david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (04/16/85)
Lamarr Hoyt have ANOTHER big year? I'm still waiting for his FIRST one. Cy Young awards are usually given out on the basis of won-loss records --- about the worst way you could do it. Fact is, the year Hoyt won it, his ERA hovered near the 4.00 mark; he won 24 games because the White Sox were kind enough to average 6 runs a game during his starts. With that kind of support, someone pitched very well and remained injury-free would have won 30... > 1) Should the DH be banned or used by both leagues? It should be banned. For the following umpteen reasons: (1) Baseball is a great game, and unlike football and basketball, remains well-balanced; if it ain't broke, don't fix it. (2) The designated hitter is the beginning of a platoon system; if you wish to exempt weak hitting pitchers from plate appearences, why not weak hitting shortstops? Rick Rhoden is infinitely more dangerous than Jose Oquendo anyway. (3) The argument that pitchers "are paid to pitch, not to hit" is fallacious; one could just as well argue that shortstops are paid to field, not to hit, and 95% of all left and right fielders are paid to hit, not to field. Come to think of it, pitchers aren't paid to field either; why don't we stick someone out there to handle the glove? Pitchers (and other fielders, and batsman) are payed to play baseball. Baseball includes fielding and hitting. Death to free substitution! (4) The argument that fans are "entitled to see the best hitters and best pitchers and best fielders" rather than see a bad hitter, e.g., is dangerously distorted; why not then let Mike Schmidt bat for the Phillies whenever there are runners on? That would certainly be giving fans the "best"...and like anything given freely, it becomes cheapened. (5) More offense is not an end unto itself. (6) The DH doesn't produce more offense, anyway: AL games average one extra hit a game than NL games. As offense is the dubious raison d'etre of the DH, I don't understand why even someone who did believe that offense = excitement would be attached to it. (7) Part of the attraction of baseball is armchair managing (in fact, this is more important to me than "lots o' runs"). The DH reduces the number of decisions to be made, and therefore reduces this pleasure. (8) There is inconclusive evidence that the DH has shortened the expected careers of AL pitchers (they hurl too many innings and are deprived of pitching against their mound opponents); however, we won't know this for sure for another decade or so. (9) Proponents of change ought to bear the burden of discussion; DH proponents never proved their case, and were never made to bear that burden. (10) It's plain ugly. (11) If it ain't broke, why the hell were we fixing it? etc., etc., rant, rave, etc. > 3) Are domed stadiums and artificial turf beneficial or detrimental to M.L.B.? (1) The decline of the minor leagues put the teams on a more equal footing in developing talent. So did the pooling of amateur draft data. This trend appears to be reversing. (2) The rise of baseball TV revenue from national contracts reduced the ratio of earnings between rich and poor teams. This, too, may reverse, as the Cubs (and only the Cubs) are still holding out against sharing cable revenue. > 4) Who is/was the better hitter - Cobb or Rose? ( not many eyewitness compari- > sons here :-) ) > 5) Where should the next expansion teams be located? Is this a good time for > baseball to expand? > > Hopefully, these questions will provoke a little thought and some lively > discussion. Considering that I am a maniacal, die-hard Tiger fan, perhaps > my predictions should be taken with one giant :-) . But then again, you > never know. > > > See you at the game, > > > /\ > /\/\ > / \ > / \ > / \ > / \ > / \ > / \ > / \ > / \ > /\ /\ > \/ \/ > \ / > \ ** / > \ * * / > \ ** / > \ / > \ / > \ / > \ / > \--/ > \/ > > > > Mark Tompkins > MBT Co. > epsilon!mb2c!mlt *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (04/16/85)
Lamarr Hoyt have ANOTHER big year? I'm still waiting for his FIRST one. Cy Young awards are usually given out on the basis of won-loss records --- about the worst way you could do it. Fact is, the year Hoyt won it, his ERA hovered near the 4.00 mark; he won 24 games because the White Sox were kind enough to average 6 runs a game during his starts. With that kind of support, someone pitched very well and remained injury-free would have won 30... > 1) Should the DH be banned or used by both leagues? It should be banned. For the following umpteen reasons: (1) Baseball is a great game, and unlike football and basketball, remains well-balanced; if it ain't broke, don't fix it. (2) The designated hitter is the beginning of a platoon system; if you wish to exempt weak hitting pitchers from plate appearences, why not weak hitting shortstops? Rick Rhoden is infinitely more dangerous than Jose Oquendo anyway. (3) The argument that pitchers "are paid to pitch, not to hit" is fallacious; one could just as well argue that shortstops are paid to field, not to hit, and 95% of all left and right fielders are paid to hit, not to field. Come to think of it, pitchers aren't paid to field either; why don't we stick someone out there to handle the glove? Pitchers (and other fielders, and batsman) are payed to play baseball. Baseball includes fielding and hitting. Death to free substitution! (4) The argument that fans are "entitled to see the best hitters and best pitchers and best fielders" rather than see a bad hitter, e.g., is dangerously distorted; why not then let Mike Schmidt bat for the Phillies whenever there are runners on? That would certainly be giving fans the "best"...and like anything given freely, it becomes cheapened. (5) More offense is not