Purists: Explain thyselves - Page 5

GForce22 · 04-09-2002, 08:58 AM

as per the Wildcard, it seems the argument is that if you can't win your division you shouldn't be in the playoffs vs. what if you're in a better division (someone gave the 1993 Giants/Braves I think as an example). What about the wildcard being only an option if the wildcard team has a better record than one of the other two division winners in that team's league. if not, then it goes Costas' way, with a bye round for the best record. Just a thought. I like the wild card, but I understand the view of those who don't.

GH

Scott Vibert · 04-09-2002, 09:17 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ISiddiqui:
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!! <hr /></blockquote>You are incorrect, starting this year the teams now rotate their interleague games through the league. This year the AL East plays the NL West. Each team keeps its one "natural" rival (for Boston its the Atlanta Braves).

Here is a link to the Red Sox June schedule to verify this:

<a href="http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/bos/schedule/bos_schedule_calendar.jsp?m=6&y=2002&club_context= bos" target="_blank">http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/bos/schedule/bos_schedule_calendar.jsp?m=6&y=2002&club_context= bos</a>

ISiddiqui · 04-09-2002, 10:16 AM

Huh... they actually did something smart for once.

Well, thumbs up to that

.

mad0die · 05-07-2002, 12:28 PM

From reading this long topic, it's obvious we all have different opinions about wild card, DH, interleague, free agency, etc. Many of these issues will change in the future as they have changed in the past. Nothing is constant. I think it's more important to the game of baseball to discuss the current financial landscape then to discuss the merits of the DH.

Baseball is not a financially healthy sport. The gap between the haves and the have nots is too damn wide. How can you have a team spend $100 mill on payroll playing against a team that spends $15 mill on payroll and expect me to view that as fair competition?

I love the statistical side of baseball, but I just can't get into it when the successful teams are by and large pre-determined. Might as well just watch professional wrestling.

Jason Moyer · 05-07-2002, 01:51 PM

Wildcard - If you can't win your division after 162 games, you shouldn't have a chance at winning the league championship.

DH Rule - Uh, why even have managers in the American League? Some people have said that this removes some strategy from baseball - I'd go further and say it removes all strategy. Working around a sub .100 hitting pitcher is what managerial strategy is all about. Every inning of every game a National League manager has to make some sort of strategic decision. Do you bunt with one out, a runner on first, and your groundball-hitting #7 hitter up, knowing that you might have to lead off an inning with your pitcher? Do you make a double switch with 2 outs in the top of the 7th after the pitcher loads the bases in a 4-1 game or do you leave him in, knowing that there's a 70% chance he'll retire the next batter and you can just pinch hit for him in the bottom of the inning?

All managers in the American league do is fill out a lineup card and bring in relief pitchers, and he'd have the hitting coach and pitching coach making these decisions in a lot of cases anyway.

Interleague - The World Series and All-Star game have lost much of their luster since this was introduced. As a child in the 80's I tuned into the All-Star game each and every year, not so much because of the "all star" nature of the game and the hoopla but because it was the only time I'd get to see how Mike Schmidt handled Ron Guidry. Now they'd face each other at least 20 times since the Phils/Yanks are a geographical rivalry. There was something special about the World Series when you couldn't really compare the two teams, since they hadn't played each other before. Now you know how Roger Clemens fares against Mike Piazza while he's standing in the on-deck circle for the first time in Game 1.

Unlike Malleus, I can't simply point to a time in baseball that I would really like more than the current one. I wish I could fuse a few different eras. I'd love to have the overall balance of talent in the 80's with the league structure and rules of the 50's and the personalities of the early part of the century.

While I'm fantasizing, if I were baseball commissioner I'd do the following. Move the Twins back to DC. Contract the Brewers, Expos, Marlins, and Devil Rays. Go back to 4 divisions. Eliminate the DH. Raise the pitching mound. Outlaw astroturf (with a grandfather clause, of course). Reinstate the Black Sox (they would've won the series if baseball had adaquate security - Lefty Williams threw the last game because of death threats) and Pete Rose. Along the line with the last part, stop pretending baseball is above the law, voluntarily remove the antitrust exemption, and allow the sport to be run like a normal business.

Edit: I'd also encourage the hiring of women as players, managers, and GM's. If I owned a team I'd do it myself.

