Purists: Explain thyselves

[WileyEquid]

I've taken a great interest in the level of discussion about the DH, interleague play, and the assorted sundrie of BS that seems to have filtered into baseball to make more "profitable" (heh, heh....did he [Bud Selig] say "profitable?").... I can barely remember the implementation of the DH, but when it came both my greatest baseball teachers---my grandfather and father---just about had fits over that abomination.....I guess, purisits, wouldn't you say??

So, that long-winded intro before you.... what would be the alternative.... seems to me that you might have to combine to two divisions as in the great days of old....or failing that...the best team of the 3 divisions would...umm...get a "bye"....which isn't that palatable to me either... I'm just way curious...because I've been trying to implement this into my own OOTP game with the current teams (okay, my Montreal team is in Washington and TB is now in Charlotte....).

[Anonymous Ghost]

I play with the DH off in my leagues now, mostly because I got tired off having to keep 4 different lineups current. And if DH is a 100% either/or proposition, I'd rather keep it out of the game.

Currently in year 2018, my solo league structure is currently 32 teams, 5/6/5 arrangement. I'm thinking about making them either each have 2, 8 team divisions or 4, 4 team divisions. I play with a more extreme unbalanced schedule, so the Wild Card is really unfair.

[BoSox35]

All I don't like about baseball right now is the constant switching of teams. Barring managerial problems, a player should be proud of who he plays for. Oh yeah, and Interleague play sucks because it takes credibility away from the all star game, and World Series.

[y2kornhusker]

This whole argument is just absurd. Baseball will never be the way it was, there are too many teams and the wild card is a necessity with more than one division.

Baseball naturally goes through cycles. Some years we'll have great pitching, and then other years it'll be hitting. All things change. Hanging onto the past does nothing. It's still the same game.

"Edgar Martinez should be in a retirement home." The guy can hit. Unlike Canseco in his later days, Martinez pulls his weight, he's a leader, and he more than makes up for the fact that the man playing his former position, Jeff Cirillo, isn't hitting at all. In a sport that has blurred all boundaries between the AL and NL, I like the contrast the DH brings. It's really the only difference left between the AL and NL.

[atarizx3]

i can't believe this topic is now 11 pages long

[Malleus Dei]

And I'll say it again: if you weren't there, you can't possibly understand what we're saying.

It's not about "your game" vs. "my game," and it's not about the older crowd versus the younger crowd, and it's not an attempt at one-upmanship. It's just a very, very sad fact: baseball used to be a much better game.

And I wish it was not so.

[GForce22]

Originally posted by Henry
but say what you will, baseball WAS better THEN. I've expounded on my reasoning multiple times above - and unfortunately, those of you who who disagree disagree because you want "your" game to be better than "my" game

Or, perhaps, they just think you're wrong. You're one of the posters I most respect here, Henry, but that is an arrogant viewpoint. What you essentially say is that the only way someone can think today's game is better than "your" game is out of prejudice based on time, that they can not possibly disagree with you on merits. That is, in a word, silly. I expect better from you (not that I imagine that effects you a whole lot

GH

[Anonymous Ghost]

y2kornhusker,

I understand that the "real" MLB will never abandon the WC system, probably not the DH, etc. And it might not necessarily be a good thing if it did.

All I meant is that I have a private conception of an ideal baseball system and I choose to quietly exercise that right to freedom of indulgence by implementing it in my solo league. It may be an artificial universe, but damnit its my world and I'll design it however I want.

[SoxWin]

Why did this thread come back? I thought the nightmare was over

Cheers

Rich

[Anonymous Ghost]

Apparently couple of lurkers or newbies (and I include myself in the former group) who notice it and want to weigh in are all that's necessary to refuel the flames.

Besides, its an old, old baseball argument. It figures that it'll never go away on any forum worth reading, you know?

[Astros33]

Expansion ruined baseballl, the DH sucks even though I did like Cecil Fielder. I liked t he Tigers in the late 80's early 90's( go allan trammell!!!). Also, Rich has ruined my mind. Thank him if none of my post don't make any sense.

[Malleus Dei]

Anyone who thinks that today's game is more than a shadow of what the game was in the past wasn't alive to see it then. It's natural that today's youngsters, who just don't know any better and don't have an experience base to draw from, think today's game is good baseball, but, as Henry put it "say what you will, baseball WAS better THEN."

And it was. You guys can say what you want to and make all of the arguments of youth; it changes nothing. Henry and I (and others) saw it then and we see it now and we KNOW. And you don't, and you won't, and you can't. But we do.

Enjoy your youthful illusions. Henry is right.

[GForce22]

and of course, when you want blind arrogance personified, you can always count on Mal.

GH

[SoxWin]

Steve, you want to put this thing to bed?

