Chuck asks an interesting question ... who has the more impressive career resurrection? (And why?)
| Rick Ankiel |  110 (61.11%) |
| Josh Hamilton | 70 (38.89%) |
180 votes | 30 featured comments
While Hamilton's hitting has been amazing, to move from ace pitcher to top outfielder is something that I don't think has happened since Ruth.
To make Ankiel even more amazing, last year he had a 120 OPS+ thanks to his slugging - 285/328/535. This year he is at 120 thanks to his OBP - 285/370/483. Go figure.
To make Ankiel even more amazing, last year he had a 120 OPS+ thanks to his slugging - 285/328/535. This year he is at 120 thanks to his OBP - 285/370/483. Go figure.
Two great stories. It's a cliche to say "feel-good" stories, but that's what these are.
Like owen said, Ankiel has essentially made the majopr leagues twice. The best parallel I can think of is Smokey Joe Wood (yeah, everything comes back to the 1912 Red Sox with Magpie.) Wood had to stop pitching because of arm injury, but he was able to have a second career and win another World Series championship anyway. Ankiel wasn't as great a pitcher as Wood, but it looks like he'll be a better outfielder. A great baseball story, and extremely unusual.
Hamilton is a great human story - the man has saved himself, and saved his life, which is the first thing. What's remarkable from a baseball standpoint is that it looks like he just picked up where he would have left off, if he hadn't stopped along the way. But he was just a prospect, someone who needed development time. Which he never got. The fact that he missed so much baseball during what is normally such a crucial development period for a young player, and has still been able to do what he's done is pretty amazing.
Like owen said, Ankiel has essentially made the majopr leagues twice. The best parallel I can think of is Smokey Joe Wood (yeah, everything comes back to the 1912 Red Sox with Magpie.) Wood had to stop pitching because of arm injury, but he was able to have a second career and win another World Series championship anyway. Ankiel wasn't as great a pitcher as Wood, but it looks like he'll be a better outfielder. A great baseball story, and extremely unusual.
Hamilton is a great human story - the man has saved himself, and saved his life, which is the first thing. What's remarkable from a baseball standpoint is that it looks like he just picked up where he would have left off, if he hadn't stopped along the way. But he was just a prospect, someone who needed development time. Which he never got. The fact that he missed so much baseball during what is normally such a crucial development period for a young player, and has still been able to do what he's done is pretty amazing.
John, I have to disagree ...
First, to call Ankiel an "ace" is only correct in the very loosest sense of the term -- his best season, by far, was 11-7/3.50. Nice, but not exactly Halladay-esque.
Hamilton, on the other hand, is quite possibly the current favorite for AL MVP, especially if the Rangers continue this remarkable turnaround they're on ... from on the brink of being out of baseball (and maybe dead!) to that? Yeah, I'm a homer here, living in Ranger country, but this kid is the Story of the Decade.,
See the Ankiel - Hamilton story! A story of two types of drug abuse.
Hamilton (allegedly) has dabbled in every drug available on the streets of America while Ankiel (allegedly) has dabbled in the drugs you usually associate with Balco. As to their "resurrection" I go for Hamilton - he's come back from self-destruction to glory - from the dark side to the light. Ankiel's gone from; great prospect to tragic bust to the come back kid to just tragic.
When are we going to stop admiring those who cheat!
Bob Lemon also made the majors twice, I suppose. As a young third baseman, he got two very brief cups of coffee (he went 1-9). Then he went off to war for three years. When he came back, he was a pitcher. Ankiel's one season (and just 20 years old, too) as pitcher is more impressive than Lemon's infield resume, although I suspect that Lemon probably would have had a career as a third baseman if he'd stuck to it. He wouldn't have worked too hard on his hitting the rest of his career, being busy winning 20 games on the mound seven times - but he hit .232 lifetime with 37 homers in 1183 at bats. If he doesn't go to the navy for three years, and stays at third base... who knows?
When are we going to stop admiring those who cheat!
Judging from the continual calls (here, in New York, and elsewhere) to sign Barry Bonds, not any time soon.
