OT: The Yankees

[Q]Tom Lento Wrote:

If Piazza or Posada is the guy behind the plate, and it's a swing and a miss, then things get *really* interesting. [/q]

For very differnet reasons, however. Although Piazza is unlikely to throw through in this situation, if he does, things become interesting as we see if the ball will get to the 2nd base on a fly, or on 1 or 2 hops. Or it could hit the pitcher's mound. Or it could end up in centerfield.

With Posada, the entertainment is in waiting to see if he'll actually catch the ball or not. He seems to have issues with that essential element of being a catcher.

[Q]KeithK Wrote:I am just bemoaning in a general sense that as knowledge of this fact becomes pervasive in baseball patience has become more and more emphasized at the plate. This has meant more walks, deeper counts and slower games. This is not a in an overall sense positive for baseball. It plays into the argument that baseball is slow and boring (which it most certainly is not if you know what you're seeing). A particular pitcher/batter battle can be extrememly exciting and enjoyable but in the aggregate average I think it might be a better spectator sport if batters put the ball in play one pitch earlier.[/q]I'm not worried about the financial health of MLB. To remove the ambiguity, I do not believe that baseball is in financial trouble AND I don't care about changing the sport so that it appeals to the most people. We all understand you, Keith, we just think that walks - and the increased offense that is the ultimate reward of better pitch selection - are aesthetically pleasing and we don't care about entertaining the non-fans with more popups and weak grounders. Hell, you know this and probably even agree with it. What is good for the owners is not necessarily good for baseball.

[q]Just a case where what works best isn't ideal from an aesthetic sense. I ask, what's more fun to watch as a neutral observer (that is, you don't care which team wins): a team scores one run in an inning off of a single followed by a a two out double or one run off of four walks?[/q]False choice. Two walks and a gapper off a meatball from a frustrated pitcher is plenty exciting. Especially if there is a play at the plate on the trailing runner.

[q]Enough.[/q]We'll let you know when it is enough.

[Q]KeithK Wrote:Personally I find (over the wall) home runs one of the less exciting plays in the game. Watching a guy trot is much less interesting than watching a guy run and try to beat a throw.[/q]Watching the trot is boring, but you are missing the fun of gasping when the ball explodes off the bat and disappears into the night on the real monster shots and the will it/won't it tension of the ones that are in the neighborhood of the fence.

For my money, I'll take a bases loaded strikeout late in a one-run game. I got used to those when Wetteland was pitching in NY and they never lost their thrill (and I never stopped getting exasperated at the three walks that set up the drama).

OK, we'll agree to disagree on the aesthetics. To me, a player who works the count, fights off pitches and eventually takes a walk is pleasing. Watching a hitter walk on five pitches (four plus the somewhat automatic 3-0 strike) because the pithcer is nibbling isn't. This is purely opinion though.

No, I'm not really worried about the health of MLB or the owners finances. I'm not even terribly worried about whether the casual fan likes it. Heck I'd rather have some of the casual fans stay home so ticket prices might drop... er, not rise as fast. Just an aesthetic thing really.

[q]We'll let you know when it is enough.[/q]Please do.

[q]Watching the trot is boring, but you are missing the fun of gasping when the ball explodes off the bat and disappears into the night on the real monster shots and the will it/won't it tension of the ones that are in the neighborhood of the fence. [/q]OK, I'm exaggerating in reaction to the over-hyped nature of the home run. Personally I think they'd be more exciting if they were a bit more rare.

Hey, we're keeping our little off-season baseball discussion in a single thread clearly labeled off-topic. If we want to obsess about this issue and argue the fine details of baseball aesthetics and excitement ad nauseum why shouldn't? Well, as long as Age doesn't mind the waste of bandwidth, anyway.

(Didn't I say "enough" already? Why am I still posting? Oh, that's right. I'm at work...)

[Q]Tom Lento Wrote:

Runners at the corners with the tying run on third late in the game.
[/q]

one out?

And it's certainly better than the Yanks-Sox pissing match that was going on a few posts back.

what's wrong with pissing on the yankees?

before everyone jumps all over me... it was a joke... laugh... or don't laugh... just realize it was a joke

I saw a decal on a car today showing a gnome-like Yankee figure pissing on the Red Sox "B" with the caption, of course..."Red Sox suck".

Like we didn't know that already.

[Q]jtwcornell91 Wrote:

Tom Lento Wrote:

Runners at the corners with the tying run on third late in the game.
[/Q]
one out?[/q]

Of course. Sorry, should have specified.