Purists: Explain thyselves - Page 4

KWhit · 04-08-2002, 06:13 AM

The DH rule, in my opinion, doesn't make sense logically within the game. The idea that a pitcher doesn't hit well, so somebody else should hit for him is bizarre at best.

Catchers generally can't run too well. So should we institute the Designated Baserunner for them? Maybe do the same for first basemen.

Many SS and 2Bs don't hit too well either. A lot of ballclubs would like a DH for them too.

Within the constraints of the initial intent of baseball (9 players who field and hit) it doesn't work.

And I'm not opposed to change in general. I'm only 30 after all, so the DH has been around my whole life. I just don't like it.

Should there be a Designated Foul Shooter when Shaq gets up to the line?

Just my opinions. Don't hurt me.

Killebrew · 04-08-2002, 06:14 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by CBL-Commish:
 ... Annyoing, yes. But I think the game has survived worse.<hr /></blockquote>Heh, that sounds like a debate over a personal preference

.

spleen1015 · 04-08-2002, 06:32 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Malleus Dei:
"To me, this is a load of horse manure."

LOL. Who cares what you think?

You young guys weren't there and you don't know a damned thing about it and you won't listen to those who were there and who know better. And then you tell Henry, who was going to baseball games before most of your fathers ever even thought of you, that HE'S wrong about it. That's not just ignorance, that's aggressive ignorance.

Well, I've had enough of this thread. Take your much-treasured ignorance and put it where the sun doesn't shine.

The old game WAS better. And if you never saw the game before 1969 - and I don't mean as an 8-year-old - then don't ever tell the people who actually did see it then that it wasn't better then, because that is nothing but an act of colossal ignorance and arrogance on your part.

It was a better game. And you masters of ignorance can never, ever know yourselves whether it was or not because you weren't there and you have chosen not to understand what you have been told by those who were there.

I pity your ignorance.<hr /></blockquote>Isn't it time for you to go away, again, for a while?

Scott Vibert · 04-08-2002, 07:33 AM

In case anyone is interested. At 5.7 million a season the position with the highest average annual salary is DH; followed by 1B; Pitcher; and Outfield.

bigphesta · 04-08-2002, 07:46 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ScottVib:
I would be happy to try and arrange a chat session to debate these issues with you guys... we just need a time to meet and we could gather in the OOTP Chat Room, for some discussion. I think it would be fun to reply more in real time with some of you guys and to try and erase any misunderstandings that may have come up.

Just let me know if anyone is interested.. and what times would be good and I will try to be there.<hr /></blockquote>I'd love to chat about this with you Scott... although I'm not sure what good it would do. Unless one of us take over for Bud, this is just a bunch of talk to waste time. BTW, Hope you didn't think I was attacking you earlier... I just couldn't beleive that we disagree so much on the state of baseball in it's 'current' condition. I think the Wild Card and Interleague play are the best thing to happen to baseball since the 4-6-3 double play.

BasicGuy · 04-08-2002, 09:40 AM

Quote from Henry;
-----------------------
Also, let's try and keep this civil in that if you disagree, that's fine - but don't attack our age or other personal issues as part of your justification. We all have rights to an opinion, and the right to explain why we feel the way we do
-----------------------

Not to seem rude agian but I ownly brought age up cause Malleus Dei said that us younger fans werent there so we dont know better......

And While there Isnt any older fans here who would agree with me My grandfather who Is 80 this year and I had a talk about this today and since retireing 15 yeats ago has started to get enjoy the sport agian. He was upset and orignaly lost intrest in the 50's....Just shows for differant folks theres different strokes

VT Os fan · 04-08-2002, 09:57 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by CBL-Commish:
I'm pretty sure I could find some guys from the Negro Leagues, or the 1930s, or if they weren't dead, the 1880s, 90s, 1910s, etc. who think that baseball was ruined at some other point in time than the 1960s and 70s. Lots of people think all the strategy and beauty went out of baseball when Ruth started hitting home runs. Ty Cobb was often quoted as saying that modern baseball with the "jackrabbit ball" was far inferior to the game of the 1910s. People have complained about greed and money and big business destroying baseball since at least the 1860s.

You guys touting the 1950s as the apex of baseball can't contradict any of this, either, since you weren't alive 80 or 100 or 125 years ago. You don't know. You can't know. If you say anything differently, you're wrong, and that's by using your own logic.
<hr /></blockquote>Hello! And the other point to make is that "better" has no objective definition. Pre-1970s baseball wasn't necessarily better, just different, emphasizing different aspects of the game. Just like the dead-ball era of baseball was different and emphasized different aspects of the game.

DH is fine. Especially as it stands now with one league using it and the other staying "traditional". Someone else noted that the DH doesn't eliminate managerial strategy, just changes it. Something yet to be noted is that adding a better hitter places a premium on pitching, thus making those pitching change decisions all the more important.

Wild card is good in that it almost guarantees some sort of race through the end of the season. Can the 50+ crowd honestly say that September baseball was exciting when the World Series teams were all but decided at the start of the month?

Interleague play not only gives cross-town and intrastate rivalries, but it also adds interest to the post season. I look forward to the Yankess-Braves series as a preview to what might happen in October. And if the teams do meet in October, the fact that we got a mid-summer preview doesn't mean we already know the outcome, but rather gives a point of comparison.

