|
Post by dirtyword on May 1, 2013 16:09:30 GMT 10
sorry deleted my post after seeing the post to mc15's questions. Thanks.
I guess from my perspective and a lack of 'credible' information, the whole situation appeared to be a repeat of the Victorian Baseball unification which appeared to be one or two people with their personal agenda's railroading and forcing their way (to an end IMO that was required, just not the best methods used to implement). With a little information such as you've supplied, it is reassuring (at least to me) that at least the right methods are being applied to improve our game. As you say now is the time for the people protesting, as nothing is set in stone, to voice their opinions and get things right (as right as they can anyway).
|
|
|
Post by mc15 on May 1, 2013 16:13:41 GMT 10
Thanks for the background aueagle
|
|
|
Post by perfeckt on May 1, 2013 20:48:43 GMT 10
Am I alone in my cynisism or do I detect an influence from off-shore interests? Is the criteria of Baseball Victoria simply an extension of Baseball Australia's and thereby an extension of agreements between Major League International and Government funding (State and Federal). Is the considerable weight and support of MLB in Australia influencing the way we conduct our business. In Oz, we will always be a marginal sport. I think we should be concentrating on developmental programs for kids, with the emphasis being fun. The ones who want to progress to an elite level will find a way, it's in their nature.
|
|
|
Post by The Puma on May 2, 2013 9:23:10 GMT 10
Firstly, your points refer to whole clubs, I'm only talking about a couple of players. I doubt there are any Division 2 clubs who's ultimate goal isn't Division 1. Puma, really interesting take... correct me if I'm wrong, but you think there are players happy to remain in Division Two because they prefer the less demanding schedule, playing at clubs that have a stated objective of reaching Division One?. Absolutely, I literally saw people fist pump when the fixture came out with no midweekers. Do you think these conflicted ideals have an impact on the outcome of a club's season? Do players not involve themselves in efforts to increase junior criteria because they don't want to see the club qualify? Do players put less effort into their performance to ensure the club doesn't reach a standard to qualify for Division One? No, No and No. Do you ever think there will come a time when a club qualifies and then experiences an exodus of players back to Division Two clubs?? I can see and have done players only making themselves available for lower grade matches. Some may if they still want to play in the firsts I guess. But exodus, hardly. And, considering the club is merely a vehicle for its members experience, what leads to clubs and players having such different objectives? Isn't the club only there to provide the experience the player want? Would we ever have a club meet criteria and qualify to move up, but stay in Division Two because it's what the members want??? As mentioned above I can only imagine most clubs want to play as high as they can. Don't forget there are 2 clubs who dropped themselves from Division 2 to 3 in the last couple of years. Maybe it was what the members wanted? And finally, what perceived benefit is there to being in Division One that would motivate a club administration beyond the needs of its members?. Off the top of my head Berwick have lost their 5 best junior players to Division 1 clubs in the last few years, stick those 5 players back into the teams last season and Berwick make Division 1 and the seconds win a flag. What's the benefit? Yea got me too. Sorry, lots of questions... Puma, I don't expect you to answer all, or any, of these... would just like some insight from anyone who might have it. These are just the personal experiences of someone who works 6 days a week, has 3 young kids and few other things I enjoy doing outside of baseball. Your lawns might mow themselves but mine sure don't. Not everyone can play twice a week, not everyone can make training and not everyone wants too. That's why we have lower grades. And if you force them too, and take away that option I guarantee you will lose players, not gain them. Any idiot can see that.
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on May 2, 2013 11:08:32 GMT 10
Puma, thanks for answering my questions... we agree on many things... idiots, while not smart, can see... except the blind ones.
Division One baseball takes an enormous commitment from those involved... My lawns don't mow themselves, I've had to pay someone to mow them for the past 10 years while I coached, played, started and ran my own business, completed my Master's degree, and played a part in raising my stepdaughter... it demands a lot of sacrifice, not just from the participant, but from those important people that support the participant... I've never taken the commitment players make to Division One baseball lightly, particularly as I've lived it for a decade now.
