I remember reading some book about baseball in Japan—The Chrysanthemum and the Bat?—years ago. There was a section in it about how, at some point, terrific young pitchers over there got the title of "ace." They were then used whenever and however the manager felt like it, both started regularly and brought in for key relief stints.
This was crazy, of course. Guys would run up a couple 400, 500 inning seasons, and then their arms would fall off.
Once some wicked smart Americans came over and sized this up, they told the Japanese it had to go.
But you know, the Japanese liked the system. It was just their way.
I found the debate about what the game is, and is becoming, very interesting. But if the future is a game full of relievers, throwing to power hitters trying to do nothing but pull the ball into the teeth of shifts—count me out.
I'm glad to hear from Parson Tom that the Tampa Bay dome is a good experience for the fans on hand, because on TV it looks drab beyond belief. And the game they played in there last night was just as dreary.
I have to side with LBJ and Doug K. on this. A game devoid of real, individual effort is not one I particularly care about. That really is soccer to me, at least to my untrained eye.
I want a game where, as they advocate, there is a real art to becoming an outstanding pitcher or hitter.
As LBJ noted, the age of the 60-120-inning pitcher and the universal, .235, 20-25 HRs hitter, will make every game into the All-Star Game, which will be terrible.
Yes, there is an element of luck in every sporting event, but now it will be all that. The losing pitcher will be the one guy who is the rotten apple in the barrel that night. The winning home run will be hit when someone happens to leave a pitch up. All arbitrary, all the time. And where is the skill?
Hey, I'm sure it's statistically more efficient. And that counts for everything, doesn't it?
Why paint anymore beautiful paintings? We have cameras. For that matter, why do any spectacular, studio photography? We all have phones.
Why build any beautiful cars? I'm sure the sabermetricians of auto design have figured out that the current, indistinguishable mass of cars provide the most fuel-efficient models possible.
Why build any gorgeous skyscrapers? I'm sure all the glass and concrete boxes are the easiest ones to build.
Why have leaders who can make eloquent, beautifully reasoned speeches to stir our hearts, and win our minds? There's always twitter to zip out libels, boasts, and insults.
Why do anything at all that takes craft, skill, and persistence? Why develop smart pitchers who know how to throw many pitches and last into the late innings? Why teach batters to hit to all fields, and spoil close pitches, and even bunt?
Why not change everything to maximize dollars and stats? How about adding three more wild card teams, so baseball can be like every other sport, with the regular season meaning less and less? Or maybe seven more wild cards, so nearly everybody makes the postseason?
Why not put ads on the bases, as Bud Selig wanted to do a few years back? And why stop there? Why not put them on the outfield grass, or the pitcher's mound, too, and on uniforms as they do in soccer? Won't the pinstripes look all the more splendid with the Amazon logo spread across them, or maybe Emirates Airline?
Why not discard the whole"New York Game" which is what we play now for something like the "Massachusetts Game," in which there is no foul territory or baselines, and you get runners out by hitting them with a rubber ball?
Who knows, maybe the fans would like that better. Let's take a vote, and if they want to switch, let's discard every single remaining tradition and continuity having to do with this sport. Why not?
Learning something—particularly something complicated, or difficult—is how we improve as human beings. It is our essence. If we're going to discard all that, what is the point?
Or as President John F. Kennedy put it much better than I ever could, way back in the days of my youth, when he was talking about the space program: "We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard..."
Baseball—professional baseball—is great because it is hard. It is beautiful because it is hard. To make it less so is to make it just more like everything else in the genial, mediocre, culturally rotten society all around us.
Tuesday, September 25, 2018
"Because it is hard."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
37 comments:
Ole!
Mama Mia! Hechavarria!
If it was easy everyone would do it. The "hard" is what makes it great.
Luke Voit has a very large head.
The AnDU can definitely Du. Fucking sportswriters will probably give the ROY to Ohtani. Because they are rancid creeps.
Most workman like, just the way I like 'em.
AaaHaahahahahaaaaaHHHHaaaahhhh!!
AAaAhhaaaa-haha-haaa-hhhhhHHHaaaaaaa-HHHHHaaaaAAHHHHHHHHHHHaaaa-ah-ah-ah-aaaaaaaaAaAaHaHaHaaHaHAA-HAAAAhhhhhhhhhhhh !!!!!
