Why ESPN Is Wrong About Baseball -- Again
by Randy Booth on Jan 9, 2010 6:00 AM EST
in News
Email
PrintI'm not a fan of ESPN. I've probably said that multiple times here at OTM, but if I haven't, you know it now.
With that said, I subscribe to its magazine. Or, as all the hip kids call it, The Mag. I only subscribed because I had back and forth conversations with one of their writers, who had helped me down my own journalism path. I just wanted to read his work -- and admittedly, some Rick Reilly.
Now, said writer is no longer working for ESPN and Reilly has, unfortunately, fallen off the map the last few weeks. It's all really sad, but still leaves me at this conclusion: I am not re-upping my subscription to The Mag. Nope. Sorry.
Until this subscription is over, it still comes to my mailbox. I picked a new issue up today and quickly glanced over the cover. It exclaims this: "New Year! New Rules! 31 Ways to Make Sports Better."
I was hoping their bold statement was true. I was sorely wrong.
I'll just focus on their bold "new rules" when it comes to baseball, and we'll work all the way down to No. 1:
29. MAKE FALL FAIR
ESPN suggests each league add one more wild card position in the playoffs, with the two playoff teams with the worst record meet in a best-of-three play-in series. There's a little bit more to this idea, but I can say fully it's complete crap.
One thing I love about baseball is that only eight teams make it in. Unlike every other professional league in the world, MLB doesn't have half of its teams make the playoffs. What's the fun in having a team below .500 make the playoffs? The MLB playoffs are for the best of the best and the system in place ensures that each and every year.
23. DROP THE DROPPED THIRD STRIKE
This has been part of the game since day one. Yes, the rule hurts sometimes, but other times, it's fantastic. If a pitcher throws a ball into the dirt and it happens to get a strike three, the catcher has to snag it. That is his job. It makes the catcher work hard and stay focused. Plus, who doesn't love a four-strikeout inning?
22. BRUSH BACK THE DH
Now ESPN is just getting ridiculous. If anything, the National League should adopt the designated hitter; the American League shouldn't get rid of it. It'd be far easier for the NL to bring in players to DH than for the AL to change their whole offensive philosophy because now they can't have a DH. If the DH rule ever changes, it will not be because the AL is getting rid of it, it's because the NL is adopting it.
9. CONTRACT 40-MAN ROSTERS
ESPN doesn't want 40 man rosters because of one game in September when Tigers coach Jim Leyland employed 23 players. It suggests that teams can only have 40-man rosters if they "concede defeat" and won't be in the playoffs. And those teams can only use a 40-man roster against another team that has "conceded defeat."
This is just so stupid that I don't even know what to write exactly. A 40-man roster is great because a) you can see young talent performs on a big-time stage, b) you can get some fresh legs up to the bigs and rest major leaguers in preparation for the playoffs and c) give players some incentives.
If ESPN wants teams to bow out of playoff contention, how many teams would actually do that? There are a few teams alive before September starts that need to make that big decision. But why? Let them call up 40 just like everyone else and see who can make it to the end. Do you think the Twins would have made it to the playoffs without a 40 man roster last season?
4. LIMIT CATCHER VISITS
Once again, one part of one game makes ESPN want to change a rule. It cites Jorge Posada visiting CC Sabathia eight times during the fifth inning of game four of the World Series. Yeah, that is excessive, but how often does that actually happen? I can never think of that happening more than three times in an inning.
And damn it! That was the World Series. Baseball is about strategy. And even though it was the MFY, catchers and pitchers should be allowed to work together to get an out. Especially if it's in the Fall Classic.
3. MAKE PITCHERS PITCH AND HITTERS HIT
So there's a lot of dead space in an at-bat. We get it. ESPN says if a pitcher leages the mound between pitches, it's a ball. If a batter steps out of the box, it's a strike.
That's dumb. Once again, this is baseball. This is how it has been since day one. The greatest one v. one battle in sports is batter v. pitcher. The game isn't just about pitching and hitting. It's about reading the pitcher, reading the hitter and doing what is necessary.
Some players are ridiculous; I can admit to that. But those moments tend to be in high-pressure situations. You're not going to see hitters wait 35 seconds outside the box if it's spring training. But if it's the World Series and you've got the game on the line, you're going to take a deep breath. Or two.
1. MANDATE UNIVERSAL INSTANT REPLAY
This is for all sports, obviously, but here's one I'm not totally against. Instant replay in baseball is OK. But it should only happen on a play that decides a run. Questionable home run call? Use instant replay. Double into the gap that may be a ground rule double, may not, and it brings in a runner? Use instant replay.
But nothing more. Baseball can not use instant replay on ball or strike calls. Baseball can not use instant replay on hit batsman (unless, I guess, if the bases are loaded and a run would come across).
No matter what, though, instant replay should be used scarcely. For the love of all that is holy, instant replay should see as little time in baseball as possible. The MLB will not become the NFL in that sense. Please, no.
83 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
i agree randy on almost everything,
but thats stupid about instant replay. one instance where i always wish they would use it is on close plays at first. there are regularly blown calls there, and it rarely is a play where a run scores.
3. MAKE PITCHERS PITCH AND HITTERS HIT
22. BRUSH BACK THE DH
They should make up their mind!
by German Red Sox Fan on Jan 9, 2010 7:10 AM EST reply actions
All Except #4
I’m in agreement with you except with respect to #4. As you say, it’s not a problem in almost all instances, so saying that there can’t be more than x catcher-pitcher meetings per inning really won’t affect the game. But it will prevent abuse from happening in case anyone else wants to emulate the Yankees from last Fall.
