Oh god, not this #### again...

The more I hear from Dunn, the more I like him.

Adam Dunn killed Tim Kurkjain's parents.

Already posted. And Kurkjian's observation about Dunn being the "perfect example of today's hitter" makes no more sense this time than it did the last time.

Kurkjian wasnted to write "The prefect example of everything wrong with today's hitter," but his editor forced him to leave that part implied.

Kurkjian wasnted to write "The prefect example of everything wrong with today's hitter,"

Right, 'cause there's wayyy too many of those 40HR/year guys around these days.

I love that even with the new park he's on pace for exactly* 40 again.


*39.945

Kurkjian wasnted to write "The prefect example of everything wrong with today's hitter,"

Hey, you sass that hoopy Adam Dunn? There's a frood who really knows where his towel is.

Today's Tim Kurkjians writing about today's players striking out more than ever before more than ever before.

Today's Tim Kurkjians writing about today's players striking out more than ever before more than ever before.

:)

I laughed...

The problem with today's players is that in my day they were children.

The article itself was fine. Kurkjian discussed a trend in the game, talked about why it was happening, and what the tradeoffs were. The game was more exciting in the 1980's when there was more contact, more base-stealing, etc. That doesn't mean that teams should be going out and finding Vince Colemans instead of Adam Dunns, but the league should be looking at small rules changes that would encourage more contact and more running. Changing the rules on bat handle thickness would do this, and would reduce the number of bat shattering incidents at the same time.

The game was more exciting in the 1980's when there was more contact, more base-stealing, etc.

Why? I think strikeouts are really exciting.

I also find strikeouts arousing.

The game was more exciting in the 1980's when there was more contact, more base-stealing, etc.

No, it wasn't. 80's baseball sucked.

80's baseball was more interesting than today's station to station approach.

Gunning down baserunners prevents clogging up the bases; sort of a "diamond cleansing".

The game was more exciting in the 1980's when there was more contact, more base-stealing, etc.

No, it wasn't. 80's baseball sucked.

OK, which pet team of yours was it that didn't win more than one World Series? Stupid competitive balance!

80's baseball was more interesting than today's station to station approach.

I see plenty of runners taking 2 bases on a single, 3 bases on a double, attempting steals, and hitters hitting doubles and triples when I watch baseball today.

wouldn't station-to-station more accurately describe a game with lots of singles, sac bunts, and steal attempts?

edit: I'm too young to remember much 80's baseball so I can't say whether it was more exciting.

edit: I'm too young to remember much 80's baseball so I can't say whether it was more exciting.

I don't know if it was more exciting, but it did seem to be more varied. As a result, almost everyone could find at least one team playing the style of baseball they most preferred.

OK, which pet team of yours was it that didn't win more than one World Series? Stupid competitive balance!

I'm a Yankee fan and I grew up in the 80's. That was the style of baseball when I became a fan and it sucked. It sucked then and it would suck now. I would much rather watch more home runs and more strikeouts.

As a result, almost everyone could find at least one team playing the style of baseball they most preferred.

but could they watch that team given the relative lack of cable tv, internet etc...?

wouldn't station-to-station more accurately describe a game with lots of singles, sac bunts, and steal attempts?
Station-to-station means, single, runner on first. Single, runners on second and first. Single, bases loaded. Single, run scores, bases loaded. Walks can be substituted for singles.

I don't know if it was more exciting, but it did seem to be more varied. As a result, almost everyone could find at least one team playing the style of baseball they most preferred.

The 80's were a great decade for baseball.

The 80's were a great decade for baseball.

Except for the whole coke thing.

Except for the whole coke thing.

and astroturf and hideous doubleknit uniforms...

sarcasm aside, artificial turf is the one change in baseball over the last several decades that I just could not/cannot abide... I'm glad to see the stuff vanishing.

I like this juxtaposition, although it would be better if it was the other way around:

Hot Topics
Newsblog: Snell fans 17 for Indianapolis
(5 - 12:16pm, Jun 29)
Last: Crispix Attacks

Newsblog: Kurkjian: Today's players striking out more than ever before
(24 - 12:15pm, Jun 29)
Last: Shooty Is A One Man Legion

I don't know if it was more exciting, but it did seem to be more varied. As a result, almost everyone could find at least one team playing the style of baseball they most preferred.

