Quote:
Originally Posted by NCASAUmp
I couldn't disagree more. I call in two leagues, one that starts with a 1-1 and one that starts with the regular 0-0 count. The league with the 1-1 quite consistently has their games end much sooner than the league that doesn't go with the 1-1. Remember that 13-inning game that ended in an hour and 25 minutes? Yep, 1-1.
|
Of course, that couldn't be because one team has a better defense to handle the ball being put into play more often, could it?
Quote:
|
Look the games are short enough as it is: usually an hour, give or take 5-10 minutes. Most SP tournaments are able to keep with the schedule with only a few going over their time slots.
|
The game is 7 innings unless one team is dominant which would happen regardless of the count.
Quote:
|
I do see the advantage that a 1-1 gives a pitcher, as the batters won't wait until they have 1 or 2 strikes before taking a swing. They become less "choosey" and more willing to hit a ball that isn't their "perfect pitch."
|
Which is sort of the idea. It isn't as though the change only took away a strike. It also took away a ball. The game isn't about the perfect pitch, it is about a pitch which is either a strike or a ball. If FP is 4-3, why shouldn't a game in which it is much easier to pitch and the pitch is much easier to hit be the same?
Quote:
Still, I think it's unnecessary. Do we really want 45-minute games? Hell, I've even had 30-minute games with a 1-1.
|
Then the players in your area must suck. The game in my area with a 1-1 count take 60-75 minutes unless abbreviated by a run rule.
But this should make you happy. The proposed rule change has be amended to exclude the Masters and Senior games.