Today's column by Richard Griffin in the Star doesn't bash the home team, it takes the entire game to task, especially the AL. Griffin makes some good points, which echo my sentiments: juiced baseballs, bigger (juiced?) hitters, and watered-down pitching have reduced strategy and made the walks-and-homers philosophy essential. Baseball will never return to the days of 1968, when pitchers ruled the earth and nail-biting 2-1 games were commonplace, though a few steps back in that direction would be a good start. I'm glad the Jays are among the teams built to outscore the opposition, but 16-5 games (like NY-Seattle last night, in a "pitcher's park") aren't very exciting.
I get sort of nostalgic though thinking of my favourite lead-off hitter, Brett Butler. Would there be a place in the game for a guy like him today? A guy that would get a fairly significant amount of his hits via the bunt?
And when you had to carry guys good with the glove but who couldn't hit their weight - Jose Oquendo, Jose Uribe etc. The stolen base was definitely a weapon back then.
When you can say to your friend, "Hey! I went to the Pirates' game and saw Rafael Belliard hit a home run!" it was a truly monumental event. Now, you'd only have to wait 5 more days for a starting shortstop to smoke another one, not 10 years.
And when you had to carry guys good with the glove but who couldn't hit their weight - Jose Oquendo, Jose Uribe etc. The stolen base was definitely a weapon back then.
When you can say to your friend, "Hey! I went to the Pirates' game and saw Rafael Belliard hit a home run!" it was a truly monumental event. Now, you'd only have to wait 5 more days for a starting shortstop to smoke another one, not 10 years.
Brett Butler had great on-base percentages, so there would be plenty of room in today's game for a guy like that. He wouldn't steal as many bases, but he'd score lots of runs.
I'm surprised that Griffin would pick 1968, The Year Of The Pitcher, as his ideal baseball world. Because there were so few baserunners, very little happened in a typical baseball game, and many fans found it boring. Baseball attendance declined during the 1960's; many people believed that football was destined to replace baseball as America's national sport.
This column illustrates what I dislike about Griffin's work: he doesn't like baseball, and he looks down on baseball fans. I don't expect a sportswriter to write articles supporting the home team; after all, even the most diehard of Jays fans often spends a good deal of time bashing the club. (Yo, Jeff Tam: we're talkin' to you.) But Griffin seems to be grinding some personal axe of his own. Life is short: if he isn't enjoying what he's doing, perhaps he should change jobs.
I'm surprised that Griffin would pick 1968, The Year Of The Pitcher, as his ideal baseball world. Because there were so few baserunners, very little happened in a typical baseball game, and many fans found it boring. Baseball attendance declined during the 1960's; many people believed that football was destined to replace baseball as America's national sport.
This column illustrates what I dislike about Griffin's work: he doesn't like baseball, and he looks down on baseball fans. I don't expect a sportswriter to write articles supporting the home team; after all, even the most diehard of Jays fans often spends a good deal of time bashing the club. (Yo, Jeff Tam: we're talkin' to you.) But Griffin seems to be grinding some personal axe of his own. Life is short: if he isn't enjoying what he's doing, perhaps he should change jobs.
It's cyclical.
Sometime, not soon -- let's say, oh, 2009 -- some team is going to put together a season, maybe back-to-back seasons with a team of Brett Butlers, Vince Colemans, Terry Pendletons and the occasional Jack Clark.
The team will probably have three excellent starting pitchers and a deep, effective bullpen, a manager who knows he has no budget and needs to win to keep his job, run wild and steal 275 bases and hit "only" 110 home runs, win 97 games and ride the rotation to a title.
Then 12 other clubs will copy the formula, with maybe one or two doing it successfully, and there will be discussions about the "devaluation of the home run in baseball" and Coach, in the New Video Batters Box will post a sarcastic "I may be imagining it, but did the Blue Jays just hit a three-run homer?"
It will happen. And you will all have forgotten by then that I told you it was so.
Sometime, not soon -- let's say, oh, 2009 -- some team is going to put together a season, maybe back-to-back seasons with a team of Brett Butlers, Vince Colemans, Terry Pendletons and the occasional Jack Clark.
The team will probably have three excellent starting pitchers and a deep, effective bullpen, a manager who knows he has no budget and needs to win to keep his job, run wild and steal 275 bases and hit "only" 110 home runs, win 97 games and ride the rotation to a title.
Then 12 other clubs will copy the formula, with maybe one or two doing it successfully, and there will be discussions about the "devaluation of the home run in baseball" and Coach, in the New Video Batters Box will post a sarcastic "I may be imagining it, but did the Blue Jays just hit a three-run homer?"
It will happen. And you will all have forgotten by then that I told you it was so.
The team will probably have three excellent starting pitchers and a deep, effective bullpen, a manager who knows he has no budget and needs to win to keep his job, run wild and steal 275 bases and hit "only" 110 home runs, win 97 games and ride the rotation to a title.