As for me, I can't help it. I will always make a distinction between guys like Giambi and Palmeiro on the one hand... and fringe major leaguers trying to hold on to a job and earn a pay cheque... and minor leaguers doing whatever they can think of to take the next step... I'd want to walk a mile in their shoes first.
Judging from the continual calls (here, in New York, and elsewhere) to sign Barry Bonds, not any time soon.
As for me, I can't help it. I will always make a distinction between guys like Giambi and Palmeiro on the one hand... and fringe major leaguers trying to hold on to a job and earn a pay cheque... and minor leaguers doing whatever they can think of to take the next step... I'd want to walk a mile in their shoes first.
When are we going to stop admiring those who cheat!
With your comments on drug use, here we have two examples (as you laid out). From what I know ...
Both used drugs that were against baseball rules.
Both used drugs that were illegal.
Both used drugs that have long-term negative impacts.
Both used drugs around which there is an aura of "there is no way I'll ever get caught using something like this"
Both used drugs of which their teams almost surely had knowledge of their usage.
The only difference is that one used drugs to improve himself and one used drugs to almost ruin his life.
Why should we have more sympathy for Hamilton than Ankiel? Is drug use forgivable as long as you had no self-beneficial reason to actually use the drugs? Once you show some rational reason for using the drugs, is that when it becomes unforgivable?
And by the way - both cheated - as long as you define cheating as something that's against the rules of baseball. If Hamilton didn't cheat, I'd love to know what he was suspended for.
With your comments on drug use, here we have two examples (as you laid out). From what I know ...
Both used drugs that were against baseball rules.
Both used drugs that were illegal.
Both used drugs that have long-term negative impacts.
Both used drugs around which there is an aura of "there is no way I'll ever get caught using something like this"
Both used drugs of which their teams almost surely had knowledge of their usage.
The only difference is that one used drugs to improve himself and one used drugs to almost ruin his life.
Why should we have more sympathy for Hamilton than Ankiel? Is drug use forgivable as long as you had no self-beneficial reason to actually use the drugs? Once you show some rational reason for using the drugs, is that when it becomes unforgivable?
And by the way - both cheated - as long as you define cheating as something that's against the rules of baseball. If Hamilton didn't cheat, I'd love to know what he was suspended for.
CJF, acknowledging the merit to all that you write, I am left with one question -- and I really don't know, so somebody can enlighten me -- are PEDs addictive?
I think it's impressive that Hamilton has (to date) beaten an addiction. Ankiel, well, essentially, he got caught making a bad decision and had to go the other direction or lose his job.
I don't think it's "admirable" that either did what they did -- but Hamilton's recovery can be seen as admirable, while Ankiel ... not so much.
I voted for Ankiel. Not sure which part of me is supposed to feel good about Hamilton's story.
First, to call Ankiel an "ace" is only correct in the very loosest sense of the term -- his best season, by far, was 11-7/3.50.
When LaRussa had to pick someone to start Game 1 against the Mets in 2000, he could have chosen well-rested 20-game winner Darryl Kile or well-rested 20-year-old Rick Ankiel. He chose Ankiel. I think that gives Rick some "ace" cred, at the very least.
Of course, what happened after Ankiel took the mound takes most of it away...
First, to call Ankiel an "ace" is only correct in the very loosest sense of the term -- his best season, by far, was 11-7/3.50.
When LaRussa had to pick someone to start Game 1 against the Mets in 2000, he could have chosen well-rested 20-game winner Darryl Kile or well-rested 20-year-old Rick Ankiel. He chose Ankiel. I think that gives Rick some "ace" cred, at the very least.
Of course, what happened after Ankiel took the mound takes most of it away...
And by the way - both cheated - as long as you define cheating as
something that's against the rules of baseball. If Hamilton didn't
cheat, I'd love to know what he was suspended for.
This comment of mine is something that's bothered me for a bit - what exactly is cheating? It seems easy when you first think about it, but it's also a term that as soon as you define it, something that's not cheating all of a sudden gets considered cheating.
