Purists: Explain thyselves

[Malleus Dei]

Henry is saying the same thing I am; if you had been there, if you had lived through it, you would know how utterly wrong that you are.

But you didn't, so you don't, and you never will, and all the smart-ass punk nonsense in the world won't change anything.

[CMH]

i'm 20 years old and i agree that baseball prior to "modern" baseball was better.

I never got to watch any games, but just watching clips and videos like "When it was a game" showed me how great baseball use to be in the past.

Now it wasnt great in the past. There were problems then too. Just like today there were players who had huge attitudes, demanded the English Library change the word "team" to "tIam", and some guys played for money. It just wasnt that visible b/c everything today is on tv.

McRae pushed his pitcher the other day and it was caught. I'm sure stuff like that happened in the golden years too.

Anywayz, I agree that baseball in the past was better than today's baseball.

I do feel that people bring down baseball today a bit too much. There is way more negativity toward the game b/c cameras catch everything. There are reporters everywhere writing about every single player. We dont just hear about the Willie Mays's and Ted Williams's. We also hear about the Enrique Wilson's and the Ross Gload's. There's more news in baseball and with more news you are gonna get more negativity. The commish also doesnt help b/c he continues to bring down today's game. He needs to meet with David Stern. There's a smart man who has a poor product but makes it look better than it is.

That being said, I can understand Mall's argument, and Henry's. I understand Mall's point but I also think its a bit unfair to say that the kids of today dont know anything about baseball b/c we didnt see the past. Thats really not too fair to us. You guys did have the opportunity to watch both generations and thats great, but personally I would love to watch today's game and feel like i'm a part of something. Telling me that my game is not great, doesnt help. I think its a great game. I love baseball. There are things that need to be fixed, i agree with that, but i love the game and i'm gonna continue to love it.

[Henry]

Originally posted by GForce22
Now here's a point I want you to clarify for me...when you say it was better then, are you talking about the atmosphere around the game (your talk of respect, excitement bring this to mind) or are you talking about the quality of the play/players? Or is it both. From your explanation, it seems much more as though you are talking the atmosphere surrounding the game than the game itself. GH

I hesitate answering your question only because it may initiate even more disagreement, but I'll try.

Player's better ? Maybe, maybe not... their certainly stronger today. If that's becasue their bigger and excercise more - great. If it's because they take enhancers - then not great.

Atmosphere ? Definately better then. When the game had the title "National Pastime" it had the love and hope of everyone that understood the game. It had the respect of the kids. Does that mean everyone in baseball was an outstanding citizen ? Of course not - but I really do believe there was more love of the game.

Let me say something about the player's union. I'm not against the union, free agency, getting paid for what your worth - I support that... but I think everyone here agrees it's gone unchecked for way too long. It's not that I want to limit what a player makes, but I do want to see a player have choices and I do want to see all teams have a chance of winning it all. In today's baseball financial configuration that isn't possible. If you want as much as you can make you play for New York... if your Montreal you simply draft youngsters and over the hill veterans that can't demand more. It needs to be more even or eventually we will be back to 16 teams.

So, if it's not the players, and a little bit the atmosphere, and I'm not against the union... then what was better ????

The "game". Simply the game itself.

During the 1880s and 90s baseball rules were changed almost annually. Why? It wasn't because they wanted to get more people to come to the games... it wasn't because they were trying to keep players around longer.... it wasn't because the owners were trying to squeek out another buck from someone. It was because they were trying to balance the pitcher/batter confrontation.

In 1880 it took 8 balls to walk a batter. In 1881 the pitcher was moved from 45 feet to 50 feet from home plate. In 1882 the eight ball walk was reduced to seven. In 1883 a foul ball caught on the first bounce was no longer an out. In '84 walks requires only 6 balls and overhand pitching was allowed. In '85 a bat was allowed to have a flat side. In 1886 walks were increased to seven. In 1887 the batter was no longer allowed to call for a high/low pitch, the batter's box was increased from 4 feet to 5.5 feet, walks were now official on five balls and a strike out was chnaged from three strikes to four. In 1888 walks no longer were recorded as a hit or time at bat, and the strike out was changed back to three strikes. In '89 four balls produced a walk... in "93 the pitchers mound was moved to 60.5 feet from home plate... and in 1894 a fouled ball became a strike. At this point, the game was in as perfect a balance as it ever would be.

From that point on, most rules changes involved how to score various situations and the size and height of the pitcher's mound. What was an error and what was not... infield fly rules, etc.