We seem to agree the competitions under the Division One 1st's, and Division Two, offer a great opportunity for players wanting to participate, but without the ability to commit to the Division One competition... in fact, this has long been my argument against decreasing Division One... while it seems a majority of people committed to playing the expanded Division One fixture, and plenty of alternatives for those that don't, why change Division One?
I understand your point, it's probably only a minority of players in Division Two that would not be striving to reach Division One because of the greater commitment required... which would appear to mean the majority of players don't regard the expanded Division One fixture as a disincentive.
As I see it, there has been no mass exodus of participants from baseball since Division One moved to 33 games... the majority of Division Two clubs and players seem to still be driven to reach Division One, despite an increased commitment... our competition still offers a range of alternative competitions for those not happy to commit to the Division One 1st's fixture... our competition has continued to develop and progress young and talented participants to higher levels.
I guess these are the points I've been trying to make against the idea we play too many games and there is some imbalance between practice and playing.
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on May 2, 2013 11:23:21 GMT 10
[quote author=baller board=bvcompetitions thread=3473 post=55596 time=1367453274Nate - how many players are involved with the junior program at Geelong? Players that dont have kids playing...[/quote]
larry42, not sure we're that much different to most clubs. We have some involvement... each senior member is asked to umpire a junior game throughout the year... we might have one or two members put their hand up to either coach or assist with a team each year (sometimes not)... we usually have a couple of members offer private lessons to juniors... the senior members do an excellent job of interacting and assisting with enhancing the experience of junior members that attend senior practice.
Our junior teams this year were coached by five former players (three have children playing) and one current senior member, with four of the six having a level one accreditation (in the old system).
Why do you ask?
|
|
|
Post by stuartcapel on May 2, 2013 11:49:25 GMT 10
Have followed this thread from afar, as my preference is to follow the Aces over the summer, but from how I read it, the document seems keen on getting as much baseball played as is possible.
If that's the case, how is it Division One firsts games are not replayed?
|
|
|
Post by oldmanriver on May 2, 2013 12:11:13 GMT 10
This is just my thoughts only, but the rules for promotion and relegation seem to be a security blanket for the teams already in Div 1 and it doesn't really matter how good the Div 2 team that wins the comp is it won't go anywhere unless this criteria is meet. To me, what it does is to keep a potential Div 1 side in the making down because it may fall one or two junior sides short. It really does defeat the purpose of promotion and relegation. Someone has got to wake up soon and realise that certain regions do struggle to get kids on the park in large numbers and that this should not be a true reason to hold a club back from trying to achieve their ultimate goal. What would happen if a Div 1 club next season falls short of the criteria, do they get sent back with no replacement from Div 2 because they also don't meet the criteria. A junior program of any description whether it be t'ballers or several u/13 teams is still a junior program. Let's just try and get the best playing seniors playing Div 1 from all Clubs, not just the select few that meet the criteria in spades. All BV/SLC restructions is doing is holding back Clubs despite their endeavours.
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on May 2, 2013 12:55:19 GMT 10
OMR, of the 34 clubs listed on the summer league website, 14 clubs met the current criteria this year (all D1 clubs, plus Newport and Berwick).
These 34 clubs include the Buccaneers (I think only catering to Master's), and Heathmont and Croydon who don't appear to have competed in the most recent summer season (Heathmont have expressed intent to enter in 2013-2014, but I'm not sure about Croydon).
Based on these numbers close to half the current clubs in the BVSL meet the current criteria. And Bonbeach, Fitzroy, and Werribee have all met criteria in the last few years.
I'm not defending the current criteria... nor am I saying it should be changed... but to state only a 'select few' meet the criteria and use it to hold back the masses is not quite right.