That being said, it seems pretty silly for anyone to argue that this is the #4 most needed change in all of sports.
There's already a rule to deal with that
Or really two rules. When there’s no one on base, it’s Rule 8.04:
When the bases are unoccupied, the pitcher shall deliver the ball to the batter within 20 seconds after he receives the ball. Each time the pitcher delays the game by violating this rule, the umpire shall call “Ball.” The intent of this rule is to avoid unnecessary delays. The umpire shall insist that the catcher return the ball promptly to the pitcher, and that the pitcher take his position on the rubber promptly. Obvious delay by the pitcher should instantly be penalized by the umpire.
And if there are runners on base, it’s Rule 8.05(h):
If there is a runner, or runners, it is a balk when the pitcher unnecessarily delays the game.
If excessive visits to the mound by the catcher are really a problem, all the umps have to do is call such behavior an “obvious delay” and call a balk.
Enforcement
You touch upon one of the big problems which is enforcement. I can’t blame the umps too much as, short of taking out stopwatch, enforcing a 20 second rule becomes subjective.
It's not that subjective
Papelbon, for instance, almost never delivers a pitch within 20 seconds. He’s usually closer to 30. And while he is called on it occasionally and penalized a ball, it only happens a couple times a year.
And there are a number of pitchers who, after the catcher throws the ball back to them, spend 20 seconds wandering around the mound, kicking the dirt, adjusting their caps, playing with their cups, spitting, etc., etc., etc., before they even set foot on the rubber. Only then do they look in for the sign and go through the routine of actually delivering a pitch to the plate.
So yeah, enforcement is the problem. But the rule does exist, and all that is necessary if MLB really gives a damn is to start enforcing it consistently. If you want to give the pitchers a couple seconds grace period, fine. If you want to set up a pitch clock on the scoreboard, fine. But every time they wait 30 seconds, penalize them. If you think the catcher is making excessive trips to the mound, call a balk — let the pitcher’s team play the game under protest if they think it’s unfair. But call it every time.
Papelbon is one of the few
who’s actually been penalized for delay of game. I’m for a more subjective enforcement of it, myself, but there’s got to be something about Papelbon’s behavior that just ticks umpires off.
I agree with the general dislike of ESPN....
But I still find myself watching Around the Horn and PTI on a regular basis during the weekdays. I think those are quality programs. Well, Around the Horn is hit or miss depending on who are the guests. I dislike Jay Mariotti…in a way words cannot describe.
Sunday Night Baseball can only be better than last season with Steve Phillips having his “indiscretions”.
Also the weekly NFL “2 min drill” done by Chris Boomer Berman the Swami is always hilarious, and as you mentioned Rick Reilly does quality work.
Also I do think Catchers visits should be limited.
Part of the charm (for me at least) is that the major means of communication is supposed be between those catchers fingers and pitchers head movements. I’m fine with the catcher visiting two, maybe three times in an inning, but beyond that, especially eight times is ridiculous. If I’m not mistaken the “strategy” for each hitter is largely determined before the game even starts….
I agree with what argo says above.
Didn't they write this same article last year?
Or a version of it?
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
I have a five-tool player in my pants.
As a TV viewer
of the three national baseball options, Fox, ESPN, and TBS, I like ESPN the best. I wish they did the playoffs with MLB Network, AND GET JOE BUCK AWAY!
"We're not going to give up," It doesn't happen, so who cares? There's always next year. It's not like it's the end of the world."-Manny Ramirez
Am I the only person who doesn't mind Joe Buck?
I like him?
McCarver is like cheese-grater to the brain, but I like Buck.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
I have a five-tool player in my pants.
I don't mind him.
But sometimes I wonder if that’s because I’m so accustomed to him and McCarver.
I think ESPN is correct about 3 & 4
The game does move very slowly. There is too much dead time between each pitch. The league has been issuing edicts about eliminating that, but still hasn’t become serious about enforcing them. I like watching the pitcher throw and the hitter swing, but I don’t like watching the pitcher wipe his head and walk around the mound and the hitter take practice swings. If they could decrease the time between pitches to less than half a minute it would be great
Baseball is too stressful to be able to do that.
If players aren’t ready to react, you will see a LOT more injuries, or worse.
I agree with some, disagree with others
The play in series is an interesting concept but has two problems. First, it gives a greater advantage to the 85 win division leader. Second, division winners could be at a disadvantage with an extra week off.
I’m ok with the dropped 3rd strike and DH.
I’m all for speeding the game up. I’m all for limiting catchers visits per inning (2?) and imposing (and enforcing!) penalties to prevent pitchers and hitters from stalling. Many will say the pace is the “charm of the game” but I think shorter games will lead to greater fan interest.
I like limited instant replays. The problem has always been the delay. I’ve never understood why the NFL doesn’t use a ref in the booth. If there is a question, they contact the booth and get a thumbs up or down in 5 seconds. I suspect the counter argument is that the control stays on the field but running into the clubhouse to review a call is the biggest problem with replay.
Replays
might be a pretty good argument for replay for force outs and maybe any potential inning ender (force or tag)… I recall some pretty hideous calls (many at first base) this year, particularly in post season play on the AL side.
All the hand-wringing over the Wild Card is stupid
More often than not, the weakest team in the playoffs is a division winner. Quite often, the Wild Card team has the second-best record. Wild Cards are already “punished” by not having an extra home game, even if they’re playing a team with a worse record. If “purists” want the best teams getting in, the top four teams by record should get in—even if they’re all from the same division. Good teams in weak divisions would still have an edge because of the unbalanced schedule (you can’t have a balanced schedule with inter-league play).