Free agency has improved conditions for everyone in baseball except the fans. Players should be able to paid what they are worth. Teams are worth more than ever to the owners who pay the outrageous salaries. But it's very hard for a family of modest means to see their favorite team at the park. But this is true of every major sport these days, and most entertainment. (How much does it cost a family of 4 to go to the movies?)

Things that are genuinely "bad" do eventually go away. Artificial turf and generic stadium parks are all but gone. It appears enough momentum is building to install a salery cap or other device to reduce the A-Rod salaries and Marlin bought championchips. If the DH, interleague play, or wild card system is really bad, they will eventually disapear as well.

Is chocolate better than strawberry or vanilla? It's all a matter of taste.

gamadict · 04-08-2002, 10:32 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Free agency has improved conditions for everyone in baseball except the fans. Players should be able to paid what they are worth. Teams are worth more than ever to the owners who pay the outrageous salaries. But it's very hard for a family of modest means to see their favorite team at the park. But this is true of every major sport these days, and most entertainment. (How much does it cost a family of 4 to go to the movies?) <hr /></blockquote>I'm not sure one has to do with the other. The owners charge the price that will net them the most money, regardless of player salaries. However much money they have coming in dictates what the players will make, not the other way around...

Scott Vibert · 04-08-2002, 10:48 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by VT Os fan:
Wild card is good in that it almost guarantees some sort of race through the end of the season. Can the 50+ crowd honestly say that September baseball was exciting when the World Series teams were all but decided at the start of the month?
<hr /></blockquote>How many great penant races have lost their luster because both teams had already locked up playoff spots? MLB thinks so much of the importance of winning the division now that if two teams tied for the divisional crown, but both have clinched playoff spots, they wouldn't even have a playoff, instead letting head to head record determine the "divisional champion" and the other being the wild card. In fact we saw this last year with Houston and St. Louis, I guess no one cared about the divisional title.

Last year the AL had no penant races, even the Wild Card was locked up early, but if we had only two divisions we would have had one heckuva battle down the stretch between New York and Cleveland. The NL would have had a phenomenal four team race in the old West last year, while the NL East would have featured a three team race (possibly four or even five teams). Oakland in 2000 won the division by 0.5 game over Seattle, because they played one fewer game and since both teams had clinched it wasn't deemed important enough to make up and give Seattle a chance at the Divisional Crown. In 1996 & 1997 we could have had a great pennant races between the Orioles and Yankees, but who cares both teams were in. Same in 1999, the Red Sox coasted into the Wild Card, rather than racing the Yankees for the title, plus we lost what could have been an epic race between New York and Cleveland that season.

These are just some of the races that were lost or cheapened by the Wild Card (IMO). I just find it hard to get excited for the race to see who the best second place team will be.

I think this will be an interesting study, I'm going to go through and analyze this, I'll post what I find here in a few days after going through the data. I promise to do my best to be impartial (I'm a scientist I'm supposed to be able to do that) but I invite anyone else to go over the past few seasons of data with me and lets see what has actually happened.

For my study I will assume the 1993 divisions until the expansion in 1998, when I'll move Milwaukee to the NL West, Atlanta to the NL East, and Arizona will join the NL West, with Tampa in the AL East (replacing Milwaukee).

I'm actually excited to do this research (much better than work!)

VT Os fan · 04-08-2002, 11:12 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ScottVib:
MLB thinks so much of the importance of winning the division now that if two teams tied for the divisional crown, but both have clinched playoff spots, they wouldn't even have a playoff, instead letting head to head record determine the "divisional champion" and the other being the wild card. In fact we saw this last year with Houston and St. Louis, I guess no one cared about the divisional title.

Last year the AL had no penant races, even the Wild Card was locked up early, but if we had only two divisions we would have had one heckuva battle down the stretch between New York and Cleveland. <hr /></blockquote>Point taken. And I can think of many exciting races prior to divisional play. The Dodgers-Giants race that ended with Bobby Thompson's "shot heard round the world" comes to mind.

I just think that with only two leagues with a single division in each you have a limited chance of a race in September and thus limited excitement about the last month of the season. With 4 divisions in 2 leagues, if you consider the wild-card race a division within the divisions, you increase the chances of a tight race into the last week of the season, thus greater interest.

 <blockquote>quote:<hr />
I think this will be an interesting study, I'm going to go through and analyze this, I'll post what I find here in a few days after going through the data. I promise to do my best to be impartial (I'm a scientist I'm supposed to be able to do that) but I invite anyone else to go over the past few seasons of data with me and lets see what has actually happened.

For my study I will assume the 1993 divisions until the expansion in 1998, when I'll move Milwaukee to the NL West, Atlanta to the NL East, and Arizona will join the NL West, with Tampa in the AL East (replacing Milwaukee).

I'm actually excited to do this research (much better than work!)<hr /></blockquote>I'm excited to see the results. I have no doubt it will be impartial and insightful. I am also curious to see how the theory plays out.

CamEdwards · 04-08-2002, 01:12 PM

Wow, can you feel the love?

As a 28 year old who sits squarely in the middle on this argument, let me say that the "old timers" in this thread have shown a remarkable tendency to sound like the old man character Dana Carvey used to do on SNL.

"Baseball in my day? It was Willie Mays, running buck naked through the outfield of Polo Grounds, catching the ball in his teeth. And he liked it! Fiddle-dee-foo!"

Gimme a break. For every wonderful fact about baseball in the 50's, there's an equally wonderful fact to be made about baseball in the 70's, 80's, 90's, and today. Baseball is neither better or worse than it was 50 years ago.

It's simply different.

You have Hank Aaron.
We have Barry Bonds.

