Hey everyone,

Like I have mentioned I am advising a team that is forming in Maine
and they are looking towards playing a few games this summer. As you
all know Essex/Lynn have a lot of things going on so we will only be
able to play them once or twice this year so I was wondering what
people thought about me inviting them to the league meeting so they
can meet some of you guys and maybe set up some games. I think they
are going to be based out of Augusta but Im not sure.

Let me know what you think.
Brian

Hey everyone,

Like I have mentioned I am advising a team that is forming in Maine
and they are looking towards playing a few games this summer. As you
all know Essex/Lynn have a lot of things going on so we will only be
able to play them once or twice this year so I was wondering what
people thought about me inviting them to the league meeting so they
can meet some of you guys and maybe set up some games. I think they
are going to be based out of Augusta but Im not sure.

Let me know what you think.
Brian

I would like to hear suggestions and ideas on another subject.  While it is important to discuss the merits of a reasonably authentic game I would like to hear ideas on how to better present the game.  Generally we play in fields away from the public with a few cranks in attendance.  Is there any way to bring the game to a broader audience?  From what I've read the fans contributed to the game with their enthusiasm and love of the home team.  Can or should we link the league to historical events?  Should we work to develop working relationships with historical groups, reenactment groups, or historical societies? What has been the experience of teams that have worked with local groups?  I read how Long Island, Ohio, and New York have had tremendous success in devolving vintage fields and tournaments.   Brian, what has been your experience with the Essex Historical?   

Bob Scappini

Coventry

-----Original Message-----
From: nevbbl@yahoogroups.com [mailto:nevbbl@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of brian sheehy
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 11:32 PM
To: nevbbl@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [nevbbl] Re: What is the Value of the League?

Hey guys,

 

I have to agree with what Greg and Pistey said about the discussion- I think its great. I think what Pistey said in response to my earlier email really helped elaborate on what I was trying to say and what I see this league being.

 

If we go back to the middle of the summer and look at some emails about all of the new teams forming there was a big uproar that these teams were not contacting us they were contacting Greg Martin and they were brain childs of him- I learned this wasnt the case. These teams are springing up for all kinds of different reasons and all have different ideas and objectives in playing vintage base ball. Some teams-- Providence and NH actaully sprung up because their captains were turned down by other clubs. I think that it is wrong to say to a team- yeah you cant be in our league unless you play 1861 baseball. You can play against our teams but if you want to join you HAVE to convert. Sorry guys there are some teams out there that prefer to play other styles. Broading our league will help bridge some of the gaps that seem to be creeping up between some of the teams in New England. Instead of throwing up the brick wall lets welcome all teams and create something even bigger. I was not involved with the origins of the league but I have heard it was developed to foster relationships between clubs correct- well extending and expanding will help all teams in New England foster new and different relationships.

 

Sorry-----

Brian

Jon Pistey <mrpistey@...> wrote:

As always, everyone has good points and makes strong arguements.  Here's my take on the developments...

John S. and Bishop both have valid points, but it may be possible for them to work together.  Instead of being one league playing by a predictable set of rules, we can be an association of leagues.  Each league would have a predetermined schedule and predictable set of rules.  It would be up to each team to determine which league, or leagues, it wanted to be a part of, and it would play the required number of games by the established rules for each league.

Scheduling could be a problem unless, for example, we determined there would be four leagues.  The 1861 (Cherry Bat) league would play on the 1st and 3rd saturdays of each month.  The 1868 league would play on the first and third Sundays.  The other two leagues would play on the 2nd and 4th saturdays and sundays.   

One of the league goals is to foster new divisions, teams and players.  Divisions = Leagues if you want to think of it that way.  more leagues = more teams.  more teams = more players.  goal accomplished. 

Is there a point to being in a league if you don't like the rules?  I can't say that there is.  I can say that there are teams out there that aren't in our league becasue they don't want to play 1861 rules.  And I can say that not all the teams in the current league like the 1861 rules.  How do we remedy this situation?  How does the current league grow and keep its members happy?  The only way is to expand it's scope to include other eras.  otherwise teams will join with other teams and form another league which suits their needs. 

We are at a point where we as a league need to decide whether we will remain a one era (1861?)  league which only allows teams to join that want to play by those rules, or if we want to become a vintage baseball organization which provides a structure for different leagues, and which can provide direction, assistance and arbitration for the leagues under the umbrella of a New England Vintage Baseball Association.  Each league would have its own officials, rule experts, etc. and would develop as our current league has, or it would be phased-out if there was not enough interest. 

The latter option would provide consistent rules for games in each era, would provide consistent scheduling parameters for each era, and it would bring in established teams which are already playing by rules other than 1861.

"Conveying the value of the league to new teams that are forming" is important.  But a league that doesn't fit the new teams' needs  has no value.  So, they find other teams that have the same needs and form their own league instead of .  Should we form the league before they do based on the format we've been using for the existing 1861 league, or do we let them fend for themselves?  It seems to fit the proposed mission of the league to form new leagues to help develop more teams and increase membership.

To the future...

Pistol

 

--- "Andy" <acrudeboy@...> wrote:
 
From: "Andy" <acrudeboy@...>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:50:37 -0000
To: nevbbl@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [nevbbl] Re: What is the Value of the League?

Rules:
I will leave aside the question of which ruleset for now, and ask you to consider whether it is better to have one ruleset adopted by the league per season or to allow many rulesets each season?

I think that we need one ruleset per season for the League to play by. I would like to see all teams play by those rules. If we have to compromise, I would want to see us playing league games by two different rule sets at most.

 

Scheduling:
Do you still value the league and enjoy playing as part of a league?

I still enjoy playing in the league and I view my league games as the foundation of a good season for my team.

If so, is what is a reasonable number of dates to make the league a vital and interesting part of the vintage season while also allowing teams the flexibility to do other things?

Last year we had 6 dates. I would say that should be the absolute minimum. Our team was thinking that 8 dates would be a good number.  

 

 

League Growth/ League Value Proposition:
What is the value proposition of our league?

I think that the value proposition is that we have an established gentlemanly approach to play, established teams, established rules, and a set schedule.

Do you want a loose association of teams that you can contact and hopefully get some games with? OR
Do you want to have a predicatable set of game dates, by a predicatable set of rules, against established teams?

I would like to see us maintain a strong league. I think we should have predicatable rules, a reasonable number of league set game dates and I want to continue to play against my friends in the league.

Further I would like to see us convey the value of the league to all of the teams out there that are forming.

Thanks,

-Bishop

 

 

 

---

Get your FREE saabnet.com email address - http://webmail.saabnet.com/

---

Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Everyone----
                  I agree completely with Andy, and John, and Brian, and Pistol.....the list goes on. Excellent discussion and valid points all around.
                  How about another option to consider? Why not keep a schedule of 7 or 8 league dates, and play by varying rules at each date? This way, for instance, each team plays:
                                          One match (two games) by 1861 (2004)
                                          One match by 1861 (2005)
                                          One match by 1864
                                          One match by 1867
                                          One match by 1871
                                          One match by 1873
                                          One match by 1876
I think that everyone is comfortable with the underhand game----the teams just play in a progression. We learn the game as it evolved, and enjoy ourselves in the process. Then everyone essentially plays the same schedule, everyone learns the game, we're still a league, and the Cherry Bat means that teams have to "get up to speed" as the season progresses. Rules will be posted on the website or on this group page. My only caveat to this would be that if we agreed as a league to start earlier, maybe the first date is a Townball match. (Just be careful with the Massachusetts Game---you need stakes not bases, and runners can be "soaked"---but on the brightside, games are usually for set times not innings, or there could be a mutually agreed upon number of Aces----it started with 100, but went down to 21). I know that we are not really interested in the overhand game---we schedule at least one every year with Providence and guys invariably get hurt.
                   I am torn on John's point about only scheduling 4 dates and Andy's point about maintaining the integrity of the league----on the one hand, if the majority vote for rules does not completely go the way a team wanted (like us and Bristol), it keeps the number of dates played by those rules limited. Then said team could schedule the rest of its dates accordingly. Sounds swell. But, Andy's point about keeping the league viable and strong is another point to consider. If we are not playing one another, why call ourselves a league?

                  I think here is where we come down on the argument/s. We like to play, but we want to avoid the controversies of last season. We usually play a full schedule that includes varying rules----and we really enjoy the "weirdness" of the late 1860s and 1870s game. The bounce rule, however, is gone. It would put a premium on balls and strikes, though. The only scenario we are potentially against is having a vote where a majority of teams outvotes a minority of teams in the league on "ONE SET OF RULES" and it leads to bitterness, or the potential breakup of the league. A majority of our guys play for camaraderie and the fun of the game, some of our guys play because they are really competitive and have veins sticking out of their foreheads, and others are historians and students of the game. I like John's ideas so much because they allow for compromise.

                 It's the old Woody Allen line from Annie Hall where he says that "A relationship is like a shark. It has to constantly swim through the water or it dies. And...I think what we have here is a dead shark." I would love nothing better than to increase the league and to make it vibrant with flexibility in rules. Even though we want to play new teams this year and put them on our schedule whether thay are in the NEVBBL or not (like NL, Newtown, Putnam...and like Brian says, maybe not a NH team just for the drive), we want to continue to foster the friendships and harmonious feelings we have with other teams in this league, and not feel as if we have to sever ties with them. Although it is hard to bridge the gap----I guess our position is that we'd like to keep the integrity of the league strong (everyone plays everyone like Andy said) but have some flexibility to try new rules and to educate the cranks and our own players by trying different rules and not being stuck with only one set.
                  
                                     "Two Cents" Greg

---

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

• Visit your group "nevbbl <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nevbbl> " on the web.
• To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
• nevbbl-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:nevbbl-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
• Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
  

---

-----Original Message-----
From: nevbbl@yahoogroups.com [mailto:nevbbl@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of brian sheehy
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 11:32 PM
To: nevbbl@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [nevbbl] Re: What is the Value of the League?

Hey guys,

 

I have to agree with what Greg and Pistey said about the discussion- I think its great. I think what Pistey said in response to my earlier email really helped elaborate on what I was trying to say and what I see this league being.

 

If we go back to the middle of the summer and look at some emails about all of the new teams forming there was a big uproar that these teams were not contacting us they were contacting Greg Martin and they were brain childs of him- I learned this wasnt the case. These teams are springing up for all kinds of different reasons and all have different ideas and objectives in playing vintage base ball. Some teams-- Providence and NH actaully sprung up because their captains were turned down by other clubs. I think that it is wrong to say to a team- yeah you cant be in our league unless you play 1861 baseball. You can play against our teams but if you want to join you HAVE to convert. Sorry guys there are some teams out there that prefer to play other styles. Broading our league will help bridge some of the gaps that seem to be creeping up between some of the teams in New England. Instead of throwing up the brick wall lets welcome all teams and create something even bigger. I was not involved with the origins of the league but I have heard it was developed to foster relationships between clubs correct- well extending and expanding will help all teams in New England foster new and different relationships.

 

Sorry-----

Brian

Jon Pistey <mrpistey@...> wrote:

As always, everyone has good points and makes strong arguements.  Here's my take on the developments...

John S. and Bishop both have valid points, but it may be possible for them to work together.  Instead of being one league playing by a predictable set of rules, we can be an association of leagues.  Each league would have a predetermined schedule and predictable set of rules.  It would be up to each team to determine which league, or leagues, it wanted to be a part of, and it would play the required number of games by the established rules for each league.

Scheduling could be a problem unless, for example, we determined there would be four leagues.  The 1861 (Cherry Bat) league would play on the 1st and 3rd saturdays of each month.  The 1868 league would play on the first and third Sundays.  The other two leagues would play on the 2nd and 4th saturdays and sundays.   

One of the league goals is to foster new divisions, teams and players.  Divisions = Leagues if you want to think of it that way.  more leagues = more teams.  more teams = more players.  goal accomplished. 

Is there a point to being in a league if you don't like the rules?  I can't say that there is.  I can say that there are teams out there that aren't in our league becasue they don't want to play 1861 rules.  And I can say that not all the teams in the current league like the 1861 rules.  How do we remedy this situation?  How does the current league grow and keep its members happy?  The only way is to expand it's scope to include other eras.  otherwise teams will join with other teams and form another league which suits their needs. 

We are at a point where we as a league need to decide whether we will remain a one era (1861?)  league which only allows teams to join that want to play by those rules, or if we want to become a vintage baseball organization which provides a structure for different leagues, and which can provide direction, assistance and arbitration for the leagues under the umbrella of a New England Vintage Baseball Association.  Each league would have its own officials, rule experts, etc. and would develop as our current league has, or it would be phased-out if there was not enough interest. 

The latter option would provide consistent rules for games in each era, would provide consistent scheduling parameters for each era, and it would bring in established teams which are already playing by rules other than 1861.

"Conveying the value of the league to new teams that are forming" is important.  But a league that doesn't fit the new teams' needs  has no value.  So, they find other teams that have the same needs and form their own league instead of .  Should we form the league before they do based on the format we've been using for the existing 1861 league, or do we let them fend for themselves?  It seems to fit the proposed mission of the league to form new leagues to help develop more teams and increase membership.

To the future...

Pistol

 

--- "Andy" <acrudeboy@...> wrote:
 
From: "Andy" <acrudeboy@...>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:50:37 -0000
To: nevbbl@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [nevbbl] Re: What is the Value of the League?

Rules:
I will leave aside the question of which ruleset for now, and ask you to consider whether it is better to have one ruleset adopted by the league per season or to allow many rulesets each season?

I think that we need one ruleset per season for the League to play by. I would like to see all teams play by those rules. If we have to compromise, I would want to see us playing league games by two different rule sets at most.

 

Scheduling:
Do you still value the league and enjoy playing as part of a league?

I still enjoy playing in the league and I view my league games as the foundation of a good season for my team.

If so, is what is a reasonable number of dates to make the league a vital and interesting part of the vintage season while also allowing teams the flexibility to do other things?

Last year we had 6 dates. I would say that should be the absolute minimum. Our team was thinking that 8 dates would be a good number.  

 

 

League Growth/ League Value Proposition:
What is the value proposition of our league?

I think that the value proposition is that we have an established gentlemanly approach to play, established teams, established rules, and a set schedule.

Do you want a loose association of teams that you can contact and hopefully get some games with? OR
Do you want to have a predicatable set of game dates, by a predicatable set of rules, against established teams?

I would like to see us maintain a strong league. I think we should have predicatable rules, a reasonable number of league set game dates and I want to continue to play against my friends in the league.

Further I would like to see us convey the value of the league to all of the teams out there that are forming.

Thanks,

-Bishop

 

 

 

---

Get your FREE saabnet.com email address - http://webmail.saabnet.com/

---

Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the nevbbl
group.

   File        : /1871.doc
   Uploaded by : historyball <historyball@...>
   Description :

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nevbbl/files/1871.doc

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

historyball <historyball@...>

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the nevbbl
group.

   File        : /1867.doc
   Uploaded by : historyball <historyball@...>
   Description :

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nevbbl/files/1867.doc

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

historyball <historyball@...>

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the nevbbl
group.

   File        : /1864Beadle_s.doc
   Uploaded by : historyball <historyball@...>
   Description :

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nevbbl/files/1864Beadle_s.doc

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

historyball <historyball@...>

As always, everyone has good points and makes strong arguements.  Here's my take on the developments...

John S. and Bishop both have valid points, but it may be possible for them to work together.  Instead of being one league playing by a predictable set of rules, we can be an association of leagues.  Each league would have a predetermined schedule and predictable set of rules.  It would be up to each team to determine which league, or leagues, it wanted to be a part of, and it would play the required number of games by the established rules for each league.

Scheduling could be a problem unless, for example, we determined there would be four leagues.  The 1861 (Cherry Bat) league would play on the 1st and 3rd saturdays of each month.  The 1868 league would play on the first and third Sundays.  The other two leagues would play on the 2nd and 4th saturdays and sundays.   

One of the league goals is to foster new divisions, teams and players.  Divisions = Leagues if you want to think of it that way.  more leagues = more teams.  more teams = more players.  goal accomplished. 

Is there a point to being in a league if you don't like the rules?  I can't say that there is.  I can say that there are teams out there that aren't in our league becasue they don't want to play 1861 rules.  And I can say that not all the teams in the current league like the 1861 rules.  How do we remedy this situation?  How does the current league grow and keep its members happy?  The only way is to expand it's scope to include other eras.  otherwise teams will join with other teams and form another league which suits their needs. 

We are at a point where we as a league need to decide whether we will remain a one era (1861?)  league which only allows teams to join that want to play by those rules, or if we want to become a vintage baseball organization which provides a structure for different leagues, and which can provide direction, assistance and arbitration for the leagues under the umbrella of a New England Vintage Baseball Association.  Each league would have its own officials, rule experts, etc. and would develop as our current league has, or it would be phased-out if there was not enough interest. 

The latter option would provide consistent rules for games in each era, would provide consistent scheduling parameters for each era, and it would bring in established teams which are already playing by rules other than 1861.

"Conveying the value of the league to new teams that are forming" is important.  But a league that doesn't fit the new teams' needs  has no value.  So, they find other teams that have the same needs and form their own league instead of .  Should we form the league before they do based on the format we've been using for the existing 1861 league, or do we let them fend for themselves?  It seems to fit the proposed mission of the league to form new leagues to help develop more teams and increase membership.

To the future...

Pistol

 

--- "Andy" <acrudeboy@...> wrote:
 
From: "Andy" <acrudeboy@...>
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:50:37 -0000
To: nevbbl@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [nevbbl] Re: What is the Value of the League?

Rules:
I will leave aside the question of which ruleset for now, and ask you to consider whether it is better to have one ruleset adopted by the league per season or to allow many rulesets each season?

I think that we need one ruleset per season for the League to play by. I would like to see all teams play by those rules. If we have to compromise, I would want to see us playing league games by two different rule sets at most.

 

Scheduling:
Do you still value the league and enjoy playing as part of a league?

I still enjoy playing in the league and I view my league games as the foundation of a good season for my team.

If so, is what is a reasonable number of dates to make the league a vital and interesting part of the vintage season while also allowing teams the flexibility to do other things?

Last year we had 6 dates. I would say that should be the absolute minimum. Our team was thinking that 8 dates would be a good number.  