You mean the Marlins with a healthy rotation and a better pen?
You mean the Marlins with a healthy rotation and a better pen?
I'd never paid much attention to Griffin before, but this article rankled me. The only thing worse than nostalgia is poorly researched nostalglia.
On the lost art of stealing: In 1968, the average team attempted 122 steals during the season. In 2002, the average per team was 134. At last check, 134 was greater than 122.
Would any semi-serious fan have any trouble naming the 15 best pitchers in baseball? Just off the top of my head: Pedro, Zito, Mulder, Hudson, Unit, Schilling, Maddux, Oswalt, Mussina, Vazquez, Millwood, Buerhle, Prior, Wood, and of course, Chan Ho Park.
Regarding his pitching study, any research that compares a full season to just one month of this season is invalid on its face. Griffin claims that 37 starters have an ERA over 6.00 so far this season. What he fails to consider is that pitchers with ERAs over 6.00 tend not to keep their jobs for very long. I don’t know his definition of a starting pitcher, but I looked at every pitcher in 2002 who made at least ten starts, regardless of total innings pitched. Only 15, one pitcher for every two teams, ended the season with an ERA over six. Only one, Mike Hampton, qualified for the ERA title.
Weight gain is a societal trend, not just a baseball trend. Advances in pre-natal care, nutrition, medical technology, etc., have contrbuted to a taller and heavier populace. (Paradoxically, advances in “food technology” (e.g., junk food) and distribution have also contributed to an increasingly obese population, but that’s another story.) Also, weight training was not widely accepted in baseball in 1968. Not that long ago, players showed up to Spring Training to get into shape. Now, they're in fantastic condition year-round. Mo Vaughn excepted.
As Mick said, it’s cyclical. Would Griffin prefer the American League in 1949, when teams walked 4.6 times per game and the ratio of hits to walks was less than two-to-one? Or the National League in 1930, when the league-wide batting average was .303?
On the lost art of stealing: In 1968, the average team attempted 122 steals during the season. In 2002, the average per team was 134. At last check, 134 was greater than 122.
Would any semi-serious fan have any trouble naming the 15 best pitchers in baseball? Just off the top of my head: Pedro, Zito, Mulder, Hudson, Unit, Schilling, Maddux, Oswalt, Mussina, Vazquez, Millwood, Buerhle, Prior, Wood, and of course, Chan Ho Park.
Regarding his pitching study, any research that compares a full season to just one month of this season is invalid on its face. Griffin claims that 37 starters have an ERA over 6.00 so far this season. What he fails to consider is that pitchers with ERAs over 6.00 tend not to keep their jobs for very long. I don’t know his definition of a starting pitcher, but I looked at every pitcher in 2002 who made at least ten starts, regardless of total innings pitched. Only 15, one pitcher for every two teams, ended the season with an ERA over six. Only one, Mike Hampton, qualified for the ERA title.
Weight gain is a societal trend, not just a baseball trend. Advances in pre-natal care, nutrition, medical technology, etc., have contrbuted to a taller and heavier populace. (Paradoxically, advances in “food technology” (e.g., junk food) and distribution have also contributed to an increasingly obese population, but that’s another story.) Also, weight training was not widely accepted in baseball in 1968. Not that long ago, players showed up to Spring Training to get into shape. Now, they're in fantastic condition year-round. Mo Vaughn excepted.
As Mick said, it’s cyclical. Would Griffin prefer the American League in 1949, when teams walked 4.6 times per game and the ratio of hits to walks was less than two-to-one? Or the National League in 1930, when the league-wide batting average was .303?
I'm going to take a couple of things on faith:
*The ball has not been altered in any significant way.
*The vast majority of players are building their bodies through training and dietary supplements.
Now, surely these larger players are more capable offensively, but I can't blame them, in fact I encourage players to be in their top physical shape. By this I mean non-injury prone and with ample speed and agility to handle their defensive requirements. I think some players are reaching a middle ground where they are realizing this- Sheffield, for example, tried Barry's off-season workout in 2001 and found it to be counter-productive for his body type. This season he has lost some muscle mass and (IMO) is quicker, or at least feels safer going all-out on the field.
I think having more players in top-shape increases the offensive game a good bit, but good pitching beats good hitting, right? There are some pitchers who look pretty dominating right now, but not a whole lot. As the year goes on, I think that number will increase, but there are still a lot of pitchers that are going to get hit hard. The argument has been made that expansion has thinned out the pitching. Well I don't buy it. The hitting would have thinned out also, and even the Tigers are scoring runs these days. I believe that the difference is the increase in injuries to pitchers, both in the majors and in amateur play. I was just reading that the pitcher that was going to be one of the top picks in the draft has shoulder problems. The other day I was reading about high school coachs hiding pitch counts from the kids' parents. And don't even mention the Marlins. How many pitchers have lost their arms on the way to the majors?