Hoss,
It was probably "You Gotta Have Wa." A really good book BTW.
Doug K.
Also, very well said.
Particularly the parts about the cars, the buildings,
and "Why do anything at all that takes craft, skill, and persistence? Why develop smart pitchers who know how to throw many pitches and last into the late innings? Why teach batters to hit to all fields, and spoil close pitches, and even bunt?
Why not change everything to maximize dollars and stats? How about adding three more wild card teams, so baseball can be like every other sport, with the regular season meaning less and less? Or maybe seven more wild cards, so nearly everybody makes the postseason?"
Spot on.
You will notice I left out the political speech section. Sadly, that train has already left the station.
Doug K.
Thanks, guys. I felt the guys needed that talking to. And look how well they did! I'm sure it was all me.
Awful loss by Oakland tonight. They were up by 8-5 in the 8th, but Fernando Rodney gave up 2 runs. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
Then, in the ninth, they had two outs and nobody on, but botched a force play, and Seattle tied it, then won it on a a two-run homer in the 11th.
Old friend Ben Gamel scored the the tying and winning runs. Incidentally, anybody else notice a Vidal Nuno surfacing today?
@TWW...about Voit's head...one of my favorite cartoons of all time...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzscTmdeO0w
That cartoon is just a wee, wee bit racist ...
AnDUjar has wormed his way into my heart. Love, love, love the guy! he is, hands down, my favorite Yankee and the one player I want to see at bat with the game on the line. I simply trust that he will hit the ball hard and put it in play. I don't feel that way concerning our gargantuan outfielders. AnDUjar did not get the hype that The Gleyber was marinated in, yet he has emerged as the superior talent. It feels that he has almost forced his way onto the team. ROY in my book with The Gleyber in second place. IMO, he is the only player that should be off the table for trades this winter.
Agree, WW. It's not right that Caucasian dudes be portrayed as skinny and physically inferior.
HC66 - This post is very interesting. It also has great emotional and sentimental appeal to the 60+ crowd, of which I am a member. I would, though, like to present a counterargument, and I hope I am not abusing the privilege of commenting.
Part I
Baseball remains a hard game. Nothing in the statistical record indicates baseball is getting easier. The game, however, is DIFFERENT, and what we should really be talking about is whether or not the differences in today's game from the game 50 years ago are appealing or unappealing to us as individual fans. That's going to be an individual choice we all make.
Whoever joined the phrase "nothing in life is certain except death and taxes" left out one of the most sure things there is about life - change. Change is a very difficult thing for most humans to deal with, as the other pretty sure thing about human behavior is that it will generally always follow the path of least resistance. In the case of baseball, the path of least resistance will always be "the old way was better," mostly because it is too hard to adapt to and learn the new way. For example, I have often read on this blog the complaint that hitters can beat the shift by hitting away from it, as if that was the easiest thing in the world to do. It isn't. For a great number of ballplayers, they have been trained and had success with a very particular kind of swing, and it would take quite some time - maybe 2 to 3 seasons - to re-train their muscle memory and learn a new way to approach their hitting so that their spray pattern changes and they hit more away from defensive shifts.
Most people also view any type of innovation with suspicion and distrust, and in extreme cases, with the idea that some sort of cheating is going on, even if no rule is being broken. At the present time, we happen to be seeing a lot of innovation taking place; it's a rare moment in baseball. In the last 10 years, since the official introduction of instant replay (which I am vehemently opposed to) in 2008, baseball has undergone a revolution unlike anything it has ever seen since probably the introduction of the "live" ball. The introduction of divisions, playoffs, the DH, and changes in equipment have also changed the game. Players themselves have changed, from rather average human beings who needed to get back in shape during spring training, to "gym rats" who train and stay in incredible shape all year round. In fact, baseball has been an evolving, changing sport since pretty much its inception. This, I would argue, makes it a living sport, and one of the great beauties of the game, for me, is watching how it evolves.
