Letters to the Editor
snichols
Published Letters: 3 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Eckstein
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Way back in the dark mists of Internet time, in the golden days of rec.sport.baseball, there was a term invented for guys like Eckstein: Designated Fiery Guy, or DFG. My memory is that Dan Gladden, then of the Twins, was the original DFG. Most DFG's are physically small, usually white, known for their hustle, and get attention and credit far out of proportion to their actual contribution to a team's success. I believe credit goes to Gary Huckabay, one of the creators of Baseball Prospectus, for the coinage.
-
It is always about race
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I lived in Pittsburgh when Bonds came up, and I lived in the Bay Area when he signed with the Giants. Bonds' treatment in the media has always been about race. Yeah, Bonds has been a jerk to sportswriters, but at least part of that comes out of his experience as the son of Bobby Bonds. He wasn't exactly predisposed to believe that a sportswriter was going to give him an even break.
Yes, I believe Bonds took steriods, knowingly. He probably also took amphetamines; those have been around baseball since at least the 60's. It wouldn't shock or surprise me to find out that Aaron took greenies. I also believe that Bonds was far from alone in taking steroids; I suspect they have been pretty widely used, and not just by sluggers. One of the benefits of steroids is quicker recovery; think that might be useful to a pitcher?
And has anybody noticed that after all this, with testing in place and potential indictments still hanging over his head, Bonds still happens to be leading the league in OPS?
-
Just get rid of the meaningless distinction
[Read the article: See a different game]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Don't go to scoring by committee, get rid of the error! Does it really matter whether the batter reached by a hit or an error? The end result is a runner on base. If Sabathia had stumbled a bit coming off the mound and wasn't able to touch the ball, no one would be complaining about the official scorer calling it a hit. If a shortstop, through bad positioning or just because he has no range, fails to get close to a ground ball, it's called a hit. If the shortstop, positioned well or with good range, on a ball hit to the same exact location, gets close enough to get his glove on it and look like he "should" have made the play, it's called an error. Really, what difference does it make? The batter got on base, the fielder failed to make a play, and the pitcher allowed a baserunner. Why penalize the batter and let the pitcher off the hook in the second case?