More live games

[retep]

Oh, and one more thing. Its not that I want the pleasure of the illusion of being a .500 hitter. I know full well how shitty I am: I hit .183 in high school, and I have only one hit in two live games. That’s not the problem for me, but it is damn condescending for people to say I or anyone else is doing this just for the ego boost.

The people who need the ego boost are the ones who want to remind everyone else that they are better. Yeah, we know that already!

[dtrizzle]

Fuck.

lol. That’s a pretty good indication that what is to follow may not be the most rational points one has ever made in their life.

One, baseball has never been democratic. Maybe that’s not right,[...]

It's not clear whether you meant your immediate statement is not right, or an undemocratic league in general is not right. As for baseball has never been democratic statement, I would say that's empirically denied. A quick look through the forum archives will show that we have voted on numerous issues from rule changes, from where to play, to this issue at hand...live vs. not live games. As for undemocratic being wrong in general, that's not necessarily the case. It's about weighing the benefits. Undemocratic systems tend to have a hard time keeping people content when the choices being made don't coincide with the will of the people.

I know no one will admit this (and many will rebut me) but if any of you worked for years to do the work of building the network and so forth, and then all of these people then decide what to do with what you have created, I bet you would be pissed. Scott has built this up, and without his by-in, I don’t see it as acceptable.

I don't think anyone will rebut this point. Of course, if you're Scott, you would be pissed. Who doesn't like to get their way? Anyone in Scott's position (including myself) would be pissed or at least defensive. However, the question is not whether Scott would be pissed, but rather, should we continue to do it this way. Just because someone started something doesn't mean it's wrong to change the governance when the circumstances dictate.

To do live games, you need stable teams.

I don't think this need's much explanation. One, it’s empirically denied. As I understand, live games have been going on for a while now. Two, mostly non-unique. That is, except for stealing, most of what you argue applies to slow pitch also. Therefore, it can't be a reason why slow pitch is better.

Also, we either play live, or we don’t.

This fallacy is known as a false dilemma. That is to say, there is no need for a binary decision. There are options in between the two extremes, one of which you have been part of. Given that you have switched from live to non-live games on the regular basis, it's also empirically denied.

There were a few more bad arguments but I just wanted to address the really bad ones.

[retep]

Fuck.

lol. That’s a pretty good indication that what is to follow may not be the most rational points one has ever made in their life.

Fair enough, but was expressing my furstation in talking about this again. And, no, I don't give these conversations my all: I really don't care enough about it to give it my all. I debate stuff all week, and I'm not gonna waste my time making the best arguments possible here.

]One, baseball has never been democratic. Maybe that’s not right,[...]

It's not clear whether you meant your immediate statement is not right, or an undemocratic league in general is not right.

I ment baseball overall, not our own group.

[Of course, if you're Scott, you would be pissed. Who doesn't like to get their way?

I think you kinda missed the point. It's just about "getting things you way." Maybe I am just more sensitive to this issue because I work in advocacy, policy, and politics, and few things will make you less popular that taking over someone else's long-time work.

To do live games, you need stable teams.

To clarify, I should have said I see them as beeing far better with stable teams.

Also, we either play live, or we don’t.

I knew people would love this. Yes, I realize that there are other options. What you didn't take into account was the other parts of my comments. My point is that, if we're gonna do live games, lets do it right, adn not half-ass it. What I could have made more clear is that I am very willing to do live games should my concerns at least be looked into. If we tried to build stable teams, played live each week, and maybe looked at having bye weeks every now and then, I would be open to live games.

[Blancito21]

In order to condense my reply, a reply am I frothing at the mouth to write I really need to learn how to quote fragments of posts like you all do. Anyone for a quick tutorial?[/quote]

[dtrizzle]

Fuck.

To do this write: {quote="retep"}Fuck.{/quote}
However, replace {...} with [...] (same key).

[TheLegend]

Fuck. The reason that I didn’t wanna get deep in this is that we’ve had this discussion, and I’m tired of old discussions being brought up time and time again. Ken, I get what you are saying but there is an issue if I or other people just get tired of talking about something, then a decision gets made without those people. This is a pick-up league, and there is an “elite few” who pay attention to the forum.

At least 9 of the top 10, 16 of the top 20 and 20 of the top 30 participants in season 3 have active accounts on these boards (there may be more who "lurk" or whose SNs I haven't come to recognize yet) and 9 people have spoken in this thread. With 11 votes in the first 24 hours of this poll, how can you say that it is only "an elite few" who pay attention to the boards?

