Purists: Explain thyselves - Page 7

Crapshoot · 05-09-2002, 10:42 PM

Also, Sox and Buccanear, I agree that we each have our own perspective of things. Nonetheless, there is a difference in presenting your views as "this is what I think" and "Im right, and youre not." I respect our differences in opinion, and I understand that we see baseball from different perspectives. I do apologize for ranting earlier; its just that seeing the same attitude over and over again gets annoying..
thanks,
Aadik

Philetus · 05-10-2002, 12:31 AM

Ahhh, I finally made it to the end (well, at least onto the fifth page. I nodded off somewhere on page three and woke back up just a few inches above here…)

First, there are so many more things right with baseball than are wrong with baseball that we, collectively, wouldn’t have the time to count them. I get vaguely annoyed with the endless rants that baseball is so broken that it could not possibly be fixed. As long as the bases stay at 90 feet, I can overlook a whole lot of stuff.

And I do overlook a lot.

I was convinced that I wasn’t coming back after the ’94 strike. Convinced and dead-set. Until the 11th-hour handshake and Opening Day. When I tuned in to watch a full day of Opening Day coverage, six months after a bunch of over-paid blowhards (on both sides) cancelled MY World Series, that’s when I knew I was an addict. And I still say it’s the best game in the world.

As for the topics at hand, though:

The designated hitter: Yes, it does provide an offensive boost, and yes, it does cut down on the strategy of the game. You can argue that baseball still needs the same offensive boost it needed in 1972, but I don’t think you’ll win that argument. As for the strategy, the DH dramatically simplifies the handling of starting pitching (you don’t have to worry about where you are in the batting order), relief pitching (you can allow a reliever to work as long as you want without worrying about hitting for him), batting situations (a .220 ninth-place hitter will almost always swing away with one out and a runner on; a sure-out pitcher either swings, bunts, tries to play hit and run or just tries to lean into one), substitutions (shrinking a pitching staff from 11 or 12 to 10 men allows for more bench players, and more pinch hitting options) and a whole big conflagration of beanball wars (look it up: dramatically more bench-clearing beanball wars in the AL. Why? A National League pitcher who plunks a batter better be real good at ducking out of the way when he comes up to bat next inning...). Also, no one seems to realized that the DH is against the rules… Rule 1.01a (I think that’s the designation) states something along the lines of: Baseball is a game played by nine players a side. Not nine players in a field, and a different nine players in the batting orders. At the least, it’s kind of amusing that no one ever thought to update that bit of the rule book.

As far as pitchers hitting, I challenge anyone to come up with a better moment of the 2000 season (yes, including the inner-city championship of New York) than watching Greg Maddux legging out a triple. In the immortal words of one of the Braves announcers, “It’s replaced the Kentucky Derby as the most exciting two minutes in sports.”

The wild card, and the three-division system: While I would much rather see seven- or eight-team divisions, I know that’s not going to happen. Owners are convinced that it is easier to sell to the fans a fourth-place team in a bad division that it is to sell a seventh-place team in a stacked division. They’re probably right. Adding the third division has necessitated either a wild card, or a first-round bye to the team with the most wins (again, my personal choice would be the bye). What the wild card has done is to essentially make the wild-card race more important than the divisional races. Why? Because the object is to make the playoffs. It is, by definition, easier to make the playoffs as the wild card, because if you’re battling for the wild card, you aren’t good enough to win your division. Thus, division titles have come to mean bragging rights. That’s it. Look at the three-way wild-card race of 1999 The Braves and the Mets faced each other, late in the year, in what is developing into one of the great baseball rivalries. If memory serves, the Mets were one game out coming in, with about six games to play. And they were playing for... well, they were playing to see who they’d face in the playoffs. Not if they would make it. (The Mets then tried to throw the wildcard away, but that’s a different story…) Oh, yeah, and the division title…

Contrast that to the last pennant race: 1993. Braves and Giants. 104 wins to 103. And no safety net. No talk of, “Well, we weren’t good enough to win the division, but there is something waiting for us too.” They weren’t good enough, they went home. Was it bad luck that the Giants played in the only division in baseball that had a team win 104 games? Sure was. But that’s how the game used to be played. Did it hurt? I’m sure it did. Trust me, I know about your team losing games that hurt. I’m a Braves fan…

And don’t even discuss the possibilities of a three-way wild-card tie…

Interleague play: I’m not nearly as emotional about interleague play. I simply don’t like it. It also compounds the problems of the wild-card system, in that you have teams competing for the wild card that didn’t play the same teams in the regular season. If the West is stacked and the Central is depleted, a team that is playing the Central in its interleague games will have a much easier wild-card run than a team playing against the West. If you remove the wild-card, you don’t have this problem, because all the teams you are fighting with for a playoff spot are playing the same schedule.

Contraction: For all of my purist bent, I don’t see any significant problem with contractions. When all of this talk started, I read one columnist who decried pulling baseball out of ‘the great baseball town of Montreal.’ Umm, no. A great baseball town supports a single-A team in a 6,000-seat stadium with 4,000 fans a night. A town that has completely lost interest supports a promising major-league team with some very strong talent, in a stadium that seats 30,000-plus, with 4,000 a game. And I think most people can now agree that the Devil Rays experiment failed. Can we sweep that team under the rug now?

Baseball has contracted before, and it will no doubt do so again sooner or later. So, leave the Twins alone, contract the Expos and Devil Rays (or better yet, move them so the people in D.C. will stop complaining about losing one of the worst teams in major-league history) and be done with it.

Nostalgia: Ahh, to be that one blessed person in a generation who does not have their judgment or their memory clouded by nostalgia. Thank you for setting us straight, Mal. I have no doubt that your mind sees 1968 just as clearly as it sees today, and that your recollections are clearer than any that we will be able to offer about today, when we look back on it in 2036. Personally, I’m so deluded by nostalgia that I can make coherent arguments as to why Bob Horner should be in the Hall of Fame…

And this is only about two pages longer than I expected it to be…
Sorry about that…

The next chapter will be in bookstores next week.

Chopper Johnson
chopperj@bellsouth.net

BaseballMan · 05-10-2002, 12:42 AM

i kinda of like the one league having dh and the other not.

Im not so sure about pitchers being able to bean somebody and get away with it cause what happens the other team beans one of his players and if i was the pitchers teammate i know i wouldnt be happy that i got beaned just because my pitcher was mad that he gave up a homer and beaned a batter.

Malleus Dei · 05-10-2002, 05:25 AM

"My argument is simply that I have read enough and tried to learn enough to have a good picture of what baseball was like back then, and the environment in which it existed, and I (or anyone else on this board) need not have to listen to every argument of yours being that none of us no anything becuase we werent there."

Wow, another ignorant teenager who thinks he knows everything.

I have not been making an argument. I have been stating FACTS. If you weren't there, you can't know. You had to have been there, to experience it, to KNOW.

