MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[AndOne]

And, personally, I've made peace with the DH - watching most pitchers try to hit is just too painful!   (And I like that you can remove a pitcher only because he is not doing his real job, instead of removing him because it is his turn to strike out!)

Pitchers aren't necessarily automatic K's. Some of them (Carlos Zambrano, Micah Owings, Cole Hamels, Jason Marquis, etc.) are actually very good hitters. And even the worst of them are expected to be able to lay down a bunt, and bunts are frequently among the most interesting and exciting plays in baseball (because they so often lead to close calls).

The gratification of watching some slugger who is either too old or too inept to play the field (e.g., Travis Hafner, Jim Thome, Frank Thomas, Big Papi) sit on his duff for nine innings and come up once every two or three innings to swing from his heels doesn't compare to the loss of strategy involved in abandoning the pitcher's role as a hitter -- and that strategy involves how the manager handles his pitchers as well as lineup management. AL baseball is a home run derby; NL baseball is a chess game. Plus, the fact that you can't hide your poor fielders in the NL means that managers are forced to take the risk of playing the likes of Alfonso Soriano and Adam Dunn in the field -- which lends even more strategy to the NL game. Do you sub out your iron-gloved slugger in the late innings in favor of a good-field, no-hit defensive sub? If so, how big a lead do you have to have before you risk it?

Baseball is the thinking man's sport, and the NL plays the thinking man's version of the thinking man's sport.

Yes, but in the 2nd inning with runners on  2nd and 3rd and 2 out, I DON'T want to have to watch the pitcher bat. Sure, there is a small chance he'll bring in the run, but chances are much better I can go to the fridge for a snack and/or a beer and not really miss anything. You can count the number of pitchers who can hit one one hand, possibly two. When I watch a game I want ACTION and scoring, not watching the pitcher wave good afternoon, good evening, and good night. I think dull, low scoring games are one reason soccer has not captured the fancy of the vast majority of American sports fans.  Isn't the ACTION of basketball one reason we're attracted to the sport? Guess I'm not a traditionalist. Much rather have the added action of having a DH rather than the managerial chess moves. As we have "role players" and "specialists" in several sports, including basketball, perhaps think of the designated hitters in those veins rather than as the tired and rusted out hulks many indeed have become. 

[Mr. Ypsi]

AndOne,

I agree with most of what you've said, but I hope that "I think dull, low scoring games are one reason soccer ..." was meant to be a compound modifier, not a redundant one!  For those who understand the games, there can be very excellent, exciting 0-0 soccer games, as well as dull and boring 200+ point basketball games!

On the other hand, since most Americans DON'T understand soccer, you're probably right about the lack of scoring being a significant detriment.

[Mr. Ypsi]

BTW, a confession.  My hometown of Peoria was about evenly split between Cubs and Cards fans (with a smattering of Sox and others); I leaned toward the Cards (sorry, it was a Bob Gibson/Lou Brock infatuation).  But my favorite team was the Yankees (fear not - I have long-since repented my youthful indiscretions) - how can an eight-year-old resist Mickey and Yogi and Whitey (not to mention Bobby Richardson, Tony Kubek, Gil McDougal, Don Larsen, Moose Skowron, etc.)?  (And, of course, when you're an insecure kid, winning almost every year has its appeal! )

[Ralph Turner]

...  Isn't the ACTION of basketball one reason we're attracted to the sport? 

Yeah ACTION!  I can show up for the last three minutes of an NBA game and catch all of the action while eating a five-course meal at my local sports bar!

[Ralph Turner]

BTW, a confession.  My hometown of Peoria was about evenly split between Cubs and Cards fans (with a smattering of Sox and others); I leaned toward the Cards (sorry, it was a Bob Gibson/Lou Brock infatuation).  But my favorite team was the Yankees (fear not - I have long-since repented my youthful indiscretions) - how can an eight-year-old resist Mickey and Yogi and Whitey (not to mention Bobby Richardson, Tony Kubek, Gil McDougal, Don Larsen, Moose Skowron, etc.)?  (And, of course, when you're an insecure kid, winning almost every year has its appeal! )

Or Cletus Boyer (brother of Ken), Elston Howard, Jim Bouton, Ralph Terry, Joe Pepitone,  Tom Tresh and Roger Maris.  (I am a little younger than you!     )

When CBS bought the Yankees, the decline began.   

[Mr. Ypsi]

Ralph, my single favorite player was actually the THIRD-string catcher, Johnny Blanchard.  Wonder what ever happened to him?  (I'd look it up, but I'm afraid my childhood memories would be squashed!)

[Pat Coleman]

That's like having Johnny Wockenfuss be your favorite 1984 Tiger.

No, mine was Alan Trammel.

[Titan Q]

AL baseball is a home run derby; NL baseball is a chess game.

That is a pretty big generalization.  Tonight I watched a terrific game between the White Sox and Cleveland in which John Danks and Cliff Lee both gave up 1 run through 8 innings.  After that it was a chess match with both teams mixing and matching 3 relievers situationally.  In the bottom of the 10th after two outs, the White Sox tied it with a solo HR off Joe Borowski.  Pinch hitter Dewayne Wise singled, stole second, and Orlando Cabrera singled him in for the winner.  No pitcher batted, but it was a great baseball game to watch because all of the strategy employed by both teams in the late innings.

For the record, despite being a lifelong fan of an AL team, I prefer National League baseball - I do think the game is more interesting when the pitcher hits.  But there are all kinds of outstanding "chess match" type games in the American League...just as there are some bad homerun fest games in some of the NL bandboxes.   And I don't think there is any question at all that the talent top to bottom is better in the AL.  I've watched the Royals play several times here in Mizzou land and I honestly think they'd be in the middle of the NL wildcard picture.  (There is really no separation between KC and the Cardinals.)  In the AL, they have no chance.