You have Willie Mays.
We have Ichiro.

You have Don Larsen.
We have Jason Jennings.

etc.
etc.

One more thing. To imply that baseball players shouldn't be afforded the right to play for whomever they want is ridiculous. Baseball stopped being played for love of the game when the Cincinnati Red Stockings players cashed their first paycheck. It's a business. That's all. It's a business we love watching, but it is a business. If people would pay money to watch us scratch our butts behind our desks every day, then we too could be paid like Alex Rodriguez. And wouldn't you complain if you didn't have the right to scratch your butt for more money with another company?

Okay, rant over. I'll save the DH and interleague debates for another day.

joshuaaaaaa · 04-08-2002, 01:28 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by CamEdwards:

You have Hank Aaron.
We have Barry Bonds.

You have Willie Mays.
We have Ichiro.

You have Don Larsen.
We have Jason Jennings.
<hr /></blockquote>You have Mickey Lolich
We have Darryl Strawberry

Le Grande Orange · 04-08-2002, 01:31 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ScottVib:
It's also caused some scheduling headaches like the return to two game series, etc. The Red Sox have already had 3 off days this season (not counting a rain out)!!! Interleague play is partially the cause of these demented schedules.
<hr /></blockquote>Actually, there have always been 2 (and 4)game series scheduled during seasons, well before interleague play started. Granted, 3 games is the preferred length for a series, but 2 and 4 game series have always shown up a several times a year in a team's schedule.

And if you look at the schedules from prior to 1961, you'll find schedules that look just as strange at times as anything being done today.

For example, you'll find many incidences of 1 game and 5 game series occuring. You'll also see home-and-home series happening, where a team will play an opponent at home, and then the very next series is against the same team but now they play them on the road. You can also find times when a team plays two series against the same team on the same road trip, starting off the trip with that team and then finishing the road trip with another visit to the same team.

All of the things mentioned above no longer happen, but they used to be fairly common. So, as strange as you might think today's scheduling is, it wasn't necessarily any more logical in the past.

The main way today's scheduling is strange is in the number of games a team plays against each opponent. Up until interleague play started, there was consistency to it. Now, of course, this is no longer the case.

For example, in 2002, Baltimore will play Cleveland and Detroit 6 times each. Boston, however, even though they are in the same division as Baltimore, plays Cleveland and Detroit 9 times each. All of the interdivisional matchups for all the teams are similary uneven; only the games inside the division are same (technically, this is only true for the AL and NL East; the other divisions do in fact play slightly differing numbers of divisional games as well).

Before interleague play came in, all the teams in a given division played the same number of games inside their division and the same number of interdivisional games against each opponent. Thus, no team could argue that another team had an easier schedule because they weren't playing a tough team as many times. A team could make that argument today, though.

Which brings me to my theory as to why MLB wants to contract: sure, saving money is part of it, but I think another reason is that it will make scheduling much easier. With both leagues having the same number of teams, and both with 5-5-4 divisional alignments, the difficulty of putting together a sensible schedule is greatly reduced.

The biggest change in scheduling practices over the years though has been the disappearance of doubleheaders. There are virtually no scheduled doubleheaders any more, but in seasons past, they used to be very common.

Prior to 1960, the number of doubleheaders scheduled for each team (although it varied from decade to decade, it was generally consistent)was between 3-10 or so per team, per year. During the 1960s though, the number of scheduled doubleheaders shot up. It was typically anywhere from 6-14 or so per team, but it did go higher. The highest number I saw was 18 scheduled doubleheaders for one season.

In the 1970s the numbers began dropping again, with anywhere from 4-12 or so per team, and it continued to drop in the 1980s. By the time the 1990s arrived, scheduled doubleheaders had all but vanished.

Probably the only doubleheaders that exist now are those that are forced by the making up of games that were rained out earlier in the season.

Now there's something that is unique to baseball, the idea that a team can play two contests on a single day. Hard to imagine a hockey or football team playing two games on the same day...

[ 04-08-2002, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: Le Grande Orange ]

BaseballMan · 04-08-2002, 02:00 PM

Henry,
I respect your opinion of baseball but that Mall
dude seems a little big headed. So what if he saw baseball back in the sixtys. Who the hell cares.
Theres probably others that saw it in the fortys
and thought it better, or the 20's. I mean if he thinks everything is so great about yesterday why dont we just go back to the 1876 original National League rules. yeah i really want to go back to the fiftys and sixtys were the only way i could see other teams play would be to drive a 1,000 miles instead of being able to see them on tv today.

I dont think a 81-81 team should be in the playoffs but if you win 90 games i still think you deserve a shot.Baseball has too many teams to allow only 4 in the playoffs. If your gonna go by that well you should win your division than why even bother with a championship game? Why not just give it to the team with the best record?

If your the best during the regular season than all that does is guarantee you home field advantage.If you cant win the playoff games then
beating up on weaker division foes or toughest competition having major injurys when you faced them earlier just proves that a division winner was a fluke.
Like a i said i respect your opinion but that Mall needs get off that high horse of his. Just because he likes something doesnt mean its better.

The Professor · 04-08-2002, 04:20 PM

Mickey Lolich...?

Wouldn't Denny McClain better serve in that comparison to Darryl Strawberry?

JW · 04-08-2002, 04:43 PM

This discussion is about 50% good logical argument and about 50% a matter of the limited perspective of youth vs. the greater perspective of maturity.