And if you think books can substitute for real life experience, I pity you. Reading twenty novels about combat will not even give you a clue about what being shot at in anger is like. No Clancy or Bond novel can give you even a hint about what a real war is like. No porn novel or sex manual can teach you what real sex is like. No book, no movie, nothing can prepare you for what it is like to watch your own children being born.

It's called experience. Get some before you mouth off.

Anrhydeddu · 05-10-2002, 08:53 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Q: The bartenders at our fine establishment are having a heated debate ... do you think baseball is still America's favorite sport or do you think football has taken over? My argument is that people around here are only saying football because they're still riding the high of a Super Bowl victory. Others argue that TV ratings and merchandise sales point towards football. What are your thoughts? -- Dick Alexander, Cityside Bar and Grill, Brighton, Mass.
PWG -- OK, I'll come over and have a beer and answer it. Really. The NFL is in a class by itself when it comes to being the No. 1 sport in America. Baseball is trying its best to become No. 5. <hr /></blockquote>This was answered by one of the most esteemed baseball person in the world: Peter Gammons. If you were to believe him (I do), what do YOU think caused baseball to plummet from #1 to #5?

Scott Vibert · 05-10-2002, 09:03 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Philetus:
Also, no one seems to realized that the DH is against the rules… Rule 1.01a (I think that’s the designation) states something along the lines of: Baseball is a game played by nine players a side. Not nine players in a field, and a different nine players in the batting orders. At the least, it’s kind of amusing that no one ever thought to update that bit of the rule book.
<hr /></blockquote>Not true

You are correct with Rule 1.01 mentioning this:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
1.01
Baseball is a game between two teams of nine players each, under direction of a manager, played on an enclosed field in accordance with these rules, under jurisdiction of one or more umpires.
<hr /></blockquote>But they did indeed adjust the rules further in the book:

Here is the Rule allowing the DH: (MLB Rule 6.10)

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
6.10
Any League may elect to use the Designated Hitter Rule. (a) In the event of inter league competition between clubs of Leagues using the Designated Hitter Rule and clubs of Leagues not using the Designated Hitter Rule, the rule will be used as follows: 1. In World Series or exhibition games, the rule will be used or not used as is the practice of the home team. 2. In All Star games, the rule will only be used if both teams and both Leagues so agree. (b) The Rule provides as follows: A hitter may be designated to bat for the starting pitcher and all subsequent pitchers in any game without otherwise affecting the status of the pitcher(s) in the game. A Designated Hitter for the pitcher must be selected prior to the game and must be included in the lineup cards presented to the Umpire in Chief. The designated hitter named in the starting lineup must come to bat at least one time, unless the opposing club changes pitchers. It is not mandatory that a club designate a hitter for the pitcher, but failure to do so prior to the game precludes the use of a Designated Hitter for that game. Pinch hitters for a Designated Hitter may be used. Any substitute hitter for a Designated Hitter becomes the Designated Hitter. A replaced Designated Hitter shall not re enter the game in any capacity. The Designated Hitter may be used defensively, continuing to bat in the same position in the batting order, but the pitcher must then bat in the place of the substituted defensive player, unless more than one substitution is made, and the manager then must designate their spots in the batting order. A runner may be substituted for the Designated Hitter and the runner assumes the role of Designated Hitter. A Designated Hitter may not pinch run. A Designated Hitter is "locked" into the batting order. No multiple substitutions may be made that will alter the batting rotation of the Designated Hitter. Once the game pitcher is switched from the mound to a defensive position this move shall terminate the Designated Hitter role for the remainder of the game. Once a pinch hitter bats for any player in the batting order and then enters the game to pitch, this move shall terminate the Designated Hitter role for the remainder of the game. Once the game pitcher bats for the Designated Hitter this move shall terminate the Designated Hitter role for the remainder of the game. (The game pitcher may only pinch hit for the Designated Hitter). Once a Designated Hitter assumes a defensive position this move shall terminate the Designated Hitter role for the remainder of the game. A substitute for the Designated Hitter need not be announced until it is the Designated Hitter's turn to bat.
<hr /></blockquote>

SoxWin · 05-10-2002, 09:18 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> I have not been making an argument. I have been stating FACTS. If you weren't there, you can't know. You had to have been there, to experience it, to KNOW.
<hr /></blockquote>Mal, having been there and seen old time baseball does give you, Henry, and others a level of knowledge many of us younger posters don't have.

However, IMHO people get upset when you say it's a fact that baseball was better 20, 30, 40 years ago or whenever. It's not a fact, it's an opinion based on personal experience, observation and preference. Not trying to start an argument here, just stating my case.

Cheers

Rich

taffarel · 05-10-2002, 09:22 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Malleus Dei:
Wow, another ignorant teenager who thinks he knows everything.
<hr /></blockquote>That's uncalled for. You are presuming because of his age he knows nothing? I'm willing to bet that you were exactly the same way when you were 19, and don't even try to deny it. And before you start on me, no, I'm not a teenager.

As you say, and to some extent I agree with you, experience counts for a lot. So does youth. You'll do well to remember that. Experience is not the be all and end all of everything, and never will be.

It's all very well to sit and reminisce about "The Good Old Days", and having watched a lot of baseball history (thanks to those new fangled TV and Internet thingies <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> ), I can see why. However, this is not the good old days anymore, and it will never return to that. I can see myself sitting in 30 years time saying exactly the same thing as you MD, but there will be one major difference. I will not dismiss someone's opinion because they were not alive then.

You are correct when you say that books on combat etc are no substitute for experience, and never will be, but without new blood with new idea's the world will stagnate. Youth counts, with or without experience. I respect your opinion MD, and have been brought up to respect my elders, but let's not get ageist.

Anyway, (finally managed to read my way thru' the thread.) in the UK, we only get 2 live games per week (Sunday and Wednesday) and they start at about 1am GMT. It does not seem to have deterred the UK fans, who will tape the game or watch it live. There is a growing community in the UK enjoying baseball and its getting bigger. Hopefully I'll get to see some players from the UK in the majors sometime (Except Lance Painter).

Personally, I like the contrast between the AL and the NL. I'm not a massive fan of the DH, but without it, we'd miss out on some good hitters, who for one reason or another cannot play in the field. I like watching Edgar Martinez and players like him, and I think it can be a good thing if can extend an already good players career.

I'm also a fan of the Wildcard. Oakland deserved to get into the playoffs with their record, and it helps to keep things exciting later in the season if some divisional races are already over.

I do not like the interleague play, although as someone said earlier in the thread, it does produce a few nice matchups (including watching the bat-throwing Clemens bat!), but it produces a few bad ones.

Finally, I'd just like to say that I enjoy baseball the way it is. I'd watch it with or without the DH, with or without the Wildcard, with or without Interleague. To me it doesn't matter too much, I just enjoy the game and will watch it regardless. Baseball has changed through the years, just as other sports have, and it will continue to change. Hopefully the next change will be for for the better.