For instance, maybe cheating is doing something that has a negative consequence according to the rulebook. Then ARod's "I got it" is certainly considered cheating as I believe if you yell "I got it" that's an automatic out in the rule book. But then doesn't that also mean that striking out is cheating? Or baserunner interference?
Maybe it's deliberately doing something that has a negative consequence according to the rules with the intention of improving your team's likelihood of winning. This certainly removes striking out as cheating, as no one would deliberately strike out, but then doesn't intentional walking become a form of cheating? A batter getting an automatic free base (no pun intended with the drug talk) is certainly a negative outcome and intentional walks are only done with the idea of improving a team's chances of winning.
Personally, the only cheating I can think of that I really care about is the one that goes against the entire purpose of the game (and for which there isn't much of a punishment in the rule book, unless you were paid to do so) - that's throwing the game.
If you look at things in a certain angle, it seems weird that while teams can be encouraged to play line-ups that are suboptimal (play our up-and-coming LF - he's not the best now, but someday he'll get there!!), we can discourage players from doing everything they can to win.
This comment of mine is something that's bothered me for a bit - what exactly is cheating? It seems easy when you first think about it, but it's also a term that as soon as you define it, something that's not cheating all of a sudden gets considered cheating.
For instance, maybe cheating is doing something that has a negative consequence according to the rulebook. Then ARod's "I got it" is certainly considered cheating as I believe if you yell "I got it" that's an automatic out in the rule book. But then doesn't that also mean that striking out is cheating? Or baserunner interference?
Maybe it's deliberately doing something that has a negative consequence according to the rules with the intention of improving your team's likelihood of winning. This certainly removes striking out as cheating, as no one would deliberately strike out, but then doesn't intentional walking become a form of cheating? A batter getting an automatic free base (no pun intended with the drug talk) is certainly a negative outcome and intentional walks are only done with the idea of improving a team's chances of winning.
Personally, the only cheating I can think of that I really care about is the one that goes against the entire purpose of the game (and for which there isn't much of a punishment in the rule book, unless you were paid to do so) - that's throwing the game.
If you look at things in a certain angle, it seems weird that while teams can be encouraged to play line-ups that are suboptimal (play our up-and-coming LF - he's not the best now, but someday he'll get there!!), we can discourage players from doing everything they can to win.
I am comfortable defining cheating as "breaking the rules in order to win." Am I missing something obvious that complicates that definition?
"Not sure which part of me is supposed to feel good about Hamilton's story."
The question just wants to know who had the more impressive resurrection, not who is the bigger "feel-good" story. To me it's clear ; a coke addiction was much harder to overcome than wild pitches, which Ankiel doesn't have to do anymore.
"Judging from the continual calls (here, in New York, and elsewhere) to sign Barry Bonds, not any time soon."
Those calls admire the .276/.480/.565 line and realize the Jays are desperate for it, they don't admire the player. I don't see how you jumped from one to the other.
The question just wants to know who had the more impressive resurrection, not who is the bigger "feel-good" story. To me it's clear ; a coke addiction was much harder to overcome than wild pitches, which Ankiel doesn't have to do anymore.
"Judging from the continual calls (here, in New York, and elsewhere) to sign Barry Bonds, not any time soon."
Those calls admire the .276/.480/.565 line and realize the Jays are desperate for it, they don't admire the player. I don't see how you jumped from one to the other.
If you look at things in a certain angle, it seems weird that while teams can be encouraged to play line-ups that are suboptimal (play our up-and-coming LF - he's not the best now, but someday he'll get there!!), we can discourage players from doing everything they can to win.
That's exactly my view on the subject.
It's not only the baseball world that understands the difference between PEDs and recreational drugs. One goes to the integrity of the game; the other doesn't. The differing treatment of Ross Rebigliati and Ben Johnson speaks to that.
Some people feel that everything should be allowed. PEDs, blood doping, gene splicing, whatever. There is, as far as I know, no major sport, amateur or professional, that has gone this route. Until some sport does, those who wish to watch androids will have to content themselves with Playstation, WII and wrestling. :)
Some people feel that everything should be allowed. PEDs, blood doping, gene splicing, whatever. There is, as far as I know, no major sport, amateur or professional, that has gone this route. Until some sport does, those who wish to watch androids will have to content themselves with Playstation, WII and wrestling. :)
What about John Olerud? He had a great comeback story, plus he could pitch and hit.
