Why I think baseball is a better game now than in the old days

[HomeRunHomer]

A lot of people think baseball was better in the old days, and a lot of people complain because of the steroids, interleague, Wild Card, late start times, etc. the game is not what it used to be.

But, I think it's a better game now than it used to be.

Here are my top 5 reasons:

#5- Interleague play makes for interesting opponents. Let's face it- some fans are probably sick and tired of the same-old teams coming to their park every year. I like a little spice.

As an Indians fan, I get a little sick and tired of seeing the Royals so many times- playing the occasional N.L. team is pretty cool.

#4- The D.H. I'm sorry, but to all the N.L. fans who think the designated hitter is against the purity of the game, let me say this:

Do you REALLY think seeing pitchers strike out all the time makes for better baseball?

#3- More game avaiability with the modern advances in TV and technology, . In the old days, if you wanted to find out what was going on elsewhere, you had to check the out-of-town scores at the scoreboard, check the newspapers, or something else.

Now, it's easier to keep up with how others are doing.

For example, last year, it was a lot easier to follow the Tigers games down the stretch to check out Cleveland's magic number. In the old days, I would have had to check the sports section in the paper for the scores before I went to school.

#2- Easier to find out how players are doing. Again, you had to watch the nightly news or check the boxscores to see how hitters or pitchers did in the old days.

And the #1 reason I think baseball's better than it used to be:

More teams have a shot at the Fall Classic

If we used the old "team with best record in entire league wins pennant automatically," it wouldn't be the same.

I bet millions of fans were sick and tired of the Yankees and the Dodgers playing all those Fall Classic back then.

If we used that format, just imagine how many times we would have had to see Yankees/Braves in the World Series.

If that format was used, Colorado's sensational hot streak would have merely put them in third of fourth in the old days instead of launching their miraculous run to the World Series.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Oh no there you've gone and started something.

<grabs popcorn and drink, pulls up a chair, and waits for a down-and-dirty drag out 25 page verbal slugfest!>

[Brian McKenna]

Silly argument really. It's like asking who do you like better Jessica Alba, Biel or Simpson. Either way, I'm one happy guy.

[dgarza]

#3- More game avaiability with the modern advances in TV and technology, . In the old days, if you wanted to find out what was going on elsewhere, you had to check the out-of-town scores at the scoreboard, check the newspapers, or something else.

Now, it's easier to keep up with how others are doing.

For example, last year, it was a lot easier to follow the Tigers games down the stretch to check out Cleveland's magic number. In the old days, I would have had to check the sports section in the paper for the scores before I went to school.

#2- Easier to find out how players are doing. Again, you had to watch the nightly news or check the boxscores to see how hitters or pitchers did in the old days.

These have nothing to do with how the game is played.

[Calif_Eagle]

A lot of people think baseball was better in the old days, and a lot of people complain because of the steroids, interleague, Wild Card, late start times, etc. the game is not what it used to be.

But, I think it's a better game now than it used to be.

Here are my top 5 reasons:

#5- Interleague play makes for interesting opponents. Let's face it- some fans are probably sick and tired of the same-old teams coming to their park every year. I like a little spice.

As an Indians fan, I get a little sick and tired of seeing the Royals so many times- playing the occasional N.L. team is pretty cool.

#4- The D.H. I'm sorry, but to all the N.L. fans who think the designated hitter is against the purity of the game, let me say this:

Do you REALLY think seeing pitchers strike out all the time makes for better baseball?

#3- More game avaiability with the modern advances in TV and technology, . In the old days, if you wanted to find out what was going on elsewhere, you had to check the out-of-town scores at the scoreboard, check the newspapers, or something else.

Now, it's easier to keep up with how others are doing.

For example, last year, it was a lot easier to follow the Tigers games down the stretch to check out Cleveland's magic number. In the old days, I would have had to check the sports section in the paper for the scores before I went to school.

#2- Easier to find out how players are doing. Again, you had to watch the nightly news or check the boxscores to see how hitters or pitchers did in the old days.

And the #1 reason I think baseball's better than it used to be:

More teams have a shot at the Fall Classic

If we used the old "team with best record in entire league wins pennant automatically," it wouldn't be the same.