I'm a high school teacher. When we discuss the greatest basketball players ever, my student invariably say Iverson or Kobe or Shaq. But what they really mean is that these are their favorite players right now. They have no perspective. Even MJ is ancient history to them. Now after they finish their careers, we might be able to say that Iverson or Kobe or Shaq or all three were the greatest ever. But we can't do that now.

Same thing applied when I was a kid. I thought Mickey Mantle was the greatest ever. My dad thought Babe Ruth was. I thought my dad was an idiot, an old fogie. But now I realize I was definitely wrong (though Mickey was a great one) and that my dad may well have been right.

So sometimes young folks lack the perspective to really understand the questions. (Sorry. It's true.) But sometimes older folks like me like to cling to the notion that the way it was when we were young is the best. Although we have the perspective, we sometimes don't exercise it. For example, I still think 60s music was the best and that rap is crap. Well, that doesn't count, because I'm right on that one, but you know what I mean.

So I would recommend that the younger folks try to look at things with perspective. The way it is now isn't necessarily the best way. And the older folks need to keep an open mind.

Schmidty, though, got it right when he said that things are never going to go back to the way they were because of money. Hell, they'll probably shorten the game to 6 innings one day just to fit the game into the TV schedule better.

Astros02 · 04-08-2002, 04:50 PM

As a 16 year old, I hate the way the game is played. Home runs every game, poor pitching (Partially because of expansion), not much strategy in the AL (DH rule), inflated salaries, teams struggling to compete with the rich franchises, a HORRIBLE commissioner, and a lot of other things I won't mention right now.
That's just my perspective, I would like the game back to how it was before 35 homers was an off-season for a lot of players, but we all know that isn't going to happen. What would ESPN do without a "Barry Watch" the third game of the season?!?!?! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

joshuaaaaaa · 04-08-2002, 05:12 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by The Professor:
Mickey Lolich...?

Wouldn't Denny McClain better serve in that comparison to Darryl Strawberry?<hr /></blockquote>Oops...Yes he would. I got my old Tigers pitchers confused. My apologies to Mickey

ISiddiqui · 04-09-2002, 07:42 AM

I am only a 21 year old, but I'd consider myself a traditionalist. I also know that you really can't turn the clock back (ie, we are going to keep 3 divisions per league for a while, etc.). But these are my beliefs:

DH Horrible. Just no need for it anymore. It was introduced to increase offense, because in 1973 (or there abouts) the game was pitching dominated. There is no need for that anymore. Players should be players, if you field, you should hit, and vice versa. Selig actually was smart on this (imagine that) and offered the MLBPA to add another roster spot to each team, if the DH was taken away in the AL. The MLBPA refused, showing their true colors.

Saying that, I don't think Free Agency is bad at all. I just think that there should be comprehensive revenue sharing, with minimim and maximum salary caps (and floors).

Wildcard This probably isn't going away, but I don't like it. Someone refered to the 1993 race between Atlanta and San Fran, where Atlanta won 103 games and got to move on and San Fran won 102 games and stayed home. Even though I rooted for the Giants, I thought that was great. It added something to the end of the year. If there was a wildcard then, both teams would have qualified for the playoffs earlier, and the late season drama (with the Dodgers beating the Giants on the last day to prevent a playoff... ouch) were unparallel. I've never seen a season like that, and I fear I never will (and no, even though I live in New Jersey, the Subway Series of 2000 doesn't compare... at all).

Bob Costas had a great idea (which merges the WC with Divisions)... to take away the Wild Card, and just have the division winners play each other. The team with the best record would get a bye for the first round. It sounded like the smartest plan to me.

Of course it seems the WC is here to stay

. Hopefully it won't expand any further. We don't want to turn this into the NHL where just about every team is in the playoff race until the last week of the season no matter what their record is (even if they are 0-80 <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> ).

Interleague I'd like to quote something someone earlier said:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I likewise hate interleague play, but, as a Royals fan from the middle of Kansas, there's no other way I'm ever going to see Barry Bonds play in person, so I take it as a necessary evil.<hr /></blockquote>You won't anyway. The way the numnuts drew up interleague play, the AL East plays the NL East and the Central plays the Central, etc., for time immemoral!! This is silly. Interleague play was for people to see players they've never seen before. They still can't see them. If they were going to do interleague play, they should have rotated which division plays which division. You still would have Yankees-Mets every three years. I mean, you play them every year, and in 5 years, it'll get old and stale. If you rotate divisions, then when it comes back to the East v. East, you got something to talk about.

That said, I'm against interleague play in general. I think AL players should only face off against NL players in Spring Training, the All Star Game, and the World Series.

Thus endeth my sermon. Carry on

.

GForce22 · 04-09-2002, 07:53 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Khaos:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Tree:
If there were a DH in the '20s, Babe Ruth never would've hit a home run.
<hr /></blockquote>Would you explain this statement please?<hr /></blockquote>I'm assuming he means because they never would have seen Ruth hit since he was a pitcher, so they never would have converted him to a hitter.