Part II
If you take a quick glance at cumulative statistics throughout the game's history, one correlation you can quickly see is that almost all statistical categories in hitting have an upward trend, and this upward trend does have one factor to it that has to be considered: the increase in the number of players and teams. One statistic, however, is remarkable in its relative consistency, and that is batting average. I am not a statistics person, but eyeing the numbers gives the impression that the average all-time batting average in MLB hovers around .260 (1871-2017). This appears to be true despite all the changes the game has seen through history. At its absolute core, baseball has actually changed very little: it is still very hard to hit a round ball with a rounded bat, and it remains impossible for the hitter to achieve first base on a routine ground ball play (90 feet is an absolutely miraculous distance). And with the evolution of the 100MPH pitcher, the game is that much harder. It is, to me, sometimes a miracle that a hitter can even have a .260 BA in the face of that fact.
The truth is that David Cone is right; the game will take care of itself, and it will continue to evolve. The fault, if you can call it that, is in ourselves if we are not willing to evolve with the game. The game itself has no obligation to us as fans, or at the very least, we, as fans, have an equal obligation to meet the game where it is. I wish my wife still looked like she did when I married her at 22, but she doesn't. I love her nonetheless, because she has other very attractive attributes (her meat loaf recipe, for one). I adapt to her change in looks precisely because I love her.
I leave untouched here the money/business angle of the game. I think that's another major discussion. But I will say this: the problem here is society-wide, and not limited to baseball, sports, or any other single category. We have changed to a society where Wealth Accumulation is now the Prime Directive, and the effect that has had on everything within this economy and society is massive. You can ruminate on that for a while.
Thanks for your indulgence. -twl
Not indulgence at all, a.p.p., to read your very astute comments, but an honor.
I agree with much of what you are saying. Ballplayers ARE in better shape than ever before, and continue to evolve as human beings do. I think some changes—such as the DH—are a good thing: who wants to see people (that is, pitchers) try to do what they cannot do (that is, hit)? It would be as if you made linebackers kick field goals.
And while I am not a fan of inter-league, regular-season play, or wild cards, I realize that you had to do something to accommodate the growth of the country, and the increase in league size. Myself, I think I would rather have seen the evolution of two more, separate leagues, with the AL playing the NL, and then a World Series against the winners of the other two circuits.
But that's neither here nor there. It's certainly true that the pre-World Series playoffs have provided many of baseball's most thrilling moments since they were instituted in 1969.
I realize that, for many years, there must have been people missing the old, "dead-ball" game—which did have its own merits.
Personally, I would say that, looking at the history of segregation in the sport and the evolution of play, the true "Golden Age" of baseball was roughly 1975-1987, the one era when players really did everything: hit for average and power, stole bases, pitched complete games and compiled saves.
But I realize that maintaining even a seeming balance in any human endeavor is difficult. The dimensions of the game, which you mention—the 90 feet between bases, and the 60' 6" between the pitcher's mound and home—came about after decades of tinkering (though they are indeed miraculous).
But...(you knew there had to be a "but" in there, didn't you?)
apoorplayer,
Thank you for your articulate and well thought out comments.
"what we should really be talking about is whether or not the differences in today's game from the game 50 years ago are appealing or unappealing to us as individual fans. That's going to be an individual choice we all make."
I couldn't agree more. As the game evolves we get to decide whether it is worth our 3-4 hours a day Actually less, (Thank you MLB DVR function!) but still a substantial daily commitment. This doesn't include the reading of the same news in various forms and, of course, time spent right here on IIH.
For me it is kind of a mixed bag. Baseball's future has very little to do with us sadly, mostly because we ARE over 60. I've written this before but it bears repeating. When the new stadium opened I came in from CA with my then ten year old son. To me it looked like a stadium built by the people who design Las Vegas casinos. Sort of a Yankee Stadium version of Paris, Las Vegas.
The game was only one form of entertainment available and maybe not even the most important one. I resented the lack of silence between pitches because I couldn't explain the game to my son. Why the fielders were positioned where they were. What the batter should try to do etc. Instead it was like being inside a pinball machine. I was not impressed. My son on the other hand was. He thought it was cool.
The problem for baseball is that a lot of things are "cool" these days. So what creates lifelong fans? Right now the powers that be are trying to get game times down. Three hours is a lifetime to these kids. Vines are what? Seven seconds? Emails are too long to read.