All the arguments and insults were thrown around months ago, no real need to rehash them. The same arguments are being presented again and it will just get personal.

Cheers

Rich

[Crapshoot]

Originally posted by Henry


I appreciate your value of my opinions, but on this one I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. What I am saying WOULD be arrogant if you and I had the same perspective of the issue - but we don't. You see, I have no doubt that if you would have lived through and seen baseball 40 years ago - you would agree with me, simply put.

This doesn't have to do with "I know more than you" about this subject... heck - you may know more details about baseball than I ever did... you may be able to recall statistics and situations that I don't even remember ... it doesn't even have to do with baseball specifically. It does have everything to do with understanding something because you lived it - becasue you were there and you saw the things like emotions, trust, respect, excitement, that never make it into the stories.

As an example, I couldn't hope to understand what it was like as a Jew in World War II Germany. Yes, I've read all about it - World War II history is even a passion of mine... but to "truly" understand what it was like to "live" as a Jew in that environment I can only "imagine". However, when I sit down with my Jewish friend who DID live it, and survived it (even though his family did not)... I truly understand that he "sees and remembers and understands" something in his mind that I have no hope of ever understanding - and I accept that. As much as I want to understand I never will, but I do understand enough to know he knows more than I do about it.

That's all this discussion is about.... about understanding a baseball that we can't even fully explain why it was better - but we know it was.... I hope you at least understand what I'm trying to convey and don't see it as arrogance, but experience.

By all means enjoy the game to see today, because it is what you have and you won't have a chance to see it as it was - and someday, maybe 30-40 years from now, you'll look back on today's baseball and catch yourself telling someone else "it WAS better then" ... if that happens I hope you remember me

Henry

Henry, I think your last quote made the point; I might believe it was best now (like you think it was 30-40 years ago) because that as time when I was most interested, when I could play, or so on... My point is that it doesnt make it fact. I always find it hard to believe that you guys believe that a time when segregation was just ending, when the best players were basically slaves to their team and when the Yankees kept winning even more so than now (only mentioning this because of the competitive balance arguement) is hardly my idea of pristine baseball. Baseball is not meant to be frozen in time to suit a particular age group; it eveolves and grows, just like we do. Some changes may be good, others bad, but on the whole, there is no "fact" that it was better back then. Perhaps a better phrasing would be that you enjoyed it more back then. As GeForce said, you are one of the people I have the most respect for on this board, in part because you dont have the arrogant prick attitude of some unnamed ppl. Nonetheless, I do not buy the "innocence of baseball" arguement; to me its more about your(or my , as it may be) feelings on the game, and your growth than it is about the game itself. I love baseball now; I think based on what I know, that I would have hated 40's and 50's baseball. That however is my opinion; it doesnt neccessarily make those periods awful.

[Hawk]

Why not…

I’m not a big fan of wildcards, but I’m happy with multiple divisions in each league, especially with unbalanced schedules. Win your division, play the other division winner for the right to go to the World Series, and then play the team from the other league that did likewise. That just seems right…

As far as the DH goes, I think about now we have to recognize that it’s part of baseball tradition. Purists talk about the Washington Senators as a storied part of baseball lore, but do you realize there’s been a DH around for twice the number of years that there was a team called the Washington Senators? Yep, ’57 through ’71 (and two entirely different franchises to boot) were the Senators. We’ve had DHs for thirty years.

And I think it makes for a more interesting game. Who wants to watch Randy Johnson swing a bat? I mean other than on a blooper reel. He strikes out more often when he’s at the plate (.426) than opposing hitters do when he’s on the mound (.415). I like the DH, but not because it lets old guys play a couple more years, or even because it creates “more” offense. I like it because it makes the lineup nine hitters, not eight hitters and one rally killer. Two on, two out and the pitcher (or, to be completely accurate, the pitcher’s spot) due up. Kind of like taking your sister to the prom. Jeez, nothing like having a rally start to get some steam and then have the pitcher come up. Ohhhhh, will he bunt it down the first base line or the third base line? The excitement… Maybe the manager will pull him for a pinch hitter who’ll bunt for him! Oh, goody, then we can watch some rubberarm pitch the next couple of innings until it’s his turn to have somebody else pinch hit for him. The strategy this introduces just doesn’t make my heart pound. Of course, I’m exaggerating a bit, and this sort of strategy makes other folks happy, so it’s good that the NL doesn’t have a DH. In fact, having the difference between leagues is also now part of baseball tradition too. For the record, I like the idea of having the All Star game determine who has home field advantage (and therefore whether or not there is a DH) in the World Series.