Cheers

Malleus Dei · 05-10-2002, 10:12 AM

"Mal, having been there and seen old time baseball does give you, Henry, and others a level of knowledge many of us younger posters don't have. However, IMHO people get upset when you say it's a fact that baseball was better 20, 30, 40 years ago or whenever. It's not a fact, it's an opinion based on personal experience, observation and preference."

You see a healthy tree. You watch it for forty years as it slowly dies. You tell people "this tree was much better off forty years ago." That's a fact. So it is with baseball. Forty years ago baseball was the THE American sport. Now, as someone just pointed out, it's headed for #5. THE GAME IS GETTING WORSE. IT WAS MUCH BETTER THEN. This is NOT an opinion. Had you been steadily watching it go to Hell, as I have been, you would know this too.

"That's uncalled for. You are presuming because of his age he knows nothing?"

No, what he wrote told me that he knows nothing, or that he is at least ignorant enough to believe that third-hand information gleaned from books is just as valid as first-hand experience gained the hard way.

"I'm willing to bet that you were exactly the same way when you were 19, and don't even try to deny it."

LOL. I was NOTHING like that. At 19, I listened intently - as though my life depended on it, you could well say - to every word that came out of the mouth of those who had more experience than I did. And I still do that. When Tresclub talks baseball, I listen. When someone who knows nothing talks baseball (or anythiing else!), my BS detector goes off and I snort.

"As you say, and to some extent I agree with you, experience counts for a lot."

Experience is king.

"Experience is not the be all and end all of everything, and never will be."

No, there is also intelligence, education, and expertise. But experience remains king; ask any combat veteran, surgeon, pilot, policeman, legislator, etc.

"I will not dismiss someone's opinion because they were not alive then."

If by that time in your life you haven't figured out that the knowledge that you painstakingly gained via first-hand experience trumps anything that some teenaged n00b can extrapolate from books written by other people, many of whom weren't even there themselves, then I pity you.

Many years ago I took an undergraduate class in Foreign Relations. The instructor began on Day One by mouthing some innacurate liberal platitudes about a foreign country that I had just left. When my BS detector overloaded and I promptly corrected him, he asked me, "Well, what makes you think you know better?" I answered him, "Because I was THERE, sir." He never once mentioned the subject again in my hearing.

Nero · 05-10-2002, 10:16 AM

Hate interleague play...no doubt about it !!

Like the DH, just hate the concept behind it. I like havinga place where overaged players who cant play in the field, can still show off a sharp batting eye, and a sweet swing. DH should'nt be eliminated, nor should it be in both leagues, but it does have a place in the game.

Hammer755 · 05-10-2002, 12:50 PM

I wouldn't necessarily label myself a 'purist' (what does that word mean exactly?), but I find myself disliking most of the changes made to the modern game - the designated hitter, the wild-card, interleague play, etc. I read this article, and it added more fuel to my disdain for the wild-card.

<a href="http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news/ap/20020510/ap-surprisingmarlins.html" target="_blank">First place in May a first for Florida </a>

This is the latest that Florida has ever been in first place in their 10-yr history (it's only the beginning of May), yet they have a World Series Title. It just doesn't seem right to me for a team that has held first place for 11 games out of a total of 1425 games played over that period to be considered a champion.

[ 05-10-2002, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: Hammer755 ]

Crapshoot · 05-10-2002, 01:28 PM

Somehow Mal, you calling me ignorant is not exactly hurtful; the stupidest thing I ever saw on this forum was you bitching about newbies who dared to ask a question, and then posting under another name (Big Johnson) to defend yourself. Im sure you were a meek follower at 19, and look where it got you. I listen to people who know what they are talkin about and deserve some respect.

Taffarel and Sox, thanks for your responses. I do believe that experience does have a lot to do with knowledge, but I think that this alone is not a complete qualifier or the only way to gain the knowledge. To the rest of the "purists," I disagree with many aspects of baseball today (such as the DH; the NL is much more fun and more strategic to watch) but I think baseball is always evolving, and will continue to do so in the future. Someone earlier mentioned that we think its best when we enjoyed it the most; I think thats a good way to look it.
Also, one last question to any baseball purist, and this is something Im genuinely curious about: From your perspective, is any change in baseball bad or just the specific change ?
thanks,
Aadik

[ 05-10-2002, 10:34 PM: Message edited by: Aadik ]

Henry · 05-10-2002, 02:19 PM

Easy answer

The specific changes are what's bad. I've tried to make myself clear in my responses that change in of itself can be a good thing, and is sometimes necessary - but when I look at how change has been made in baseball - and WHY changes have been made I can only shake my head and mumble "what were they thinking?".

I guess there will always be a chasm between the "purists" and today's baseball fans because (as Mal has said) if you weren't there to experience it first hand, you really can't compare. Not that you can't have an opinion, but you truly can't compare. I'm glad the younger crowd likes today's game because if it didn't, there wouldn't be any game, and that would be sad.

But having been there with the game since the year after the Braves moved from Boston to Milwaukee, there's no doubt (in my mind) that the game was better then. It was THE sport everyone was in love with, it was #1. It was almost all anyone talked about when sports came up. It was "magic".

Change was necessary, but how much better it could have been done... and when we say the game is "broke" it's because we wish deeply that the changes would have been done right - or the powers today were smart enough to even correct them now.

Oh well, it is what it is and I will always wish it was better - and I only ask the younger crowd as time moves on to look at what happens with baseball from the sense of "culture" - not from the sense of money or simply excitement. In the end retaining the "culture" of baseball is what will make studying all those old statistics enjoyable...

Baseball has always been known as "the thinking man's game" - yet if they continue to remove all the reasons to think - it cannot remain the game it was meant to be. Henry

Henry

[ 05-10-2002, 09:21 PM: Message edited by: Henry ]

toanstrom · 05-10-2002, 05:07 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Aadik:
Im genuinely curios abou: From your perspective, is any change in baseball bad or just the specific change ?
thanks,
Aadik<hr /></blockquote>Even though Mal seems to think that any change to anything is bad, as someone who considers himself more or less a purist I dont think all change is bad in baseball, the division playoffs was a good change, so was free agency (until it went crazy), other changes like interleague play, the wildcard and the DH are bad for baseball simply because they hurt the core of baseball, its strategy,the late season pennant chances, and the mystique of the all-star game and the world series.

By the way Aadik,
As a 21 year old college student myself your response to Mal couldnt have been any better.

Jason Moyer · 05-10-2002, 05:34 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Hammer755:
I wouldn't necessarily label myself a 'purist' (what does that word mean exactly?), but I find myself disliking most of the changes made to the modern game - the designated hitter, the wild-card, interleague play, etc. I read this article, and it added more fuel to my disdain for the wild-card.