Also, two points. One, baseball has never been democratic. Maybe that’s not right, but don’t start acting like we’re in Operation Baseball Freedom or something!

You're right Peter, since the MLB never utilizes the democratic process (not true), we should stick to that long-held tradition, because that is the key to the integrity of the game! What were we thinking getting caught up on all this competition, pitching and baserunning nonsense! Thank you for getting us back on the right track!

And, two, this league has had issues with the loudest people being heard. We must remember that loudest does not equal a majority.

I don't get it. Do you feel like you're being drowned out? Do you feel like you haven't been given a fair chance to express yourself? Are you afraid other people feel that way?... Maybe it's just me but this expression doesn't seem to be appropriate for an online discussion (i.e. i feel that everyone has a fair opportunity to express their views).

As far as Scott is concerned, I see nothing wrong with him saying what goes. I know no one will admit this (and many will rebut me) but if any of you worked for years to do the work of building the network and so forth, and then all of these people then decide what to do with what you have created, I bet you would be pissed. Scott has built this up, and without his by-in, I don’t see it as acceptable.

To a certain extent, I agree with you here. I can understand the frustration of Scott's position, and I definately don't envy him right now. I assure you that we're not trying to over-throw anything that Scott has worked to build-up, but at the same time, if Scott comes back with another "no, because this is my league and I say so" there will be a problem. We all care about this group, we all want what's best for it and for any one person to say "screw what the group thinks, I want it my way" is hurtful to everyone else who cares enough to share their input.

On to the actual issue of live games, we are not build to handle live games. To do live games, you need stable teams. Why? The subtle parts of baseball that come out in live games need this teamwork, like how to smoothly cover the bag on a steal, defensive communication, when to bunt—all of that. Also a part of this is that we need stable positions. That way, our week talent base (myself included) can really learn a position. Moving around each game is no way to learn.

I'll just say that I share Dorian's concerns with this argument.

Also, we either play live, or we don’t. The idea of going between live and non-live each week is lame. Yes, there are a few very good hitters who could make the switch, but for most of us, the switch between slow and fast pitching is too difficult. If we’re gonna get any good, its going to need to be consistent.

If you have a hard time hitting fast-pitch, then that aspect of your game will ownly improve over time. If you have a hard time hitting slow pitch, then ask the pitchers to pitch to you faster in the non-live games (that's what I do).

Are people willing to deal with this type of commitment? And I am not asking Ken and Daniel, I wanna hear from others as well.

I find it funny the way you constantly encourage me not to share my opinions... like seriously... it's humorous to me.

There are also more play calls involved in a live game, and there are several people who have not shown the ability to deal with a call that they disagree with. Will this change?

This may just be a case of selective memory, but I don't remember any major confrontations resulting from the way a play way called. I know I've yelled at more than my fair share of teammates for bonehead plays. We've had a bunch of wierd situations where a ruling had to be discussed (the infield fly incident comes to mind)... but I honestly can't remember anyone flying off the handle because an "ump" made a bad call (perhaps you could remind me of the type of situation you are worried about?)

Also, I just fuckin’ hate wearing batting helmets!

ROFL... you could always go commando like Paul...

[Southpaw Slim]

I'm noticing a pattern. The people who are proposing having more LIVE games and are talking about the great "free" league we have are all people who have either started playing relatively recently and haven't had to stand in the outfield for 4 arduous innings while the pitcher only throws balls and the entire batting team steals every base, or are people who haven't yet donated anything toward the league. And no, heavy posting on the forum does not constitute a contribution toward the league. Start bringing bases, balls, spare bats and helmets, etc. and then maybe you'll start to realize that this league isn't exactly "free" but instead costs up to several hundred dollars per year just to keep it afloat, nevermind the constant advertising, organizing, and countless hours of stat-keeping that take place year 'round.

Many people don't see all the work that goes into the league, and instead are lucky enough to only get the benefits. If anyone wants to have a league where live games are more commonplace, they should organize one.

[tallguy]

Yeah, even something as simple as helping to put out or take down the bases helps. Collecting up balls and putting them in a bucket. If you leave before the game is finished, for sure there's really nothing you can do to help, but most people leave at the end of the game, and just take their own stuff and walk away. Nick and Scott always have lots of clearing up to do, plus the stat work later on.
There are lots of tasks you can find to do. Scorekeeping, base-coaching during the game, or before it you could hit infield or catch and feed for the other guy who got there first.
I really think it is totally unreasonable for those who don't contribute beyond showing up and playing to expect their opinion to carry much weight.

