BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Games & Gameplay >

We're Talking Baseball

  
 
Jake, Colossus of Clout
06:56 / 04.03.06
So! Who actually cares about this? I personally love the idea, but I think that the timing of it pretty much invalidates all of the competition. The best of the best have dropped out already. Manny and Pedro have left the Dominican high and dry, and C.C. Sabathia and Billy Wagner have dropped out of the U.S. team.

So! Does anyone actually give a shit about this tournament? Personally, I love it. Baseball has been kicked around recently, thanks to cheaters like Giambi and Bonds,and it's become a laughing stock. This tournament has the possibility of reigniting interest in the game globally (although it's H-U-G-E in Latin America and the Far East).

This would be so much higher profile if they would just extend the All-Star break by four or five days and jam the tournament in there, as opposed to running it in spring, where everyone is worried about injuries and pitch counts.

So- does anyone here even care about baseball or this brand-new WBC? I'm very curious about what other (intelligent) fans think.
 
 
astrojax69
21:23 / 07.03.06
hey jake, i have never really quite 'got' baseball...

could you cash out a little what it is appeals to you, what aspects of the rules and play make it so fascinating?

but i have of course heard of the strife in the game and whole leagues being abandoned for seasons at a time. must be infuriating for a real fan.

what is the answer?
 
 
praricac
09:59 / 20.03.06
i don't know if i really care about baseball, but it does interest me.
i've watched it a few times (on tv in the uk, very late at night) and it seems like a kind of leisurely but potentially very exciting spectator sport (not unlike cricket in that way)

the thing that really appeals to me about it is that it seems the closest thing america has to the sports we follow over here in terms of its traditions and history and the genuine connection that fans have with their team and the sport in general.

whereas american football is more a tv show than a sport, created and manufactured to pull in ratings and sell advertising; baseball is real, and seems to preserve in some small way some of the good qualities of america that have been otherwise corporatised out of existence.

But hey, what do i know? I've only been there once, the rest is all just from teevee...
 
 
Jack Fear
19:24 / 20.03.06
Oh, baseball. How I love thee. Where to start with its fascination? How about this:

It is played everywhere—in parks and playgrounds and prison yards, in back alleys and farmers' fields. By small children and old men, raw amateurs and millionaire professionals. It is a leisurely game that demands blinding speed, the only game in which the defense has the ball. It follows the seasons, beginning each year with the fond expectancy of springtime, and ending with the hard facts of autumn. It is a haunted game, in which every player is measured against the ghosts of all who have gone before.

Or this...

It is an extraordinary game played by men of ordinary size. ... It is the only game not ruled by a clock, but measured in outs and innings. To millions of onlookers, 300 is just another number. Ah, but to baseball players and fans, 300 is a magic number, a symbol of excellence. A player whose lifetime batting average reaches, or exceeds, 300 is a likely candidate for Hall of Fame recognition, yet that same man has failed in seven of every 10 at bats.

A good deal of the attraction, as you can see, comes from the game's paradoxes and irregularities. Even the size of the field is not precisely regulated.

It is the game of the all-around athlete—most of the players will take both offensive and defensive positions. That's the "ordinary size" that Parker is talking about—the players mostly look like normal guys, not the overbroad mutants of American football or the overtall mutants of basketball (that, I think, is why the issue of steroid use is far more emotionally charged in baseball than in any other sport—because the fans, with their own ordinary physiques, project upon the athletes far more than is possible for football or basketball fans. No football fan, looking at a fullback who is wider than he is high, is thinking That could've been me.).

It's a game of trade-offs and taking turns—a game wherein teamwork really matters—in which your best pitcher will probably only pitch one game in three, wherein your best hitter still only comes up one time in nine—and will fail seven times out of ten. (This is why American-football fans, who relish overwhelming displays of force, think baseball is slow.)

Its structure is such that no team can fully dominate a game from start to finish, wherein no single player can dominate a team, a game where every single play is a potential turning point and demands intense attention, where even subtleties can turn the gamne either way. (This is why football fans, who prefer splashier action, think baseball is boring.)