I bet millions of fans were sick and tired of the Yankees and the Dodgers playing all those Fall Classic back then.

If we used that format, just imagine how many times we would have had to see Yankees/Braves in the World Series.

If that format was used, Colorado's sensational hot streak would have merely put them in third of fourth in the old days instead of launching their miraculous run to the World Series.

OK I'll take a shot at this

5. Interleague Play - I dont like it. What I would do is have 4 major leagues of 8 teams each and the pennant winners would face off in 2 best of 7 semi-finals with the winners advancing to the World Series. No inter-league play. I get that some like it, I'm not debating it, its just a gut feeling that I cant back or defend with logic. I liked the old "fixed and permanent" structure of 2 leagues 8 teams, pennant winners to the WS, no franchise moves, and would stay as close to that as I could in the modern era. (I know the "no franchise moves" part isnt/wasnt practical. As no expansion wasnt either.)

4. The DH - I hate it. I want pitchers to bat. It destroys the symmetry of the game for them not to. It also allows them to pitch close with impunity, which leads to all this p*ssy ass "charging the mound". If pitchers had to step in the box they would have to face being hit themselves. Plus pinch hitting for a pitcher is a strategic situation, although the modern demise of the complete game and the automatic use of relievers and "closers" lessens it somewhat. I dont like 1 inning closers either, (I'm sure that will be no surprise lol.)

3. & 2. These are really one and the same. Modern day media. I agree with HomeRunHomer on these points. There was no BBF (just to cite one thing as the tip of the media iceberg) in the 1970's. Modern media makes it a LOT easier to see games and track the game and be a fan without even going to the ballpark.

1. More teams having a shot at the World Series. I dislike non Division winners (wild cards) having a shot at the WS. I like the structure I suggested in discussing point 5 above. 4 leagues, no inter-league play, 4 pure champions meeting for the MLB crown. Again, I know all 4 North American major team sports have this type of playoff structure today, and I am not attacking it with logic. Just personal preference. If you want to see other teams, you can see them on TV today. The old rationales of never seeing NL players if you lived in Cleveland or Detroit or Washington in the 1940's or earlier (Or AL players if you were in Pittsburgh or Cincinnati. Or seeing anyone at all if you lived anywhere else!) are gone in the TV era.

[HomeRunHomer]

4. The DH - I hate it. I want pitchers to bat. It destroys the symmetry of the game for them not to.

So when pitchers go 0-4 day after day, that's perfectly symmetrical?

[SamtheBravesFan]

So when pitchers go 0-4 day after day, that's perfectly symmetrical?

The thing is that pitchers don't do that all the time. Just let it be. It's not boring, it's just something that happens.

The way things are right now are what people should be content with or should deal with. The NL is not going to adopt the DH and the DH is not going to be removed from the AL. That's fine and dandy with me.

[willshad]

So when pitchers go 0-4 day after day, that's perfectly symmetrical?

They wont go 0 fo 4 every game if they took the time to learn how to hit. Back in the old days, almost all the pitchers were pretty good hitters. Pitchers are paid as much as everyday players to only participate in 30 or so games out of the season..theres no reason they cant put in the effort to become an acceptable hitter.

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

So when pitchers go 0-4 day after day, that's perfectly symmetrical?

I believe what Calif_Eagle means is this: 9 players on the field, those 9 players bat. The DH is merely a way for more offense to be taken. DHers are primarily offensive players that give more runs for a team.

The DH destroys the symmetry of the game (as Calif put it) because it causes more diversity. By that I mean team A can have a great DH while team B has a fair one, similar to one having a beter cathcer than another, etc. This cause different DH outcome. The better one may have a 40 homer, 120 RBI, .370 OBP while the other one has half that.

The pitchres keep the symmetry becasue they are all equally poor batters. Every pitcher gets about the same low batting stats yearly. This would cause individual games to be mostly unaffected if Pitcher A is 1-4 and Pitcher B is 0-4.

The DH is an offensive slot. they only need to produce batting numbers which upsets me. In 2006 David Ortiz was second for MVP. He batted well, but how is that fair to the guys who field and run well (which Ortiz absolutely does NOT)?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

So when pitchers go 0-4 day after day, that's perfectly symmetrical?