 

 

League Growth/ League Value Proposition:
What is the value proposition of our league?

I think that the value proposition is that we have an established gentlemanly approach to play, established teams, established rules, and a set schedule.

Do you want a loose association of teams that you can contact and hopefully get some games with? OR
Do you want to have a predicatable set of game dates, by a predicatable set of rules, against established teams?

I would like to see us maintain a strong league. I think we should have predicatable rules, a reasonable number of league set game dates and I want to continue to play against my friends in the league.

Further I would like to see us convey the value of the league to all of the teams out there that are forming.

Thanks,

-Bishop

 

 

 

---

Get your FREE saabnet.com email address - http://webmail.saabnet.com/

Everyone----
                    I agree completely with Andy, and John, and Brian, and
Pistol.....the list goes on. Excellent discussion and valid points all around.
                    How about another option to consider? Why not keep a schedule
of 7 or 8 league dates, and play by varying rules at each date? This way, for
instance, each team plays:
                                            One match (two games) by 1861 (2004)
                                            One match by 1861 (2005)
                                            One match by 1864
                                            One match by 1867
                                            One match by 1871
                                            One match by 1873
                                            One match by 1876
I think that everyone is comfortable with the underhand game----the teams just
play in a progression. We learn the game as it evolved, and enjoy ourselves in
the process. Then everyone essentially plays the same schedule, everyone learns
the game, we're still a league, and the Cherry Bat means that teams have to "get
up to speed" as the season progresses. Rules will be posted on the website or on
this group page. My only caveat to this would be that if we agreed as a league
to start earlier, maybe the first date is a Townball match. (Just be careful
with the Massachusetts Game---you need stakes not bases, and runners can be
"soaked"---but on the brightside, games are usually for set times not innings,
or there could be a mutually agreed upon number of Aces----it started with 100,
but went down to 21). I know that we are not really interested in the overhand
game---we schedule at least one every year with Providence and guys invariably
get hurt.
                     I am torn on John's point about only scheduling 4 dates and
Andy's point about maintaining the integrity of the league----on the one hand,
if the majority vote for rules does not completely go the way a team wanted
(like us and Bristol), it keeps the number of dates played by those rules
limited. Then said team could schedule the rest of its dates accordingly. Sounds
swell. But, Andy's point about keeping the league viable and strong is another
point to consider. If we are not playing one another, why call ourselves a
league?

                    I think here is where we come down on the argument/s. We like
to play, but we want to avoid the controversies of last season. We usually play
a full schedule that includes varying rules----and we really enjoy the
"weirdness" of the late 1860s and 1870s game. The bounce rule, however, is gone.
It would put a premium on balls and strikes, though. The only scenario we are
potentially against is having a vote where a majority of teams outvotes a
minority of teams in the league on "ONE SET OF RULES" and it leads to
bitterness, or the potential breakup of the league. A majority of our guys play
for camaraderie and the fun of the game, some of our guys play because they are
really competitive and have veins sticking out of their foreheads, and others
are historians and students of the game. I like John's ideas so much because
they allow for compromise.

                   It's the old Woody Allen line from Annie Hall where he says
that "A relationship is like a shark. It has to constantly swim through the
water or it dies. And...I think what we have here is a dead shark." I would love
nothing better than to increase the league and to make it vibrant with
flexibility in rules. Even though we want to play new teams this year and put
them on our schedule whether thay are in the NEVBBL or not (like NL, Newtown,
Putnam...and like Brian says, maybe not a NH team just for the drive), we want
to continue to foster the friendships and harmonious feelings we have with other
teams in this league, and not feel as if we have to sever ties with them.
Although it is hard to bridge the gap----I guess our position is that we'd like
to keep the integrity of the league strong (everyone plays everyone like Andy
said) but have some flexibility to try new rules and to educate the cranks and
our own players by trying different rules and not being stuck with only one set.

                                       "Two Cents" Greg

As always, everyone has good points and makes strong arguements.  Here's my take on the developments...

John S. and Bishop both have valid points, but it may be possible for them to work together.  Instead of being one league playing by a predictable set of rules, we can be an association of leagues.  Each league would have a predetermined schedule and predictable set of rules.  It would be up to each team to determine which league, or leagues, it wanted to be a part of, and it would play the required number of games by the established rules for each league.

Scheduling could be a problem unless, for example, we determined there would be four leagues.  The 1861 (Cherry Bat) league would play on the 1st and 3rd saturdays of each month.  The 1868 league would play on the first and third Sundays.  The other two leagues would play on the 2nd and 4th saturdays and sundays.   

One of the league goals is to foster new divisions, teams and players.  Divisions = Leagues if you want to think of it that way.  more leagues = more teams.  more teams = more players.  goal accomplished. 

Is there a point to being in a league if you don't like the rules?  I can't say that there is.  I can say that there are teams out there that aren't in our league becasue they don't want to play 1861 rules.  And I can say that not all the teams in the current league like the 1861 rules.  How do we remedy this situation?  How does the current league grow and keep its members happy?  The only way is to expand it's scope to include other eras.  otherwise teams will join with other teams and form another league which suits their needs. 

We are at a point where we as a league need to decide whether we will remain a one era (1861?)  league which only allows teams to join that want to play by those rules, or if we want to become a vintage baseball organization which provides a structure for different leagues, and which can provide direction, assistance and arbitration for the leagues under the umbrella of a New England Vintage Baseball Association.  Each league would have its own officials, rule experts, etc. and would develop as our current league has, or it would be phased-out if there was not enough interest. 

The latter option would provide consistent rules for games in each era, would provide consistent scheduling parameters for each era, and it would bring in established teams which are already playing by rules other than 1861.

"Conveying the value of the league to new teams that are forming" is important.  But a league that doesn't fit the new teams' needs  has no value.  So, they find other teams that have the same needs and form their own league instead of .  Should we form the league before they do based on the format we've been using for the existing 1861 league, or do we let them fend for themselves?  It seems to fit the proposed mission of the league to form new leagues to help develop more teams and increase membership.

To the future...

Pistol

Rules:
I will leave aside the question of which ruleset for now, and ask you to consider whether it is better to have one ruleset adopted by the league per season or to allow many rulesets each season?

I think that we need one ruleset per season for the League to play by. I would like to see all teams play by those rules. If we have to compromise, I would want to see us playing league games by two different rule sets at most.

Scheduling:
Do you still value the league and enjoy playing as part of a league?

I still enjoy playing in the league and I view my league games as the foundation of a good season for my team.

If so, is what is a reasonable number of dates to make the league a vital and interesting part of the vintage season while also allowing teams the flexibility to do other things?

Last year we had 6 dates. I would say that should be the absolute minimum. Our team was thinking that 8 dates would be a good number.  

League Growth/ League Value Proposition:
What is the value proposition of our league?

I think that the value proposition is that we have an established gentlemanly approach to play, established teams, established rules, and a set schedule.

Do you want a loose association of teams that you can contact and hopefully get some games with? OR
Do you want to have a predicatable set of game dates, by a predicatable set of rules, against established teams?

I would like to see us maintain a strong league. I think we should have predicatable rules, a reasonable number of league set game dates and I want to continue to play against my friends in the league.

Further I would like to see us convey the value of the league to all of the teams out there that are forming.

Thanks,

-Bishop

Gentlemen,

This is Andy "Bishop" Cunningham from Melrose again. I have been following this message board with interest and a growing concern. I am only now getting an opportunity to sit down and gather my thoughts. I really do appreciate these discussions. Most of the time anyway. : ) The more I learn about the vintage game, the more I think that we may do as good a job re-enacting off the field historical issues as we do representing on the field play. I am sure that there were similar discussions about rules, schedules, and leagues back in the day. The main difference being that we do ours electronically while their vintage discussion probably ocurred over pints of ale and big fat cigars. That is my romantic vision of it, anyway.

I have been involved with this League from the beginning. The League formed out of a loose association of teams who were playing vintage base ball in the New England area. I view a strong league as the best way to promote vintage base ball and I view my league games as the foundation for a successful and fun season for my team. The discussion I have been reading suggests a move back towards a loose association of teams. We have been there in the past and I think that a strong league is a much better thing.

I would like to encourage everyone to review the League Constitution which is posted on this message board. The Constitution lays out the reasons why the league was formed:

 "The New England Vintage Base Ball League is a non-profit organization dedicated to the highest ideals of sportsmanship, honor and fair play of the early days of the sport.  The purpose of the league is to channel the efforts of the various New England vintage base ball clubs into the promotion of our sport throughout the region.  Our means of accomplishing this goal are through shared ideals of gentlemanly play, consistent rules of play, ease of scheduling matches and the fostering of new divisions, clubs, and players."

If you look at this statement, you will see that it informs much of the discussion that we have been having here pertaining to rules and scheduling and the league in general. I would like to address these points one at a time.

Rules:

 We have had some debate about rules. We made some important historically accurate corrections to our 1861 rules last season and at least one team has expressed that they do not want to play by them this year. The discussion over which rules would satisfy the most teams transformed into a new discussion suggesting that we do not need to agree on a league set of rules at all. The perceived advantages are that teams will be happier and get exposed to a bunch of different rules sets.

I believe that the League should adopt one set of rules for each season. Last season we had two sets of rules in play and that led to hard feelings amongst league teams. An established rule set is a big reason why I like being a member of the League. It means that on League games days, we get right down to playing and do not need to have an extensive rules discussion prior to the match. It makes things easier on our umpires, who are admittedly not very strong at this point and will be weakened further by the need to know multiple rule sets from week to week. Multiple rule sets would also place a burden on team captains, particularly the newer ones.

Does adopting one ruleset for one season preclude teams from playing other rules? No. There is ample time in the summer for teams to schedule plenty of non-league dates and these are the times when other rule sets can be played. Personally I would like my team to get in a Massachusetts rules game and I know we always wind up playing a couple of different '60s and 70's sets each year. 

I will leave aside the question of which ruleset for now, and ask you to consider whether it is better to have one ruleset adopted by the league per season or to allow many rulesets each season?

Scheduling:

The scheduling discussion came about as an offshoot of the rules discussion. The position seems to be that we should minimize the number of league games we have. This will allow teams to schedule more exhibition games and games outside of the league. I do not get this argument. There is a balance point here and I think we have already achieved balance. I agree that we should not have so many league games that a team has no free dates to play in a tournament or to play with a non-league team. At the same time, if we reduce the number of league dates too far, we effectively do away with the league.

Going back to the League Constitution for a moment, a stated goal of the League is to have "ease of scheduling matches". In my opinion, we accomplished the easiest scheduling method last year. The league created the schedule and the teams who had conflicts on a given date worked out their conflicts individually. In past years we have not had it so easy. We used to schedule our games in a free for all where teams ran around with their calendars and haphazardly scheduled games. This method can lead to very unbalanced schedules and to some teams getting shut out from playing league teams. (Yes I am speaking from experience here.)

Last year each team had 12 league games, which means 6 league game dates. (Each date being a double header.) I consider May through August to be the heart of the season, though many teams play games in April, September and October as well. I went back and counted 18 Sundays in the months of May through August. I do not think that 6 dates is too heavy of a commitment for teams to make to the league. It affords ample opportunity for teams to play in tournaments and play outside of the league. Our team's impression of the league schedule last year was that it was actually a little too light.

The questions here are:

Do you still value the league and enjoy playing as part of a league?

If so, is what is a reasonable number of dates to make the league a vital and interesting part of the vintage season while also allowing teams the flexibility to do other things?

League Growth/ League Value Proposition:

We have two potential new teams who have expressed an interest in the League, The New London, CT team and the Putnam, CT team. I think that this interest is a great thing and that the League has a lot to offer to a new vintage base ball team. I am sure that Lynn and Coventry can attest to the fact that managing their teams would have been a lot more difficult last season if they had to reach out to teams on their own, research rules on their own, schedule games and decide upon rules on their own.

Right now we offer a lot to a team joining our league. A new team would walk away from the league meeting with an agreed upon set of rules to play by, a schedule of league games, and a bunch of nice guys who are well versed in vintage base ball to play against and learn from. I think that these are all things which a fledgling team would want to have and are a great strength of this league.

If we wind up with 7 teams playing 7 different sets of  vintage rules and a nominal schedule of 4 dates does this make the prospect of joining our league more or less attractive? I would argue that you may as well give a prospective league team the email addresses of the team captains and wish them well.

The questions here are:

What is the value proposition of our league?
Do you want a loose association of teams that you can contact and hopefully get some games with? OR
Do you want to have a predicatable set of game dates, by a predicatable set of rules, against established teams?

I would like hear your opinions on these questions. I have gathered them here at the end of the email to make it easier:

Rules:
I will leave aside the question of which ruleset for now, and ask you to consider whether it is better to have one ruleset adopted by the league per season or to allow many rulesets each season?

Scheduling:
Do you still value the league and enjoy playing as part of a league?
If so, is what is a reasonable number of dates to make the league a vital and interesting part of the vintage season while also allowing teams the flexibility to do other things?

League Growth/ League Value Proposition:
What is the value proposition of our league?
Do you want a loose association of teams that you can contact and hopefully get some games with? OR
Do you want to have a predicatable set of game dates, by a predicatable set of rules, against established teams?

This is the Bishop from Melrose. Jim Regan sent a response to John
Simmons regarding the proposal that is already posted here. Jim
asked me to post his message here for all to see.

Thanks,
Bishop
-------------


John,

The vitality of a league, I think, can be measured by the
competitiveness of its member teams; a schedule that can be
fulfilled, with a reasonably frequent number of games; and a
consistent set of rules that are followed by the teams.  With this
in mind...

This proposal concerns me a great deal.  While I understand the
advantages in scheduling flexibility, it seems to abandon the very
purposes we had for the league to begin with.  We founded this
league seeking a set of rules we all knew well.  We wanted
consistency: to be able to "just show up and play" without sorting
out the rules of the day.  We wanted to make it easier to schedule
games and depend upon our opponents fulfilling those dates.

Rules: we founded this league with a general agreement among the
captains on the rules as we understood them.  That agreement has
been lost, in my estimation, because we learned what the players of
the time learned.  There were loopholes.  They needed closing.  This
was done systematically over a period of years.  We might be better
off selecting a later rules set.

With the proposal, we lose the consistency of the rules.  I like
playing different rules sets, but, there would be fewer
rules "experts" in a league where many of the players (captains!)
don't know the current ones.  You may recall we found it frustrating
in the early days of the Blues to have to keep reminding guys which
rules we were using on a given day or for a particular game.


Scheduling: with this proposal we complicate the scheduling process,
moving closer to the way things were done in the pre-league years. 
One reason we created the league was to ease scheduling.  I am
concerned the proposal does the opposite, putting more work on the
shoulders of the captains/presidents who will have to schedule more
games on their own.

To me this proposal does indeed water down the league we worked so
hard to create, maintain, and build.  To play a schedule with fewer
games/dates than last year appears a trend of attrition: two years
of reduction of league schedule.  I had hoped that there would be at
least as many league dates this year if not more.


In closing, I think that we may approaching our issues from the
wrong direction.  It appears that this proposal is attempting to
make wholesale changes.  I don't think it is too brazen of me to say
that guys want to compete and they want to have fun too.  This
league currently works toward the proper balance of that goal. 
Reports from Mr. Sheehy indicate that some of the new teams outside
the league like our approach, but would prefer later rules.  This
proposal, I think, changes our approach. It seems to me that we
could address our concerns more directly, one at a time, and not in
this broad manner.

Jim

This is the Bishop from Melrose. Jim Regan sent a response to John
Simmons regarding the proposal that is already posted here. Jim
asked me to post his message here for all to see.

Thanks,
Bishop
-------------


John,

The vitality of a league, I think, can be measured by the
competitiveness of its member teams; a schedule that can be
fulfilled, with a reasonably frequent number of games; and a
consistent set of rules that are followed by the teams.  With this
in mind...

This proposal concerns me a great deal.  While I understand the
advantages in scheduling flexibility, it seems to abandon the very
purposes we had for the league to begin with.  We founded this
league seeking a set of rules we all knew well.  We wanted
consistency: to be able to "just show up and play" without sorting
out the rules of the day.  We wanted to make it easier to schedule
games and depend upon our opponents fulfilling those dates.

Rules: we founded this league with a general agreement among the
captains on the rules as we understood them.  That agreement has
been lost, in my estimation, because we learned what the players of
the time learned.  There were loopholes.  They needed closing.  This
was done systematically over a period of years.  We might be better
off selecting a later rules set.

With the proposal, we lose the consistency of the rules.  I like
playing different rules sets, but, there would be fewer
rules "experts" in a league where many of the players (captains!)
don't know the current ones.  You may recall we found it frustrating
in the early days of the Blues to have to keep reminding guys which
rules we were using on a given day or for a particular game.


Scheduling: with this proposal we complicate the scheduling process,
moving closer to the way things were done in the pre-league years.
One reason we created the league was to ease scheduling.  I am
concerned the proposal does the opposite, putting more work on the
shoulders of the captains/presidents who will have to schedule more
games on their own.

To me this proposal does indeed water down the league we worked so
hard to create, maintain, and build.  To play a schedule with fewer
games/dates than last year appears a trend of attrition: two years
of reduction of league schedule.  I had hoped that there would be at
least as many league dates this year if not more.


In closing, I think that we may approaching our issues from the
wrong direction.  It appears that this proposal is attempting to
make wholesale changes.  I don't think it is too brazen of me to say
that guys want to compete and they want to have fun too.  This
league currently works toward the proper balance of that goal.
Reports from Mr. Sheehy indicate that some of the new teams outside
the league like our approach, but would prefer later rules.  This
proposal, I think, changes our approach. It seems to me that we
could address our concerns more directly, one at a time, and not in
this broad manner.

Jim

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the nevbbl
group.

   File        : /DOCS_P-_50184986-v6-NEVBBL_COnstitution.DOC
   Uploaded by : bishop_melrosepondfeilders <acrudeboy@...>
   Description : NEVBBL Constitution

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nevbbl/files/DOCS_P-_50184986-v6-NEVBBL_COnstituti\
on.DOC

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

bishop_melrosepondfeilders <acrudeboy@...>

Sounds right to me.

