Wednesday, November 07, 2007

Bud Selig (Frustration keeps BUILDING)

Bud Selig... Grrr....

Wild Card's great, I totally support it. It brings baseball to some cities for 2 extra months. And we can't have a situation like 1993 with the Braves and Giants. That was just horrific.

But interleague play?
Bear with me on a hypothetical storyline... Imagine if the Indians played the Pirates, Reds (oooh, Dusty Baker, scary), Nationals, Astros (as much as I love Oswalt), and Cardinals. None of them are very good. So the Indians win 12 interleague games. Now, the Tigers play the Mets, Phillies, Cubs Rockies, and Padres. of course, this situation wouldn't exactly happen, but it could be close on any given year. So the Tigers win 7 interleague games. That's a 5 game difference. Now imagine the division comes down to the 2 teams, and they've each won the same amount of intraleague games because they're just about as good as each other - versus other opponents. BUT now imagine the Indians pitching staff just not being able to pitch to the Tigers and being slapped around by them all year. And the Tigers' pitchers dominate against the Indians hitters. All year. So technically the Indians can't measure up to the Tigers. BUT the Indians have more wins - because their interleague opponents are weaker! So if the wild card comes out of another division, the stronger team does not make the postseason.

This is certainly possible. Of course, MLB makes good dough off this junk. But I'd rather maintain the integrity of the game and the fairness of regular season results than have them make more money. SO NOT NECESSARY!

Another thing, Buddy. Instant replay. Sheesh. Don't go telling Mike and the Mad Dog something they won't refute because they're actually trying to respect a public sports figure. Bud, I totally understand not wanting a pitcher to have to wait on the mound to wait for somebody to review the play. But have you ever watched a baseball telecast in your life? Those television guys can review a play in less than 5 seconds. Look at the way tennis does their instant replay. It's quick, easy, and pretty much painless. Hire a REAL, NON-BIASED official scorer to review these plays, and flash his rulings on the scoreboard, just like any other close call (hits vs. errors, for example).
Human element? You'd rather have the wild card winner be determined on a judgment call? Or even the world champion? That's just downright stupid. If you have the technology, USE IT! It was totally ridiculous to have 2 late-summer games lost because the tying run was not granted the base he should have been given fairly, on blown calls - 2 years in a row! (Both against the Mariners, coincidentally.)

You don't need instant replay for balls and strikes, just safe or out and fair or foul. Grant a manager 2 challenges a game. If he wins one he doesn't lose either of his challenges and can challenge 2 more times. If the manager gets the call wrong, he loses one of them.

This WOULD NOT add more than ten minutes to a game. Try actually enforcing the time limits for batters and pitchers - that will speed the game up. Not that I want the game to any faster. I watch it because I love it. I'm not in any rush to turn it off. And i care enough about my team to get upset if an umpire blows a call - I'd rather they got it right than sped the game up. I don't want any less of the game than I already have - 162 games is just not enough! I don't care if I'm watching all night. This is entertainment. If you're not entertained, don't watch.

1 comment:

saucy said...

agree with you on lots of points.

interleague play does bring in lots of money, but the unbalanced schedule is a bogus thing. interleague play lost it's luster a long time ago, IMO. Plus, I wonder how Met fans feel, being they have to face the Yankees EVERY year?

Also agree that instant replay would not take as much time in baseball. In football, you have to deal with looking at a much larger group of players on the field in a close location to each other, Almost like a game of twister. While baseball would involve 1 or 2 players most of the time. And I don't think the umpires would have to waddle over to a screen and watch it themselves in foul terriroty. That would be truly time consuming if you've seen the shape some of these umpires are in. Also, think of the drop in 'time consuming' arguements from managers/coaches.

i disagree with you on the strike zone though. i don't think balls/strikes should be reviewed or disputed. i think they just need to automate it 100%, with some kind of signal to the home plate umpire so he can make the on-field call.