Of course it may not be an increase in injury, but more of a finite number of pitchers who can handle abuse. We may not have noticed when there were only twenty teams, when the few guys who could withstand the punishment were all you had, but now the problem is becoming obvious. Surgery has helped stem the tide- where would we be without Tommy John?- but it will require a better philosophy in the handling of pitchers in the future to really reverse this offensive trend.
/rant.
*The ball has not been altered in any significant way.
*The vast majority of players are building their bodies through training and dietary supplements.
Now, surely these larger players are more capable offensively, but I can't blame them, in fact I encourage players to be in their top physical shape. By this I mean non-injury prone and with ample speed and agility to handle their defensive requirements. I think some players are reaching a middle ground where they are realizing this- Sheffield, for example, tried Barry's off-season workout in 2001 and found it to be counter-productive for his body type. This season he has lost some muscle mass and (IMO) is quicker, or at least feels safer going all-out on the field.
I think having more players in top-shape increases the offensive game a good bit, but good pitching beats good hitting, right? There are some pitchers who look pretty dominating right now, but not a whole lot. As the year goes on, I think that number will increase, but there are still a lot of pitchers that are going to get hit hard. The argument has been made that expansion has thinned out the pitching. Well I don't buy it. The hitting would have thinned out also, and even the Tigers are scoring runs these days. I believe that the difference is the increase in injuries to pitchers, both in the majors and in amateur play. I was just reading that the pitcher that was going to be one of the top picks in the draft has shoulder problems. The other day I was reading about high school coachs hiding pitch counts from the kids' parents. And don't even mention the Marlins. How many pitchers have lost their arms on the way to the majors?
Of course it may not be an increase in injury, but more of a finite number of pitchers who can handle abuse. We may not have noticed when there were only twenty teams, when the few guys who could withstand the punishment were all you had, but now the problem is becoming obvious. Surgery has helped stem the tide- where would we be without Tommy John?- but it will require a better philosophy in the handling of pitchers in the future to really reverse this offensive trend.
/rant.
Edward at Bambino's Curse has a good post about whether baseball is supposed to be boring.
It features some great quotations from late Commish Giamatti calling baseball an "autotelic activitiy", and New Yorker favourite Roger Angell comparing baseball to reading.
Maybe Griff could give it a gander.
It features some great quotations from late Commish Giamatti calling baseball an "autotelic activitiy", and New Yorker favourite Roger Angell comparing baseball to reading.
Maybe Griff could give it a gander.
Baseball boring? I was right: baseball is similar to cricket...:-)
I wouldn't be upset if the powers that be did something to increase the likelihood of triples, basestealing and balls in play. Few (here) would dispute that taking a walk will help you win ball games and I'd rather see Jays players walk since I'd like to see the Jays win. If the Jays would still win, however, I'd rather see the player take his hacks. (And who wouldn't like to see Barry Bonds challenged a bit more?)
I don't know what the solution is, and I still enjoy baseball the way it is. It would be nice if MLB was a little less weaselly about certain dietry supplements; athletes shouldn't be hurting their health for money and they are bad role models if they do. I always thought Big Mac was a dubious role model because he definitely used supplements that may or may not have been good for him. (Of course nobody will be confusing Jose Canseco for a role model...:-) )
I wouldn't be upset if the powers that be did something to increase the likelihood of triples, basestealing and balls in play. Few (here) would dispute that taking a walk will help you win ball games and I'd rather see Jays players walk since I'd like to see the Jays win. If the Jays would still win, however, I'd rather see the player take his hacks. (And who wouldn't like to see Barry Bonds challenged a bit more?)
I don't know what the solution is, and I still enjoy baseball the way it is. It would be nice if MLB was a little less weaselly about certain dietry supplements; athletes shouldn't be hurting their health for money and they are bad role models if they do. I always thought Big Mac was a dubious role model because he definitely used supplements that may or may not have been good for him. (Of course nobody will be confusing Jose Canseco for a role model...:-) )
I wonder what the impact of making playing fields bigger would be...say mandating dimensions of at least 330, 380 and 420 in those parks that can accomodate it...or at least of making the newer stadia abide by the dimensions that were already set instead of letting them continue to slide. Minute Maid park, I'm looking in your direction.
It's likely that little guys will hit fewer home runs in bigger parks. It's likely that more doubles and triples (the most exciting play in baseball?) would be hit in bigger parks. And it's likely that outfield speed and defense become more of a concern, tempting managers to capitalize on the assets of those players by attempting more steals.
That's the baseball I'd like to see as a fan. Lots of home runs by the big guys with speed and defense mixed it. Variety.
It's likely that little guys will hit fewer home runs in bigger parks. It's likely that more doubles and triples (the most exciting play in baseball?) would be hit in bigger parks. And it's likely that outfield speed and defense become more of a concern, tempting managers to capitalize on the assets of those players by attempting more steals.
That's the baseball I'd like to see as a fan. Lots of home runs by the big guys with speed and defense mixed it. Variety.