I am comfortable defining cheating as "breaking the rules in order to win." Am I missing something obvious that complicates that definition?
Yes, you are leaving out breaking the rules in order to lose.
.gnilbmaG
Then there is breaking the rules for personal gain (not necessarily a win for the team).
And perhaps breaking the rules as a rebellion against society.
Then you have rebels without a cause.
Yes, you are leaving out breaking the rules in order to lose.
.gnilbmaG
Then there is breaking the rules for personal gain (not necessarily a win for the team).
And perhaps breaking the rules as a rebellion against society.
Then you have rebels without a cause.
It's not only the baseball world that understands the difference
between PEDs and recreational drugs. One goes to the integrity of the
game; the other doesn't.
The integrity of baseball is a fictional concept in my opinion, which may be why I don't look at PEDs that differently. On the list of issues that have affected the game, I rank PEDs way down on the list, probably around the 100-200 level after things like:
It is not that I think PEDs may not be damaging to the integrity of a sport - just that I don't think baseball has any integrity remaining after the above.
The integrity of baseball is a fictional concept in my opinion, which may be why I don't look at PEDs that differently. On the list of issues that have affected the game, I rank PEDs way down on the list, probably around the 100-200 level after things like:
- Prolonged segregation
- Continued racism
- Cancellation of the world series
- Continued labor strifes
- The continued (and glorified) selling of people
- Anti-trust exemption
- The designated hitter and non-designated hitter at the same time
- The Black Sox
- Pete Rose
- Taxpayer funding of private interests
- The power of the old umpires union
It is not that I think PEDs may not be damaging to the integrity of a sport - just that I don't think baseball has any integrity remaining after the above.
PEDs, blood doping, gene splicing, whatever. There is, as far as I
know, no major sport, amateur or professional, that has gone this
route.
Doesn't the Mitchell report and steroid scandal imply the opposite? Didn't baseball essentially allow anything?
Doesn't the Mitchell report and steroid scandal imply the opposite? Didn't baseball essentially allow anything?
I took Hamilton due to the fact that he of seemingly improved while out baseball. Before he was suspended he was never effective above A (struggled mightily in his 1st trip to AA). He was reinstated in 2006 and played 15 games of rookie ball looking average (260/327/360) before getting picked in the rule V draft by the Reds. Despite never playing well above A and missing most of four seasons he puts up 922 OPS with 19 HRs in 90 games, a performance he's basically duplicating this year. Ankiel at least had a season or two in the minors to find his swing.
The interleague DH difference is more damaging to the integrity of baseball than PED use? Hmm.
The Mitchell Report suggests the MLB and the player's union were terribly slow to make and enforce rules concerning PED use, but not that the field for artificial enhancement should be entirely open. Quite the contrary.
The Mitchell Report suggests the MLB and the player's union were terribly slow to make and enforce rules concerning PED use, but not that the field for artificial enhancement should be entirely open. Quite the contrary.
The interleague DH difference is more damaging to the integrity of baseball than PED use? Hmm.
What is more relevant to the integrity of a game than a single set of rules? Imagine the NFL with the AFC playing NFL rules and the NFC playing CFL rules. It's laughable to even think about, right? But that's essentially what baseball does.
The Mitchell Report suggests the MLB and the player's union were terribly slow to make and enforce rules concerning PED use, but not that the field for artificial enhancement should be entirely open. Quite the contrary.
You then agree entirely with my point. The Mitchell report suggested that baseball essentially allowed players to do whatever they wanted throughout the 90s. Thus, it was an environment where everything was allowed.
What is more relevant to the integrity of a game than a single set of rules? Imagine the NFL with the AFC playing NFL rules and the NFC playing CFL rules. It's laughable to even think about, right? But that's essentially what baseball does.