I was always of the understanding the criteria was an incentive to build both the club and sport stronger, not a stick to beat clubs back.
|
|
|
Post by oldmanriver on May 2, 2013 13:20:37 GMT 10
Eagle, I suppose the wording of a select few wasn't quite right but it is restrictive if only two sides from Div 2 meet the criteria and neither played off for the big one. This is probably the point I was trying to make, the best teams from Div 2 will be held back for another twelve months until such time the junior criteria is meet. This is where a slacking of the rules will probably actually help develop baseball for those involved in trying to make Div1. Just using say Cheltenham or Waverley, if they came last and second last and the winners from Div 2 don't qualify, then the reward for coming last is to stay in the top grade courtesy of having a squillion junior teams. I just think that nothing should be hard and fast but should be looked at as a development for the teams that get a chance to be promoted to Div 1 even if they do fall short by a team or two in the juniors. Once again, just my thoughts
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on May 2, 2013 13:44:16 GMT 10
OMR, not agreeing or disagreeing that the criteria needs to change or could have a positive impact... only that there is no conspiracy from a few clubs trying to hold back others... I think we all want to see all clubs strong and successful
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on May 2, 2013 13:50:20 GMT 10
For those that might be interested, I've just posted the Geelong Baseball Club's response to the SLC's proposal on the club's Facebook page... www.facebook.com/#!/groups/baycats/ Please note, this response is not my personal opinion, but what our club administrators believe is in the best interests of baseball and the continued enjoyment of all participants. I'm happy for people to provide feedback... we understand we can't recognise every possible outcome of our ideas... we also acknowledge that no matter what changes occur (or don't occur), it is impossible to meet the expectations of everyone... but I'm interested to hear what others think and give me a chance to defend or review our thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by stuartcapel on May 3, 2013 14:15:03 GMT 10
Was my question something for the too hard basket?
|
|
|
Post by barb05 on May 3, 2013 15:28:03 GMT 10
Thanks for sharing that Nate.
Dear all, firstly, please forgive the length of the following post.
No doubt it has been noted that I didn't resort to getting in a slanging match on providing facts etc on my previous ladder of beliefs. I feel it would detract from my post regarding my beliefs. I have an opinion, how I come to that opinion is a result of my experiences and perceptions - whether you believe it is right or wrong is actually none of my business.
I did not tell anyone "this is the way it is - and it's my way", and I will not.
I'm on this forum to hear other opinions. I wouldn't have posted what I did if I didn't want others to share their own views, or to listen to what others have to say. I have no idea what Geelong, Doncaster, Preston, Berwick and so on think or should think, but I'm keen to get a better understanding because it interests me. It’s very re-assuring to read the proposal from Geelong, it’s a very well presented, well thought-out and professional presentation. Suffice to say a lot my beliefs are shared which I won’t deny, is very re-assuring. Don’t get me wrong, I encourage any ideas to improve our league, as long as due diligence is taken in the process.
