Purists: Explain thyselves

[Khaos]

[quote]Originally posted by blmeanie:
<strong>-Hate the wildcard, but if it exists...please do not give the wildcard team a home game - all games should be at the park of the BETTER team. Better defined as having more wins...
</strong><hr></blockquote>


Last year the wildcard team was Oakland who had a better record than the other 2 division winners (Yankees and Indians). The whole theory was that a team that could win a ton of games but are in a division where anorther team is just as dominant, but anothe team in a extremely weak division makes the playoff just because their division is weak needs to be accounted for.

The adding of extra wildcard teams in the NFL is a bigger disgrace.

[ 04-07-2002: Message edited by: Khaos ]</p>

[JW]

Malleus Dei has it right.

In regards to the DH, it is easy to see the difference between a DH league and non-DH league, since we now have both.

[Khaos]

[quote]Originally posted by Tree:
<strong>If there were a DH in the '20s, Babe Ruth never would've hit a home run.
</strong><hr></blockquote>


Would you explain this statement please?

[AggermanTxR]

I agree w\ JML. The unbalanced schedule is great. If divisions are to be won, then divisional foes should meet more often. Think of the NFL, 2 games home and away versus division opponents, the other 8 games vs. non-division foes. Also, college b-ball, conference wins or losses make or break seasons and determine conference playoff match-ups.

As for the DH,I'm like it and hate it. I like it for the extra firepower and baserunners, and I hate it cause it erases alot of strategy and seems lazy.

I believe the wild card and interleague play are great.

[JML]

[quote]Originally posted by Tree:
<strong>If there were a DH in the '20s, Babe Ruth never would've hit a home run.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Even if he didn't bat on his pitching days, Ruth's hitting ability still would've been realized in training.

[Wrigleyviller]

In response to Malleus Dei, free agency and division baseball are necessary. Think of how many teams reach the playoffs in the other sports? How could baseball maintain the popularity it has had with so few teams and playoff games? And it has been shown that player movement has not increased since the establishment of free agency; it is just old fogies always talking about the past that believe that player movement has ruined the game. While there may be economic problems that lead to teams like the '97 Marlins, don't blame free agency. Free agency was necessary for fair treatment of ballplayers compared to the old days - even if it has been taken to far nowadays. Blame the heads of the Player's Union for not caring about minor-leaguers/non-superstars, blame the horrible Commisioners over the years, blame pompous, selfish superstars, but don't blame free agency itself.

As to the wild card, I dislike it. Not because I am a purist, but because it allows terrible teams into the playoffs. Granted, it also allows last year's A's in, but you also get some truly awful teams. Not to mention situations like last year, when the Cardinals and Astros played at the end of the year for nothing becuase nothing was at stake - both were making the playoffs no matter what. The biggest problem, though, is an 84 win team having two hot pitchers who slice through a 105 game winning team in a short series. My solution would be to extend all series' to best-of-7.

The DH sucks. No strategy, tons of runs, boring. Everyone needs to hit and field, period. Obviously, artificial turf should go. Interleague play should be reduced to only geographic rivals - I love Cubs/Sox games, but why should the schedule suffer so the Rangers can play the Cubs? And the unbalanced schedule should certainly go - especially while there is a wild card. Say the Mariners win 98 and the A's 90 - but the wild card goes to the Red Sox because they won 91 in a rediculously weak division. Messed up. Sorry this was so long...

[JW]

[quote]Originally posted by Wrigleyviller:
<strong>it is just old fogies always talking about the past that believe that player movement has ruined the </strong><hr></blockquote>

You present a very good argument for your position. I see no reason to belittle your own argument by comments such as the above. The past can be quite instructive, containing both positive and negative lessons.

[Wrigleyviller]

You're right JW, that was uncalled for. Sorry all, I shouldn't belittle opinions like that.

[Henry]

Well, here's the opinion of the "old guy" ..

I attended my first game in 1954 at Municipal Stadium, the year the Indians won the pennant and then lost to Willie Mays in the World Series.

I was only 7 years old and fell in love with the game from that day on.