Divisions are necessary for travel. But, for example, I see no reason why an 87-win division winner should get in and: (1) get preferential treatment in the form of home field advantage against a 99-win second-place (Wild Card) team; (2) have a 92-win team miss the playoffs just because they’re in a tough division. A team that can only win 87 games in a weak division doesn’t deserve to play in the post-season if there are better second and third-place teams.
In the old, two-division, set-up there was almost always a team or two that missed the playoffs even though they were better than one of the division-winning teams. What we have now isn’t perfect, but it’s better than the old system. Rather than adding another team (and series) and playing games in mid-November, I’d prefer to see the four best teams by record play in the playoffs. Anything that favors division winners at the expense of Wild Card teams puts geography ahead of excellence. A 162-game season is long enough. Let the top teams play for a championship regardless of division.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
How about
Revvert back to a two division setup, dump the un-balanced schedule and let the top two teams in both divisions play the playoffs in a cross-over. No. 2 from one division plays at No. 1 of the other. Same number of playoff teams
AL EAST
Baltimore
Boston
New York
Cleveland
Detroit
Toronto
Tampa Bay
AL WEST
Oakland
Seattle
LA
Minnesota
Chicago
Kansas City
Texas
Suppose you have a situation like
This, where the top four teams by record are in one division?
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 9, 2010 2:22 PM EST up reply actions
The problem with playing without divisions
is the balanced schedule, which is problem with travel and inter-league play. I don’t have a problem with the current system. The Wild Card at least mitigates some of the problems with weaker divisions. I just hate the argument that Wild Card teams aren’t “punished” enough for not winning their division, a random grouping roughly based on geography.
I think the best system would be to have divisions with four teams making the post-season, but seed the playoffs by overall record: the top record plays the 4th best recond and #2 plays #3. If all four teams are from one division, that’s tough luck for the two division winners with bad records. This way, you’d be assured the best four teams in the regular season make the playoffs. The only disadvantage would be that good teams in weak divisions would have a slight edge over good teams in strong divisions.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 9, 2010 3:30 PM EST up reply actions
Good teams in weak divisions already have a slight edge over good teams in strong divisions
That will always be the case with the unbalanced schedule, which isn’t going away. So I don’t think that’s really a very big disadvantage in your plan.
My wife thinks there should be a AAAA tier of teams with their own minor league affiliates, and that MLB should use such a tier to go to a European soccer model — the worst team in each league is relegated to AAAA the next season, while the AAAA league champions move up to the AL and NL. It’s not really practical, but in a perfect world, Congress would establish as a national holiday the day some time in the future when the MFY would be relegated to AAAA.
Except I love Kaufmann Stadium.
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
I have a five-tool player in my pants.
I stopped watching and paying attention to ESPN
…when they wanted to charge for their online content. I mean really, do I need to pay to read Rob Neyer and Buster Olney? Much prefer www.cnnsi.com for my straight update news and blogs for discussion. In terms of TV I watch the MLB Network almost exclusively for baseball.
The only time I ever feel like paying for ESPN coverage...
…Is during the draft season, when KLaw and others put out some regular stuff and updates.
DFA Beckett
by South Coast Ghost on Jan 9, 2010 2:36 PM EST up reply actions
neyer us free
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
Since most of your arguments involve "day one"...
I find it tremendously hypocritical to base most of your arguments on how baseball was on “day one” and yet show your undying love for the DH. Remind us all whether the DH was there on day one, then get back to us with some REAL arguments on that one. If you apply the “day one” argument throughout, then apply it to the 40-man roster. I’m pretty positive they didn’t expand the rosters back in the 18th century… but then again, I wasn’t there…
Who cares what they did on "day one"
Nobody here has mentioned “day one.” The rules of baseball have evolved over time. At one time, a fielder could throw a ball at a runner for an out. Prior to 1857, games weren’t 9-innings. The first team that scored 21 runs (then called aces) won. The strike zone has changed, as has the mound height. They’ve altered the length of the season, when they play games, where they play games, and who can play the game. I think most of these changes have made the game better. I like the DH. I find National League baseball boring. In fact, every professional league in the world except the NL uses a DH. The only time Double-A and Triple-A teams don’t use a DH is when two NL-affiliated teams play.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 9, 2010 9:21 PM EST up reply actions
Central League in NPB doesn't use the DH
IIRC interleague in Japan is handled like it is here, so the Pacific League teams playing in Central League parks have their pitchers hit—it’s why Daisuke Matsuzaka has a very small sample size of plate appearances before 2007. (Drove me up the wall during the WS when people were worried about Matsuzaka hitting in Colorado. Eh, he did it before, and was fairly good at it for a PL pitcher…kind of like Kevin Slowey in interleague. The Sox managed the rotation so Schilling wouldn’t have to hit, if people were really worried about horrible batting by P—Schilling has a large sample size of being dead useless with bats. But I digress.)
Randy bases one argument on "day one" -- dropped 3rd strikes.
And there’s a difference between a fundamental rule change and modifying team rosters. If there’s no dropped 3rd strike rule, it almost makes the catcher useless.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Jan 10, 2010 10:51 AM EST up reply actions
Replay
After watching the playoffs this year and observing what passed for the best umpires in the game, I have to say replay should definitely be considered. I am especially appalled at the MFY being given an out back because an umpire “didn’t notice the other tag”. The umpires did make an attempt to talk it over on controversial plays for a while…. 2004 probably wouldn’t have happened had they not, but have slid back into the old ways…the ump is always right and we are not going to embarrass one of our own. There should be a 5 umps, the traditional 4 on the field and one in the booth. This would give fans a better chance of correct calls (Though watching college football this season shows that the booth is becoming more reluctant to overturn a bad call ), It would also speed the game up as teams hurried to get the ball in play before a reversal could be made.
