Nay against the inter-league voting, for many of the same reasons mentioned above. It takes away from the NL-AL rivalry.
As for the ways to change the game? I agree with everything that Soup said above. I would like to add though, they should raise the mound again, to what it was in the 60’s. With all the offense that’s been going on lately, let’s give the pitchers something to even things up a little. And umpires need to start calling those high fastballs. They used to be a strike, why are they balls now?
I also liked Mark McGwire’s suggestion for speeding up the game. Put a time clock on the pitcher. Give him a set amount of seconds to make the pitch (or try a pick off) after he gets the ball, or give the batter a called ball.
And why does the pitcher have to actually throw the ball to the catcher for an intentional walk? At this point, the two are just playing catch. I doubt there’s been enough wild pitches on an intentional walk to use as justification for actually throwing 4 balls. Can’t the pitcher just say the batter can have first base and let him go?
Oh for Pete’s sake; every real sport has interleague games. Only in baseball with its “we’re not a sport, we’re a religion” metality does this get brought up. The season is over 160 games long–a few interleague ones doesn’t really change much in terms of who wins the pennant, and it certainly makes the game more fun. Look at the way football is set up–you play every team in your division twice, a few from the same league but different division, and then you are matched up with a division from the other league and play everyone in it once (well, the formula’s something like that–it’s a little more complex). How else will I get to see the Redskins stomp the Ravens? Same thing goes for baseball–do I really need to see the Orioles lose to the Red Sox/Yankees again? At least this way I get to see another team beat em (FTR, I’m a Sox fan, but they don’t get televised in B-more too much).
And what’s this about taking away from the AL-NL rivalry? If anything, it adds to it. Look at it this way:
in a given year, the best team from the AL may be better than every team in the NL. On the other hand, on that particular year, every other AL team would lose to the NL. So if you don’t have interleague games, the AL team wins it and prances around. But the NL was better. Also, the whole dynamic changes when you’re going into a championship knowing that the team beat you in the bottom of the 9th last time. Sorta adds to the tension.
We could overcome the higher springiness of aluminum bats by loosening the windings on the standard baseball, making it less “lively.” Heck, the windings have been tightened and loosened several times this century.
But there’s another, more serious problem with aluminum bats. The sound they make when they hit the ball. It sounds like a cheap bell. There is a huge amount of tradition bound up in the “crack” of a wooden bat against a ball. That sound practically is baseball. Take that away and you totally destroy the nostalgia factor.
How about, instead of 9 innings with 3 outs each, we have 3 innings with 9 outs each? There’d be a lot more runs scored that way.
But seriously, folks, the consequences of these examples, and the way they’d ruin any ability to compare current stats with historical stats, were kinda my point. These changes would make such an enormous difference in the way the games were played that the historical stats would have to be thrown out, and, well, ya just don’t throw out Walter Johnson or Babe Ruth. But allowing interleague play, on the other hand, would have no more of an impact than, say, lengthening the season from 154 games to 163 games.
Not that I’m advocating aluminum bats or 7 inning games, but you can’t really compare players of today to players of eras past as things currently stand.
For example, you mention Babe Ruth and Walter Johnson.
Walter Johnson had 110 (yes, that’s not a typo) shutouts in his career. He had a career ERA (over 21 seasons) of 2.17. He had 417 wins!!! In 1914 he threw 371 innings.
Babe Ruth not only had 714 home runs in his carrer, but he did it while batting .342!! And he walked 2000 times (imagine his BA if he gots some hits from those). And he has that ridiculous slugging pct of .690!! (Mark McGwire, for comparison, has a .587, Aaron .555, Kiner .548, Mays .557. Even Ted Williams only had a .634)
Do you think we’re EVER going to see those numbers again? Doubtful.
On the other hand, I firmly believe that today’s players are MUCH better than the players of yesteryear. I’d take 9 Mark McGwires over 9 Babe Ruths any day. I’d rather have a staff of Pedro Martinezes and Randy Johnsons than a staff of Walter Johnsons, Cy Youngs and Christy Mathewsons.
So, how do I reconcile these two contridictory statements.
Simple. You cannot compare players of today to players of yesteryear. You can say Ty Cobb was the greatest hitter of his era. You can say that Walter Johnson was the greatest pitcher of his day. But I don’t think you can compare, in any meaningful way, the careers of Walter Johnson and Roger Clemens. I don’t think you can compare the careers of Ty Cobb and Tony Gwynn or Wade Boggs. Playing conditions have changed too much to make the comparison possible.
::checking asbestos suit::
I’m ready to defend my arguments, so, whenever ready, flame away!!
Actually, I think your point about comparing pitchers stats has validity. Pitchers these days are just not conditioned to pitch complete games, and with the rise of middle relief and closers it’s just not necessary. I love reading about pitchers like Iron Joe McGinnity (sp?) or Walter Johnson pitching both games of a double header. I think a modern pitcher would have a stroke if they had to do that.
