Oakland Park Baseball

For the last three winters (including this one), we have pretty much established that we can't consistently generate enough interest in OPB style baseball to have games. The problem with this is twofold. Firstly, we don't have games. That sucks. We all like baseball, we all want to play every Sunday (or, at least... every time we show up to play). Secondly, bad turnout begets bad turn out. There is nothing worse than being one of ten players to show up several weeks in a row. Not having enough people to play makes those few who would otherwise be showing up every week consider more promising ways to spend their Sunday mornings. As Scott has said several times, having enough people to play every scheduled game is the most important factor in the continual growth and success of OPB.

In the same span of time that we've struggled to have even one regular Sunday game, we have had three live games without any problems. Given, two of those games were challenge games, but that's kinda a part of the idea too. Many teams (Just like Mike's Giants) are in the off-season right now, and would (probably?) love an opportunity to get some competitive ball in. If we're only having ten people show up every week anyway, why not schedule as many challenge games as we can? or... at least... more... I imagine this goes without saying... but having only 10 people show up on any given Sunday is much less of a problem when you only need to field one team.

Even putting challenge games aside, evidence seems to suggest that live games are generating enough interest to play and non-live games are not. I know a hand full of people who only come out for live games. Personally, I'm at a place in life right now where I can't commit to being at OPB every Sunday (especially given the greater than 50% change that won't be having a game anyway), but I am more willing to go out of my way to attend a live game (i enjoy live games more, and live games seem to be happening more reliably). Are we really willing to take the stand that we would rather not play at all, than to play more live games?

I know all the arguments and I understand what this group is supposed to be, but the fact that normal games are just not happening, leads me to believe that the policy of limiting live games (once again :-p) needs to be analyzed.

Ken, you pose a good argument there. After last week's game (which ended being our best Giants challenge to date) I'm hard-pressed to find a counterpoint. I know I've shouldered the burden of reminding our more eager participants about the limit for the duration of this "league", but I agree that live games only increase turnout. When we have chronically low numbers (i.e. Football season) it makes sense to adapt to the situation.

The only concern I have is about the type of player who shows up only for live games. Live gamers in the past have negatively affected turnout in the long-term. The relaxed, anybody-can-play type of atmosphere is stifled by overly competitive players. Once turnout begins to restabilize (around late Feb to mid March) it can be off-putting to new participants. We've already had complaints from people about how competitive it is when we play standard games. I don't want to risk compromising the spirit of the league, yet on the other hand I don't want to devote an entire Sunday to a round of batting practice.

Once Scott returns next week, we should get more stability. He's good about getting the word out and keeping people interested after they show up to check out what we are.

I know the second that work lets me out of it's grasp I will be there game or no game! even practice for me is a good thing. Games are just icing on the cake!

I'm probably going back into hibernation. Between the cold weather and the last year of school kicking my ass, my attendance will probably be scarce.

Ken--I really appreciate the argument. I think it's a good one!

I'd be alright aiming to have some more live games. But the fact is that live games with less than 18 people are just not good enough. So I'd be happy to aim for more live games, but on the conditional even if we are planning to go live, if 12 people show up we don't push it.

I agree with Nick's point about live games being bad for long-term turnout. I know you might not see this, Ken, as you don't mid chewing out people at any game but it can be a problem.

I don't have a hard opinion, those are just some thoughts.

Yo people. I'm back, and ready to push all buttons to make turnout stabilize. How convenient for me that my return corresponds with the end of football season. Anyway, I will also agree that football season has hurt turnout for us, and that live games being more frequent may be the antidote. But I'm also wondering if the 2009 football season (ie recent memory) is an adequate indication of the future. After all, the league has been only passively administered in 2009. But I'm back, and it's quite possible this will help stabilize turnout. For instance, in normal circumstances, the email list grows every single week. But that hasn't been happening at all in 2009. I also am good at annoying everyone in person about the information for the following week, but I haven't been around.

Anyway, I do think Kenyatte stated his point thoughtfully (as evidenced by Lauterborne agreeing). So I won't forget about this thread as we see how 2010 goes.

Ken, I haven't reached you... are you playing in this Sunday's challenge game? Let me know, blah blah.

And as we have gotten into the spring, turnout has expanded greatly... there were multiple DHs this week. So this is something we would only ever have to consider for the winter.

Even then Scott's right -- he is active in pushing turnout, and he posts on Craigslist when necessary to get an influx of new people. So it might not be necessary.

BTW, I plan to participate regularly again, but I have had some really good momentum cleaning and organizing my apartment the last few weekends, so I'm going to keep working on it until it's done.