Replay wouldn't work
In football, each play is over once the ref makes a call. Catch/no catch, in bounds/out of bounds, etc. In baseball, each play is ongoing when other baserunners are involved. If replay is involved, it would be a mess to try to place baserunners on certain bases. I don’t like it. It works for home run calls. Other than that, I don’t want it.
quibbles
On the 40-man: Will nitpick on the Twins needing the 40-man; they only used 32 players for the entire year. The September roster expansion only slightly helped them out by not having to place injured call-ups on the DL—Justin Huber was apparently dinged up for most of September and they could have really used him to replace Morneau. He played in one game that month. The Twins called up 4 players and removed 2 from the DL. That’s it. The Tigers, on the other hand, called up 10 and activated 2 from the DL.
Catcher visits: The Posada-Sabathia thing was indeed ridiculous, but it was out of the ordinary. The only other times I’ve seen an extraordinary number of visits involved rookie pitchers, language issues, or a pitcher absolutely melting down.
Other delay of game: The biggest delay of game has to be television. On the other hand, there are a bunch of little Mike Hargrove v2.0s fiddling with their gloves around MLB these days. They should probably start enforcing the rules in the minors first, as it’s not as if they’re coming up and just starting to do it. As for slow-working pitchers—are there any extreme cases left besides Doug Davis and Claudio Vargas?
Replay:
I hate it.
But, I would love every single ball and strike to be instantaneously called by a computer. The umps only call it from their earpieces. Why get it wrong when it pretty clearly could be right?
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
Variation
This keeps it ‘human’, but would vastly improve the accuracy:
1) put a camera from up above that looks straight down on the plate. An umpire in the booth monitors it and simply calls inside/outside – whether it crosses the plate. Presses a button if its a strike. Yeah, that could be automated, but trying to keep it human.
2) put a camera on each side looking at the batter. An umpire watches whichever one is facing the batter and simply calls hi/lo – i.e. presses a button if its a strike from his view. This one would be harder to automate because of the variations in batters and their stances.
3) if both buttons are pressed, its a strike.
I like it too, I think.
It’s just making it so that the umpires have the best possible views. It’s the ideal “human” method in a world that makes it possible via technology.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Jan 10, 2010 10:53 AM EST up reply actions
LOL - in theory could even be done WITHOUT technology
Just put the ‘above’ umpire up on a hanging platform on his belly looking down on the play. :-D
Okay, that’s obviously just for the Rube-Goldberg visuals in your head of a big, fat 270 lb umpire being suspended from a wire …
If you truly want to level the playing field
Do something to guarantee that ALL teams have an even playing field. It is absurd that small market teams cannot compete on a year in and year out basis because they constantly have to dump players near the trading deadline because they will never be able to re-sign them. The luxury tax MLB currently has is a joke does it stop the Yankees of the world from buying any and all free agents they want? So, but the Pittsburgh’s, Cleveland’s, Kansas City’s, etc. have to develop young players and then after nurturing them and developing them to major league talents they have to trade them away and rebuild. At best they can look at a 2-3 year window of competing before they need to rebuild again with young talent while the big market teams simply reload with high priced veterans. The constant rebuilding does not help build a fan base and eventually will result in a major league consisting of a few teams that have a chance to win year in and year out. Wake up MLB and share the wealth and give EVERY team a chance to compete before you kill the golden goose.
the field was never level...
Before free agency there were still have’s and have not’s in baseball. If anything it was an even more unfair situation then now. The Red Sox and Yankees were always able to buy (via trades if not outright cash transactions) talent developed elsewhere. The old KC A’s were little more then a Yankee major league farm team and the old Browns were always selling their best players to stay afloat. Connie Mack found out in the thirties that he could make more money with a contending team then with a pennant winner because staying in contention brought out the crowds but not winning allowed him not to give the players raises. Besides, just spending money does not always work; look at the Red Sox in the Yawkey years or the Mets from just last year.
Just as teams are not all at the same talent level on the field, they are not at the same resource level off of it. Fair has nothing to do with the real world in business, and baseball is big business. Is it any fairer for teams to send millions of dollars to other teams just because they have lower revenue streams or are not as efficiently run.
That doesn't mean the current model isn't broken.
Prior to free agency, the large market teams could simply purchase the contracts of players from the small market teams for cash when those small market teams needed money. This is how the Yankees of the 20’s basically came about.
Since free agency, the large market teams can afford to pay more for free agents – and can resign their own. The small market teams can only compete during those short ‘windows of opportunity’ when their own farm developed talent all blossoms at the same time.
Don’t kid yourself if you think that the Red Sox aren’t hurt by the the current system. The Red Sox are in the same division as the Yankees. That means they have to spend way more than everybody else simply to compete for a wildcard shot. Teams in other divisions can spend less and compete regularly for their division title – and a home field advantage in at least the opening series.
Basic facts:
1) Spending more does NOT guarantee a World Series title. But
2) Spending more increases the probability of winning more regular season games which
3) increases the probability of winning the division title, which
4) means more playoff OPPORTUNITIES, including home field advantage in same.