The point is, what pitcher is EVER going to throw 300 innings or get 100 shutouts again? So yes, to that extent, it’s hard to compare modern pitchers with those of the past. Whether Pedro or Clemens would’ve still been great playing under early 20th century conditions is food for yet another great baseball debate.
Hitting, on the other hand, can still be compared fairly between the different eras. It’s still see ball, hit ball. There are some differences though: Babe Ruth would face one or two different pitchers a game, McGwire may sometimes face three or four. Ruth didn’t have night games or cross-country flights to deal with, but I’ll bet McGwire has access to better conditioning equipment and medical treatment.
Of course, Ruth was a freak. High average, high power numbers, hell, he even held some pitching records. If you leave Ruth on a level all to his own, I think today’s best hitters compare favorably with Williams, Gehrig, Kiner et al.
So Zev, I think you can still compare the game today with that of the past.
TRACER: You make a good point about the “crack” of the bat. It’s like the other sounds we associate with things, that we don’t necessarily hear anymore, like the “ka-ching” of a cash register (when’s the last time you actually heard THAT?).
The game was so different back then that you can’t compare pitchers today to pitchers of yesteryear. For example, here are the leaders in innings pitched for the “0” years in the National League.
1876 (the first year) Jim Devlin 622
1880 Jim McCormick 657
1890 Bill Hutchison 603
1900 Joe McGinnity (the Iron Man you mentioned above) 343
1910 Nap Rucker 320
1920 Grover Cleveland Alexander 363
1930 Ray Kremer 276 (But this year was an offensive fluke where the NL hit .303 ** as a league**.
1940 Bucky Walters 305
1950 Vern Bickford 311
1960 Larry Jackson 282
1970 Gaylord Perry 328
1980 Steve Carlton 304
1990 Frank Viola 249
1999 (the last available year) Randy Johnson 271.
Now, the drop between 1890 and 1900 can be explained by the change in pitching distance in 1893 (the numbers dropped dramatically after 1893).
However, what happened after 1920? Did they break the mold on pitcher’s arms? Obviously, no. Pitchers today throw harder than they did back in yesteryear.
Not really. How would you rate a player who played 18 seasons, retired with a career BA of .317 and 138 home runs? You’d probably think “decent hitter, some pop in his bat.” What if I told you he was the greatest slugger of his day? His name is Roger Connor, and he had more home runs than anyone else in major league history at the time he retired (1897).
Sure there was a boom of home runs starting in 1919, but it died down again in the 40s. There were years you could be 2nd in the league in home runs by hitting only 25. Now, of course, you’ve got to hit 45 just to crack the top 10, it seems.
Stolen Bases come and go too. Early in the century they meant alot. Later on, you could lead the league with 15. Once Maury Wills came along, the SB suddenly became hot again. Note: Of the top 20 stealers of all time, all started their careers before 1920 or after 1958. Not a single player who started his career in the other 38 years made it to the top 20.
Batting Average. Of the 31 times a player has hit .400 or better in a season, 29 of them happened before 1924. And, of course, no one has done it since 1941.
That being said, I think a player’s batting statistics can only be meaningful in the context of the years he played. I don’t think you can meaningfully compare a 1920 batter to a 1960 batter to a 2000 batter.
Nice use of stats on the pitchers. I’m curious as to what (if any) other conditions changed around 1930, to cause the drop-off of innings pitched. Was relief pitching starting to bloom then? Joe Page was the first relief specialist from the Yankees I’m aware of, but he pitched in the 1940’s.
I still have to differ with you regarding hitting. But first, I think we should ignore the game statistics before 1903, and stick to the “modern” era. Even baseball tends to make that distinction. I think you could clearly make a case that baseball was a slightly different game then.
I think, though, that you hit upon the fun aspect of comparing players over the last 97 seasons: the game itself is the same, but the TRENDS and STRATEGIES tend to shift. That boom in HRs you mentioned from 1919 to the 1940s lasted almost 25 years! That’s a big boom! I would guess that players leaving for WWII was a major factor in ending it.
There were a lot of HRs hit in the 50s, then a slide again from the late 60s through the 70s (didn’t Graig Nettles lead the league with 32 HRs in 1976?). I would say the current power surge is just another of those cycles, fueled this time by the thin pitching pool and cozy new ballparks.
Let’s take this scenario: You stick Mark McGwire (power) and Tony Gwynn (average) into a time machine and send them to the 1920s. Bring Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb back to the year 2000. Do you think those hitters would still be successful?
Not that I’m aware of, but I could do more research.
You do have a point regarding the changes in trends and strategies (rather than actual changes in the game itself).
I think Gwynn (if he got to play in the 1920s) and McGwire would do wonderously well in the 1920s. However, I think Ruth and Cobb would only be above-average players today. I definitely don’t think they’d .367 or have 714 home runs (with a .342 average!!).
