Fielding Gaffes Waste Visitors' Effective Pitching
Blustery winds and temps in the low 40's made play a bit uncomfortable, particularly for defenders standing in the shade. Nonetheless, seven wifflers completed seven innings in a Sunday morning special at Nance Bradds. As the sun rose and the shadows receded, the bats heated up, too: no thoughts of comfort in a taut game.
Glen, making his first appearance of the season on the asphalt, convinced those chalking the lines to move the mound back to the middle of the window - probably a good four feet further back than the standard applied last year. Pleas that such a change was voted down in the Rules Committee last December, fell upon Glen's deaf ears. Besides most wifflers were too sloshed to remember the Rules Committee anyway. The extra four feet seemed to make a difference for most batters (see, for instance, Stats' three triples, and Brent's three hits). But while the bats were truly active, it was defensive miscues that really were the story of the day - costing the visiting three a win over the home-standing four.
And Brent suffered most from the cement hands in the outfield. With two on and none out in the bottom of the first, Brent induced a fly ball off Stats' bat more or less right at Kurt, who dropped it for a 2-RBI triple. If Kurt makes that catch, Brent escapes the inning unscathed. As it was 2 runs would turn out to be all the home team would need.
Later, pitcher Peter Berwald made a miscue of his own. With a lead off triple standing at third, da Commish attempted a double play on a grounder off Dave Eldridge's bat. The throw came in low and missed the strike zone, allowing a run. Not an error by definition, but a poor decision on his part; one that would open the door for another run later in the inning, completing the Homer's four.
The home team had a gaffe of their own in the field. One out, top of the fifth and da Commish sends a medium high liner to straightaway center field, where we find Glen and Zamonski ... engaged in casual conversation. Returning to the here and now, both men begin to converge on the ball, which is headed in between them. They converge until Glen calls out, "YOURS!" at which point both "outfielders" stop and look into each others' eyes, allowing the ball to drop for a triple. That runner would score in subsequent play on a double by Kurt.
Now. Verily it is so that some wifflers take this pursuit too seriously and others do not. Some kick coffee cups and throw bats, some keep score and calculate slugging averages. Others ... wear capri pants and elfin hats, and critique old films while at play. Neither forms a Platonic ideal, but it is a bit difficult to watch a ball drop between two fielders from the pitching rubber.
Brent, Kurt, Peter - 1
Dave, Eric, Glen, Matt - 4
WP - Lindsay
LP - Mackintosh
SV - Zamonski
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Glen was, and is, awesome.
ReplyDeleteby the way, is it a mere coincidence that the guy wanting the rubber moved back only pitched one inning?
ReplyDeletea scoreless inning I might add
ReplyDeleteindeed. but your chances are improved by limited exposure.
ReplyDeleteThe limited exposure was not my design. Furthermore, if your team's offense had mustered any more than a single run resulting from a fielding error you might not have lost so badly.
ReplyDeletei dunno. you faced 5 batters and 3 got hits.
ReplyDeletei still think balls should be playable off the big red monster in right. (crickets...)
ReplyDeleteMea Culpa. Mea Culpa. I'd like to take this opportunity to apologize, not only to you, Kurt, but to my teammates as well. Moreover, I have to admit that indeed, it was no coincidence that I both lobbied for the mound to be moved back and only pitched one inning. I didn't think anyone would notice, but you know, I'm not so sharp. I forgot with whom I was dealing, but fair is fair - you caught me red-handed. Furthermore, let me say that, while it's no excuse, my defensiveness comes from the fact that I am insecure and thin-skinned. Clearly you're correct when you suggest that the visiting team may have won if I hadn't contrived to engineer the pitching rotation as I had. Or, perhaps I would have played better and embarrassed my squad less if I had been more serious about the game, or worn more acceptable attire. It's hard to say. But, what isn't hard to say is "I'm sorry". If, in the future, should you find my performance equally lacking, or if, in my shame, I resort to the kind of under-handed tactics that so robbed you of a "W" today I ask only that you point it out, publicly, so that I may better learn from my humiliation.
ReplyDeleteYou're right, Kurt. It wasn't simply mere coincidence that had me both lobbying for the mound to be pushed back and my only pitching one inning. I didn't think anyone would see through my little ruse, but then, I forgot with whom I was dealing. Moreover, you're doubly right to suggest that the visiting team probably would have won if I hadn't contrived to pitch only once. You know, you may only be hitting .400, but when it comes to being right, you're hitting 1.000! Lesson learned on this end. A thousand pardons.
ReplyDeleteGlen: you are awesome.
ReplyDeleteI think I agree with Dave, the deeper pitching mound resulted in a lot of waiting for the pitchers to find the strike zone (except for Dave and Kurt of course). But, when the pitch did finally find the zone - more were put in play. Out of 39 outs today (21 V, 18 H), 19 were recoded by Strikeout. That seems low to me (for wiffle).
ReplyDeleteYup, checked for all of last year: 63.2% of all outs were by K last year. So, caveat for small sample size, but more contact made today.
ReplyDelete"Medium high liner?" I ripped the fricken skin off that ball. Those two "outfielders" could only watch helplessly as the ball dented the asphalt. However, when I was pitching there was a dropped ball and two catchable floaters which were overlooked in the blog. I did, however, throw a wimpy ball trying to get the double play but, hey, gotta take some chances. I'm ready to play again but next week's weather prediction looks stormy.
ReplyDeletecommish
Kurt,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the kind words of support, but really, I don't deserve them. The fact is I'm thin-skinned, prone to anger and, let's face it, a wiffle-fashion disaster. I don't like getting called out for my on-field shenanigans and I'm self-conscious about my lack of seriousness as well as my attire. I'm going to redouble my efforts in the coming weeks, relying less on tomfoolery and more on good old-fashioned hard work.
Glen: you are awesome.
ReplyDeleteKurt: you are too.
ReplyDeleteAnother thought to ponder: which has more effect on the number of outs NOT by strikeout: the distance from mound to plate or the number of outfielders?
ReplyDeleteIs it a valid comparison to compare the number of outs not by K in a game with 7 players to ALL of last season?