an end unto itself. (6) The DH doesn't produce more offense, anyway: AL games average one extra hit a game than NL games. As offense is the dubious raison d'etre of the DH, I don't understand why even someone who did believe that offense = excitement would be attached to it. (7) Part of the attraction of baseball is armchair managing (in fact, this is more important to me than "lots o' runs"). The DH reduces the number of decisions to be made, and therefore reduces this pleasure. (8) There is inconclusive evidence that the DH has shortened the expected careers of AL pitchers (they hurl too many innings and are deprived of pitching against their mound opponents); however, we won't know this for sure for another decade or so. (9) Proponents of change ought to bear the burden of discussion; DH proponents never proved their case, and were never made to bear that burden. (10) It's plain ugly. (11) If it ain't broke, why the hell were we fixing it? etc., etc., rant, rave, etc. > 2) Is Free Agency responsible for the parity in MLB the past 6-7 years? Other factors: (1) The decline of the minor leagues put the teams on a more equal footing in developing talent. So did the pooling of amateur draft data. This trend appears to be reversing. (2) The rise of baseball TV revenue from national contracts reduced the ratio of earnings between rich and poor teams. This, too, may reverse, as the Cubs (and only the Cubs) are still holding out against sharing cable revenue. >3) Are domed stadiums and artificial turf beneficial or detrimental to M.L.B.? For the most part, detrimental. There are certainly undesirable; however, Seattle's rain and Houston's summer heat are good arguments for some domes. Artificial turf, too, is undesirable; the only rationale for it is as a cost savings measure when a team shares a stadium with some barbaric alternate sport. > 4) Who is/was the better hitter - Cobb or Rose? (not many eyewitness compari- > sons here :-) ) The standard answer is Cobb, so I'll just list some reasons why we'll never know: (1) Cobb never had to fly to California; baseball in his day was confined to the area bounded by the Mississippi, the Ohio, and the Potomac (ok, if you want to be really picky, you can note that St. Louis is just over the Mississippi). (2) Cobb never had to face Bruce Sutter; relieving was far less developed then, and more often than not, a tiring reliever was left in the game until he became totally ineffective. (3) Contrary to public prejudice, talent was more dilute in Cobb's day (this is heresy, but I have a strong case). There were no blacks or Latins in MLB, so 16*25=400 white players made it to the major leagues. Today, at least 40% of MLB players are either black or Latin, so I'd guess there are about .6*26*25=390 white players. This despite the fact that baseball is far more lucrative (players are among the richest in society, rather than the poorest) and the increase in the white population. Either the average player is more talented than his Cobb-era predecessor or there has been an erosion in baseball playing talent in Americans of European extraction (far-fetched) or baseball has become a less attractive profession (false). > 5) Where should the next expansion teams be located? Is this a good time for > baseball to expand? The teams should be located where popular support (as opposed to a business community's bid for prestige) is strongest: assuming expansion was to include six new teams, my guesses would be: St. Petersburg/Tampa New Jersey Denver Phoenix Vancouver New Orleans The first four are, in my opinion, sure-fire sites. The other two might be challenged by Louisville or Memphis, e.g. Patently silly is Washington (Won't they ever learn? How many chances does that town get, anyway?). David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
pete@umcp-cs.UUCP (Pete Cottrell) (05/01/85)
In article <583@fisher.UUCP> david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) writes: > > > > The teams should be located where popular support (as > opposed to a business community's bid for prestige) is > strongest: assuming expansion was to include six new > teams, my guesses would be: > > St. Petersburg/Tampa > New Jersey > Denver > Phoenix > Vancouver > New Orleans > > The first four are, in my opinion, sure-fire sites. > The other two might be challenged by Louisville or > Memphis, e.g. Patently silly is Washington (Won't > they ever learn? How many chances does that town get, > anyway?). > I have to say that your opinion about Washington is bogus and ill-informed; Washington has been cursed with 2 owners who saw the opportunity to make some quick bucks elsewhere; in fact, the last one, Bob Short (may he be burning in Hell forever) seems to have bought the club with this sole interest. He was also responsible for moving the Lakers from Minneapolis to Los Angeles and then selling out. Unfortunately, I feel your opinion is all too prevalent; I think that many people in other cities have been spoiled by beneficent owners who feel a sense of commitment to the community. There is great interest in Washington for another team, and I think that D.C. not only belongs, but is actually in the top 4 for consideration. I will be happy to debate this matter further if others disagree with me, but I just wanted to give a quick reply while the steam was still coming out of my ears ;-) Lastly, how do you think Baltimore has been setting its (team) attendance records, as they have been over the 2 million mark the last several years? The answer is with a substantial flow of fans, myself included, making the trek up I-95 to see the O's. -- Call-Me: Pete Cottrell, Univ. of Md. Comp. Sci. Dept. UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!pete CSNet: pete@umcp-cs ARPA: pete@maryland