Jason

[ 05-07-2002, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: Jason Moyer ]

JAttractive · 05-07-2002, 02:19 PM

DH- As a big fan of the Toronto Blue Jays I am torn on this issue. On one hand I find the lack of strategy in most games to be boring and find the NL style exciting. However when I think about perhaps never having seen Paul Molitor or Dave Winfield during the teams championships days then I can see the benefits of it. Then again it was extremely exciting watching David Cone get a hit in the world series. I guess it all comes down to who you have as the DH determines whether it adds or subtracts, which may not be a good thing (especially on poor teams who likely have weaker DHs). Having it as a difference between the leagues seems a good way to go though I would not be entirely opposed to removing them completely.

Wild Card - I understand the reasons against this but I am still for it overall. Number one, their are too many teams (with a large variety in finances) and without a Wild Card some teams may never see any chance of the playoffs.

Number two, their can still be exciting races for the wild card itself and the longer teams are in the hunt for a playoff spot the more enjoyment we can expect for the fans. I know I often stop caring once it is clear the Jays are out and wait for the Leafs and Raptors to start up. Maybe I am not the most loyal of fans but I don't believe in supporting a poor product. You will pay for it in the long run if management knows they can field a sub par product and still have a packed stadium.

Hockey has amazing playoffs and over half the league makes it in! Hell I wish baseball was like this actually. You can have teams built for the playoffs, you have a reason to watch all year long and to get through so many rounds you are almost guaranteed a top team will win it.

I enjoy that a team who is maybe not the best but who elevates itself when the chips are down can win. I enjoy that just because one team destroyed the league during the season means little when the playoffs come around (not a guaranteed pass to the finals).

The best team overall during the year does not automatically win the World Series (ie. the Jays won two in a row but were never the top team during the regular season) anyway.

Earn it when it counts! The regular season is still fun to watch for stats, record breaking, to judge the teams etc. Sure purists would hate it but if it means making baseball more enjoyable for the average fan (things are not looking optimistic right now) I say go for it.

More teams simply requires more playoffs in my mind or 90 percent of the fans have nothing to cheer for! In the old days with less teams this was not a big problem so you can't compare everything to back then!

Situations change, adapt or die off (which is where baseball is headed).

IatricSB · 05-07-2002, 02:31 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JW:
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.
<hr /></blockquote>Hilarious, but true.

OldGiants · 05-07-2002, 02:53 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Le Grande Orange:

Does anyone still remember the days when the NFL had the goal posts on the goaline and not at the back of the endzone? They had it that way for some 40 years. Which way is better?

<hr /></blockquote>Well, that's a no-brainer. How can you run a post pattern when there's no post to run your man into?

Spielman · 05-07-2002, 03:02 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JAttractive:
[QB]
Hockey has amazing playoffs and over half the league makes it in! Hell I wish baseball was like this actually. You can have teams built for the playoffs, you have a reason to watch all year long and to get through so many rounds you are almost guaranteed a top team will win it.
QB]<hr /></blockquote>There's a reason to watch the regular season? Really? I love hockey, but I haven't noticed one yet. Could you please enlighten me as to what this hidden reason might be?

-Spielman

jmel07 · 05-07-2002, 03:43 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />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

<hr /></blockquote>I'd like to throw my 2 cents in on this. Being a Brewer fan (And in no way a Selig fan), I've had the experience of following AL baseball and NL baseball. When the Brewers were an AL team I also never paid any attention to "the league that let pitchers hit". Once the Brewers moved to the National League I could never again find myself as interested in the AL. I thought having pitchers hit was a waste of an AB, but that's how I was biased by my AL only view. Once you try NL you'll never go back.

blmeanie · 05-07-2002, 04:21 PM

[/QUOTE]I'd like to throw my 2 cents in on this. Being a Brewer fan (And in no way a Selig fan), I've had the experience of following AL baseball and NL baseball. When the Brewers were an AL team I also never paid any attention to "the league that let pitchers hit". Once the Brewers moved to the National League I could never again find myself as interested in the AL. I thought having pitchers hit was a waste of an AB, but that's how I was biased by my AL only view. Once you try NL you'll never go back.[/QB][/QUOTE]

Same here, I grew up in Boston in the 70's and moved to Atlanta in 1990 and dreaded the game with pitchers hitting. Now it is hard to watch AL ball and enjoy as much (note I didn't say at all)

toanstrom · 05-07-2002, 04:52 PM

<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>WHAT! I generally agree with you, at least on the DH interleague play and the three division set-up, two was fine, but this has to be the most idiotic argument ive ever seen. Simply because I wasnt born before you I somehow dont have a right to pass judgement on things, by your reasoning maybe Strom Thurmond should run the country since hes been around longer than anyone else in the Senate! I am 21 but I dont think I have any less of a right than you or anyone else to tell me how things should be, young people have made most of the sweeping changes to this society, as someone alive in the 1960's you should know that better than anyone take a look at groups like SNCC and tell me what America would look like today if they let their elders make their decisions for them. Assuming you know more than someone else and that your opinion matters more than theirs simply because you are older is one of ultimate acts of arrogance and ignorance. Think about it.