MS


On Nov 13, 2005, at 5:34 PM, brian sheehy wrote:

> So what do people think about the reduced league schedule and the
> decision to go with the majority on rules? Are we close to a vote
> on this? If we are then we can go into the league meeting talking
> about scheduling extra games and other non rules issues.
>
> Just a thought.
> Brian
>
> jsimmons <SALMONABODE@...> wrote:
> Yes, Rusty - I agree.  It is kind of like the league is finding its
> own level after 4 years.  We cut back on the "full" schedule a bit,
> but now we have a good structure in place for teams to schedule
> other games, communicate with each other and explore new rules
> etc.  A real plus is that we are all very well versed in the 1861
> game and can always fall back on that if teams aren't as
> adventurous as others.
>
> JS
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David Hayes
> To: nevbbl@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 4:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [nevbbl] Clarification of the idea.
>
> I think we're on the brink of a breakthrough.   This takes me back
> to the pre-league days, when our Blues were willing
> explorers...something I've missed about our game is the ordinary
> ballplayer's chance to learn the game's early history through the
> variety of rules...
>
> Rusty
>
>
>
> on 11/11/05 2:06 PM, AARON HORWITZ at msat81@... wrote:
>
>
> Huzzah, Brian, Huzzah.
>
> -Aaron
>
> Oh, and you too, John. :)
>
> brian sheehy <historyball@...> wrote:
> John's ideas are pretty good. First off this would limit the amount
> of dates that teams would be mandated to play league games, and
> therefore allow for exhibitions and games outside of the league. I
> dont see teams having a hard time filling up the rest of their
> schedule.  This idea also serves the purpose of the rules people.
> First it would make all teams involved with the "tournament" be
> held under the same rule set, and due to the fewer number of games
> its not like a team will have to play all of their games by rules
> they dont like. I personally think that all teams should be able to
> suck it up for 4 dates and play by whatever rules the majoirty of
> the league wants to play by. This might also lead us to an end of
> the year tournament/ playoff to decide who wins the cherry bat.
> People keep talking about Greg Martin and how he uses the media-
> just think what we could do with a playoff or end of the year
> tournament to decide who wins the bat. I also think this limit
> number of games allows for us to continue to grow and take on new
> teams.
>
> I like some of what Pistey said about trying new rule sets. Melrose
> and I have been talking for 2 years about trying to set up a
> Massachusetts Rules game. That might be fun and with less of a
> league commitment we might be able to find the time. Another team
> might want to try an 1870's game- why not. This groups page might
> also be a great place to throw it out there and say hey is there
> anyone out there who wants to try 1869 rules today. Essex will be
> playing 2 or 3 1880's rules this year. I think that the overall
> reason we play is to have fun and learn more about how baseball
> evolved. If we step back a little and try new things we might have
> fun. This league should bring us together and allow us to try new
> things- it shouldnt force teams to do things they dont want to do
> or play by rules they dont like. We keep the overall structure of
> the league but allow each team to do their own thing.
>
> I hope that came out right.
> Brian
>
> salmonabode <salmonabode@...> wrote:
> Guys,I think my use of the word "tournament" threw Brian and maybe
> others. I do not envision any tournament dates among multiple teams
> in my plan at all. I will spell out what I intend by example:
>
> 1. PRIOR to the annual league meeting, teams will let the schedule
> maker (Jim Regan) know whether they want to be part of the Cherry
> Bat schedule. In letting Jim know this, they can also set forth
> whether they have any preferences (i.e. "Jim we have a hard time
> getting nine to drive all the way down to Waterbury, please try not
> to give us a road game there" or "Jim we like to play in Bristol,
> please schedule us there").
>
> Let's assume for this example 6 of the 7 league teams decide they
> would like to join in the Cherry Bat schedule (note: the "Cherry Bat
> schedule" is just a synonym for the "league schedule" - it lasts all
> year, and is not a series of multiple team tournament dates).
>
> 2. Jim will then create a schedule of 4 dates (8 games) for each
> team: 2 home, 2 away (I assume this is mathematically possible).
> The amount of games in the Cherry Bat schedule will vary depending
> upon how many teams are participating, and I think it should be
> somewhere around 2/3 of the number of teams who choose to be
> involved.
>
> Jim will consider lots of data, including any specific schedule
> requests and last year's records in determing the matchups. When
> the schedule is done, this will be everybody's baseline league
> schedule for the season. You get a schedule of 4 dates, 2 home, 2
> away (as opposed to last year's 6 date schedule). Yes, this means
> in our example that you will not be facing 3 league teams as part of
> your "Cherry Bat" schedule. But that is OK - this gives Jim some
> flexibility in meeting schedule requests and all teams will have the
> opportunity to schedule as many "non-Cherry Bat" games as they can.
>
> 3. Jim will distribute the schedule to everyone prior to (or at)
> the league meeting. We will then set aside some time at the end of
> the league meeting for teams to sit down and add more "non-Cherry
> Bat" dates to their schedule. The team that opted out of the league
> schedule can fully participate like anyone else, and schedule as
> many games as it can get.
>
> The understanding for these non-Cherry Bat games will be that the
> home team will ultimately control the rules for these games (or we
> split doubleheaders - whatever).
>
> 4. After the meeting, teams are free to add and move around any
> dates as they see fit.
>
> That is my idea it in a nutshell, and I like it for the reasons
> described in my first email to the group.
>
> What do you all think?
>
> NOTE: I am guessing some teams might want to know what rules we are
> playing under for the Cherry Bat before they decide whether to be
> part of the Cherry Bat schedule, so we can vote on that prior to the
> meeting as well. I will be honest - it doesn't matter to me. Given
> that under this scheme the Cherry Bat schedule becomes a less
> empasized part of our schedule I am sure the Blues will be part of
> the Cherry Bat schedule no matter what we decide the rules
> ultimately are.
>
>
> --- In nevbbl@yahoogroups.com, "historyball" <historyball@y...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hey everyone,
> >
> > This is the email John Simmons sent out to some of us. It is a
> very
> > interesting debate and think it would be best served sent out to
> > everyone. Again encourage your team mates to join this group.
> (sorry
> > if you already got it)
> >
> > Guys:
> >
> > All of the emails I have been reviewing from everyone over the
> last
> > week
> > have been great - I am glad to see such a robust discussion.  I
> have
> > a
> > new topic of discussion that may impact where we end up this
> season.
> > Simply put, what is the purpose of this league?
> >
> > People seem to have very different goals for their participation
> in
> > VBB.
> > Some want to play and just have fun - an alternative to softball
> if
> > you
> > will.  Others are very history minded, and for them the fun is to
> > re-create the game as close as possible.  Some people wish to play
> > by a
> > consistent set of rules - others like to try new and different
> rules.
> > Some players want to WIN at all cost.  Others could care less if
> they
> > win or lose - it is just playing the game that satisfies them.
> Some
> > want to play at events and exhibitions where there are many
> > spectators
> > -
> > some desire to simply play in the middle of an empty hayfield.  For
> > some, they could care less if they are even playing baseball - it
> is
> > getting together with friends and family that drives their
> interest
> > in
> > VBB.  Sometimes these different goals exist among players on the
> same
> > team - thus our league representation scheme is often not
> > representative
> > of all.
> >
> > I see in our discussions a tension between each of these very valid
> > goals.  Indeed our rules and compromises over the years is a
> > reflection
> > of our effort to try and satisfy all of these goals to a reasonably
> > acceptable extent.  I wonder if there is a better way for the
> league
> > to
> > function in this regard?  I wonder if teams have become too
> > dependent
> > of
> > on the league schedule?  Do people see the league debates as
> > extraordinarily critical because they are going to be "stuck"
> > playing a
> > game that they might find unsatisfactory?
> >
> > Perhaps cutting back the Cherry Bat schedule to an unbalanced
> > schedule
> > of say 8-10 games (4 or 5 dates) is a way to address this.  Call
> it
> > the
> > "Cherry Bat Tournament" if you will.  We agree by majority rule
> for a
> > certain set of Tournament rules and League teams can opt into the
> > tournament schedule or not.  Since the schedule is only 4 or 5
> dates,
> > league teams would be given ample opportunity to pursue
> independently
> > scheduled "non-league" games with any teams they choose.  Since we
> > have
> > a league structure in place, scheduling of "non-tournament" games
> > would
> > be much easier (and could be done at the league meeting or via
> email
> > or
> > telephone at any time).  I think even teams that opt out of the
> > tournament would be able to schedule plenty of games.  Most
> > importantly,
> > since the commitment to league dates becomes de-emphasized, the
> > differences of opinion on certain rules becomes much less
> critical -
> > a
> > simple 4 or 5 date schedule will leave lots of time for teams to
> play
> > each other under all kinds of different sets of rules.
> >
> > In this re-defined league we would see Hartford playing Melrose in
> a
> > Cherry Bat Tournament game under the league rules.  Then Hartford
> > could
> > call Melrose up independently and invite them down to Hartford to
> > play
> > an 1871 game using rules found on a league website.  Waterbury
> could
> > call Bristol up to play a 2004 NEVBBL rules game (etc.)  To my
> mind,
> > the
> > home team in these types of games would ultimately control (but in
> a
> > gentlemanly way) the rule interpretations, and the parameters of
> the
> > rules should be communicated prior to the match - or, hell, you
> can
> > even
> > split up a doubleheader - what is more fair than that?  Players on
> > teams
> > that don't want to play under a certain set of rules and
> > interpretations
> > could simply just stay home that day and let those teammates who
> are
> > interested playing by those rules go ahead and play (and, as a
> > corollary, if a significant majority of a team is opposed to those
> > types
> > of rules, then the game will never be scheduled in the first
> place).
> > But I don't think this will often be the case - people will be
> more
> > apt
> > to "suck it up" and play by a rules they may not like 100% since
> they
> > know that they are able to schedule other games according to their
> > goals
> > and desires.  I think there is enough gentlemanly spirit and
> > diversity
> > in the league that no team would go without games.
> >
> > Sure, these non-Cherry Bat games might not "count" towards
> anything,
> > but
> > I think because they do not "count" towards league standings this
> > will
> > relieve a lot of the tension and angst some players have because
> > their
> > particular goal isn't being met that day.  I think players would
> be
> > less
> > apt to get upset if an opposing player forgets a rule and, for
> > example
> > slides when there is no sliding during that game.  If such a
> mistake
> > is
> > made, the player could be instructed not to slide, the fans would
> see
> > this error and learn along with the player that there was no
> sliding
> > under that particular set of rules.  Mistakes like this will become
> > opportunities for players and fans to learn about the different
> > peculiarities of VBB instead of opportunities for petty arguments
> > because the league standings are on the line.
> >
> > With a reduced schedule, the league still serves a very important
> > purpose yet other league functions could flourish as well.  The
> > Cherry
> > Bat Tournament can provide teams with a guaranteed baseline of
> rules
> > and
> > scheduled games for a given year.  The league would be the point of
> > communications between all New England area teams - even teams that
> > didn't want to participate in the Cherry Bat Tournament.  The
> League
> > could be a clearinghouse for other sets of rules and rule
> > interpretations - we could even offer simple to use "cheat sheets"
> > listing the major rules differences between rules so that players
> can
> > easily get up to speed on the different rules prior to a match.
> >
> > I don't think cutting back the schedule would be a sign of league
> > weakness at all, it might just be one way in which we can re-
> define
> > what
> > the league does.  I also think this type of format reflects where
> we
> > are
> > as a group, and respects everyone's goals better than continuing to
> > force everyone into the same mold.
> >
> > Does anyone have any comments to this idea or other ideas?
> >
> > JS
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
> <http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/
> _ylc=X3oDMTFqODRtdXQ4BF9TAzMyOTc1MDIEX3MDOTY2ODgxNjkEcG9zAzEEc2VjA21ha
> WwtZm9vdGVyBHNsawNmYw--/SIG=110oav78o/**http%3a//farechase.yahoo.com/>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> Visit your group "nevbbl <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nevbbl> "
> on the web.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> nevbbl-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:nevbbl-
> unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>  Visit your group "nevbbl" on the web.
>
>  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  nevbbl-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>

I like John Simmons' ideas.  They seem to have something for everyone.  A reduced league schedule reduces travel time and increases the # of exhibition games we can play.  

Pistol 
 

Cappy,

I am in for whatever people want.  EAsy going.

College

---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: brian sheehy <historyball@...>
Reply-To: nevbbl@yahoogroups.com
Date:  Sun, 13 Nov 2005 14:34:47 -0800 (PST)

---------- Original Message ----------------------------------

So what do people think about the reduced league schedule and the decision to go
with the majority on rules? Are we close to a vote on this? If we are then we
can go into the league meeting talking about scheduling extra games and other
non rules issues.

   Just a thought.
   Brian

jsimmons <SALMONABODE@...> wrote:
           Yes, Rusty - I agree.  It is kind of like the league is finding its
own level after 4 years.  We cut back on the "full" schedule a bit, but now we
have a good structure in place for teams to schedule other games, communicate
with each other and explore new rules etc.  A real plus is that we are all very
well versed in the 1861 game and can always fall back on that if teams aren't as
adventurous as others.

   JS
     ----- Original Message -----
   From: David Hayes
   To: nevbbl@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 4:04 PM
   Subject: Re: [nevbbl] Clarification of the idea.


I think we're on the brink of a breakthrough.   This takes me back to the
pre-league days, when our Blues were willing explorers...something I've missed
about our game is the ordinary ballplayer's chance to learn the game's early
history through the variety of rules...

Rusty



on 11/11/05 2:06 PM, AARON HORWITZ at msat81@... wrote:


Huzzah, Brian, Huzzah.

-Aaron

Oh, and you too, John. :)

brian sheehy <historyball@...> wrote:
   John's ideas are pretty good. First off this would limit the amount of dates
that teams would be mandated to play league games, and therefore allow for
exhibitions and games outside of the league. I dont see teams having a hard time
filling up the rest of their schedule.  This idea also serves the purpose of the
rules people. First it would make all teams involved with the "tournament" be
held under the same rule set, and due to the fewer number of games its not like
a team will have to play all of their games by rules they dont like. I
personally think that all teams should be able to suck it up for 4 dates and
play by whatever rules the majoirty of the league wants to play by. This might
also lead us to an end of the year tournament/ playoff to decide who wins the
cherry bat. People keep talking about Greg Martin and how he uses the media-
just think what we could do with a playoff or end of the year tournament to
decide who wins the bat. I also think this limit number of games
  allows for us to continue to grow and take on new teams.

I like some of what Pistey said about trying new rule sets. Melrose and I have
been talking for 2 years about trying to set up a Massachusetts Rules game. That
might be fun and with less of a league commitment we might be able to find the
time. Another team might want to try an 1870's game- why not. This groups page
might also be a great place to throw it out there and say hey is there anyone
out there who wants to try 1869 rules today. Essex will be playing 2 or 3 1880's
rules this year. I think that the overall reason we play is to have fun and
learn more about how baseball evolved. If we step back a little and try new
things we might have fun. This league should bring us together and allow us to
try new things- it shouldnt force teams to do things they dont want to do or
play by rules they dont like. We keep the overall structure of the league but
allow each team to do their own thing.

I hope that came out right.
Brian

salmonabode <salmonabode@...> wrote:
   Guys,I think my use of the word "tournament" threw Brian and maybe
others. I do not envision any tournament dates among multiple teams
in my plan at all. I will spell out what I intend by example:

1. PRIOR to the annual league meeting, teams will let the schedule
maker (Jim Regan) know whether they want to be part of the Cherry
Bat schedule. In letting Jim know this, they can also set forth
whether they have any preferences (i.e. "Jim we have a hard time
getting nine to drive all the way down to Waterbury, please try not
to give us a road game there" or "Jim we like to play in Bristol,
please schedule us there").

Let's assume for this example 6 of the 7 league teams decide they
would like to join in the Cherry Bat schedule (note: the "Cherry Bat
schedule" is just a synonym for the "league schedule" - it lasts all
year, and is not a series of multiple team tournament dates).

2. Jim will then create a schedule of 4 dates (8 games) for each
team: 2 home, 2 away (I assume this is mathematically possible).
The amount of games in the Cherry Bat schedule will vary depending
upon how many teams are participating, and I think it should be
somewhere around 2/3 of the number of teams who choose to be
involved.

Jim will consider lots of data, including any specific schedule
requests and last year's records in determing the matchups. When
the schedule is done, this will be everybody's baseline league
schedule for the season. You get a schedule of 4 dates, 2 home, 2
away (as opposed to last year's 6 date schedule). Yes, this means
in our example that you will not be facing 3 league teams as part of
your "Cherry Bat" schedule. But that is OK - this gives Jim some
flexibility in meeting schedule requests and all teams will have the
opportunity to schedule as many "non-Cherry Bat" games as they can.

3. Jim will distribute the schedule to everyone prior to (or at)
the league meeting. We will then set aside some time at the end of
the league meeting for teams to sit down and add more "non-Cherry
Bat" dates to their schedule. The team that opted out of the league
schedule can fully participate like anyone else, and schedule as
many games as it can get.

The understanding for these non-Cherry Bat games will be that the
home team will ultimately control the rules for these games (or we
split doubleheaders - whatever).

4. After the meeting, teams are free to add and move around any
dates as they see fit.

That is my idea it in a nutshell, and I like it for the reasons
described in my first email to the group.

What do you all think?

NOTE: I am guessing some teams might want to know what rules we are
playing under for the Cherry Bat before they decide whether to be
part of the Cherry Bat schedule, so we can vote on that prior to the
meeting as well. I will be honest - it doesn't matter to me. Given
that under this scheme the Cherry Bat schedule becomes a less
empasized part of our schedule I am sure the Blues will be part of
the Cherry Bat schedule no matter what we decide the rules
ultimately are.