[Baseball=Life]

Indeed this league is not free.

• Here's an incomplete list of costs I personally accrue over time:
  
  Bases - $30-47 per set, I've bought 4 sets
  Spikes for bases - 3 different backup sets $10-25
  Tarp - $40
  Chalk, Eraser - $5
  Pencils - $3
  Scoreboard - $15
  Baseballs - $60
  Gas - to make multiple trips to the fields Sun mornings: unknown cost
  Monthly website fee - $60/year
  Popup fee to get rid of popups for everyone - $20

• Then there's my time:
  
  Stat data entry - probably over 100 hours at this point
  Website maintenance - hours upon hours
  Email - Recruiting other players - hours
  Field Research - about 10 hours

NOTE: I've not included any costs or time spent on personal things, like going to batting cages, or buying myself a pair of cleats. All of the above has group, and not individual, benefits.

[Blancito21]

Note: I am responding as if most of the latest replies were directed at me because their ambiguity left me no choice and if you don't spell out who you're refering to, people are going to take things personally. So if you weren't talking about me disregard what I am about to say, unless it's relevant to the discussion in general.

Nick & Paul: I was under the impression from talking to you on Sunday that you were in favor of more live games. Was I misinformed? You (Nick) certainly seemed to be enjoying yourself, especially on the mound. Why are you taking the contrarian side of the idea now? When do I earn my voice to share my thoughts like others do without feeling like I've crossed a line? I was starting to feel differently about that but now I feel like I'm back to square one. I've stood in the outfield and infield during livegame walkfests but also during non-live games where 3 batters take a total of 47 pitches and then proceed to get three singles because the defense is napping/tight. I've scorekept, coached bases, hit infield all the time, and clean and sweep when the opportunity arises on a damaged field.

Scott: No, I have yet to contribute monetarily to this league because, and without having to give you a sob story because almost everyone has one, I have personal financial issues that have not yet allowed me to. Next Sunday take a look at my cleats and you might get an idea. I also have to borrow a glove from your green bag (thank you) because again I can't buy myself a proper baseball glove. After averaging out what you spend (I added an extra 50 in there just for estimates sake) I calculated that if you charged 20 people who come regulary only 18 bucks (lump sum or weekly installments) than none of this would cost you anything and as I am gathering from this thread, we could all have a voice. This would be extraordinarily less per person than they would ever pay at a real league. But at the same time, you could join a real league and pay much less than you do now for this one. So what's my point you ask? My point is that you CHOOSE to incur these costs and responsibilities so that you can play the brand of baseball that you want to play. That conclusion seems logical because like I said you could pay far less and spend more money on yourself if you played in a real league, or you could split the cost among weekly participants, have everyone pay far less than they would in a real league but compromise your unilateral decision making powers. At this point I don't even know what I'm clamoring about but one thing is certain: this is definitely the American pasttime because like all true American issues, even at its most recreational and purest form, the minority in power found a way to make it about money when this was just a discussion about preferences in playing style and competition. Like my original post on this thread asked, I just wanted to know if live games were up for discussion since a lot of player's seemed to want a change in that direction or if Scott just determined what goes down. Either way I will be there on Sunday's and hopefully soon I will be able to do my fiscal part so I can be initiated into the inner circle of Oakland Park Baseball. I will censor myself until I find a way to buy something.

Peter: Let me just say that I can now understand why you did not want to rehash this discussion. This is not what I expected. Second, out of curiosity, the comment about egos and degradation of others for personal gratification was not directed at me was it? If so, I think we should have a talk on Sunday because you obviously do not know me very well and are having a hard time remembering the recent conversations we've had, especially as teammates, about your game and your potential. You're your worst critic but I don't recall ever encouraging you to feel that way. Whenever you ask me if I'll switch positions with you and you preface it with "I know I'm not as strong as you are there" I shut you up and tell you thats not true. My stance on our batting practice atmosphere stands but it has nothing to do with my feeling of superiority over anyone, it's about my love for the game and my inner drive to get better. What for? I don't know, but I can't help the way I am. When someone asks me how I want a pitch I answer "I don't give a fuck" because I'm fiery and I want to prove to myself I can hit anything coming at me, if not that at-bat then the next, not because I think I'm the shit. I've had enough 1-4 to know I'm not. Maybe others aren't like that and I should recognize and accept our differences but the leader board fuels my competitive drive. If I really thought I was so much better none of this would bother me and I would be confident in knowing that I will dominate each category regardless of how others approach their at-bats.

