As American League as apple pie.
I'm not a huge baseball fan, I like it, and obviously I pay some attention to it or I wouldn't be writing this blog and wouldn't have been reading the article that prompted me to write this blog, but I don't follow it very closely.
So, I'm a little confused by this quote form Joe Torre (about his team's crushing defeat by the Mariners). According to ESPN.com he said, "Five in the first, unless you can shut the other team down, is obviously not enough in today's baseball. Thirty years ago or 25 years ago, it was probably a little different". My question is what was so different about baseball 30 years ago?
It seems to me to have some sort of doping implication. Presumably the ball gets hit further in today's baseball, as a result of the hitters having beefed up with the help of drugs, resulting in more runs scored. If that's true then it puts more focus on the pitching. The pitcher has to "shut the other team down". Which makes me wonder why this article focused so much on the hitting and the runs scored and so little on the pitching.
I had a conversation with someone recently about the DH rule (actually I've had several conversations with people about it recently, but one conversation was the genesis). My contention was that the DH rule makes for more exciting baseball because it results in better pitching where as, if a team has to pick its pitchers based on both their pitching and hitting ability then, the pitching suffers and as a result the game is less exciting. My National League loving friend disagreed and said that the absence of the DH makes for more strategic and therefore more interesting baseball.
As a lifelong Seattleite (and therefore Mariner fan), even if I saw the merit in that argument, I couldn't really endorse it 100% because I formed my attachment to the DH rule early in life, when Edgar Martinez was DH and Randy Johnson was pitching for the Mariners. In truth I do see the merits in the argument. The checkers versus chess analogy he gave is clever and appropriate. I still have trouble condemning the DH rule though because of my sentimental attachment to the Mariners (as my hometown team). The absence of the DH puts more emphasis on the manager (on line ups and strategy) and the current manager of the Mariners can barely handle the level of strategy in the checkers style baseball they're playing so I shudder to think what he'd be like with the National League's chess style baseball. That, by the way, is a view you'll find most Mariner fans in agreement with, they'll say, "yes, yes, no DH makes for more strategic baseball, but...but...Hargorve".
Mariner fans are itching to see the end of the Hargrove era of Mariner's baseball and for good reason I imagine. I, however, would like to add a completely frivolous reason. It's the metaphors. I can't stand his ridiculous use of metaphor. Here's two Hargrove quotes from ESPN.com (about yesterday's 15-11 Mariner victory over the Yankees):
"It was one of those nights. Some new phase of the moon,"
and
"When you score 15 runs, you don't expect the tying run to be at the plate in the ninth. It's like someone's sticking bamboo shoots under your fingernails"
Seriously? Phases of the moon and bamboo shoots under fingernails? Is his heart really in managing a major league baseball team or was that his fall back plan when his career as a lit professor didn't pan out?
Back to the DH rule and more exciting pitching. I found something odd about the recaps at ESPN.com that kind of goes against my more exciting pitching theory. The recap of the Braves/Dodgers game (a National League game and therefor not under the DH rule) was all about the pitching while the Mariners/Yankees recap (American League and subject to the DH rule) was all about the hitting. As much as I would have loved to see my home town team defeat the team I hate most in all of baseball I found myself more interested in the Braves/Dodgers recap (and wishing more that I'd been able to see that game than the Mariners/Yankees game). I may have to rethink my position.
So, I'm a little confused by this quote form Joe Torre (about his team's crushing defeat by the Mariners). According to ESPN.com he said, "Five in the first, unless you can shut the other team down, is obviously not enough in today's baseball. Thirty years ago or 25 years ago, it was probably a little different". My question is what was so different about baseball 30 years ago?
It seems to me to have some sort of doping implication. Presumably the ball gets hit further in today's baseball, as a result of the hitters having beefed up with the help of drugs, resulting in more runs scored. If that's true then it puts more focus on the pitching. The pitcher has to "shut the other team down". Which makes me wonder why this article focused so much on the hitting and the runs scored and so little on the pitching.
I had a conversation with someone recently about the DH rule (actually I've had several conversations with people about it recently, but one conversation was the genesis). My contention was that the DH rule makes for more exciting baseball because it results in better pitching where as, if a team has to pick its pitchers based on both their pitching and hitting ability then, the pitching suffers and as a result the game is less exciting. My National League loving friend disagreed and said that the absence of the DH makes for more strategic and therefore more interesting baseball.
As a lifelong Seattleite (and therefore Mariner fan), even if I saw the merit in that argument, I couldn't really endorse it 100% because I formed my attachment to the DH rule early in life, when Edgar Martinez was DH and Randy Johnson was pitching for the Mariners. In truth I do see the merits in the argument. The checkers versus chess analogy he gave is clever and appropriate. I still have trouble condemning the DH rule though because of my sentimental attachment to the Mariners (as my hometown team). The absence of the DH puts more emphasis on the manager (on line ups and strategy) and the current manager of the Mariners can barely handle the level of strategy in the checkers style baseball they're playing so I shudder to think what he'd be like with the National League's chess style baseball. That, by the way, is a view you'll find most Mariner fans in agreement with, they'll say, "yes, yes, no DH makes for more strategic baseball, but...but...Hargorve".
Mariner fans are itching to see the end of the Hargrove era of Mariner's baseball and for good reason I imagine. I, however, would like to add a completely frivolous reason. It's the metaphors. I can't stand his ridiculous use of metaphor. Here's two Hargrove quotes from ESPN.com (about yesterday's 15-11 Mariner victory over the Yankees):
"It was one of those nights. Some new phase of the moon,"
and
"When you score 15 runs, you don't expect the tying run to be at the plate in the ninth. It's like someone's sticking bamboo shoots under your fingernails"
Seriously? Phases of the moon and bamboo shoots under fingernails? Is his heart really in managing a major league baseball team or was that his fall back plan when his career as a lit professor didn't pan out?
Back to the DH rule and more exciting pitching. I found something odd about the recaps at ESPN.com that kind of goes against my more exciting pitching theory. The recap of the Braves/Dodgers game (a National League game and therefor not under the DH rule) was all about the pitching while the Mariners/Yankees recap (American League and subject to the DH rule) was all about the hitting. As much as I would have loved to see my home town team defeat the team I hate most in all of baseball I found myself more interested in the Braves/Dodgers recap (and wishing more that I'd been able to see that game than the Mariners/Yankees game). I may have to rethink my position.
posted by Beth at
8:36 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home