Baseball

CH David

A Jock That Loves Pepsi
Recently, this morning to be exact, I took it upon myself to look up just exactly what purity in baseball truly was, and how purists really look at the game. There are many forms of purity that people can be associated with. Such as many changes made in the 90's, starting with inter-league play, expansion teams, reconfiguration of divisions, or going back to the 70's with the designated hitter. Others hate relocation and the expansion from the 60's or even the lowering of the mound. Lastly, is the thought that the Dead Ball Era was baseball in it's most pristine fashion.

Now I consider myself a purist, and I will explain exactly what kind of baseball purist I am. In other threads I have made it clear that I am 100% against steroids. I don't believe that players that used steroids should be in the Hall of Fame. Players such as Mark McGuire, Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro, Barry Bonds. Or if I should go to a lesser extent, if I were to let them in, their stats from a time frame would have to be wiped away. So if Alex Rodriguez were to make the Hall, in my opinion, his stats from Texas should be wiped clean, and then his numbers go from there. But that is just me.

I am not a purist that hates the DH or inter-league play. Hell, I love both. I love playing the National League, and seeing how they stack up with each other during the regular season, instead of exhibition games. I love the playoff system now, 8 teams make the playoffs, and the drama, if you watch postseason baseball, is amazing.

But, I am also a Dead Ball Era kind of guy. I am not saying that I want us to go back to days of playing with one ball all game, and not allowing any minorities play. I am not saying that. But I believe that the best form of baseball, is smart ball. The correct way to play baseball, is with pitching and defense, and with smart, timely hitting. Sure home runs are exciting, but they don't translate to wins. You could have the best home run hitting team in the game, and it doesn't mean jack shit.

The All Star Game last night is a great example of how to play the game correctly. No home runs were hit, and pitching and defense were the keys to the game. After Roy Halladay gave up 3 runs in the 2nd inning, he got the last out, and then AL pitchers went on a streak of 18 straight batters retired. In a game like this, with the best out on the field, that is astonishing. Timely hitting, Joe Mauer ties it in the 5th by going opposite field, scoring Jeter from 1st. In the 8th, Curtis Granderson hits a ball to left, that Justin Upton didn't know how to play as he isn't a left fielder, and gets a triple out of it. Adam Jones comes up after they intentionally walk Victor Martinez, and hits a sacrifice fly to score the winning run. Then the pitching continued with Joe Nathan and Mariano Rivera to shut the door. Last nights All Star Game was a clinic on how the game should be played, and how errors on defense will cost you.

Having said all of this, I want your opinion on the correct way to play baseball. What makes it exciting for you? Is it a slugfest with 5 home runs a game, or is it a low scoring pitchers duel, and why is it? Lastly, this ties in with home runs and slugfests. If you love home runs, what is it about home runs that makes it better than playing "team smart baseball"?
 
I would rather watch a 3-2 game than anything else. I like "small ball" baseball. I want to see players be unselfish and hit the ball to the right side to move a runner, a timely stolen base, good defense, and more importantly - good pitching. I love watching how pitchers work a hitter - location wise, changing pitch speed and pitch type, etc...
While I understand your opinion on the performance enhancing drugs, I'm not in total agreement on that, but that's for another thread, if ya want to start one.
What do you think of the "money ball" philosophy? Mainly the emphasis on on base percentage over speed (I think at one point Oakland had Jeremy (not Jason) as their leadoff hitter because of his OBP, and he was not swift of foot) and they don't steal bases because they don't believe it's worth the risk, they have all their stats proving why they think this, but they don't have any World Series Rings since they started this philosophy. What do you think?
 
I'm not a big fan of money ball. Lately it hasn't done anything. Especially when compared to the early part of this decade when the A's were the best in the West for a multitude of years. The biggest reason I don't like it, the A's had quite possibly the best 1-2-3 punch in the game. Mark Mulder, Barry Zito, and Tim Hudson were beasts. Billy Beane just got rid of all of them, not to mention two years ago when he got rid of Dan Haren. They remind me of the Twins a little bit with the strong minor league system, but just not as good or fundamentally sound as them, which can be expected with money ball. In baseball you have to have a good balance of power and speed. That is what translated into wins for the A's back in the 70s. But if they want to spend money and not do well then that is up to them.

I would rather watch a 3-2 game than anything else. I like "small ball" baseball. I want to see players be unselfish and hit the ball to the right side to move a runner, a timely stolen base, good defense, and more importantly - good pitching. I love watching how pitchers work a hitter - location wise, changing pitch speed and pitch type, etc...

:thumbsup: Pitchers duels rule in my opinion. Low scoring games that could go either way are the most exciting. Pitching truly is an art form to me, and in my speech class I did a speech on it. The way some people can throw a curve ball, or the way Mariano Rivera throws his cut fastball, Johan Santana or Trevor Hoffman with their changeups. I can't wait until tonight when the White Sox play, I just want to see some good pitching hopefully.
 
I am not a big proponent of money ball either, but more of the on the field aspect of it is what I don't buy into. I do think Oakland has made good drafting/scouting other teams young talent decisions and as a small market team they need to do that. I also hated when they broke up the big 3 they had, but looking back it was a good financial decision. Mulder ended up winning 16 games the first year in a Cardinals uniform, but only 6 since then. And Oakland received Danny Haren in that trade. Zito hasn't been worth the money he got, although I think he is the one Oakland wanted to keep the most, since they didn't trade him prior to his deal running out. And Hudson, they got Dan Meyer and a couple other pieces, so not the greatest trade for a bulldog like Timmy, who is injured now but has been a double digit winner consistently for the Braves.
So in the end, I think they made the correct decision on 2 of the 3. We'll have to see how the kids they got for Haren work out.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,840
Messages
3,300,777
Members
21,726
Latest member
chrisxenforo
Back
Top