Two hour games -- a growth killer for baseball?

[genghis]

Stuart Capel raised a good point on the forum last week about short games and a bench player not getting an at-bat. He’s actually touched on something that Melbourne baseball generally should look at before it goes rearranging the deck-chairs via a restructure.

The two-hour game has become almost universal in Melbourne baseball outside summer Div One firsts. In a two hour game in the lower grades, you get about 53-63 at-bats in the game, depending on the accuracy of the pitching, and about five digs played.

If both sides have the bare nine and the game is close, that’s 3-4 at-bats each player. But if both sides have 11-12 players, which is more typical, then line-up changes midgame to give everyone a run mean that 8-12 players in the game go home with just one or two at-bats each. That’s a pretty thin day’s baseball. Especially if you’ve invested two hours at training mid-week, five hours on game-day in travel, warm-up and the match, and $200 to $300 in membership fees, plus extra for uniform and equipment. It’s not a great value proposition, as they say in marketing circles.

BV has tried to address this in the lower grades in summer by allowing up to 12 players in the batting line-up. But that just means spreading a limited number of at-bats more evenly, and sending more players home with an unsatisfying two at-bats.

When the DBA played three-hour games in the lower grades, and had a rotation rule that let players sit out after the third and come back after the sixth, it was easy for managers to ensure everyone went home with at least 3 at-bats. The DBA dropped the three hour game around 2009 for reasons that made no sense to me:

1. Umpiring – as if the lower grades ever get umpires for two-hour double-headers

2. Canteen – two-hour double-headers were meant to make more money for clubs. But what point is there making $50 more a week at the canteen, if you lose it all on subs when three rookies don’t come back next year because they don’t get a go.

3. Too long for the older players – whose interests apparently came before the new recruits to the game.

If baseball doesn’t want to go back to longer games in the bottom grades to give the fringe players a go, then it needs to look at shortening at-bats – eg by starting the count at 1-1 on every batter – to get in more digs and more at-bats. Personally, I’d prefer to stick with tradition and play longer. But either way is better than the present set-up.

As a long-time baseballer, the two-hour game leaves me cold. You typically get just five digs per game and there’s little ebb and flow.

But as a long-time cricketer and cricket administrator, I look at Melbourne baseball short-changing its new and fringe players on their chances to bat – the game’s biggest attraction over cricket – and I think “no wonder this sport isn't making a challenge.”

[Chilli Wil]

I may expand on this idea a little later, but if teams hustle on and off the field it is very easy to get 7 digs in or hit some level of the mercy rule at about the two hour mark. I think our seconds actually played all 9 digs either last year or the year before. It would be better to have the game be 7 digs, that way you know how many more outs are left and can better manage the bench, and you don't get those awkward moments when one team hustles like crazy to get another innings and the other team goes slow, that just looks terrible.

[pirates]

I think you make some good points but open up many more question,such as the issue with be pitching depth. Worth a discussion though. Better managed team numbers is the key IMO, the best example i have seen is Gary Cotchin at our club with his masters and 5ths team management. I think that the league needs to make it cheaper for clubs to register additional teams, that way clubs could put in extra teams at the start of the season when you generally see greater numbers, in our experience, then dropping off for all sorts of reasons. Clubs generally hold back on put extra teams in to see if the numbers hold up. If it was more affordable or have a free period to see if these additional teams survived, I think clubs would enter additional teams earlier. clubs should be encouraged to enter combined teams in lower grades with neighbouring clubs who have extra numbers. It works in juniors and sees many players staying in the game and staying with the club.

I don't think 3hour games work, it turns out a4hour event with warm ups and with two games is too long. I see this as one of our points of difference to cricket.

[mackem]

It amazes me that home & away games are 2 hours long for the lower grades but come finals time there is no time limit and have to play either 7 or 9 innings.

[stockley]

But as a long-time cricketer and cricket administrator, I look at Melbourne baseball short-changing its new and fringe players on their chances to bat � the game�s biggest attraction over cricket � and I think �no wonder this sport isn't making a challenge.�

Are you telling me you think a sport that can see guys at the lower end of the order not even get a time at the crease, or go out very quickly ans not get another shot has a competitive advanrage over a sport where guys generally get at least 2 at bats a week?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using proboards

[dirtyword]

:champ:

May 26, 2013 11:14:41 GMT 10 stockley said:

But as a long-time cricketer and cricket administrator, I look at Melbourne baseball short-changing its new and fringe players on their chances to bat � the game�s biggest attraction over cricket � and I think �no wonder this sport isn't making a challenge.�

Are you telling me you think a sport that can see guys at the lower end of the order not even get a time at the crease, or go out very quickly ans not get another shot has a competitive advanrage over a sport where guys generally get at least 2 at bats a week?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using proboards

Wonders if genghis also advocates giving himself votes when managing lower grade sides?