Yes, baseball was different back then - and yes, it was better. Not because we old guys always say things were better back then, but because of two major reasons... (1) it was truer to what it was created to be, and (2) it wasn't a "big business".

I'm not so much against the divisional breakup - it was hard to keep interest sometimes when your team was in 6th place (out of 8) with no hope to do better. At least in a 5 team division you were in "3rd" or "4th" - sounded much better But I do have to say that even that small change started the game down a path I wish I could pull it back from.

The eight team layout was unique in that there was only two goals in life... climb up those standings (it was a VERY big thing to move up from 6th to 4th) and, if possible, knock the leader out of first place the last week of the season (that's how rivalries got started!!). It was always "there's always next year" and you paid more attention to the game than where you stood in the standings, or who was signing for what next year... and when the world series came, there were all sorts of ways to argue about who was going to beat who - and no one really knew because the teams had never seen each other before. That was excitement.

Expansion... what can I say. Brought about out of necessity because of the moving population, but done COMPLETELY wrong because baseball owners fought it every step of the way. Think how much better baseball would be today if they had allowed the Pacific Coast League to become professional in 1950 and there were two 16 team organizations today, each with two 8 team leagues (ok, maybe even split into 4 team divisions). This could still be done today if the MLB had any guts... but first we have to get rid of Selig.

DH. A terrible idea. Probably the most damaging change to baseball and I hope to God that the NL never buys into it. A change with only one purpose - to make more money. To "increase excitement" thereby selling more tickets (to make the owners more money), to keep older players around longer (to make the players more money). And in the meantime, it took out the most important strategy option in the game. Yeah, managers can decide when to steal (mostly a no brainer), when to change pitchers (without the pitcher batting, mostly a no brainer), when to substitute for the defense (mostly a no brainer also). But "should I pinch hit for the pitcher (doing well) in the 6th inning because I have two men on, one out, and I haven't been able to touch the opposing pitcher until now....") That's a decision you argue about the next day at work !!

Interleague games. Another shot in the dark to make more money - and terrible in the fact that it (again) takes excitement out of the game. Team A and Team B are in the world series... well Team A beat Team B in June and the players have already gotten a feel for each other... Heck, before interleague play, the Allstar game was the closest these guys got to each other. You have to ask yourself, what's the purpose of a world series if, as some would have it, the schedule between leagues was perfectly balanced?

Playoffs/Wildcards. This one is simple for me. This isn't basketball. If we continue to make all our sports games the same, what will be the difference besides the rules? I often tell my friends that baseball is the one team sport that's different from all the rest. Basketball, Football, Soccer, Hockey, Rugby all have the same basic idea... a rectangular field with goals at the end. Baseball is different - let's keep it that way.

Free Agency and High Payrolls. Another "big business" relative. Ok, I agree that the way ballplayers were originally "owned" by the ballclubs was close to "slavery" - and that had to be changed. What I don't agree with, however, is that there has been NO reason applied to the limits of allowing ballplayers to make money to protect against what I call "free floating". Today, a ballplayer can pretty much go where he wants when he wants, and the high salary increases that result have caused the clubs to assemble and de-assemble their teams annually to keep some form of financial stability. The first thing we lost from the "good old days" is the feeling of the "home town" team. Very few regulars from season to season... more attachment to the "team" than the players that make up the team. Yes, the players have a right to make money - even a lot of it - but the teams should have retained some sort of control over a player being able to simply "go to the highest bidder". It created a baseball auction every year that made the dollar most important - not the game.

I would give anything to have the game of the 50s back. With some changes, of course. But todays game is out of control. I still enjoy it, I still follow it - but there isn't a day that goes by I wish it was the way it was.

And you know what? I started feeling that way in the 60s when I was still a youngin

[BasicGuy]

Anyone whos says DH is evil. I was born In 77 which by the time I was 18 and old enough to travel on my own to see the twins play I would of missed many great players If wasnt for the DH. Many of you say to bad they should play or retire....how easy it is for us to decide the fate of others.