<a href="http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news/ap/20020510/ap-surprisingmarlins.html" target="_blank">First place in May a first for Florida </a>

This is the latest that Florida has ever been in first place in their 10-yr history (it's only the beginning of May), yet they have a World Series Title. It just doesn't seem right to me for a team that has held first place for 11 games out of a total of 1425 games played over that period to be considered a champion.<hr /></blockquote>The combination of unbalanced schedule and wild card is really bad.

Every team in the NL East is good enough to win the division this year. And yet, because of that, chances are most of the teams will finish within 5 games of .500 this year. Do you think that the second place team in the East even has a tiny chance of winning the wildcard with the strength of the starting pitching in the division?

Jason

Khaos · 05-10-2002, 05:47 PM

Re-reading all this again (pathetic, I know), I come to a realization. If you think baseball was better before, good. If you are too young to know any different, good. Years from now you'll be saying the same thing to another younger fan.

The thing is, it's still your opinion. We're all baseball fans. We all love the game. No matter what, the game of baseball is in our blood and we need it. So whether you like the DH or the wildcard or the interleague play or whether you don't, doesn't really matter. You love baseball. Even if you think the game sucks compared to 30 or 40 years ago, you still have fond memories no one can take away from you. The younger guys have their own fond memories of the game they know and grew up with.

The major thing I think the older guys need to grasp is, that when they say how much better baseball was before, and then go on to say how bad the changes are now, even if they aren't doing it intentionally, they are insulting the game these younger guys love. A game that is the only thing they know. Hearing what you say with such forceful tones and also hearing how they don't know anything because they weren't there only says to them, my game was great and your's sucks and you're too young too know what's good.

Again, that may not be your intention, but that's how it comes across. Something like that will not be met with respect. Remember that we all see the past in a prettier light. The mind easily pushes back the bad and brings forth the good.

Malleus Dei · 05-10-2002, 10:37 PM

There has been one good change in baseball since the sixties: they put lights in at Wrigley.

Aadik, that really was one of my sons. He quit playing OOTP and thinks that the lot of you here are such scum that he has yelled at me more than once for still posting here.

BaseballMan · 05-10-2002, 11:34 PM

It seems to me there is no better time of baseball than the other. Oh sure there are good and bad for both. But just dont try and tell me
watching Mantle play was better than watching a ballgame when Ruth and Cobb played. Yes baseball has had its troubles lately with high salarys but after looking at the newspapers accounts of 1867-1899 they argued over the same basic things except dh of course, but money was still an issue.

Sure i loved the reds-redsox 75 world series, same with redsox-mets 86 series, but the yankee-diamondback was a great series too. And McGwire hitting 70 was a magic moment and watching Bonds hit 73 was great.Yeah i know the 73 isnt equaled to the 60 ruth hit ccause of expansion and hitter freindly ballparks but its still quite an achievement. How bout Clemens and Woods 20 or Ripken passing Gherig. Winfield finally shedding his Mr. May nickname. Watching Reggie in 77. Gibson against Eckersely in 88. Orel breaking the shutout record. How bout the 91 series and Jack Morris's 10 ip performance. Or watching Kirby Puckett. I could go on and on and on.

The point is it doesnt matter what era you see baseball is what you take from it.
Sure i could live in the past and complain about the Steve Howes and Darryl Strawberrys or Albert Belles, but why. Why spend all that time complaining about the bad things in baseball and ignoring the joy of watching Sammy having fun hitting home runs not a job but fun. Or seeing the competition of Roger Clemens.
I think Mantle, Snider, Mays and Jackie Robinson
are heros to be remembered along with Gibson and many others from the 1950-1970s but that doesnt mean watching them play was better than watching Mathewson and Walter Johnson pitch or Randy Johnson.
Sorry im just tired of this baseball was so much better then than now. If it was for you fine but that doesnt make it a fact.
I can go to Coors Field today and enjoy a game just as much as i could in 1977.
Plus if you lived wy back then you didnt get to see all the players but now with as many games that are broadcast you get a chance to see Bonds, Berkman, etc.

You can bitch about baseball all you want, live in the past, but baseball isnt gonna go away or change simply cause you like one era better.

Every era had problems just deal with them and go to a saturday afternoon doubleheader with your family if you have one, buy some hotdogs and a coke, tell your kids storys of the great players from the past, listen to their storys of their heros of today and above all just enjoy the game and appreciate the Sammy Sosas and Kirby Pucketts.

Jason Moyer · 05-11-2002, 12:13 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by BaseballMan:
How bout Clemens and Woods 20<hr /></blockquote>K/AB is at the highest point it has ever been, same with HR/AB. Coincidence?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I can go to Coors Field today and enjoy a game just as much as i could in 1977.<hr /></blockquote>You couldn't see a baseball game at Coors Field in 1977.

If you could, you probably would've been surrounded by violent drunks. 1977-1983 is infamous as being the time that ballparks were full of obnoxious jerks who just went out to get drunk and yell at people. Bill James has a good anecdote about this in the newest Historical Baseball Abstract.

I'm only 25, but I would've loved 60's baseball. Being able to go to a game after work and knowing that I'd be home before 10pm would be great.

All other things aside, there was an enthusiasm for the game that isn't there anymore - among owners, players, or fans. Malleus has a good point that people seem to be ignoring. Baseball was the National Pasttime. It's false to call it that now - football is the national pasttime now, and basketball/hockey are a close second. Baseball is third in this country at best, and it's completely the fault of the people who participate in the sport that it has dropped so far.

I think if it weren't for the strike of 94, baseball would still be the #1 sport in the USA. That one single action destroyed the game for nearly everyone. There were strikes in the past, but never was a season completely and utterly destroyed.

I'd go so far as to say that McGwire, Sosa, and Bonds would be more appreciated now if it hadn't been for that strike. I've been a baseball obsessive since I was born, and it took me until last summer to start caring about baseball again. I couldn't even tell you who was in the world series from 1995-2000. I remember the Mets/Yankees played one of those years and the Marlins bought a championship or something. Couldn't tell you who they played (I'm guessing the Yankees, but that's just because the odds of that are always good) but there was some reporting of it in Pittsburgh since Leyland managed it.

I haven't bought tickets to a Pirates or Phillies game this year because I'm waiting to see what happens this fall. If there's a strike this year, and it kills the postseason, I really don't think baseball will be able to recover this time. I'll certainly never give the modern sport any of my time or money.

Jason

[ 05-11-2002, 05:14 AM: Message edited by: Jason Moyer ]

BaseballMan · 05-11-2002, 01:20 AM

i wasnt saying you could go to coors field in 77 but you could enjoy a game just as much. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
As far as drunks go thats gonna happen everywhere.
I mean just think of the last concert, football game you went too.

I do gree the 95-2000 series werent that exciting but mainly cause of the yankee dominance not the strike. But weve been there before 1936-1939, 1949-1953.

Dont count out baseball just because of a strike.
Dont forget footballs had their strikes and hey if they can cancel the world series it could happen with the super bowl too though i doubt it will but seems to me the league would have more to lose seeing how so their is so much money made and wagered on that one game.