This "basic" game remained the same for the next 79 years until 1973 when the DH rule was put into effect... and it wasn't because the game was "out of balance". It was because attendance was waining and it was believed another hitter (read that as increase offense = inbalance) would make for a more exciting game. It was the first rule change to be made which was not designed to "balance" the game - but to "unbalance" it. (I find it interesting that DH defenders claim the DH makes the game more exciting... exactly what professional baseball wanted you to think... and yet 79 years of baseball fans enjoyed the game as it was....).

Add to this the expansion of baseball (which I agree had to happen) was fought for so long that it has been "piecemilled" together over the past 46 years changing the layout of the leagues how many times ?? Then wildcards, interleague play, and now possibly contraction.... In addition 20% of the rosters change teams each year (due to the financial inbalance I brought up earlier) and what you really have is a mix of unbalanced teams (both talent wise and financially) with little hold on their own tradition other than team nicknames.

THIS is why I say the game between 1894 and 1972 was the "better" game. Truer to itself, truer to it's fans, worthy of the title "America's pastime".

Henry

[GForce22]

Originally posted by Malleus Dei


And when you want blind arrogant STUPIDITY personified, you should look in a mirror. Henry and I have each forgotten more about baseball than you will ever, ever know about it.

We KNOW. We were THERE. You weren't, and you will never know and there's no way to convince you, so just live with the fact that you are both ignorant AND wrong.

As usual.

Ah, yes, once again Mal proves the point. I appreciate the help...I point out you're a moron, you come in and give exhibit A. I point out you're a condescending jackass. You come in and give exhibit B. It's like I'm the judge and you're poor old Rusty the baliff...except Rusty was smart enough to keep his mouth shut and you just keep on babbling.
The fascinating thing, Mal, is that you say you know so much but you never give any facts, you never give any support. You just rant on about how much you know. Now, you're latching yourself on to someone who is respected and knowledgeable in Henry with your "We" this and "We" that. Don't drag a classy guy like Henry down by attaching yourself to his ankles. You have proven time and time again that you are a blowhard know-nothing, and if you think you have more knowledge about this game than I do, you don't have the slightest clue. It's about time for your son to come on here and defend you again with the "my dad is great, he's better than all of you, he was such and such Sept. 11, where were you, blah blah blahl", because the fact is when you try to make a point yourself you simply prove what a mindless, blathering idiot you truly are. You're a bitter old bastard desperately trying to lift himself up to some moral or intellectual plane you couldn't reach in a hot air balloon, even if you supplied (as you so often do) the air.

GH

[GForce22]

Originally posted by Henry


I hesitate answering your question only because it may initiate even more disagreement, but I'll try.

Nothing wrong with disagreement (and for the record I never said I disagreed with you ). I just didn't like the whole "we're older so we're right" line. A lot of older people say they know a lot because of "experience" and they're the dumbest people you would ever want to meet (Hi, Mal!).

It was because attendance was waining and it was believed another hitter (read that as increase offense = inbalance) would make for a more exciting game. It was the first rule change to be made which was not designed to "balance" the game - but to "unbalance" it. (I find it interesting that DH defenders claim the DH makes the game more exciting... exactly what professional baseball wanted you to think... and yet 79 years of baseball fans enjoyed the game as it was....).

I agree on the DH to an extent. However, I disagree with your "unbalance" the game analogy. The logic (faulty though we may think it is/was) was that the pitcher had an unfair advantage pitching to, for the most part, a terrible hitter. This was viewed as virtually assuring the offense of an out. THAT was viewed as an imbalance. Adding a legitimate offensive player was designed to make the pitcher face real competition in all spots of the order. Again, you and I may both argue that logic (or at least whether it was good or bad), but I don't believe the intent was to unbalance things.

As for the atmosphere, I would tend to agree with you, just from all of my conversations with fans, history buffs and other players. One of the nights I will never forget was sitting in a box at Wrigley field talking baseball with Bob Feller all night. Just asking questions and letting him tell his stories. He's very bitter about today's game (as I imagine a lot of the older guys are, and not necessarily unjustly). But this was baseball history telling me about how he played, other players, barnstorming, the whole deal. He truly loved the game. Guys now love the game, too, I believe. I don't like the disregard so many have for history, I mean prominent guys. When they retired Jackie Robinson's number, the number of guys who didn't know the first thing about him was astonishing. The lack of passion for the history of the game, where these guys came from, who built their ground, THAT is something that blows my mind. And I think the love of the game, whether it's less or the same, would only be enhanced by that knowledge.

Your free agency/money argument is an excellent point, and it makes me see better where it truly seems you're coming from. You knew what you had then, at least moreso. The rosters changing over all the time, little hold on tradition as you said, and the feeling you root for the uniform, not the team. It reads like those are the issues, more than the game itself, that get to you. And those are issues I would not necessarily argue. I think a lot of changes that have been made have been necessary to correct earlier missteps.