The Mitchell Report suggests the MLB and the player's union were terribly slow to make and enforce rules concerning PED use, but not that the field for artificial enhancement should be entirely open. Quite the contrary.
You then agree entirely with my point. The Mitchell report suggested that baseball essentially allowed players to do whatever they wanted throughout the 90s. Thus, it was an environment where everything was allowed.
Integrity is a human quality. It's a quality that only people have. If you're looking for integrity in an institution, you are both confused and misguided, and you will never find it, not will you find its absence.
Integrity is a human quality. It's a quality that only people have.
If you're looking for integrity in an institution, you are both
confused and misguided, and you will never find it, not will you find
its absence.
I think that's just flat-out wrong. Yes, integrity is driven by the humans, but organizations / institutions can be set up to encourage / discourage actions relating to integrity.
Just compare an institution like Drexel to an institution like Goldman Sachs. (I know there is overlap in the Boesky / Milken scandal into Goldman, but the actions / responsibility of the two companies is entirely different)
I think that's just flat-out wrong. Yes, integrity is driven by the humans, but organizations / institutions can be set up to encourage / discourage actions relating to integrity.
Just compare an institution like Drexel to an institution like Goldman Sachs. (I know there is overlap in the Boesky / Milken scandal into Goldman, but the actions / responsibility of the two companies is entirely different)
While I am uncomfortable with acknowledging that there is a morality of investment banking outside the relevant laws, and am even more uncomfortable with the notion that DBL was acting without "integrity" (Milken's guiding moral principle of screw the other guy and only profits matter seems quite morally consistent to me) let's look at your comparison for a sec. It's a good one. (Abby Cohen was a key player at both firms, incidentally)
What were the acts of DBL that absented integrity? There was certainly an internal remuneration structure that encouraged internal competitiveness and individual empire-building, in addition to external entrepreneurship, both of which were discouraged to some degree at Goldman. But surely a compensation structure is a morally neutral thing. Instead, what caused the problems within DBL was largely the acts of individuals like Boesky and Milken and Levine. Boesky and Milken and Levine were certainly encouraged financially by the firm's compensation structure to push the envelope, but the partnership was actually reining them in to a fairly considerable degree.
Furthermore, if we assume that DBL was acting as an entity without integrity, perhaps in not getting tough enough in rooting out the individuals in question (fighting the allegations leading to the potential RICO indictment cannot be considered a sign of a lack of integrity, only of a commendable instinct for survival) I would contend that these actions vis-a-vis DBL have no moral status. The moral status of actions is, again, something that is the property of individuals. It is their acts that are consistent or not consistent with moral principles. The acts of a partnership, ultimately, are the acts of the partners - not only in law, but in the world of morality as well. It is they who bear moral responsibility for acts carried out on their command.
There was certainly an internal remuneration structure that encouraged
internal competitiveness and individual empire-building, in addition to
external entrepreneurship, both of which were discouraged to some
degree at Goldman. But surely a compensation structure is a morally
neutral thing.
I disagree - a compensation scheme is what drives behavior within a specific company. If you define it to be morally neutral, then of course it must follow that the organization has nor morality. But I would consider that to be the same thing as saying a conscience is morally neutral. The reason I say that is a compensation scheme is as effective at driving the behavior of a company's employees as a conscience is at driving the behavior of an individual.
Furthermore, in the case of Drexel, their compensation scheme went beyond just encouraging internal competitiveness and empire-building (this wouldn't be too different from any other I-Bank, or any business, as maximizing ones own profits is usually the reason people work). Employees at Drexel were essentially forced (or strongly encouraged, take your pick), to invest in funds specifically designed to skirt SEC investigations. These are the funds Milken set up that conducted a lot of the insider trading, and in which a lot of his office were co-investors, although it was primarily he and his brother (or was it brother-in-law - whoever the lawyer guy was). Rather than encourage internal competitiveness, these funds actually encouraged solidarity within the firm and discouraged anyone who would likely blow the whistle (why would any turn on Milken when they were all making millions to tens of millions of their bonuses which were driven by his illegal activity).