Again i enjoy having a day off, but with no game at Coors field and not wanting to waste money being able to watch the cubs or braves, or an espn baseball game.
I can enjoy a game at the park but i dont have to be there to enjoy it either or if that was the case only the people who attended the 2001 series can say they enjoyed it.

Take what you want from baseball. Enjoy it or dont enjoy it. If it changes to how you like it fine if it doesnt well i dont think theres much you can do about it.

If you spend money and time watching a game then enjoy the game and quit complaining about the problems of baseball. Theres nothing new there.
Players could strike next year they could strike in 10 years. They did it in 81 and they did years before. They even started a players league.

So im suppose to not hope Sammy can keep up his pace and have fun seeing if he can just because
there could be a strike. Hell theres strikes on airlines, does that mean i pay a 1,000 more for a flight 8 years later simply cause i dont wanna use that airline cause they had a strike.

I mean if you dont like the game today, i dont know what to tell you but until you become an owner or player or commish i dont know what you can do about it except spend your time on something else.
As for me i choose to enjoy it. I know ive seen some bad times but ive seen some great moments too and even funny ones like the Kruk-Johnson all-star at bat.
Peple can do what they want all im saying is dont tell me baseball is better back then and say its fact. Its not. its better for that person but its not better for me or how could it be better for Cal Ripken jr if he wasnt even playing in the 50's. Its great if somebody enjoyed that era of baseball but their opinion does not make soemthing into fact.

05-09-2002, 10:42 PM	#121
Crapshoot Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: watching: DArwin's missing link in action Posts: 3,112	Also, Sox and Buccanear, I agree that we each have our own perspective of things. Nonetheless, there is a difference in presenting your views as "this is what I think" and "Im right, and youre not." I respect our differences in opinion, and I understand that we see baseball from different perspectives. I do apologize for ranting earlier; its just that seeing the same attitude over and over again gets annoying.. thanks, Aadik __________________ Senior Senor Member of the OOTP Boards Pittsburgh Playmates- OTBL

05-10-2002, 08:53 AM	#125
Anrhydeddu Minors (Single A) Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 52	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Q: The bartenders at our fine establishment are having a heated debate ... do you think baseball is still America's favorite sport or do you think football has taken over? My argument is that people around here are only saying football because they're still riding the high of a Super Bowl victory. Others argue that TV ratings and merchandise sales point towards football. What are your thoughts? -- Dick Alexander, Cityside Bar and Grill, Brighton, Mass. PWG -- OK, I'll come over and have a beer and answer it. Really. The NFL is in a class by itself when it comes to being the No. 1 sport in America. Baseball is trying its best to become No. 5. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">This was answered by one of the most esteemed baseball person in the world: Peter Gammons. If you were to believe him (I do), what do YOU think caused baseball to plummet from #1 to #5?

05-10-2002, 09:03 AM	#126
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 Philetus: <strong>Also, no one seems to realized that the DH is against the rules… Rule 1.01a (I think that’s the designation) states something along the lines of: Baseball is a game played by nine players a side. Not nine players in a field, and a different nine players in the batting orders. At the least, it’s kind of amusing that no one ever thought to update that bit of the rule book. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Not true You are correct with Rule 1.01 mentioning this: </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> 1.01 Baseball is a game between two teams of nine players each, under direction of a manager, played on an enclosed field in accordance with these rules, under jurisdiction of one or more umpires. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But they did indeed adjust the rules further in the book: Here is the Rule allowing the DH: (MLB Rule 6.10) </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> 6.10 Any League may elect to use the Designated Hitter Rule. (a) In the event of inter league competition between clubs of Leagues using the Designated Hitter Rule and clubs of Leagues not using the Designated Hitter Rule, the rule will be used as follows: 1. In World Series or exhibition games, the rule will be used or not used as is the practice of the home team. 2. In All Star games, the rule will only be used if both teams and both Leagues so agree. (b) The Rule provides as follows: A hitter may be designated to bat for the starting pitcher and all subsequent pitchers in any game without otherwise affecting the status of the pitcher(s) in the game. A Designated Hitter for the pitcher must be selected prior to the game and must be included in the lineup cards presented to the Umpire in Chief. The designated hitter named in the starting lineup must come to bat at least one time, unless the opposing club changes pitchers. It is not mandatory that a club designate a hitter for the pitcher, but failure to do so prior to the game precludes the use of a Designated Hitter for that game. Pinch hitters for a Designated Hitter may be used. Any substitute hitter for a Designated Hitter becomes the Designated Hitter. A replaced Designated Hitter shall not re enter the game in any capacity. The Designated Hitter may be used defensively, continuing to bat in the same position in the batting order, but the pitcher must then bat in the place of the substituted defensive player, unless more than one substitution is made, and the manager then must designate their spots in the batting order. A runner may be substituted for the Designated Hitter and the runner assumes the role of Designated Hitter. A Designated Hitter may not pinch run. A Designated Hitter is "locked" into the batting order. No multiple substitutions may be made that will alter the batting rotation of the Designated Hitter. Once the game pitcher is switched from the mound to a defensive position this move shall terminate the Designated Hitter role for the remainder of the game. Once a pinch hitter bats for any player in the batting order and then enters the game to pitch, this move shall terminate the Designated Hitter role for the remainder of the game. Once the game pitcher bats for the Designated Hitter this move shall terminate the Designated Hitter role for the remainder of the game. (The game pitcher may only pinch hit for the Designated Hitter). Once a Designated Hitter assumes a defensive position this move shall terminate the Designated Hitter role for the remainder of the game. A substitute for the Designated Hitter need not be announced until it is the Designated Hitter's turn to bat. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">

05-10-2002, 09:18 AM	#127
SoxWin Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Blissful ignorance Posts: 3,315	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> I have not been making an argument. I have been stating FACTS. If you weren't there, you can't know. You had to have been there, to experience it, to KNOW. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Mal, having been there and seen old time baseball does give you, Henry, and others a level of knowledge many of us younger posters don't have. However, IMHO people get upset when you say it's a fact that baseball was better 20, 30, 40 years ago or whenever. It's not a fact, it's an opinion based on personal experience, observation and preference. Not trying to start an argument here, just stating my case. Cheers Rich __________________ It's called partying. When you do a lot of it, you're bound to be places where the police show up. I smoke a lot of pot and drink a lot of beer. I also graduated Suma Cum Laude. ****ing sue me. - Luis Rivera