--- In nevbbl@yahoogroups.com, "historyball" <historyball@y...>
wrote:
>
> Hey everyone,
>
> This is the email John Simmons sent out to some of us. It is a
very
> interesting debate and think it would be best served sent out to
> everyone. Again encourage your team mates to join this group.
(sorry
> if you already got it)
>
> Guys:
>
> All of the emails I have been reviewing from everyone over the
last
> week
> have been great - I am glad to see such a robust discussion.  I
have
> a
> new topic of discussion that may impact where we end up this
season.
> Simply put, what is the purpose of this league?
>
> People seem to have very different goals for their participation
in
> VBB.
> Some want to play and just have fun - an alternative to softball
if
> you
> will.  Others are very history minded, and for them the fun is to
> re-create the game as close as possible.  Some people wish to play
> by a
> consistent set of rules - others like to try new and different
rules.
> Some players want to WIN at all cost.  Others could care less if
they
> win or lose - it is just playing the game that satisfies them.
Some
> want to play at events and exhibitions where there are many
> spectators
> -
> some desire to simply play in the middle of an empty hayfield.  For
> some, they could care less if they are even playing baseball - it
is
> getting together with friends and family that drives their
interest
> in
> VBB.  Sometimes these different goals exist among players on the
same
> team - thus our league representation scheme is often not
> representative
> of all.
>
> I see in our discussions a tension between each of these very valid
> goals.  Indeed our rules and compromises over the years is a
> reflection
> of our effort to try and satisfy all of these goals to a reasonably
> acceptable extent.  I wonder if there is a better way for the
league
> to
> function in this regard?  I wonder if teams have become too
> dependent
> of
> on the league schedule?  Do people see the league debates as
> extraordinarily critical because they are going to be "stuck"
> playing a
> game that they might find unsatisfactory?
>
> Perhaps cutting back the Cherry Bat schedule to an unbalanced
> schedule
> of say 8-10 games (4 or 5 dates) is a way to address this.  Call
it
> the
> "Cherry Bat Tournament" if you will.  We agree by majority rule
for a
> certain set of Tournament rules and League teams can opt into the
> tournament schedule or not.  Since the schedule is only 4 or 5
dates,
> league teams would be given ample opportunity to pursue
independently
> scheduled "non-league" games with any teams they choose.  Since we
> have
> a league structure in place, scheduling of "non-tournament" games
> would
> be much easier (and could be done at the league meeting or via
email
> or
> telephone at any time).  I think even teams that opt out of the
> tournament would be able to schedule plenty of games.  Most
> importantly,
> since the commitment to league dates becomes de-emphasized, the
> differences of opinion on certain rules becomes much less
critical -
> a
> simple 4 or 5 date schedule will leave lots of time for teams to
play
> each other under all kinds of different sets of rules.
>
> In this re-defined league we would see Hartford playing Melrose in
a
> Cherry Bat Tournament game under the league rules.  Then Hartford
> could
> call Melrose up independently and invite them down to Hartford to
> play
> an 1871 game using rules found on a league website.  Waterbury
could
> call Bristol up to play a 2004 NEVBBL rules game (etc.)  To my
mind,
> the
> home team in these types of games would ultimately control (but in
a
> gentlemanly way) the rule interpretations, and the parameters of
the
> rules should be communicated prior to the match - or, hell, you
can
> even
> split up a doubleheader - what is more fair than that?  Players on
> teams
> that don't want to play under a certain set of rules and
> interpretations
> could simply just stay home that day and let those teammates who
are
> interested playing by those rules go ahead and play (and, as a
> corollary, if a significant majority of a team is opposed to those
> types
> of rules, then the game will never be scheduled in the first
place).
> But I don't think this will often be the case - people will be
more
> apt
> to "suck it up" and play by a rules they may not like 100% since
they
> know that they are able to schedule other games according to their
> goals
> and desires.  I think there is enough gentlemanly spirit and
> diversity
> in the league that no team would go without games.
>
> Sure, these non-Cherry Bat games might not "count" towards
anything,
> but
> I think because they do not "count" towards league standings this
> will
> relieve a lot of the tension and angst some players have because
> their
> particular goal isn't being met that day.  I think players would
be
> less
> apt to get upset if an opposing player forgets a rule and, for
> example
> slides when there is no sliding during that game.  If such a
mistake
> is
> made, the player could be instructed not to slide, the fans would
see
> this error and learn along with the player that there was no
sliding
> under that particular set of rules.  Mistakes like this will become
> opportunities for players and fans to learn about the different
> peculiarities of VBB instead of opportunities for petty arguments
> because the league standings are on the line.
>
> With a reduced schedule, the league still serves a very important
> purpose yet other league functions could flourish as well.  The
> Cherry
> Bat Tournament can provide teams with a guaranteed baseline of
rules
> and
> scheduled games for a given year.  The league would be the point of
> communications between all New England area teams - even teams that
> didn't want to participate in the Cherry Bat Tournament.  The
League
> could be a clearinghouse for other sets of rules and rule
> interpretations - we could even offer simple to use "cheat sheets"
> listing the major rules differences between rules so that players
can
> easily get up to speed on the different rules prior to a match.
>
> I don't think cutting back the schedule would be a sign of league
> weakness at all, it might just be one way in which we can re-
define
> what
> the league does.  I also think this type of format reflects where
we
> are
> as a group, and respects everyone's goals better than continuing to
> force everyone into the same mold.
>
> Does anyone have any comments to this idea or other ideas?
>
> JS
>






---------------------------------

Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
<http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTFqODRtdXQ4BF9TAzMyOTc1MDIEX3MDOTY2ODgxNjkEcG\
9zAzEEc2VjA21haWwtZm9vdGVyBHNsawNmYw--/SIG=110oav78o/**http%3a//farechase.yahoo.\
com/>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

---------------------------------

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


    Visit your group "nevbbl <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nevbbl> " on the web.

    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    nevbbl-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:nevbbl-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .



---------------------------------





---------------------------------
   YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


     Visit your group "nevbbl" on the web.

     To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  nevbbl-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

     Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


---------------------------------





---------------------------------
  Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.


--
John Gehan
Experiential Coordinator
978-794-3885 x418

--

Yes, Rusty - I agree.  It is kind of like the league is finding its own level after 4 years.  We cut back on the "full" schedule a bit, but now we have a good structure in place for teams to schedule other games, communicate with each other and explore new rules etc.  A real plus is that we are all very well versed in the 1861 game and can always fall back on that if teams aren't as adventurous as others.

 

JS

----- Original Message -----

From: David Hayes

To: nevbbl@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 4:04 PM

Subject: Re: [nevbbl] Clarification of the idea.

I think we're on the brink of a breakthrough.   This takes me back to the pre-league days, when our Blues were willing explorers...something I've missed about our game is the ordinary ballplayer's chance to learn the game's early history through the variety of rules...

Rusty



on 11/11/05 2:06 PM, AARON HORWITZ at msat81@... wrote:

Huzzah, Brian, Huzzah.

-Aaron

Oh, and you too, John. :)

brian sheehy <historyball@...> wrote:

John's ideas are pretty good. First off this would limit the amount of dates that teams would be mandated to play league games, and therefore allow for exhibitions and games outside of the league. I dont see teams having a hard time filling up the rest of their schedule.  This idea also serves the purpose of the rules people. First it would make all teams involved with the "tournament" be held under the same rule set, and due to the fewer number of games its not like a team will have to play all of their games by rules they dont like. I personally think that all teams should be able to suck it up for 4 dates and play by whatever rules the majoirty of the league wants to play by. This might also lead us to an end of the year tournament/ playoff to decide who wins the cherry bat. People keep talking about Greg Martin and how he uses the media- just think what we could do with a playoff or end of the year tournament to decide who wins the bat. I also think this limit number of games allows for us to continue to grow and take on new teams.

I like some of what Pistey said about trying new rule sets. Melrose and I have been talking for 2 years about trying to set up a Massachusetts Rules game. That might be fun and with less of a league commitment we might be able to find the time. Another team might want to try an 1870's game- why not. This groups page might also be a great place to throw it out there and say hey is there anyone out there who wants to try 1869 rules today. Essex will be playing 2 or 3 1880's rules this year. I think that the overall reason we play is to have fun and learn more about how baseball evolved. If we step back a little and try new things we might have fun. This league should bring us together and allow us to try new things- it shouldnt force teams to do things they dont want to do or play by rules they dont like. We keep the overall structure of the league but allow each team to do their own thing.

I hope that came out right.
Brian

salmonabode <salmonabode@...> wrote:

Guys,I think my use of the word "tournament" threw Brian and maybe
others. I do not envision any tournament dates among multiple teams
in my plan at all. I will spell out what I intend by example:

1. PRIOR to the annual league meeting, teams will let the schedule
maker (Jim Regan) know whether they want to be part of the Cherry
Bat schedule. In letting Jim know this, they can also set forth
whether they have any preferences (i.e. "Jim we have a hard time
getting nine to drive all the way down to Waterbury, please try not
to give us a road game there" or "Jim we like to play in Bristol,
please schedule us there").

Let's assume for this example 6 of the 7 league teams decide they
would like to join in the Cherry Bat schedule (note: the "Cherry Bat
schedule" is just a synonym for the "league schedule" - it lasts all
year, and is not a series of multiple team tournament dates).

2. Jim will then create a schedule of 4 dates (8 games) for each
team: 2 home, 2 away (I assume this is mathematically possible).
The amount of games in the Cherry Bat schedule will vary depending
upon how many teams are participating, and I think it should be
somewhere around 2/3 of the number of teams who choose to be
involved.

Jim will consider lots of data, including any specific schedule
requests and last year's records in determing the matchups. When
the schedule is done, this will be everybody's baseline league
schedule for the season. You get a schedule of 4 dates, 2 home, 2
away (as opposed to last year's 6 date schedule). Yes, this means
in our example that you will not be facing 3 league teams as part of
your "Cherry Bat" schedule. But that is OK - this gives Jim some
flexibility in meeting schedule requests and all teams will have the
opportunity to schedule as many "non-Cherry Bat" games as they can.

3. Jim will distribute the schedule to everyone prior to (or at)
the league meeting. We will then set aside some time at the end of
the league meeting for teams to sit down and add more "non-Cherry
Bat" dates to their schedule. The team that opted out of the league
schedule can fully participate like anyone else, and schedule as
many games as it can get.

The understanding for these non-Cherry Bat games will be that the
home team will ultimately control the rules for these games (or we
split doubleheaders - whatever).

4. After the meeting, teams are free to add and move around any
dates as they see fit.

That is my idea it in a nutshell, and I like it for the reasons
described in my first email to the group.

What do you all think?

NOTE: I am guessing some teams might want to know what rules we are
playing under for the Cherry Bat before they decide whether to be
part of the Cherry Bat schedule, so we can vote on that prior to the
meeting as well. I will be honest - it doesn't matter to me. Given
that under this scheme the Cherry Bat schedule becomes a less
empasized part of our schedule I am sure the Blues will be part of
the Cherry Bat schedule no matter what we decide the rules
ultimately are.


--- In nevbbl@yahoogroups.com, "historyball" <historyball@y...>
wrote:
>
> Hey everyone,
>
> This is the email John Simmons sent out to some of us. It is a
very
> interesting debate and think it would be best served sent out to
> everyone. Again encourage your team mates to join this group.
(sorry
> if you already got it)
>
> Guys:
>
> All of the emails I have been reviewing from everyone over the
last
> week
> have been great - I am glad to see such a robust discussion.  I
have
> a
> new topic of discussion that may impact where we end up this
season.
> Simply put, what is the purpose of this league?
>
> People seem to have very different goals for their participation
in
> VBB.
> Some want to play and just have fun - an alternative to softball
if
> you
> will.  Others are very history minded, and for them the fun is to
> re-create the game as close as possible.  Some people wish to play
> by a
> consistent set of rules - others like to try new and different
rules.
> Some players want to WIN at all cost.  Others could care less if
they
> win or lose - it is just playing the game that satisfies them.  
Some
> want to play at events and exhibitions where there are many
> spectators
> -
> some desire to simply play in the middle of an empty hayfield.  For
> some, they could care less if they are even playing baseball - it
is
> getting together with friends and family that drives their
interest
> in
> VBB.  Sometimes these different goals exist among players on the
same
> team - thus our league representation scheme is often not
> representative
> of all.
>
> I see in our discussions a tension between each of these very valid
> goals.  Indeed our rules and compromises over the years is a
> reflection
> of our effort to try and satisfy all of these goals to a reasonably
> acceptable extent.  I wonder if there is a better way for the
league
> to
> function in this regard?  I wonder if teams have become too
> dependent
> of
> on the league schedule?  Do people see the league debates as
> extraordinarily critical because they are going to be "stuck"
> playing a
> game that they might find unsatisfactory?
>
> Perhaps cutting back the Cherry Bat schedule to an unbalanced
> schedule
> of say 8-10 games (4 or 5 dates) is a way to address this.  Call
it
> the
> "Cherry Bat Tournament" if you will.  We agree by majority rule
for a
> certain set of Tournament rules and League teams can opt into the
> tournament schedule or not.  Since the schedule is only 4 or 5
dates,
> league teams would be given ample opportunity to pursue
independently
> scheduled "non-league" games with any teams they choose.  Since we
> have
> a league structure in place, scheduling of "non-tournament" games
> would
> be much easier (and could be done at the league meeting or via
email
> or
> telephone at any time).  I think even teams that opt out of the
> tournament would be able to schedule plenty of games.  Most
> importantly,
> since the commitment to league dates becomes de-emphasized, the
> differences of opinion on certain rules becomes much less
critical -
> a
> simple 4 or 5 date schedule will leave lots of time for teams to
play
> each other under all kinds of different sets of rules.
>
> In this re-defined league we would see Hartford playing Melrose in
a
> Cherry Bat Tournament game under the league rules.  Then Hartford
> could
> call Melrose up independently and invite them down to Hartford to
> play
> an 1871 game using rules found on a league website.  Waterbury
could
> call Bristol up to play a 2004 NEVBBL rules game (etc.)  To my
mind,
> the
> home team in these types of games would ultimately control (but in
a
> gentlemanly way) the rule interpretations, and the parameters of
the
> rules should be communicated prior to the match - or, hell, you
can
> even
> split up a doubleheader - what is more fair than that?  Players on
> teams
> that don't want to play under a certain set of rules and
> interpretations
> could simply just stay home that day and let those teammates who
are
> interested playing by those rules go ahead and play (and, as a
> corollary, if a significant majority of a team is opposed to those
> types
> of rules, then the game will never be scheduled in the first
place).
> But I don't think this will often be the case - people will be
more
> apt
> to "suck it up" and play by a rules they may not like 100% since
they
> know that they are able to schedule other games according to their
> goals
> and desires.  I think there is enough gentlemanly spirit and
> diversity
> in the league that no team would go without games.
>
> Sure, these non-Cherry Bat games might not "count" towards
anything,
> but
> I think because they do not "count" towards league standings this
> will
> relieve a lot of the tension and angst some players have because
> their
> particular goal isn't being met that day.  I think players would
be
> less
> apt to get upset if an opposing player forgets a rule and, for
> example
> slides when there is no sliding during that game.  If such a
mistake
> is
> made, the player could be instructed not to slide, the fans would
see
> this error and learn along with the player that there was no
sliding
> under that particular set of rules.  Mistakes like this will become
> opportunities for players and fans to learn about the different
> peculiarities of VBB instead of opportunities for petty arguments
> because the league standings are on the line.
>
> With a reduced schedule, the league still serves a very important
> purpose yet other league functions could flourish as well.  The
> Cherry
> Bat Tournament can provide teams with a guaranteed baseline of
rules
> and
> scheduled games for a given year.  The league would be the point of
> communications between all New England area teams - even teams that
> didn't want to participate in the Cherry Bat Tournament.  The
League
> could be a clearinghouse for other sets of rules and rule
> interpretations - we could even offer simple to use "cheat sheets"
> listing the major rules differences between rules so that players
can
> easily get up to speed on the different rules prior to a match.  
>
> I don't think cutting back the schedule would be a sign of league
> weakness at all, it might just be one way in which we can re-
define
> what
> the league does.  I also think this type of format reflects where
we
> are
> as a group, and respects everyone's goals better than continuing to
> force everyone into the same mold.
>
> Does anyone have any comments to this idea or other ideas?
>
> JS
>

---

Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. <http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTFqODRtdXQ4BF9TAzMyOTc1MDIEX3MDOTY2ODgxNjkEcG9zAzEEc2VjA21haWwtZm9vdGVyBHNsawNmYw--/SIG=110oav78o/**http%3a//farechase.yahoo.com/>  

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

---

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

• Visit your group "nevbbl <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nevbbl> " on the web.
• To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
• nevbbl-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:nevbbl-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
• Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
  

---

----- Original Message -----

From: David Hayes

To: nevbbl@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 4:04 PM

Subject: Re: [nevbbl] Clarification of the idea.

I think we're on the brink of a breakthrough.   This takes me back to the pre-league days, when our Blues were willing explorers...something I've missed about our game is the ordinary ballplayer's chance to learn the game's early history through the variety of rules...

Rusty



on 11/11/05 2:06 PM, AARON HORWITZ at msat81@... wrote:

Huzzah, Brian, Huzzah.

-Aaron

Oh, and you too, John. :)

brian sheehy <historyball@...> wrote:

John's ideas are pretty good. First off this would limit the amount of dates that teams would be mandated to play league games, and therefore allow for exhibitions and games outside of the league. I dont see teams having a hard time filling up the rest of their schedule.  This idea also serves the purpose of the rules people. First it would make all teams involved with the "tournament" be held under the same rule set, and due to the fewer number of games its not like a team will have to play all of their games by rules they dont like. I personally think that all teams should be able to suck it up for 4 dates and play by whatever rules the majoirty of the league wants to play by. This might also lead us to an end of the year tournament/ playoff to decide who wins the cherry bat. People keep talking about Greg Martin and how he uses the media- just think what we could do with a playoff or end of the year tournament to decide who wins the bat. I also think this limit number of games allows for us to continue to grow and take on new teams.

I like some of what Pistey said about trying new rule sets. Melrose and I have been talking for 2 years about trying to set up a Massachusetts Rules game. That might be fun and with less of a league commitment we might be able to find the time. Another team might want to try an 1870's game- why not. This groups page might also be a great place to throw it out there and say hey is there anyone out there who wants to try 1869 rules today. Essex will be playing 2 or 3 1880's rules this year. I think that the overall reason we play is to have fun and learn more about how baseball evolved. If we step back a little and try new things we might have fun. This league should bring us together and allow us to try new things- it shouldnt force teams to do things they dont want to do or play by rules they dont like. We keep the overall structure of the league but allow each team to do their own thing.

