The home of park baseball

[retep]

I wanna point out that the #1 reason that we have high scoring games is cuz out our rule regarding the stike zone. Trust me, i don't wanna change it. But if every 5th guy was striking out, plus poorly hit balls as a result of prottcting the place, we would see much lower scores. But the appeal of this group is that it's not like a regular leauge. We do it for fun, and so that we can all enjoy being impact players. I don't feel we play to truly demostae our actual talents.

ken, I wanna remind you about how much fun you're had in the past at Defremery. I made a thread about the best playes we've all made in the grouop, and you're was from Defremery.

just some thoughts..........

[TheLegend]

LOL. I watch this thread for two days straight and there's no action, but as soon as I get up to take a leak BAM!! two new posts.

So, back to the 'Where to Play' issue that Kenyatte brought up. Ken, I'm not trying to "BS you" as you mentioned. I'm just saying that, damn, the score from Sunday's game was interesting as hell!

My bad. Like I said, I'm super passionate about this particular issue and it seemed to me that the two points you made in that particular thread (defremery games don't have too much scoring / 10 double games are common) where flat out untrue, and I took offense to that. My bad.

I think that you are mistakenly remembering the last few games we played at DeFremery before being forced to switch, you know, the games that provoked the "high turnout / game frequency" issue, because we had 25 people showing up. To me, those games were anomalous. I still agree with whoever said that scoring at DeFremery will probably be only about 30% more than other fields over the long run. Typical scores at DeFremery are 19-18, as opposed to typical scores at other fields, which are like 15-14.

This is possible. There are only 2 box scores from full games at Defremery, one of which is clearly an outlier, and the other of which (I believe) is also one of our lower scoring games. I seem to remember many if not most of our games at Defrem ending with both teams scoring 20+. Even if I am wrong on this point though, I would still prefer a 15-14 game to a 19-18 game. (less scoring=greater significance of each play).

I find it interesting that you're now emphasizing all the doubles at the Sunday 3/27 DeFremery game only mere days after basically saying this outcome wasn't possible. Remember, you said it's either a home run or an out, and there's no gaps. Well, my friend, you forgot about the balls hit off the fence for one, and, for two there actually are gaps at DeFremery, just ask anyone who played on Sunday. Especially to right center.

I wasn't there on Sunday, so I can't say for sure, but I suspect that a lot of line drives or even ground balls that should've been singles were turned into doubles because of the basepaths. Peter, Dorian, Rich and I have all done this numerous times at Defremery. I still think that (with the exception of hitting it off the wall or over the fence) it will be very hard to get hits in the air if there are 2 or 3 fast players in the OF.

Anyone who witnessed the dramatic top 9th inning in Game 1 knows how fun DeFremery is. We came up in top 9th down 3, leadoff hitter William hit a solo shot (first HR of the game over the fence), then I doubled off the left-center fence (my first hit of the day, for shame). Then, in an awesome moment of drama, Rich hit his first Homerun, a monster shot into the wind in left-center, to score me and tie the game. Sure, we had 2 HR's in one inning, but they were also the only 2 HRs over the fence in the entire game.

See, I wouldn't find that dramatic at all. As a matter of fact, that's one of the things I hate most about Defremery- rallies that negate the defense. Three straight plays where the defensive team just sat and watched... How anti-climactic. In order for homers to be exciting they need to be rare and/or off of a pitcher who is trying to get you out edit: not that I'm suggesting we allow the pitcher to try to get the batters out.

[TheLegend]

I wanna point out that the #1 reason that we have high scoring games is cuz out our rule regarding the stike zone. Trust me, i don't wanna change it. But if every 5th guy was striking out, plus poorly hit balls as a result of prottcting the place, we would see much lower scores.

This is true. But the pitching style is the same at all locations and we still (generally) get significantly higher scores at defrem.

But the appeal of this group is that it's not like a regular leauge. We do it for fun, and so that we can all enjoy being impact players. I don't feel we play to truly demostae our actual talents.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I can tell you that I for one want to show off my full abilities in every game. You might want to rephrase that, cuz I think I missed your point.

ken, I wanna remind you about how much fun you're had in the past at Defremery. I made a thread about the best playes we've all made in the grouop, and you're was from Defremery.

just some thoughts..........

first, just let me say: wow spell/grammar check homey

but to respond to your point: I agree that we all individually perform better at Defremery, that much is obvious. I just prefer realism and challenge to padding my stats.


Here's a question- Does anyone have any problems with Curt Flood? 2 games a month at Curt Flood and 2 games at Defrem would mean I play half as much as the other "regulars" . Of course I would like to play at Curt Flood every week, but playing three times a month at Curt Flood and once at Defremery would be an acceptable compromise to me. I also liked the idea that someone posted of having a double header every week. One game at CF and one at Defrem.
edit:
On second thought, this might be the best idea. Those who prefer Flood can play there every week, those who prefer defrem can play there every week and those who are neutral can pick and choose and those who are hardcore can do both!

