LCborn

I don't buy that argument. I think there is a world of difference between getting cleated in the shin covering second and taking a line drive off of your bean while pitching or playing third. We're not talking about a kid getting cut by a metal cleat, we're talking about someone getting killed. I can call the cleating an acceptable risk but not the serious injuries from a problem that has a simple technological solution. I've got no problem sticking with metal if the bats are engineered to have the same response as a wooden bat. That would not, not, not (I repeat, not) be a difficult thing to do if the manufacturers wanted to do it. "The difference is just too great"? Exactly. Also, what's the real difference between a $300 bat and a $100 bat? If it's as big as the price difference, how many teams are buying wins with superior technology and inferior ability? And how does that help baseball? I strongly believe that nothing meaningful will be done until some university and a bat manufacturer have to pay some poor guy's family several million dollars in a lawsuit--and I feel just as strongly that such a sad event is bound to happen. I'm only surprised that it hasn't already.

It works for me, too. It'd be a lot more accurate if everybody would do a better job of reporting their results. Some adjustment for playing down in class would be cool, too, but how much work can we expect CoachT to do? Especially when folks can't themselves keep their own results up to date? Anyway, there's a tournament, right? The championship is real and not mythical, so polls and ratings have to be proved on the grass, as is proper.

It's fun to look at but it isn't a very good measure of team capability. Depending on your win-loss record and your opponents' win-loss records is crude. No disrespect intended to CoachT: it's interesting but it doesn't really tell you much about the teams involved, especially when so many teams don't report their results. For example, Walker Valley is #1 and Loudon is #6 in AA. Trust me, there's a much bigger difference than that between them. No insult intended to Loudon, they're a good team. But Walker Valley is much, much better. Lenoir City got beat by Walker Valley 12-1 and is 2-1 against Loudon. Loudon has also been beaten by A Harriman and is currently second (to #21 Kingston, BTW) in district 4AA. So I think that it is fair to say that Loudon is overrated in the poll. Also consider that Lenoir City is #24 in AA, but of their 24 or so wins, only 5 have come against teams with winning records, and #46 Anderson County has beaten LC twice. So the CoachT rankings can be a bit misleading, I'm afraid.

I wish someone would set performance standards for metal bats and test them to the standard, as is done for golf equipment. There is absolutely no reason why a baseball version of the golf "Iron Mike" couldn't be developed. I can see the advantage of metal bats to baseball programs in terms of durability and consistency but something needs to be done to make them less dangerous. The technology is way ahead of the ability of players to cope with ball speed coming off of the bat. I'm afraid it will take a couple of deaths at the college or high school level before anything is done--even then, it will probably need some huge awards in law suits against the bat manufacturers to "get r done." I don't think that the restrictions on weight with regard to length are nearly enough.

Nah, wood for bats, aluminum for airplanes and cheap frying pans.

Well, I searched through the scoring rules and it doesn't refer much to catcher's interference, but I think that the rules for interference generally probably apply. Here's what the rulebook says: As near as I can tell, what that all boils down to is that you score it as "interference," give the catcher an error, and do not count it against the batter as an at bat. A run forced in by catcher's interference is not earned (nor is a run scored by a runner who reached by catcher's interference) unless in the scorer's judgment it would have scored in the inning without the interference, but the batter does get an RBI. It's a bit odd, since you give the catcher an error but you don't record it as the batter reaching on error (that would be an at bat). I dunno, I guess you mark the frame with an "I" in a circle or something and also mark down an E-2.

I think that's pretty cool! Old-time ball! Nole's probably correct about finding a bat that's small enough. But also, a wooden bat has a smaller sweet spot than an aluminum one. Your son will have to learn where it is on his bat and be more precise bringing it into contact with the ball than he would need to be with aluminum. Sure, easy to say, I know, and tough to do. There is an advantage to this, BTW. If your kid can learn to hit with wood, hitting with aluminum will be a lot easier for him.

Heck, I thought it was an E-2 until I actually went and read the rule. Thanks to NDAlcorn for asking a question that showed me I've been wrong for decades. By the time I'm 90 I may have this baseball thing figured out--but probably not.