These founds also hint to other structural differences between the two companies. In Drexel, the personal business and official business weren't forced to be (as cleanly) separate compared to Goldman, where Freeman had to be deceitful and do his trades without organizational support. As a result, Thurhner and other internal accountants were able to track the "debts" (in the "i owe you a favor sense) between Boesky and Milken. Even Boesky and Mooradian weren't able to do things to the degree of accuracy that Drexel / Milken were.
The main point I'm trying to make is that Drexel was set up to encourage, and support, the type of actions taken by Milken and his crew where at most any other firm (Kidder, Peabody obviously excepted), this type of action was discouraged by many aspects of the organizational structure.
I disagree - a compensation scheme is what drives behavior within a specific company. If you define it to be morally neutral, then of course it must follow that the organization has nor morality. But I would consider that to be the same thing as saying a conscience is morally neutral. The reason I say that is a compensation scheme is as effective at driving the behavior of a company's employees as a conscience is at driving the behavior of an individual.
Furthermore, in the case of Drexel, their compensation scheme went beyond just encouraging internal competitiveness and empire-building (this wouldn't be too different from any other I-Bank, or any business, as maximizing ones own profits is usually the reason people work). Employees at Drexel were essentially forced (or strongly encouraged, take your pick), to invest in funds specifically designed to skirt SEC investigations. These are the funds Milken set up that conducted a lot of the insider trading, and in which a lot of his office were co-investors, although it was primarily he and his brother (or was it brother-in-law - whoever the lawyer guy was). Rather than encourage internal competitiveness, these funds actually encouraged solidarity within the firm and discouraged anyone who would likely blow the whistle (why would any turn on Milken when they were all making millions to tens of millions of their bonuses which were driven by his illegal activity).
These founds also hint to other structural differences between the two companies. In Drexel, the personal business and official business weren't forced to be (as cleanly) separate compared to Goldman, where Freeman had to be deceitful and do his trades without organizational support. As a result, Thurhner and other internal accountants were able to track the "debts" (in the "i owe you a favor sense) between Boesky and Milken. Even Boesky and Mooradian weren't able to do things to the degree of accuracy that Drexel / Milken were.
The main point I'm trying to make is that Drexel was set up to encourage, and support, the type of actions taken by Milken and his crew where at most any other firm (Kidder, Peabody obviously excepted), this type of action was discouraged by many aspects of the organizational structure.
The interleague DH difference is more damaging to the integrity of baseball than PED use? Hmm.
What is more relevant to the integrity of a game than a single set of rules? Imagine the NFL with the AFC playing NFL rules and the NFC playing CFL rules. It's laughable to even think about, right? But that's essentially what baseball does.
And I say anyone who wants to make the game more uniform by establishing or eradicating the DH in one league or the other ought to be pushing for a uniform playing surface. Imagine the NFL playing on fields of various dimensions of playing area. Different sizes of field goal uprights. Or the NHL, with its own green monster arena with a high board on one end, or an enormous circular area behind each goal.
Why should each park in baseball have its own ground rules, its own quirks? Trim that foliage at Wrigley. Get a humidor at every stadium if need be. Variety is the spice of the devil.
Why should each park in baseball have its own ground rules, its own quirks? Trim that foliage at Wrigley. Get a humidor at every stadium if need be. Variety is the spice of the devil.
Thanks, Geoff. My brain nearly explodes when people try and argue for/against the DH.
Baseball has other rules which seem to defy the intuition. Take the infield fly rule. The rulemakers found a loophole which created an imbalance and implemented a rule that would improve the game. You might argue that if baseball had 'integrity' - like golf - you would have to play the ball where is lays as it were.
And I say anyone who wants to make the game more uniform by
establishing or eradicating the DH in one league or the other ought to
be pushing for a uniform playing surface. Imagine the NFL playing on
fields of various dimensions of playing area. Different sizes of field
goal uprights. Or the NHL, with its own green monster arena with a high
board on one end, or an enormous circular area behind each goal.
I do think there should be more standardization of playing surfaces in baseball - shoot me. You can still have great and distinct atmospheres without having to alter the playing surface. Did the Montreal Forum have character? What about the Boston Garden? For existing areas, the appeal of Wrigley goes well beyond the ivy and in between the white lines.
