My opinion of Selig is already low, stemming from the home run record mark disaster last year. After weeks of going back and forth on whether or he would attend the game where the most hallowed and significant record in all of pro sports, he declined to go. If I were Hank Aaron, I would not have attended either, because what Barry Bonds did to get where he was, and we all know he did it, to achieve his success really didn't damage the game. It only made him look like a bigger piece of crap than he already was. The two main issues that come into play though, are the image of the game, and control executed by the team owners and league executives against the players.
In defense of Selig, the right thing to do was not to go, which is why his number two went and Aaron recorded the message delivered after the history-making hit. They were doing what they had to do to protect the image of the game without making a motion to legitimize what Bonds was.
My issue is mostly with Selig; players are going to do what they are going to do in order to gain the advantage in any competition. Stretching the rules and bending the rules are fundamental in any sport, especially baseball. If you doubt it, do a search on Cy Young and find out for yourself. Breaking balls were illegal, throwing overhand was illegal, and the mound was at 40 feet. Throwing your own test tube monsters under the bus for having a marketing angle, screw you. If I were in the same position, or a business man, I would do the same thing. As a generality, why were the 1919 White Sox banned on speculation, and a ban for Pete Rose issued? Different commissioners? No. Different time period? No. Getting killed by screwing up baseball when the icons were fading? Yes. Too much talent spread out too wide. But that makes the offeason much more fun to watch. If a team has a home run hitter, or a Cy Young candidate, or something for fans to hang their hopes on, a team has a product. Take a look at the Reds. They are the very ideal of the cause and effect. Johnny Bench and Pete Rose? Icons. The Big Red Machine and the Nasty Boys (gotta toss my boy Dibble some love)? Stories of lore. Griffey senior and junior? What baseball was all about. Now? Just like every other team, including the Yankees (ha ha). They don't have icons any more.
Selig is backpedaling to cover his own office. Nepotism for cheaters has to go. Too little room at the top and way too many more marketable feel-good stories for guys making it to the bigs to let that junk waste away what was a good thing. Market the players right, like the 85 Bears, and you have your marketing machine.
Instant replay is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg, just a little glimpse at a big problem. To try an reestablish control over baseball is going to have to come from, sigh, the owners, which is a near impossibility without salary caps. Granted I like baseball a heck of a lot more than the NFL; football is solely ran for gambling purposes. I loved The Last Boy Scout, but that is a side note. Arguing the effectiveness of rulings in a baseball game is semantics. There are 10 times more games and hundreds more plays in baseball than football. Arguing fair or foul, whether a tag was made, or even balls and strikes causes a world of problems. It takes the inches out of the game of inches. It does not establish ball control, a mark, or even an overruling of an official's call. That stuff only adds to the entertainment factor of a football game, otherwise people would have nothing to talk about on Monday morning. Sixteen games, one played once a week is not enough to maintain the audience.
If umpires' ruling had to have come under this much scrutiny after two months of the season with so many close races, why didn't something like this get addressed last off season? Why is such a gigantic rule being forced in during a season? It could not wait until the end of the year? The Mitchell Report could have.
Unfortunately for baseball, the spectacle, the “magic,” is rarer to find because it scheduling is so spread out and so many dates are played. The rules will begin as only for fair or foul, home run or ball in play. If reviews cross over to openly evaluate umpires for balls and strikes, watch out. The idea behind baseball is the illusion of each pitched ball. Pitchers base their effectiveness and ultimately their legacy on their optical illusion of their pitches and the managers'/catchers' ability to generate the pitch sequence. Batter drill on this daily and have meetings and video sessions to gain the edge. Statisticians get paid to analyze this information and organizations make teams based on tendencies. Players play odds, and pitcher/batter/situational probabilities are analyzed by everyone, both in game situations and who they are going to put on the field. Umpires are already electronically evaluated for the accuracy behind the plate. Great idea, but the Umpire's Association and MLB must keep the results and training private. Managers get paid to put pitchers on the mound to figure out what the balls and strikes are.
How else would MLB capture a casual fan? Add superheroes and controversy. It's like a comic book.
My solution, as yawn-inducing as it may be, is to compare the stats of all games from the time the mound was lowered from 14 inches to 11 until the inception of the DH. Anything after that and we are talking about juiced players again. Compare the outcomes of all the games and separate the two into two categories: games that are easily decided, and games that came down to a questionable home run call or a controversial out. Compare that ratio to the average of games won by a division winner and a second place finisher, and you do get purer results with Selig's wild card, see if there is a probability of a difference in games won between the first and second place teams switching order in the standings. Think magic numbers and calculate the odds from there. If there is a relationship, calculate the probabilities of a controversial call deciding a game. If the relationship is more likely to change the outcome of a game, then you finally understand why a manager says “the breaks just didn't go our way; that's how the game goes. It's a game of inches.”
Honestly who really cares? It doesn't do anything to the game but take away the spectacle. Let the hitting do the hitting and the pitching do the pitching and over time, if you understand the makeup of the season, those odds average themselves out of the talent on the field. There is a specific reason why the Royals and Pirates have not been to the postseason in 15 years. What type of interest does a fan really want to have? Do they want their team to have players on the field that can do the job (cough, sorry Barry)? Or do they want to have everything broken down into stats that only matter to GMs and scouts?
The hot story of the year should be the sale of the Cubs. It is time for the owners to put their collective foot down and begin making moves to protect the interests of MLB, not just let owners put whatever garbage out on the field for stats. Guess what though? For the owners, it works the same way. The only way we as fans can have a say is to not buy tickets if our teams are running crap organizations. My belief is that this is the biggest issue on why Brian Roberts is still an Oriole and not trotting out to Van Halen at the Friendly Confines. They sure as heck can use a leadoff hitter now. For the most part, I give Hendry the credit. I just don't like ignorant fans. And my guess is you don't either. On both stops on the Red Line.
But I hate breaking down magic into science. Isn't that why we watch baseball in the first place? It sucked when I found out Santa was really just Dad putting toys under the tree and eating my cookies.
No comments:
Post a Comment