"Truer to its fans"...absolutely. And THAT's the biggest shame of all!

GH

[Malleus Dei]

GForce, you remain an ignorant punk.

Had you been here long enough - which you haven't - you would know my credentials and my contributions. Had you the capability, you would understand what Henry and I have been saying. And if you want to insult my education or my intelligence I will just laugh at you, junior: I am well-educated, successful, and well-published. The blowhard insults of a two-bit punk like you mean nothing to me. All they do is convince me further of just how very useless you are.

The arguments have all been made uptopic. The list includes no free agency, no expansion, no artificial turf, no domed stadiums, no playoffs, no wildcards - all things which have badly damaged the game - and the existence of a commissioner. There's more; we could go on for days about the fact that almost all the players knew their fundamentals in those days, that outfielders routinely hit the cut-off man, that the quality of play was far better, etc., etc., but it wouldn't make any difference to you because you didn't see how much better it was for yourself so you will never, ever believe the truth. You will only believe what you want to believe, and what you want to believe is a lie.

Henry and I know the truth. You never even met it.

[Steely Glint]

Jesus Christ I come back from my cruise and you guys are at this stupid topic again? Didn't you learn anything the last time you did this?

The young guys will never believe what the old guys are telling them. Never mind that the young guys have no real perspective yet, no real frame of reference yet, and don't have enough experience to make a conclusion, and are almost certainly wrong, cause they still won't believe the old guys cause young guys never listen to old guys. When did you ever see a young guy accept what an old guy told him? Accept that this is a dead end and close this thread and move on and there's no need to be throwing generational insults back and forth. And you can't get me with one of them cause I'm in the middle!

[Steely Glint]

Gforce22 and Malleus Dei are both way out of line and should know better.

[GForce22]

Originally posted by Rusty the Baliff

The blowhard insults of a two-bit punk like you mean nothing to me.

Sure they do, that's why you keep responding.

DING!! Exhibit C.

You're good at this, Rusty

GH

[Malleus Dei]

You're right, Steely. I know, "Never wrestle with a pig; you both get dirty and the pig likes it."

The thread's all your, Porky22. You remain, as always, wrong.

[Steely Glint]

Gforce22, if I ran this board I would ban you.

[holyroller]

And if he ran this forum he would ban you. Your point?

[Crapshoot]

Originally posted by Steely Glint
Gforce22, if I ran this board I would ban you.

If most of the members ran the board, Malleus and his attitude along with you would have been long gone...

[Astros33]

I wouldnt ban Mal. He is cool and contributes alot more to this board than most of you punks....

[Killebrew]

I'm somewhere in the middle here, I remember being huge fan of the DH in 1974 or so (I liked the orange baseball idea too) but my feelings on the matter have changed somewhat over the years as more and more good young pitchers rarely get to bat even in little league. I'd prefer if DH was a American League thing only, and the rest of the world had pitchers batting, but it's the other way around - most leagues seem to have the DH rule it seems. Now fewer pitchers can use a bat and I don't blame kids that think that is boring - more pitchers used to know how to bat and it was a pretty big deal.

I also liked the old old old school idea of one pennant winner per LEAGUE, not division, but I will acknowledge that more teams can sometimes make it more interesting - better odds of pennant races and all. The old old old school pennant races were sometimes not a race at all.

I am not actually a huge fan of the way baseball is these days, but I don't miss the worst of the 70's either with the cookie cutter stadiums and turf. I kinda' miss the days before my time: the 1960's with (almost) no freakin artificial turf - that turf should be renamed artificial turd - I just hate it. There is less turf now than in the 70's at least so that's a pretty big bonus.

Where were we? Oh yeah, I liked the Yanks a lot more in the early 70's when they slightly less dominant than they have been most other decades - was that part of the question?

[Carplos]

ARGH!

I can't believe this is still going.

It's so annoying, it's a stupid argument. If you like baseball the way it is now, just like it and watch it, why does it matter what Malleus or anyone else thinks? It's not like they can stop you from liking it, just enjoy it, don't let them ruin it for you.

[CBL-Commish]

I think I basically said this many pages and many months ago, but how in the world can you say that you can't have an opinion on something unless you actually experienced it? Isn't that what books and movies and research papers and historical theses and college classes are for? Just because I wasn't alive in 1950 I can't have an opinion on the quality of baseball then? Following that thinking, I can't possibly have a valid opinion on anything that happened before June 19, 1971. I can't state that Nazi atrocities were truly evil, because I didn't see them. I can't say that the Spanish Inqusition was brutal, I wasn't there. I can't say Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, because I wasn't alive then. Was Abraham Lincoln a better president than Jimmy Carter? I never personally saw Lincoln give a speech, so I obviously can't give an informed opinion on that. Was life better in 1980 than in caveman times, or Biblical times, or in the 1300s? I could cite life expectancies, and modern medical advances, modern convienencies, civil rights, and a thousand other improvements that would seem to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that 1980 was superior, but since I wasn't there I can't really know, can I?