Well, I think that's correct--that's the way I read the scoring rules, anyway. I was reading MLB rules, though. I don't know if the HS rules add some different scoring wrinkles or not. It seems harsh that you could charge a catcher with a PB (dropping the third strike and permitting the play to start) and then a throwing error, too, when the batter only gets one base. Also, if it was a WP and the scorer decided a perfect throw would have got the runner and, therefore, charges the catcher with an E, would it be an earned run (because of the WP) or not (because of the E-2)? It seems simplest to just decide WP or PB. Interestingly there's also a provision in the rules for it to be K 1-3, if the ball manages to rebound to the pitcher (I actually saw a WP bounce out to the mound once, although it wasn't on a third strike). I guess the same thing would apply on any fielder managing to retrieve the WP, although anything other than 2-3 would be pretty strange.

You sure? The batter isn't allowed to attempt to advance unless there is a PB or a WP, right? So a perfect throw can erase the PB or the WP that triggered the play? Doesn't sound right, somehow.

From the MLB scoring rules: (1) No error shall be charged when the batter is awarded first base on four called balls or because he was touched by a pitched ball, or when he reaches first base as the result of a wild pitch or passed ball. (i) When the third strike is a wild pitch, permitting the batter to reach first base, score a strikeout and a wild pitch. (ii) When the third strike is a passed ball, permitting the batter to reach first base, score a strikeout and a passed ball. These are the only two scoring options listed in those scoring rules. I was wrong, it isn't an error. It's either a WP or a PB.

It depends on the situation on how you score it. If the runner reached because of catcher's throwing error or first baseman dropping throw, it would be K-E2 or E3 If the runner reached because it was a wild pitch, it would be scored K-WP. If the runner reached because it was a passed ball, it would be scored K-PB. To determine whether it would be an earned/unearned run, you would follow the scoring rules. Therefore, reaching on a wild pitch would be charged as earned run, regardless of how many out there are, unless and error has extended the inning. I'm not sure about that...reaching on the catcher's throwing error or the first baseman's error? Doesn't the catcher have to fail to field the third strike first, and isn't that error the cause of the batter reaching?

According to the baseball rules chronology at http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlib..._chronology.stm, this rule was introduced in 1880. I believe the proper scoring is a K with an E-2.

Does anyone know when the Loudon-Kingston game that was rained out will be played? Or if it has already been played?

Well, you can always knock 'em down. Then beat them. Victory is the best revenge.

I don't agree with hitting someone because they're talking trash or showing up someone. I think the best way to deal with those guys is to throw them a chair, not to hit them.

I don't disagree that the big schools produce better baseball teams (coaching being equal--and of course, it isn't always). I'm just saying that a larger percentage of kids get to play at small schools. That isn't better for the quality of the baseball but it can be better for the kids. What would you rather do, watch the state AAA champs or play for your district's A champs? Me, I'd rather play (I played at a AAA high school, BTW, not a small school). I also think it's better for the kids to get the chance to play several sports in high school than it is to require them to specialize. Again, let me say that I have nothing against the big schools. I'm just pointing out that playing high school sports can be a great experience and I'm all for giving as many kids, boys and girls, the chance to do that as is possible. And I think that the kids often have a better chance at a small to mid-sized school than they do at the mega-sized schools.

I'm saying that only 1 in 100 kids gets to play baseball at Farragut and 1 in 10 gets to at Greenback (don't take those numbers too literally, but it's something like that). So, yes, there is obviously a statisitically better chance that you'll get the opportunity to play baseball at Greenback. Same goes for many other extra-curricular activities. Personally, I think it would be better for the kids to build two high schools with 1000 in the population than to have one with 2000, but I guess it isn't economical.