I hope that came out right.
Brian

salmonabode <salmonabode@...> wrote:

Guys,I think my use of the word "tournament" threw Brian and maybe
others. I do not envision any tournament dates among multiple teams
in my plan at all. I will spell out what I intend by example:

1. PRIOR to the annual league meeting, teams will let the schedule
maker (Jim Regan) know whether they want to be part of the Cherry
Bat schedule. In letting Jim know this, they can also set forth
whether they have any preferences (i.e. "Jim we have a hard time
getting nine to drive all the way down to Waterbury, please try not
to give us a road game there" or "Jim we like to play in Bristol,
please schedule us there").

Let's assume for this example 6 of the 7 league teams decide they
would like to join in the Cherry Bat schedule (note: the "Cherry Bat
schedule" is just a synonym for the "league schedule" - it lasts all
year, and is not a series of multiple team tournament dates).

2. Jim will then create a schedule of 4 dates (8 games) for each
team: 2 home, 2 away (I assume this is mathematically possible).
The amount of games in the Cherry Bat schedule will vary depending
upon how many teams are participating, and I think it should be
somewhere around 2/3 of the number of teams who choose to be
involved.

Jim will consider lots of data, including any specific schedule
requests and last year's records in determing the matchups. When
the schedule is done, this will be everybody's baseline league
schedule for the season. You get a schedule of 4 dates, 2 home, 2
away (as opposed to last year's 6 date schedule). Yes, this means
in our example that you will not be facing 3 league teams as part of
your "Cherry Bat" schedule. But that is OK - this gives Jim some
flexibility in meeting schedule requests and all teams will have the
opportunity to schedule as many "non-Cherry Bat" games as they can.

3. Jim will distribute the schedule to everyone prior to (or at)
the league meeting. We will then set aside some time at the end of
the league meeting for teams to sit down and add more "non-Cherry
Bat" dates to their schedule. The team that opted out of the league
schedule can fully participate like anyone else, and schedule as
many games as it can get.

The understanding for these non-Cherry Bat games will be that the
home team will ultimately control the rules for these games (or we
split doubleheaders - whatever).

4. After the meeting, teams are free to add and move around any
dates as they see fit.

That is my idea it in a nutshell, and I like it for the reasons
described in my first email to the group.

What do you all think?

NOTE: I am guessing some teams might want to know what rules we are
playing under for the Cherry Bat before they decide whether to be
part of the Cherry Bat schedule, so we can vote on that prior to the
meeting as well. I will be honest - it doesn't matter to me. Given
that under this scheme the Cherry Bat schedule becomes a less
empasized part of our schedule I am sure the Blues will be part of
the Cherry Bat schedule no matter what we decide the rules
ultimately are.


--- In nevbbl@yahoogroups.com, "historyball" <historyball@y...>
wrote:
>
> Hey everyone,
>
> This is the email John Simmons sent out to some of us. It is a
very
> interesting debate and think it would be best served sent out to
> everyone. Again encourage your team mates to join this group.
(sorry
> if you already got it)
>
> Guys:
>
> All of the emails I have been reviewing from everyone over the
last
> week
> have been great - I am glad to see such a robust discussion.  I
have
> a
> new topic of discussion that may impact where we end up this
season.
> Simply put, what is the purpose of this league?
>
> People seem to have very different goals for their participation
in
> VBB.
> Some want to play and just have fun - an alternative to softball
if
> you
> will.  Others are very history minded, and for them the fun is to
> re-create the game as close as possible.  Some people wish to play
> by a
> consistent set of rules - others like to try new and different
rules.
> Some players want to WIN at all cost.  Others could care less if
they
> win or lose - it is just playing the game that satisfies them.  
Some
> want to play at events and exhibitions where there are many
> spectators
> -
> some desire to simply play in the middle of an empty hayfield.  For
> some, they could care less if they are even playing baseball - it
is
> getting together with friends and family that drives their
interest
> in
> VBB.  Sometimes these different goals exist among players on the
same
> team - thus our league representation scheme is often not
> representative
> of all.
>
> I see in our discussions a tension between each of these very valid
> goals.  Indeed our rules and compromises over the years is a
> reflection
> of our effort to try and satisfy all of these goals to a reasonably
> acceptable extent.  I wonder if there is a better way for the
league
> to
> function in this regard?  I wonder if teams have become too
> dependent
> of
> on the league schedule?  Do people see the league debates as
> extraordinarily critical because they are going to be "stuck"
> playing a
> game that they might find unsatisfactory?
>
> Perhaps cutting back the Cherry Bat schedule to an unbalanced
> schedule
> of say 8-10 games (4 or 5 dates) is a way to address this.  Call
it
> the
> "Cherry Bat Tournament" if you will.  We agree by majority rule
for a
> certain set of Tournament rules and League teams can opt into the
> tournament schedule or not.  Since the schedule is only 4 or 5
dates,
> league teams would be given ample opportunity to pursue
independently
> scheduled "non-league" games with any teams they choose.  Since we
> have
> a league structure in place, scheduling of "non-tournament" games
> would
> be much easier (and could be done at the league meeting or via
email
> or
> telephone at any time).  I think even teams that opt out of the
> tournament would be able to schedule plenty of games.  Most
> importantly,
> since the commitment to league dates becomes de-emphasized, the
> differences of opinion on certain rules becomes much less
critical -
> a
> simple 4 or 5 date schedule will leave lots of time for teams to
play
> each other under all kinds of different sets of rules.
>
> In this re-defined league we would see Hartford playing Melrose in
a
> Cherry Bat Tournament game under the league rules.  Then Hartford
> could
> call Melrose up independently and invite them down to Hartford to
> play
> an 1871 game using rules found on a league website.  Waterbury
could
> call Bristol up to play a 2004 NEVBBL rules game (etc.)  To my
mind,
> the
> home team in these types of games would ultimately control (but in
a
> gentlemanly way) the rule interpretations, and the parameters of
the
> rules should be communicated prior to the match - or, hell, you
can
> even
> split up a doubleheader - what is more fair than that?  Players on
> teams
> that don't want to play under a certain set of rules and
> interpretations
> could simply just stay home that day and let those teammates who
are
> interested playing by those rules go ahead and play (and, as a
> corollary, if a significant majority of a team is opposed to those
> types
> of rules, then the game will never be scheduled in the first
place).
> But I don't think this will often be the case - people will be
more
> apt
> to "suck it up" and play by a rules they may not like 100% since
they
> know that they are able to schedule other games according to their
> goals
> and desires.  I think there is enough gentlemanly spirit and
> diversity
> in the league that no team would go without games.
>
> Sure, these non-Cherry Bat games might not "count" towards
anything,
> but
> I think because they do not "count" towards league standings this
> will
> relieve a lot of the tension and angst some players have because
> their
> particular goal isn't being met that day.  I think players would
be
> less
> apt to get upset if an opposing player forgets a rule and, for
> example
> slides when there is no sliding during that game.  If such a
mistake
> is
> made, the player could be instructed not to slide, the fans would
see
> this error and learn along with the player that there was no
sliding
> under that particular set of rules.  Mistakes like this will become
> opportunities for players and fans to learn about the different
> peculiarities of VBB instead of opportunities for petty arguments
> because the league standings are on the line.
>
> With a reduced schedule, the league still serves a very important
> purpose yet other league functions could flourish as well.  The
> Cherry
> Bat Tournament can provide teams with a guaranteed baseline of
rules
> and
> scheduled games for a given year.  The league would be the point of
> communications between all New England area teams - even teams that
> didn't want to participate in the Cherry Bat Tournament.  The
League
> could be a clearinghouse for other sets of rules and rule
> interpretations - we could even offer simple to use "cheat sheets"
> listing the major rules differences between rules so that players
can
> easily get up to speed on the different rules prior to a match.  
>
> I don't think cutting back the schedule would be a sign of league
> weakness at all, it might just be one way in which we can re-
define
> what
> the league does.  I also think this type of format reflects where
we
> are
> as a group, and respects everyone's goals better than continuing to
> force everyone into the same mold.
>
> Does anyone have any comments to this idea or other ideas?
>
> JS
>

---

Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. <http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTFqODRtdXQ4BF9TAzMyOTc1MDIEX3MDOTY2ODgxNjkEcG9zAzEEc2VjA21haWwtZm9vdGVyBHNsawNmYw--/SIG=110oav78o/**http%3a//farechase.yahoo.com/>  

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

---

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

• Visit your group "nevbbl <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nevbbl> " on the web.
• To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
• nevbbl-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:nevbbl-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
• Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
  

---

Huzzah, Brian, Huzzah.

-Aaron

Oh, and you too, John. :)

brian sheehy <historyball@...> wrote:

John's ideas are pretty good. First off this would limit the amount of dates that teams would be mandated to play league games, and therefore allow for exhibitions and games outside of the league. I dont see teams having a hard time filling up the rest of their schedule.  This idea also serves the purpose of the rules people. First it would make all teams involved with the "tournament" be held under the same rule set, and due to the fewer number of games its not like a team will have to play all of their games by rules they dont like. I personally think that all teams should be able to suck it up for 4 dates and play by whatever rules the majoirty of the league wants to play by. This might also lead us to an end of the year tournament/ playoff to decide who wins the cherry bat. People keep talking about Greg Martin and how he uses the media- just think what we could do with a playoff or end of the year tournament to decide who wins the bat. I also think this limit number of games allows for us to continue to grow and take on new teams.

I like some of what Pistey said about trying new rule sets. Melrose and I have been talking for 2 years about trying to set up a Massachusetts Rules game. That might be fun and with less of a league commitment we might be able to find the time. Another team might want to try an 1870's game- why not. This groups page might also be a great place to throw it out there and say hey is there anyone out there who wants to try 1869 rules today. Essex will be playing 2 or 3 1880's rules this year. I think that the overall reason we play is to have fun and learn more about how baseball evolved. If we step back a little and try new things we might have fun. This league should bring us together and allow us to try new things- it shouldnt force teams to do things they dont want to do or play by rules they dont like. We keep the overall structure of the league but allow each team to do their own thing.

I hope that came out right.
Brian

salmonabode <salmonabode@...> wrote:

Guys,I think my use of the word "tournament" threw Brian and maybe
others. I do not envision any tournament dates among multiple teams
in my plan at all. I will spell out what I intend by example:

1. PRIOR to the annual league meeting, teams will let the schedule
maker (Jim Regan) know whether they want to be part of the Cherry
Bat schedule. In letting Jim know this, they can also set forth
whether they have any preferences (i.e. "Jim we have a hard time
getting nine to drive all the way down to Waterbury, please try not
to give us a road game there" or "Jim we like to play in Bristol,
please schedule us there").

Let's assume for this example 6 of the 7 league teams decide they
would like to join in the Cherry Bat schedule (note: the "Cherry Bat
schedule" is just a synonym for the "league schedule" - it lasts all
year, and is not a series of multiple team tournament dates).

2. Jim will then create a schedule of 4 dates (8 games) for each
team: 2 home, 2 away (I assume this is mathematically possible).
The amount of games in the Cherry Bat schedule will vary depending
upon how many teams are participating, and I think it should be
somewhere around 2/3 of the number of teams who choose to be
involved.

Jim will consider lots of data, including any specific schedule
requests and last year's records in determing the matchups. When
the schedule is done, this will be everybody's baseline league
schedule for the season. You get a schedule of 4 dates, 2 home, 2
away (as opposed to last year's 6 date schedule). Yes, this means
in our example that you will not be facing 3 league teams as part of
your "Cherry Bat" schedule. But that is OK - this gives Jim some
flexibility in meeting schedule requests and all teams will have the
opportunity to schedule as many "non-Cherry Bat" games as they can.

3. Jim will distribute the schedule to everyone prior to (or at)
the league meeting. We will then set aside some time at the end of
the league meeting for teams to sit down and add more "non-Cherry
Bat" dates to their schedule. The team that opted out of the league
schedule can fully participate like anyone else, and schedule as
many games as it can get.

The understanding for these non-Cherry Bat games will be that the
home team will ultimately control the rules for these games (or we
split doubleheaders - whatever).

4. After the meeting, teams are free to add and move around any
dates as they see fit.

That is my idea it in a nutshell, and I like it for the reasons
described in my first email to the group.

What do you all think?

NOTE: I am guessing some teams might want to know what rules we are
playing under for the Cherry Bat before they decide whether to be
part of the Cherry Bat schedule, so we can vote on that prior to the
meeting as well. I will be honest - it doesn't matter to me. Given
that under this scheme the Cherry Bat schedule becomes a less
empasized part of our schedule I am sure the Blues will be part of
the Cherry Bat schedule no matter what we decide the rules
ultimately are.


--- In nevbbl@yahoogroups.com, "historyball" <historyball@y...>
wrote:
>
> Hey everyone,
>
> This is the email John Simmons sent out to some of us. It is a
very
> interesting debate and think it would be best served sent out to
> everyone. Again encourage your team mates to join this group.
(sorry
> if you already got it)
>
> Guys:
>
> All of the emails I have been reviewing from everyone over the
last
> week
> have been great - I am glad to see such a robust discussion.  I
have
> a
> new topic of discussion that may impact where we end up this
season.
> Simply put, what is the purpose of this league?
>
> People seem to have very different goals for their participation
in
> VBB.
> Some want to play and just have fun - an alternative to softball
if
> you
> will.  Others are very history minded, and for them the fun is to
> re-create the game as close as possible.  Some people wish to play
> by a
> consistent set of rules - others like to try new and different
rules.
> Some players want to WIN at all cost.  Others could care less if
they
> win or lose - it is just playing the game that satisfies them.  
Some
> want to play at events and exhibitions where there are many
> spectators
> -
> some desire to simply play in the middle of an empty hayfield.  For
> some, they could care less if they are even playing baseball - it
is
> getting together with friends and family that drives their
interest
> in
> VBB.  Sometimes these different goals exist among players on the
same
> team - thus our league representation scheme is often not
> representative
> of all.
>
> I see in our discussions a tension between each of these very valid
> goals.  Indeed our rules and compromises over the years is a
> reflection
> of our effort to try and satisfy all of these goals to a reasonably
> acceptable extent.  I wonder if there is a better way for the
league
> to
> function in this regard?  I wonder if teams have become too
> dependent
> of
> on the league schedule?  Do people see the league debates as
> extraordinarily critical because they are going to be "stuck"
> playing a
> game that they might find unsatisfactory?
>
> Perhaps cutting back the Cherry Bat schedule to an unbalanced
> schedule
> of say 8-10 games (4 or 5 dates) is a way to address this.  Call
it
> the
> "Cherry Bat Tournament" if you will.  We agree by majority rule
for a
> certain set of Tournament rules and League teams can opt into the
> tournament schedule or not.  Since the schedule is only 4 or 5
dates,
> league teams would be given ample opportunity to pursue
independently
> scheduled "non-league" games with any teams they choose.  Since we
> have
> a league structure in place, scheduling of "non-tournament" games
> would
> be much easier (and could be done at the league meeting or via
email
> or
> telephone at any time).  I think even teams that opt out of the
> tournament would be able to schedule plenty of games.  Most
> importantly,
> since the commitment to league dates becomes de-emphasized, the
> differences of opinion on certain rules becomes much less
critical -
> a
> simple 4 or 5 date schedule will leave lots of time for teams to
play
> each other under all kinds of different sets of rules.
>
> In this re-defined league we would see Hartford playing Melrose in
a
> Cherry Bat Tournament game under the league rules.  Then Hartford
> could
> call Melrose up independently and invite them down to Hartford to
> play
> an 1871 game using rules found on a league website.  Waterbury
could
> call Bristol up to play a 2004 NEVBBL rules game (etc.)  To my
mind,
> the
> home team in these types of games would ultimately control (but in
a
> gentlemanly way) the rule interpretations, and the parameters of
the
> rules should be communicated prior to the match - or, hell, you
can
> even
> split up a doubleheader - what is more fair than that?  Players on
> teams
> that don't want to play under a certain set of rules and
> interpretations
> could simply just stay home that day and let those teammates who
are
> interested playing by those rules go ahead and play (and, as a
> corollary, if a significant majority of a team is opposed to those
> types
> of rules, then the game will never be scheduled in the first
place).
> But I don't think this will often be the case - people will be
more
> apt
> to "suck it up" and play by a rules they may not like 100% since
they
> know that they are able to schedule other games according to their
> goals
> and desires.  I think there is enough gentlemanly spirit and
> diversity
> in the league that no team would go without games.
>
> Sure, these non-Cherry Bat games might not "count" towards
anything,
> but
> I think because they do not "count" towards league standings this
> will
> relieve a lot of the tension and angst some players have because
> their
> particular goal isn't being met that day.  I think players would
be
> less
> apt to get upset if an opposing player forgets a rule and, for
> example
> slides when there is no sliding during that game.  If such a
mistake
> is
> made, the player could be instructed not to slide, the fans would
see
> this error and learn along with the player that there was no
sliding
> under that particular set of rules.  Mistakes like this will become
> opportunities for players and fans to learn about the different
> peculiarities of VBB instead of opportunities for petty arguments
> because the league standings are on the line.
>
> With a reduced schedule, the league still serves a very important
> purpose yet other league functions could flourish as well.  The
> Cherry
> Bat Tournament can provide teams with a guaranteed baseline of
rules
> and
> scheduled games for a given year.  The league would be the point of
> communications between all New England area teams - even teams that
> didn't want to participate in the Cherry Bat Tournament.  The
League
> could be a clearinghouse for other sets of rules and rule
> interpretations - we could even offer simple to use "cheat sheets"
> listing the major rules differences between rules so that players
can
> easily get up to speed on the different rules prior to a match.  
>
> I don't think cutting back the schedule would be a sign of league
> weakness at all, it might just be one way in which we can re-
define
> what
> the league does.  I also think this type of format reflects where
we
> are
> as a group, and respects everyone's goals better than continuing to
> force everyone into the same mold.
>
> Does anyone have any comments to this idea or other ideas?
>
> JS
>

---

Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click. <http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTFqODRtdXQ4BF9TAzMyOTc1MDIEX3MDOTY2ODgxNjkEcG9zAzEEc2VjA21haWwtZm9vdGVyBHNsawNmYw--/SIG=110oav78o/**http%3a//farechase.yahoo.com/>  

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

---

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

• Visit your group "nevbbl <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nevbbl> " on the web.
• To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
• nevbbl-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:nevbbl-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
• Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
  

---

John's ideas are pretty good. First off this would limit the amount of dates that teams would be mandated to play league games, and therefore allow for exhibitions and games outside of the league. I dont see teams having a hard time filling up the rest of their schedule.  This idea also serves the purpose of the rules people. First it would make all teams involved with the "tournament" be held under the same rule set, and due to the fewer number of games its not like a team will have to play all of their games by rules they dont like. I personally think that all teams should be able to suck it up for 4 dates and play by whatever rules the majoirty of the league wants to play by. This might also lead us to an end of the year tournament/ playoff to decide who wins the cherry bat. People keep talking about Greg Martin and how he uses the media- just think what we could do with a playoff or end of the year tournament to decide who wins the bat. I also think this limit number of games allows for us to continue to grow and take on new teams.