Netsky · 05-07-2002, 06:00 PM

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet but those of you who say that pitchers can't hit are right but there are several pitchers who are as good at hitting then some of the Dh's in the AL (Livan Hernandez nearly set the record for consecutive at-bats with a hit/Mike Hampton hitting homers as good as some players/Babe Ruth)

Halo Fan · 05-08-2002, 05:34 AM

A minor bone to pick with Mallus Dei: while I agree with you on the subjects of interleague play and the godforsaken DH rule, I don't think that being older or having "been there" is all that great of a rationale for arguing against these abominations. I am only 30, so guess what - I wasn't "there," but I can still see how the DH rule and watered down pitching has ruined baseball. Hell, the game isn't what it was 10 years ago - let alone 40. My point, though, is that it's not much of an argument to simply tell everyone under the age of 50 or so "shut up, I know better." Lots of things have changed in the past 50-60 years - some good, some bad. Isn't it better to make a rational argument in favor of the good and against the bad, than to just say "you young people don't know anything"? IMHO, the way to change people's minds about an issue is to discuss it on the merits, not just flame everyone under a certain age b/c "you're too young to know."

Henry · 05-08-2002, 06:17 AM

taonstrom, halo fan, and others...

LOL... I swore to myself I wouldn't get into this thread again... so much for swearing

Mal and I are "older", yes, but I don't think this is an issue of who knows what as much as it is an unwillingness of the younger crowd to realize that only if you were there can you speak to the "feelings" and "emotions" of what the game was. Looking at statistics and reading histories doesn't cover what we are talking about. I would love to write a book about what's happened to the "game" - why the multitude of changes that have occurred has resulted in a totally different "game" than what was there when we were younger.

I'm not necessarily saying the game today is "trash". When looked at by itself, it is, in it's own right, a great game. Part of that game is free agency, contracts, big money, stronger players, profits, TV contracts, player union, MBL/MBLPA licensing, etc. etc. etc.

When you look at the "old game", it was truly a "game" for the love of the game. I'm not saying there weren't problems then too - but far fewer than the list above. At that time, the major interest in baseball was baseball. It was truer to what it was designed to be... and there is why us "old timers" tend to expound on the fact it was better.

Today's game is fun - heck, I watch it, and I play OOTP and I simply love baseball... but when given a choice, I would go back to the non-DH, non division, 16 team organization of the past.

Just for the record... I know baseball had to change and don't argue that - but I do argue LOUDLY that it could have been done better. I've said above that the Pacific Coast League of the early 50s and the Continental League of 1960 should have been allowed to join the major leagues. Today we would have the original American and National east coast clubs... the eight team Pacific Coast league would contain the far west, and the Continental League would have covered mid-America. 32 clubs broken into 4 eight team geographical divisions (maybe even further broken down into 4 team subdivisions for playoffs). No wildcard, no DH, even schedules, reduced travel, reasonable management leading to reasonable salaries...

Oh well, that's why we have fantasy leagues.

One more thing about the DH. It stinks. It's easy for someone to say I wouldn't have seen so-and-so play, but that's the case with everything associated to a time line. Even with the DH, you didn't (or your kids won't) get to see many past players... a lousy reason to justify a rule that basically reduces the manager to a figure-head... much like what happened to English royalty. It's laughable to fire an American league manager these days... having the pitcher bat WAS and IS the major decision(s) a manager has to face. Everything else he does (pinching hitting, pitcher decisions, hit and run, bunt) revolves around what to do about his pitcher. Removing that decision effects everything.

Ok... I could go on forever... write a book, like I said LOL.

I don't want to create a chasm between the young guys and the old guys... I simply want to point out that it's much more difficult for someone who wasn't there to experience it day to day to understand the differences and how they truly effected the game... and some of those changes could be reversed if the powers to be were more interested in the culture of baseball rather than how much money they were making.