I've thought about looking into this more deeply at one point, but I believe this is true. Also, I think that the parks were more varied back then. Sure Riverfront, the Vet, and Three Rivers were all the same, but just about everyone is in a bandbox these days.

There were several games from the '86 NLCS on MLBN this weekend. It is shocking how much quicker the game is played. I realize some of that is because of editing but the pitchers/catchers seemed to be much more in sync than we see today. It looked like there were less mound visits and the pitchers didn't grind the game to a halt with men on base so much.

The other thing that flummoxes me every time I see a game more than 15 years old is seeing a pitch bounce in the dirt and the ball not immediately be discarded from play.

I love the old games on that channel. Well worth upgrading my cable package.

I would much rather watch more home runs and more strikeouts.

To each his own, of course, but I strongly disagree. Home runs and strikeouts, as well as walks, deliver utterly nothing with regard to fielding or baserunning; mostly what they deliver is everyone on the field standing around. The game is more interesting when they occur less commonly than they do in the current-day game, and thus more plays occur in which fielders catch and throw the ball, and baserunners actually, you know, run.

To each his own, of course, but I strongly disagree. Home runs and strikeouts, as well as walks, deliver utterly nothing with regard to fielding or baserunning; mostly what they deliver is everyone on the field standing around.

Yes, but since this is a game and not a skills competition, events that cause immediate -- and frequently significant -- changes in the score of the game are exciting.

Yes, but since this is a game and not a skills competition, events that cause immediate -- and frequently significant -- changes in the score of the game are exciting.

Yes, of course. The home run is obviously a thrilling play. But I found them to be more thrilling when they were less plentiful, and the home run's inevitable companion, the strikeout, is an inherently dull play.

and the home run's inevitable companion, the strikeout, is an inherently dull play.

Only if you don't appreciate a good pitch.

Only if you don't appreciate a good pitch.

One can greatly appreciate a good pitch and still find a batted ball more interesting to observe than one being received by the catcher unmolested.

Only if you don't appreciate a good pitch.

Really, isn't it more a matter of being in a position to appretiate the good pitch? If I'm sitting well down the line, or in the outfield, or in an upper deck, it's not easy to tell the difference between a good pitch, a decent pitch, or a bad pitch.

On TV, a good pitch is much more easily appreciated. In person, it often just looks like any other pitch.

But I found them to be more thrilling when they were less plentiful

IOW, they're more of a spice than a main course?

I do think David Pinto sad that baseball was most exciting when teams scored @ 4.5 runs a game, but I'm not sure what he based that on. The Deadball Era sounds interesting from this vantage point, but I'd probably get bored if I watched a bunch of games. This may be why vintage base ballers recreate 19th Century games instead.

IOW, they're more of a spice than a main course?

Yeah, I guess so.

Yes, of course. The home run is obviously a thrilling play. But I found them to be more thrilling when they were less plentiful,

I'm not sure I completely agree, but this is fair enough.

and the home run's inevitable companion, the strikeout, is an inherently dull play.

Completely disagree. Strikeouts are hugely exciting. Especially when made by your team's pitcher against the opposing hitter, especially in a big spot, especially if it's a big hitter.

Mind you I like a good fielding play as much as anyone. But by your logic, you should embrace the increase in strikeouts, since that increase makes the great fielding play more rare -- and thus more exciting. :-)

The thing I always loved hearing from Reds fans was that Dunn was costing them outs due to his strikeouts, even though he was probably always the team leader in OBP.

Strikeouts are hugely exciting. Especially when made by your team's pitcher against the opposing hitter, especially in a big spot, especially if it's a big hitter.

Well, duh. But you know what's even more exciting? When the opponent's big hitter, in a big spot, hits a screamer that is turned into an out by a spectacular fielding play. :-)

Things that cause me to fist-pump:

-Homeruns
-Strikeouts
-Late game RBI hits

Things that don't:

-Stolen bases
-Walks

I really couldn't care less about the stolen base, for whatever reason. Does nothing for me. The hit and run is also my 2nd least favorite play, after the IBB. But I understand I'm in the minority.

Well, duh. But you know what's even more exciting? When the opponent's big hitter, in a big spot, hits a screamer that is turned into an out by a spectacular fielding play. :-)

Except for the 1962 World Series.

But yeah, for those of us who love the flashing of leather, TTT baseball can be a snooze.