So here goes… Back to you Nate and the main paragraph of mine you pulled apart for "further review" let's just say. The entire underlying point in my belief was about "club culture" and ensuring that it is reinforced, maintained, built or rebuilt. I feel this is the foundation of every club, whether that club culture is "win above all else" or "play some baseball between beers". My personal experience... players get the opportunity to learn and refine their technical skills and crafts at training, as well as build healthy social relationships. No army in the world sends soldiers out to fight without training, even the bad guys. Why did you get your masters? Was it because you recognised the value of furthering your education to improve the way you operate your business – fairly common? I’m applying the same theory. I'm suggesting is that there needs to be healthy balance between playing and training, right now I don't BELIEVE the balance is correct. Your example of Seniors training, not playing, and only ever supporting juniors is quite frankly one of the most out of context and brainless things I’ve seen on this forum, please put a bit more thought into that type of response as it insults your own intelligence, I know you’re a smart guy, your love of the game and your club is unquestionable, I don’t insult you, don’t insult me. I don't know of many sports who play more than they train. Your club’s proposal even has the words “Greater focus can be placed on the development of skills.” When referencing the women’s comp. Your club might have no problems keeping that focus for men’s but at least leave yourself open to the idea that some other clubs struggle to “focus on developing skills” in the men’s and junior ranks under the current structure. Especially when the majority of clubs premium players and most of the coaching staff are not at training as regularly as their might like (when the lower grade teams and juniors train) because of increased playing commitments. It’s a fact that the average winning margin for games across the seasons has been growing over the last three seasons. Aka, the disparity between clubs is growing. The standard deviation in winning margin has grown from 3.53 (2011), to 3.72 (2012) and 3.87 (2013). This means the gap between strong and weak clubs is getting more pronounced… probably suits Geelong as they’re in the top 4 most years. I feel all the players you mentioned would be playing at the highest level without the current structure in place. My point was in reference to the number of times 3rds players had to fill in during midweeks because the selected players couldn’t get to the game on time. I hope this clears thing up.
|
|
|
Post by johne on May 3, 2013 15:36:10 GMT 10
I don't know of many sports who play more than they train. I know one. Baseball.
|
|
|
Post by oldmanriver on May 3, 2013 16:30:58 GMT 10
Stuart, I will give it a crack at answering your question. It's to hard, it may effect the win/loss ratio to games played. It would still be easier if the points system was used, 2 for a win, 1 for a draw or washout. It is a rather simple system that maybe the CMP can't work out. Or if it is to simple don't use it. Just imagine a team playing 3 games and having the rest washed out by some miracle, they would finish on top with a 100%. A bit far fetched I know but you just never know.
|
|
|
Post by barb05 on May 3, 2013 16:41:36 GMT 10
I don't know of many sports who play more than they train. I know one. Baseball. That's not many... are you thinking Amateur or professional?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2013 17:06:20 GMT 10
I note that the Geelong Baseball Association junior winter competition has dropped off alarmingly over the past couple of seasons, to the point where there are now just three teams in Under 17 (two of those from the one club), five in Under 14 and seven in Under 12.
The implications for local senior winter clubs into the future are disturbing should that trend continue.
While the trend can be due to any number of factors and it may be reflective of junior sport more broadly, I am interested to know if it is occurring in other larger winter leagues. And if it is, if a causal link can be established between the demands of the summer season and any decline in winter numbers – especially, though not only in juniors.
The viability and growth of any junior competition relies heavily on the involvement and support of senior players, coaches, administrators and club officials. Where those people are worn out after an arduous summer, then they are far less likely to fire up for winter leagues and provide the leadership and level of commitment that is required.
Though I am not involved with the club, even Blind Freddy can see that Geelong Baycats is a particularly well-administered and progressive summer organisation that owes much of its success to a band of terrific volunteers who put in well above and beyond the call of duty. Those volunteers are drawn from several of the Geelong winter clubs.
The same people cannot, however, be reasonably expected to make a twelve-month commitment, year after year. Hence the Baycats club rightly makes it abundantly clear in its submission to the SLC that it is concerned about baseball becoming “resource poor” as volunteers are lumbered with further tasks on top of their existing workload.
Volunteers are a finite resource. While Geelong is just one instance (and other factors may well be in play), I have a strong sense that the decline in support for and development of junior baseball in GBA winter is directly related to commitments undertaken by local baseball people during recent summer seasons.
The irony in all of this is that the clubs that work hardest in achieving a degree of playing and off-field success in an amateur sport can be, in another sense, victims of their own commitment in the longer term – especially where any workload becomes excessive and where the goals are unrealistic or unattainable, as the nonsensical BV growth target numbers certainly are.
There is an anecdotal argument to be made that the expanded Summer League season – for some people - has worked as a disincentive to involvement during winter (at least for some of the season). It is clear from these discussions that some people, and probably some clubs, do not want to ramp up their baseball commitment another notch or several. That is their fundamental right, as paying members in the sport.