During the early 90's when the twins were in the World Series I got togo there with my family and see Dave Winfield play now of course he could play OF but never would of been able to hold up for as long as he did without the dh. Same with Paul Molitor he played 1B but played dh to rest his body from the every day abuse. And lets not forget how well Paul played those last few seasons for the twins either.

I'm glad for the DH. It gives me a chance to see some older players play and hopefuly one day the It will give my children the same chance.

[BasicGuy]

And Just think In 1901 when the Game changed how many fans do you bet thought that was the end of the game??? People fear change and some will never get use to it.

Sorry not trying to insult the older fans here. Just giveing a point of view of a younger fan.

Call me what you will but I dont even follow the NL other than to see whos going to be in the playoffs or If theres a player there that I like.
I mean whats wrong with a league that allows there picther to hit

Just A Diferant Opinion

Brad

[The Professor]

Henry, great post!!! I agree with you, Malleus, and other "old-timers" 110% -- what I would give to have seen the game back when... *sighs audibly*

I couldn't echo your sentiments any more eloquently, so I will not try...it is my opinion that baseball is poorly steered. Selig is a businessman first, a commissioner second. Perhaps the greatest blow to the game, and I've often pointed to this, is the death of Bart Giamatti...to have seen where the game might have gone with him at the helm (and for those who damn him for the Pete Rose ruling...that is most unfortunate) is something that I would have liked to see.

...as for me, I'm a relatively young 23 -- soooo, it isn't just the "old timers" who share such sentiments.

Signed,
"Old Timer at Heart"

[ 04-07-2002: Message edited by: The Professor ]</p>

[Specs]

I, too, believe that Ruth's hitting potential may have been realized in B.P., but I do not think that with the DH he would have been put in the lineup. First, rookie AL pitchers, especially in the days before interleague play, NEVER take more than five swings in the cage. If you've ever seen B.P. at a game, you may be aware that Pete Schourek and others, in B.P., can pop the ball over the fence at a regular rate. But they aren't converted, Mike Hampton isn't converted, because if baseball then were like baseball now, the Babe would be too valuable as a good, left-handed starter good for 20 wins and a 3.36 ERA each year. Yes, that's an adjusted figure, so don't say, oh, there were so many better ones...

[Wrigleyviller]

I stand by my earlier post - free agency is not an inherently bad thing. Henry, I know that you hate players going where they will "free floating," and it can be annoying. But that is really the only alternative to the old system, where players were basically slaves. Curt Flood sacrificed some of his career and any chance of a Hall of Fame induction in order to destroy the reserve clause. Marvin Miller, the man who ran the MLB Players Association from its beginning, was looking to end the reserve clause and allow players freedoms, such as basic things like a partial arbitration negotiator picked by the owners and the players. Also, the reserve clause does remain in place for the first few years of service (and only 17% are freed from the reserve clause after 2 years). I know this is just history, but it is important. Players haven't really started moving more than before, even though it seems that way. And there are problems in the system - the Yankees buying everyone, high payroll problems, etc. - but free agency isn't the problem. The owners have tried to do anything but collaborate on an effective and acceptable agreement with the players, leading to Collusion I and Collusion II, and eventually the worst commisioner ever in Selig. In response, the players hated the owners, and wouldn't settle for less money. Unfortunately, after Miller (one of the best labor negotiators in this country's history), the Union has been dominated by the superstars. Minor-leaguers have virtually no say in the Union, and "average" to less-than-average major-leaguers have relatively poor representation. Of course, the owners could agree amongst themselves to engage in money-sharing programs (that work), but are too divided amongst themselves for that to work. Then there's contraction, 60-40, and the offseason of hell, and we're back to square one. I guess my point is that the reserve clause of the old days wasn't really all it is cracked up to be, and that the real problem lies with men like Selig and Fehr.

[Gray]

I have never understood the statement that the DH takes all the strategy out of the game. A double switch is about as interesting as a yawn and really a recent strategy. I think the DH adds to the game by letting some players who are not able to play in the field or are limited defensively play on a full time basis and contribute. Hal McRae is a perfect example. He hurt is shoulder and was limited to begin with as a defensive player. He became a fantastic DH and helped the Royals as much as any player on the team. Now who would you rather watch bat Edgar Martinez or Aaron Sele?