I'm with oldgold, with one exception. First, I don't think there is a thing wrong with throwing near someone and there are a lot of reasons for it. Moving them off of the plate and setting up the outside corner are two excellent reasons. But actually hitting someone is a waste of time. Knocking someone down sends the same message and you don't have to deal with someone on base. Plus there is always the chance that you'll hurt someone when you hit them. I think that knocking someone down is just part of the competition but actually hitting someone on purpose is both poor sportsmanship and bad baseball. Second, though, and this is where I differ from oldgold, if it is the opposing pitcher and he's been plunking your guys, you've gotta protect your people. Have some perspective, though. I once saw a kid get hit on the bottom of the cleat by a slow curve that bounced in front of the plate (the kid tried to jump over it). This kid jogged down the first base line staring down the pitcher all of the way. Now, what kind of player stares down a pitcher for hitting him on the bottom of the shoe with a slow curve? Please. Just because your cleanup hitter got plunked on the butt by a changeup doesn't mean you should go head-hunting their number 9 batter.

I think that it is possible for a team to be good enough that classification doesn't matter. However, the numbers game makes that rare. You take a large AAA school that has 2000 students; the best 20 baseball players are 1-in-100. For a small A school with 200 students, the best 20 baseball players are 1-in-10. Now, the star of that A school may (may) be as good as anyone on the AAA team's roster. But chances are, the other 8 kids in the starting lineup aren't as good as their counterparts. Sometimes a small school produces a class or two of kids who beat the averages, but year-in and year-out the talent pool is richer for the big schools. This isn't simply a matter of raw talent, player for player, either. That A stud has probably been playing against weaker competition from the time he was 5 on up to high school and his skills haven't been tested or developed as much as his AAA counterparts. That is one reason why I think it is especially good for small-school kids to get out and play on good competitive teams, if they can: they just don't face the kind of competition they need to really get better if they play in their community. What makes it even more interesting, though, is the importance of pitching in baseball. Like festor says, a single player probably can't carry a football team. But a single very good pitcher can carry a baseball team, or at least he can on those days when he pitches. And like bizazz says, the private schools that play in A are a bit of a special case because they may attract athletes out of proportion to their student body. I'll also comment that I don't like large schools. Nothing against the schools per se, and I understand that they offer some opportunities that small schools can't (for example, more foreign language options). But they also limit kids' opportunities to participate in sports. Farragut, for example, has 2136 kids according to CoachT and something like 15 kids get to play varsity baseball there (the same numbers apply to girls' softball, BTW). Greenback, only about 15 miles away, has 255 kids and something like 15 kids get to play varsity baseball there, too. Seems like a lot of Farragut kids are getting the shaft, to me. Not that Farragut doesn't have an excellent program (duh), a lot of success (duh), and a lot of good baseball players (duh, again). And I don't mean to disparage Farragut. But in terms of providing high school kids with an opportunity to do something they'll learn from and remember all of their lives, guess who's doing a better job? Greenback, in my book.

AC beat LC 6-5 today so the updated standings look like this (I think): Kingston 6-1 LC 4-2 Loudon 4-2 AC 5-4 OS 0-4 Scott 0-5 I believe that the records are correct for the top 3 but I'm not sure about AC, OS, and Scott. It looks like Kingston's rematch with Loudon and the Kingston-LC series will be huge (provided LC can get by OS twice). I think that Kingston has Loudon and LC (twice) left, Loudon has Kingston, OS, and Scott (twice), and LC has OS (twice) and Kingston (twice). If that's correct, Loudon isn't likely to lose more than one of those games so the pressure is on LC to take at least one from Kingston to hold on to second place (I think the first tie-breaker is head-to-head and LC swept Loudon). LC can't look past OS either: OS was one out away from eliminating LC from the district tournament last year and is probably looking forward to a rematch after giving up a two-out, two-run homer in the bottom of the 8th.

How about somebody from Kingston e-mailing CoachT with the missing schedule and results for the 'Jackets? Right now they are listed at 3-1 in the district but I think they are really 6-1. And they aren't really 8-6 on the year, are they?

Is AC really 4-6? Actually, I know of one loss that's not on their schedule on CoacT, so are they really 4-7? How about somebody from AC e-mailing CoachT with the rest of their schedule and results?

I thought that their schedule on CoachT must be missing some games! Thanks. Kingston's remaining district games are 2 with LC and 1 with Loudon, right?

From the scores on CoachT (plus tonight's Kingston-AC score) the standings are: Kingston 4-1 LC 4-1 Loudon 4-2 AC 3-3 Scott 0-4 OS 0-4 Is this right?