To its credit, BV appears to recognise the need for flexibility in any competition reform since "one size clearly does not fit all".
However, should the demands on players, officials and volunteers become even greater during an already demanding Summer League, then we could be heading for higher levels of disenchantment and burnout while potentially sounding the death knell for some winter clubs (even leagues) who might decide that summer baseball is a more viable option.
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on May 6, 2013 14:13:02 GMT 10
It’s a fact that the average winning margin for games across the seasons has been growing over the last three seasons. Aka, the disparity between clubs is growing. The standard deviation in winning margin has grown from 3.53 (2011), to 3.72 (2012) and 3.87 (2013). This means the gap between strong and weak clubs is getting more pronounced… I've looked at the Average Margin of Victory (AMV) in Division One (sorry, I know this reinforces the view that noone cares about anything outside Division One, but I'm only responding to what barb05 posted)... AMV BY YEAR 2013 - 4.55 (Standard Deviation - 3.94) 2012 - 4.42 (Standard Deviation - 3.72) 2011 - 4.53 (Standard Deviation - 3.51) To give some context, I also looked at 2004/2005... this was before the increase from 27 to 33 games was implemented, which coincided with Division One increasing from 10 teams to 12... and obviously before the ABL re-started... AMV BY YEAR 2005 - 4.32 (Standard Deviation - 3.61) For further context, I also wanted to compare to MLB, which uses tools such as it annual rookie draft and luxury taxes to maintain competitive balance (although MLB is considered less regulatory than other sports in this context). While the information is not easy to find, I did find some research from a blogger who claims to have analysed the AMV from more than 158,000 MLB games... his findings show a average winning score of 6.16 to an average losing score of 2.8, for an AMV of 3.36. Between 2011-2013 in the BV Summer League, we've had an average winning score of 6.87 and an avearage losing score of 2.3, for an AMV of 4.49. barb05, there has been no increase in the actual average margin of victory. However, I agree there appears to be a trend over the past three years for winning margins to be further spread from the mean average (more games one by more than the average). This could be an adjustment period from the introduction of the ABL.... as teams work to develop new players to compete in Division One, this could correct. It must also be noted, the trend is very small (just over 5% increases). Is an increase of less than a quarter of one run to the AMV (with a similar SD to our current SD) since we increased our fixture, increased the number of teams in Division One, and contended with our best players missing for Aces duty enough to claim the current fixture is leading to embarrassing results or failing to provide a competitive competition? If it's considered an overly negative impact of the factors I mentioned, is the negative not outweighed by the opportunity to play more baseball for those who appear more than willing to play in the competition as it is (approx. 300 players willingly participated in this year's Division One competition)? When we compare our standard of competition to MLB, what would an acceptable AMV be?
|
|
|
Post by stuartcapel on May 6, 2013 14:15:32 GMT 10
Stuart, I will give it a crack at answering your question. It's to hard, it may effect the win/loss ratio to games played. It would still be easier if the points system was used, 2 for a win, 1 for a draw or washout. It is a rather simple system that maybe the CMP can't work out. Or if it is to simple don't use it. Just imagine a team playing 3 games and having the rest washed out by some miracle, they would finish on top with a 100%. A bit far fetched I know but you just never know. At this rate we'll probably never know as an answer is seemingly not forthcoming.
|
|
|
Post by oldmanriver on May 6, 2013 15:12:29 GMT 10
I think some people have way to much time on their hands to start quoting AMV's and actually having the figures going back 8 years, that's almost frightening. And Stuart, I still haven't come up with a good enough reason why someone in the know can't answer your question unless my answer covered it. And young Steve threw very well for his first outing in A grade.