2 hour games are fine for lower grades, but its silly to use 9 innings rules for a 2hr timed game, ie the 3/6 innings re-entry rule. How hard is it to implement a time based rule? Ie substitution at 40 minute mark, 80 minute mark? Then you have players getting 2/3rds of a game instead of half (or just under half as per Stuart's example).

what's more of an issue in my mind is the numerous 1 sided games, which sees one team having multiple at-bats and the other team hardly any.
But what do you do? Let older (still really good) pitchers play against opposition with much less ability, or young up n comers against newish inexperienced players?
I can recall playing really strong Blackburn side in the lower grades that were a class
And a half above everyone else. Or ageing still classy pitchers like in Stuart Capels current winter team.
I think it's an association issue to deal with, possible options in my mind;
- a team winning undefeated or close to undefeated to be forced into the next grade up (regardless of player movement since the previous season, with the option too be downgraded after 3-4 rounds of the new season after review of results)
- grading known pitchers in lower grades and restricting their time on the mound, if they want more mound time play in a higher grade.
It's a fine line to balance, and something I'm sure will left in the too hard basket. (And I guess I don't understand the mentality of effectively bashing up lesser quality teams numerous times in a season, there's little challenge and cheapens the silverware handed out at the end of the season IMO)

Fix some of these and you'll likely find players getting more at-bats, more even competition will also have a beneficial effect on recruitment and retention of newer players.

[MF]

May 26, 2013 9:00:21 GMT 10 Chilli Wil said:

[...]if teams hustle on and off the field it is very easy to get 7 digs in [...]

100% agree.

A thirds game between two decent teams can easily complete 7 innings; a seconds game can go a full nine. Been there done that, in both cases.

In contrast, I HATE the expanded batting line-up rule - a) it's Just Not Baseball and b) as a player it just means that no-one gets enough at-bats. It's just a horrible rule as a player, and must be even worse for the scorers - a total nightmare with the standard scorebooks. (How can Masters players stand it?)

Managers and umpires need to make players hustle on-and-off the field; umpires need to enforce the 2 minutes/8 warm up pitches limit, and ensure visits to the mound don't turn into time-wasting exercises. That's how you get value for money as a lower-grade player.

The (much welcomed) addition of the re-entry rule for A3s/A4s has also helped provide both flexibility and more game time for all, not to mention a much-needed development opportunity for A4 players. (Well done, BV.)

Starting each bat with a 1-1 count must be (I'm sorry) one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. Sorry!

[MF]

May 26, 2013 10:20:32 GMT 10 mackem said:

It amazes me that home & away games are 2 hours long for the lower grades but come finals time there is no time limit and have to play either 7 or 9 innings.

I disagree. The two hour limit is needed during the regular season due to the disparity between the top and bottom teams, especially in A3 and A4. But once you get to finals, it's a contest between two decent quality teams; a 7 innings final makes perfect sense.

[Deleted]

Yeah keep it simple.

2 hour games are fine but Managers AND umpires should always try to move it a long (hussle).

In Masters the 7-run rule helps to get the losing (getting flogged) team more at-bats. Stockley I take your point re cricket BUT the beauty of the game is that you can also bat for hours if you are good enough.

I like the extra hitters rule in lower grades and Masters (even though it takes away at-bats for the usual 9) to give everyone a go and not have to bench and drag guys, but no more than 10-11 players would be ideal but written as such in a rule.

And often we agree to not steal in Masters and with no pickoffs etc it makes for a much quicker game (and we only play 105 mins) BUT it is tinkering with the purity of the game which I wouldn't recommend or like on Sundays/Saturdays.

Re the the 1-1 count, only in practice games.

[mackem]

Maybe introduce the 7 rule rule in the lower grades also have the speed up rule that the 1sts have in mid-week games, runners for the catcher and pitcher.

[MF]

May 26, 2013 19:06:15 GMT 10 mackem said:

Maybe introduce the 7 rule rule in the lower grades also have the speed up rule that the 1sts have in mid-week games, runners for the catcher and pitcher.

Happy to have the speed-up rule for catcher & pitcher; hate the idea of the 7-run rule.

[Goblin]

I am definitely an advocate of the 7 run rule for all divisions below Div 1 & Div 2 firsts.

This also includes all juniors, womens as well as masters

[Deleted]

genghis appears to be in part referring to winter competitions, in which there is a pretty clear disincentive to playing three-hour games.

Time and daylight.

Unless we start games at 11.00 AM or earlier on Saturday and/or Sunday (which I imagine would not be terribly popular, especially if juniors are on in the morning), there is no chance of scheduling two senior games of three-hours length - at least in winter.

I tend to agree, also, that it would be fraught with danger to schedule lower grade games for more than two hours when many or most clubs will not have the pitching depth to consistently make games a decent contest.

[genghis]

Taking up the relevant points so far:

* I'm not suggesting three-hour double-headers. I'm suggesting, in the bottom grades which usually get loaded up with squads of 11-12 including rookies, forget about double-headers and play 3 hours on opposite or unused grounds. (And BTW, leaving grounds unused to try to squeeze in two-hour double-headers elsewhere is an open invitation to councils to hand grounds over to growth sports like soccer.)