By the way, four of the top five team leaders in ERA are American League teams:

1. A's 3.39
2. White Sox 3.40
3. Toronto 3.51
4. Braves 3.69
5. Rays 3.69

The cumulative AL ERA currently is 4.06...NL teams are at 4.25.  Especially impressive since those AL teams are pitching to a DH every night.

There is some awfully good baseball played in the AL.

[Pat Coleman]

I do think the game is more interesting when the pitcher hits.

There's that word again. Not as many people think it's more interesting when the pitcher merely bats.

[Titan Q]

I do think the game is more interesting when the pitcher hits.

There's that word again. Not as many people think it's more interesting when the pitcher merely bats.

I'm OK with the fact that 95% of NL starting pitchers can't hit a lick.  It does add a ton of strategy...there is no question about that. 

[sac]

Maybe I'm reaching here but hasn't the National League added a bunch of new "hitter friendly" ballparks in the last half dozen years?   (Philadelphia's is practically a joke)

All the hard to hit homers cookie cutter UFO parks are gone.......




Jason Thompson, Pat. 8)

[Mr. Ypsi]

That's like having Johnny Wockenfuss be your favorite 1984 Tiger.

No, mine was Alan Trammel.

Nonsense - it was Rusty Kuntz!

[Gregory Sager]

AL baseball is a home run derby; NL baseball is a chess game.

Home runs per game per team, NL: .998
Home runs per game per team, AL: .947

I'm willing to bet that this season is anomalous in that regard.

On the other hand, since most Americans DON'T understand soccer, you're probably right about the lack of scoring being a significant detriment.

I think that Americans understand soccer just fine. Tactically, it's not that much different than its sister sport, hockey, which is plenty popular here in the States. I think that AndOne hit it on the head -- Americans simply don't like sports that are so low-scoring that a 0-0 score is a distinct possibility, and a 1-0 score is commonplace.

[cardinalfanrochelle]

  Gentlemen,
                   You who say soccer is a dull sport because of scoring or lack of it have never had the pleasure of watching indoor soccer.... right here in CHICAGO you have the STORM....past teams the Chicago Power or the Chicago Sting,  fast pace action with multiple scoring 1,2 or3 pt goals.

[Gregory Sager]

Yes, but in the 2nd inning with runners on  2nd and 3rd and 2 out, I DON'T want to have to watch the pitcher bat. Sure, there is a small chance he'll bring in the run, but chances are much better I can go to the fridge for a snack and/or a beer and not really miss anything. You can count the number of pitchers who can hit one one hand, possibly two. When I watch a game I want ACTION and scoring, not watching the pitcher wave good afternoon, good evening, and good night. I think dull, low scoring games are one reason soccer has not captured the fancy of the vast majority of American sports fans.  Isn't the ACTION of basketball one reason we're attracted to the sport? Guess I'm not a traditionalist. Much rather have the added action of having a DH rather than the managerial chess moves. As we have "role players" and "specialists" in several sports, including basketball, perhaps think of the designated hitters in those veins rather than as the tired and rusted out hulks many indeed have become. 

I don't think that "action" is much of an argument in favor of the DH, because baseball isn't a game that's predicated upon action in the way that other sports are. Baseball is as much about the anticipation of action and about speculation as to the next piece of action as it is about action itself. That's why a lot of people who are really into the more action-oriented sports, such as basketball and football, find baseball to be boring. "Nine-man stand-around" is a typical putdown term for baseball among action-obsessed sports fans. But it's the space in between pitches that define the game as much as the pitches, or the hits, themselves. Baseball is like music in that regard; the spaces in between the notes and chords matter as much as do the notes and chords themselves.

AL baseball is a home run derby; NL baseball is a chess game.

That is a pretty big generalization.  Tonight I watched a terrific game between the White Sox and Cleveland in which John Danks and Cliff Lee both gave up 1 run through 8 innings.  After that it was a chess match with both teams mixing and matching 3 relievers situationally.  In the bottom of the 10th after two outs, the White Sox tied it with a solo HR off Joe Borowski.  Pinch hitter Dewayne Wise singled, stole second, and Orlando Cabrera singled him in for the winner.  No pitcher batted, but it was a great baseball game to watch because all of the strategy employed by both teams in the late innings.

Of course it's a big generalization. Yeah, there are no-brainer slugfests in the NL, and chess matches in the AL. But there's still plenty of truth within that generalization, and it's all tied into the rules differences between the two leagues. Besides, as much of a chess match as that CWS/Cleveland game was, how much more of a chess match would it have been if Wedge and Guillen had to keep looking at their lineup cards and navigating around the pitcher's spot in the batting order?

Maybe I'm reaching here but hasn't the National League added a bunch of new "hitter friendly" ballparks in the last half dozen years?   (Philadelphia's is practically a joke)

Yeah, Philadelphia and Cincinnati play in brand-new bandboxes, and Chase Field in Arizona has a 105 park rating, too (+100 favors batters, -100 favors pitchers). But Pittsburgh and St. Louis, two cities that replaced those cookie-cutter stadia of which you spoke, play in new ballparks that are sub-100 (i.e., pitcher-friendly), and Petco Park in San Diego, which is only five years old, is a hurler's paradise (91 park rating).

  Gentlemen,
                   You who say soccer is a dull sport because of scoring or lack of it have never had the pleasure of watching indoor soccer.... right here in CHICAGO you have the STORM....past teams the Chicago Power or the Chicago Sting,  fast pace action with multiple scoring 1,2 or3 pt goals.

I've known a person or two who has told me that arena football is much better than the outdoor kind, for much the same reasons -- amped-up scoring, and the confined space means more hitting and less of a grind-it-out mentality.