GH

04-08-2002, 06:13 AM	#61
KWhit Major Leagues Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 413	The DH rule, in my opinion, doesn't make sense logically within the game. The idea that a pitcher doesn't hit well, so somebody else should hit for him is bizarre at best. Catchers generally can't run too well. So should we institute the Designated Baserunner for them? Maybe do the same for first basemen. Many SS and 2Bs don't hit too well either. A lot of ballclubs would like a DH for them too. Within the constraints of the initial intent of baseball (9 players who field and hit) it doesn't work. And I'm not opposed to change in general. I'm only 30 after all, so the DH has been around my whole life. I just don't like it. Should there be a Designated Foul Shooter when Shaq gets up to the line? Just my opinions. Don't hurt me. __________________

04-08-2002, 06:14 AM	#62
Killebrew Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 3,326	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by CBL-Commish: <strong> ... Annyoing, yes. But I think the game has survived worse.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Heh, that sounds like a debate over a personal preference. __________________ FOBL Capital City Metropolitans CDL Minnesota Twins

04-08-2002, 06:32 AM	#63
spleen1015 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 6,000	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Malleus Dei: <strong>"To me, this is a load of horse manure." LOL. Who cares what you think? You young guys weren't there and you don't know a damned thing about it and you won't listen to those who were there and who know better. And then you tell Henry, who was going to baseball games before most of your fathers ever even thought of you, that HE'S wrong about it. That's not just ignorance, that's aggressive ignorance. Well, I've had enough of this thread. Take your much-treasured ignorance and put it where the sun doesn't shine. The old game WAS better. And if you never saw the game before 1969 - and I don't mean as an 8-year-old - then don't ever tell the people who actually did see it then that it wasn't better then, because that is nothing but an act of colossal ignorance and arrogance on your part. It was a better game. And you masters of ignorance can never, ever know yourselves whether it was or not because you weren't there and you have chosen not to understand what you have been told by those who were there. I pity your ignorance.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Isn't it time for you to go away, again, for a while?

04-08-2002, 07:46 AM	#65
bigphesta Banned Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Des Moines, Iowa Posts: 1,366	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by ScottVib: <strong>I would be happy to try and arrange a chat session to debate these issues with you guys... we just need a time to meet and we could gather in the OOTP Chat Room, for some discussion. I think it would be fun to reply more in real time with some of you guys and to try and erase any misunderstandings that may have come up. Just let me know if anyone is interested.. and what times would be good and I will try to be there.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I'd love to chat about this with you Scott... although I'm not sure what good it would do. Unless one of us take over for Bud, this is just a bunch of talk to waste time. BTW, Hope you didn't think I was attacking you earlier... I just couldn't beleive that we disagree so much on the state of baseball in it's 'current' condition. I think the Wild Card and Interleague play are the best thing to happen to baseball since the 4-6-3 double play.

04-08-2002, 09:57 AM	#67
VT Os fan Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Virginia Tech (Blacksburg, Virginia) Posts: 226	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by CBL-Commish: <strong>I'm pretty sure I could find some guys from the Negro Leagues, or the 1930s, or if they weren't dead, the 1880s, 90s, 1910s, etc. who think that baseball was ruined at some other point in time than the 1960s and 70s. Lots of people think all the strategy and beauty went out of baseball when Ruth started hitting home runs. Ty Cobb was often quoted as saying that modern baseball with the "jackrabbit ball" was far inferior to the game of the 1910s. People have complained about greed and money and big business destroying baseball since at least the 1860s. You guys touting the 1950s as the apex of baseball can't contradict any of this, either, since you weren't alive 80 or 100 or 125 years ago. You don't know. You can't know. If you say anything differently, you're wrong, and that's by using your own logic. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Hello! And the other point to make is that "better" has no objective definition. Pre-1970s baseball wasn't necessarily better, just different, emphasizing different aspects of the game. Just like the dead-ball era of baseball was different and emphasized different aspects of the game. DH is fine. Especially as it stands now with one league using it and the other staying "traditional". Someone else noted that the DH doesn't eliminate managerial strategy, just changes it. Something yet to be noted is that adding a better hitter places a premium on pitching, thus making those pitching change decisions all the more important. Wild card is good in that it almost guarantees some sort of race through the end of the season. Can the 50+ crowd honestly say that September baseball was exciting when the World Series teams were all but decided at the start of the month? Interleague play not only gives cross-town and intrastate rivalries, but it also adds interest to the post season. I look forward to the Yankess-Braves series as a preview to what might happen in October. And if the teams do meet in October, the fact that we got a mid-summer preview doesn't mean we already know the outcome, but rather gives a point of comparison. Free agency has improved conditions for everyone in baseball except the fans. Players should be able to paid what they are worth. Teams are worth more than ever to the owners who pay the outrageous salaries. But it's very hard for a family of modest means to see their favorite team at the park. But this is true of every major sport these days, and most entertainment. (How much does it cost a family of 4 to go to the movies?) Things that are genuinely "bad" do eventually go away. Artificial turf and generic stadium parks are all but gone. It appears enough momentum is building to install a salery cap or other device to reduce the A-Rod salaries and Marlin bought championchips. If the DH, interleague play, or wild card system is really bad, they will eventually disapear as well. Is chocolate better than strawberry or vanilla? It's all a matter of taste. __________________ "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." -- Ayn Rand

04-08-2002, 07:33 AM	#64
Scott Vibert Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: My Computer Posts: 8,207	In case anyone is interested. At 5.7 million a season the position with the highest average annual salary is DH; followed by 1B; Pitcher; and Outfield.