 

I like some of what Pistey said about trying new rule sets. Melrose and I have been talking for 2 years about trying to set up a Massachusetts Rules game. That might be fun and with less of a league commitment we might be able to find the time. Another team might want to try an 1870's game- why not. This groups page might also be a great place to throw it out there and say hey is there anyone out there who wants to try 1869 rules today. Essex will be playing 2 or 3 1880's rules this year. I think that the overall reason we play is to have fun and learn more about how baseball evolved. If we step back a little and try new things we might have fun. This league should bring us together and allow us to try new things- it shouldnt force teams to do things they dont want to do or play by rules they dont like. We keep the overall structure of the league but allow each team to do their own thing.

 

I hope that came out right.

Brian

salmonabode <salmonabode@...> wrote:

Guys,I think my use of the word "tournament" threw Brian and maybe
others. I do not envision any tournament dates among multiple teams
in my plan at all. I will spell out what I intend by example:

1. PRIOR to the annual league meeting, teams will let the schedule
maker (Jim Regan) know whether they want to be part of the Cherry
Bat schedule. In letting Jim know this, they can also set forth
whether they have any preferences (i.e. "Jim we have a hard time
getting nine to drive all the way down to Waterbury, please try not
to give us a road game there" or "Jim we like to play in Bristol,
please schedule us there").

Let's assume for this example 6 of the 7 league teams decide they
would like to join in the Cherry Bat schedule (note: the "Cherry Bat
schedule" is just a synonym for the "league schedule" - it lasts all
year, and is not a series of multiple team tournament dates).

2. Jim will then create a schedule of 4 dates (8 games) for each
team: 2 home, 2 away (I assume this is mathematically possible).
The amount of games in the Cherry Bat schedule will vary depending
upon how many teams are participating, and I think it should be
somewhere around 2/3 of the number of teams who choose to be
involved.

Jim will consider lots of data, including any specific schedule
requests and last year's records in determing the matchups. When
the schedule is done, this will be everybody's baseline league
schedule for the season. You get a schedule of 4 dates, 2 home, 2
away (as opposed to last year's 6 date schedule). Yes, this means
in our example that you will not be facing 3 league teams as part of
your "Cherry Bat" schedule. But that is OK - this gives Jim some
flexibility in meeting schedule requests and all teams will have the
opportunity to schedule as many "non-Cherry Bat" games as they can.

3. Jim will distribute the schedule to everyone prior to (or at)
the league meeting. We will then set aside some time at the end of
the league meeting for teams to sit down and add more "non-Cherry
Bat" dates to their schedule. The team that opted out of the league
schedule can fully participate like anyone else, and schedule as
many games as it can get.

The understanding for these non-Cherry Bat games will be that the
home team will ultimately control the rules for these games (or we
split doubleheaders - whatever).

4. After the meeting, teams are free to add and move around any
dates as they see fit.

That is my idea it in a nutshell, and I like it for the reasons
described in my first email to the group.

What do you all think?

NOTE: I am guessing some teams might want to know what rules we are
playing under for the Cherry Bat before they decide whether to be
part of the Cherry Bat schedule, so we can vote on that prior to the
meeting as well. I will be honest - it doesn't matter to me. Given
that under this scheme the Cherry Bat schedule becomes a less
empasized part of our schedule I am sure the Blues will be part of
the Cherry Bat schedule no matter what we decide the rules
ultimately are.


--- In nevbbl@yahoogroups.com, "historyball" <historyball@y...>
wrote:
>
> Hey everyone,
>
> This is the email John Simmons sent out to some of us. It is a
very
> interesting debate and think it would be best served sent out to
> everyone. Again encourage your team mates to join this group.
(sorry
> if you already got it)
>
> Guys:
>
> All of the emails I have been reviewing from everyone over the
last
> week
> have been great - I am glad to see such a robust discussion.  I
have
> a
> new topic of discussion that may impact where we end up this
season.
> Simply put, what is the purpose of this league?
>
> People seem to have very different goals for their participation
in
> VBB.
> Some want to play and just have fun - an alternative to softball
if
> you
> will.  Others are very history minded, and for them the fun is to
> re-create the game as close as possible.  Some people wish to play
> by a
> consistent set of rules - others like to try new and different
rules.
> Some players want to WIN at all cost.  Others could care less if
they
> win or lose - it is just playing the game that satisfies them. 
Some
> want to play at events and exhibitions where there are many
> spectators
> -
> some desire to simply play in the middle of an empty hayfield.  For
> some, they could care less if they are even playing baseball - it
is
> getting together with friends and family that drives their
interest
> in
> VBB.  Sometimes these different goals exist among players on the
same
> team - thus our league representation scheme is often not
> representative
> of all.
>
> I see in our discussions a tension between each of these very valid
> goals.  Indeed our rules and compromises over the years is a
> reflection
> of our effort to try and satisfy all of these goals to a reasonably
> acceptable extent.  I wonder if there is a better way for the
league
> to
> function in this regard?  I wonder if teams have become too
> dependent
> of
> on the league schedule?  Do people see the league debates as
> extraordinarily critical because they are going to be "stuck"
> playing a
> game that they might find unsatisfactory?
>
> Perhaps cutting back the Cherry Bat schedule to an unbalanced
> schedule
> of say 8-10 games (4 or 5 dates) is a way to address this.  Call
it
> the
> "Cherry Bat Tournament" if you will.  We agree by majority rule
for a
> certain set of Tournament rules and League teams can opt into the
> tournament schedule or not.  Since the schedule is only 4 or 5
dates,
> league teams would be given ample opportunity to pursue
independently
> scheduled "non-league" games with any teams they choose.  Since we
> have
> a league structure in place, scheduling of "non-tournament" games
> would
> be much easier (and could be done at the league meeting or via
email
> or
> telephone at any time).  I think even teams that opt out of the
> tournament would be able to schedule plenty of games.  Most
> importantly,
> since the commitment to league dates becomes de-emphasized, the
> differences of opinion on certain rules becomes much less
critical -
> a
> simple 4 or 5 date schedule will leave lots of time for teams to
play
> each other under all kinds of different sets of rules.
>
> In this re-defined league we would see Hartford playing Melrose in
a
> Cherry Bat Tournament game under the league rules.  Then Hartford
> could
> call Melrose up independently and invite them down to Hartford to
> play
> an 1871 game using rules found on a league website.  Waterbury
could
> call Bristol up to play a 2004 NEVBBL rules game (etc.)  To my
mind,
> the
> home team in these types of games would ultimately control (but in
a
> gentlemanly way) the rule interpretations, and the parameters of
the
> rules should be communicated prior to the match - or, hell, you
can
> even
> split up a doubleheader - what is more fair than that?  Players on
> teams
> that don't want to play under a certain set of rules and
> interpretations
> could simply just stay home that day and let those teammates who
are
> interested playing by those rules go ahead and play (and, as a
> corollary, if a significant majority of a team is opposed to those
> types
> of rules, then the game will never be scheduled in the first
place).
> But I don't think this will often be the case - people will be
more
> apt
> to "suck it up" and play by a rules they may not like 100% since
they
> know that they are able to schedule other games according to their
> goals
> and desires.  I think there is enough gentlemanly spirit and
> diversity
> in the league that no team would go without games.
>
> Sure, these non-Cherry Bat games might not "count" towards
anything,
> but
> I think because they do not "count" towards league standings this
> will
> relieve a lot of the tension and angst some players have because
> their
> particular goal isn't being met that day.  I think players would
be
> less
> apt to get upset if an opposing player forgets a rule and, for
> example
> slides when there is no sliding during that game.  If such a
mistake
> is
> made, the player could be instructed not to slide, the fans would
see
> this error and learn along with the player that there was no
sliding
> under that particular set of rules.  Mistakes like this will become
> opportunities for players and fans to learn about the different
> peculiarities of VBB instead of opportunities for petty arguments
> because the league standings are on the line.
>
> With a reduced schedule, the league still serves a very important
> purpose yet other league functions could flourish as well.  The
> Cherry
> Bat Tournament can provide teams with a guaranteed baseline of
rules
> and
> scheduled games for a given year.  The league would be the point of
> communications between all New England area teams - even teams that
> didn't want to participate in the Cherry Bat Tournament.  The
League
> could be a clearinghouse for other sets of rules and rule
> interpretations - we could even offer simple to use "cheat sheets"
> listing the major rules differences between rules so that players
can
> easily get up to speed on the different rules prior to a match. 
>
> I don't think cutting back the schedule would be a sign of league
> weakness at all, it might just be one way in which we can re-
define
> what
> the league does.  I also think this type of format reflects where
we
> are
> as a group, and respects everyone's goals better than continuing to
> force everyone into the same mold.
>
> Does anyone have any comments to this idea or other ideas?
>
> JS
>

---

Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Guys,I think my use of the word "tournament" threw Brian and maybe
others. I do not envision any tournament dates among multiple teams
in my plan at all. I will spell out what I intend by example:

1. PRIOR to the annual league meeting, teams will let the schedule
maker (Jim Regan) know whether they want to be part of the Cherry
Bat schedule. In letting Jim know this, they can also set forth
whether they have any preferences (i.e. "Jim we have a hard time
getting nine to drive all the way down to Waterbury, please try not
to give us a road game there" or "Jim we like to play in Bristol,
please schedule us there").

Let's assume for this example 6 of the 7 league teams decide they
would like to join in the Cherry Bat schedule (note: the "Cherry Bat
schedule" is just a synonym for the "league schedule" - it lasts all
year, and is not a series of multiple team tournament dates).

2. Jim will then create a schedule of 4 dates (8 games) for each
team: 2 home, 2 away (I assume this is mathematically possible).
The amount of games in the Cherry Bat schedule will vary depending
upon how many teams are participating, and I think it should be
somewhere around 2/3 of the number of teams who choose to be
involved.

Jim will consider lots of data, including any specific schedule
requests and last year's records in determing the matchups. When
the schedule is done, this will be everybody's baseline league
schedule for the season. You get a schedule of 4 dates, 2 home, 2
away (as opposed to last year's 6 date schedule). Yes, this means
in our example that you will not be facing 3 league teams as part of
your "Cherry Bat" schedule. But that is OK - this gives Jim some
flexibility in meeting schedule requests and all teams will have the
opportunity to schedule as many "non-Cherry Bat" games as they can.

3. Jim will distribute the schedule to everyone prior to (or at)
the league meeting. We will then set aside some time at the end of
the league meeting for teams to sit down and add more "non-Cherry
Bat" dates to their schedule. The team that opted out of the league
schedule can fully participate like anyone else, and schedule as
many games as it can get.

The understanding for these non-Cherry Bat games will be that the
home team will ultimately control the rules for these games (or we
split doubleheaders - whatever).

4. After the meeting, teams are free to add and move around any
dates as they see fit.

That is my idea it in a nutshell, and I like it for the reasons
described in my first email to the group.

What do you all think?

NOTE: I am guessing some teams might want to know what rules we are
playing under for the Cherry Bat before they decide whether to be
part of the Cherry Bat schedule, so we can vote on that prior to the
meeting as well. I will be honest - it doesn't matter to me. Given
that under this scheme the Cherry Bat schedule becomes a less
empasized part of our schedule I am sure the Blues will be part of
the Cherry Bat schedule no matter what we decide the rules
ultimately are.


--- In nevbbl@yahoogroups.com, "historyball" <historyball@y...>
wrote:
>
> Hey everyone,
>
> This is the email John Simmons sent out to some of us. It is a
very
> interesting debate and think it would be best served sent out to
> everyone. Again encourage your team mates to join this group.
(sorry
> if you already got it)
>
> Guys:
>
> All of the emails I have been reviewing from everyone over the
last
> week
> have been great - I am glad to see such a robust discussion.  I
have
> a
> new topic of discussion that may impact where we end up this
season.
> Simply put, what is the purpose of this league?
>
> People seem to have very different goals for their participation
in
> VBB.
> Some want to play and just have fun - an alternative to softball
if
> you
> will.  Others are very history minded, and for them the fun is to
> re-create the game as close as possible.  Some people wish to play
> by a
> consistent set of rules - others like to try new and different
rules.
> Some players want to WIN at all cost.  Others could care less if
they
> win or lose - it is just playing the game that satisfies them. 
Some
> want to play at events and exhibitions where there are many
> spectators
> -
> some desire to simply play in the middle of an empty hayfield.  For
> some, they could care less if they are even playing baseball - it
is
> getting together with friends and family that drives their
interest
> in
> VBB.  Sometimes these different goals exist among players on the
same
> team - thus our league representation scheme is often not
> representative
> of all.
>
> I see in our discussions a tension between each of these very valid
> goals.  Indeed our rules and compromises over the years is a
> reflection
> of our effort to try and satisfy all of these goals to a reasonably
> acceptable extent.  I wonder if there is a better way for the
league
> to
> function in this regard?  I wonder if teams have become too
> dependent
> of
> on the league schedule?  Do people see the league debates as
> extraordinarily critical because they are going to be "stuck"
> playing a
> game that they might find unsatisfactory?
>
> Perhaps cutting back the Cherry Bat schedule to an unbalanced
> schedule
> of say 8-10 games (4 or 5 dates) is a way to address this.  Call
it
> the
> "Cherry Bat Tournament" if you will.  We agree by majority rule
for a
> certain set of Tournament rules and League teams can opt into the
> tournament schedule or not.  Since the schedule is only 4 or 5
dates,
> league teams would be given ample opportunity to pursue
independently
> scheduled "non-league" games with any teams they choose.  Since we
> have
> a league structure in place, scheduling of "non-tournament" games
> would
> be much easier (and could be done at the league meeting or via
email
> or
> telephone at any time).  I think even teams that opt out of the
> tournament would be able to schedule plenty of games.  Most
> importantly,
> since the commitment to league dates becomes de-emphasized, the
> differences of opinion on certain rules becomes much less
critical -
> a
> simple 4 or 5 date schedule will leave lots of time for teams to
play
> each other under all kinds of different sets of rules.
>
> In this re-defined league we would see Hartford playing Melrose in
a
> Cherry Bat Tournament game under the league rules.  Then Hartford
> could
> call Melrose up independently and invite them down to Hartford to
> play
> an 1871 game using rules found on a league website.  Waterbury
could
> call Bristol up to play a 2004 NEVBBL rules game (etc.)  To my
mind,
> the
> home team in these types of games would ultimately control (but in
a
> gentlemanly way) the rule interpretations, and the parameters of
the
> rules should be communicated prior to the match - or, hell, you
can
> even
> split up a doubleheader - what is more fair than that?  Players on
> teams
> that don't want to play under a certain set of rules and
> interpretations
> could simply just stay home that day and let those teammates who
are
> interested playing by those rules go ahead and play (and, as a
> corollary, if a significant majority of a team is opposed to those
> types
> of rules, then the game will never be scheduled in the first
place).
> But I don't think this will often be the case - people will be
more
> apt
> to "suck it up" and play by a rules they may not like 100% since
they
> know that they are able to schedule other games according to their
> goals
> and desires.  I think there is enough gentlemanly spirit and
> diversity
> in the league that no team would go without games.
>
> Sure, these non-Cherry Bat games might not "count" towards
anything,
> but
> I think because they do not "count" towards league standings this
> will
> relieve a lot of the tension and angst some players have because
> their
> particular goal isn't being met that day.  I think players would
be
> less
> apt to get upset if an opposing player forgets a rule and, for
> example
> slides when there is no sliding during that game.  If such a
mistake
> is
> made, the player could be instructed not to slide, the fans would
see
> this error and learn along with the player that there was no
sliding
> under that particular set of rules.  Mistakes like this will become
> opportunities for players and fans to learn about the different
> peculiarities of VBB instead of opportunities for petty arguments
> because the league standings are on the line.
>
> With a reduced schedule, the league still serves a very important
> purpose yet other league functions could flourish as well.  The
> Cherry
> Bat Tournament can provide teams with a guaranteed baseline of
rules
> and
> scheduled games for a given year.  The league would be the point of
> communications between all New England area teams - even teams that
> didn't want to participate in the Cherry Bat Tournament.  The
League
> could be a clearinghouse for other sets of rules and rule
> interpretations - we could even offer simple to use "cheat sheets"
> listing the major rules differences between rules so that players
can
> easily get up to speed on the different rules prior to a match. 
>
> I don't think cutting back the schedule would be a sign of league
> weakness at all, it might just be one way in which we can re-
define
> what
> the league does.  I also think this type of format reflects where
we
> are
> as a group, and respects everyone's goals better than continuing to
> force everyone into the same mold.
>
> Does anyone have any comments to this idea or other ideas?
>
> JS
>

Guys,I think my use of the word "tournament" threw Brian and maybe
others. I do not envision any tournament dates among multiple teams
in my plan at all. I will spell out what I intend by example:

1. PRIOR to the annual league meeting, teams will let the schedule
maker (Jim Regan) know whether they want to be part of the Cherry
Bat schedule. In letting Jim know this, they can also set forth
whether they have any preferences (i.e. "Jim we have a hard time
getting nine to drive all the way down to Waterbury, please try not
to give us a road game there" or "Jim we like to play in Bristol,
please schedule us there").

Let's assume for this example 6 of the 7 league teams decide they
would like to join in the Cherry Bat schedule (note: the "Cherry Bat
schedule" is just a synonym for the "league schedule" - it lasts all
year, and is not a series of multiple team tournament dates).

2. Jim will then create a schedule of 4 dates (8 games) for each
team: 2 home, 2 away (I assume this is mathematically possible).
The amount of games in the Cherry Bat schedule will vary depending
upon how many teams are participating, and I think it should be
somewhere around 2/3 of the number of teams who choose to be
involved.

