90+ percent of the time) be sent back to third in these situations. A smart runner will always run to an uncovered base and there are situations where (even if the throw is late or even not coming at all) that the simple existance of a defender is enough to stop someone to running. The pitcher is (or, at least should be) responsible for representing this threat.

I went 3/6 yesterday. On my slow dribbler up the middle (my only AB that could even possibly be seen as an ROE), it seemed pretty clear to me (and Danny, the fielder on the play) that it would've been very difficult to record an out on the play. I know that scores don't get change retroactively, but I think our policy of "the scorekeeper is final judge" is a little silly. I think there should be some sort of concensus in scoring and should especially include the fielders on the play and those of us more knowledgable about baseball scoring. I know it's time consuming to discuss scoring during play, but trying to remember what happened after the game is difficult and when we're hustling between innings (which should always be the case, btw) it's hard to double-check how something was scored. I suggest that after every at-bat that isn't obvious (Ks, outs and HRs for example are obvious) the scorer should announce his scoring (i.e. "single", "double", "error" etc.) and a moment should be taken to establish consensus. I feel like A LOT of plays are scored incorrectly, and while I don't personally care that much about my stats, I think if we're going to bother tracking them, it's worth a few minutes every game to track them accurately. Keep in mind that on most plays, there won't be any discussion at all because the scoring is more or less obvious.

My dad always instilled in me the notion of it's not what you do but how you do it.

There have been more than a few game on either side of a blowout (to be fair, not at Saturday's porportions) and I just wanted to leave as I got tired of standing out at dusty ass hot ass 1B while the other team round the bases like Anna Nicole Smith circling old farts. But for the spirirt, we all played out the game. Saturday, after the 3 inning, I was oblivious to the score. Fuck it, lets play it out before it rains was my mantra.

Ken makes excellent points. It just didn't get a chance to resonate with the way it was executed. I think I speak for others on the team... Damn the score at this point, lets play nine, line up shake hands and go home. I missed Paul picking up anj aluminum bat to see if he could go yard, I wanted to see if Jason could add a few more feet to get it out of right. Chad came out for no reason.The other players on the team weren't consulted.

It's not what you do but how you do it that makes a lasting impression one way or another.

Hey, I've only read the bullet points at the top of your post, but...

It's actually amazing how similar our prescriptions were. Here's what I was about to put down:

(1.2) Spread Rule
(1.21) A game can be called if either team is losing by 20 runs and it is assumed a new game will start. Rule (3.05) “Disregarding Stats” is void.
(1.22) If a team leads by 15 runs after the 3rd inning, The Commissioner or the captain of the losing team must request one of the following to occur:
a. The game will restart. Rule (3.05) is void.
b. A trade must occur to improve the losing team.

Edit: Translation--> If a team's up by 20 runs, game's over (stats count) and ideally we start up a new game. Another scenario: if a team is up by 15 runs after the 3rd inning, we do a trade to make it more balanced and continue, or, if that doesn't work or we can't figure out a trade, we just restart (stats count).


anyway, as you can tell I'm working on a revision to the rules for that kind of stuff. Ok, now I'll read the rest of your post.

So, to respond further, I don't recall the situation you're talking about when an offensive pitcher didn't cover a base.... Oh wait, are you referring to the play at 1st base, ie the pitcher didn't come over to get the throw from the 1st baseman? I'm kinda remembering a play like that now. Anyway, I agree, if the offensive pitcher fails to cover a base at all, then we should consider giving the defense an automatic out, presuming the throw would've definitely beat the runner. Note, however, that if the offensive pitcher is doing their job and covering the base, but cannot make the play (like get the tag down or block the plate well), the runner is safe.

As for scorekeeping, I just don't think your system of having the scorekeeper shout out what the scoring call was is very workable. I'm picturing lots of debate, lots of stops in play, people shouting from across the field to the scorekeeper in the dugout, etc. I think we just have to do a better job of multitasking and checking the statsheet as we hustle in and out of the dugouts.

Now, as for leaving the game early, that's certainly less than ideal... sorta like how having a 29-8 score is less than ideal. Anyway, we'll put in place blowout/trade rules to avoid this dynamic from happening. It would be accurate, however, to acknowledge that it was less than ideal for others that one leave the game early. I don't question your motives at all. I agree that your motive is to improve the league. And, people coming together and calmly discussing points of view... I agree that's the way to go, let's do that. I noticed Peter already apologized for his having gotten excited, thanks for reflecting on it Peter.

I think that's a very speculative stance that's been taken about the winning team's motivations. But, I understand, sometimes in long posts we make statements that aren't as based in empirical-fact as our remarks usually are. Now that this is the third time I've re-written this paragraph, I'll give up and just say you're wrong, we were trying our hardest, damn you! The issue here is the blowout scores / trades.

So, let's not be confused, what happened here was we came across a situation where the League was unprepared, where the League didn't yet have a rule (or precedent) in place to guide us. That situation was the blowout score of the game. We've had some blowouts before, and the League failed to come up with a policy to avoid blowouts even after those experiences. Well those days are over as the League is now going to enforce a "spread" rule (20 run lead=called game, restart) and will require a trade or a restart if one team is up by 15 after 3 innings.

It was correct to point out that these types of scores are bad for the league, and a serious issue confronting the league, so thanks for bringing it to folks' attention. The funny part is I had already been considering it (because of the 14-1 game a month ago), I was just finalizing some other rule changes so I hadn't make the rule public yet--I figured I'd just roll out all the rules at once.

FYI: I'm working on tons of other rule improvements, rule upgrades, etc. I'll probably debut that soon, like in the next week or so.

so scot if we call a game in the 4th because of aa blowout will the stats count?

Joe shmoe wrote:So, Scott, if we call a game in the 4th because of a blowout will the stats count?