You oldtimers aren't much better off than I am - Malleus and Henry can't form valid opinions on anything before, what, 1930 or 1940, right?

[Henry]

Originally posted by CBL-Commish
I think I basically said this many pages and many months ago, but how in the world can you say that you can't have an opinion on something unless you actually experienced it? Isn't that what books and movies and research papers and historical theses and college classes are for? Just because I wasn't alive in 1950 I can't have an opinion on the quality of baseball then? Following that thinking, I can't possibly have a valid opinion on anything that happened before June 19, 1971. I can't state that Nazi atrocities were truly evil, because I didn't see them. I can't say that the Spanish Inqusition was brutal, I wasn't there. I can't say Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, because I wasn't alive then. Was Abraham Lincoln a better president than Jimmy Carter? I never personally saw Lincoln give a speech, so I obviously can't give an informed opinion on that. Was life better in 1980 than in caveman times, or Biblical times, or in the 1300s? I could cite life expectancies, and modern medical advances, modern convienencies, civil rights, and a thousand other improvements that would seem to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that 1980 was superior, but since I wasn't there I can't really know, can I?

You oldtimers aren't much better off than I am - Malleus and Henry can't form valid opinions on anything before, what, 1930 or 1940, right?

I think your stretching what I've been saying beyond my words. I never said someone couldn't have an opnion - I simply meant that I'm at an advantage making a comparison on this issue having lived through both time periods... just like I would be at a disadvantage to offer my opinion on comparing life in the US in 1960 with 1940. I can read about 1940 and someone can tell me about 1940 - but I didn't live it. My father did - he understands the differences better than I do, and if we disagree on something, he's probably closer to being right. That's what's called experience or some may call it "wisdom" although I don't like that word (makes it sound to elitist).

All I've tried to do here is explain why baseball today - although I still love the "game" - is less than it was because now it is a business more than it is a sport - and it is run by a self appointed idiot - which couldn't find his way out of a paper bag, and which simply can't suggest a better future for baseball unless a lot of things are changed.

I'm sorry if some of you feel saying the sport is less today somehow hurts you. It shouldn't - not if you love the "GAME" rather than the current definition of it.

Try and picture a true revenue sharing system where each team can bid on almost anyone, an organization with no DH, free agency limited to 2,3,4 or 5 year contacts with the "home team" allowed matching rights to keep the players, no interleague play unless it's exhibition, wildcards ok if schedule is balanced, a "REAL" commissioner with final jurisdiction, a 150 game schedule with an All Star game and one or two exhibition breaks, and... well, you get the point - an environment that is "planned" rather than "piecemilled".

A lot of today's problem could be fixed if the power to be wanted them fixed, but like Enron - this is a business to exploit in whatever way you can to make more money. I really REALLY do hope someone fixes it...

Henry

[Henry]

Originally posted by GForce22
I agree on the DH to an extent. However, I disagree with your "unbalance" the game analogy. The logic (faulty though we may think it is/was) was that the pitcher had an unfair advantage pitching to, for the most part, a terrible hitter. This was viewed as virtually assuring the offense of an out. THAT was viewed as an imbalance. Adding a legitimate offensive player was designed to make the pitcher face real competition in all spots of the order. Again, you and I may both argue that logic (or at least whether it was good or bad), but I don't believe the intent was to unbalance things.GH

GForce,

It's refreshing to be able to discuss and disagree at the same time. I do, however, want to point out that I didn't mean the DH rule was added to purposly unbalance the game - I meant it was implemented to increase offense to bring more people to the park without any thought to the fact that it was "unbalancing" the game. There is a difference there in "intent". It was the first time that the game itself was ignored in favor of another need.

I know I sound like "the game" is almost a holy institution - but maybe that's the entire point. It is, or it should be. Without treating it as such, there's no reason not to simply change the rules every year for any reason. there will be no "guiding light" ... only an immediate need to solve a problem, whether it be financial or otherwise. Baseball, as a game should be holy ground. It was for 79 years until money became "holier".

I'm glad you at least can see where I'm at. It's a hard thing to state without getting everyone upset and starting sidebars about generational gaps...

I responded to another a few minutes ago as well and bring up some points I won't repeat here. I'll keep discussing as long as it's constructive

Henry

[Steely Glint]

Originally posted by holyroller
And if he ran this forum he would ban you. Your point?

Yes, but he and you would ban me just for disagreeing with his and your holy viewpoints while I would ban him and you because you are both really nasty trolls who live to start ugly online fights.