A decent, seeing-eye singles game, with two mysteries.

Hats off to anyone who can solve the second one.

First, the game: Mike Girard pitched very well for the Marlins, striking out nine Peppers and allowing six singles over seven innings as the Marlins won, 7-2.
Several walks and stolen bases helped the Marlins' cause. The Peppers gave up only seven singles. Girard led the Marlin hitters going 2-for-3. Tom
Japour paced the Peps with two hits in three at-bats.

Now, for a Sherlock Holmes mystery, and here's hoping someone out there has a solution. Though I suspect it may be beyond even the best Sherlockian talents.

I've whiffed three times so far this season, and all have come at New Scotland, each against a good pitcher. Strictly speaking, none of those
points is the mystery. I missed against Jim Kisselburgh, Mike Kane, and last night, Mike Girard. The first whiff, against Jim, was legit: a
high fastball on a 2-2 count that I should have let go. Nice pitch, bad decision.

The mystery lies in the two other Ks and how they mirrored each other, and how I never saw the ball.

Against both Mikes, I grounded out to the right side of the infield in my first at-bat. I saw the ball off the bat both times. Then, in my second at-bat,
both times in the fifth inning, I simply could not see the ball. I never saw the balls leave the pitchers' hands. At best, I saw only a black dot,
coming toward me, and then heard a thwack in the catcher's glove.

In fact, Mike Kane's first pitch to me in the fifth about a month ago was a hummer right down Broadway, waist high. Catcher Brian Mussella didn't
have to move his glove. He was still holding his glove out with the ball in it, to show me how good the pitch was, when he said, "Mike, I don't
know that I've seen a better strike all day. In fact, if Mike throws another one like that, I'll wring his neck."

Brian was right. Mike's pitch was a hitter's dream. If a hitter saw it. But I didn't see that one or the other two that followed and I was puzzled why.
Especially after I"d seen his pitches first time up.

It happened again last night. I saw a fastball in my first at-bat against Mike Girard, hit it, grounded out to first, but saw only a black dot the second
time. What's more, I saw that dot as the ball left his hand, nowhere after that.

Now, I know I'm aging (70 last Saturday), and my eyes and reflexes ain't what they used to be, and these guys are among the best hurlers in the league.

I also know that to hit, you have see the damn ball.

Last night, I think I figured out the first mystery, why I couldn't see the ball. It's the clash of light and shadow. Or backlighting.

In first three innings, most of New Scotland field is covered fairly evenly in sunlight.

But, about the fourth inning (say, about 7, 7:15 pm), the sun is deeper in the west and long shadows from pine trees stretch across the infield. The effect is to
create a kind of gray light from home to second. But stretching from second to the cyclone fence, there's a very bright light, almost glaringly bright,
that bounces off the yellow-green grass and the fence.

The effect is what photographers call "backlighting." That's when there's more light behind a subject than in front of it. The subject often comes out black
in a backlit photo.

I'd figured that out last night when I went to the plate for the second time against Mike in the fourth. Mike was a gray figure and the ball he threw was a
smudge, nothing white about it. But the outfield was bright, very bright. I just guessed at where the third strike was, hoping it wasn't at my noggin, and
gave a "what-the-heck" swing.

I wasn't alone in that. Mike used this good hummer to strike out the side in the fourth, but, more mystery here, he did that around two singles and a walk.
So how did some guys on the Peppers (and perhaps, in their at-bats, the Marlins) not see the ball, and others did?

I got up a third time, in the 7th, and walked. This time, the light in the outfield had become duller. I swung only once and fouled off a pitch. But I saw it.
The infield and outfield lights weren't clashing as much.

The second mystery, the one I'd like solved, is what to do about that glaring backlighting?

Obviously, if the Town of New Scotland or the league installed lights, which could be turned on in the fourth inning, I'd have to find other complaints.
But that's not likely to happen.

So, today I wondered, would wearing sunglasses help? That would probably reduce the clash, but it might make the area from home to the mound even darker? Yes?

If anybody else has struggled with this issue and solved it, or can simply come up with a solution using "logic, my dear Watson," I'd appreciate hearing before my next at-bat.


Thanks!

-Mike