 |
Author |
TOPIC: New Home Run Rule??? |
| 1st time caller
May 3, 2010
4:42:21 PM
Entry #: 3462535
| I've heard rumblings about a new home run rule this year - where a home run on 3rd strike is a walk instead of a strikeout? Any truth to this?
I hope its a bogus rumor - I like the rule the way it is! Forces teams to be strategic and (ususally) stops games from turning into home run derbys.
|
| Gold Glove
May 3, 2010
4:49:59 PM
Entry #: 3462543
| that's probably because you can't hit any home runs!
|
|
| 1st time caller
May 3, 2010
5:53:03 PM
Entry #: 3462628
| exactly right! but I'd like to believe that if I was a HR hitter, I would feel the same way...
|
|
| CHRIS L
May 3, 2010
7:38:54 PM
Entry #: 3462757
| Actually the rule doesn't matter what strike it is, once your team is plus 2 and your team hits a home, it counts as a walk and you're awarded 1st base. moving runners along by force only, that what was the members voted on at the AGM back in november, when they decided they didn't like the plus 2 rule.
|
| Killers Tinos
May 4, 2010
12:18:12 AM
Entry #: 3463121
| The new HR rule totally favours The Arms - they have so many guys that hit HR's... unfair.
|
|
| Wojo
May 10, 2010
7:31:20 AM
Entry #: 3469340
| It is tough to wait on something like a schedule or easy to comment on the HR rule after the fact. Just remember there are proper channels and proper ways to submit a grievance. Public statements should be carefully worded. But criticism is always more productive when it is constructive.
|
|
| Bowen #19
May 10, 2010
11:31:47 AM
Entry #: 3469663
| Love the HR rule!
|
|
| Faux
May 11, 2010
7:27:36 AM
Entry #: 3470753
| I can appreciate the arguments for the new HR rule on the purity of the game, and speeding up the game, and making players earn there way on base with a real hit.
Having played for many years in the USPL I have plenty of experience with the dingers and understand what it takes for me to be successful with a good swing. We should not be penalized for hitting one over the fence.
Everyone should look at their own skills and make their own judgment on when and if they can hit a HR. I am getting older and I don't have the time or the energy it takes to be successful every plate appearance. Our league is a way for me to play some ball, have fun with my buddies and get the competitive juices flowing without having to put in the time it would take for me to have a respectable year.
My idea of fun is an offensive game it is slow pitch after all. For some pitcher types I am sure they would prefer an out after a +2 HR because they enjoy the pitching and defense aspect more.
Just my two cents worth, take it or leave it.
|
|
| Houghts
May 11, 2010
4:46:31 PM
Entry #: 3471594
| we all agree with that. The rule was brought in to allow us to continue to use Crosby. It is 240ft down the lines
|
|
| Jim_the_Ump
May 11, 2010
7:12:19 PM
Entry #: 3471769
| In my humble opinion, this is a terrible rule. I counted about 24 balls hit out at Crosby last night over three games. There is no strategy to pounding the ball over a fence in a park that a 14-year-old kid could hit it out of.
But if we're going to stick with this rule, my suggestion to the league is to provide many, many more balls for us to play with, because 2 per game ain't gonna cut it.
Anyway, have fun boys.
Jim_the_Ump
|
|
| Mr. October
May 11, 2010
7:42:40 PM
Entry #: 3471795
| What does supplying more balls have to do with the home run rule? Regardless if it's a strike, ball, double or triple, the ball is leaving the park...get the people on the bench from the hitting team chasing the balls...Now that makes sense...
The rule was voted in by the league...it's not perfect, but agreed upon by the majority..
|
|
| Steaner Jr
May 12, 2010
8:19:25 AM
Entry #: 3472121
| This is not sour grapes because we got absolutely massacred by this rule on Monday night but I have to agree with Jim. In my opinion, the old home run rule forced a team to keep the ball in the park after being up 2 and when you do that there is more chance to make plays in the field and rely on a good defense to win you some games. It gives the small ball teams in this league a fighting chance.
I think this new rule rewards the power hitting clubs too much and takes some of the parity out of this league which I think is one of it's strongest attributes. Although I totally agree with trying new things and looking for ways to improve this great league, I don't think this will be a long term solution that will benefit competition.
2 cents.
|
|
| injury prone
May 12, 2010
3:33:41 PM
Entry #: 3472780
| Just because it was voted in does not make it right, especially in hindsight. The batters no longer have to change their strokes to keep the ball in the park. they can swing with condidence knowing the worst penalty they will get is a walk.
Not quite sure how the rule has allowed us to stay at the Crosby diamond? I for one love the atmosphere, but it is becoming painfully obvious that it is not a field for mens slo pitch.
|
|
| Houghts
May 12, 2010
4:34:12 PM
Entry #: 3472881
| about 7 years ago we played a game against Just in Case and they must have hit 20+ hrs in the game. There was nothing we could do. I believe after that yr the rule came into effect. The bat technology had improved so much that guys who were not normally power hitters were hitting them out. In our game on Monday Hats hit 2 out. I think our team hit 7 that night. I still think we should be playing +2 (especially at Crosby). It makes the game more interesting. In the years since the +2 came into effect I think I have seen it come into play 3 to 4 times at Ashton.
Dave
|
|
| Mac
May 12, 2010
5:25:09 PM
Entry #: 3472958
| Hatz hit 2 long balls??????……………I do believe in Santa Claus & the Easter bunny.
I like the rule.........no penalty for dingers.
|
|
| spectator11
May 12, 2010
6:15:04 PM
Entry #: 3473010
| wojo - I dont see any non-constructive criticism here. Proper channels or not, this is the perfect place to debate something like this.
As steaner said - not sour grapes talking, but we got lit up by DBS on monday because they were allowed to hit dinger after dinger. They scored 20 runs in the first two innings and we only made 1 error in the field (which only cost us 2-3 runs). Do people want to see that kind of game in a semi-final or final? I sure wouldnt.
I like the home-run-on-3rd-strike-is-an-out rule, but at the same time I understand the rationale behind the argument that it essentially penalizes a player for hitting the ball well. Why not meet in the middle? A home run hit by a team that is +2 is a strike UNLESS it is hit with 2 strikes on the batter, in which case the batter gets first base.
I wasnt at the AGM, but I have heard that the 'vote' that was taken was based on a 'poll' of USPL members. There (apparently) was no vote taken from the members who attended, and the only voters were exclusively from the exec committee. Am I wrong? Anyone who actually voted on this care to speak up and clarify?
|
|
| LB4LB.
May 12, 2010
6:36:59 PM
Entry #: 3473023
| I like the rule……………I hope it does not get changed.
One vote for the good guys.
|
|
| hatz
May 12, 2010
6:50:39 PM
Entry #: 3473042
| Houghton got in all wrong, it was 2 home runs in 2 years unless you count the 1 I hit at the T-Ball diamond with my nephew.
Hatz
|