And it's got the longest season of any sport: it's a marathon that rewards patience and strategy. Its millionaires get up and go to work nearly every day, sometimes working double shifts, and they do it six months a year. (American football teams, by contrast, each play one game a week for twelve weeks—which, for some reason, entitles American-football players to make much more money than baseball players.)

It's a sport of workingmen—and not just because the pro players keep a schedule like those of working Joes; historically, baseball grew in the cities, and the low ticket prices and centralized location of the ballparks made a ballgame a perfect workingman's diversion.

And so it still is. There's a minor-league team in my city, and bleacher seats for four will run you less than a night at the movies: the trains rumble past the right-field fence, and you sit and drink your beer as a warm summer evening turns to a cool summer night, and there's an old man playing show tunes on the Wurlitzer organ and all the guys are playing their hearts out, and you're screaming at the ump to get a dog and a white cane already and smiling because you know there's fireworks after the game...

See what I've gone and done? It's a game that makes poets of us all, even despite our best intentions.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
21:19 / 20.03.06
Being forced to play Little League pretty much destroyed any love I had for the game, even after I learned the infield fly rule and how to hit and catch fairly well.

Recently, though, I've been having a string of reacurring memories of standing at the plate. I have to admit, there's little else in life that gives you the same feeling as standing there waiting for a pitch during an important game. I used to dread those moments when I was younger (I'm thinking of a particularly important game, a real bottom of the ninth two outs moment, game hanging in the balance and what's this I'm at bat what the fuck I'm supposed to pull this win out of my ass somehow oh shit everyone's watching here comes the pitch oh shit oh shit oh FUCK...at least I got a hit. Got thrown out at first, though, and we totally lost by a single run. Some of my teammates were in tears.), but now I think I'd like to feel that again. Maybe I'm suffering from a lack of excitement in my life.

Anyway. A couple friends of mine are big into baseball and have been keeping me updated. I saw a little of the game the other night with Japan kicking the snot out of Korea. Does the former Tokyo Giants fella who now plays for the Yankees play on the U.S. team or the Japan team? Yoshi, I think his name is. I dunno. It's been a while.

I have little sympathy for pro baseball players. They make more than hockey players, which I don't like. But the recent NHL strike made me lose sympathy for those guys too.
 
 
astrojax69
04:15 / 21.03.06
thanks jack... puts a couple of things in perspective.

but, does the author of the sections you quoted realise that the planet is bigger than the united states and that there are games apart from american football, basketball & baseball?

why is baseball 'extraordinary'? - this is poetic, not actually true, yes?

quoted: the only game in which the defense has the ball.

well, i would imagine softball is in the same category as baseball? - what are the salient rules of that game that differentiate it from baseball and allowing the above statements to stand?

and what of cricket?

...although i would hesitate to endorse the concept that the team with the ball is defence - how does 'attack' and 'defence' come into baseball given this? can't a tactically skilled pitcher 'attack' the opposing team and get them out? i ask thru genuine ignorance.


and as for long seasons, top flight european football teams play almost fifty league games in a season that lasts over nine months, plus up to another twenty or so games in knock-out comps, then often travel and play friendlies in the off-season. and while there is no time limit to baseball and a ninety minute slot allotted for football, it is a pretty draining ninety minutes, with some big games going to a penalty shoot - out after 120 minutes. this year, the best players also have a world cup to play, so have mebbe five or six more matches there plus the three or up to six pre-tournament friendlies to play before then... who has a short season? and yes, they do, all of them these elite sports heroes, seem to get paid an awful lot!!

hey, but your description of sitting in the bleachers watching your local team try their guts out and cheering when it all works is great! this is an experience that nothing else mimics, huh? good f'you - they winning anything??
 
 
Jack Fear
09:46 / 21.03.06
i would hesitate to endorse the concept that the team with the ball is defence - how does 'attack' and 'defence' come into baseball given this? can't a tactically skilled pitcher 'attack' the opposing team and get them out? i ask thru genuine ignorance.

Well, the generally-accepted definitions of "offense" and "defense" in sport are that the team playing offense is the team that is attemping to score points.