Good day all and see you on Sunday for whatever we do involving a bat, some gloves and hopefully some balls.

[tallguy]

How about we should suspend this discussion for now, it's not really going anywhere and we are danger of severely pissing off the commisioner as well as each other. Let's see if we can have another good live game the next time one is scheduled. Perhaps those who don't usually attend live games could come down and play, and maybe they will see that things have progressed. If Scott likes this idea he will signal it by scheduling one not too far off.
Those that are able and who want it to go well are well advised to go to batting cages and/or practice their pitching. I for one am fairly likely to be available to catch for someone, in the evenings anyway. I want to work on my catching, so it suits me well just to catch. I also want to work on the pick off at first base. If we have a third person we can even work on throw-downs to second.

[El Pedro]

Paul... I hear your latest point. It would be nice to have this conversation without so much fire underneath... and personally I'd rather not piss off anyone (except probably you, because you are fun to talk shit to). But if we can't have the conversation depersonalized, I agree... we should just see how the next live game goes.

But I do have to say...
1. If this is about money, I'd gladly bring $20+ to contribute... (I won't be here next Sunday, but the Sunday after). I assume others would contribute as well.

2. In terms of time spent, we should have a list of tasks... and everyone has to do at least 1 of those tasks. Could be having someone else scope out the fields in the morning, could be having someone collect all the balls at the end of the game, could be someone picking people up from bart, whatever--- just so there aren't 2-3 people doing it all. I, and probably others, did not really think about a lot of the extra stuff you do. If it were a league norm that you need to do something (even for newcomers), more people would.

3. Another league norm should be a collective understanding that if you are tired of being in the outfield, speak up and switch up with someone else. This could be facilitated by team captains. That way everyone can pay equal (or at least something closer to equal) dues in the field. [by the way, say the word when you want me to leave 1B for any position during a game, and I will do it.]

Nick, Scott: look guys... its your league. Do what you want. We all just want to play the most fun game of baseball possible, and a majority of us think that Live games get us closer to that. If you feel resentment because we haven't paid our dues, then tell us what our dues are. I'm willing to pay...


This conversation wasn't even about that to begin with. What were we talking about? Oh ya, we were all contributing to a shitstorm of ideas, arguments, personal attacks, implied personal attacks, sweeping generalizations, defensive reactions, and unending counterpoints. Just as it was initially invisioned... Does anyone want to scrap all that and just talk baseball? What are the pros and cons of live games? Do the pros outweigh the cons enough to increase the number of live games? Can we have that conversation anymore?...

[Dave L]

Well, I guess I'll weigh in here to show I'm at least paying attention.

I'm happy to have live games all the time. I like the challenge of hitting fast and variable pitching. I like going to the batting cages and facing the fast machines, and not, as it's been, being worried that I'm actually being counter productive because such practice is throwing my timing off for the slow pitching of our usual games.

Most of the negatives of live games, such as too many walks and stolen bases, and not enough action in the outfield should be alleviated as we play more live games and get used to it. And we *will* get used to it. After a while hitting a 60+mph pitch will be as easy (or difficult on a bad day) as hitting our current 35-40mph pitches. And picking off and holding on base runners will become natural. Stealing will become a challenge. And we'll be able to step back and realize, wow, we're playing and have been inproving at some real baseball!

My only fear with the notion of all live games is that it's a sign that we're getting too serious and competitive.

The aspect of this league that I like the most and that I hope we don't lose is it's all inclusiveness and it's friendly and supportive atmosphere. It literally changed my life having discovered this fun Sunday activity with a great group of guys and I hope that possibility continues for others (and me). Sure, it's the most fun to play your preferred position and not have plays fouled up by less than competent players. But any of us, on a relative scale, could become one of those less than competent players. Lately the competence level has increased a significant notch by the arrival of a few very skilled new regulars. I think this is great and it's probably helping to fuel the move to more serious baseball. And I welcome it. I just hope that I and others of my skill level can continue to play and try out various positions and that this isn't a prelude to tryouts and cuts and permanent teams and more cut throat competition.

[Pat K]

I do not really know where to begin.

I will start with saying I voted for live games every other week.