Jim will consider lots of data, including any specific schedule
requests and last year's records in determing the matchups. When
the schedule is done, this will be everybody's baseline league
schedule for the season. You get a schedule of 4 dates, 2 home, 2
away (as opposed to last year's 6 date schedule). Yes, this means
in our example that you will not be facing 3 league teams as part of
your "Cherry Bat" schedule. But that is OK - this gives Jim some
flexibility in meeting schedule requests and all teams will have the
opportunity to schedule as many "non-Cherry Bat" games as they can.

3. Jim will distribute the schedule to everyone prior to (or at)
the league meeting. We will then set aside some time at the end of
the league meeting for teams to sit down and add more "non-Cherry
Bat" dates to their schedule. The team that opted out of the league
schedule can fully participate like anyone else, and schedule as
many games as it can get.

The understanding for these non-Cherry Bat games will be that the
home team will ultimately control the rules for these games (or we
split doubleheaders - whatever).

4. After the meeting, teams are free to add and move around any
dates as they see fit.

That is my idea it in a nutshell, and I like it for the reasons
described in my first email to the group.

What do you all think?

NOTE: I am guessing some teams might want to know what rules we are
playing under for the Cherry Bat before they decide whether to be
part of the Cherry Bat schedule, so we can vote on that prior to the
meeting as well. I will be honest - it doesn't matter to me. Given
that under this scheme the Cherry Bat schedule becomes a less
empasized part of our schedule I am sure the Blues will be part of
the Cherry Bat schedule no matter what we decide the rules
ultimately are.


--- In nevbbl@yahoogroups.com, "historyball" <historyball@y...>
wrote:
>
> Hey everyone,
>
> This is the email John Simmons sent out to some of us. It is a
very
> interesting debate and think it would be best served sent out to
> everyone. Again encourage your team mates to join this group.
(sorry
> if you already got it)
>
> Guys:
>
> All of the emails I have been reviewing from everyone over the
last
> week
> have been great - I am glad to see such a robust discussion.  I
have
> a
> new topic of discussion that may impact where we end up this
season.
> Simply put, what is the purpose of this league?
>
> People seem to have very different goals for their participation
in
> VBB.
> Some want to play and just have fun - an alternative to softball
if
> you
> will.  Others are very history minded, and for them the fun is to
> re-create the game as close as possible.  Some people wish to play
> by a
> consistent set of rules - others like to try new and different
rules.
> Some players want to WIN at all cost.  Others could care less if
they
> win or lose - it is just playing the game that satisfies them. 
Some
> want to play at events and exhibitions where there are many
> spectators
> -
> some desire to simply play in the middle of an empty hayfield.  For
> some, they could care less if they are even playing baseball - it
is
> getting together with friends and family that drives their
interest
> in
> VBB.  Sometimes these different goals exist among players on the
same
> team - thus our league representation scheme is often not
> representative
> of all.
>
> I see in our discussions a tension between each of these very valid
> goals.  Indeed our rules and compromises over the years is a
> reflection
> of our effort to try and satisfy all of these goals to a reasonably
> acceptable extent.  I wonder if there is a better way for the
league
> to
> function in this regard?  I wonder if teams have become too
> dependent
> of
> on the league schedule?  Do people see the league debates as
> extraordinarily critical because they are going to be "stuck"
> playing a
> game that they might find unsatisfactory?
>
> Perhaps cutting back the Cherry Bat schedule to an unbalanced
> schedule
> of say 8-10 games (4 or 5 dates) is a way to address this.  Call
it
> the
> "Cherry Bat Tournament" if you will.  We agree by majority rule
for a
> certain set of Tournament rules and League teams can opt into the
> tournament schedule or not.  Since the schedule is only 4 or 5
dates,
> league teams would be given ample opportunity to pursue
independently
> scheduled "non-league" games with any teams they choose.  Since we
> have
> a league structure in place, scheduling of "non-tournament" games
> would
> be much easier (and could be done at the league meeting or via
email
> or
> telephone at any time).  I think even teams that opt out of the
> tournament would be able to schedule plenty of games.  Most
> importantly,
> since the commitment to league dates becomes de-emphasized, the
> differences of opinion on certain rules becomes much less
critical -
> a
> simple 4 or 5 date schedule will leave lots of time for teams to
play
> each other under all kinds of different sets of rules.
>
> In this re-defined league we would see Hartford playing Melrose in
a
> Cherry Bat Tournament game under the league rules.  Then Hartford
> could
> call Melrose up independently and invite them down to Hartford to
> play
> an 1871 game using rules found on a league website.  Waterbury
could
> call Bristol up to play a 2004 NEVBBL rules game (etc.)  To my
mind,
> the
> home team in these types of games would ultimately control (but in
a
> gentlemanly way) the rule interpretations, and the parameters of
the
> rules should be communicated prior to the match - or, hell, you
can
> even
> split up a doubleheader - what is more fair than that?  Players on
> teams
> that don't want to play under a certain set of rules and
> interpretations
> could simply just stay home that day and let those teammates who
are
> interested playing by those rules go ahead and play (and, as a
> corollary, if a significant majority of a team is opposed to those
> types
> of rules, then the game will never be scheduled in the first
place).
> But I don't think this will often be the case - people will be
more
> apt
> to "suck it up" and play by a rules they may not like 100% since
they
> know that they are able to schedule other games according to their
> goals
> and desires.  I think there is enough gentlemanly spirit and
> diversity
> in the league that no team would go without games.
>
> Sure, these non-Cherry Bat games might not "count" towards
anything,
> but
> I think because they do not "count" towards league standings this
> will
> relieve a lot of the tension and angst some players have because
> their
> particular goal isn't being met that day.  I think players would
be
> less
> apt to get upset if an opposing player forgets a rule and, for
> example
> slides when there is no sliding during that game.  If such a
mistake
> is
> made, the player could be instructed not to slide, the fans would
see
> this error and learn along with the player that there was no
sliding
> under that particular set of rules.  Mistakes like this will become
> opportunities for players and fans to learn about the different
> peculiarities of VBB instead of opportunities for petty arguments
> because the league standings are on the line.
>
> With a reduced schedule, the league still serves a very important
> purpose yet other league functions could flourish as well.  The
> Cherry
> Bat Tournament can provide teams with a guaranteed baseline of
rules
> and
> scheduled games for a given year.  The league would be the point of
> communications between all New England area teams - even teams that
> didn't want to participate in the Cherry Bat Tournament.  The
League
> could be a clearinghouse for other sets of rules and rule
> interpretations - we could even offer simple to use "cheat sheets"
> listing the major rules differences between rules so that players
can
> easily get up to speed on the different rules prior to a match. 
>
> I don't think cutting back the schedule would be a sign of league
> weakness at all, it might just be one way in which we can re-
define
> what
> the league does.  I also think this type of format reflects where
we
> are
> as a group, and respects everyone's goals better than continuing to
> force everyone into the same mold.
>
> Does anyone have any comments to this idea or other ideas?
>
> JS
>

Guys,I think my use of the word "tournament" threw Brian and maybe
others. I do not envision any tournament dates among multiple teams
in my plan at all. I will spell out what I intend by example:

1. PRIOR to the annual league meeting, teams will let the schedule
maker (Jim Regan) know whether they want to be part of the Cherry
Bat schedule. In letting Jim know this, they can also set forth
whether they have any preferences (i.e. "Jim we have a hard time
getting nine to drive all the way down to Waterbury, please try not
to give us a road game there" or "Jim we like to play in Bristol,
please schedule us there").

Let's assume for this example 6 of the 7 league teams decide they
would like to join in the Cherry Bat schedule (note: the "Cherry Bat
schedule" is just a synonym for the "league schedule" - it lasts all
year, and is not a series of multiple team tournament dates).

2. Jim will then create a schedule of 4 dates (8 games) for each
team: 2 home, 2 away (I assume this is mathematically possible).
The amount of games in the Cherry Bat schedule will vary depending
upon how many teams are participating, and I think it should be
somewhere around 2/3 of the number of teams who choose to be
involved.

Jim will consider lots of data, including any specific schedule
requests and last year's records in determing the matchups. When
the schedule is done, this will be everybody's baseline league
schedule for the season. You get a schedule of 4 dates, 2 home, 2
away (as opposed to last year's 6 date schedule). Yes, this means
in our example that you will not be facing 3 league teams as part of
your "Cherry Bat" schedule. But that is OK - this gives Jim some
flexibility in meeting schedule requests and all teams will have the
opportunity to schedule as many "non-Cherry Bat" games as they can.

3. Jim will distribute the schedule to everyone prior to (or at)
the league meeting. We will then set aside some time at the end of
the league meeting for teams to sit down and add more "non-Cherry
Bat" dates to their schedule. The team that opted out of the league
schedule can fully participate like anyone else, and schedule as
many games as it can get.

The understanding for these non-Cherry Bat games will be that the
home team will ultimately control the rules for these games (or we
split doubleheaders - whatever).

4. After the meeting, teams are free to add and move around any
dates as they see fit.

That is my idea it in a nutshell, and I like it for the reasons
described in my first email to the group.

What do you all think?

NOTE: I am guessing some teams might want to know what rules we are
playing under for the Cherry Bat before they decide whether to be
part of the Cherry Bat schedule, so we can vote on that prior to the
meeting as well. I will be honest - it doesn't matter to me. Given
that under this scheme the Cherry Bat schedule becomes a less
empasized part of our schedule I am sure the Blues will be part of
the Cherry Bat schedule no matter what we decide the rules
ultimately are.


--- In nevbbl@yahoogroups.com, "historyball" <historyball@y...>
wrote:
>
> Hey everyone,
>
> This is the email John Simmons sent out to some of us. It is a
very
> interesting debate and think it would be best served sent out to
> everyone. Again encourage your team mates to join this group.
(sorry
> if you already got it)
>
> Guys:
>
> All of the emails I have been reviewing from everyone over the
last
> week
> have been great - I am glad to see such a robust discussion.  I
have
> a
> new topic of discussion that may impact where we end up this
season.
> Simply put, what is the purpose of this league?
>
> People seem to have very different goals for their participation
in
> VBB.
> Some want to play and just have fun - an alternative to softball
if
> you
> will.  Others are very history minded, and for them the fun is to
> re-create the game as close as possible.  Some people wish to play
> by a
> consistent set of rules - others like to try new and different
rules.
> Some players want to WIN at all cost.  Others could care less if
they
> win or lose - it is just playing the game that satisfies them.
Some
> want to play at events and exhibitions where there are many
> spectators
> -
> some desire to simply play in the middle of an empty hayfield.  For
> some, they could care less if they are even playing baseball - it
is
> getting together with friends and family that drives their
interest
> in
> VBB.  Sometimes these different goals exist among players on the
same
> team - thus our league representation scheme is often not
> representative
> of all.
>
> I see in our discussions a tension between each of these very valid
> goals.  Indeed our rules and compromises over the years is a
> reflection
> of our effort to try and satisfy all of these goals to a reasonably
> acceptable extent.  I wonder if there is a better way for the
league
> to
> function in this regard?  I wonder if teams have become too
> dependent
> of
> on the league schedule?  Do people see the league debates as
> extraordinarily critical because they are going to be "stuck"
> playing a
> game that they might find unsatisfactory?
>
> Perhaps cutting back the Cherry Bat schedule to an unbalanced
> schedule
> of say 8-10 games (4 or 5 dates) is a way to address this.  Call
it
> the
> "Cherry Bat Tournament" if you will.  We agree by majority rule
for a
> certain set of Tournament rules and League teams can opt into the
> tournament schedule or not.  Since the schedule is only 4 or 5
dates,
> league teams would be given ample opportunity to pursue
independently
> scheduled "non-league" games with any teams they choose.  Since we
> have
> a league structure in place, scheduling of "non-tournament" games
> would
> be much easier (and could be done at the league meeting or via
email
> or
> telephone at any time).  I think even teams that opt out of the
> tournament would be able to schedule plenty of games.  Most
> importantly,
> since the commitment to league dates becomes de-emphasized, the
> differences of opinion on certain rules becomes much less
critical -
> a
> simple 4 or 5 date schedule will leave lots of time for teams to
play
> each other under all kinds of different sets of rules.
>
> In this re-defined league we would see Hartford playing Melrose in
a
> Cherry Bat Tournament game under the league rules.  Then Hartford
> could
> call Melrose up independently and invite them down to Hartford to
> play
> an 1871 game using rules found on a league website.  Waterbury
could
> call Bristol up to play a 2004 NEVBBL rules game (etc.)  To my
mind,
> the
> home team in these types of games would ultimately control (but in
a
> gentlemanly way) the rule interpretations, and the parameters of
the
> rules should be communicated prior to the match - or, hell, you
can
> even
> split up a doubleheader - what is more fair than that?  Players on
> teams
> that don't want to play under a certain set of rules and
> interpretations
> could simply just stay home that day and let those teammates who
are
> interested playing by those rules go ahead and play (and, as a
> corollary, if a significant majority of a team is opposed to those
> types
> of rules, then the game will never be scheduled in the first
place).
> But I don't think this will often be the case - people will be
more
> apt
> to "suck it up" and play by a rules they may not like 100% since
they
> know that they are able to schedule other games according to their
> goals
> and desires.  I think there is enough gentlemanly spirit and
> diversity
> in the league that no team would go without games.
>
> Sure, these non-Cherry Bat games might not "count" towards
anything,
> but
> I think because they do not "count" towards league standings this
> will
> relieve a lot of the tension and angst some players have because
> their
> particular goal isn't being met that day.  I think players would
be
> less
> apt to get upset if an opposing player forgets a rule and, for
> example
> slides when there is no sliding during that game.  If such a
mistake
> is
> made, the player could be instructed not to slide, the fans would
see
> this error and learn along with the player that there was no
sliding
> under that particular set of rules.  Mistakes like this will become
> opportunities for players and fans to learn about the different
> peculiarities of VBB instead of opportunities for petty arguments
> because the league standings are on the line.
>
> With a reduced schedule, the league still serves a very important
> purpose yet other league functions could flourish as well.  The
> Cherry
> Bat Tournament can provide teams with a guaranteed baseline of
rules
> and
> scheduled games for a given year.  The league would be the point of
> communications between all New England area teams - even teams that
> didn't want to participate in the Cherry Bat Tournament.  The
League
> could be a clearinghouse for other sets of rules and rule
> interpretations - we could even offer simple to use "cheat sheets"
> listing the major rules differences between rules so that players
can
> easily get up to speed on the different rules prior to a match.
>
> I don't think cutting back the schedule would be a sign of league
> weakness at all, it might just be one way in which we can re-
define
> what
> the league does.  I also think this type of format reflects where
we
> are
> as a group, and respects everyone's goals better than continuing to
> force everyone into the same mold.
>
> Does anyone have any comments to this idea or other ideas?
>
> JS
>

John S. has an interesting idea for restructuring the league, and the more I think about it, the more I like it.   It makes us into a true vintage baseball league, not just an 1861 (or is it '63, '59, '67..) league.  I can identify with all the different motivations players have, and it seems like his plan could appease everyone.  It also allows us to take in teams that are playing by different rule sets.  We could devise a New England Vintage Baseball Organization which oversees a "Town Ball League" a "Cherry Bat League" a "Post-War League," etc.  Teams would be free to have games with whomever they wanted. they could join one or more leagues, have exhibitions/fundraisers.  I could even see open invites for these types of games, where a posting on the website would announce when a team needed opponents, and anyone in the organization would be eligible to play.  Maybe the first "x" amount of people to respond would be the ones to go.  I would certainly look forward to playing many different rule variations through the season, without the pressure of the game counting towards league standings.  As someone interested in the history of baseball, This would give me (and those like me) the opportunity to experience how and why baseball changed into the game it is today.  Plus, I just love playing ball in a hayfield with my friends and beating the pants off the other team. 

Pistol

--- "historyball" <historyball@...> wrote:
 
From: "historyball" <historyball@...>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 00:01:01 -0000
To: nevbbl@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [nevbbl] in response to what John said

Hey everyone,

I have been thinking a lot about what John wrote in his email and
agree with some of the premises of what he is saying. We will NEVER
as a league be able to please everyone. We will NEVER as a league
all come to the same conclusion on rules. The question is what do we
do. I dont think I have any more answers than anyone on this than
anyone else.

As far as league structure and games played the Essex and Lynn teams
fall under the catagory of enjoying to play in exhibitions in new
interesting locations. When we do these exhibitions we usually have
decent sized crowds and we get to engage the crowd and educate them
on the history of the game. I and most of my guys enjoy it when we
have a large crowd and they start yelling out the 19th century slang
and really get into the game. This leads me to my own personal
reasons for a division set up is this (you can probably call it a
little selfish). Essex/ Lynn already has about 10 offers to do
exhibitions all over MA, NH, VT, and probably ME, and some of these
offers are fundraisers or are connected with big events within a
city or town, so they are great opportunities to spread the word
about vintage baseball and maybe help develop a new team. Just from
doing games this year two teams might be springing up in the future.
With all these offers it becomes more difficult to do them all and
not have them count towards league games. I mean its tough to ask
Waterbury or Hartford to drive another 45 minutes north to play up
in NH. If there were divisions then it would probably be easier to
have some of these exhibitions count towards league games and not
burden a traveling team too much. Again this is just my personal
spin and my reasoning for wanting divisions.

Im not 100% the structure of what John had in mind for the structure
of the Cherry Bat tournaments/ league games. Here are a few possible
ideas- A. We play round robin games, meaning if Essex traveled down
to Waterbury they would play Hartford as well then Waterbury would
play Hartford. It would cut down travel and the number of dates.
This might mean every team only plays one another once in a season.
I am aware there are flaws in this idea but its an idea. B. This is
something John might have kind of touched on but Im not sure- maybe
have 4 or 5 "league days" thoughout the year where as many teams
come and play. They could be informal tournaments.

Im not going to get into rules and peoples spin on those, I think
everyone has their opinions and they wont change.

Overall I dont want to lose the structure of the league. Whenever I
give an interview or talk to fans they seem impressed by the fact we
are in a league. Some might see us as weird history geeks, saying we
are in a league makes us legit in their eyes. Ill leave you guys
with that- Im sure you love reading all this.