Additionally you're either understating the uniformity of baseball fields or overstating the uniformity of fields in other sports. Your example of changing the size of field goal uprights is on-line with saying baseball fields should change the distance to first base or the pitchers mound.
I agree there is more variety in baseball than other sports, but the basics are the same at all fields - one can't say the same about the players though - one league fields 10 players during a game and the other 9.
As to variety in other sports - compare the frozen grass in Green Bay with the frozen turf in Buffalo, the indoor turf in Indianapolis, and the natural grass in Miami and you have 4 completely different playing environments / field conditions.
I do think there should be more standardization of playing surfaces in baseball - shoot me. You can still have great and distinct atmospheres without having to alter the playing surface. Did the Montreal Forum have character? What about the Boston Garden? For existing areas, the appeal of Wrigley goes well beyond the ivy and in between the white lines.
Additionally you're either understating the uniformity of baseball fields or overstating the uniformity of fields in other sports. Your example of changing the size of field goal uprights is on-line with saying baseball fields should change the distance to first base or the pitchers mound.
I agree there is more variety in baseball than other sports, but the basics are the same at all fields - one can't say the same about the players though - one league fields 10 players during a game and the other 9.
As to variety in other sports - compare the frozen grass in Green Bay with the frozen turf in Buffalo, the indoor turf in Indianapolis, and the natural grass in Miami and you have 4 completely different playing environments / field conditions.
Thanks, Geoff. My brain nearly explodes when people try and argue for/against the DH.
Baseball has other rules which seem to defy the intuition. Take the infield fly rule. The rulemakers found a loophole which created an imbalance and implemented a rule that would improve the game. You might argue that if baseball had 'integrity' - like golf - you would have to play the ball where is lays as it were.
That's just a horrible analogy. First, golf isn't even a comparable sport as it's a sport based on tournaments - overall rankings are a relatively recent phenomenon that don't carry the weight of winning individual tournaments. While golf does have the PGA, it's not a comparable organization to MLB.
Also, I'm not saying that rule changes / evolution are a bad idea (by the way, golf rules do evolve). I'm saying inconsistency within the game is ridiculous. Did I miss something where they only implemented the infield fly in the AL?
And I'm not arguing for / against the DH - I'm arguing for baseball to make a decision (although I do have my preference). Other sports with minor leagues usually use the minors to experiment with rule changes, not half of the top level.
Baseball has other rules which seem to defy the intuition. Take the infield fly rule. The rulemakers found a loophole which created an imbalance and implemented a rule that would improve the game. You might argue that if baseball had 'integrity' - like golf - you would have to play the ball where is lays as it were.
That's just a horrible analogy. First, golf isn't even a comparable sport as it's a sport based on tournaments - overall rankings are a relatively recent phenomenon that don't carry the weight of winning individual tournaments. While golf does have the PGA, it's not a comparable organization to MLB.
Also, I'm not saying that rule changes / evolution are a bad idea (by the way, golf rules do evolve). I'm saying inconsistency within the game is ridiculous. Did I miss something where they only implemented the infield fly in the AL?
And I'm not arguing for / against the DH - I'm arguing for baseball to make a decision (although I do have my preference). Other sports with minor leagues usually use the minors to experiment with rule changes, not half of the top level.
"do think there should be more standardization of playing surfaces in
baseball - shoot me. You can still have great and distinct atmospheres
without having to alter the playing surface. "
Thankfully, I'd say 99% of baseball fans disagree. The unique dimensions of baseball stadiums are an amazing part of the game. I really don't understand your hatred of the DH. I like the leagues being different, and am dissapointed with how similar they have become (despite Joe Morgan and other's constant "NL ball" nonsense)
Thankfully, I'd say 99% of baseball fans disagree. The unique dimensions of baseball stadiums are an amazing part of the game. I really don't understand your hatred of the DH. I like the leagues being different, and am dissapointed with how similar they have become (despite Joe Morgan and other's constant "NL ball" nonsense)