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on May 6, 2013 15:20:18 GMT 10
Thanks Nathan, always great to hear the world according to Geelong. Hahaha. The fact is, you are from division one, and you know little about the rest of the league. What happens in division one men's baseball is so far from anything that happens in div 2, div 3, women's, etc. So don't base your fact on division one men's. It's not the be all and end all of the world, and it doesn't provide a base for everyone else. The players are different, the structure is different, the clubs are set up different, the people are different..........it's all different. This means the gap between strong and weak clubs is getting more pronounced… probably suits Geelong as they’re in the top 4 most years. Several times in the discussions on this topic, my link to Geelong and our success in Division One has been noted... This isn't the first time this has happened, both on this forum and in discussions. I've taken that as some sort of defence against my ideas... like Geelong hold some ivory tower position of privilege that excludes us from understanding the challenges faced at other clubs... Am I wrong, or is this a pervading thought regarding clubs considered successful? I often hear or read about the gap between the haves and have-nots... is this a real thing? Is there really a perception that clubs experiencing success are doing so because of some exclusive attribute, not just from using similar resources better? If the experiences of successful clubs are so easily dismissed, could this not be the greatest cause of a gap between the 'haves' and 'have-nots'? Admittedly, I don't get to see intimately what happens at clubs other than my own... I assure you, we don't believe we have a position of privilege that makes achieving success any easier than for any other club. For some reference , we have experienced some success over the past 5-7 years, but prior to 2005 Geelong had only made the Div 1 playoffs a few times and had never won a playoff game. We played in Div 2 in 2000, and between 2002-2004, we avoided relegation by just one win each season. When we won our first (and only) Div 1 title in 2005, a high-ranking administrator of BV stated that considering the talent we produced, Geelong had always been an underachiever and he never thought we could ever win it... this was also a common thought by people at our club at the time.
|
|
|
Post by stuartcapel on May 6, 2013 15:42:28 GMT 10
Admittedly, I don't get to see intimately what happens at clubs other than my own... I assure you, we don't believe we have a position of privilege that makes achieving success any easier than for any other club. Very interesting statement, right there.
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on May 6, 2013 16:31:13 GMT 10
KC, unfortunatley I think the concerns with Geelong's winter junior participation run much deeper than a causal link with the increase of games played in the summer.
Winter baseball in Geelong has been in decline for well over 10 years... It could be argued the decline has more to do with the GBA's removal of junior criteria as a prerequisite to clubs competing in the A grade, which occured around the late-90's, early-2000's... I'm not arguing that (yet!), just saying it could be.
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on May 6, 2013 16:32:05 GMT 10
Admittedly, I don't get to see intimately what happens at clubs other than my own... I assure you, we don't believe we have a position of privilege that makes achieving success any easier than for any other club. Very interesting statement, right there. Why so?
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on May 6, 2013 16:38:34 GMT 10
Have followed this thread from afar, as my preference is to follow the Aces over the summer, but from how I read it, the document seems keen on getting as much baseball played as is possible. If that's the case, how is it Division One firsts games are not replayed? Division One games are not replayed because the rules state Division One games subject to suspension shouldn't be replayed. This came about after BV received a lot of feedback from clubs that making up rainouts was very difficult when we had a 27-game schedule, and would be impossible with a 33-game schedule. The SLC assumes more people want to play more often... from much of the feedback on this forum, the challenge is how the clubs offer this. OMR, the original submission to move from a points system to win percentage included a provision that clubs should be made to play a minimum number of games to qualify for playoffs... that suggestion was left our when the BV adopted the win percentage format. Hope this clears up the question, stuartcapel?