Brian


--- In nevbbl@yahoogroups.com, "historyball" <historyball@y...>
wrote:
>
> Hey everyone,
>
> This is the email John Simmons sent out to some of us. It is a
very
> interesting debate and think it would be best served sent out to
> everyone. Again encourage your team mates to join this group.
(sorry
> if you already got it)
>
> Guys:
>
> All of the emails I have been reviewing from everyone over the
last
> week
> have been great - I am glad to see such a robust discussion.  I
have
> a
> new topic of discussion that may impact where we end up this
season.
> Simply put, what is the purpose of this league?
>
> People seem to have very different goals for their participation
in
> VBB.
> Some want to play and just have fun - an alternative to softball
if
> you
> will.  Others are very history minded, and for them the fun is to
> re-create the game as close as possible.  Some people wish to play
> by a
> consistent set of rules - others like to try new and different
rules.
> Some players want to WIN at all cost.  Others could care less if
they
> win or lose - it is just playing the game that satisfies them. 
Some
> want to play at events and exhibitions where there are many
> spectators
> -
> some desire to simply play in the middle of an empty hayfield.  For
> some, they could care less if they are even playing baseball - it
is
> getting together with friends and family that drives their
interest
> in
> VBB.  Sometimes these different goals exist among players on the
same
> team - thus our league representation scheme is often not
> representative
> of all.
>
> I see in our discussions a tension between each of these very valid
> goals.  Indeed our rules and compromises over the years is a
> reflection
> of our effort to try and satisfy all of these goals to a reasonably
> acceptable extent.  I wonder if there is a better way for the
league
> to
> function in this regard?  I wonder if teams have become too
> dependent
> of
> on the league schedule?  Do people see the league debates as
> extraordinarily critical because they are going to be "stuck"
> playing a
> game that they might find unsatisfactory?
>
> Perhaps cutting back the Cherry Bat schedule to an unbalanced
> schedule
> of say 8-10 games (4 or 5 dates) is a way to address this.  Call
it
> the
> "Cherry Bat Tournament" if you will.  We agree by majority rule
for a
> certain set of Tournament rules and League teams can opt into the
> tournament schedule or not.  Since the schedule is only 4 or 5
dates,
> league teams would be given ample opportunity to pursue
independently
> scheduled "non-league" games with any teams they choose.  Since we
> have
> a league structure in place, scheduling of "non-tournament" games
> would
> be much easier (and could be done at the league meeting or via
email
> or
> telephone at any time).  I think even teams that opt out of the
> tournament would be able to schedule plenty of games.  Most
> importantly,
> since the commitment to league dates becomes de-emphasized, the
> differences of opinion on certain rules becomes much less
critical -
> a
> simple 4 or 5 date schedule will leave lots of time for teams to
play
> each other under all kinds of different sets of rules.
>
> In this re-defined league we would see Hartford playing Melrose in
a
> Cherry Bat Tournament game under the league rules.  Then Hartford
> could
> call Melrose up independently and invite them down to Hartford to
> play
> an 1871 game using rules found on a league website.  Waterbury
could
> call Bristol up to play a 2004 NEVBBL rules game (etc.)  To my
mind,
> the
> home team in these types of games would ultimately control (but in
a
> gentlemanly way) the rule interpretations, and the parameters of
the
> rules should be communicated prior to the match - or, hell, you
can
> even
> split up a doubleheader - what is more fair than that?  Players on
> teams
> that don't want to play under a certain set of rules and
> interpretations
> could simply just stay home that day and let those teammates who
are
> interested playing by those rules go ahead and play (and, as a
> corollary, if a significant majority of a team is opposed to those
> types
> of rules, then the game will never be scheduled in the first
place).
> But I don't think this will often be the case - people will be
more
> apt
> to "suck it up" and play by a rules they may not like 100% since
they
> know that they are able to schedule other games according to their
> goals
> and desires.  I think there is enough gentlemanly spirit and
> diversity
> in the league that no team would go without games.
>
> Sure, these non-Cherry Bat games might not "count" towards
anything,
> but
> I think because they do not "count" towards league standings this
> will
> relieve a lot of the tension and angst some players have because
> their
> particular goal isn't being met that day.  I think players would
be
> less
> apt to get upset if an opposing player forgets a rule and, for
> example
> slides when there is no sliding during that game.  If such a
mistake
> is
> made, the player could be instructed not to slide, the fans would
see
> this error and learn along with the player that there was no
sliding
> under that particular set of rules.  Mistakes like this will become
> opportunities for players and fans to learn about the different
> peculiarities of VBB instead of opportunities for petty arguments
> because the league standings are on the line.
>
> With a reduced schedule, the league still serves a very important
> purpose yet other league functions could flourish as well.  The
> Cherry
> Bat Tournament can provide teams with a guaranteed baseline of
rules
> and
> scheduled games for a given year.  The league would be the point of
> communications between all New England area teams - even teams that
> didn't want to participate in the Cherry Bat Tournament.  The
League
> could be a clearinghouse for other sets of rules and rule
> interpretations - we could even offer simple to use "cheat sheets"
> listing the major rules differences between rules so that players
can
> easily get up to speed on the different rules prior to a match. 
>
> I don't think cutting back the schedule would be a sign of league
> weakness at all, it might just be one way in which we can re-
define
> what
> the league does.  I also think this type of format reflects where
we
> are
> as a group, and respects everyone's goals better than continuing to
> force everyone into the same mold.
>
> Does anyone have any comments to this idea or other ideas?
>
> JS
>





 

Hey everyone,

I have been thinking a lot about what John wrote in his email and
agree with some of the premises of what he is saying. We will NEVER
as a league be able to please everyone. We will NEVER as a league
all come to the same conclusion on rules. The question is what do we
do. I dont think I have any more answers than anyone on this than
anyone else.

As far as league structure and games played the Essex and Lynn teams
fall under the catagory of enjoying to play in exhibitions in new
interesting locations. When we do these exhibitions we usually have
decent sized crowds and we get to engage the crowd and educate them
on the history of the game. I and most of my guys enjoy it when we
have a large crowd and they start yelling out the 19th century slang
and really get into the game. This leads me to my own personal
reasons for a division set up is this (you can probably call it a
little selfish). Essex/ Lynn already has about 10 offers to do
exhibitions all over MA, NH, VT, and probably ME, and some of these
offers are fundraisers or are connected with big events within a
city or town, so they are great opportunities to spread the word
about vintage baseball and maybe help develop a new team. Just from
doing games this year two teams might be springing up in the future.
With all these offers it becomes more difficult to do them all and
not have them count towards league games. I mean its tough to ask
Waterbury or Hartford to drive another 45 minutes north to play up
in NH. If there were divisions then it would probably be easier to
have some of these exhibitions count towards league games and not
burden a traveling team too much. Again this is just my personal
spin and my reasoning for wanting divisions.

Im not 100% the structure of what John had in mind for the structure
of the Cherry Bat tournaments/ league games. Here are a few possible
ideas- A. We play round robin games, meaning if Essex traveled down
to Waterbury they would play Hartford as well then Waterbury would
play Hartford. It would cut down travel and the number of dates.
This might mean every team only plays one another once in a season.
I am aware there are flaws in this idea but its an idea. B. This is
something John might have kind of touched on but Im not sure- maybe
have 4 or 5 "league days" thoughout the year where as many teams
come and play. They could be informal tournaments.

Im not going to get into rules and peoples spin on those, I think
everyone has their opinions and they wont change.

Overall I dont want to lose the structure of the league. Whenever I
give an interview or talk to fans they seem impressed by the fact we
are in a league. Some might see us as weird history geeks, saying we
are in a league makes us legit in their eyes. Ill leave you guys
with that- Im sure you love reading all this.

Brian


--- In nevbbl@yahoogroups.com, "historyball" <historyball@y...>
wrote:
>
> Hey everyone,
>
> This is the email John Simmons sent out to some of us. It is a
very
> interesting debate and think it would be best served sent out to
> everyone. Again encourage your team mates to join this group.
(sorry
> if you already got it)
>
> Guys:
>
> All of the emails I have been reviewing from everyone over the
last
> week
> have been great - I am glad to see such a robust discussion.  I
have
> a
> new topic of discussion that may impact where we end up this
season.
> Simply put, what is the purpose of this league?
>
> People seem to have very different goals for their participation
in
> VBB.
> Some want to play and just have fun - an alternative to softball
if
> you
> will.  Others are very history minded, and for them the fun is to
> re-create the game as close as possible.  Some people wish to play
> by a
> consistent set of rules - others like to try new and different
rules.
> Some players want to WIN at all cost.  Others could care less if
they
> win or lose - it is just playing the game that satisfies them.
Some
> want to play at events and exhibitions where there are many
> spectators
> -
> some desire to simply play in the middle of an empty hayfield.  For
> some, they could care less if they are even playing baseball - it
is
> getting together with friends and family that drives their
interest
> in
> VBB.  Sometimes these different goals exist among players on the
same
> team - thus our league representation scheme is often not
> representative
> of all.
>
> I see in our discussions a tension between each of these very valid
> goals.  Indeed our rules and compromises over the years is a
> reflection
> of our effort to try and satisfy all of these goals to a reasonably
> acceptable extent.  I wonder if there is a better way for the
league
> to
> function in this regard?  I wonder if teams have become too
> dependent
> of
> on the league schedule?  Do people see the league debates as
> extraordinarily critical because they are going to be "stuck"
> playing a
> game that they might find unsatisfactory?
>
> Perhaps cutting back the Cherry Bat schedule to an unbalanced
> schedule
> of say 8-10 games (4 or 5 dates) is a way to address this.  Call
it
> the
> "Cherry Bat Tournament" if you will.  We agree by majority rule
for a
> certain set of Tournament rules and League teams can opt into the
> tournament schedule or not.  Since the schedule is only 4 or 5
dates,
> league teams would be given ample opportunity to pursue
independently
> scheduled "non-league" games with any teams they choose.  Since we
> have
> a league structure in place, scheduling of "non-tournament" games
> would
> be much easier (and could be done at the league meeting or via
email
> or
> telephone at any time).  I think even teams that opt out of the
> tournament would be able to schedule plenty of games.  Most
> importantly,
> since the commitment to league dates becomes de-emphasized, the
> differences of opinion on certain rules becomes much less
critical -
> a
> simple 4 or 5 date schedule will leave lots of time for teams to
play
> each other under all kinds of different sets of rules.
>
> In this re-defined league we would see Hartford playing Melrose in
a
> Cherry Bat Tournament game under the league rules.  Then Hartford
> could
> call Melrose up independently and invite them down to Hartford to
> play
> an 1871 game using rules found on a league website.  Waterbury
could
> call Bristol up to play a 2004 NEVBBL rules game (etc.)  To my
mind,
> the
> home team in these types of games would ultimately control (but in
a
> gentlemanly way) the rule interpretations, and the parameters of
the
> rules should be communicated prior to the match - or, hell, you
can
> even
> split up a doubleheader - what is more fair than that?  Players on
> teams
> that don't want to play under a certain set of rules and
> interpretations
> could simply just stay home that day and let those teammates who
are
> interested playing by those rules go ahead and play (and, as a
> corollary, if a significant majority of a team is opposed to those
> types
> of rules, then the game will never be scheduled in the first
place).
> But I don't think this will often be the case - people will be
more
> apt
> to "suck it up" and play by a rules they may not like 100% since
they
> know that they are able to schedule other games according to their
> goals
> and desires.  I think there is enough gentlemanly spirit and
> diversity
> in the league that no team would go without games.
>
> Sure, these non-Cherry Bat games might not "count" towards
anything,
> but
> I think because they do not "count" towards league standings this
> will
> relieve a lot of the tension and angst some players have because
> their
> particular goal isn't being met that day.  I think players would
be
> less
> apt to get upset if an opposing player forgets a rule and, for
> example
> slides when there is no sliding during that game.  If such a
mistake
> is
> made, the player could be instructed not to slide, the fans would
see
> this error and learn along with the player that there was no
sliding
> under that particular set of rules.  Mistakes like this will become
> opportunities for players and fans to learn about the different
> peculiarities of VBB instead of opportunities for petty arguments
> because the league standings are on the line.
>
> With a reduced schedule, the league still serves a very important
> purpose yet other league functions could flourish as well.  The
> Cherry
> Bat Tournament can provide teams with a guaranteed baseline of
rules
> and
> scheduled games for a given year.  The league would be the point of
> communications between all New England area teams - even teams that
> didn't want to participate in the Cherry Bat Tournament.  The
League
> could be a clearinghouse for other sets of rules and rule
> interpretations - we could even offer simple to use "cheat sheets"
> listing the major rules differences between rules so that players
can
> easily get up to speed on the different rules prior to a match.
>
> I don't think cutting back the schedule would be a sign of league
> weakness at all, it might just be one way in which we can re-
define
> what
> the league does.  I also think this type of format reflects where
we
> are
> as a group, and respects everyone's goals better than continuing to
> force everyone into the same mold.
>
> Does anyone have any comments to this idea or other ideas?
>
> JS
>

Hey everyone,

This is the email John Simmons sent out to some of us. It is a very
interesting debate and think it would be best served sent out to
everyone. Again encourage your team mates to join this group. (sorry
if you already got it)

Guys:

All of the emails I have been reviewing from everyone over the last
week
have been great - I am glad to see such a robust discussion.  I have
a
new topic of discussion that may impact where we end up this season.
Simply put, what is the purpose of this league?

People seem to have very different goals for their participation in
VBB.
Some want to play and just have fun - an alternative to softball if
you
will.  Others are very history minded, and for them the fun is to
re-create the game as close as possible.  Some people wish to play
by a
consistent set of rules - others like to try new and different rules.
Some players want to WIN at all cost.  Others could care less if they
win or lose - it is just playing the game that satisfies them.  Some
want to play at events and exhibitions where there are many
spectators
-
some desire to simply play in the middle of an empty hayfield.  For
some, they could care less if they are even playing baseball - it is
getting together with friends and family that drives their interest
in
VBB.  Sometimes these different goals exist among players on the same
team - thus our league representation scheme is often not
representative
of all.

I see in our discussions a tension between each of these very valid
goals.  Indeed our rules and compromises over the years is a
reflection
of our effort to try and satisfy all of these goals to a reasonably
acceptable extent.  I wonder if there is a better way for the league
to
function in this regard?  I wonder if teams have become too
dependent
of
on the league schedule?  Do people see the league debates as
extraordinarily critical because they are going to be "stuck"
playing a
game that they might find unsatisfactory?

Perhaps cutting back the Cherry Bat schedule to an unbalanced
schedule
of say 8-10 games (4 or 5 dates) is a way to address this.  Call it
the
"Cherry Bat Tournament" if you will.  We agree by majority rule for a
certain set of Tournament rules and League teams can opt into the
tournament schedule or not.  Since the schedule is only 4 or 5 dates,
league teams would be given ample opportunity to pursue independently
scheduled "non-league" games with any teams they choose.  Since we
have
a league structure in place, scheduling of "non-tournament" games
would
be much easier (and could be done at the league meeting or via email
or
telephone at any time).  I think even teams that opt out of the
tournament would be able to schedule plenty of games.  Most
importantly,
since the commitment to league dates becomes de-emphasized, the
differences of opinion on certain rules becomes much less critical -
a
simple 4 or 5 date schedule will leave lots of time for teams to play
each other under all kinds of different sets of rules.

In this re-defined league we would see Hartford playing Melrose in a
Cherry Bat Tournament game under the league rules.  Then Hartford
could
call Melrose up independently and invite them down to Hartford to
play
an 1871 game using rules found on a league website.  Waterbury could
call Bristol up to play a 2004 NEVBBL rules game (etc.)  To my mind,
the
home team in these types of games would ultimately control (but in a
gentlemanly way) the rule interpretations, and the parameters of the
rules should be communicated prior to the match - or, hell, you can
even
split up a doubleheader - what is more fair than that?  Players on
teams
that don't want to play under a certain set of rules and
interpretations
could simply just stay home that day and let those teammates who are
interested playing by those rules go ahead and play (and, as a
corollary, if a significant majority of a team is opposed to those
types
of rules, then the game will never be scheduled in the first place).
But I don't think this will often be the case - people will be more
apt
to "suck it up" and play by a rules they may not like 100% since they
know that they are able to schedule other games according to their
goals
and desires.  I think there is enough gentlemanly spirit and
diversity
in the league that no team would go without games.

Sure, these non-Cherry Bat games might not "count" towards anything,
but
I think because they do not "count" towards league standings this
will
relieve a lot of the tension and angst some players have because
their
particular goal isn't being met that day.  I think players would be
less
apt to get upset if an opposing player forgets a rule and, for
example
slides when there is no sliding during that game.  If such a mistake
is
made, the player could be instructed not to slide, the fans would see
this error and learn along with the player that there was no sliding
under that particular set of rules.  Mistakes like this will become
opportunities for players and fans to learn about the different
peculiarities of VBB instead of opportunities for petty arguments
because the league standings are on the line.

With a reduced schedule, the league still serves a very important
purpose yet other league functions could flourish as well.  The
Cherry
Bat Tournament can provide teams with a guaranteed baseline of rules
and
scheduled games for a given year.  The league would be the point of
communications between all New England area teams - even teams that
didn't want to participate in the Cherry Bat Tournament.  The League
could be a clearinghouse for other sets of rules and rule
interpretations - we could even offer simple to use "cheat sheets"
listing the major rules differences between rules so that players can
easily get up to speed on the different rules prior to a match.

I don't think cutting back the schedule would be a sign of league
weakness at all, it might just be one way in which we can re-define
what
the league does.  I also think this type of format reflects where we
are
as a group, and respects everyone's goals better than continuing to
force everyone into the same mold.

Does anyone have any comments to this idea or other ideas?

JS

Good idea Brian. we can definitely benefit from a discussion group if
people are willing to participate.

Paul

--- In nevbbl@yahoogroups.com, "historyball" <historyball@y...> wrote:
>
> Hey everyone,
>
> Just wanted to welcome everyone to this group. This should be a great
> way for all members of the league to express their opinions on league
> issues. I will start posting some topics in the coming weeks, please
> feel free to voice your opinion.
>
> Captains please forward this page to the rest of the members of your
> teams. Hopefully some will join.
>
> Brian
>