Biased Baseball Opinions - 1

4/23/08: LSU Baseball Disappointing

Coach Manieri, I am not impressed. Last season I (and LSU baseball fans everywhere) gave you a mulligan because you inherited a declining program. You were limited by time and available slots in recruiting. However, this year you cleaned out more "dead wood" from the previous regime and brought in the #1 recruiting class in the country. Now, I'm willing to tolerate freshman mistakes. What Al McGuire used to say about basketball also applies to baseball: "The best thing about freshmen is that they become sophomores." But I don't see much improvement in pitching, hitting, or fielding after 40 games. This weekend's series with #13 Georgia revealed the team's deficiencies. It isn't so much that all you managed was a tie in three games against the SEC leader but how the team played on its own field.

I know you need time, coach, and I'm willing to give you more. But I am disappointed by what I've seen in your almost two years at the helm. Perhaps some changes in your staff are necessary.

2/09/08: Finish What You Start?

You hear baseball traditionalists and former pitchers like Bob Feller bemoan the fact that today's starters are expected to go only six or seven innings. Why, in the "Good Ole Days," hurlers prided themselves on finishing what they started. As I've done before on this site, I take a contrary view to baseball's "traditional wisdom."

It was stupid then and would be particularly stupid now to keep the starter in the game for a certain number of innings just to live up to a wrong-headed tradition.

The object is to win the game. How many times in the first half of the 20th century did a manager blow a game by leaving his starter on the mound when he had obviously tired and no longer had his best stuff? Bring in a fresh arm to get out of a late-inning jam. How many more games would blowhard Feller in particular have won if his skipper had relieved him before he gave up the lead in the late innings? (To cite just one example, read about Dizzy Dean's valiant pitching in Game 2 of the 1938 World Series when he might have won if a reliever had taken over before the Yankees grabbed the lead.)

Sure, there have always been times during a long season when a staff is overworked (because of injuries or consecutive doubleheaders) and the team really needs the starter to last as long as possible. But such games are the exception, not the rule. Managers should have figured out decades before they finally did that developing pitchers who could give one or two strong innings would have helped their clubs win many more games. Some leader should have gone against the tendency to view relief pitchers as failed starters.

8/11/07: Barry Bonds

For those waiting for some comment on this site about Barry Bonds, the moment has come. Of course, my silence on the matter was already a comment. I'll just add my voice to those who say that baseball created this monster and now must live with the consequences. By "baseball," I mean the commissioner, owners, and players. The Players Association fought drug testing until it was publicly shamed by sordid revelations and Congressional hearings and threats. After the 1994 strike, the owners were desperate to regain the public's confidence and enthusiasm. The '98 duel between McGwire and Sosa was the elixir the sport needed. Barry jumped on the bandwagon and rode it to a new lifetime record. Yes, he's a jerk who's paying the price for his contempt of the sportswriters and fans all these years. But he didn't violate any baseball rules. Some say Bonds is the greatest player of all time. I don't think so. Babe Ruth and Willie Mays are two that come to mind immediately that were better. Bonds in his younger days was an excellent fielder and baserunner but was not as good an outfielder as Willie and certainly didn't possess as strong an arm. Those who compromise and call Bonds the best player of this generation may have a compelling case. I'd want to see an analysis of the performance of all the greats of the last 30 years before making a conclusion. And I will try to suppress my distaste for Barry as a person when making the evaluation.

6/22/07: NCAA Baseball Rules Changes

Besides keeping warm-weather schools from getting too much of a jump on cold-clime teams, the regulations are supposedly intended to help baseball programs meet the stricter academic standards the NCAA is demanding of all athletes. If that is the case, then having schools play the same 56 games in two or three fewer weeks defeats one of the stated purposes of the changes. Schools will now play two mid-week games instead of just one to replace the 6-8 games that would have been played during the first half of February. And mid-week games mean more travel on school days. This reminds me of college presidents stating their strong opposition to even a "plus one" football playoff because it will extend the season and take players away from class, all the while voting for 12-game seasons and Tuesday-Friday night games for TV, both of which cause players of all schools to miss more classes.

While I'm on the subject of the baseball rules changes, it would be nice if conferences would use the reduced length of the season as an excuse to eliminate their end-of-season conference tournaments. I have previously voiced my opposition to conference basketball tournaments. I have the same objection to baseball tournaments. Why play a complete or near-complete round-robin schedule of three-game weekend series just to determine seeding for the final tournament? I hope the NCAA reduces the 56-game limit next year. Faced with eliminating inter-conference games or forsaking their precious tournaments, maybe some conferences will axe their tournaments.

6/8/07: Replace the Dumps!