The Yankees have won more WS titles because they’ve spent more and gotten more playoff appearances than anyone else. More chances to win it all. Prior to the WildCard / Division series being added, the Red Sox’ playoff opportunities were incredibly scarce. Its plain and simple fact that since the WC was added, the Red Sox have tremendously benefited. But even with the WC, the Sox are still at a disadvantage because on average they will (because of spending less) win the division less often than the Yankees and hence usually have to go through the playoffs via the Wild Card route.
Until there is a true salary cap and revenue sharing model akin to what most of the other sports now use (successfully, I might add) baseball is going to continue to be dominated to by the Yankees. And the Red Sox will be forced to spend a ton of money just to compete for the Wild Card slot (on average).
ESPN baseball changes
Like you I disagree with most all of them. The DH should be dropped. I know there almost no chance of that but the NL should not add it. One of the reasons that I think baseball is the best sport is because everyone has to do everything – hit, run and field. If the older players want to continue to play stay in shape to do everything. Pitchers get out and work on your hitting.
"One of the reasons that I think baseball is the best sport is because everyone has to do everything"
By that criteria, Basketball is by far the best sport.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Jan 10, 2010 12:26 PM EST up reply actions
Overall I think most every one of these 'ideas' is stupid.
I do think video replay can be incorporated in to make the officiating better. But all the ‘structural’ changes to the game proposed are just stupid.
Don't make the AL change its offensive philosophy?
What offensive “strategy” is that? Just swing away?
The DH sucks. Always has, always will. It was brought in to try to boost attendance in the AL by getting another bat in the lineup. (Evidently they didn’t have that problem in the NL. But if you want more runs and don’t care about rules that were in place since day one (except maybe for that sacred dropped 3rd strike), then how abut having 4 outs per half inning? Or shorten the bases by 10 feet? Or maybe make the pitcher work from 2nd base?
Make the pitchers hit and the managers work. Double switches do end up putting a hitter at the 9th spot and make the benches a lot more important. The NL game versus the AL game is like the difference between checkers and chess. Baseball is a game of strategy. That’s the beauty of it. Let’s keep it that way.
It would essentially force all AL teams to massively reconstruct.
1 starter would be forced into a bench role—benches which weren’t necessarily constructed to supply pinch hitters. Making the NL adopt the DH would effectively be saying “OK, put your best pinch hitter in the lineup”. It would be a much easier transition.
The DH rule makes plenty of sense. Pitchers are different from all other players in a great variety of ways. They have to do a lot more work when they do play, they only play once every 5 days which makes it incredibly hard for them to manage any consistency at the plate, and there’s a lot higher injury risk for them on the rare occasion that they do end up on the bases.
As for it being a game of strategy, I’d say it’s a lot more like the difference between a game of blackjack and a game of solitare. Sure, one of them requires a lot more strategy than the other, but this long after the invention of the game, it’s basically come down to a set of rules that a manager has to follow in the NL. It’s not horribly difficult to do so, but sure enough everyone always talks about how much more strategic it is. Hell, it’s not even horribly strategic, it’s more of a crapshoot. You hope that you’re not wasting the opportunity to just pinch hit in case, further down the line, there’s need for more of your bench guys. There’s not really a ton of thinking to go into it.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Jan 10, 2010 6:00 PM EST up reply actions
ESPN has out grown it's usefulness.
After reading about some of the personal situations that ESPN personnel have gotten into using their position to get their way,, I believe that ESPN is a liability to sports in working to change things for no other reason than their corporate profits.
Item:
The Fiesta Bowl after being awarded the TCU-BSU had to call ESPN and find out if the match-up was OK with them. Who is running college football anyway?
Item ESPN forced Jemele Hill to call Mitch Barnhart and the SEC office in order to apologize for saying that UK would support Charles Manson if it meant they won. ESPN was not welcome at UK before this with CAL not far behind
Item:
Mike Leach coach of the Texas Tech Red Raiders was fired for insubordination. I wonder what it is like to have Adam James the son of former NFL player and ESPN college football analyst Craig James constantly lobbying the University using his position at ESPN to create favorable situations for his son.
I had coaches do much worse to me; however I don’t know enough details yet to really know all the facts. One fact I do know is that a sophomore player from Tumbleweed Texas probably wouldn’t bring mom and dad into his personal problems. And, if they did do you think they could get the coach fired.
There is much more in the news about ESPN employees using their positions to get there way.
I am a Dodger fan but l love the Red Sox and I resent the comments from ESPN alluding to the Red Sox being under specter of suspicion PEDS. Hello, isn’t there a team in NYC with a LEGACY of PEDS.
Time to pull the plug on ESPN and put them back reporting scores and sponsoring games, period.
Patrick
I dunno, I think all those situations are a little hazy.
For one thing, it’s hard to criticize a commercial institution for having too much influence over college football when it’s already ruled over by an arbitrary bowl system which is designed to generate the most revenue, not determine the best team.
You certainly can’t blame them for disciplining their writers when they risk their standing with schools. That’s actually working against your point, in fact, when ESPN was held accountable by a conference for its actions and had to kowtow a bit to get back it.
And Leach was in a precarious position over there already, even with the massive new contract. That whole UW thing hadn’t gone over well at all. TT got an easy excuse to cut him loose, and they did. I don’t know what you had coaches do to you, but to most of the world getting locked in a shed for having a concussion is pretty damn out of line. I think any parent would be very legitimately upset, and if word got to ESPN or any news network about a player being “disciplined” for having a concussion—a hot button issue in sports health today—they would break it and the **** would hit the proverbial fan.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Jan 10, 2010 6:13 PM EST up reply actions
Like I said
I don’t have all the facts yet but do hear a lot living in Texas and having many TTU friends. The whole point I poorly made is that ESPN is trying to create news, be the news and control the media.
