Hey team,
I'd really like to get your feedback on this. Here is what I was thinking of posting, but really want to know what you all think before I do so.
Cheaters consistently have a full roster of eager players, and it pains me every game to coordinate who sits out and who plays each inning (we are mostly self managed, but sometime we need a little help). Just like each one of them, I want everyone to be able to play as much as possible. We have a greater chance of achieving that with 11 than with 10 on the field, and frankly, sometimes, we need as much help as we can get out there.
If you look at some of the scores out there, I don't think many teams are having much trouble running through their line ups and getting chances to kick.
I'd like to see an official poll posted so that we can all see how many votes come in for each.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I saw that on the forum and thought it was a good idea at first. Personally I would rather kick 3 or 4 times in a game than twice. But I agree with Suzie (I think), that some teams would benefit more from this rule change than others - particularly the very good, competive teams. You make do with the players you have on a team (or opposing team), and work your strategery around the team. Why cut back on players so teams can get better at taking advantage of the holes? Figuratively speaking, put your ball in the hole you have, don't find yourself a bigger hole. The end all effect of reducing the number of fielders will be the creation of more teams, which may be more trouble than its worth. I'd vote no.
Originally I was thinking no, but after reading some of the other posts I'm actually pretty torn on the subject. I made mention of the Cheaters always having a full roster and rarely (if ever) needing a sub. I think ultimately forcing people to sit out because of cutting the roster down, would end up making the kickball community smaller because the people sitting out wouldn't feel involved. Sure, if they have tasty beverages on the sidelines it wouldn't be as bad but on the same token, I know I for one would rather be playing as much as possible instead of sitting out. I'm gonna vote no on the change as well.
Our field has enough holes in it already. No to 10.
The only way I would be inclined to embrace the proposal fewer fielders is if the bunt was banned.
As presented to the OKC, I do not care for the idea as it would lead to smaller rosters or more sitting out. Both of which strike me as a departure from the original concept of the OKC. If the "powerhouse-uberteams" wish to spice things up, then they are welcome to field the minimum 8 players at anytime.
Like Slosh, I'm torn on the subject. We ought to keep in mind that this is a next-year change we are talking about, not a next-week one. I've played quite a lot of seasons with the Cheaters, and every year we have a bunch of new players, a bunch of newly-minted ex-Cheaters to play against on other teams, a bunch of missing people who might have returned but didn't because they have quit kickball or moved a way or something, and, of course a bunch of familiar faces come back for another round of drubbings from the rest of the league. Not all of us are going to play for the OKC Cheaters next year - we've both gained and lost several people already just in the course of the season. So it isn't as if we are going to be in a position where we have too many players and have to cut people or anything. We just make our decision on how many places on our roster to have based upon how many fielders can be on the field, and our players' availability. Based on past experience, we will, come May of next year, have only, say, 10 returning players. So instead of recruiting 3 or 4 or 5 more, we only recruit 2 or 3 or 4. Not a problem, though it does mean our dues go up a bit. In return, though, everyone gets more action and we have a better chance of scoring, maybe. It's the more action thing that I see as the big benefit, and I'd even be open to seeing how it works with only 9 fielders, for that reason.
It seems as though making this change would only create a more competitive league for less people vs. a competitive and fun league for more people. They can say that it would be more fun to be at bat more (and it would), but I like to play defense too so sitting out more would suck. Plus I would have to drink more.. then my fielding/kicking abilities of course would go down. Basically, I like the way it is now. GO CHEATERS!
We could always add an inning or two to the game to get more up-to-bat opportunities. We seem to often play shorter duration games and potentially have time for extra innings. More competitive games that have longer innings would be cut-off by the one-hour time limit. A change like this would motiveate people to show-up and start on-time in order to avoid having their games cut-short.
See but the thing I'm saying is that how many people sit out is as much a function of how many players are on the roster, as it is of how many people are allowed on the field. You know? The idea is that if you have fewer people on the field it will make it more likely that (a)teams will try to kick away instead of bunting, and (b)fielders will have more chances to touch the ball. I mean, I like it the way things are now, too, and I'm not lobbying hard for the rule change or anything. I just think that it is an idea worth looking at from a fun standpoint.
here's a dumb idea: for doubleheaders, reduce the number of fielders in the inning, and play 3 games instead of 2. keep the weekday games regular.
Since we have already started down the path of two distinct divisions distinguished by performance record, why not look at adjusting the rules based on that. The “A” or Patrician Division plays with 9 fielders and the “B” or Plebian Division continues with 11. When a team’s performance record is sufficiently reflective of competitive ability, they are “bumped up” to the higher division. In theory it would satisfy the desire for some teams to continue with large rosters and encourage the “A’ teams to hone their skills (maybe even make it more competitvely interesting for them) when playing “B”teams.
D- I was waiting for that Patrician-Plebian post! haha
I was thinking about this all day (yes, pretty bored today) and if it was only 10 players I don't think it would make much of a difference, playing wise. One person could be like a rover so if you expect the kicker to bunt they could come in to that extra 3rd base position or the other way around go into the outfield. Kinda like football - putting in a nickel formation in a passing situation.
Whatever - dodgeball tonight!!
thanks for the input everyone.
I guess I keep thinking of it as a now thing rather than a next season thing. yes, we could keep the roster smaller with consideration to who will genuinely come back (and while I would hope all of you would come back, I know some won't) and not recruit as heavily. I have tried to keep the roster full in order to allow for time off for everyone and still have a solid team. Fortunately, we never needed a sub this season. Maybe if they decide to cut the fielding to 10, we could propose that they retract the sub rule that was put in place this season. I don't want to be stubborn about this. We have such a strong defense this season, I don't want to lose the momentum.
Post a Comment