As to the softball question: for our purposes it's simply a variant of baseball. Of cricket we do not speak.

and as for long seasons, top flight european football teams play almost fifty league games in a season that lasts over nine months, plus up to another twenty or so games in knock-out comps, then often travel and play friendlies in the off-season.

Every Major League baseball team plays 162 games in its regular season, each game lasting three or more hours: sometimes a team will play two games in a single day (that's called a double-header).

does the author of the sections you quoted realise that the planet is bigger than the united states and that there are games apart from american football, basketball & baseball?

He's a sportswriter, writing for an American audience. Are the sports pages in the UK so much more cosmopolitan?
 
 
Jack Fear
10:16 / 21.03.06
As to this...

why is baseball 'extraordinary'? - this is poetic, not actually true, yes?

...I would argue that it is actually true. It's an easy game to play, but a difficult game to play well. Baseball demands, I think, the highest level of overall athleticism. A single player must play both offense and defense—to hit with accuracy and power, to throw with pinpoint precision, to catch, to run.

And the mental game is, I think, the most demanding in all of sport. It's the only game I can think of in which the journey to the goal proceeds in stages—in which the runner has multiple safe zones along the way—and consequently the constantly-shifting mental map of the playing field that the fielders must hold in their minds is remarkably complex, especially when there are multiple runners on the base paths. A perfectly-coordinated triple play with bases loaded, I would argue, is all the evidence needed to cklassify baseball as an extraordinary game.
 
 
praricac
10:16 / 21.03.06
jack, i *love* that description of watching your team on a summer's night.

the one baseball match i have attended (in new york about four years ago) i found to be a very enjoyable experience, it was just so ... relaxing.
i love that it is also quite a nerdy sport with lots of stats and figures you can spod through if you're in that kind of mood.

the game i was at was played in the evening, and it was great to see people ambling in from the office in their shirts and ties, having a beer and chilling out as the action unfolded.
the tickets are *very* reasonably priced for someone used to british football ticket prices: it cost me less to watch the new york mets than it does to see my hometown football team who are, to say the least, "minor league"
 
 
Jack Fear
10:17 / 21.03.06
As to this...

why is baseball 'extraordinary'? - this is poetic, not actually true, yes?

...I would argue that it is actually true. It's an easy game to play, but a difficult game to play well. Baseball demands, I think, the highest level of overall athleticism. A single player must play both offense and defense—to hit with accuracy and power, to throw with pinpoint precision, to catch, to run.

And the mental game is, I think, the most demanding in all of sport. It's the only game I can think of in which the journey to the goal proceeds in stages—in which the runner has multiple safe zones along the way—and consequently the constantly-shifting mental map of the playing field that the fielders must hold in their minds is remarkably complex, especially when there are multiple runners on the base paths. A perfectly-coordinated triple play with bases loaded, I would argue, is all the evidence needed to cklassify baseball as an extraordinary game.
 
 
Jake, Colossus of Clout
18:17 / 21.03.06
Jack Fear- Wonderful explanation. Couldn't have put it better myself. Were those quotes from Updike? His essay on Ted William's final game is a must-read for baseball fans.

One correction, however- baseball players are paid far better than American football players. Baseball players get guaranteed contracts, which football players do not- a 3-year deal in football is really only a 1-year contract because the club can cut you at their leisure after that. Baseball players have a much stronger union, stronger than the owners, as the '94 strike proved, whereas the player's association in football is under the heel of the owners and the commissioner.

According to wikipedia, baseball players average salaries are $2.9 million, with football and hockey players at $1.3 million and basketball players breaking the bank at $4.9(!)million a season. Baseball does lay claim to the highest paid single athlete- Choke artist Alex Rodriguez's $250 million contract with the Yankees.

Tuna Ghost- The former Yomiuri Giants slugger who now plays for the Yankees is Hideki Matsui. He's a steady upper-middle tier player in the bigs, although it still burns my ass that he won the Rookie of the Year award at 30 years old in 2003, when Rocco Baldelli, an actual rookie, had a better season any way you slice it. Fucking Yankees. Don't get me fired up over A-Rod beating out Ortiz in the MVP race last year.