05-10-2002, 09:22 AM	#128
taffarel Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Edinburgh, Scotland Posts: 26	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Malleus Dei: Wow, another ignorant teenager who thinks he knows everything. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">That's uncalled for. You are presuming because of his age he knows nothing? I'm willing to bet that you were exactly the same way when you were 19, and don't even try to deny it. And before you start on me, no, I'm not a teenager. As you say, and to some extent I agree with you, experience counts for a lot. So does youth. You'll do well to remember that. Experience is not the be all and end all of everything, and never will be. It's all very well to sit and reminisce about "The Good Old Days", and having watched a lot of baseball history (thanks to those new fangled TV and Internet thingies <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> ), I can see why. However, this is not the good old days anymore, and it will never return to that. I can see myself sitting in 30 years time saying exactly the same thing as you MD, but there will be one major difference. I will not dismiss someone's opinion because they were not alive then. You are correct when you say that books on combat etc are no substitute for experience, and never will be, but without new blood with new idea's the world will stagnate. Youth counts, with or without experience. I respect your opinion MD, and have been brought up to respect my elders, but let's not get ageist. Anyway, (finally managed to read my way thru' the thread.) in the UK, we only get 2 live games per week (Sunday and Wednesday) and they start at about 1am GMT. It does not seem to have deterred the UK fans, who will tape the game or watch it live. There is a growing community in the UK enjoying baseball and its getting bigger. Hopefully I'll get to see some players from the UK in the majors sometime (Except Lance Painter). Personally, I like the contrast between the AL and the NL. I'm not a massive fan of the DH, but without it, we'd miss out on some good hitters, who for one reason or another cannot play in the field. I like watching Edgar Martinez and players like him, and I think it can be a good thing if can extend an already good players career. I'm also a fan of the Wildcard. Oakland deserved to get into the playoffs with their record, and it helps to keep things exciting later in the season if some divisional races are already over. I do not like the interleague play, although as someone said earlier in the thread, it does produce a few nice matchups (including watching the bat-throwing Clemens bat!), but it produces a few bad ones. Finally, I'd just like to say that I enjoy baseball the way it is. I'd watch it with or without the DH, with or without the Wildcard, with or without Interleague. To me it doesn't matter too much, I just enjoy the game and will watch it regardless. Baseball has changed through the years, just as other sports have, and it will continue to change. Hopefully the next change will be for for the better. Cheers

05-10-2002, 12:31 AM	#122
Philetus Bat Boy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Charleston, S.C. Posts: 2	Ahhh, I finally made it to the end (well, at least onto the fifth page. I nodded off somewhere on page three and woke back up just a few inches above here…) First, there are so many more things right with baseball than are wrong with baseball that we, collectively, wouldn’t have the time to count them. I get vaguely annoyed with the endless rants that baseball is so broken that it could not possibly be fixed. As long as the bases stay at 90 feet, I can overlook a whole lot of stuff. And I do overlook a lot. I was convinced that I wasn’t coming back after the ’94 strike. Convinced and dead-set. Until the 11th-hour handshake and Opening Day. When I tuned in to watch a full day of Opening Day coverage, six months after a bunch of over-paid blowhards (on both sides) cancelled MY World Series, that’s when I knew I was an addict. And I still say it’s the best game in the world. As for the topics at hand, though: The designated hitter: Yes, it does provide an offensive boost, and yes, it does cut down on the strategy of the game. You can argue that baseball still needs the same offensive boost it needed in 1972, but I don’t think you’ll win that argument. As for the strategy, the DH dramatically simplifies the handling of starting pitching (you don’t have to worry about where you are in the batting order), relief pitching (you can allow a reliever to work as long as you want without worrying about hitting for him), batting situations (a .220 ninth-place hitter will almost always swing away with one out and a runner on; a sure-out pitcher either swings, bunts, tries to play hit and run or just tries to lean into one), substitutions (shrinking a pitching staff from 11 or 12 to 10 men allows for more bench players, and more pinch hitting options) and a whole big conflagration of beanball wars (look it up: dramatically more bench-clearing beanball wars in the AL. Why? A National League pitcher who plunks a batter better be real good at ducking out of the way when he comes up to bat next inning...). Also, no one seems to realized that the DH is against the rules… Rule 1.01a (I think that’s the designation) states something along the lines of: Baseball is a game played by nine players a side. Not nine players in a field, and a different nine players in the batting orders. At the least, it’s kind of amusing that no one ever thought to update that bit of the rule book. As far as pitchers hitting, I challenge anyone to come up with a better moment of the 2000 season (yes, including the inner-city championship of New York) than watching Greg Maddux legging out a triple. In the immortal words of one of the Braves announcers, “It’s replaced the Kentucky Derby as the most exciting two minutes in sports.” The wild card, and the three-division system: While I would much rather see seven- or eight-team divisions, I know that’s not going to happen. Owners are convinced that it is easier to sell to the fans a fourth-place team in a bad division that it is to sell a seventh-place team in a stacked division. They’re probably right. Adding the third division has necessitated either a wild card, or a first-round bye to the team with the most wins (again, my personal choice would be the bye). What the wild card has done is to essentially make the wild-card race more important than the divisional races. Why? Because the object is to make the playoffs. It is, by definition, easier to make the playoffs as the wild card, because if you’re battling for the wild card, you aren’t good enough to win your division. Thus, division titles have come to mean bragging rights. That’s it. Look at the three-way wild-card race of 1999 The Braves and the Mets faced each other, late in the year, in what is developing into one of the great baseball rivalries. If memory serves, the Mets were one game out coming in, with about six games to play. And they were playing for... well, they were playing to see who they’d face in the playoffs. Not if they would make it. (The Mets then tried to throw the wildcard away, but that’s a different story…) Oh, yeah, and the division title… Contrast that to the last pennant race: 1993. Braves and Giants. 104 wins to 103. And no safety net. No talk of, “Well, we weren’t good enough to win the division, but there is something waiting for us too.” They weren’t good enough, they went home. Was it bad luck that the Giants played in the only division in baseball that had a team win 104 games? Sure was. But that’s how the game used to be played. Did it hurt? I’m sure it did. Trust me, I know about your team losing games that hurt. I’m a Braves fan… And don’t even discuss the possibilities of a three-way wild-card tie… Interleague play: I’m not nearly as emotional about interleague play. I simply don’t like it. It also compounds the problems of the wild-card system, in that you have teams competing for the wild card that didn’t play the same teams in the regular season. If the West is stacked and the Central is depleted, a team that is playing the Central in its interleague games will have a much easier wild-card run than a team playing against the West. If you remove the wild-card, you don’t have this problem, because all the teams you are fighting with for a playoff spot are playing the same schedule. Contraction: For all of my purist bent, I don’t see any significant problem with contractions. When all of this talk started, I read one columnist who decried pulling baseball out of ‘the great baseball town of Montreal.’ Umm, no. A great baseball town supports a single-A team in a 6,000-seat stadium with 4,000 fans a night. A town that has completely lost interest supports a promising major-league team with some very strong talent, in a stadium that seats 30,000-plus, with 4,000 a game. And I think most people can now agree that the Devil Rays experiment failed. Can we sweep that team under the rug now? Baseball has contracted before, and it will no doubt do so again sooner or later. So, leave the Twins alone, contract the Expos and Devil Rays (or better yet, move them so the people in D.C. will stop complaining about losing one of the worst teams in major-league history) and be done with it. Nostalgia: Ahh, to be that one blessed person in a generation who does not have their judgment or their memory clouded by nostalgia. Thank you for setting us straight, Mal. I have no doubt that your mind sees 1968 just as clearly as it sees today, and that your recollections are clearer than any that we will be able to offer about today, when we look back on it in 2036. Personally, I’m so deluded by nostalgia that I can make coherent arguments as to why Bob Horner should be in the Hall of Fame… And this is only about two pages longer than I expected it to be… Sorry about that… The next chapter will be in bookstores next week. Chopper Johnson chopperj@bellsouth.net

05-10-2002, 12:42 AM	#123
BaseballMan Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 6,550	i kinda of like the one league having dh and the other not. Im not so sure about pitchers being able to bean somebody and get away with it cause what happens the other team beans one of his players and if i was the pitchers teammate i know i wouldnt be happy that i got beaned just because my pitcher was mad that he gave up a homer and beaned a batter.