Yet the game and the metrics that now drive it are headed the opposite way. Not only is specialization creating situations where we are subject to numerous pitching changes when the guy on the mound isn't struggling but the action is drifting toward HRs and Ks with less and less in between.
Shifts don't help. BTW I like David Cone's solution. You can shift but have to stay in the infield.
The reality is there are two games going on. The actual game which will take care of it self. for example to beat the shift people will start to train to go the opposite way again.
Oh, as a side note. I don't want batters to change their swing of a life time. Just learn to frigging bunt! That's all. Bunt five times in a row and they will never shift again. And, as it is a separate skill from a normal swing,it can be taught and implemented.
The other game is the entertainment value of the game. They are cheapening it. There's nothing worse than the desperate loudspeaker turned way up to compensate for the lack of fans and crowd noise. Baseball is starting to feel that way.
When it becomes more about the scoreboard than the game, or more about the really great bar in section 5 then the game, or more about the analysis and less about the actual performance the game puts itself in competition with every other form of entertainment. And it will lose.
To me, and you are right, I'm old, and I only speak for myself, the game is about the stories, hundreds of stories a game. This guy against that pitcher in this count and that situation. I know who they are I know what's at stake. I know the difference between a Gary Sanchez strike out and an Austin Romine one.
The more the game specializes, the slower it becomes, the more automatic the results, the less interesting the result becomes to me. So while the game adjusts, I don't and my son doesn't watch and I really can't blame him.
Doug K.
I would disagree with you on two major things: who the game should be for, and how change happens.
The game is the fans. It is us. A disappointingly tiny number of players—or even front office guys—know anything at all about the history of the sport. Given their druthers, most of them would probably rather be playing golf or watching football.
We are the game's keepers (though many of us abuse the privilege). We the fans hold its institutional memory, and revere its past—not to mention, provide all of its ever-growing revenue. No one else does it. Therefore, our desires should matter much, much more than they do.
But then, that's capitalism for you. As my Berkeley brother-in-law likes to say, it fucks things up.
It does. Capitalism is like an incredible, very touchy machine that, if you don't constantly regulate and watch it, will run right off a cliff with you in it.
It is what drives our society, and what drives our sports. Toward innovation and improvement, to be sure, but also toward collusion, exploitation, and always what is most "efficient." Hence all the things I mentioned. There is no need to put beauty into, say, cars anymore, when it is cheaper and easier to sell cars without it.
Or to take a homier example, my neighborhood—like many in New York now—is chock full of pharmacy chains. You'd think they'd "compete" by, say, trying to offer better service. But no. Rather, they collaborate by hiring as few workers as they can get away with, and paying them all what is no doubt the same, agreed-upon, low wage.
Now, certainly in baseball, nobody is poor, which is a good thing. But it's also just not true, as David Cone made out, that baseball is some sort of "natural" thing that will "evolve" to something better.
Baseball, like any other manmade, capital-driven enterprise, will be shaped largely by what its proprietors WANT to do, and what they think they can get away with.
Going to a game with nothing but relievers will likely be more efficient for the Lords of Baseball. Nobody will become that big a star, and thus they can easily discard these interchangeable parts much as they now discard linemen in football.
The same will be pretty much true with position players, who are now actively encouraged to take an approach to the game that all but guarantees they will all run up the same stats, in the same way.
You make an excellent point about that rough, .260 average—though it has varied a good deal over certain periods.
But think of what you would rather see: a game with Ty Cobb, Harry Heillmann, Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, and any number of supporting players...or a game where everyone is hitting pretty much the average of all the players on the field—and doing it in exactly the same way?
My baseball watching started with the Original Powerball, when the Lords of Baseball, in all their ignorance, decided there was too much hitting, and monkeyed with the strike zone, as they often do.
The result? A bunch of amazing power pitchers, who overwhelmed the hitters, and made the game much too low-scoring, with too many strikeouts.
At least, though, this game also featured incredible hitters who—when they DID make contact—would hit the ball a country mile off all those power pitches. The game—especially in the more integrated NL—was not really that interesting (attendance declined dramatically) but it did seem at times, at least, as if it were being played by the gods.