As for the WBC, a tight, classy Japanese team beat out Cuba for the crown. I was a little disappointed, as I was pulling for Cuba for the simple fact that Bush didn't want them to play, but the Japanese team was riding high after finally beating Korea and they laid the hammer down.

As a whole, I enjoyed the tournament. There were some great games and some snoozers, but it was clear that this event was huge for all of the non-US teams. The Latin American fans were especially fired up- Venezuela/Dominican was like Sox/Yanks in the playoffs, there was so much emotion.

Unfortunately, suspect umpiring marred the whole thing. The conspiracy theory that the umps were instructed to aid the US Team has wheels. The inexplicable reversal of the sac fly in the Japan/US game that cost the Japanese a win, and the call that turned a Mexico homer into a double both seemed like blatant favoritism to me. Thankfully, the Mexicans defeated the US despite shady umpiring. That was truly embarrassing to me as an American. One would think that after 5+ years of the Bush administration I would be all out of embarrassment, but those incidents put the Ugly American front and center before millions and millions of baseball fans around the world, and I felt filthy. If the US team had won, I would have been truly sickened, and the tournament would have lost all credibility with foreign fans.

I guess I just hate it when baseball is fucked with. It's always been very dear to me, growing up in New England and having my grandmother tell me stories about Ted Williams and Jimmie Foxx.

When played right, baseball is very pure in comparison to other sports. There is no time limit- every team gets the same number of chances to win. I love basketball and I'll watch football if the Patriots are good, but nothing drives me crazier than when teams slow the game down and "control the clock." Show me a basketball player running out the shot clock or a football team waiting out the clock with short rushes or punting, and I will show you a flaw in the sport. Since when is doing nothing a legitimate part of an athletic competition? In baseball, your pitchers have to get 27 guys out to win, and each of those 27 gets an equal chance to help their team win. It's simple, but it's so fair.

One of my other favorite things about the game is something Jack Fear touched on earlier- There is no physical prerequisite to be successful. Most great basketball players are very tall. Most successful players are large men. In baseball you can see the lithe, graceful Ken Griffey, the fat, drunken lunatic David Wells, the late, great, 5'7" keg-with-legs Kirby Puckett, and lumbering man-mountain David Ortiz. All great players, with totally disparate physiques. I've often wondered how Pedro Martinez, who looks to be about 145 lbs soaking wet, can throw a baseball in the high-90's. It's obvious how freaks of nature like Randy Johnson can do it, but Pedro!? I may very well have a better physique than Pedro, for crying out loud! Kirby Puckett won multiple gold gloves in center field with those stumpy little legs. How the heck did he do that? It's obvious how Richard Seymour sacks quarterbacks. He's huge, quick and mean. There's no mystery to Shaq's ability to dominate in basketball. He's the biggest, toughest guy around. Sure, there are exceptions like Pippen and Bruschi, but those guys are role-players and second-tier stars. Puckett was Minnesota baseball for over ten years. Period. Pedro Martinez was the best pitcher in baseball for a good five years and had a season that can be legitimately considered the greatest of all time. If you walked past either of those guys on the street you would never think they were athletes, but they're two of the best, one in the Hall of Fame and the other a lock when he retires. Only in baseball could someone built like Pedro make someone built like Troy Glaus want to take the day off rather than face him in the batter's box.

I think I've rambled enough. If I get onto cheaters like Bonds, Sosa and McGwire I may never stop. Strike those bastards from the record books!
 
 
astrojax69
21:58 / 21.03.06
Are the sports pages in the UK so much more cosmopolitan?

being from australia, i don't know the cosmospolitan nature or otherwise of uk papers - though the guardian on-line acknowledges many sports...

but i guess my comment was premised on the matter that australian sports writers/commentators don't seem to think there is only one or two sports anyone in the world might be bothered to play or have an interest in, so don't discuss their sport as being the 'only one in the world' that .... whatever. many sports are beautiful, requiring athleticism and skill in great quantities (i would nominate australian rules football for demanding the greatest mix of athleticism, talent and nous, but many sports fans of other predilictions may beg to differ; and so they should!) and many games might be 'extraordinary'...