[tallguy]

Dude, two games every week, sounds good. But, I think our past experience shows us that 18 innings is too much for many of us. Hell, some of us, myself included, are dragging by the 12th inning. Maybe we could play a 6-innings game at Defremery after the Curt Flood game. That way we would be at the smaller field at the time when we are more tired.
Or, this may be heretical, but I think it's a better option, perhaps we should play one 12-15 innings game each week. Changing teams between a 9 and a 6 innings game takes away playing time, and people inevitably leave. Moving to another field would really drag it out.
We should have a 7th inning stretch/rest. Five or ten minutes would do a lot of good.

[gohlkus]

Yes, a 12-inning game is heretical, unless it's tied after 9.

I like playing a 9-inning game and having batting/fielding practice afterwards with the people who are still there IF IT'S NOT RAINING. Ahem. (Though our 40-minute 6-inning game Sunday in the rain was pretty fun, I will admit.)

I like the idea of switching off week to week. I haven't been to Curt Flood yet, but if it's right between Raimondi and Defremery in size it will probably make for a fun game.

[retep]

like playing a 9-inning game and having batting/fielding practice afterwards with the people who are still there.

I totaly agree. let's just split the games at the two parks. Ken, come, or deal with the fact that you only get 50% of the chance to shine.

Pardon my spelling and shit. I rush, since I do in fact have a life!

[Baseball=Life]

Dude, this may be heretical, but I think it's a better option, perhaps we should play one 12-15 innings game each week.

HERESY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for holding Paul accountable, gohlkus.

As for the 2 games every week idea, I think Paul brought up some valid concerns

Changing teams between a 9 and a 6 innings game takes away playing time, and people inevitably leave. Moving to another field would really drag it out.

However, with constant Craigslist Posting, maybe we could offset these issues. Who really knows how it would turn out? Myself, I'd probably been one of the hardcore that played both games every week if we went this way. Stat issues would arise if certain players were playing 4 x as often as others, ie 8 games a month versus the old schedule, once every 2 weeks = 2 games. You'd no longer be able to compare people's cumulative numbers, only averages.

On second thought, this [playing doubleheaders each week, one game at each field] might be the best idea. Those who prefer Flood can play there every week, those who prefer defrem can play there every week and those who are neutral can pick and choose and those who are hardcore can do both!

Yeah, maybe it is, apart from the concerns and issues raised above and by others.

Now back to the original plan of 1 game per week, alternating between fields... This is clearly the more practical option of the two. Ken, thanks for compromising with the rest of us on this. Here's the timeline of this debate:

Part I: All games played at DeFremery
Part II: Kicked off DeFremery, found out about other parks
Part III: Debate about "Where to Play" begins
Part IV: I argued that we'd return to DeFremery once the football team was done, ie 100% games would be played at DeFremery.
Part V: The benefits of other parks were made more clear through games and through posts such as Kenyatte's.
Part VI: Kicked off Raimondi, Curt Flood discovered.
Part VII: I realized the benefits of the other fields, especially Curt Flood.
Part VIII: The reunion game at DeFremery, 3/27
Part IX: I change my view, and say that when the football team is gone, we will play only 50%, not the 100% initially argued for, of our games at DeFremery--we'll alternate between DeFremery and Curt Flood.
Part X: Debate begins again about where to play. Kenyatte compromises from 0% and says 25% at DeFremery.
Part XI: Other debaters emphasize the 50% split is the way to go, ie the true compromise.

[AntMoOAK]

This is funny... Mo drama than Lil' Kim in court

[retep]

I really like the one game a week plan, plus post-game practice. I don't want random people coming all the time, we won't know when the second game starts.

Plus, I think its better to have the one game where everyone is very focus and playing there best. It makes the game more intense.

[tallguy]

Right, one game is better. But, 9 innings is not enough for most of us. So, why stick to it? What's the big deal? We have a number of other house variations from MLB rules, why not this?

[Rob C]

The last 2 Sundays I played we had double hitters. I really had a blast and would like to see that be the norm. We could still have BP before and after the 2nd game . Like I suggested before, we could do one at DeFramery, and the other at Flood. For those that don't want to play at Deframery, they could just play at Flood that day. Sooner or later we're going to be getting too many players again, and this may be a solution to dalleviate that as well.

Let me throw out another idea. In a few weeks it won't be getting dark till around 8-9. When that happens, lets start playing tripple hitters (with a picnic/BBQ betwen the 2nd and 3rd games. An evening game would add a different perspective as well as an alternative opportunity to play if you cant play earlier in the day.

One more comment regarding the games. Lets keep in mind these are pickup games, which draws players of all different levels. I think Scott has the right formula for making these games fun for (almost) everyone. Not everyone has the skills to be playing at a level appropriate for a league. I'd encourage him not to change anything as it relates to the rules by which we're playing.

[Southpaw Slim]

Man, I should post more often, because this thread is REALLY starting to piss me off.

First, Kenyatte. I agree that DeFremery can be a bit cramped. I also agree that Curt Flood has a lot of what Raimondi is missing. However, since the post you repeatedly quote is from before Curt Flood becasme a possibility, I think your comparison to DeFremery is unfair. Had Curt Flood been a viable option when the quoted post was written, you would have MUCH LESS to refer to.