People such as Bob Gibson, Sandy Koufax, Juan Marichal, and Dean Chance would hurl incredible pitches at the likes of Willie Mays, Frank Robinson, Willie McCovey, and The Mick—and often at their heads. They would get up, brush themselves off, and then hit the ball 450 feet.
Even so, I was glad to see the demise of that game for a much more varied and interesting one—brought about, in good part, by the changing of the strike zone and the innovation of the DH.
(To be continued.
Today, though, we are right back at the Power Game—but with all gods dead. Now we see a bunch of nameless pitchers who are really expected to do nothing but throw hard for a couple innings, to batters who are actively encouraged to swing out of their shoes at every pitch, into a stacked defense (Or, in the Yankees' awful addition to this calculus, "dare to take a called third strike.").
Are the results more entertaining? And while, as you say, aggregate batting averages are still roughly the same, we are about to hit more strikeouts than hits for the first time EVER. Is that good? Is that keeping within the parameters of the old game?
I realize that the human body has evolved (though again, not always naturally), and that there are more guys than ever who can throw a ball 100 mph, or hit it 450 feet. But so what?
No doubt, there are more soccer players than ever who can run like the wind and make incredible plays in that sport. Should they then go to unlimited substitutions? They don't—because their fans feel that would change the basic nature of the game.
I think what is going on now is ruining the basic nature of baseball. And it won't "evolve" back to anything. As you point out, learning things like hitting to the opposite field will take players years. Learning to pitch long will take years. And as long as the Lords of Baseball don't want it, it won't get started.
What is much more likely—as someone here pointed out—is that we'll have a game pretty much indistinguishable from Nintendo. As that continues, fewer and fewer fans will pay the extortionate prices MLB wants for admissions or for everything else.
If we continue like this, 20-30 years down the road, I think major-league ball will finally implode. It's happened in other sports, such as boxing, or horse racing. Maybe then, we will finally get change. But oh, what a waste!
Hoss,
LOL. I think we are saying the same thing. Too bad we're not paid by the word.
Doug K.
Win W...Luke Voit is the Roger Moore of baseball! Or the Michael Kay.
One thing that many overlook in the proliferation of higher batting stats as opposed to ,say, 50 years ago is that while the people playing the game have become bigger and stronger, the quality of players has become diluted. 30 teams versus 16 teams equals to 350 players that would be in the minor leagues rather than in the majors. I think that adulteration of the product is particularly visible on the pitching staffs. Someone like Hector Lopez had there been more teams in the early 60's might have blossomed into a star player rather than used as a part-time replacement player.
I don't think MLB would step in to eliminate the overshift but where do they draw the line? Would they allow a shortstop to be a fourth outfielder like in beer league softball? How about putting an infielder behind the catcher? Come to think of it, that would help in our case.
Carl,
The player pool is diluted by the increased number of players but MLB scouting, and player development in other countries plus the increase in ball players from Asia ameliorates it to some extent.
By the same token baseball is not what it once was in the states. The number of African American players is way down from even 20 years ago. I guess it's a mixed bag.
Doug K.
Great replies, thanks. This discussion itself speaks to the evolution and changing nature of the game. Of course, the most dreaded change of all is from life to death, and it very well could be that a lot of these changes are a cancer on the game. Enjoy what you can while you can, because the game is not guaranteed to us forever.
I like the idea of using many pitchers because it means we'll see more great pitching than we do now. Will that be boring? I don't know. I've never seen it in practice for more than a game every so often. But I still like the idea and wouldn't mind seeing it regularly. It's kind of like a guy coming back from injury who looks like he's recovered and ready, but you don't really know until you see him in actual game situations. And I question the idea that we will lose "stars." Like APP said, we'll have different stars, or maybe, like the late 90s Yankees, the team will be the real star.