The DH doesn't sell more tickets - or else the NL would show it... the wildcard wouldn't be needed if divisions were only 4-5 teams each, and I can't believe for a minute the only reason baseball survives today is because of the homerun. You can't tell me a pitching duel isn't just as exciting, hit and run plays, stolen bases, perfectly executed bunts... all things that were needed when runs were scarce... heck, as an AL manager today, all you need is 9 power hitters that strike enough fear in pitchers to increase their walks. That and a few homers and you have 10 runs a game... more than enough to compete - and getting 9 power hitters isn't all that hard if you have more money than anyone else.

See? Where does the manager and his abilities play into this ?

Whew... man can I get on a soapbox

Cards4ever · 05-08-2002, 07:05 AM

You know, if you guys were really "purists", you'd also be screaming for the lights to come down.

The game wasn't perfect then, it's not perfect now and I don't think it ever will. One thing I think we all can agree on is, we need to get Bud Selig out of office.

Henry · 05-08-2002, 07:18 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Cards4ever:
You know, if you guys were really "purists", you'd also be screaming for the lights to come down.

The game wasn't perfect then, it's not perfect now and I don't think it ever will. One thing I think we all can agree on is, we need to get Bud Selig out of office.<hr /></blockquote>Cardsforever,

Define "perfect". I wasn't saying the game was perfect then... it was "different" and closer to a game than a business. What is wrong with saying that game was more of what it was intended to be?

I don't love baseball because it's a business, I love it because it's a game... and anything that makes it more of a business and less of a game is going to bother me.

Let's move forward 40 years or so... if, by that time, player contracts have a maximum 2 year term with no extensions (forcing players to move every two years) or they decide to use aluminum bats, or games are reduced to 7 innings to shorten them, or pitchers get insurance policies on their arms that limit them to no more than three innings per game, or a 2nd All-Star game is added, or the 2nd half of the season is set aside for a tournament... would you be telling your grandkids about how the "old" game was better ?

That's all this is about.... the game rules are being changed not for the purpose to make the game better, but for the purpose of making more money. That's wrong, plain and simple.

[ 05-08-2002, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Henry ]

Malleus Dei · 05-08-2002, 07:30 AM

"A minor bone to pick with Mallus Dei: while I agree with you on the subjects of interleague play and the godforsaken DH rule, I don't think that being older or having "been there" is all that great of a rationale for arguing against these abominations."

I saw it when it was better, and I see it now. I don't have to speculate or guess, I KNOW.

"I can still see how the DH rule and watered down pitching has ruined baseball. Hell, the game isn't what it was 10 years ago - let alone 40."

Congratulations, you have eyes and a functioning brain!

"Lots of things have changed in the past 50-60 years - some good, some bad."

True. Personal computers, the Internet, and ATM's are the three most positive changes that I've seen.

"Isn't it better to make a rational argument in favor of the good and against the bad,"

You don't have to make a "rational argument" when you were a witness. All you have to do is to tell people what you saw. You want a rational argument against Communism? I could probably give you one, but the mass graves of the six thousand innocent civilians massacred by the Communists at Hue during Tet 1968 speaks louder than any "rational argument" ever will. Ditto the Berlin Wall.

"than to just say "you young people don't know
anything'?"

The problem with that logic is that 99% of the young people really DON'T know anything. (It's not their fault, they weren't taught anything in school, nor were they ever taught how to learn on their own. The other 1% are the only hope of the future.)

"IMHO, the way to change people's minds about an issue is to discuss it on the merits, not just flame everyone under a certain age b/c 'you're too young to know.'"

Sure and that's a point of view. The problem remains, however, that 99% of them really don't know anything, that almost none of them know how to engage in rational and rhetorical argument (they prefer dismissal and direct personal insults), and that all of them under a certain age really are too young to know.

You figured it out, but you don't KNOW. Those of us who saw it KNOW.

And that's the difference.

Cards4ever · 05-08-2002, 07:36 AM

I don't think you are following me. I'm saying there is no such thing as a purist. People that call themselves that are deceiving themselves. Hence, my example of no lights.

Things change, that's the way it goes. Personally I like having digital cable so I can dial up my choice of games every night. If I was a purist, I wouldn't get the chance to do that, cause the games would be played in the afternoon when I'm at work.

Do I like the DH? No

Do I like interleague play? No

Do I think there is 2 teams too many in baseball? Yes

Do I think the strike zone is not called properly? Yes

Do I hate the softball type uniforms? Yes

Am I a purist/traditionalist? No

I like retractable roofs and wildcards and the unbalanced schedule. Without the unbalanced schedule you might as well have the whole league in one division and the top 4 make the playoffs.

So, I think mixing the past with the present is good. There's nothing wrong for hankering for the "good old days", but hey, to todays younger people, these days are their future "good old days".