It's not about whether they get a hit or not. It's about making them grab a stick and facing the opponent just like everyone else. When are they due up on the order. How does that impact how a pitcher approaches the guys in front of him and what's the score. Look, we'll never get away from "waiting for the three-run dinger", so young fans like yourself can stay content, but at least when the pitchers bat, it adds a twist.

"The pitcher who can't get in there in a pinch and win his own game with a healthy wallop, isn't more than half earning his salary to my way of thinking." (Babe Ruth, 1916)


Couldn't agree less about the DH.

Couldn't agree less about interleague play or your #1 reason either, but the media point is solid. More is better in most cases. More access can only be good for the game. The other side of that, could be that it just becomes too watered down. Too much available. There's no mystery about anything anymore. Can't remember the last time I read a box score or a story in a newspaper. Everything is online. Blogs, forums, everyone with an opinion, whether qualified or not. In the end, I think the access is a plus.

[Calif_Eagle]

So when pitchers go 0-4 day after day, that's perfectly symmetrical?

When I started following baseball, pitchers batted and there was no Great outcry by anyone for that to end. The AL first experimented with that, I believe, in spring training of 1969. I dont mind spring training experiments. like what was then called the "DPH" (The designated pinch hitter.) or Charlie Finley's orange baseballs or any other experiment anyone wants to recall and list. But then they adopted it in 1973 for regular league play as a gimmick, precisely for the reason you hint at above. They wanted to add more offense & make their game seem as power packed as the National League's game of that era. I thought then & think now, that thats a cheesy way to do that.

If you want more offense, scout and sign better players. The AL lagged behind the NL for years in the signing of black and Latin talent. They paid for it in the 1960's thru 1980's, most notably in the 22-1 run of NL superiority in the All-Star game. Today the talent if anything is a little more more weighted to the AL side. But the gimmick lingers on.

I explained in my previous post my objections to the DH. I like the strategic aspect of having to deal with the pitchers place in the batting line-up. Pinch hit for him, or let him keep pitching a good game? He can pitch close or knock opposing players down or hit them. But, he has to come to the batters box and face the (chin) music himself too. But it's here and I really think the NL will adopt it one day. The NL is the last level or organization in all of baseball at any level that doesnt have it. I dont think its ever going away. Wes Ferrell's 38 home run career as a hitting pitcher may soon be THE unbreakable baseball record.

[BoweryBoys]

A lot of people think baseball was better in the old days, and a lot of people complain because of the steroids, interleague, Wild Card, late start times, etc. the game is not what it used to be.

But, I think it's a better game now than it used to be.

Here are my top 5 reasons:

#5- Interleague play makes for interesting opponents. Let's face it- some fans are probably sick and tired of the same-old teams coming to their park every year. I like a little spice.

As an Indians fan, I get a little sick and tired of seeing the Royals so many times- playing the occasional N.L. team is pretty cool.

#4- The D.H. I'm sorry, but to all the N.L. fans who think the designated hitter is against the purity of the game, let me say this:

Do you REALLY think seeing pitchers strike out all the time makes for better baseball?

#3- More game avaiability with the modern advances in TV and technology, . In the old days, if you wanted to find out what was going on elsewhere, you had to check the out-of-town scores at the scoreboard, check the newspapers, or something else.

Now, it's easier to keep up with how others are doing.

For example, last year, it was a lot easier to follow the Tigers games down the stretch to check out Cleveland's magic number. In the old days, I would have had to check the sports section in the paper for the scores before I went to school.

#2- Easier to find out how players are doing. Again, you had to watch the nightly news or check the boxscores to see how hitters or pitchers did in the old days.

And the #1 reason I think baseball's better than it used to be:

More teams have a shot at the Fall Classic

If we used the old "team with best record in entire league wins pennant automatically," it wouldn't be the same.

I bet millions of fans were sick and tired of the Yankees and the Dodgers playing all those Fall Classic back then.

If we used that format, just imagine how many times we would have had to see Yankees/Braves in the World Series.

If that format was used, Colorado's sensational hot streak would have merely put them in third of fourth in the old days instead of launching their miraculous run to the World Series.