It's the only game I can think of in which the journey to the goal proceeds in stages

again i mention cricket as one sport that proceeds in stages. while batting, runs can be scored by carefully placing the ball between fielders and taking as many runs as possible, given the partner's running and the thrower's arm... and each team has two opportunities to score runs, and there is strategy in 'declaring' [an innings closed] to maximise the time you might have to dismiss an opposing side and still have enough runs to win the game. tennis? lawn bowls? i'm sure there are others. orienteering?


i just think it is a big call to say 'i can't think of any other games that ...' and so imply that it must be the case that it is the only game to ...

it's a big and diverse world out there. some people roll a metal ball along a road as sport. others sail a boat.
 
 
Jack Fear
00:18 / 22.03.06
again i mention cricket as one sport that proceeds in stages.

I suspect you're being purposely obtuse because you have an axe to grind—which is to say, a vested interest in demonstrating that baseball isn't all it's cracked up to be. To which my gut response is: Come over here and say that.

But I'll respond anyway, because my mission, as always, is to educate and enlighten.

In the example you give, you're talking about scoring as many runs as possible: but to score a single run the batsman travels from point A to point B, right? Whereas in baseball, to score a single run the player must hit points A through D inclusive. Apples and asteroids, my friend.

And anyway, what makes Australia so goddam special anyway?
 
 
praricac
00:39 / 22.03.06
just read that updike essay mentioned upthread - absolute fucking gold.
that's what i was talking about before: the great thing about baseball is its poignancy

the phrase "dockside courtesies" has now been added to my vocabulary, which is a bonus.
yeah there's about a hundred quotes i could pick out of it but i won't bore you with that just now.
i loved the whole "if" section, it just taps right into what being a fan of sport is like, and i suppose (with my limited knowledge) more specifically what being a baseball fan is like.
like the fella says: "if my aunt had nuts she'd be my uncle", but we just can't stop dreaming, can we folks?
 
 
astrojax69
07:26 / 22.03.06
was i being obtuse? i apologise - it wasn't intentional. i merely meant to explain that i wasn't from the uk and that i think of 'stages' perhaps differently to you. many games take a number of points to win. in tennis, f'rinstance, one must go thru 15, 30, 40 and sometimes love, to get a point, or a 'game', then six games to get a set... and so what?

Come over here and say that.

if you pay for my ticket, gladly! although your radar is out a little... i am not at all out to have a go at baseball. i am merely trying to articulate the perception that american sports casters, and many other americans i have met (though of course not all, by any means) seem tio have a blinkered view as to what constitutes 'sports' of any worth, including what they call football, baseball, basketball and, from what i gather, ice hockey.

now i don't wish to disparage any of these fine pursuits; i want to mention that other games exist, some of which share the epithet 'football' and they each have different rules (or else they'd be the same game?) that make each unique and pleasurable in each their own way to their various adherents. none can sensibly claim title as 'best game', so why bother discussing it as if one were defending that position.

if you love the sport, then explain it calmly and convert me. mebbe i will explain the australian rules football code, which i think has the most ingenious rules to manufacture an enjoyable sport to play and watch, but there i shall be glad to accept that it entirely my perspective.

as to your last enquiry, jack, i don't claim australia is goddam special. i suspect if asked i might claim to agree, to an extent, with the sentiment that it is, but i wasn't and i haven't.


btw did australia do any good at all at this world baseball classic? i saw a brief pufteenth of a column space devoted to saying we lost the first game to italy [?] and i never saw another report - was it a knock-out competition?
 
 
assayudin
08:46 / 23.03.06
When Australia lost to Italy it eliminated them. They only played the one game.
 
 
assayudin
08:47 / 23.03.06
No wait, now I've confused myself. That might not be right.

Sorry.
 
 
assayudin
08:51 / 23.03.06
OK Australia played 3 games, lost all three. Didn't advance to round 2. Sorry for just popping in like that when I obviously didn't know what I was talking about, but I was really interested in this series and didn't get to follow it (no cable). I tried to just play catch up and posted before I had read all the way through.