As far as interleague play. . .hate it. . .refuse to watch it. Detracts from the World Series and All Star game.

Explanded playoff and three divisions. If you can not figure out after 162 games who is your best team or at least 2 best teams you need help. I wish they would go back to the two division setup or better yet two leagues with no divisions. Much more interesting.


If I have one complaint about baseball is watching 3 or 4 relivers try and get 2 or 3 outs (LaRussa/ Duncan ball). Who needs releivers that appear in 80 games and only pitch in 50 innings. Much prefer the Sparky Lyle, Dan Quisenberry, Bill Campbell style where they would throw 2 or 3 innings.

[Malleus Dei]

To you younger guys: you never saw it the way it was, so you can't ever know how much better it used to be. But I saw it as it was and see it as it is, and so did the other older guys, and we all know how much better it was then than it is now.

Like I said, a lot of things have gotten much better since 1968; baseball didn't, it went to Hell.

[TristanH]

"Of course, the owners could agree amongst themselves to engage in money-sharing programs (that work), but are too divided amongst themselves for that to work."

Ah, but then wouldn't they be hit with the ever popular "Collusion" word?

I live in a National League city, so most of my experience has been watching National League games. Do I hate the DH? No. Certain situations it would be nice, such as you start a rally at the bottom of the order, but you just _know_ it's all for naught as the pitcher is coming up, and it's the 3rd inning, he's not going to be pinch hit for, so why bother getting excited when you know he's going to get out to end the inning? At times like this, can I have that other bat?

Free Agency is not evil. The current Player's union is. Keep in mind, if I recall correctly, there was a proposal out to get rid of the DH, but add a roster spot to 26 for each team, but the player's union nixed the idea.

I like and hate interleague play. I did appreciate that neither club had a chance to see each other until the World Series, but I wasn't adverse to the idea. The problem was in it's implementation. Why the same teams over and over and over again? If interleague play is there so I can see AL stars, then why will I _never_ get to see the Yankees? It kind of defeats the argument.

Wild card? I can take or leave. As long as you have three divisions, it's a requirement, unless you get a "bye" for the team with the best record.

I wasn't born then, but face facts. Baseball has been losing America for a long time now. The NFL is the most watched sport in the country, and the NBA, with all it's hype and glitz had (has) captured the minds of the youth. Baseball felt it had to change with the times, as it's fan base was aging and not replacing. Has it done it correctly? What does it need to do? That's another thread. Going back to 2 Leagues, one division, 8 teams a piece will _never_ work again, no matter how much "better" the game was.

From 1950-1960, 8 different teams went to the World Series, 9 if you count Brooklyn and LA as different. 5 different teams won the World Series, with a NY area team winning 8 of those championships.

From 1980-1990 15 different teams went to the World Series, with 10 different teams winning the World Series, and only one of those championships in the New York area.

Again, as was posted before, since I wasn't around at that time period, I can't see how much "better" the baseball was. I can see how the 1980s appeared to be quite a nice decade that I remember fondly(minus the work stoppages)

I think all the opinions as to _when_ the game was "better", is just that, opinions. When you were born, and if you got to see Robby Thompson, or just started with Barry Bonds shouldn't be an issue. The point is we have to try to attract NEW fans to the game, not push them away with a "purist" v. "newbie" mentality.

[ 04-07-2002: Message edited by: TristanH ]</p>

[Crapshoot]

[quote]Originally posted by Malleus Dei:
<strong>To you younger guys: you never saw it the way it was, so you can't ever know how much better it used to be. But I saw it as it was and see it as it is, and so did the other older guys, and we all know how much better it was then than it is now.