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on May 6, 2013 16:58:20 GMT 10
Your example of Seniors training, not playing, and only ever supporting juniors is quite frankly one of the most out of context and brainless things I’ve seen on this forum, please put a bit more thought into that type of response as it insults your own intelligence, I know you’re a smart guy, your love of the game and your club is unquestionable, I don’t insult you, don’t insult me. Was my tounge-in-cheek comment more out of context and brainless barb05's serious statement that volunteer administrators were 'naive and ignorant' for putting forward a proposal that was eventually voted in by a majority of clubs? Or that players in Division One this season were an embarrassment to themselves and their clubs? Or that providing facts to support beliefs would actually detract from the expression of those beliefs? Or calling me smart? barb05, I have no personal isssue with your opinions as they relate to you... when you start making sweeping statements that include others, you can't be surprised if one of those others challenges the opinion you've expressed for them. I understand why the 33-game schedule might not suit you personally... why it might not suit a number of participants... why your club might be against it... but when you start saying things like people should be embarrassed or that clubs are incapable of their duty to provide development and a positive social experience to its members, I do think you should be challenged by those that disagree... like me. Every club has had the opportunity to express to BV over the past couple of weeks how it thinks the competition should be structured... if the feedback is that most clubs would like their 1st's to play less games, I will be the first to say we should reduce the schedule... just as I would if there had been a large decrease in the numbers of overall participants over the past few years, or a dropoff in the number of Victorian players achieving elite level representation or results... while we each may have our individual opinions, I still haven't seen any evidence to suggest our 33-game fixture is creating a problem. As for brainless things said on here, I'm happy just to call it even!
|
|
|
Post by rhricho on May 6, 2013 17:12:47 GMT 10
www.mpamagazine.com.au/article/australias-population-growth-hotspots-127900.aspxNate, knowing you like Facts to back up statements, I hope this is sufficient enough to support my comments coming ;-) I understand that Victoria let in 1,500 new ppl per week and if you relate this to this information from this site, most of these ppl are heading to outer suburbs, not inner. When you are blessed by having such a massive growth in population, obviously sporting clubs benefit also. I can also suggest (IMO that is) kind of why clubs like Packy and Berwick and other outer suburban clubs have had this increase in players and teams etc. Can you suggest different to this?? Did you notice on the top of the fastest growth list was Wyndham, this is kind of why many are making this comments about your isolation and the natural option (you are lucky to have) that people in your area play at their most local club on offer! Have a look at Waverly, Bonbeach, malvern, how many local clubs surround them??? Lots within a 30km radius, you do not have to compete with this – others do. Challenges they face are to ensure they keep members happy and have a strong junior program coming through is so important. Coaching the last few years winter) at Bonbeach, I remember asking where one of our good kids had gone, I was shattered to hear he was off to another local DBA club to a stronger junior program. We were trying our best to keep and develop our kids, but holding onto them was just enough of a problem!! This is also relevant to the senior team there at the moment, another club is pushing for a premiership and one guy is actively getting guys over – this hurts some of their up and coming guys within their own club, but also the club (bonebach in this case) where they came from! That is another long story, however I think IMO you are not as exposed to this as others. These are just my views, but I applaud what is being trialled here and I hope it has a massive impact going forward to the competition.
|
|
|
Post by mc15 on May 6, 2013 17:36:00 GMT 10
AMV BY YEAR 2013 - 4.55 (Standard Deviation - 3.94) 2012 - 4.42 (Standard Deviation - 3.72) 2011 - 4.53 (Standard Deviation - 3.51) To give some context, I also looked at 2004/2005... this was before the increase from 27 to 33 games was implemented, which coincided with Division One increasing from 10 teams to 12... and obviously before the ABL re-started... AMV BY YEAR 2005 - 4.32 (Standard Deviation - 3.61) To be super geeky (and to work out if there is really a change) average a large sample set (really need about 10 years data), work out the SD and the smallest worth while change will be one fifth of the SD (adapted from Hopkins, 2004) Look at the variability from year to year with that in mind.
