Playoffs? Playoffs?
Guess who's going to be attending the first ever Major League Baseball playoff game in the city of Tampa (well, technically, St. Petersburg).
That's right baby!
Look for me in the stands. I'll be way out in the left field nosebleeds, but I'll be there.
Woo!
"Baby even the losers get lucky sometimes"
- Tom Petty, Even the Losers
That's right baby!
Look for me in the stands. I'll be way out in the left field nosebleeds, but I'll be there.
Woo!
"Baby even the losers get lucky sometimes"
- Tom Petty, Even the Losers
17 Comments:
Yeah, but they're still the Rays.
Indeed - my second favorite AL team behind the Orioles. Your point?
That's like saying the Clippers are your second favorite basketball team, behind the Golden State Warriors.
If basketball mattered, at all, it might be. But it doesn't.
Besides, 20 years ago they would have said the same about Braves fans. 14 straight years of division titles later, I don't think they say that anymore.
But the Braves had history. And history matters in baseball. The Rays' history is so crappy that they changed their name to try to seperate themselves from what they've been. No matter their current success, that's not something you want to attach yourself to. I suppose if you've got geographical reasons though, it's forgivable.
I do have a bit of an issue with having two favorites in the same division, but combined they almost make a professional team, so I guess that's ok too.
Also, yes, basketball doesn't matter.
Yeah, the two favorites in the same division gets a little tricky, but it's been forced on me by geography. Either way, the NL is the only league that plays real baseball (i.e. sans D.H.), so I tend to focus my efforts there, on the Braves and the Cubs.
As for history, it's constantly being written. So we shall see.
Why is sans DH real baseball?
Kathy Ireland put it best: "I hate [the Designated Hitter rule]. It undermines the purity of the game."
How does it so undermine? I mean, what's more pure about the pticher batting? In my mind there are only two arguments that really support the non-DH.
1. The monologue from Bull Durham. But that's just some fictionalized crap, and he includes a hanging curve among the things, and we all know how believing in the hanging curve can burn you (see Zito, Barry). So that addresses that issue.
2. The fact that it didn't always exist. Baseball is a game of history, and that matters. So an argument from history, that there used to be a time when pitchers batted, makes some sense. But then again, they used to pitch underhand too, and I don't hear anyone wanting that reversed.
When pitchers bat it hurts both the defensive and offensive performance of a team. If pure is a synonym for worse, then sure, it's more pure. Otherwise, there's just no compelling reason against the DH.
I was raised that every player in a baseball game mans a position in the field and takes his turn at the plate. The DH is a violation of that. Pure and simple.
"When pitchers bat it hurts both the defensive and offensive performance of a team." Tell that to Jason Marquis, who hit a grand slam a few days ago. Or to Micah Owings, who isn't the worst hitter in the Diamondbacks lineup on nights he pitches. Or to Carlos Zambrano who's batting .350 this year.
Thanks, but I'll take my pure, "worse" baseball.
A few anomolous performances do not a compelling argument make. Statistically, pitchers pitch worse when they bat, and offenses score less when pitchers are in the lineup.
Pitching is such a different beast than fielding a position in the field (though it also includes taht), and such a different beast from batting, that there is good reason for pitchers to be treated differently. You may have been taught that every player takes his turn at both, but that isn't really an argument against the DH. It's really just a restatement of your position. Growing up without a DH doesn't make it right, just like growing up in the South doesn't make it right to call soda pop "coke". It's just an indicator of your experience, not an argument for better or worse.
"Statistically, pitchers pitch worse when they bat, and offenses score less when pitchers are in the lineup." How are both of those possible? If pitchers are pitching in a game where they aren't batting, then the offenses would be scoring more, meaning the pitchers would be pitching worse even though they're not batting. I haven't seen statistics either way, but you might want to check your logic on that one.
I have a feeling this is going to boil down to little more than you were raised on the AL, and I was raised on the NL. I don't think the rule should be changed either way; I like the fact that there's something tangible that differentiates the two leagues. But as an NL fan, I'll tend to defer to not having the DH.
By the way, here's hoping the Rays face the Twins in the playoffs so we'll really have something to talk about.
If I remember correctly, and I suppose I could go look at the stats again, a pitchers' secondary stats are generally worse when they bat, thus pitching in the NL might mean lower ERA, but worse WPA and such. I might be off on the pitcher performance part, but I think I'm recalling this correctly.
I certainly was raised on an AL team, and you on a NL, but I think we can take this a step further to look at the product on the field. I actually consider the quality of baseball in the AL to be superior to that of the NL, and the DH is a big part of that. At very least we can point to the historical fact that the AL has really been the better league since the DH came around.
There's also the injury to pitchers issue, the fact that the only strategy difference is the lack of the double switch (not a big loss), the ability for pitchers to go longer into games if they don't have to bat, and the ability for players to extend their careers (see hall of famers George Brett, Carl Yastrzemski, and Paul Molitor). Those are concrete good things that the DH rule allows.
You might not agree, but at very least there's no "pure" and "unpure" way about it.
I also kind of like the tangible difference though. And that it results in me being a fan of the better league. ;-)
And finally, if the Rays win the division and the Twins win the central, that's exactly how it'll go down. It'd be an entire domed series. Root hard for the Twins this next week.
Exactly. And then I'll really be able to rub in being at Game 1 :)
(BTW, I was kidding about the whole "pure" vs. "unpure" thing. It was a line from "Loaded Weapon 1", which was my favorite movie when I was 12.)
And history matters in baseball.
Whatever, team thief :)
/as someone from Montreal beats the crap out of me... or really, just kinda sneers and flips their scarf over their shoulder
We didn't steal the Twins. The Twins were a delicate flower that needed to grow free, and they couldn't survive in the abusive relationship with D.C. We just gave them a chance to be who they really are. They were never really happy with D.C., they just faked it.
Actually, I think the abusive spouse analogy is pretty good for baseball and D.C. You've got the classic signs of abuse (bad teams, unhappy players, low fan turnout), the slow build to an erruption (gigantic flame-out teams, worst records in baseball), the spouse finally getting the courage to leave (MLB moving their teams elsewhere) and the period of apology and reconcilliation where they promise never to hurt you again, and say how much they need and love you (we'll build a new stadium baby, I swear). Until it all happens again.
Matt, that would be hilarious if it weren't so true.
Post a Comment
<< Home