* Hustling between innings is good practice, but the time savings are a myth. The changeover length is dictated by the eight warm-up pitches, not how fast everyone else hustles on. Even if the pitcher and catcher run the thirty metres out there instead of walking, they'll save max 15 seconds. Since the typical lower grade game goes five digs, that's nine change-overs and a total saving of 135 seconds. Time for one extra at-bat. Hardly a solution.

* The average nine-innings MLB game takes 2 hours 50 minutes. Think about that. The best in the world, with no delays for getting balls from the crowd or catchers fetching balls from the back net, with minimal walks and errors, with pitchers throwing 62-65% strikes rather than 50-55% like in our lower grades, and with low numbers of hits, still take 2:50 to play nine digs. And we give weekend baseballers two hours to try and do the same! If Chili Will's boys get through seven digs regularly in that time, they're a better defensive unit than most. And as for the legendary nine-innings game in two hours, they happen about once in a blue moon in the lower grades -- let's not model our baseball around the freakish exceptions.

* Pitching depth -- a three hour game goes max 300 pitches vs a two-hour game 200. So a team needs two pitchers to throw 150 pitches, not 100. Unless teams are trying to play their two-hour games with just one pitcher and no reliever, they should be able to handle it.

[stockley]

May 27, 2013 1:21:55 GMT 10 genghis said:

* I'm not suggesting three-hour double-headers. I'm suggesting, in the bottom grades which usually get loaded up with squads of 11-12 including rookies, forget about double-headers and play 3 hours on opposite or unused grounds. (And BTW, leaving grounds unused to try to squeeze in two-hour double-headers elsewhere is an open invitation to councils to hand grounds over to growth sports like soccer.)

There are free unused grounds available? Where are these grounds? I agree those grounds should be used but realistically, they should be used to full advantage. Setting up grounds to play single headers as opposed to double headers is a time and resource intensive pratice - twice the umpires, twice the volunteers, etc. That includes lower grades. Where does your club get umpires for the lower grades from? I know most clubs rely on guys from the other game to help out.

On top of that, what your suggesting, even if only in the lower grades, would take at least 1.5 times as many fields - if not close to double. Your asking to split up teams 3's and 4's, or whatever teams they are. Its not good for club community, and likely not sustainable based on the number of fields available to the clubs.

* The average nine-innings MLB game takes 2 hours 50 minutes. Think about that. The best in the world, with no delays for getting balls from the crowd or catchers fetching balls from the back net, with minimal walks and errors, with pitchers throwing 62-65% strikes rather than 50-55% like in our lower grades, and with low numbers of hits, still take 2:50 to play nine digs. And we give weekend baseballers two hours to try and do the same! If Chili Will's boys get through seven digs regularly in that time, they're a better defensive unit than most. And as for the legendary nine-innings game in two hours, they happen about once in a blue moon in the lower grades -- let's not model our baseball around the freakish exceptions.

I've seen plenty of games go 9 innings within the 2 hour time period. Using major league is again a bad example, as you say, as they tend to go slow. Slow between innings, lots of advertising to get it in, etc. So the time reduced by the examples your touting in the MLB is lost in other areas. If there is a 2 minute warm up in between innings, then over 7 innings - 14 changes, you're looking at 28 minutes of time being used for warm up. Maybe that is where the savings you're looking for are. Reduce that time down to 1 minute.

* Pitching depth -- a three hour game goes max 300 pitches vs a two-hour game 200. So a team needs two pitchers to throw 150 pitches, not 100. Unless teams are trying to play their two-hour games with just one pitcher and no reliever, they should be able to handle it.

That is a completely BAD assumption. Even if a three hour game is likely to go 300 pitches - that doesn't automatically indicate it will be an even share. A lot of lower grade baseball games end up one sided. They're not all tight contests. So in some cases, you will be asking one team to cover 200 - 230 pitches while the other team only throws 70 - 100. This leaves a major deficiency in the pitching depth required - and will end up with games going even further down a one sided path, leading to issues with the player retension at those clubs. And all in the name of getting one or two guys extra at bats.

[oldmanriver]

There maybe some merit to some of the points, but from past experiences, using Masters as a reference is taking the weekend games out of context as we all know, Masters is for the beer and Barbie, not for sheep stations,. In the DBA this year we have introduced the speed up rule for catchers in the lower grades that play 2hr games, it works. This year in our B2 side, the average at bats per person is between 3 and 5 and that is including players that have come off the bench. It just comes back to how the game is managed. In most games this year we have averaged 6 innings played. Also the only grades in the DBA not to get umpies this season so far is C1 & C2. So in my opinion, just the play the game and enjoy it. Next thing people will be complaining about will be the state of the grounds when unplayable. It is winter so just suck it in and enjoy

[secondbase]

A minor point to the main arguments; It is NOT 8 pitches between innings. That is for starting or new pitchers. All other situations are based on time, which is why teams need to be organised to warm up the pitcher when the catcher has been on base and is getting gear on. When the pitchers are dominant, backed up by the defence , 7 innings or more are achievable. Not sure how going 3 for o fits in to the" batters participation " level.
Alternatively if it's all hits and walks then 3 hours would not add much competitive enjoyment.