|
|
|
Post by stuartcapel on May 6, 2013 19:39:56 GMT 10
I recall a recent situation when despite being the ‘away’ side for a Masters final, and on a public holiday, the Geelong Baseball Club seemed not to feel that the Springvale Baseball Club deserved to host the final, and that the match should be played at Melbourne BallPark, a far more travel friendly ground for Geelong, but costing Springvale players a near 100km round trip (plus a couple of tolls) and the club a loss of canteen revenue. Fast forward to this year. Two clubs did not believe a southern section Grand Final in the Masters should be played in the West. Now, Geelong got their game moved, whereas Sandringham and Bonbeach didn’t. You argue position of privilege? Look at it from the position of Bonbeach, Sandringham and Springvale and their situations. Clearly, you haven’t to date, which is fine, but it doesn't look good when seemingly with a straight face suggest you don’t get looked after any different to other clubs. While the privilege I can you see you’re trying to allude to indeed does not give you a visible advantage on the scoreboard for any of the thirty-three scheduled fixtures (if we’re looking at just the Summer League), it is near undeniable that having the facilities possessed by Geelong far outweigh those possessed by any other club, including Preston, who in their venue have a fine main field. I note an opinion piece penned by yourself back in 2011 in regards a $300000 upgrade to netting at the Geelong Baseball Centre. From it, it appears that the club itself did not spend a dollar for these nets to be erected. Now, most people reading this will be from clubs other than Geelong. My question to them – would you like your local council to spend $300000 on top of what they have already given you recently? I see a few people nodding! Source: www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2011/06/10/262911_opinion.htmlAt Sandringham, for years the club has held a desire for a fully enclosed diamond. Sadly, it will likely never happen. That’s not an issue for the Geelong Baseball Club. At Ormond/Glenhuntly, they don’t have an enclosed diamond. Heck, with the Ormond Cricket Club using the baseball field for their 3rds and 4ths cricket on Saturdays, Ormond/Glenhuntly are not only unable to play on Saturdays, they cannot even have a mound, and have to carry out a portable mound for trainings and game days. I don’t imagine that happens at Geelong either. Dingley/Springvale only recently had a situation where KH Wearne Field was unable to be used because of a lack of netting and a Retirement Village that had been built next door. My understanding is the clubs had a few headaches around that and it took a fair bit of work for that to be resolved. Now, no one for a moment wishes the Geelong Baseball Club any ill will, rather, people recognise and respect that plenty of hard work has been put in down at the club, but Geelong has access to things other clubs simply do not have, and I personally believe that has tinted your vision somewhat slightly. It does show at times in the clubs proposal to BV for the proposed new structure of the competition. As for what RHRicho mentioned earlier, a quick look at Google maps suggests its about 55 kilometers from Geelong Baseball Centre to Presidents Park, Werribee, which I would suggest is the closest Division One or Two club to the Geelong Club’s home. Now, if I start from my home in Chelsea Heights, I can travel to Bonbeach, then to Chelsea, up Edithvale Road to Springvale, down to Farm Road at Cheltenham, to Jack Giuliano Field at Sandringham, to the confines of Moorabbin, up to the open spaces to Ormond-Glenhuntly and then to Monash University and go home for a few hundred meters more. That’s seven Summer League clubs. I do respect that geographically it does make it in some ways tougher to ‘recruit’ players from clubs in the Summer League, it does make ‘retention’ somewhat of an easier proposition. I’ll give you a scenario however. Joe Average who is new to the game and lives 10-15 kilometers down the road turns up at Geelong and gets shown around the facilities. Now, Jack Average turns up to…lets say Ormond/Glenhuntly, and sees their facilities…and is made aware that within about 10-15 kilometers he has another five baseball clubs that he could join. Do you honestly believe that Geelong possesses an equal or inferior chance to attract Joe to the club than Ormond/Glenhuntly has of getting Jack’s signature on a registration form? I don’t think anyone has an issue with you working from your experiences with the club that you’ve passionately worked successfully at improving over the course of many years, but I’d suggest to you it’s naïve of you to think your experiences at the club are the same as those experienced by a majority of clubs in the competition.
|
|