05-10-2002, 10:16 AM	#130
Nero Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 206	Hate interleague play...no doubt about it !! Like the DH, just hate the concept behind it. I like havinga place where overaged players who cant play in the field, can still show off a sharp batting eye, and a sweet swing. DH should'nt be eliminated, nor should it be in both leagues, but it does have a place in the game.

05-10-2002, 12:50 PM	#131
Hammer755 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 2,348	I wouldn't necessarily label myself a 'purist' (what does that word mean exactly?), but I find myself disliking most of the changes made to the modern game - the designated hitter, the wild-card, interleague play, etc. I read this article, and it added more fuel to my disdain for the wild-card. <a href="http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news/ap/20020510/ap-surprisingmarlins.html" target="_blank">First place in May a first for Florida </a> This is the latest that Florida has ever been in first place in their 10-yr history (it's only the beginning of May), yet they have a World Series Title. It just doesn't seem right to me for a team that has held first place for 11 games out of a total of 1425 games played over that period to be considered a champion. <small>[ 05-10-2002, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: Hammer755 ]</small>

05-10-2002, 01:28 PM	#132
Crapshoot Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: watching: DArwin's missing link in action Posts: 3,112	Somehow Mal, you calling me ignorant is not exactly hurtful; the stupidest thing I ever saw on this forum was you bitching about newbies who dared to ask a question, and then posting under another name (Big Johnson) to defend yourself. Im sure you were a meek follower at 19, and look where it got you. I listen to people who know what they are talkin about and deserve some respect. Taffarel and Sox, thanks for your responses. I do believe that experience does have a lot to do with knowledge, but I think that this alone is not a complete qualifier or the only way to gain the knowledge. To the rest of the "purists," I disagree with many aspects of baseball today (such as the DH; the NL is much more fun and more strategic to watch) but I think baseball is always evolving, and will continue to do so in the future. Someone earlier mentioned that we think its best when we enjoyed it the most; I think thats a good way to look it. Also, one last question to any baseball purist, and this is something Im genuinely curious about: From your perspective, is any change in baseball bad or just the specific change ? thanks, Aadik <small>[ 05-10-2002, 10:34 PM: Message edited by: Aadik ]</small> __________________ Senior Senor Member of the OOTP Boards Pittsburgh Playmates- OTBL

05-10-2002, 02:19 PM	#133
Henry Hall of Fame Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 6,498	Easy answer The specific changes are what's bad. I've tried to make myself clear in my responses that change in of itself can be a good thing, and is sometimes necessary - but when I look at how change has been made in baseball - and WHY changes have been made I can only shake my head and mumble "what were they thinking?". I guess there will always be a chasm between the "purists" and today's baseball fans because (as Mal has said) if you weren't there to experience it first hand, you really can't compare. Not that you can't have an opinion, but you truly can't compare. I'm glad the younger crowd likes today's game because if it didn't, there wouldn't be any game, and that would be sad. But having been there with the game since the year after the Braves moved from Boston to Milwaukee, there's no doubt (in my mind) that the game was better then. It was THE sport everyone was in love with, it was #1. It was almost all anyone talked about when sports came up. It was "magic". Change was necessary, but how much better it could have been done... and when we say the game is "broke" it's because we wish deeply that the changes would have been done right - or the powers today were smart enough to even correct them now. Oh well, it is what it is and I will always wish it was better - and I only ask the younger crowd as time moves on to look at what happens with baseball from the sense of "culture" - not from the sense of money or simply excitement. In the end retaining the "culture" of baseball is what will make studying all those old statistics enjoyable... Baseball has always been known as "the thinking man's game" - yet if they continue to remove all the reasons to think - it cannot remain the game it was meant to be. Henry Henry <small>[ 05-10-2002, 09:21 PM: Message edited by: Henry ]</small>

05-10-2002, 05:07 PM	#134
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 Aadik: <strong>Im genuinely curios abou: From your perspective, is any change in baseball bad or just the specific change ? thanks, Aadik</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Even though Mal seems to think that any change to anything is bad, as someone who considers himself more or less a purist I dont think all change is bad in baseball, the division playoffs was a good change, so was free agency (until it went crazy), other changes like interleague play, the wildcard and the DH are bad for baseball simply because they hurt the core of baseball, its strategy,the late season pennant chances, and the mystique of the all-star game and the world series. By the way Aadik, As a 21 year old college student myself your response to Mal couldnt have been any better.

05-10-2002, 05:34 PM	#135
Jason Moyer Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 5,088	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Hammer755: <strong>I wouldn't necessarily label myself a 'purist' (what does that word mean exactly?), but I find myself disliking most of the changes made to the modern game - the designated hitter, the wild-card, interleague play, etc. I read this article, and it added more fuel to my disdain for the wild-card. <a href="http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news/ap/20020510/ap-surprisingmarlins.html" target="_blank">First place in May a first for Florida </a> This is the latest that Florida has ever been in first place in their 10-yr history (it's only the beginning of May), yet they have a World Series Title. It just doesn't seem right to me for a team that has held first place for 11 games out of a total of 1425 games played over that period to be considered a champion.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The combination of unbalanced schedule and wild card is really bad. Every team in the NL East is good enough to win the division this year. And yet, because of that, chances are most of the teams will finish within 5 games of .500 this year. Do you think that the second place team in the East even has a tiny chance of winning the wildcard with the strength of the starting pitching in the division? Jason __________________ "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

05-10-2002, 05:47 PM	#136
Khaos Major Leagues Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Canfield, OH Posts: 473	Re-reading all this again (pathetic, I know), I come to a realization. If you think baseball was better before, good. If you are too young to know any different, good. Years from now you'll be saying the same thing to another younger fan. The thing is, it's still your opinion. We're all baseball fans. We all love the game. No matter what, the game of baseball is in our blood and we need it. So whether you like the DH or the wildcard or the interleague play or whether you don't, doesn't really matter. You love baseball. Even if you think the game sucks compared to 30 or 40 years ago, you still have fond memories no one can take away from you. The younger guys have their own fond memories of the game they know and grew up with. The major thing I think the older guys need to grasp is, that when they say how much better baseball was before, and then go on to say how bad the changes are now, even if they aren't doing it intentionally, they are insulting the game these younger guys love. A game that is the only thing they know. Hearing what you say with such forceful tones and also hearing how they don't know anything because they weren't there only says to them, my game was great and your's sucks and you're too young too know what's good. Again, that may not be your intention, but that's how it comes across. Something like that will not be met with respect. Remember that we all see the past in a prettier light. The mind easily pushes back the bad and brings forth the good. __________________ squish