I agree with Ray, strikeouts are exciting. I was at the Cardinals game on Friday, and Albert was up with a runner on and a chance to tie it in the bottom of the ninth. The crowd was going nuts, but then Joe Nathan struck him out. It was disappointing but the at-bat was exciting. Just because Nathan won doesn't mean it wasn't cool.

Except for the whole coke thing.

It was fine once they brought the Classic back.

Except for the 1962 World Series.

I said "opponent's," dude!

I agree with Ray, strikeouts are exciting.

I would agree that they CAN be exciting, depending on the situation or pitcher. But, remember, they're always fascist.

I agree with Ray, strikeouts are exciting. I was at the Cardinals game on Friday, and Albert was up with a runner on and a chance to tie it in the bottom of the ninth. The crowd was going nuts, but then Joe Nathan struck him out. It was disappointing but the at-bat was exciting. Just because Nathan won doesn't mean it wasn't cool.

Everything involving Albert is cool. When a genuinely great hitter strikes out, particularly one who doesn't fan 150-plus times a season, it's exciting and you get a sense the pitcher has really accomplished something. The problem is too many hitters, both good and not-so-good, are striking out in droves. That's less thrilling.

I said "opponent's," dude!

Heh!

Only if you don't appreciate a good pitch.

But there are a fair number of these new strikeouts that aren't a result of good stuff so much as hard, injudicious swings. And as was pointed out, the difference hardly matters from most seats at the park. If I'm at home I can see how the batter had his eyes closed he was swinging so hard, but that's not making me happy either. It's just a matter of style, and I like guys who change their style to suit the situation rather than just play one note as loud as they can. Get off my lawn, I guess.


Yes, but since this is a game and not a skills competition, events that cause immediate -- and frequently significant -- changes in the score of the game are exciting.

I do not like scoring for scoring's sake, and more runs are not always exciting. Tight scores make for good games, but sloppy scores do not. (12-11 might be interesting, but 8-2 is usually pretty boring for at least one side.) Lower-scoring games are more frequently close simply by virtue of neither team scoring enough to run away from the other.

Also, I do like skills in a game context. I'd rather see a variety of play than four fat slow guys hitting cheap HRs into the new stadium's novelty short porch. I enjoy saying "Didn't expect that." I am again forced to fall back on Get Off My Lawn.

D***, some days I am really old.

I really couldn't care less about the stolen base, for whatever reason. Does nothing for me.

You realize you're nuts, of course. The stolen base engages multiple fielders, one of the most difficult throws in the game, a sprinting and sliding baserunner on a tag play, AND the huge risk-reward tradeoff being purposefully wagered by the offensive team. It's a fascinating play.

I've fist-pumped at walks and SBs before. Most notably the Millar walk and Roberts SB in the 2004 ALCS.

What I can't stand watching is sac bunts before the 8th inning.

The only thing worse than a sac bunt is the ludicrous hit and run. "Hey, our runner on first has no base stealing ability. Let's start him on 3-2 with one out so that if our hitter strikes out, the defense can get two out of it. And of course the other bonus is that we may be forcing our hitter to swing at a bad pitch, so he'll be more likely to strike out!"

Most notably the Millar walk and Roberts SB in the 2004 ALCS.

One of the most excruciatingly tense and exciting plays in the history of the sport.

Eh, plenty of strikeouts are boring, but so are plenty of fielding plays. The weak groundout to second is no more exciting than your garden variety strikeout.

What I can't stand watching is sac bunts before the 8th inning.

Every aspect of the 80's style of play does not have to make a comeback! For instance, the playing of a clucking chicken every time someone throws over to first.

I personally have always been a fan of the pitching, fielding, line drive baseball that seemed to be more important in the 80's. The occasional HR made it fun, where as now games can take on a softball feel to them, and I can't stand softball.

You realize you're nuts, of course. The stolen base engages multiple fielders, one of the most difficult throws in the game, a sprinting and sliding baserunner on a tag play, AND the huge risk-reward tradeoff being purposefully wagered by the offensive team. It's a fascinating play.

Yessir, yet it usually does nothing for me. Meh.

This is in general of course. In different contexts, things change.

And actually, the thing I hate more than the sac bunt, is the announcers constantly calling it the aggressive play. "They're really being aggresive now, trying to scratch another run across!" Give me a break, it's a wimpy play. Let the guy swing, now that's aggressive.

One of the most excruciatingly tense and exciting plays in the history of the sport.

I know I'm in the minority, especially amongst Boston fans, but that play doesn't even make my top-5 excruciating and tense plays of that series.