[texasleaguer]

IMO all State Major Leagues have to be 9 Innings of course or maybe Local rules MAJOR Double headers 7+7. ABL DH is 7+9

Baseball was never designed as a time game and when based on time will always be manipulated by coaches ( no probs with that as their job is to squeeze the rules for team advantage )

I despise Baseball games based on time, but in Australia with limited field space and time, we need to plan for it.

MAJORS always 9 Innings. Unless DH then 7 + 7 and all played to result
Minor Seniors 7 Innings OR 2.5 Hours, whichever comes 1st ( NOT 2 HOURS )
U14 to u18 , 9 Innings OR 2 Hours , whichever comes 1st
LL 6 Innings OR 90 Minutes , whichever comes 1st

Finals should ALWAYS be Innings based and not time.

[genghis]

To reply to more points that have been raised:

Secondbase – No, it’s 8 warm-up pitches at the start of every dig and the pitcher has one minute to deliver them from when he reaches the mound. See rule 8.03 in either the MLB or ABL version of the rules. If you want to halve the time between digs like Stockley proposes, you pretty much need to halve the number of warm-up pitches to four, or five and ban the catcher from throwing over, both of which are bad ideas.

Oldmanriver – the DBA’s catcher speedup rule is well worth adopting in lower grades to get the catcher suited up quicker. But I can’t see it saving more than a few minutes a game. Someone else normally catches the pitcher when the catcher has just come off base at change of dig.

Stockley – available grounds.

Here’s a list for the MWBL:

Completely unused: Surrey Park, Knox #3, Boeing #2.

Unused every second week: Latrobe #1 and #2, Napier #1 and #2, Malvern, Mulgrave, UFTG, Straw #2, Knox #2, Myrtle #2, Mill Park

Grounds with a lower grade single-header every second week, capable of extending to three hours:

Greensborough, Yulong, Deep Creek Res, Boeing #1, Oakleigh, Diamond Creek, St Kilda, Billabong #2, Proclamation #2, Footscray, Willy.

And that’s just Saturdays. EVERY MWBL ground is unused on Sundays.

Stockley – umpires:

First in line for umpiring at my club are injured players, who are expected to umpire a lower grade. Next in line in the past when our fifths played three hour games starting 2pm in the DBA, were players from the early game on the main ground, who came over straight after their game. Until they arrived, a senior fifths player sat out and did it, or we shared the first half-hour with the opposition. It worked fine. People don't play for sheep stations in the first thirty minutes.

Stockley – club community:

At my club, many Seconds players stick around to watch the Ones. But Fourths are less inclined to stick around and watch the Thirds (unless they’re re-entry players). Which makes sense – less history with the club, lower quality game, and especially if they’ve already sat on the bench watching for half of their own game due to bigger squads.

Denying the Fourths decent playing time in the hope of getting them to stick around and watch the Thirds sounds like a strange set of priorities to me. But when the Ones and Twos play on a different day to the lower grades, we get a lot of the lower grade players turning up to watch. Maybe the leagues need to lighten up on Sunday play.

Stockley – nine digs in two hours:

You say you’ve seen “plenty” of games get through nine digs in two hours. In the lower grades??? Odds are you’re from a club with four or more teams. So your lowest three sides should have played six games each this season, ie 18 games altogether, a pretty good sample. How about you list for the readers all of those 18 games that have gone nine innings?

Stockley and KC – pitching depth and blow-outs:

There seems to be a lot of nervous-nellyism about the disasters that might happen if you let a game of baseball go for the length it was originally intended.

Having played and managed in three hour games in the DBA lower grades for about twenty seasons from the early 1980s to the mid-2000s, in teams that finished everywhere from first to last, I can reassure people that the sky didn’t fall in.

When the game was one-sided, the ten-rule rule put an end to the pain, normally around the 2:40 mark. Your pitchers threw about 150 pitches, maybe 170 if it was a slaughter. If the opposition mowed you down, their guy might have thrown 90 for the seven digs. Even without the seven-run rule, which I agree with Goblin and others is excellent for the lowest grades, I never saw 200 thrown by a losing side.

But for every one-sided game, there were two that were competitive. And a lot of those were fantastic because they had the time to be fantastic. They ebbed and flowed. Teams got behind, came back, got behind again, came back again. Pitchers and fielders had to hold their nerve for a LONG time. The pitching wasn’t sensational, so the scoring was high (17-13 seemed to be a typical score) and the rookies got on base a lot. That was good -- they learnt the basics, like pitch selection and running the bases, fast. Managers could try out new starting pitchers without blowing the game in the first dig.