Yes, they count. Stats do count in blowout games, and they do count in a "15 after 3 Innings" game where we have to restart (rather than the trade fixing things and enabling us to continue). The only time stats don't count are if the game that's stopped is in a non-blowout, non-"15 after 3" situation like a rainout mid game, for instance.

Here's the specifics for those rainout mid game scenarios:

• "Rule (3.05) Statistics will not count if a game is called before the losing team bats in the 5th inning. Tie games must be played through 5 innings for stats to count."

Another time stats don't count is.........

• "Rule (1.31) Statistics will not count for any game that occurs during the time scheduled for a “Live” game"

Reminder, Richard, the games that are stopped because of the Spread (20 runs) or that are stopped/restarted because of the "15 after 3" rule failing to net a trade that creates more balance and enables us to continue playing... Reminder....... those stats in those stopped games do count. It's the rainouts mid game that don't meet Rule 3.05 standards where stats don't count. Hey, another scenario where Rule 3.05 would be relevant is if, for whatever reason, turnout became inadequate to continue play.... stats would only count in that scenario if we had met the Rule 3.05 standards.

Baseball=life wrote:As for scorekeeping, I just don't think your system of having the scorekeeper shout out what the scoring call was is very workable. I'm picturing lots of debate, lots of stops in play, people shouting from across the field to the scorekeeper in the dugout, etc. I think we just have to do a better job of multitasking and checking the statsheet as we hustle in and out of the dugouts.

I don't see it that way because I think on the vast majority of plays there will be agreement on what the scoring should be. In fact, I think it would be more time consuming to have everyone trying to double-check the scoresheet when they should be making their way out onto the field. In my opinion, most of our plays are pretty straightforward, and most of our problems stem from the fact that most of us are inexperienced at scoring (hehe, that's dirty ) or that the "scorer's table" (i.e. inside the dugout) doesn't give you the best perspective on the action.

Perhaps a rule that the official scorer should always be either the firstbase coach or the thirdbase coach. This way, the person scoring will always have a pretty decent perspective on the play and if they're not sure of what the call should be, there will always be people (baserunners and/or fielders) nearby to consult with. The only problem that I see with that idea is that it would be a distraction to the coaches' more important duties, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect the scorer to finish the scoring for the previous at-bat before the ball gets put in play again.

And while we're on the topic of scoring, I think that if there are fewer than 14 players at a game the stats shouldn't count because a) they're more difficult to track and b) because of short line-ups and more at-bats numbers are likely to be inflated.

Hey Ken, thanks for your creative input on the scoring issue. I think you've brought up some very interesting ideas. I'm going to continue this conversation with you via private messages, so check back your messages by tomorrow please sir.

TheLegend wrote:I think on the vast majority of plays there will be agreement on what the scoring should be. In fact, I think it would be more time consuming to have everyone trying to double-check the scoresheet when they should be making their way out onto the field.

I agree. I think it's more efficient to check the scoresheet when you're sitting on the bench while your team bats.

Southpaw Slim wrote:

TheLegend wrote:I think on the vast majority of plays there will be agreement on what the scoring should be. In fact, I think it would be more time consuming to have everyone trying to double-check the scoresheet when they should be making their way out onto the field.

I agree. I think it's more efficient to check the scoresheet when you're sitting on the bench while your team bats.

I'm almost never sitting on the bench while my team bats. Between batting, base running and warming-up along with the pitching and base coaching duties, I'm usually doing something, and this is even more likely when looking only

and scott- why take this to pm? don't you think this might be an issue that more that just you and I would like to discuss?

I understand your point about being on the sidelines all the time. What I was pointing out was the fact that there usually is time when you get a chance to view the scoresheet during the course of the game. Taking responsibilities for other duties is up to you (unless your team is lazy and apathetic, at which point your duty is to rile up your team and get them into the game.)

TheLegend wrote:I'm usually doing something, and this is even more likely when looking only

Please explain what you meant by this.

when looking only at the innings in which i batted

edit: question: are we all supposed to go back after the fact (but before the game is over) and change our stats as we see fit? Obviously no one's suggesting that we should make up our stats, but if it's our responsibility to "make sure" our stats are right, and we decide they aren't, are we supposed to just change them?

It takes a long time to put together the scenario after the fact. You'd have to prove what you got by looking at the possible number of outs in the inning, RBI, extra base hits, and saying, "This surrounding evidence proves I got a hit/RBI/ROE."

It's much easier to take 30 seconds when you come in from the base paths to make sure your part was scored correctly. If you have the scoresheet while coaching a base (like Scott did last week) then you can look at it between batters. You'll get at least 2 chances. There are plenty of opportunities to periodically check it for a few seconds to make sure it's right.

AT last week's game, I had been missing a single. So, it was easy to bring it up, because the issue was fresh in people's minds. We need to all take the time to review what's going on.

I have issues when peoplejust complain after the fact, but take little role to prevewnt somehting they don't want to happen.

Peter: I'm not complaining about how last week's game (or any other specific game) was scored, I'm bringing up the point that a lot of at-bats in general are scored poorly and that we should do something to improve the accuracy of future stats.

I agree that the way we are handling scoring now is for the most part satisfactory, I'm just suggesting that there is probably a better way to handle them.

Does anybody have objections to having the firstbase coach also be the official scorer? Do you agree that it would make it easier to track stats accurately? In what ways would it make our games worse?

I just don't agree with the idea that having one person (usually) sitting in the dugout making scoring decisions (often) without consulting anyone else is the best way to keep track of stats.

I also strongly disagree with the idea that it's faster to have everyone take 30 seconds to check their stats after every at-bat than it is to discuss a scoring disagreement for 30 seconds the few times a game that there wouldn't be concensus.