04-08-2002, 09:40 AM	#66
BasicGuy Major Leagues Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: ND Posts: 478	Quote from Henry; ----------------------- Also, let's try and keep this civil in that if you disagree, that's fine - but don't attack our age or other personal issues as part of your justification. We all have rights to an opinion, and the right to explain why we feel the way we do ----------------------- Not to seem rude agian but I ownly brought age up cause Malleus Dei said that us younger fans werent there so we dont know better...... And While there Isnt any older fans here who would agree with me My grandfather who Is 80 this year and I had a talk about this today and since retireing 15 yeats ago has started to get enjoy the sport agian. He was upset and orignaly lost intrest in the 50's....Just shows for differant folks theres different strokes

04-08-2002, 10:32 AM	#68
gamadict Minors (Single A) Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Pitsburgh, PA... Posts: 50	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Free agency has improved conditions for everyone in baseball except the fans. Players should be able to paid what they are worth. Teams are worth more than ever to the owners who pay the outrageous salaries. But it's very hard for a family of modest means to see their favorite team at the park. But this is true of every major sport these days, and most entertainment. (How much does it cost a family of 4 to go to the movies?) </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I'm not sure one has to do with the other. The owners charge the price that will net them the most money, regardless of player salaries. However much money they have coming in dictates what the players will make, not the other way around...

04-08-2002, 10:48 AM	#69
Scott Vibert Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: My Computer Posts: 8,207	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by VT Os fan: <strong>Wild card is good in that it almost guarantees some sort of race through the end of the season. Can the 50+ crowd honestly say that September baseball was exciting when the World Series teams were all but decided at the start of the month? </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">How many great penant races have lost their luster because both teams had already locked up playoff spots? MLB thinks so much of the importance of winning the division now that if two teams tied for the divisional crown, but both have clinched playoff spots, they wouldn't even have a playoff, instead letting head to head record determine the "divisional champion" and the other being the wild card. In fact we saw this last year with Houston and St. Louis, I guess no one cared about the divisional title. Last year the AL had no penant races, even the Wild Card was locked up early, but if we had only two divisions we would have had one heckuva battle down the stretch between New York and Cleveland. The NL would have had a phenomenal four team race in the old West last year, while the NL East would have featured a three team race (possibly four or even five teams). Oakland in 2000 won the division by 0.5 game over Seattle, because they played one fewer game and since both teams had clinched it wasn't deemed important enough to make up and give Seattle a chance at the Divisional Crown. In 1996 & 1997 we could have had a great pennant races between the Orioles and Yankees, but who cares both teams were in. Same in 1999, the Red Sox coasted into the Wild Card, rather than racing the Yankees for the title, plus we lost what could have been an epic race between New York and Cleveland that season. These are just some of the races that were lost or cheapened by the Wild Card (IMO). I just find it hard to get excited for the race to see who the best second place team will be. I think this will be an interesting study, I'm going to go through and analyze this, I'll post what I find here in a few days after going through the data. I promise to do my best to be impartial (I'm a scientist I'm supposed to be able to do that) but I invite anyone else to go over the past few seasons of data with me and lets see what has actually happened. For my study I will assume the 1993 divisions until the expansion in 1998, when I'll move Milwaukee to the NL West, Atlanta to the NL East, and Arizona will join the NL West, with Tampa in the AL East (replacing Milwaukee). I'm actually excited to do this research (much better than work!)

04-08-2002, 11:12 AM	#70
VT Os fan Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Virginia Tech (Blacksburg, Virginia) Posts: 226	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by ScottVib: <strong>MLB thinks so much of the importance of winning the division now that if two teams tied for the divisional crown, but both have clinched playoff spots, they wouldn't even have a playoff, instead letting head to head record determine the "divisional champion" and the other being the wild card. In fact we saw this last year with Houston and St. Louis, I guess no one cared about the divisional title. Last year the AL had no penant races, even the Wild Card was locked up early, but if we had only two divisions we would have had one heckuva battle down the stretch between New York and Cleveland. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Point taken. And I can think of many exciting races prior to divisional play. The Dodgers-Giants race that ended with Bobby Thompson's "shot heard round the world" comes to mind. I just think that with only two leagues with a single division in each you have a limited chance of a race in September and thus limited excitement about the last month of the season. With 4 divisions in 2 leagues, if you consider the wild-card race a division within the divisions, you increase the chances of a tight race into the last week of the season, thus greater interest. <strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> I think this will be an interesting study, I'm going to go through and analyze this, I'll post what I find here in a few days after going through the data. I promise to do my best to be impartial (I'm a scientist I'm supposed to be able to do that) but I invite anyone else to go over the past few seasons of data with me and lets see what has actually happened. For my study I will assume the 1993 divisions until the expansion in 1998, when I'll move Milwaukee to the NL West, Atlanta to the NL East, and Arizona will join the NL West, with Tampa in the AL East (replacing Milwaukee). I'm actually excited to do this research (much better than work!)</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I'm excited to see the results. I have no doubt it will be impartial and insightful. I am also curious to see how the theory plays out. __________________ "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." -- Ayn Rand

04-08-2002, 01:12 PM	#71
CamEdwards Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Oklahoma City Posts: 25	Wow, can you feel the love? As a 28 year old who sits squarely in the middle on this argument, let me say that the "old timers" in this thread have shown a remarkable tendency to sound like the old man character Dana Carvey used to do on SNL. "Baseball in my day? It was Willie Mays, running buck naked through the outfield of Polo Grounds, catching the ball in his teeth. And he liked it! Fiddle-dee-foo!" Gimme a break. For every wonderful fact about baseball in the 50's, there's an equally wonderful fact to be made about baseball in the 70's, 80's, 90's, and today. Baseball is neither better or worse than it was 50 years ago. It's simply different. You have Hank Aaron. We have Barry Bonds. You have Willie Mays. We have Ichiro. You have Don Larsen. We have Jason Jennings. etc. etc. One more thing. To imply that baseball players shouldn't be afforded the right to play for whomever they want is ridiculous. Baseball stopped being played for love of the game when the Cincinnati Red Stockings players cashed their first paycheck. It's a business. That's all. It's a business we love watching, but it is a business. If people would pay money to watch us scratch our butts behind our desks every day, then we too could be paid like Alex Rodriguez. And wouldn't you complain if you didn't have the right to scratch your butt for more money with another company? Okay, rant over. I'll save the DH and interleague debates for another day.