In the summer of 2003, I attended a Cubs-Marlins game at Wrigley Field (little knowing I was watching the two teams that would play in the dramatic NLCS that October). Later that summer, I went to a Phillies game at brand new Citizens Bank Park. After I returned home, someone asked me which park I preferred. I said there was no comparison. He assumed I preferred Wrigley Field. I corrected him. I enjoyed the Philly game much more: huge video screen for replays and between-inning entertainment (yes, ads too), constant updates on all the other games, more concourse space, restrooms, etc. Wrigley Field has no video screen and its scoreboard doesn't even have enough room for all 15 major league games. I remember the howling in 1988 when Wrigley Field got lights. My thought was: Welcome to 1940, Cubs fans. Finally, working stiffs can go to weekday games in the evening. I know I'm going against sacred baseball tradition here, but I believe that Wrigley Field and Fenway Park are dumps and should be replaced by modern stadiums. As a visitor, I got to each stadium by public transit but I noticed that parking was extremely limited because both are crammed into neighborhoods. And while I'm on the subject, what's the big deal about hand-operated scoreboards? I want up-to-the-minute results delivered in an Information Age manner. I don't go to baseball games to return to 1950. I'm a 21st-century sports fan. If there can be a new Yankee Stadium next to the old one, then the Cubs and Red Sox can enter the modern age too. St. Louis has more tradition (i.e., championships) than either the Cubs or Red Sox, and the Cardinals are now in their third home. It ain't the park that creates tradition, folks; it's the teams you put on the field.

6/1/07: Bambino the Greatest

I agree with those who vote Babe Ruth the greatest player in baseball history. Willie Mays is a close second in my book. The reason I rate "The Babe" the best is simple: he would have made the Hall of Fame as a pitcher if he had stayed on the mound throughout his career. Mays was a fantastic "five tool" player: run, throw, hit, field, hit with power. Willie may have been a great pitcher if he had tried. He was an exceptional football player in high school in Birmingham and no slouch in basketball either. However, the fact of the matter is that he did not pitch in his baseball career. So Ruth has the edge. I don't consider anyone else to be close to Ruth and Mays as all-around players.

5/26/07: The Designated Hitter: YES!

I am strongly in favor of the Designated Hitter in baseball. I long ago got tired of watching pitchers bat. I'm not impressed by the argument that the National League employs much more interesting strategy than the American League. Most of that strategy involves the pitcher bunting. I don't consider bunting an exciting part of the game, especially in the early innings. How does having a pitcher bunt with a man on first and one out create a more interesting game? Also the #8 hitter is often pitched around because a pitcher is up next. So two positions in the order produce little offense. Yes, an NL manager must decide whether to pinch hit for the pitcher in the late innings. But pitchers should be removed because they are ineffective or to create a left/right matchup with the next hitter. And National League managers never have to decide who should be the DH, where the DH should bat, who should hit 9th, etc. Isn't designing the batting order part of the strategy of a game? I'm also not impressed by the argument that a baseball player must be a "complete" player: field a position and bat. Pitchers are not on the roster because they are all-around players. They are specialists. In fact, the pitcher should be dubbed the Designated Pitcher, a term equally as pejorative as Designated Hitter.

4/13/07: Wake Me When the Playoffs Start

All my life, I considered baseball my favorite sport. However, my attitude changed radically after the 2005 season. Part of the reason for the change could have been post-Katrina blues. However, it was primarily a reaction to what happened to my beloved Cardinals during the 2004 and 2005 seasons. In both instances, the Redbirds led the majors in wins during the regular season. During the 2004 post-season, they had to go seven games to fend off the Astros, whom they had defeated in the Central Division over 162 games. Spent after that grueling series and facing a Red Sox team that had staged the impossible by defeating the Yankees after falling behind 0-3 in the series, the Cards were humiliated in four games by the "team of destiny." Then in 2005 an even worse fate befell them. After trouncing Houston by 11.5 games in the Central Division, they had to play them again in the League Championship Series. I rooted hard against the Astros making the wild card that year because I knew they would be even tougher to beat in the playoffs than in '04. Sure enough, Houston won in six games. My only consolation was that they got swept by the White Sox in the Series.

I decided there and then that the regular season was a waste of time. I adopted my NBA approach: wake me when the playoffs start. I didn't look at a game (not even an at-bat) or any standings or box scores until September 15. And, frankly, I didn't miss baseball. Sure enough, the season proved my decision to be correct when the opposite of 2004 and 2005 occurred. St. Louis limped into the playoffs with the worst record of any team and were given no chance. Instead, they put together their healthiest lineup of the year and, with a team nowhere near as good as the ones in 2004 and 2005, won the World Series.

So I have decided that I made a mistake last year in deciding to wait until September 15 to start following the pennant races. September 15 is too early! This year, I'll wait until the last weekend of the regular season.