Dirtyword – player rotation:

Subbing players out after 40 minutes and back in after 80 minutes would be messy. What if a dig starts after 37 minutes – do we stop at 40 to make changes, or wait till change of innings, or equal innings, or what? Subbing out after two digs and back in after four digs makes more sense if you’re hell-bent on staying with the two-hour format. But you’re just slicing a small cake more evenly. We want more cake!!!

[oldmanriver]

Genghis, you are flogging a dead horse. 2hr games are here to stay, with If my memory is right, the finals are generally designated to be played for at least 7 innings. In the DBA I think it was a two hour final(I could be wrong). If you are only referring to the winter, then you will probably find that the older veterans don't mind the two hour game and if the sides are managed right, a fair and equal rotation will solve all the problems. And one must remember that the light isn't all that flash after 5.00pm. And having the speed up catcher rule has semmed to added approx 15 minutes more baseball as the catcher is ready to go limiting the innings changeover period. Also the DBA has adopted the DH rule for all grades thus ensuring the pitcher is not coming from the base paths but going straight out to the mound. This probably explains that so far we have played atleast 6 plus innings in 4 out of the six games so far and this includes one eight innings game and one seven inning game. Just get over it and move on or put an extra side in.

[secondbase]

Genghis..re pitching warm ups. You are quoting irrelevant rules for Summer and Winter Vic competitions. It is 2 minutes from the call of the 3rd out. In reality you rarely ever get 8 pitches, nor can you demand them..that is the playing condition that is actually used in time games.

[Deleted]

"There seems to be a lot of nervous-nellyism about the disasters that might happen if you let a game of baseball go for the length it was originally intended.

Having played and managed in three hour games in the DBA lower grades for about twenty seasons from the early 1980s to the mid-2000s, in teams that finished everywhere from first to last, I can reassure people that the sky didn’t fall in."

No no, genghis. There is no nervousness here and no suggestion of impending "disasters".

It is a simple fact of our baseball life that some or many amateur clubs struggle to have adequate pitching in the lower grades - "adequate" in the sense of having enough innings in their arms and/or being able to consistently throw strikes.

We have modified the game to suit our circumstances in a range of ways that may not always be consistent with what was "originally intended". Nothing wrong with that.

Personally, even recognising the attraction of the "ebb and flow", I don't want to see guys - often part-time, learning or young pitchers - throwing 150 (or more) in an outing. Nor do I want to see cricket score results in which both teams have received a stack of walks and HPBs, which would be almost inevitable if lower grade games went to three hours.

I played in the MWBL and VBA for more years than I can remember, and then the GBA. I cannot recall any of those leagues ever allowing three hours for a lower grade game (other than a final). VBA in the old winter days might have been a bit longer than two hours for lower grades.

Two hours (in lower grades) has been the norm in most leagues for a long time now - which does not in itself make it right, though I have never heard (until now) anyone argue for longer games with such passion.

Depending on scoring, two-hour games will stretch from five innings through to nine innings. Usually six or seven, occasionally eight or nine. For any relatively close result, the time still allows for competitive and engaging baseball.

genghis, I just do not think three hours is going to happen. Look, even the Senior Winter Championship has gone from nine-innings games (for decades) to two hours these days. No-one seems to be complaining too much about that.

Scheduling club games over Saturday and Sunday is always an option (for winter and summer), for a number of sound reasons either way - though that is not the real issue here.

On other points discussed, the maximum runs per innings rule (usually seven) now has wide acceptance for the lower grades. That is a good thing, and it ensures that any two-hour game will at least go to five or six innings.

The extra hitters initiative is an interesting one. It is accepted and popular in Masters (where it originated), though its merit is arguable for mainstream club baseball. Personally I like it in the lower grades for team-building and participation, even though it obviously means less at-bats when it is applied.

[genghis]

OK, back for round 4 of this debate (hey it might even go the full nine innings Stockley).

KC – concerned about pitching depth, guys throwing 150 pitches etc

If we went to longer games in the lower grades, pitch limits of around 120-130 would be a wise move to protect pitchers and force managers and clubs to develop more than one pitcher down below.

Too draconian, too hard? We don’t seem to think so in lower junior grades, where ready-made pitchers are just as scarce. There we have games long enough that one side often has to throw 110 pitches yet the pitch limits are 70 or 80. Same principle applies – protect the pitchers, share the ball and the limelight around, develop the guy with the second best arm not just the best arm.

KC – the senior winter league has gone to 2 hours without complaint

That doesn’t surprise me. The senior winter league is top grade summer ball players keeping their eye in over the off-season.