This is new for me because the last few live game I have been to were..... well lets just say poorly played. This weeks game showed me the potential of "the group" to play a real ballgame.(I am not putting down nonlive ball as I do enjoy it, besides I also play SOFTball)

As far as this talk of other leagues, well I played in SFNABA for about 6-7 games last year. Fast pitch, wood bats, real pitching (our pitcher had once pitched for USC) and umpires. It also cost real money. Well I am not saying I can play baseball (be your own judge) but the skill level in this league was.... well I spent half of the time "riding the pine" so to speak. I had a great time and enjoyed the experience, but it was pretty intense and well I felt like I was one of the worst players on the field almost everytime we played. It is not very fun when you are having a hard time contributing to the team.

Our group is great because:
Low cost
Freindly and competitive atmosphere
Stats and a website to talk and argue about all things baseball
ANYBODY CAN PLAY
(There are other things to I am just lazy)

I hate writing on the computer so I will finish with this.

Scott you are the man for putting all this together, I know it must be tough. I believe I have made some contributions (bases, balls etc.) but I am open to trying to help fund more if needed. Just let me know.

Personaly I believe the ultimate would be if we could keep the fun competitive atmospere were we all get a chance to play and improve our baseball, while playing live. I do not belive we are ready for everyweek being live, yet. Having put in my 2 cents, I must say I will continue to be a OPB player no matter the results. BUT I MUST SAY the double I ripped off Daniel with bases loaded on Sunday, it felt better much better then everyone of my 100+ career hits(nonlive)

[Southpaw Slim]

When reading this thread the first time, I didn't really go through it word-for-word and lost a little bit of the sentiment. I also had little time to reply, and decided to only stick to the main point which I felt needed to be raised. A while back, people were asked to bring as little as three dollars to games. This happened only once, and no more than ten people (at a high estimate) kicked down. We were able to use the money to buy half of our first set of real bases.

Since then, people have given baseballs and other field equipment to the league. (My thanks especially go to Rich B, Paul, and Dave L for their considerable contributions.) Yet, on the whole, the league remains mostly free for everyone.

Concerning setting the bases, for a long time I was the only person who had learned the spots at Flood and DeFrem to set the bases for the closest plays (best accuracy), and I've seen too many straps ruined during placing and "pulling" of bases to trust others to do it without some further instruction. However, anyone who wants to help can come to me before the next game and ask how. I'll gladly teach someone how I do it so I can actually warm up before games.

Also, without trying to sound like it's my league, thanks to anyone who wants to make the pre/post-game organization easier. If someone wants to volunteer to scout the field at 9:00 am on Sunday, please PM or email me. (I can't speak for Scott on this. He may want you to contact him instead.)

I like the idea of a list of tasks that people can choose from, but I don't trust that people will actually follow through on their responsibilities since I've seen too many instances of flakeage in the last three years (myself included.)

Now to get to the real topic at hand:

I love playing live games. I also love playing non-live games. I would gladly play either on any given Sunday, but recently have been itching to play a real game. I have positive and negative feelings about both styles, and will try to lay out my position on both as best I can.

The live game we played last Sunday is an exception to the games we've played before. Usually, there are about 10-20 walks per team, and around 20+ stolen bases per game. I was looking through the live game boxscores on file, and saw two games where Ken had 4 walks. (He's only one of 4 or 5 people who have drawn 4 walks.) In my opinion, a live game is no fun if the pitching is bad enough that one player draws four walks. If you know you can get on base just by waiting, it removes the challenge from batting. Also, after getting on base, a pitcher who gives up so many walks will most likely lack the skill to keep a runner honest, and the challenge is then removed from baserunning. "I had a great game. I stood at the plate and waited for my walks, then jogged to third each time." I actually said this once. Looking back, it was not a great game at all. It was boring and easy. My numbers looked good, but it was unsatisfying.

If you look back to the first post in this thread, Richard mentions that Ken was griping about the defense not being involved if a player hits a home run. If that's the case being made here, then I think we're having the wrong discussion. As our "normal" (what I call Lazy Sunday or "lazy") style of play is set up, the defense is ensured a play for every at-bat except K's and HR's. The trade-off is that we have to stay put when we get on base, and the defense focuses solely on the batter. It is not an accurate representation of baseball, which became apparent to me when I was playing 1B the other day. When you have to focus on the runner, it keeps you involved for every pitch, not just every swing. The downside to this is that the outfield has to put up with numerous pauses from the pitcher, throws over, stolen bases, passed balls, all the while stewing in frustration over the fact that your only option in the outfield (RF especially) is to watch a game you wanted to be a part of. Having played the outfield (LF and RF) in our first live games, I know exactly how boring it can be and was sorry I'd been a proponent of live games as I was baking in the sun. My first instinct from then on has been to get behind the plate so I would have something to do.