Malleus Dei · 05-08-2002, 08:56 AM

Cards has it right. Not all change is bad (just almost all of it, but not all of it). Night games are good - as long as playoff and World Serie games are played during hours where kids can see the end of each game.

As the Spanish proverb says, "May no new thing arise," new things being generally - but not necessarily - inherently evil.

04-09-2002, 09:17 AM	#82
Scott Vibert Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: My Computer Posts: 8,210	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by ISiddiqui: <strong>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!! </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You are incorrect, starting this year the teams now rotate their interleague games through the league. This year the AL East plays the NL West. Each team keeps its one "natural" rival (for Boston its the Atlanta Braves). Here is a link to the Red Sox June schedule to verify this: <a href="http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/bos/schedule/bos_schedule_calendar.jsp?m=6&y=2002&club_context= bos" target="_blank">http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/bos/schedule/bos_schedule_calendar.jsp?m=6&y=2002&club_context= bos</a>

05-07-2002, 12:28 PM	#84
mad0die All Star Reserve Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: TX Posts: 913	From reading this long topic, it's obvious we all have different opinions about wild card, DH, interleague, free agency, etc. Many of these issues will change in the future as they have changed in the past. Nothing is constant. I think it's more important to the game of baseball to discuss the current financial landscape then to discuss the merits of the DH. Baseball is not a financially healthy sport. The gap between the haves and the have nots is too damn wide. How can you have a team spend $100 mill on payroll playing against a team that spends $15 mill on payroll and expect me to view that as fair competition? I love the statistical side of baseball, but I just can't get into it when the successful teams are by and large pre-determined. Might as well just watch professional wrestling. __________________ Commish GUBA

05-07-2002, 01:51 PM	#85
Jason Moyer Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 5,088	Wildcard - If you can't win your division after 162 games, you shouldn't have a chance at winning the league championship. DH Rule - Uh, why even have managers in the American League? Some people have said that this removes some strategy from baseball - I'd go further and say it removes all strategy. Working around a sub .100 hitting pitcher is what managerial strategy is all about. Every inning of every game a National League manager has to make some sort of strategic decision. Do you bunt with one out, a runner on first, and your groundball-hitting #7 hitter up, knowing that you might have to lead off an inning with your pitcher? Do you make a double switch with 2 outs in the top of the 7th after the pitcher loads the bases in a 4-1 game or do you leave him in, knowing that there's a 70% chance he'll retire the next batter and you can just pinch hit for him in the bottom of the inning? All managers in the American league do is fill out a lineup card and bring in relief pitchers, and he'd have the hitting coach and pitching coach making these decisions in a lot of cases anyway. Interleague - The World Series and All-Star game have lost much of their luster since this was introduced. As a child in the 80's I tuned into the All-Star game each and every year, not so much because of the "all star" nature of the game and the hoopla but because it was the only time I'd get to see how Mike Schmidt handled Ron Guidry. Now they'd face each other at least 20 times since the Phils/Yanks are a geographical rivalry. There was something special about the World Series when you couldn't really compare the two teams, since they hadn't played each other before. Now you know how Roger Clemens fares against Mike Piazza while he's standing in the on-deck circle for the first time in Game 1. Unlike Malleus, I can't simply point to a time in baseball that I would really like more than the current one. I wish I could fuse a few different eras. I'd love to have the overall balance of talent in the 80's with the league structure and rules of the 50's and the personalities of the early part of the century. While I'm fantasizing, if I were baseball commissioner I'd do the following. Move the Twins back to DC. Contract the Brewers, Expos, Marlins, and Devil Rays. Go back to 4 divisions. Eliminate the DH. Raise the pitching mound. Outlaw astroturf (with a grandfather clause, of course). Reinstate the Black Sox (they would've won the series if baseball had adaquate security - Lefty Williams threw the last game because of death threats) and Pete Rose. Along the line with the last part, stop pretending baseball is above the law, voluntarily remove the antitrust exemption, and allow the sport to be run like a normal business. Edit: I'd also encourage the hiring of women as players, managers, and GM's. If I owned a team I'd do it myself. Jason <small>[ 05-07-2002, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: Jason Moyer ]</small> __________________ "I pretty much popped everything cold turkey. We were doing steroids they wouldn't give to horses." -- Tom House "I was very fortunate to have a pitching coach by the name of Tom House...Tom, I really miss those days that we spent in the weight room and out on the field working together." -- Nolan Ryan's HoF Induction Speech

05-07-2002, 02:31 PM	#87
IatricSB Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: California Posts: 3,493	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by JW: <strong>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. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Hilarious, but true. __________________ Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body; but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, "Wow! What a Ride!" Chicago(N) - Boys of Summer Oakland - 20th Century League Bakersfield - Wild Things Brooklyn - QBA Dodge City - NBSL California - ABC Dodger's Senioriest fan on the OOTP Boards

05-07-2002, 02:53 PM	#88
OldGiants Registered User Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 211	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Le Grande Orange: <strong> Does anyone still remember the days when the NFL had the goal posts on the goaline and not at the back of the endzone? They had it that way for some 40 years. Which way is better? </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Well, that's a no-brainer. How can you run a post pattern when there's no post to run your man into?