A bottom grade, like MWBL EE where I manage, is a different world. No serious summer ball player would be seen dead in EE. It’s a grade for old blokes, rookies and near-rookies. Everything moves slower. Three of our six games at Monash have gone just four digs in the two hours. They weren’t rubbish games, or error and walkfests, it’s just what you get with raw pitchers who throw 50% balls and get taken deep in the count constantly. But when the typical side in EE has twelve players, half of them rookies, and is only getting three times through the order, it isn’t enough. They need more time if everyone is to get a go.

Will the players object? Well, they didn’t a couple of weeks ago when we and Melbourne Uni played an extra hour just to give everyone more at-bats. They all thought it was worthwhile. But it would have been way more satisfying if it had been part of the official game.

Larry42 – how many players are we losing by playing two-hour games

Hard to say. But of the six rookies in my side, I’d be surprised if more than three came back next season, given how hard it is to give them all a good run.

Oldmanriver – put another side in

Can’t do it. We’ve got about 63 players and five sides in. With about 11 unavailable each week so far, we normally go 9, 11, 9, 11, 12.

Oldmanriver – you’re flogging a dead horse

The dead horse that’s being flogged is the two-hour format, which as KC says has been the dominant format for three decades, during which baseball has failed to grow. If it’s not growing, that means it’s failing to hold its new recruits. So we have to ask – why? And I’m pointing the finger at a format that gives them very limited game-time, unless they happen to come along in a rare year when a club has the bare nine players per team.

Now people want to tackle the problem by replicating this format on week-nights. Why -- so that the rookies can battle through peak hour traffic to play 2-3 digs again??? That really is flogging a dead horse.

It’s also flogging the volunteers who make the games happen. Two sets of teams a week for selection committees and managers to organise. Two lots of diamond set-up, two lots of finding umpires, two lots of finding scorers.

Whereas I’m saying … get more value out of the games we’re organising at present.

And I’m not just talking about winter.

What earthly excuse is there for playing two-hour games in the Thirds and Fourths in summer? The light and the umpires last until 6.30 for the Ones. Why do the Threes and Fours get sent home at 5.30? Is there a BV rule I’ve missed that they have to be in bed by 8 o’clock?

Secondbase – two minutes between digs not eight pitches

I assume you’re referring to eg the MWBL’s rule 50, which says “Umpires should allow no more than 2 minutes between changeover of innings (from time of “Side Away” to “Batter Up” for next innings)”.

I think you’ll find this is to be read in conjunction with rule 8.03 of baseball, not instead of it. So the pitcher is entitled to his 8 pitches after he gets to the mound, provided he does it in a minute AND he hasn’t taken 90 seconds to get there because his manager gave everyone a pep-talk.

[oldmanriver]

Genghis, having known you for a long, long time, I can't see you letting this go. Having played in the long labourous 3hr games in the old DBA, it was a times plenty painful. Also, the only grades to play Double headers in those days was the A & A Res. It was ridiculous marking out a ground for one game regardless of the grade. Double header formats are a lot better for team/Club comaradery, less exacting on ground marking and easier for getting umpires to the majority of the games. Tackling the thirds and fourths scenario, why a two hour game with a five minute rule, my best guess woyuld be that they are 3rds and 4ths, it's a Sunday and it'not the 1sts. I do not remember a week night coming into this debate and I can't see that happening in a lower grades. Perhaps Alex and this maybe just a pure guess, but maybe the Uni being what it is, some people only play for the time they are attending Uni and has nothing to do with how many at bats they get. That then makes your argument rather moot. As I have stated before, get over it, move on and just manage player time that works out equal for all members. .

[lonewolf75]

This Is interesting given that the MWBL has put in a time limit for the five minute rule. I think you get an extra 15 mins, if required, then the game ceases no matter what.

I have seen many games won by last minute rallies, particularly in the lower lvls when you get into teams 2nd and 3rd pitchers. I would be interested to know if this new rule has killed any rallies so far this year.

[stockley]

May 29, 2013 1:34:35 GMT 10 genghis said:

Now people want to tackle the problem by replicating this format on week-nights. Why -- so that the rookies can battle through peak hour traffic to play 2-3 digs again??? That really is flogging a dead horse.

It’s also flogging the volunteers who make the games happen. Two sets of teams a week for selection committees and managers to organise. Two lots of diamond set-up, two lots of finding umpires, two lots of finding scorers.

Whereas I’m saying … get more value out of the games we’re organising at present.

I don't really want to take you out of context. However, what I am understanding is your suggesting that clubs utilize grounds that are available, and both days of the weekend to provide longer games - 3 hours. But then in the next breath, you're stating that running night games is flogging the volunteers too much by having to setup two diamonds, two lots of finding umpires, scorers etc.

Surely you've just shot your own argument in the foot?

Anyway, here is my take:
3 hour games would probably be ideal, as far as getting more at-bats/game time into everyone. However, there are associated issues:
1. The length of the game lends to teams running out of pitchers.
2. You shouldn't create different rules for different levels where possible.
3. Double headers become impossible without lights, or else you need to completely re-organise the league as far as juniors etc are concerned, and that's a major risk on losing juniors.
4. Volunteers are going to be harder to come by - you're turning a 2 hour umpiring volunteer into a 3 hour. Canteens will go from 6 hours to 8+ hour stints. Its not just the players benefit you have to worry about.