Having said that, catching and pitching are both incredible fun. I wish I could start every game on the mound and finish it behind the plate. In fact, the only reason I go to live games is because of the possibility that I will get to pitch. However, I'm not the only one who wants to pitch. There are many people who like pitching, but few who can do so at the skill level required to keep the game moving along. If we were to play live games, we'd have to determine the starting pitchers ahead of time.

If the goal is to remain competitive and put our best game forward, we'd have to pick the best pitchers available at the risk of offending others. If the same person was promised a pitching role every game but did not get to pitch due to game situations, that person would grow bitter and most likely leave after inciting others to express their disapproval of "the way things are run." This is the least-desirable situation next to legal action and should be avoided at all costs.

I can see how an argument to that would be, "Why not let them pitch every third or fourth game." Perhaps we could, but we'd have to rate the pitchers and match the best "third starters" against each other. There's already enough trouble balancing the teams based on offensive and defensive skill. Last week was an anomaly. We were able to fill all defensive positions with back-ups provided the people who were present, and we were undermanned to boot. I doubt we'd be able to recreate a game like that for a long while. Of the regular players, we have one competent starting pitcher, one competent catcher (and two decent catchers), and two competent first-basemen. The middle infield and outfield are easier to fill. Needless to say, the live game would not have been possible without the appearance of David J, and we can't rely on a non-regular.

As amateurs, we have to learn how to trust our defense. The keyword is learn, because it's something we all can do. The real question is, "Are we willing to wait until enough people have learned to pitch?" Personally, one live game every month is enough frustration for me. Until we reach the skill level required to play smoothly, we should stick with what we had. (If some people want to practice pitching on Thursday evenings, then PM, email, or call me. I'm looking for someone to practice with, and we had some good practises last year.)

Like Ken said, David J struck out 6 batters in 3 innings. What he forgot to mention was that he also allowed 4 walks. I struck out a batter and walked four in my first two innings. That's fifteen plays in five innings that did not involve the defense. Since I was involved in each of those plays (catching and pitching), I do not have the same view that I would if I was standing in the field. However, I do have the experience to know that it would suck to have to wait through all that.

As far as our lazy games go, I like them. I like them a lot. I like them enough to want to keep them as our primary option. However, it is less fun to boast about one's great batting average given our pitching style. To say, "I hit .400 last year," is impressive to those who hear it but like Peter said, it translates to a .183 batting average at the high school level. I would like to know my true skill level, but seeing as how we play with a different array of people every week, it wouldn't be accurate even if we had live games every week. The only way to know what I can do in a real game setting is to play real games in a real league.

We play weekend pick-up games. We're not a serious league, but we are serious about our league. Not everyone is going to want the same thing, and I think we can work this out so that the majority of people get what they want. As was pointed out before, the core group is evolving. Our overall skill level is improving. I think it's good for us to get live games in and see just where our skill level actually lies, and from what I've seen, we still need a ton of improvement before we can have fun playing live games all the time. I agree that the only way to improve our hitting is to face real pitching. I would like to play more live games than we have been recently (like the old second-Sundays schedule) but I don't want to lose interest in playing if I get bored in the field.

It's very hard to write this post, because I love both styles of play. I want to play more live games, and I see the league improving as a whole. But I don't think we're even close to being there yet. However, if we practice we'll get there faster. But if we play too many live games, we risk losing people (like myself) to frustration and boredom. It's a double-edged sword, and it's difficult to find a balance. I mean, I've barely scratched the surface about how I really feel toward both styles of play, and I've already forgotten half of what I've said. This forum also forces people to make generalizations of their views, and doesn't leave much room for a true discussion. I think it'd be worthwhile to get together and actually have a real talk about it. I have no idea when or where that would be (definitely not at one of our games, since we'd spend the whole time arguing points and not playing baseball) and I think it'd be wise to arrange it so people got to speak in a pre-determined order to avoid our usual "loudest and most aggravated person wins" outcome.

Until then, I think we should stick with what works. From what I've seen, one live game a month works pretty well.


PS: I know there are a lot of emotions regarding this issue, but I think Scott's getting too much shit over his viewpoint. (I'm not trying to "take his side" or anything. It's just an observation.)