04-09-2002, 08:58 AM	#81
GForce22 Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 2,654	as per the Wildcard, it seems the argument is that if you can't win your division you shouldn't be in the playoffs vs. what if you're in a better division (someone gave the 1993 Giants/Braves I think as an example). What about the wildcard being only an option if the wildcard team has a better record than one of the other two division winners in that team's league. if not, then it goes Costas' way, with a bye round for the best record. Just a thought. I like the wild card, but I understand the view of those who don't. GH

04-09-2002, 10:16 AM	#83
ISiddiqui Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Decatur, Georgia, USA Posts: 30	Huh... they actually did something smart for once. Well, thumbs up to that .

05-07-2002, 02:19 PM	#86
JAttractive All Star Starter Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Catharines, Ontario Posts: 1,135	DH- As a big fan of the Toronto Blue Jays I am torn on this issue. On one hand I find the lack of strategy in most games to be boring and find the NL style exciting. However when I think about perhaps never having seen Paul Molitor or Dave Winfield during the teams championships days then I can see the benefits of it. Then again it was extremely exciting watching David Cone get a hit in the world series. I guess it all comes down to who you have as the DH determines whether it adds or subtracts, which may not be a good thing (especially on poor teams who likely have weaker DHs). Having it as a difference between the leagues seems a good way to go though I would not be entirely opposed to removing them completely. Wild Card - I understand the reasons against this but I am still for it overall. Number one, their are too many teams (with a large variety in finances) and without a Wild Card some teams may never see any chance of the playoffs. Number two, their can still be exciting races for the wild card itself and the longer teams are in the hunt for a playoff spot the more enjoyment we can expect for the fans. I know I often stop caring once it is clear the Jays are out and wait for the Leafs and Raptors to start up. Maybe I am not the most loyal of fans but I don't believe in supporting a poor product. You will pay for it in the long run if management knows they can field a sub par product and still have a packed stadium. Hockey has amazing playoffs and over half the league makes it in! Hell I wish baseball was like this actually. You can have teams built for the playoffs, you have a reason to watch all year long and to get through so many rounds you are almost guaranteed a top team will win it. I enjoy that a team who is maybe not the best but who elevates itself when the chips are down can win. I enjoy that just because one team destroyed the league during the season means little when the playoffs come around (not a guaranteed pass to the finals). The best team overall during the year does not automatically win the World Series (ie. the Jays won two in a row but were never the top team during the regular season) anyway. Earn it when it counts! The regular season is still fun to watch for stats, record breaking, to judge the teams etc. Sure purists would hate it but if it means making baseball more enjoyable for the average fan (things are not looking optimistic right now) I say go for it. More teams simply requires more playoffs in my mind or 90 percent of the fans have nothing to cheer for! In the old days with less teams this was not a big problem so you can't compare everything to back then! Situations change, adapt or die off (which is where baseball is headed).

05-07-2002, 03:02 PM	#89
Spielman All Star Starter Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: South Carolina Posts: 1,668	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by JAttractive: [QB] Hockey has amazing playoffs and over half the league makes it in! Hell I wish baseball was like this actually. You can have teams built for the playoffs, you have a reason to watch all year long and to get through so many rounds you are almost guaranteed a top team will win it. QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">There's a reason to watch the regular season? Really? I love hockey, but I haven't noticed one yet. Could you please enlighten me as to what this hidden reason might be? -Spielman __________________ Spielman was at one time the smartest person on these boards. http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...martest+Person I don't believe in AnotherAlias.

05-07-2002, 03:43 PM	#90
jmel07 Minors (Double A) Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Minneapolis Posts: 136	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">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 </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I'd like to throw my 2 cents in on this. Being a Brewer fan (And in no way a Selig fan), I've had the experience of following AL baseball and NL baseball. When the Brewers were an AL team I also never paid any attention to "the league that let pitchers hit". Once the Brewers moved to the National League I could never again find myself as interested in the AL. I thought having pitchers hit was a waste of an AB, but that's how I was biased by my AL only view. Once you try NL you'll never go back.