Simply - we don't have the facilities to run double headers like that. In winter, games have to be finished by 5:00 - thats nature for you. Its too dark. 3 hour games has that game starting at 2:00. Assuming the same 20 minute break in between, the early game then runs 10:40-1:40. So when do your juniors play? Can't move them to Sunday in direct competition to junior footy, you'll loose have the juniors.

Can't run 1 game per ground per Saturday, there aren't enough grounds, aren't enough volunteers. You start putting out a lot of people for the benefit of a few.

Also, you can't run different rules for different levels. I understand that is preciously what happens over summer with the 1's, but there is a difference. Managing different playing conditions for different levels over the winter would be unfair to players in the teams. Could you imagine if Joe Bloggs rocks up to the early game, and plays 2 hours, then John Smith plays in the late game for 3 hours? That would even extend to the different levels. A guy in the seconds plays 2 hours, and a guy in the 3rds plays 3. It simply wouldn't work.

So how do you get to a point where 3 hour games are possible, with the restrictions we have in place now? Every team would need to get lights installed that we're able to play under.

Summer, I understand is a different proposition. But I would maintain that quite a lot of guys, especially in the lower grades would end up a bit pissed off if they had to stay back at the ground until 8:30 on a SUNDAY night. People have lives out of baseball as well. I would base that on 1:00 - 4:00 early game, 4:30 - 7:30 late game, and then having a shower and a drink after the game.

I think the current system of running 2 hour games works pretty well. It is probably not ideal - I'm sure lots of guys want more AB's, but short of every club getting AA standard lighting (minimum), that they are allowed to run each week, the other options become unrealistic.

[secondbase]

Genghis..re the "two minute/8 pitches". You are managing games without official umpires. The two minutes overrides the 8 pitches. This is a fact. If you are giving 8 pitches between innings in EE grade , you are probably losing 10-15 minutes playing time, given your comments re age of players etc. Even when time allows most pitchers don't want 8 between innings pitches.

[genghis]

Back to the plate for my fifth at-bat ...this is more action than I get on a Saturday!

Stockley – I’ve shot myself in the foot

No I haven’t. The restructure discussion canvassed new midweek games, possibly as a midweek comp. These would have been extra games over and above existing games, so extra work. I’m merely proposing time changes for existing games.

Yes, if they go to unused grounds they will involve extra line marking, so don’t ask Oldmanriver to do it. But in many cases they will involve just using existing grounds for longer. For example in MWBL EE grade, seven of the ten teams are playing two-hour single-headers at home with no-one following. No extra line marking needed if we make those games longer.

Stockley – it’s all too hard, we’d need lights etc

It’s much simpler than Stockley thinks.

First priority is to get the bottom grades more playing time, because that’s where the rookies are missing out. I’m suggesting games played 2 to 5pm, with no new dig in the last 20 minutes and a stop at 5pm. Or put another way, a 2 hour 45 game starting 2pm with a 5 minute rule and a 5pm limit.

If the MWBL did it across EE, EL and D2 grades, 26 teams would be affected. Thirteen currently play single-headers at home and would merely need a change of start and finish time. Another eight are from four clubs and are playing double-headers one week and leaving their grounds vacant the next week – they would need to move to single-headers each week. Three clubs with five tightly-fixtured teams would need to borrow three nearby grounds that are only used on alternate weeks, or else play some home games on Sunday.

Stockley – you need the same conditions for all grades

No you don’t. We have re-entry in some grades but not in others. As Oldmanriver pointed out, the DBA for years had A1 and A2 playing double-headers similar to the MWBL, but the lower grades playing 2pm-5pm. It was actually more complicated than that, because the lower grades had occasional Sunday double-headers starting at 11am with two 2.5 hour games. No-one sooked about it. They understood that double-headers were shorter but you got umpires, and were mainly for the higher grades.

Stockley – thirds and fourths would finish too late in summer

I’m not for the Threes and Fours playing three hour games in summer, I’m for them finishing at the same time as the Ones, around 6.30. That means an extra half-hour added to each game.

Stockley – volunteers for umpiring, canteens would be harder to find

Why are clubs putting it on volunteers? At Monash, every player gets rostered to umpire, score or do canteen duty as required. If you’re out injured, you’re first in line for umpiring duty. It’s a club – everyone contributes, not just “volunteers”.

Secondbase – we are losing too much time at change of innings

Let’s get rid of this myth for once and for all that innings changes are the problem.

Earlier I mentioned that in three games out of six, our EE side had played just four innings. In those three games, the total pitches were 218, 190 and 210. The games went 2:00, 1:59 and 1:57 and the at-bats for the games were 53, 54 and 53.