The only thing worse than a sac bunt is the ludicrous hit and run.

A well-executed hit and run is a thing of beauty. I love watching the look on the second baseman's face as he realizes he's been had.

"Hey, our runner on first has no base stealing ability. Let's start him on 3-2 with one out so that if our hitter strikes out, the defense can get two out of it. And of course the other bonus is that we may be forcing our hitter to swing at a bad pitch, so he'll be more likely to strike out!"

The hitter should be under no obligation to swing at a bad 3-2 pitch on the hit and run, for obvious reasons.

The hitter should be under no obligation to swing at a bad 3-2 pitch on the hit and run, for obvious reasons.

Spoil sport. I had a good rant going.

The only thing worse than a sac bunt is the ludicrous hit and run. "Hey, our runner on first has no base stealing ability. Let's start him on 3-2 with one out so that if our hitter strikes out, the defense can get two out of it.

Of course, if so many batters didn't strike out so damn often, the above scenario wouldn't be such a problem. ;)

I've fist-pumped at walks and SBs before. Most notably the Millar walk and Roberts SB in the 2004 ALCS.

Brett Myers' working a walk against Sabathia in the Division Series last year had the Phillies fans cheering every ball and foul ball until the walk drew a standing ovation. I tell people that if I get Alzheimer's when I'm older, I may forget my and kids, but I'll never forget that walk. It was almost more exciting than Victorino's grand slam a few batters later.

wouldn't station-to-station more accurately describe a game with lots of singles, sac bunts, and steal attempts?

I meant today's game is generally - walk, single, 3 run homer. Sabermetrically sound, but not as entertaining as all the running back in the 80's.

I know I'm in the minority, especially amongst Boston fans, but that play doesn't even make my top-5 excruciating and tense plays of that series.

I'm having a hard time coming up with what your top 5 are. You are now obligated to list them. The Tony Clark ground-rule double has to be in there.

I meant today's game is generally - walk, single, 3 run homer. Sabermetrically sound, but not as entertaining as all the running back in the 80's.

But you had the TTT players in the 80's--Gorman Thomas, Rob Deer, etc--but there was a better balance, I think. (And guys like Thomas and Deer were pretty good with the glove.)

But you had the TTT players in the 80's--Gorman Thomas, Rob Deer, etc--but there was a better balance, I think. (And guys like Thomas and Deer were pretty good with the glove.)

Yes, there was a greater variety of styles back then (or so it seems). Certainly the 1982 WS was a great contrast in offensive styles.

I'm having a hard time coming up with what your top 5 are. You are now obligated to list them. The Tony Clark ground-rule double has to be in there.

not my definitive list and in no particular order:
last out of game 6: Clark K's representing the series-ending run, forcing a game 7.

the play you mentioned (and the subsequent at-bat that stranded the 2 runners)

game 5, top of the 12th, go-ahead run on 2nd, Wakefield retires Jeter and A-Rod (could count as 2 moments)

game 5, another handful of moments in the top of the 13th

game 5, bottom 14, Ortiz' 2-out at-bat that ended up w/ the winning hit

maybe more.
(also, say Roberts didnt steal and only got to 3rd on the Mueller hit. he probably scores that inning anyway)

Yeah, all good ones. For me they just don't all crowd out the successful steal.

For all the hope inspired by Millar's walk, we *knew* Roberts was going to try to steal. And it was a damn close play, and first out or no it would have felt like the final nail in the coffin.

(also, say Roberts didnt steal and only got to 3rd on the Mueller hit. he probably scores that inning anyway)

Sure, possibly. But that's all after the fact.

EDIT: BTW, is "TTT" a typo for "TTO" or is there a variant I'm unaware of?

For all the hope inspired by Millar's walk, we *knew* Roberts was going to try to steal. And it was a damn close play, and first out or no it would have felt like the final nail in the coffin.

Not only did we fans know it, the Yankees knew it just as well. Roberts was inserted into the game for precisely that purpose; indeed one could even say that he'd been acquired in order to be inserted into just such a game for precisely that purpose. The anticipatory tension was monumental.

(also, say Roberts didnt steal and only got to 3rd on the Mueller hit. he probably scores that inning anyway)

Sure, possibly. But that's all after the fact.

Absolutely and crucially. And morever, even more crucially, if Roberts gets thrown out attempting to steal, he doesn't score at all.