Somebody asked, why stop at the pitcher? “Middle infielder’s don’t hit very well, so let’s give them a DH too.” Well, exceptionally poor hitting everyday middle infielders bat maybe .230 with no power (currently, the worst average of a SS or 2B with 300+ AB is Izturis at .225). Most pitchers hover in the .100s maybe, with no power (only five pitchers with at least 40 AB have a better average than Izturis). And there’s no pitcher who hits like A-Rod, Nomar, Boone or Tejada. I mean aside from Hampton, but he plays in Colorado, and I'm sure purists hate Coors Field too.

Free agency isn’t just a part of baseball, it’s frankly a (to sound a bit political) human right. A man ought to have a say in who his employer is, whether he hits baseball or fudges balance sheets for a living. However, that doesn’t mean we have to have a players union. In fact, I’d say the existence of Free Agency really means the Players Union ought to be disbanded. Emancipating baseball players was the one good thing the Union could do. It did it, so it should claim victory and retire. Shoot, maybe Fehr would do that in exchange for a promise to put him in the Hall.

I agree with Gray about situational relievers. I really hate having over half an inning devoted to warm-up tosses for three different relievers.

And for anyone who insists you “don’t know ‘cause you weren’t there”, well, how to put this kindly? Oh, yeah. Who cares what you think?<g>

[KC]

What I liked about baseball in my youth, more than I do now:

* $1 could buy you four packs of baseball cards.
* The Houston Astros "rainbow" uniform.
* Umps weren't afraid to call a strike above the belt.
* If Barry Bonds stood over the plate, as he does now, and got hit on the elbow, the ump would call the pitch a strike.
* Daytime baseball games.
* Seeing the final out of an All-Star or World Series game.
* The stolen base.
* A batter with a 100-strike outs was taboo.
* Bo Jackson.
* Small market teams like the Royals, Twins, and Brewers made it to the World Series, and won.
* Listening to Bill White and Phil Rizutto on the radio, calling Yankee games.
* Don Mattingly.
* Playing dice baseball.
* Playing one-on-one whiffle ball in the backyard of my friend's house, past dark, and coming in just in time to see Donnie Moore give up a home run to Dave Henderson in the 1986 ALCS.
* Watching games with my dad.

[GForce22]

Originally posted by Henry


I appreciate your value of my opinions, but on this one I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree. What I am saying WOULD be arrogant if you and I had the same perspective of the issue - but we don't. You see, I have no doubt that if you would have lived through and seen baseball 40 years ago - you would agree with me, simply put.

This doesn't have to do with "I know more than you" about this subject... heck - you may know more details about baseball than I ever did... you may be able to recall statistics and situations that I don't even remember ... it doesn't even have to do with baseball specifically. It does have everything to do with understanding something because you lived it - becasue you were there and you saw the things like emotions, trust, respect, excitement, that never make it into the stories.

As an example, I couldn't hope to understand what it was like as a Jew in World War II Germany. Yes, I've read all about it - World War II history is even a passion of mine... but to "truly" understand what it was like to "live" as a Jew in that environment I can only "imagine". However, when I sit down with my Jewish friend who DID live it, and survived it (even though his family did not)... I truly understand that he "sees and remembers and understands" something in his mind that I have no hope of ever understanding - and I accept that. As much as I want to understand I never will, but I do understand enough to know he knows more than I do about it.

That's all this discussion is about.... about understanding a baseball that we can't even fully explain why it was better - but we know it was.... I hope you at least understand what I'm trying to convey and don't see it as arrogance, but experience.

By all means enjoy the game to see today, because it is what you have and you won't have a chance to see it as it was - and someday, maybe 30-40 years from now, you'll look back on today's baseball and catch yourself telling someone else "it WAS better then" ... if that happens I hope you remember me

Henry

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

I think your last quote made the point; I might believe it was best now (like you think it was 30-40 years ago) because that as time when I was most interested, when I could play, or so on... My point is that it doesnt make it fact.

Bingo. It is hard to believe that biases of what the younger crowd see now and people as a whole, that their youth is/was the best period for so much...it is hard to believe those biases are somehow not held by older folks as well. Older people tend to say their youth was better as a matter of pride as opposed to a matter of fact. However, it becomes an inarguable point, because one experienced it and the other didn't. That being the case does not make that opinion fact. It's just an opinion, and one you may genuinely believe. If so, good for you. I don't know. I know I would have loved to watch 60's and 70's baseball. As an aggressive pitcher, I think it would have been a great thrill for me. But as for the "what happened in my day was better than yours"...It's human nature...or human habit to say this, take your pick. Neither make it fact.

GH

[CMH]

i personally think baseball in the 1890's was better...

[Malleus Dei]

Originally posted by GForce22
and of course, when you want blind arrogance personified, you can always count on Mal.GH

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

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

As usual.