I think the only reason they stopped ragging on Jonathan Papelbon for his pitching rituals is because the World Series was over.
I really wonder how they would of handled “Oil Can Boyd.”
Your thoughts are well considered yet I speak of the direction of their corporation. Jamele was told to say what she did. She was only told to apologize after UK complained. That’s the point.
I don’t like the thought to technology taking over for umpires. Good Umpires can do the job.
Being a fan of the Red Sox and the Dodgers I love difference in DH vs no DH.
One thing I think is pretty clear is part of ESPN’s problem comes from poor broadcasters.
I have had Vin Scully all my life and he took the boredom out of Televised games. One guy working alone and I swear you can smell the hot dogs even over the radio.
If they would improve THEIR product perhaps they might just do better.
Thanks for your thoughts Ben
Patrick
So close...
Agreed with you on your disagreement, except…
In a perfect world, American League fans will realize how stupid the DH is, and insist that the stain it puts on the game is for ever removed. Baseball, unlike football requires that you deal with the positives and negatives of a player. Shortstop can’t hit, but he fields like Ozzie Smith, with Cal Ripken’s arm? You deal with it. You don’t get to have someone else hit. If you have Man-Ram in the outfield-hey, it’s the prcie yo pay for getting his bat. My biggest disdain for the DH is not the lack of the pitcher batting. It is the hitter not taking the field.
What if they reduced the lineup to just 8, then?
My biggest problem without the DH is the pitcher batting. Their 1-in-5-days schedule makes their circumstances unique, and makes it impossible for them to really stand much of a chance at the plate with only a very few exceptions.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Jan 10, 2010 6:19 PM EST up reply actions
Over at AthleticsNation, these topics were discussed around WS 2009 time..
Without a lot of detail, I made the following suggestions:
Not that they were warmly greeted, but IMO they were worthy of consideration:
(1) Electronic strike zone: ump has a buzzer in his pocket. If it buzzes, it’s a strike. He calls it so. Dugouts have access to the info (probably a little red light goes on). Otherwise, visually, and time of game, time of AB, no difference. The technology is all there, has been for a while.
(2) Replays: Extend the “umpiring crew” to include three guys (M/F) in “the booth”, “upstairs”, who watch monitors and recordings of every play. Every play. If they disagree with the call, they let it be known ASAP, by a signal to the field. Also, an ump on the field would have the option of "waving off " the play as “too close to call” (translation: “I was way out of position and couldn’t see shiiit”) and the “booth” would announce the decision.
If you have people reviewing every play, there are no “flags thrown on the field” or any such NFL nonsense, and there are no delays to getting it right. Chances are, there are only two-four plays a game where the “booth” would make a call….but they would render justice!
(3) Instead of NBA/NHL copycat “playoffs”, why not have a system that reflects the uniqueness of Major League Baseball?? Statistically, the number of wild card teams making the World Series shows it’s a flawed system….the best team seldom makes it to the World Series, then wins it. I propose (1) a balanced schedule, just two leagues, AL and NL. Using the AL as an example, the fourteen teams would play a balanced schedule of 130 games up until August 31. The top six teams would then play each other, six games (three home, three away) for thirty games during September….“Super September”. The “also-ran” teams (eight) would also get rescheduled, including interleague games. They would be free to bring up players without being accused of “not playing to win” against contenders. After the top six teams played their thirty games, the team with the overall best record would go to the World Series, beginning October 2. Seven traditional games.
"The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled."-Plutarch
by One won lost won on Jan 10, 2010 7:45 PM EST reply actions
The DH
Biggest one I have a problem with is 22. On this your argument does not hit the heart of the issue. The DH is a complete joke and everyone knows it. It allows old sluggers who everyone likes but cant play defense to continue playing. Just because it is easier for the NL to adopt the DH then for managers in the AL to make adjustments to their “coaching” doesnt mean it is a bad idea. AL coaches do not really have to make tough coaching decisions. Figuring when to take out your pitcher and when to make double switches makes the game more exciting and like a chess game. The managers decisions are the game inside the game. Allowing a bunch of old white guys to sit on their butts and make an occasional call to the bullpen is hardly coaching. NL has it right. DH is a joke, everyone in the NL knows it, and most fans of the AL know it too.
I really don't see why everyone thinks the NL is some chess game.
I’ve played plenty of chess, and that’s a much, much more complicated game. There’s, like, a 2 or 3 step flowchart that could probably describe almost the entirety of NL decision making. If you’re looking for real strategy in baseball, it’s to be found in pitcher-batter matchups. That’s about it. Everything else is just doing due diligence.
But my real qualm is with pitchers hitting. I won’t support any system that has that happening. I’d be fine with an 8-man lineup, but not just getting rid of the DH. It is the lesser of two evils.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Jan 10, 2010 8:35 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Sorry
Sorry but if you play the field, you bat. Thats how the game is ment to be played. Maybe pitchers need to start hitting. Cliff lee loved playing in philly cause he got to bat, and he provided the Phillies an advantage because he was able to hit better then other pitchers.
Except the pitchers do more than anyone else. It's an entirely unique position that should get special consideration.
I’m officially putting a moratorium on how things are “meant to be played”. That has 0 value in any conversation. Did you know football is meant to be played with crap leather helmets? And what’s with all these fans keeping foul balls? Don’t they know they keep using the same one, no matter how caked in dirt, spit, etc. it is!