Good Wiki on the WBC
 
 
astrojax69
19:47 / 23.03.06
hey cool, ta. that's gone be a looo-ooo-ooong wiki entry in a few wbc's time if they keep up the pace of that!
 
 
praricac
23:13 / 24.03.06
Woohoo! Majorleague baseball season starts next month, according to channel five.
Thanks to this thread (and that Updike essay) I am actually quite excited at the prospect.

Unfortunately, I think I might be a Mets fan ... yep, pretty sure I am, shit.
 
 
Jake, Colossus of Clout
20:40 / 25.03.06
The Mets are going to be good this year. They'll probably knock off the reprehensible Braves and take the NL East title. Plus, they have Pedro Martinez, one of my favorite people in the whole wide world.

Considering the state of the Red Sox this year, watching the Mets sounds enviable. I'd like to think Theo Epstein knows what he's up to, but... Youkilis at first base? Adding Mark Loretta, Mike Lowell and JT Snow to a team that already includes notable geriatrics David Wells, Curt Schilling and Tim Wakefield? Are we now in the position of actively keeping top prospects from seeing regular at-bats? Am I really going to have to suffer through Matt Clement starts while Papelbon vultures wins in the bullpen? Quite simply: what the fuck is going on in Beantown?

This year is looking like it's going to revolve around my fantasy team rather than the Olde Towne Team. Speaking of which, the draft's tomorrow, so I should be spreadsheeting vigorously right now.
 
 
P. Horus Rhacoid
14:50 / 22.04.06
A question for baseball people: what's your opinion of the designated hitter rule? For those who don't know, in the National League, pitchers have to hit, and they generally suck at it. In the American League, a tenth player hits in place of the pitcher and doesn't play any defensive position. I'm inclined to dislike the rule because I think it makes the game strategically much less complex- because pitchers as a general rule can't really hit, teams in the NL get into (presumably) lots of situations where they're forced to choose between keeping in a pitcher who's pitching well or bringing in somebody who's a better hitter. In the AL this isn't an issue because of the DH. As was pointed out to me, though, having a DH makes for a more exciting, offensive-oriented game with more hits and more home runs. It also seems to give players- aging stars, for instance- opportunities to play they might not otherwise have. I guess in the end I like that one league has the rule and one league doesn't, but what do other people think?

Also, how do you prefer consuming baseball? I grew up listening to Red Sox games on the radio and this has resulted in me preferring to listen to games rather than to watch them. TV is... I dunno. It doesn't capture the atmosphere of a warm summer night the way radio does. It eliminates imagination and feels superficial. Or something like that. Does anybody else know what I mean? (I haven't been to a lot of games which might be part of it.) I miss radio games. I stopped listening to them after I started going to bed late but man, those were good times.
 
 
Jake, Colossus of Clout
19:32 / 25.04.06
I see both sides of the argument with regards to the DH rule. It does make for more strategies to be put into place with pinch hitters who see very little action in the AL. And I like that. I'm all about the role-players getting a chance to shine. But that only comes into play late in the game; when the starter's tired, or if he's getting shelled. That means, for example, if Petey is pitching lights out for the Mets, you get treated to his traditional "stand there and don't do a goddamn thing" approach at the plate. Which is B-O-R-I-N-G, baseball purist or not.

I come down squarely on the side of the DH rule. It isn't Big Papi's fault he's a man-mountain who can barely cover ground at first on a good day. And the Red Sox shouldn't be penalized on defense if they want his bat in the lineup, just so we can thrill to Curt Schilling's at-bats. Do you honestly, in your heart of hearts want to see Big Schill hit? Or worse, get hit (well, sometimes, when he opens his fat mouth)? One of the arguments "purists" use is that it "keeps the pitcher honest," i.e. if he hits someone, their pitcher will hit him when he comes up to bat. That argument doesn't hold water, because the opposing hitter just beans someone else. In fact, It's probably worse with the DH.

