Design Suggestion

Alex Reisner on March 3, 2010, 05:12 pm

I became a Twins fan when I lived in Connecticut and went to a lot of New Britain Rock Cats (Twins AA) games. I grew following the Mets, but I root for the Twins whenever the Mets high payroll and inept management grosses me out, which is often. So I've scored my share of Ron Gardenhire games. Tony LaRussa is similarly challenging.

Things I would like to add to the scorecard (and which people have requested):

- extra pitcher lines
- extra "additional batter" lines
- extra defensive position columns
- extra batter totals columns
- extra pitcher totals columns

However, each of these items either reduces space for notes (adds to vertical size), or comes at the expense of existing features (adds to horizontal size, which is already maxed out). The current balance of the various scorecard components seems to work well for most games. Certainly there will be games where you will run out of pitcher slots, and others where you run out of at-bat boxes, and times when you want a column for batter strikeout totals. But these problems can never be completely solved on an 8.5 x 11" scorecard.

In short, the current design is based on several years of feedback from hundreds of users, and I don't currently have any plans for revisions. That said, I do want to be aware of the places people are regularly running out of space, so thanks for your comments.

(To anyone else who is reading this: please leave your requests below, by responding to this thread.)

Your comments about the inning-by-inning total columns are interesting. I'm aware of that problem since I get confused myself. I will consider adding heavier lines between innings in a future version of the scorecard.

Thanks for the feedback.

on March 3, 2010, 05:32 pm

I appreciate your response. It is good to hear that others have the same requests AND the rationale for not making the changes. It made me think of the first suggestions I was going to make last year.

I was disappointed with the absence of certain totals columns (like triple, double, etc). I understood the real estate issue, but the first few games I put in this book I wanted those other columns. I decided to use the notes section (like box scores do) and realized how wasted the space for those columns would be.

I then looked back at old books and finally realized all of the zeroes that get entered into those columns.

So, I still love the sheets. I have a new gig with the St Paul Saints. Depending on how they do things maybe I can get them to convert to this system.

Alex Reisner on March 3, 2010, 05:43 pm

Yeah, once you start experimenting with scorecard designs it becomes pretty obvious that you eliminate almost any column that is 95% zeros.

Sell it to the Saints!

on March 3, 2010, 05:49 pm

I will show them and (hopefully) convert them. You get the sales...and then I will beg for a discount on a book for my Twins games the following year.

Alex Reisner on March 3, 2010, 05:50 pm

He he...if you convert a professional team you can name your price...

alexeth on May 11, 2010, 02:59 pm

What I add on mine is a "K" column to the batter's summary stats (in the margin on the far right). I also add a "H" column to the pitching summaries (in the margin on the far left, though I'd want it in same order as pitcher's box scores if the sheet were modified. Actually the proof box is in my way a bit, but I also like the notes room above).
I haven't done it, but I've often wished I had a "TB" column on the batting summaries when compiling certain data. Without it I'm looking back into the situation boxes.
I actually stopped using the Auxiliary box. It's rare that I need it, and I actually slide out to the far right for same batter and renumber that box to replace an incomplete at-bat. I'm less likley to lose it when summarizing info, and any location inconvenices from new batters etc. aren't any worse than for the out-of-the-grid Auxiliary box.

on May 11, 2010, 03:28 pm

My observation on TB is that most box scores list TB in the "Team Totals" area along with SB, CS, etc.

For what that is worth.