Of course, this reminds me of the old joke (often said while Joe DiMaggio was still alive).
Two old timers are sitting at a bar.
First old timer: “Say, if Joe DiMaggio was playing today, how do you think he’d do?”
Second old timer: (thinks for a minute) “Oh, he’d hit about .260, I’d say”
First old timer: (excitedly) “.260!! C’mon. Even if you say today’s players are better, I’m sure he’d do better than .260! On what basis do you say he’d only hit .260??”
Second old timer: “Well, he’s about 80 years old.”
Zev Steinhardt
Why wouldn’t Ruth do well today? Ruth would do GREAT today with all the lousy pitching out there. As long as he didn’t drink too much or eat too many hot dogs before a game.
Same goes with Cobb. He’d be crowding the plate, with less fear of getting beaned; and would probably LOVE the extra hits he’d get on artifical turf.
I think McGwire and Gwynn would do well in the 1920s. McGwire might lose a few home runs in the bigger ballparks (like the Polo Gounds), but that’s the only drawback I can see.
re: your joke. I’m sure Joe D could’ve hit .260 at 80 years old! Ted Williams too, as long as the eyes held out. With all the poor pitching these days, I’ve heard Yankee games where Bobby Murcer and Jim Kaat let themselves consider comebacks. Bet Don Mattingly could still hit at least .280.
The ban on the spitball. I know there weren’t that many pitchers who used the spitball as their primary pitch (those few were allowed to continue using it for the rest of theit careers), but it must have meant something for it to be any part of a pitcher’s arsenal.
The dawning of the power era. Babe Ruth might have been the best of the home run hitters, and he was the first of them…but many more followed in his wake. The idea of the home run as a managerial strategy fundamentally changed the way pitchers were used.
Farm systems. Prior to the 1920’s, players, including pitchers, in the minor leagues were there for one purpose: to win minor league games. Beginning in the 1920’s, most baseball clubs, following the example of Branch Rickey and the Cardinals, began to use the minor leagues for the purposes of training. Teaching pitchers how to pitch, which helps technique, power and finesse, does not lend itself to stamina. Putting them on the mound and telling them to win a game does the opposite.
Actually, the spitball was banned in 1920, not 1930.
**
This could well be. While Ruth started hitting his dingers back in 1919, most of the rest of league (with some exceptions – see Ken Williams, et al) did not catch up until about 1930. And then again, 1930 was that magic year for hitters.
I’m not so sure that the pitching today is worse than it was 70 years ago. In fact, I’m inclined to think it’s better.
I’m also inclined to think that the hitting today is better as well. Yet, whereas the pitching may be better by a factor of say, two (just to pick a number), the hitting is better by a factor of three to four. That’s why pitching stats are worse today. Not because the pitchers are worse, but because the hitting has improved far more.
**
I agree the artifical turf would have helped a hitter like Cobb, but I don’t think he’d do as well today as he did at the time of his career.
Nope. If the pitching was truly worse back then (as I beleive it was), I think McGwire would do tremendously back in the 20s. The ballparks, as you mention, would be a factor that I did not consider.
It’s wandered a bit, so just to flash back to the OP, I’m dead-set against interleague play.
Okay, now that that’s done with…
What about the other heresies? Lowering the mound, introducing the designated hitter… um, let’s see, what else… You could probably make a case for the “one batter only” relief pitcher diluting the purity of the game… hmmm…
I’ve been re-reading some of the posts regarding the OP. I’m even more convinced that interleague play will ultimately hurt the game. This completely dilutes the point of World Series: the champions from two separate leagues meeting to decide who’s the best.
Two separate leagues, with two separate fan bases, meeting at the end of their respective seasons to declare a champion of the sport. When one team wins, a whole league wins. Too much interleague play prior to the World Series takes away this level of competition at the end of the season. If the Yankees beat the Mets in the World Series, a Met fan might say, “Well, we beat you 6 out of 8 during the regular season.” I think that sort of takes away the fun. Instead of busting their butts to get another crack at the Yankees in the World Series, the Mets can get some payback during the regular season. Phooey.
Actually, the spitball wasn’t banned outright following the 1920 season, but no new pitchers were allowed to pitch the spitball. Pitchers who had thrown spitballs in major league play prior to the end of the 1920 season could “register” as spitball pitchers and continue to throw them for the rest of their careers. This had the effect of slowly phasing out the spitball until, long before the end of the 1930s, it disappeared altogether. It also gave older pitchers a tremendous advantage over younger ones, for a time.
Other pitches that involved scuffing or dirtying up the ball were immediately banned following the 1920 season, however. Part of the blame for the Ray Chapman tragedy was placed on the fact that it was difficult to see a dirt-colored ball against a dirt-colored background – so a bright shiny spotless white ball would be easier to see and avoid. If modern batting helmets had been available at the time, this wouldn’t even have been an issue.