04-08-2002, 01:28 PM	#72
joshuaaaaaa All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 633	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by CamEdwards: <strong> You have Hank Aaron. We have Barry Bonds. You have Willie Mays. We have Ichiro. You have Don Larsen. We have Jason Jennings. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You have Mickey Lolich We have Darryl Strawberry __________________ Baltimore Monarchs-GUBA Baltimore Orioles-ORB2 "One of the greatest discoveries a man makes, one of his great surprises, is to find he can do what he was afraid he couldn't do." ~Henry Ford ~

04-08-2002, 01:31 PM	#73
Le Grande Orange Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Up There Posts: 15,644	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by ScottVib: <strong>It's also caused some scheduling headaches like the return to two game series, etc. The Red Sox have already had 3 off days this season (not counting a rain out)!!! Interleague play is partially the cause of these demented schedules. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Actually, there have always been 2 (and 4)game series scheduled during seasons, well before interleague play started. Granted, 3 games is the preferred length for a series, but 2 and 4 game series have always shown up a several times a year in a team's schedule. And if you look at the schedules from prior to 1961, you'll find schedules that look just as strange at times as anything being done today. For example, you'll find many incidences of 1 game and 5 game series occuring. You'll also see home-and-home series happening, where a team will play an opponent at home, and then the very next series is against the same team but now they play them on the road. You can also find times when a team plays two series against the same team on the same road trip, starting off the trip with that team and then finishing the road trip with another visit to the same team. All of the things mentioned above no longer happen, but they used to be fairly common. So, as strange as you might think today's scheduling is, it wasn't necessarily any more logical in the past. The main way today's scheduling is strange is in the number of games a team plays against each opponent. Up until interleague play started, there was consistency to it. Now, of course, this is no longer the case. For example, in 2002, Baltimore will play Cleveland and Detroit 6 times each. Boston, however, even though they are in the same division as Baltimore, plays Cleveland and Detroit 9 times each. All of the interdivisional matchups for all the teams are similary uneven; only the games inside the division are same (technically, this is only true for the AL and NL East; the other divisions do in fact play slightly differing numbers of divisional games as well). Before interleague play came in, all the teams in a given division played the same number of games inside their division and the same number of interdivisional games against each opponent. Thus, no team could argue that another team had an easier schedule because they weren't playing a tough team as many times. A team could make that argument today, though. Which brings me to my theory as to why MLB wants to contract: sure, saving money is part of it, but I think another reason is that it will make scheduling much easier. With both leagues having the same number of teams, and both with 5-5-4 divisional alignments, the difficulty of putting together a sensible schedule is greatly reduced. The biggest change in scheduling practices over the years though has been the disappearance of doubleheaders. There are virtually no scheduled doubleheaders any more, but in seasons past, they used to be very common. Prior to 1960, the number of doubleheaders scheduled for each team (although it varied from decade to decade, it was generally consistent)was between 3-10 or so per team, per year. During the 1960s though, the number of scheduled doubleheaders shot up. It was typically anywhere from 6-14 or so per team, but it did go higher. The highest number I saw was 18 scheduled doubleheaders for one season. In the 1970s the numbers began dropping again, with anywhere from 4-12 or so per team, and it continued to drop in the 1980s. By the time the 1990s arrived, scheduled doubleheaders had all but vanished. Probably the only doubleheaders that exist now are those that are forced by the making up of games that were rained out earlier in the season. Now there's something that is unique to baseball, the idea that a team can play two contests on a single day. Hard to imagine a hockey or football team playing two games on the same day... <small>[ 04-08-2002, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: Le Grande Orange ]</small>

04-08-2002, 02:00 PM	#74
BaseballMan Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 6,511	Henry, I respect your opinion of baseball but that Mall dude seems a little big headed. So what if he saw baseball back in the sixtys. Who the hell cares. Theres probably others that saw it in the fortys and thought it better, or the 20's. I mean if he thinks everything is so great about yesterday why dont we just go back to the 1876 original National League rules. yeah i really want to go back to the fiftys and sixtys were the only way i could see other teams play would be to drive a 1,000 miles instead of being able to see them on tv today. I dont think a 81-81 team should be in the playoffs but if you win 90 games i still think you deserve a shot.Baseball has too many teams to allow only 4 in the playoffs. If your gonna go by that well you should win your division than why even bother with a championship game? Why not just give it to the team with the best record? If your the best during the regular season than all that does is guarantee you home field advantage.If you cant win the playoff games then beating up on weaker division foes or toughest competition having major injurys when you faced them earlier just proves that a division winner was a fluke. Like a i said i respect your opinion but that Mall needs get off that high horse of his. Just because he likes something doesnt mean its better.

04-08-2002, 04:20 PM	#75
The Professor Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: East of East Posts: 3,020	Mickey Lolich...? Wouldn't Denny McClain better serve in that comparison to Darryl Strawberry? __________________ History isn't really about the past - settling old scores. It's about defining the present and who we are."

