It's About Time . . .

[David B]

Originally Posted by Tim C

No this thread has nothing to do with either Joe E. Ross or Imogene Coca . . .

I am still stuck on an earlier thread where we were discussing the "average" time of a varsity high school baseball game.

We had a wide range of estimates of length of games. We were doing fine until one poster decided to place arbitrary time limits on individual activities.

Here's my sitaution:

Game #4001 was a varsity high school game betwix two pretty good teams.

The final score was 8-7. We had a 5 run bottom of the first and a 6 run top of the 7th for the losing visitor.

We finished in 1:29.

Since the original thread I have been talking to local umpires and all feel "most games" go between 1:30 and 1:45 @ the high school varsity level (sure we have games that go forever but I am talking average).

Now I don't think high school baseball is any better (or any worse) than other areas in the US -- my questions falls back to the original thread:

Why do games in certain areas take 2:00 as an average and other areas considerably less?

Enquiring minds type thing.

Regards,

I've noticed in our state, I'm living in north part now whereas I've lived in the south part the last 18 years:

Games in the south were much faster. Kids know how to pitch and coaches know how to keep the games moving.

In the north, I see much fewer good pitchers and coaches tend to drag around a lot which I fault the umpires.

In my games, most of them are under an hour average mainly because I've had so many five inning ten-run rule games.

So I'm thinking its because of pitching and umpires letting coaches control the game is why its slower where I am now.

Doubleheader last night, 1:45 first game, 1:40 second game.

Tuesday night 3 hours (went 10 innings) and just over two hours.

Thanks
David

[ManInBlue]

Originally Posted by David B

I've noticed in our state, I'm living in north part now whereas I've lived in the south part the last 18 years:

Games in the south were much faster. Kids know how to pitch and coaches know how to keep the games moving.

In the north, I see much fewer good pitchers and coaches tend to drag around a lot which I fault the umpires.

In my games, most of them are under an hour average mainly because I've had so many five inning ten-run rule games.

So I'm thinking its because of pitching and umpires letting coaches control the game is why its slower where I am now.

Doubleheader last night, 1:45 first game, 1:40 second game.

Tuesday night 3 hours (went 10 innings) and just over two hours.

Thanks
David

I think that has more to do with the area you're in or the schools you're doing. I have that same difference from one school to another or from one district or division (1A, 2A...) to another. I'm not too much farther north than you and we've got some well coached teams/kids in the north 1/2. Also may be due to the mismatches we run into (one good team, one can't buy an out...)

I've had a few of the 1:30 games and one of those 10 inning, 3:30 marathons. I consider anything between 1:30 and 2:30 to be "normal" and will generally say game time was "about 2 hours"

Off topic - I've got Kosciusko at Oxford tomorrow if it doesn't rain out.

[BretMan]

I just got home from a game that took 2 hours 5 minutes. Probabaly a slightly higher number of walks than average, lots of 3-2 counts and a good dollop of errors that kept innings alive. But the kids hustled in and out between innings, they kept me supplied with baseballs, the coaches were quick about making substitutions and I counted warm-up pitches like a hawk. With warm weather and sunny skies it was an altogether pleasant afternoon at the ballpark!

Earlier this week, I did a 3 hour game that was called for darkness after only 3 innings had been played! One of the sloppiest games I can ever recall, filled with walks (yes, I was being generous with my strike zone) and error after error after error on routine plays. If the sun hadn't set, we might still be there!

So, I guess that it balances out. My game management was the same for both games- the difference was in the quality of play displayed by the teams.

This is a good subject and it brings to mind two things.

The first is that I always find it odd that baseball umpires go all winter chomping at the bit, anticipating spring and itching for the games to start. Then, when they finally start, they start looking for ways to make them end more quickly!

The other is...does anybody here even remember the 1960's sitcom "It's About Time"?

[SAump]

FWIW...

When I started, I thought I was there for the kids and I would have been there as long as it takes to get the job done. It really didn't matter if a game took less than 2 hours, but it "certainily" was nice to enjoy the entire break between DH's. I noticed the adult coaches would schedule DH's only to play 2/3 of the second game on Saturday. They didn't want to be there past the scheduled time. It was like waiting for the school bell when everyone wanted to leave 15 minutes earlier to get somewhere else, anywhere else. I noticed the second game would get sloppy early and I blamed it on the 2nd string kids. The 2nd string kids were already use to leaving the game with an unfinished attitude because their games were cut short.

I was responsible for game management and I wanted to get the job done well. Everyone wanted a chance for one more hit and it was my job to make that happen. There was no other option than to expand my strike zone. It was my responsibility to keep the game moving along during a half-inning. Yeah, I took my share of bad call comments but I wasn't listening to the "growlers" about the umpire wanting to go home early. I recognized that my calls weren't as important to those kids as another chance to bat. As soon as they began to recognize that 2 complete games were being finished as scheduled, the "sloppyness" factor turned around. The second game began to have meaning again. My calls didn't mean as much as the action taking place on the field and everyone was "happy" with the end results.

TIWAGOS

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by BretMan

does anybody here even remember the 1960's sitcom "It's About Time"?

Since Tim C started this thread with the names of two of the stars, I'd guess he does.

Me, too.

"It's about time, it's about space, About two men in the strangest place."

[SanDiegoSteve]

I remember watching it when I was a kid. I thought Gronk and his wife were a hoot.

"It's about time, it's about flight, traveling faster than the speed of light."

[David B]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

I think that has more to do with the area you're in or the schools you're doing. I have that same difference from one school to another or from one district or division (1A, 2A...) to another. I'm not too much farther north than you and we've got some well coached teams/kids in the north 1/2. Also may be due to the mismatches we run into (one good team, one can't buy an out...)

I've had a few of the 1:30 games and one of those 10 inning, 3:30 marathons. I consider anything between 1:30 and 2:30 to be "normal" and will generally say game time was "about 2 hours"

Off topic - I've got Kosciusko at Oxford tomorrow if it doesn't rain out.

Might be a good game, I caught a little of the first game on Friday after my son's 11-12 yr. game. Oxford is good, but Kosy can give them a run if they will get good pitching (and a little help from the umpires ... (g)

Thanks
David

[David B]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

I think that has more to do with the area you're in or the schools you're doing. I have that same difference from one school to another or from one district or division (1A, 2A...) to another. I'm not too much farther north than you and we've got some well coached teams/kids in the north 1/2. Also may be due to the mismatches we run into (one good team, one can't buy an out...)

I've had a few of the 1:30 games and one of those 10 inning, 3:30 marathons. I consider anything between 1:30 and 2:30 to be "normal" and will generally say game time was "about 2 hours"

Off topic - I've got Kosciusko at Oxford tomorrow if it doesn't rain out.

As far as the thread, there are more mismatches in north part of state. You have Tupelo and Oxford etc., and Jackson always has a few good teams, but nothing compared to Petal, Hattiesburg, Oak Grove and of course now Sumrall (what ranked in top 10 nationally).

Thanks
David

[ManInBlue]

Originally Posted by David B

As far as the thread, there are more mismatches in north part of state. You have Tupelo and Oxford etc., and Jackson always has a few good teams, but nothing compared to Petal, Hattiesburg, Oak Grove and of course now Sumrall (what ranked in top 10 nationally).

Thanks
David

Can't argue that.