5- Yes interleague play has maybe added "spice" but at what cost? Basically glorified mid season exhibition games which are basically taking a break from the true pennant races. This waters down and effects the fairness of the pennant race with some teams getting weaker IL opponents then others. A balanced schedule and playing all games within your own league makes for a more honest and fair pennant race. It also takes away the old element of the two teams in the WS having not faced each other before that season, sometimes maybe even never before ever in any season. IF MLB wanted IL to spice up the game then they should have just realigned the way the NFL/AFL did in 1970. As for me, I just ignore each season's interleague play, turn off the season and turn my interest back on when it is over.

2 and 3 - dgarza already said it best. These two points are not valid as "proof" that MLB is better today.

4 -"Do you REALLY think seeing pitchers strike out all the time makes for better baseball?"

I think it makes for (real baseball) the kind that the American League and its fans were fine with for something like 72 years before the DH. The DH just may be the most unnessary rule change in the history of the game.

1- I don't know what millions of fans were sick of in the past but I do know the present playoff system waters down the meaning of a WS championship. The present system allows for teams like the 83 win 06 Cardinals to even be in the WS (and I'm a Cardinals fan).

Sorry, I can't agree that any of the "five points" "prove" in any way that MLB is better today then ever before. I feel that the game, between the lines where it counts, (except for the DH) is just as great as it has always been. What I think is that at some point, people who used to be casual fans and thought the game was "boring" got into power. In order to draw in a larger number of casual fans simply to make even more money, they decided to do what ever to dumb the game down as far as off the field stuff to make people think the on field would be less boring. I guess they decided that just not enough people were really happy with the way the game had been for decades so they dumbed it down to the NFL, NBA, NHL. That way they can draw record attendance from people who used to think the game on the field was "boring" but somehow now think they are getting some kind of magically superior product on the field.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

Silly argument really. It's like asking who do you like better Jessica Alba, Biel or Simpson. Either way, I'm one happy guy.

Power
Alba
Biel
Simpson


Batting Average
Biel
Alba
Simpson


Base Running
Biel
Alba
Simpson

Defense
Alba
Beil
Simpson

Throwing Arm
Biel, Alba (tie)
Simpson

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Power
Alba
Biel
Simpson

Yeah but who does more with less in the face department? Certainly Biel. And you need to adjust for the brunette league average. No proof, but I believe Alba uses PEDs in the form of highlights. Many factors to consider here Adam.

I'll throw in that Megan Fox chick from Transformers. Holy smokes.

[Wade8813]

Sorry, I can't agree that any of the "five points" "prove" in any way that MLB is better today then ever before. I feel that the game, between the lines where it counts, (except for the DH) is just as great as it has always been.

HRH didn't set out to prove anything. Just list personal opinion.

They wont go 0 fo 4 every game if they took the time to learn how to hit. Back in the old days, almost all the pitchers were pretty good hitters.

I'm not sure "almost all" is an accurate assessment.

It also allows them to pitch close with impunity, which leads to all this p*ssy ass "charging the mound". If pitchers had to step in the box they would have to face being hit themselves.

The two pitchers I think of with the biggest reputations for throwing inside (Gibson and Drysdale) were both in the NL for their whole careers. Being required to take a turn at bat didn't seem to deter them any.

The DH is an offensive slot. they only need to produce batting numbers which upsets me. In 2006 David Ortiz was second for MVP. He batted well, but how is that fair to the guys who field and run well (which Ortiz absolutely does NOT)?

Well, hopefully, the voters take the lack of fielding into account. And baserunning shouldn't even be brought up - it's not like Ortiz gets a designated runner or something. He still has to run the bases.

I think it makes for (real baseball) the kind that the American League and its fans were fine with for something like 72 years before the DH. The DH just may be the most unnessary rule change in the history of the game.

Of course they were fine with it. They didn't even conceptualize something to complain about. It would almost be like complaining about second hand smoke back when people thought smoking was good for you.

"The pitcher who can't get in there in a pinch and win his own game with a healthy wallop, isn't more than half earning his salary to my way of thinking."

Yeah, depending on how you interpret that statement, almost no pitchers in history were doing more than half earning their salary.