04-08-2002, 04:43 PM	#76
JW Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Monroe, LA Posts: 46	This discussion is about 50% good logical argument and about 50% a matter of the limited perspective of youth vs. the greater perspective of maturity. I'm a high school teacher. When we discuss the greatest basketball players ever, my student invariably say Iverson or Kobe or Shaq. But what they really mean is that these are their favorite players right now. They have no perspective. Even MJ is ancient history to them. Now after they finish their careers, we might be able to say that Iverson or Kobe or Shaq or all three were the greatest ever. But we can't do that now. Same thing applied when I was a kid. I thought Mickey Mantle was the greatest ever. My dad thought Babe Ruth was. I thought my dad was an idiot, an old fogie. But now I realize I was definitely wrong (though Mickey was a great one) and that my dad may well have been right. So sometimes young folks lack the perspective to really understand the questions. (Sorry. It's true.) But sometimes older folks like me like to cling to the notion that the way it was when we were young is the best. Although we have the perspective, we sometimes don't exercise it. For example, I still think 60s music was the best and that rap is crap. Well, that doesn't count, because I'm right on that one, but you know what I mean. So I would recommend that the younger folks try to look at things with perspective. The way it is now isn't necessarily the best way. And the older folks need to keep an open mind. Schmidty, though, got it right when he said that things are never going to go back to the way they were because of money. Hell, they'll probably shorten the game to 6 innings one day just to fit the game into the TV schedule better.

04-08-2002, 04:50 PM	#77
Astros02 All Star Reserve Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Houston Posts: 506	As a 16 year old, I hate the way the game is played. Home runs every game, poor pitching (Partially because of expansion), not much strategy in the AL (DH rule), inflated salaries, teams struggling to compete with the rich franchises, a HORRIBLE commissioner, and a lot of other things I won't mention right now. That's just my perspective, I would like the game back to how it was before 35 homers was an off-season for a lot of players, but we all know that isn't going to happen. What would ESPN do without a "Barry Watch" the third game of the season?!?!?! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

04-08-2002, 05:12 PM	#78
joshuaaaaaa All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 633	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by The Professor: <strong>Mickey Lolich...? Wouldn't Denny McClain better serve in that comparison to Darryl Strawberry?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Oops...Yes he would. I got my old Tigers pitchers confused. My apologies to Mickey __________________ Baltimore Monarchs-GUBA Baltimore Orioles-ORB2 "One of the greatest discoveries a man makes, one of his great surprises, is to find he can do what he was afraid he couldn't do." ~Henry Ford ~

04-09-2002, 07:42 AM	#79
ISiddiqui Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Decatur, Georgia, USA Posts: 30	I am only a 21 year old, but I'd consider myself a traditionalist. I also know that you really can't turn the clock back (ie, we are going to keep 3 divisions per league for a while, etc.). But these are my beliefs: DH Horrible. Just no need for it anymore. It was introduced to increase offense, because in 1973 (or there abouts) the game was pitching dominated. There is no need for that anymore. Players should be players, if you field, you should hit, and vice versa. Selig actually was smart on this (imagine that) and offered the MLBPA to add another roster spot to each team, if the DH was taken away in the AL. The MLBPA refused, showing their true colors. Saying that, I don't think Free Agency is bad at all. I just think that there should be comprehensive revenue sharing, with minimim and maximum salary caps (and floors). Wildcard This probably isn't going away, but I don't like it. Someone refered to the 1993 race between Atlanta and San Fran, where Atlanta won 103 games and got to move on and San Fran won 102 games and stayed home. Even though I rooted for the Giants, I thought that was great. It added something to the end of the year. If there was a wildcard then, both teams would have qualified for the playoffs earlier, and the late season drama (with the Dodgers beating the Giants on the last day to prevent a playoff... ouch) were unparallel. I've never seen a season like that, and I fear I never will (and no, even though I live in New Jersey, the Subway Series of 2000 doesn't compare... at all). Bob Costas had a great idea (which merges the WC with Divisions)... to take away the Wild Card, and just have the division winners play each other. The team with the best record would get a bye for the first round. It sounded like the smartest plan to me. Of course it seems the WC is here to stay . Hopefully it won't expand any further. We don't want to turn this into the NHL where just about every team is in the playoff race until the last week of the season no matter what their record is (even if they are 0-80 <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> ). Interleague I'd like to quote something someone earlier said: </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I likewise hate interleague play, but, as a Royals fan from the middle of Kansas, there's no other way I'm ever going to see Barry Bonds play in person, so I take it as a necessary evil.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You won't anyway. The way the numnuts drew up interleague play, the AL East plays the NL East and the Central plays the Central, etc., for time immemoral!! This is silly. Interleague play was for people to see players they've never seen before. They still can't see them. If they were going to do interleague play, they should have rotated which division plays which division. You still would have Yankees-Mets every three years. I mean, you play them every year, and in 5 years, it'll get old and stale. If you rotate divisions, then when it comes back to the East v. East, you got something to talk about. That said, I'm against interleague play in general. I think AL players should only face off against NL players in Spring Training, the All Star Game, and the World Series. Thus endeth my sermon. Carry on .

04-09-2002, 07:53 AM	#80
GForce22 Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 2,654	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Khaos: <strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Tree: <strong>If there were a DH in the '20s, Babe Ruth never would've hit a home run. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Would you explain this statement please?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I'm assuming he means because they never would have seen Ruth hit since he was a pitcher, so they never would have converted him to a hitter. GH