Like I said, a lot of things have gotten much better since 1968; baseball didn't, it went to Hell.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Condescending crap like this gets on my nerves. Malleus Die's arguement seems to be that no one younger than him could possibly know as much. This is one of the problems I see with baseball in general; a disdain to the possibilities for change. Evolution is a major part of everything; why shouldn't it be the same in sport ? We dont use phonographs because of the "good ol days". Has baseball always made the right step in the changes ? Undoubtedly, the answer is no. I dislike the DH, like inter league play and love free agency. But I would prefer that baseball attempted to make the game better than do nothing; like everything else, it isnt perfect.
I also fail to understand why people hate free agency so much; players are employees who have every right to any income they can earn, and there is nothing wrong with them maximizing their income like an employee anywhere else'; I dont see people critizing Tom Cruise for asking for 20 million dollars for his next movie. Holding baseball players to double-standards is unfair.

[joshuaaaaaa]

[quote]Originally posted by Malleus Dei:
<strong>To you younger guys: you never saw it the way it was, so you can't ever know how much better it used to be. But I saw it as it was and see it as it is, and so did the other older guys, and we all know how much better it was then than it is now.</strong><hr></blockquote>

To me, this is a load of horse manure. I was born in 1961, so I got to see older baseball, although obviously I wasn't real cognizant of it until 1968. I never remember it being better. I never remember liking the pitcher coming up and being an 'automatic out.' Hell, I don't like it now. I am a fan of the DH, for some reasons others have stated, and because I think that having a DH changes strategy, it doesn't eliminate it. To me, the biggest part about baseball strategy is timing when you make substitutions at the plate, in the field, and on the mound. The fact that having a DH may mean you can leave your starter out there longer is (to me), offset by the fact that you carry at least one less reliever in the bullpen in the AL. And how many pitchers pitch complete games these days, anyway?

Suffice it to say, I don't mind the DH. I do like having one league with the DH, and one without, because it gives me more variety to watch. If you put a gun to my head and made me choose between two leagues with the DH rule in effect and two with no DH, I think I'd choose the 2 with DH.


[quote]Originally posted by Malleus Dei:
<strong>Like I said, a lot of things have gotten much better since 1968; baseball didn't, it went to Hell.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, I'm sorry that it hasn't for you. Personally, I like most things about the game today. What I don't like mostly takes place off the field. i.e., labor issues. Also, I would like them to raise the mound a bit to cut down the offense a bit.

Regarding the other issues that were raised, I like interleague play and the wild card. I don't think the argument "Well, they played in June" doesn't really hold water. As The Yankees and Diamondbacks didn't play before the World Series last year. Yes, its possible the two World Series teams could meet in interleague play, and those little three game sets are more like a preview of good things to come for me than a "well, we've seen this before" event. If they got rid of it, I wouldn't cry a river, however I do in general like it (I like it more now that they are rotating divisions. I'm looking forward to seeing the Orioles play at the BOB).

As to the wild card, someone said "A bad 86-76 club shouldn't have the chance to beat a 116-46 team." That situation has existed since divisional play started. There have been years where one divisional winner had over 100 wins and the other had in the low 80s. I'd rather see the team that came in 2nd to the 100 win team with 99 have a shot at the brass ring because its probably better than the team that won its division with 86 wins.

We're never going back to 16 teams, and to have a 1 division, 16 team league seems ludicrous to me. You wouldn't see that in any sport. So, you're gonna have divisions, and you need to have some playoff system once the divisions are settled.

Now, regarding divisions and the wild card, if they go to 32 teams, I'd like to see 8 4 team divisions (in some ways I'd like to see 4 8 team divisions, however I can assure you that won't happen) and no wild card.

I slightly prefer the unbalanced schedule to the balanced schedule. When you only play divisional opponents a dozen times a year, its hard to make up ground on them. However, when you're playing them 20 times a year, even a 10 game deficit in early September doesn't look so bad if you know you play that #1 team 6 times during the month.

For those who think baseball was great in the old days, I think its time to get with the program. Things aren't every going back to the old ways, so why waste time and energy saying "Things were so much better then!" Instead, focus your energies on enjoying the game of 2002, with all its real and perceived flaws. Celebrate that we at least have the opportunity to watch baseball, not that its not what we remember.

[Henry]

Well, it seems Geiiga started this thread asking to be enlightened about how the "purists" felt. I did't expect to be told I was wrong.

Henry