A lot of us complain about power eliminating the hit and run, the 50 to 100 stolen base leader, the situational hitting, the crafty bunt, the spray hitter, etc. etc. What if, by sending out the most murderous lineup of pitching a team can assemble, hitting changes to take best advantage of the new reality? More bunts, more choking up, more hitting for average, less swinging from the heels. That seems like the logical response, to me, anyway. And I'm not sure at all that this is going to take years of adjustment. Maybe for some, sure, but for others, it may just be reverting back to their natural style. In other words, different stars, again--guys who can't hit 50 HRs a year, but are encouraged to try, will suddenly be allowed to not try, and do what suits them best. Rod Carew, we're ready for you.
What I think this boils down to is, am I willing to sacrifice the traditional pitching performance to get back the offensive game I prefer? I guess so. At least, I'm willing to give it a try and see what happens. Otherwise, the road we're on will just keep going. Besides, to be honest, I don't care if I never see a #4 or #5 starter again. Almost every staff has one or two really good starters, and the rest are mediocrity incarnate. Why bother? Those are bullpen games, anyway. When somebody asks who the dominant pitcher is on my favorite team, I'd be happy to say, "All of them."
I can't speak to the future of the state of the game and the generations to come. Even if I could, I wouldn't, because I don't give a damn. That's not my problem. I just want to see something a bit more entertaining before I get tossed in a bag and thrown into a furnace, and I'm willing to try something that seems to be, more or less, an extension of where we are already.
And like Hoss says, if it don't work, the gate goes down, and if that happens, it will be abandoned for something else.
I am going to read these comments over the winter. When the snow is gently falling and the fireplace alit.
I shall wake in the spring more learned.
For the moment, I am intimidated.
And a bit demoralized.
But I remain thankful for your work, your effort and your intelligence.
And though I wander the desert, I am not alone.
Indeed, Doug K. If I had not already been in the midst of writing my magnum opus, I would have let you speak for both of us!
John M., I don't know if people will ever "abandon" baseball—I hope not—but it wouldn't kill me if the game melted down to where it could "only" pay its players $100,000 or so, had to go back to free TV, and needed to slash prices. And yes, that might bring change!
John M,
On MLB they show the same commercials over and over and over and one of them is about how tough baseball players are because they have to, something along the lines of "Reach back and find the strength to throw a fastball past one more batter when the game is on the line and you've pushed yourself to the limit."
I just hope it is never... "Knowing you're a LOOGY and then having to face... a right handed batter"
Doug K.
Carl,
I heard that Michael Kay's head was smaller when he first began broadcasting. Steroids?
Doug K.
Hoss? APP? Would you two hug and kiss already?
And yes, 'Phonso. You are never alone as long as we are all here.
She: Why do we need to have sex right now?
He: Please see the title of HC66's post, on which we are commenting.
(Bah dump bump. Tissssssh.)
You know, LBJ, I was afraid of exactly that reaction when I wrote that headline.
But no, I told myself, not even the overgrown urchins on this site would be so irreverent about our beloved, martyred president. Not even if they have, suspiciously, the same initials as his successor! (Hmm) No, NO!
What can I say? JFK probably made the same joke that night: "Hey, uh, Jackie, please come over heah now because it is, uh, hahd."
Oh, speaking of Jackie—everybody check out the exhibit at Grand Central Terminal on, well, saving Grand Central Terminal. It will only be there until Oct. 5. We owe her so much.
HC66, it's always the high road here at IIH.
Given the current goings on about scrota, pineapple colonoscopies, taints/gooches (humid and otherwise), et al, I thought a good old-fashioned boner joke would seem almost "quaint", akin to flipping through the first edition of Playboy magazine in an age of unspeakable wall-to-wall online porn...
P.S. I concur on Jackie Onassis' role in saving GCT. If only she hadn't been preoccupied being First Lady when that under-publicized, under-maligned asshole Irving M. Felt took it into his doughy head to tear down NY Penn Station.
Trust me, you don't want to get me started on that one...
I really want the world to know about this great man who brought back happiness into my life again after my husband left me and the kids 3 years ago for another women online when i contacted Dr Believe he cast a love spell for me within 48 hours my ex husband start calling me and begging for forgiveness for everything that have happened between us. I was so happy to have my family back together with love again here is the email of Dr Believe via believelovespelltemple@gmail.com a man with the great powers you can also call him or add him on Whats-app: +2348156148821
God bless you
I am very grateful for your help in my marriage.
Post a Comment