05-07-2002, 04:21 PM	#91
blmeanie All Star Starter Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Atlanta Posts: 1,044	[/QUOTE]I'd like to throw my 2 cents in on this. Being a Brewer fan (And in no way a Selig fan), I've had the experience of following AL baseball and NL baseball. When the Brewers were an AL team I also never paid any attention to "the league that let pitchers hit". Once the Brewers moved to the National League I could never again find myself as interested in the AL. I thought having pitchers hit was a waste of an AB, but that's how I was biased by my AL only view. Once you try NL you'll never go back.[/QB][/QUOTE] Same here, I grew up in Boston in the 70's and moved to Atlanta in 1990 and dreaded the game with pitchers hitting. Now it is hard to watch AL ball and enjoy as much (note I didn't say at all) __________________ blmeanie email me at blmeanie Above link works for some email client programs but not all, email me at blmeanie33@earthlink.net

05-07-2002, 04:52 PM	#92
toanstrom Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 277	</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">WHAT! I generally agree with you, at least on the DH interleague play and the three division set-up, two was fine, but this has to be the most idiotic argument ive ever seen. Simply because I wasnt born before you I somehow dont have a right to pass judgement on things, by your reasoning maybe Strom Thurmond should run the country since hes been around longer than anyone else in the Senate! I am 21 but I dont think I have any less of a right than you or anyone else to tell me how things should be, young people have made most of the sweeping changes to this society, as someone alive in the 1960's you should know that better than anyone take a look at groups like SNCC and tell me what America would look like today if they let their elders make their decisions for them. Assuming you know more than someone else and that your opinion matters more than theirs simply because you are older is one of ultimate acts of arrogance and ignorance. Think about it.

05-07-2002, 06:00 PM	#93
Netsky Bat Boy Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Central Coast CA Posts: 19	I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet but those of you who say that pitchers can't hit are right but there are several pitchers who are as good at hitting then some of the Dh's in the AL (Livan Hernandez nearly set the record for consecutive at-bats with a hit/Mike Hampton hitting homers as good as some players/Babe Ruth) __________________ WSBL-SF Giants TBL-Capital City Giants

05-08-2002, 05:34 AM	#94
Halo Fan Minors (Single A) Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: California Posts: 71	A minor bone to pick with Mallus Dei: while I agree with you on the subjects of interleague play and the godforsaken DH rule, I don't think that being older or having "been there" is all that great of a rationale for arguing against these abominations. I am only 30, so guess what - I wasn't "there," but I can still see how the DH rule and watered down pitching has ruined baseball. Hell, the game isn't what it was 10 years ago - let alone 40. My point, though, is that it's not much of an argument to simply tell everyone under the age of 50 or so "shut up, I know better." Lots of things have changed in the past 50-60 years - some good, some bad. Isn't it better to make a rational argument in favor of the good and against the bad, than to just say "you young people don't know anything"? IMHO, the way to change people's minds about an issue is to discuss it on the merits, not just flame everyone under a certain age b/c "you're too young to know."