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Jan 10, 2010 9:17 PM EST up reply actions
Why would you think "most fan of the AL know it"??
I’ve never seen a single survey to support that statement. Nothing, anywhere.
There used to be a story that “SuperBowl Sunday generates the most domestic violence calls to police stations of any day of the year.” I heard it repeated over and over. Heck, I repeated it! The thinking went, that men realized the NFL season was over, drank a lot, and then beat up the wife, because football “was over”.
It was a total fabrication. After about ten years of this story drifting around, a writer decided to quantify the “violence”. Turns out, SuperBowl Sunday has one of the lowest incidences of domestic violence! But no one researched it, for YEARS!! They just repeated the same old stuff. The writer who discovered this showed the series of sports articles, repeating the myth over and over.
As an AL fan, I can barely wait for interleague play to be over. Overwhelmingly, AL fans embrace the DH, as much as any baseball fan can live with “pinch hitting”. Why not do away with “pinch hitting”? It simply “allows old sluggers” like Smokey Burgess, Manny Mota, Jerry Lynch, etc. to prolong their careers. And, it allowed “unworthies” like Chuck Essegian and Dusty Rhodes to gain World Series fame, even when they “cant play defense”…Boooo!
"The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled."-Plutarch
by One won lost won on Jan 10, 2010 8:49 PM EST up reply actions
Ridiculous
Almost every AL team fan I have talked to hates the DH. If you play the field you should hit. Fans of a team, and not of the game of baseball like the DH. Sure the games score more runs, but that is hardly a solid arguement for having the DH.
“Pinch hitting” logically fits with the game of baseball. The DH does not. You play the field you hit. Unless you are subbed for. The pinch hitter is just a substitute until the team takes the field when he is then substituted for. Pinch hitting is just using the substitution rules of the game. DH is an artifitial illogical rule to drive up run production.
I love the DH.
I hate watching the pitchers hit. It’s as pathetic as a three legged puppy with a serious addiction.
by TheLoneDavid on Jan 10, 2010 9:18 PM EST up reply actions
Who are you talking to?
‘Cause it seems like you’re running into an inordinately large group of DH supporters here.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Jan 10, 2010 9:19 PM EST up reply actions
"Almost every AL team fan I have talked to ...."
Well, gee – that sure is a compelling argument ya got there feller!
Regarding the so-called ‘strategy’ needed in the NL:
Strategy is realized through the selection of choices. The more choices available, the more ‘strategy’ is critical to the outcome. If you have fewer choices, your selections and hence your strategy is constrained.
In the NL, the lack of the DH is a constraint. It literally forces the decision to remove the pitcher in a pinch hitting situation, overriding the pitcher’s pitching performance or strategic pitching situation (i.e. the lefty-righty nature of the opponent’s next hitters, etc). In the AL, the decision to replace the pitcher is purely based on pitching strategy and independent (i.e. not constrained by) the batting-order strategy.
Thus an AL manager is free to actually USE MORE STRATEGY.
Exactly
I love the DH. I don’t know any AL fan who would rather see pitchers hit. As for strategy, the AL is a match-up game: pitchers aren’t removed until they tire or get knocked around. Relievers are brought in based on the match-up at hand, not whether or not the pitcher’s spot in the order is due up next inning. In other words, in the AL, the best pitcher faces the best hitter.
In the NL, the entire “strategy” is based on having a retarded hitter in the line-up. Thus, everything is geared toward when the pitcher is going to hit. To me, none of that is rocket science. Most pitchers can’t hit. With men on base and less than two outs, they’re almost always bunting. Any idiot can make a double-switch. Sure, NL teams use their benches more. Who cares? Most bench players are on the bench because they’re marginal players. Who wants to watch games that are decided by marginal players?
I much prefer the AL brand of baseball. If the NL “has it right,” why do most professional leagues us the DH?
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Jan 11, 2010 9:22 AM EST up reply actions
Sure - go ahead and say it better than I did!
My feelings aren’t hurt. sniff … much
+1
I don't like the DH
but that’s mostly cuz I think it’s funny to watch pitchers swinging at the ball- anyone remember Penny taking horrible looking hacks at the ball in interleague play?
Actually I like the DH rule but I don’t really like teams having a player who can do nothing but hit (Papi is the one exception because I just can’t help but love him). Usually I much prefer when they get a great hitter who is actually capable of fielding a position or two if necessary (doesn’t have to be good at it, just capable without looking toooo embarrassing out there)
I got over it long ago while watching Edgar Martinez
Yeah, he was a actually a pretty good fielder. Decent enough.
But he was an artisan with the bat. After the injury and it became obvious it wasn’t worth risking injury to him in the field – why send him out there. He was just as cool to watch with that bat in his hand (hell, he almost never DIDN"T have a bat in his hand) as any slick fielder out in the field.
Aside – I’m still pissed at the Mariners for keeping him stuck in the minors until he was 27 – he could easily have another 600+ hits on his resume’ if they’d brought him up when was already the best hitter in the organization who wasn’t named Griffey.
At any rate – in the NL, there would have been no place for Edgar. We would have been robbed of watching him hit.
Next to the 2004 Red Sox come back from 0-3 over the Yankees, THIS is my second favorite moment in baseball history:
Technological Baseball.
Technological baseball was first seen by yours truly while working on a Special Olympics project. A beeping softball that let the blind play baseball was being tested. I can tell you after a few weeks of coaching and playing the kids had so much fun.
Being a traditionalist I see technology as an ointment applied sparingly. Night games, electrical scoreboards and big screen replay displays are just a few improvements to the game without changing the fundamental way it is played.