EDIT: BTW, is "TTT" a typo for "TTO" or is there a variant I'm unaware of?

Yep. I don't know why I was thinking TTT. I should have said it out loud in my head before typing.

Absolutely and crucially. And morever, even more crucially, if Roberts gets thrown out attempting to steal, he doesn't score at all.

but maybe the Sox do anyway

but maybe the Sox do anyway

Well, maybe. It's impossible to know.

What is certainly known is that their chances of scoring would have been significantly less with one out and the bases empty than with no outs and Roberts on second.

sure and I'm not trying to convert anyone to my Roberts-Steal-Is-Overrated-Club. but personally, game 5 is where I aged years over hours and banged my head against the wall, not game 4.

EDIT: BTW, is "TTT" a typo for "TTO" or is there a variant I'm unaware of?

Three True Toutcomes - it's for those who love gambling on common baseball events.

sure and I'm not trying to convert anyone to my Roberts-Steal-Is-Overrated-Club. but personally, game 5 is where I aged years over hours and banged my head against the wall, not game 4.

In support of Nate here, I know I didn't really feel like they had a chance in the series even if they won Game 4, so it muted the drama of the Roberts' steal somewhat. But once the Game 4 comeback was complete, and the Sox rallied again in Game 5, the tension mounted because I started entertaining notions of the impossible.

The Roberts steal is easy to point to as the turning point, but it took a while for that realization to take hold for me.

Sure, possibly. But that's all after the fact.

Absolutely and crucially. And morever, even more crucially, if Roberts gets thrown out attempting to steal, he doesn't score at all.

Yeah, I don't think we can change one event and then claim that the rest of the events would have happened the same.

In support of Nate here, I know I didn't really feel like they had a chance in the series even if they won Game 4, so it muted the drama of the Roberts' steal somewhat.

Everyone's different, of course, but the drama of the steal wasn't diminished at all for me. I'm irrational in that I never give up, and I always think that as long as my team is still alive in the postseason, it still has a chance. I watched every pitch of the series, and never gave up, even after the 19-8 drubbing.

(That doesn't mean I thought it was _likely_ that the Red Sox would come back, only that it was realistic. Even if they have only a 5-10% chance to win the series at the time of the Roberts steal, well, that's not one in a million.)

As for the hit-and-run -- it's almost always a stupid play nowadays. In lower scoring, lower power numbers eras, it's had a value. I have no numbers to back this up, but I bet a skilled hit-and-run man can increase his batting average by at least 30 points when the second baseman moves over to cover the bag. This comes at a greatly reduced chance of a walk or a caught stealing, and a reduction in slugging percentage. I personally miss the variety of the 1980's, where you had, on the one hand, five different guys who stole at least 90 bases in a year at least once (two track stars and three real ballplayers), but also 13 seasons of at least 40 homers (again, mostly by different players). The defense was better, especially the accuracy of the throwing arms of outfielders.

I'm not an all nostalgia, everything was better when I was a kid kind of fan. I have no doubt that the players in the big leagues now are better suited to playing winning baseball in today's game than the guys who were around 20 years ago. The issues are that (1) the ballparks are smaller, making speed and defense less important and power more important (2) the thin-handled bats have made it easier to hit for power (3) teams have recognized the value of a 100 walk a year guy to an extent that most hadn't in the past (4) Astroturf is gone (I'm glad for that one, if only because of the injuries it caused) and (5) every team seems to have at least three relievers who throw in the mid-90's, and to mix and match them to get the best match-ups and (6) everybody lifts weights (and the PEDs play a role, too), instead of a few exceptions.

I think changing the rules on bat handles would change the game noticeably, but not dramatically. The other change I'd like to see would be something that would reduce the number of late inning pitching changes. There's no strategy in that -- everything is done by the book. The game was more interesting, in my opinion, when teams carried more position players and fewer pitchers, and made in-game substitutions in the form of pinch hitting and defensive replacements. I know Bill James has suggested that you only get one "free" pitching change per game, and after that, you can only change pitchers if they're injured, or have already allowed a run in the inning, or if it's between innings. I think something should be done, and maybe that's the best idea. I like that baseball has no clock, but I still prefer a crisp 2 1/2 hour game to the 3 1/2 hour games that are becoming routine.

Anyways, teams, for very good reason, have taken advantage of the way the game is now, to make their teams more competitive, but the game, in my opinion, less interesting. I think some small rule changes are in order, to help the pendulum swing back.