05-08-2002, 06:17 AM	#95
Henry Hall of Fame Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 6,498	taonstrom, halo fan, and others... LOL... I swore to myself I wouldn't get into this thread again... so much for swearing Mal and I are "older", yes, but I don't think this is an issue of who knows what as much as it is an unwillingness of the younger crowd to realize that only if you were there can you speak to the "feelings" and "emotions" of what the game was. Looking at statistics and reading histories doesn't cover what we are talking about. I would love to write a book about what's happened to the "game" - why the multitude of changes that have occurred has resulted in a totally different "game" than what was there when we were younger. I'm not necessarily saying the game today is "trash". When looked at by itself, it is, in it's own right, a great game. Part of that game is free agency, contracts, big money, stronger players, profits, TV contracts, player union, MBL/MBLPA licensing, etc. etc. etc. When you look at the "old game", it was truly a "game" for the love of the game. I'm not saying there weren't problems then too - but far fewer than the list above. At that time, the major interest in baseball was baseball. It was truer to what it was designed to be... and there is why us "old timers" tend to expound on the fact it was better. Today's game is fun - heck, I watch it, and I play OOTP and I simply love baseball... but when given a choice, I would go back to the non-DH, non division, 16 team organization of the past. Just for the record... I know baseball had to change and don't argue that - but I do argue LOUDLY that it could have been done better. I've said above that the Pacific Coast League of the early 50s and the Continental League of 1960 should have been allowed to join the major leagues. Today we would have the original American and National east coast clubs... the eight team Pacific Coast league would contain the far west, and the Continental League would have covered mid-America. 32 clubs broken into 4 eight team geographical divisions (maybe even further broken down into 4 team subdivisions for playoffs). No wildcard, no DH, even schedules, reduced travel, reasonable management leading to reasonable salaries... Oh well, that's why we have fantasy leagues. One more thing about the DH. It stinks. It's easy for someone to say I wouldn't have seen so-and-so play, but that's the case with everything associated to a time line. Even with the DH, you didn't (or your kids won't) get to see many past players... a lousy reason to justify a rule that basically reduces the manager to a figure-head... much like what happened to English royalty. It's laughable to fire an American league manager these days... having the pitcher bat WAS and IS the major decision(s) a manager has to face. Everything else he does (pinching hitting, pitcher decisions, hit and run, bunt) revolves around what to do about his pitcher. Removing that decision effects everything. Ok... I could go on forever... write a book, like I said LOL. I don't want to create a chasm between the young guys and the old guys... I simply want to point out that it's much more difficult for someone who wasn't there to experience it day to day to understand the differences and how they truly effected the game... and some of those changes could be reversed if the powers to be were more interested in the culture of baseball rather than how much money they were making. The DH doesn't sell more tickets - or else the NL would show it... the wildcard wouldn't be needed if divisions were only 4-5 teams each, and I can't believe for a minute the only reason baseball survives today is because of the homerun. You can't tell me a pitching duel isn't just as exciting, hit and run plays, stolen bases, perfectly executed bunts... all things that were needed when runs were scarce... heck, as an AL manager today, all you need is 9 power hitters that strike enough fear in pitchers to increase their walks. That and a few homers and you have 10 runs a game... more than enough to compete - and getting 9 power hitters isn't all that hard if you have more money than anyone else. See? Where does the manager and his abilities play into this ? Whew... man can I get on a soapbox

05-08-2002, 07:05 AM	#96
Cards4ever Bat Boy Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Bloomington, MN Posts: 18	You know, if you guys were really "purists", you'd also be screaming for the lights to come down. The game wasn't perfect then, it's not perfect now and I don't think it ever will. One thing I think we all can agree on is, we need to get Bud Selig out of office.

05-08-2002, 07:18 AM	#97
Henry Hall of Fame Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 6,498	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Cards4ever: <strong>You know, if you guys were really "purists", you'd also be screaming for the lights to come down. The game wasn't perfect then, it's not perfect now and I don't think it ever will. One thing I think we all can agree on is, we need to get Bud Selig out of office.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Cardsforever, Define "perfect". I wasn't saying the game was perfect then... it was "different" and closer to a game than a business. What is wrong with saying that game was more of what it was intended to be? I don't love baseball because it's a business, I love it because it's a game... and anything that makes it more of a business and less of a game is going to bother me. Let's move forward 40 years or so... if, by that time, player contracts have a maximum 2 year term with no extensions (forcing players to move every two years) or they decide to use aluminum bats, or games are reduced to 7 innings to shorten them, or pitchers get insurance policies on their arms that limit them to no more than three innings per game, or a 2nd All-Star game is added, or the 2nd half of the season is set aside for a tournament... would you be telling your grandkids about how the "old" game was better ? That's all this is about.... the game rules are being changed not for the purpose to make the game better, but for the purpose of making more money. That's wrong, plain and simple. <small>[ 05-08-2002, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Henry ]</small>

05-08-2002, 07:36 AM	#99
Cards4ever Bat Boy Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Bloomington, MN Posts: 18	I don't think you are following me. I'm saying there is no such thing as a purist. People that call themselves that are deceiving themselves. Hence, my example of no lights. Things change, that's the way it goes. Personally I like having digital cable so I can dial up my choice of games every night. If I was a purist, I wouldn't get the chance to do that, cause the games would be played in the afternoon when I'm at work. Do I like the DH? No Do I like interleague play? No Do I think there is 2 teams too many in baseball? Yes Do I think the strike zone is not called properly? Yes Do I hate the softball type uniforms? Yes Am I a purist/traditionalist? No I like retractable roofs and wildcards and the unbalanced schedule. Without the unbalanced schedule you might as well have the whole league in one division and the top 4 make the playoffs. So, I think mixing the past with the present is good. There's nothing wrong for hankering for the "good old days", but hey, to todays younger people, these days are their future "good old days".