Furthermore, even though the previous sentence was ended with a preposition... I gotta call you out. Immediately before drawing attention to Peter's errant grammatical syntax and habitual misspelling of words in his fervor to type as fast as he thinks, you present this gem:

I can you that I for one want show off my full abilities in every game.

So with that out of the way, I like Curt Flood as well. There is a lot of appeal, especially since it has a grass infield. That's what draws me to it. If it was the same as it is now but with a dirt infield, I would still want to play at DeFremery. I agree that the longer fences make Homers more precious, and the dimensions are so that it provides a few more gaps. I also must note that I've been forced to change my hitting style while playing at DeFremery, since I would come close to killing the pitcher on almost every at-bat.

But, you know what? I still like playing there. It's fun to have to react a bit faster to keep the runner from reaching second. It's exciting to know how easily the momentum can shift and force you to step it up a notch. Granted, we're not all as hungry for action as Rob, (Jesus Christ, by the way! That fucking guy is a serious gamer. I can't believe it. He somehow manages to slip in the prospect of a doubleheader in every thread.) but I for one am glad to have gotten a chance to play there again for the first time in a while and get back into the rhythm of play. You don't have enough time to slouch at DeFrem. It's so small it makes you keep your head in the game at ALL TIMES.

I think the 50/50 idea is the perfect compromise. It keeps us true to our roots, but still allows for what some would refer to as a "more serious game."

BTW: Scott, I hate you and your flawless draft.

[TheLegend]

Now back to the original plan of 1 game per week, alternating between fields... This is clearly the more practical option of the two. Ken, thanks for compromising with the rest of us on this. Here's the timeline of this debate:

Part I: All games played at DeFremery
Part II: Kicked off DeFremery, found out about other parks
Part III: Debate about "Where to Play" begins
Part IV: I argued that we'd return to DeFremery once the football team was done, ie 100% games would be played at DeFremery.
Part V: The benefits of other parks were made more clear through games and through posts such as Kenyatte's.
Part VI: Kicked off Raimondi, Curt Flood discovered.
Part VII: I realized the benefits of the other fields, especially Curt Flood.
Part VIII: The reunion game at DeFremery, 3/27
Part IX: I change my view, and say that when the football team is gone, we will play only 50%, not the 100% initially argued for, of our games at DeFremery--we'll alternate between DeFremery and Curt Flood.
Part X: Debate begins again about where to play. Kenyatte compromises from 0% and says 25% at DeFremery.
Part XI: Other debaters emphasize the 50% split is the way to go, ie the true compromise.

===
Warning: The next few paragraphs may sound extremely selfish and emotional, but the points are valid, so bare with me please.
===

The fact that I so strongly dislike Defremery (and no one seems to dislike Curt Flood with nearly as much enthusiasm, or... at all for that matter) really should be enough to make CF our home park with only a few games played at DeFremery.

If everyone is content at CF and all but one are content at DeFremery, it seems logical to make CF our home field, doesn't it?

I mean at this point, it's not as simple as "55% prefer Defrem, 45% prefer Flood" because I am the only person with a strong preference. No one has came out and said "I hate Flood" which leads me to believe that everyone is happy playing there. If everyone is happy playing at Flood, and you know that playing at Defrem means I won't play at all, then why choose to play at Defrem? Every once in a while... I can understand and once a month truly does seem like a fair compromise to me, but every other game? That's a lot guys. Seriously. It's not just choosing to boost your stats over having a challenging game any more. Now it's choosing to boost your stats over having a challenging game and playing with me. And to be honest, that's hard not to take personally.

I think I'm gonna back out of this debate for a while. I'm clearly getting way too emotional about it . I really do hope you guys decide to play at Flood more than twice a month.

[tallguy]

I for one have no problem with 3 games at CF for every 1 at Defremery, despite my fondness for home runs. I look forward to hitting one at CF, and the more we play there, the better my chance.

[Baseball=Life]

Ok, Kenyatte, here's a good compromise.....

Your idea of 3 CF & 1 DeF per month (75% - 25%)........

then my idea of 2 CF 7 2 DeF per month (50% - 50%).....

then your idea of 3 CF & 1 DeF per month (75% - 25%)......

then my idea............ etc, etc.

so we just alternate the two plans from month to month.

Over one year, here's what the final percentages would be:
30 games at Curt Flood = 62.5%
18 games at DeFremery = 37.5%

So that seems more than fair, eh? Please consider that I have now dropped from 100% DeF to 50% DeF to now only 37.5% DeF. Is this satisfactory?

By the way, please don't read any sarcasm here, i'm straight-talking. I know I'm a member of Generation X, so sometimes online there's a need to clarify whether sarcasm is in effect or not. I'm not.

I think this plan is much more practical than trying to do double headers, that just involves way too many unknowns, including when to start the 2nd game (especially if at another field), since we can't estimate when the 1st game ends. So we need to back away from that plan. 4 games a month is a lot anyway!

Final note: Ken, you know the main reason why this debate is going on is because a) there's strong sentiment for both parks, but more importantly, b) your presense at games involving both parks is a big priority, since you are a key component of Park Baseball. My hope is that the 37.5% offer will make you want to participate, since it's so much less than previously offered.