05-10-2002, 11:34 PM	#138
BaseballMan Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 6,550	It seems to me there is no better time of baseball than the other. Oh sure there are good and bad for both. But just dont try and tell me watching Mantle play was better than watching a ballgame when Ruth and Cobb played. Yes baseball has had its troubles lately with high salarys but after looking at the newspapers accounts of 1867-1899 they argued over the same basic things except dh of course, but money was still an issue. Sure i loved the reds-redsox 75 world series, same with redsox-mets 86 series, but the yankee-diamondback was a great series too. And McGwire hitting 70 was a magic moment and watching Bonds hit 73 was great.Yeah i know the 73 isnt equaled to the 60 ruth hit ccause of expansion and hitter freindly ballparks but its still quite an achievement. How bout Clemens and Woods 20 or Ripken passing Gherig. Winfield finally shedding his Mr. May nickname. Watching Reggie in 77. Gibson against Eckersely in 88. Orel breaking the shutout record. How bout the 91 series and Jack Morris's 10 ip performance. Or watching Kirby Puckett. I could go on and on and on. The point is it doesnt matter what era you see baseball is what you take from it. Sure i could live in the past and complain about the Steve Howes and Darryl Strawberrys or Albert Belles, but why. Why spend all that time complaining about the bad things in baseball and ignoring the joy of watching Sammy having fun hitting home runs not a job but fun. Or seeing the competition of Roger Clemens. I think Mantle, Snider, Mays and Jackie Robinson are heros to be remembered along with Gibson and many others from the 1950-1970s but that doesnt mean watching them play was better than watching Mathewson and Walter Johnson pitch or Randy Johnson. Sorry im just tired of this baseball was so much better then than now. If it was for you fine but that doesnt make it a fact. I can go to Coors Field today and enjoy a game just as much as i could in 1977. Plus if you lived wy back then you didnt get to see all the players but now with as many games that are broadcast you get a chance to see Bonds, Berkman, etc. You can bitch about baseball all you want, live in the past, but baseball isnt gonna go away or change simply cause you like one era better. Every era had problems just deal with them and go to a saturday afternoon doubleheader with your family if you have one, buy some hotdogs and a coke, tell your kids storys of the great players from the past, listen to their storys of their heros of today and above all just enjoy the game and appreciate the Sammy Sosas and Kirby Pucketts.

05-11-2002, 12:13 AM	#139
Jason Moyer Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 5,088	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by BaseballMan: <strong>How bout Clemens and Woods 20</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">K/AB is at the highest point it has ever been, same with HR/AB. Coincidence? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>I can go to Coors Field today and enjoy a game just as much as i could in 1977.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You couldn't see a baseball game at Coors Field in 1977. If you could, you probably would've been surrounded by violent drunks. 1977-1983 is infamous as being the time that ballparks were full of obnoxious jerks who just went out to get drunk and yell at people. Bill James has a good anecdote about this in the newest Historical Baseball Abstract. I'm only 25, but I would've loved 60's baseball. Being able to go to a game after work and knowing that I'd be home before 10pm would be great. All other things aside, there was an enthusiasm for the game that isn't there anymore - among owners, players, or fans. Malleus has a good point that people seem to be ignoring. Baseball was the National Pasttime. It's false to call it that now - football is the national pasttime now, and basketball/hockey are a close second. Baseball is third in this country at best, and it's completely the fault of the people who participate in the sport that it has dropped so far. I think if it weren't for the strike of 94, baseball would still be the #1 sport in the USA. That one single action destroyed the game for nearly everyone. There were strikes in the past, but never was a season completely and utterly destroyed. I'd go so far as to say that McGwire, Sosa, and Bonds would be more appreciated now if it hadn't been for that strike. I've been a baseball obsessive since I was born, and it took me until last summer to start caring about baseball again. I couldn't even tell you who was in the world series from 1995-2000. I remember the Mets/Yankees played one of those years and the Marlins bought a championship or something. Couldn't tell you who they played (I'm guessing the Yankees, but that's just because the odds of that are always good) but there was some reporting of it in Pittsburgh since Leyland managed it. I haven't bought tickets to a Pirates or Phillies game this year because I'm waiting to see what happens this fall. If there's a strike this year, and it kills the postseason, I really don't think baseball will be able to recover this time. I'll certainly never give the modern sport any of my time or money. Jason <small>[ 05-11-2002, 05:14 AM: 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

05-11-2002, 01:20 AM	#140
BaseballMan Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 6,550	i wasnt saying you could go to coors field in 77 but you could enjoy a game just as much. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> As far as drunks go thats gonna happen everywhere. I mean just think of the last concert, football game you went too. I do gree the 95-2000 series werent that exciting but mainly cause of the yankee dominance not the strike. But weve been there before 1936-1939, 1949-1953. Dont count out baseball just because of a strike. Dont forget footballs had their strikes and hey if they can cancel the world series it could happen with the super bowl too though i doubt it will but seems to me the league would have more to lose seeing how so their is so much money made and wagered on that one game. Again i enjoy having a day off, but with no game at Coors field and not wanting to waste money being able to watch the cubs or braves, or an espn baseball game. I can enjoy a game at the park but i dont have to be there to enjoy it either or if that was the case only the people who attended the 2001 series can say they enjoyed it. Take what you want from baseball. Enjoy it or dont enjoy it. If it changes to how you like it fine if it doesnt well i dont think theres much you can do about it. If you spend money and time watching a game then enjoy the game and quit complaining about the problems of baseball. Theres nothing new there. Players could strike next year they could strike in 10 years. They did it in 81 and they did years before. They even started a players league. So im suppose to not hope Sammy can keep up his pace and have fun seeing if he can just because there could be a strike. Hell theres strikes on airlines, does that mean i pay a 1,000 more for a flight 8 years later simply cause i dont wanna use that airline cause they had a strike. I mean if you dont like the game today, i dont know what to tell you but until you become an owner or player or commish i dont know what you can do about it except spend your time on something else. As for me i choose to enjoy it. I know ive seen some bad times but ive seen some great moments too and even funny ones like the Kruk-Johnson all-star at bat. Peple can do what they want all im saying is dont tell me baseball is better back then and say its fact. Its not. its better for that person but its not better for me or how could it be better for Cal Ripken jr if he wasnt even playing in the 50's. Its great if somebody enjoyed that era of baseball but their opinion does not make soemthing into fact.