In the NL, it's bad form to retaliate against anyone other than the pitcher. Thus, you end up putting on base the guy you would otherwise get out 90% of the time! With the DH, retaliation can be chosen according to the situation. You can plunk someone you might otherwise intentionally walk, or drill the highest paid player on the team in a situation where it probably won't affect the outcome of the game.

Imagine that Matt Clement beaned someone, and in retaliation, the opposing pitcher drilled Trot Nixon. Does anyone really think that Trot wouldn't "keep him honest" after the game in the locker room? The guy's certifiable. Any doubters need just recall the "flying-knee-to-Tanyon Sturtze'-kidneys" incident of 2004. Don't feel sorry for Sturtze. He was trying to pop off Gabe Kapler's head at the time.

Also, It's not Bernie Williams' fault he can't cover ground like he used to. Should he have to take the 150-250 at-bats as a backup or pinch-hitter? Why deny the guy the chance to add hits, runs and RBIs to his Hall of Fame resume just because he can't cover center field in Yankee Stadium anymore? Why deny Yankee fans who worship the guy a chance to see him hit in his twilight? He can certainly still hit, so why penalize him because he chose to play center instead of a less-challenging position (or taken steroids) where he could have played the field a few more years. Although I hate the Yankees more than almost anything, I don't want to see such a great player warming the bench when jerks and cheaters like Giambi and Sheffield are getting 500+ ABs.

Three things no one wants to see: Schilling hitting. Papi fielding. Bernie warming the bench.

The DH fixes it so that these things are not seen, and that is undoubtedly good for baseball.

As for my preferred viewing medium, it's obviously to be there in person, paying $7 for a warm Miller Lite (the ONLY place it's acceptable to pay $7 for a domestic big-brewery beer; fuck "clubs") and cursing my vegetarianism while I watch people eat delicious, delicious Fenway Franks. My mouth just started watering. Seriously.

Barring that, I'll take TV, another blow against the baseball purists. I love watching the pitcher's eyes, all mean and squinty, before the wind-up and delivery. I love watching a great basestealer take his lead and fuck up the defenders' day. I love watching an athletic infielder just leap up and pluck the ball out of the air on a line drive, making it look like robbing a base-hit is as easy as picking up the mail. I love watching Ortiz flip his bat, cocky as fuck, after he blasts one into the upper deck.

I can't see any of these things during a radio broadcast. The only thing that pisses me off about watching baseball on TV is that I can't see how the outfielders are shading the batter. that's annoying. However, as all TVs become widescreen TVs, I think this will cease to be a problem, as a standard widescreen format will open up new camera angles which would look fucked-up on normal TV.

There is a certain attraction to listening to a game on the radio. "It could be! It might be!!! IT IS!!! A HOME RUN!!!" Those words don't have the same time-freezing magic on TV, because you've already made your best guess as to the ball's trajectory, as has everyone else in the room. You may even be arguing about it as the ball flies. If your little group was listening to the game, no one would even be breathing, and there's a wonder to those kinds of moments.

For that exact feeling, I make a point of listening to ten or so games a year on the radio, preferably day games, on the porch with a mint julep, margarita or ice cold beer.

It is wonderful, but the pros of the TV just outweigh the cons to me. In out-of-town markets, it depends on the announcers, but the Sox have excellent broadcasters for both TV and radio, which is so great until October, when I remember that Tim fucking McCarver is still alive.
 
 
Jake, Colossus of Clout
00:50 / 09.05.06
I'm bumping this because I'm interested in people's opinions on Barry Bonds as he prepares to tie Babe Ruth on the all-time home runs list.

There are many controversies surrounding this issue, but I'm mostly interested in this: Is his record legitimate? And is Bonds really a better hitter than The Babe?

I think not. I'm going to come right out and identify myself as a Bonds-hater. I never liked his attitude, and, although he hasn't been "proven" guilty of using steroids, watching his body become more and more freakishly muscular over the past eight years made it clear to me that something unnatural was going on. I believe that Barry Bonds used steroids to boost his home run totals.

There are several defenses of his record that are floating around the media these days. I'll run through them real quick and respond:

Steroids weren't banned by baseball until just recently.