You need an electronic system to call balls and strikes because the umpires gave up using bulky protective gear. They now look over the left shoulder of the catcher for protection and can’t see balls pitched to the right side of the plate widening the strike zone. Left handed curve ball pitchers get roasted with this set up.
Before we install sensors we ought to a least make the umpires position themselves so they can see the play they are PAID to see.
Using a replay for a system of fining the umpires for missed calls I think is a good idea. I bet they will get better in a hurry. So many blown calls, suspension with a refresher course. How about people start doing the job they are paid to do. I see less and less of this these days.
During my last stint at Jury Duty I was once again disqualified by the prosecution because I have an engineering degree. It was a radar traffic ticket and my knowledge of instrument failure would possibly kill their case.
Technology can fail, be rigged or need calibration at anytime. I like keeping things simple and honest.
Patrick
Technology can fail, but not as often as humans
Since when is the human brain, “not technology”??
People have been “rigging” games since games began. Umps are human, they play favorites, let’s face it. Watching Tom Glavine and Maddox get calls no rookie gets says it all about “rigged” umpiring.
It’s not a question of “honesty”, or promoting “good umpiring” by fining people for wrong calls. Why not concentrate on getting the calls right, by whatever means is most effective?
"The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled."-Plutarch
by One won lost won on Jan 10, 2010 8:38 PM EST up reply actions
The Brain
I don’t like to argue. Just exchange ideas. I learn more from you than I could ever learn in an argument.
The brain is thought to be the souce of technology. As we define it in Anthropology;
Technology:“The practical application of science to commerce or industry.” Funny that we cannot yet determine if innovation occurs in the cerebral cortex.
Yet, not so surprising as we don’t even know how an aspirin works.
No doubt about it humans are fallible. Recent news should tell us that people are ready to sell their position and power at a frightening level. I am hoping that fan pressure will keep this in check. A fools journey…perhaps.
The increase in the quality of cameras has led to the discovery of a higher frequency of mistakes or intentional miscues by umpires and players.
Cameras and their software though are always distorted. In the lab we can use 5 different cameras and get 5 different results. There is a scientific reason for this, quantum entanglements. I do refuse to go too scientific as I use baseball to escape my mundane life…lol
I really think that a game played and judged by people is the most practical and the most fun part of the game. I would like to see one sport keep close to it’s origins.
I'm not sure I'd really just call it human, though.
It’s kind of just…bad.
The umpire has a far worse view than every single home viewer. How does that make sense?
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Jan 10, 2010 9:28 PM EST up reply actions
It doesn't Ben
The quality of umpiring has degraded dramatically over the lost 40 years. The umpire used to be trained to be in position for every play. Ever since the creation of the union, the MLUA, rules have been encroached upon. I think frankly they have unilaterally created a strike zone much smaller than that prescribed by the rules.
Most changes in baseball have been at the expense of the pitchers. From the lower mound, smaller ball parks, the juiced 1998 ball, and the much smaller strike zone.
More empowered umpires like Terry Coonley’s ejection of Clemens in the 1990 ALCS, show that the quality and arbitrary nature of umpiring has increased.
So why do I support the game being played and called on the field? Because I resist all fascists of our lives being digitized. I would like a few things to be just the best that simple men can produce without help from a gadget.
I'm going to assume you mean facets, and are not making a political statement.
Just kidding.
Anyways, though, I guess I just don’t see it as being a step towards “digitization” to at least give the guy making a call a better view. We’re not talking about an extreme, like projecting some sort of radar over the plate to see if it crosses it or not. Just getting better viewpoints for humans to make the ultimate decision.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Jan 10, 2010 10:36 PM EST up reply actions
I need to find those glasses
Something has to be done and soon. I think your solution makes the most sense. I just don’t want to go down that road.
The Series between the Twins and those other guys from NYC looked all the world to me that the fix was on. I hate to even think that; but, I know what I saw.
There are a few intentional calls that are done to prevent injury like the phantom double play where second base extends a good way from it’s physical self. I played second base in high school and college and it was a war zone…lol
Good posts Ben and pleased to meet you
The problem with those solutions
Is that they’ll never get by the union. The umps will end up on strike, and if you think balls and strikes are bad now, just wait till you see who doesn’t get in. The ball-strike cameras would probably pass muster with them without too much trouble since they’d still be needed to actually make calls at the plate and the like. Hell, adding a few guys for replays would probably make them pretty happy.
As for the failings of technology, the beauty of the cameras is their simplicity. At most, they can be just a little off-center which would result in a margin of error much smaller than we have with just Mr. Behind-the-Plate. They ARE just video cameras sending data to humans to be interpreted. It’s not like radar where it could report back an incorrect number by a couple of miles.
USG
by Ben Buchanan on Jan 10, 2010 8:40 PM EST up reply actions
By the way
The DH in the AL has worked just fine after the first 10 or so years. 40 years of having the DH has ingrained it’s self into the traditions of the game.
I see no problem with the NL not using it. I really think it matters little when you get to the World Series. Clubs with the DH are in a groove and when their pitchers have to bat it just offsets the advantage. Much to do about nothing, me thinks.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Livan Hernandez welcomes ballboy to the bigs with shower of sunflower seeds (VIDEO)
- Man beaten by four others in Dodger Stadium parking lot
- Lance Berkman’s knee injury creates a lot of questions for Cards but also his career
- Next generation: Scott Van Slyke, son of Andy Van Slyke, hits first career homer
- The Juice: Stephen Strasburg homers to cool off Orioles, Aroldis Chapman closes out Yanks