Last week our Ones played Diamond Creek in B1. The game went 205 pitches in 2:08, and they got through eight innings. The score was 3-2. The at-bats for the game were 65.

So we played MORE pitches than the Ones in two of the games, in nearly ten minutes less time. Hardly a sign of massive time-wasting, is it? Yet we played four less innings, and more importantly for the players in the game – and there were 23 or 24 in each of the three EE games – we only got 53-54 at-bats between us.

The big difference was the pitching. The pitchers in the EE games threw just 53% strikes. The pitchers in the B1 game threw 68% strikes. It took the EE pitchers 23% longer to get through each at-bat and get to a hit, walk, error or out , simply because they were less accurate.

So it’s not good enough for oldmanriver to say “share the game time equally”. If the game-time isn’t enough to provide opportunity for the players at their skill level, sharing it equally won’t help. You either need to do something really radical, like start each count on 1-1 to get through at-bats quicker, or provide more game-time.

Oldmanriver – Uni students are just passing through

You’re absolutely right, Rob, they are. But EVERY kid aged 13-19 is just passing through. Every kid tries lots of sports before deciding what they like. My son tried tennis, footy, soccer, golf and cricket before settling on baseball. And it was the DBA’s “long” games, batting 4-5 times and having to help out with the pitching, that hooked him. (You probably found the games laborious because you tried to pitch them single-handed, a mistake I’ve been guilty of too.)

Baseball gets one chance with kids to engage them. Stuff it up, and you lose them for good. Providing a format where they get only two chances to take centre stage and swing the bat is stuffing it up bigtime.

[peterbrand]

...and we're going to extras...

...and I didn't realise they played baseball in Mongolia...

As a person who started playing baseball in the DBA lower grades (C,D,E) when it was a full 9 inning game, I didn't think that the games were laborious at all. In fact they were a great way to spend an afternoon. You got 4-5 at bats and plenty of time in the field. And as a bench player there was plenty of time for a decent amount of playing time.

Therefore, it came at me as quite a shock when I started playing summer (Div 3 I think) a few years later to learn that we played two hour games. Since that time I've gone up and down the grades (as high as Div 1 1s) but now back at the summer Div 1 3s/4s level...and it still astounds me that you can walk off finishing a Division 1 Thirds game (which is a pretty good and even standard of baseball) with at least 1-3 hours of playable light still being available.

These games should be going for longer (and probably also Div 2 3s 4s and maybe Div 3). Whether it be a full 7 inning game for both teams (most of you think this is possible on a regular basis anyway) or 2 hours for the 4s and full length for the 3s with re-entries. Doesn't the prospect of a longer game for 3s managers whet the appetite for use of more strategy? Defensive replacements, pinch hitters, long/short relief? Or just the simple act of good clubmanship - "he's hung around on the bench, lets bloody give him a run".

3s getting more playing time that the 4s I hear you say? Well the 1s get more playing time than the 2s (and the rest of the club), there doesn't seem to be too much complaint about the inequity there.

I can see perfectly well the volunteer issues - umpiring being the largest, but I don't quite understand the obsession with canteens. Sure a revenue spinner, but the minimum a baseball club is obligated to provide is a safe field, toilets and drinking water. Plenty of cricket teams just play without a canteen and head to the pub afterward, no problem. Maybe with a service offering of more playing time to our customers (players), we'll attract more players, and more subs offseting any percieved canteen losses.

"What about pitching" I hear you say. Well yes, it's an issue, but isn't it a good thing to give players more of an opportunity to pitch? I am willing to wager that most medium to large size clubs have got 2-3 members who want to pitch, but for lack of opportunity. (And they might be laughed at, rightly or wrongly!) Well they can find out in a longer game. Who knows, you might find someone who can really pitch.

The seven run per inning rule, and the existing ten run rule can protect against blowouts, and if the respective associations are doing their job and grading teams properly, they shouldn't happen as frequently anyway.

I have NO IDEA about what should be done in winter, and I'm not necessarily for longer games in the winter "offseason", but I think the argument for playing for longer when we can still holds.

But consider this - IF the game were to GROW by the 10,000 that BV want it to in the next few years (or even more conservatively - 1-2,000), aren't we facing the prospect of having to play Saturdays and Sundays anyway given the number of grounds?

And given the very real spectre of soccer using our outfields, isn't more ground usage better for baseball in the long term?

Anyway it's food for thought.

[secondbase]

genghis..if you are going to quote someone..try being accurate. I never attributed slow changeovers between innings as the cause of any of the problems canvassed in this discussion.
I pointed out that 8 pitches between innings would add 10-15 minutes to non playing time..FACT..and that you are incorrect in your belief that 8 pitches between innings over rides the 2 minutes..which is another FACT you have chosen to ignore or even retract after two attempts to deny the reality.
As for the general discussion I would rather have two hours of competitive, quality baseball with pitchers capable of finding the strike zone, than three of walks and wild pitches.