They were illegal. Knifing the pitcher you're due to face the next day because he kicks your ass isn't against the official MLB rulebook. It's common sense that it isn't allowed because it's blatantly illegal. This is true for Bonds' steroid use, as well.

Babe Ruth played in a segregated era, and didn't face the quality of integrated pitching that Bonds does.

This argument sounds good on the surface, but it falls apart when it's picked at a little. It's true that baseball had a hideous period of segregation, but these arguments don't hold much water when applied to hitters. The influx of people of color into baseball had a revolutionary effect on the game, but it was primarily an effect on position players. The electric, baserunning-centric style of the Negro Leagues turned the game upside-down, but the effect of integration on pitching staffs was far less pronounced. In the years since Jackie Robinson played his first game, only three non-white pitchers have been elected to the Hall of Fame: Juan Marichal, Bob Gibson and Ferguson Jenkins, although I think Luis Tiant deserves to be in as well, and Pedro Martinez is a shoo-in after he retires (As an aside, I certainly don't think that white ballplayers are naturally better as pitchers than blacks or hispanics. It just seems that non-whites tend to gravitate towards playing a field position rather than pitching- that would make an interesting topic for another thread). There were twenty-three non-white position players inducted. "Ruth never had to face Satchel Paige" is a common statement made by Bonds supporters, but it covers up the reality that there were no other comparable Negro League pitchers. Conversely, there were no comparable Major League position players to Ruth. One could just as easily say "Paige never had to face Ruth." It's a soundbite that's catchy but has no meat behind it. Both were so far above their contemporaries that they belong in a class of their own.

Babe Ruth didn't face the specialized relievers that today's game features.

True. But Ruth faced a much smaller pool of pitchers than Bonds faces today in the expanded leagues. I would argue that the dilution of pitching talent in today's thirty-team game is more of an asset to Bonds than the lack of relief pitchers was to Ruth. We live in the era where a number-five starter just has to have a pulse, especially when he's a lefty, and most middle-relievers are striking fear into the hearts of no one at all. It's true that the development of the closer as a key part of the game has given rise to an elite class of pitchers, but they don't pitch enough to have a major effect on career stats. How many of Bonds' career at-bats have come against closers? I have no idea, but it must be a negligible amount, considering that they usually only come into the game in the ninth inning, in a save situation.

More points in Ruth's favor: He had to ride trains, not planes. He played 150-game seasons. He was on a strict diet of beer, Scotch, Cuban cigars, late nights with prostitutes and a legendary appetite for unhealthy foods. He never took steroids.

My main point is that the argument surrounding Bonds has become a mishmash of issues which are there to obscure what should be the focus of the whole hullabaloo: Barry Bonds used performance-enhancing drugs to hit many of his home runs, and that makes all of his records illegitimate, at least from 1998 on. And don't even start me on Bonds vs. Aaron... I'm sure that nonsense will start leaking into the mainstream from the lunatic Barry fans soon.

So, anyone *cough*Jack!*cough* have a perspective to counter my obvious vitriol towards Bonds?
 
 
Jake, Colossus of Clout
07:27 / 05.07.06
Considering the state of the Red Sox this year, watching the Mets sounds enviable. I'd like to think Theo Epstein knows what he's up to, but... Youkilis at first base? Adding Mark Loretta, Mike Lowell and JT Snow to a team that already includes notable geriatrics David Wells, Curt Schilling and Tim Wakefield? Are we now in the position of actively keeping top prospects from seeing regular at-bats? Am I really going to have to suffer through Matt Clement starts while Papelbon vultures wins in the bullpen? Quite simply: what the fuck is going on in Beantown?

That was me. Being a fucking moron.

Loretta is an All-Star. Schill, Youk and Lowell should be, and our young guns are front and center. Papelbon is the best closer in the bigs, Lester is starting games and striking motherfuckers out and Hansen and Delcarmen are in the pen. As for the scum we had cluttering up the bullpen earlier this year: Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Seriously. I suck.

Is anyone else into this year's baseball season? The freakin' Tigers are the winningest team going and Vlad Guerrero sucks. It's bizarro world in the MLB.
 
  
Add Your Reply