Letters to the Editor
-
Which way does it go?
If you were to have a rule change relating to home plate collisions, it could go one of two ways: the catcher can't block the plate (and per the rule book, he can only do it when he has the ball in his glove or hand, not waiting for it, though that is no longer enforced), or the runner can't knock down the catcher. I don't see any reason why the defense should get the advantage here. Make them do swipe tags if you're going to do something.
But in fact I disagree with either of them. Spring training is training. Training is used to get players, in the heat of real games, to do what is right instinctively. If you spend March not knocking down catchers (or can only do it in intrasquad games, where you're only injuring your own catchers), then when April comes you're not ready to do it right. Yes, if you're Aaron Rowand you really shouldn't crash into a wall in a game that doesn't count, because you know how to catch a ball during the regular season and you're making the team no matter what. But if you're Charlton Jimerson, trying to be the last guy on the Mariners bench and out of options, and your role is going to be defensive outfield replacement/pinch runner, you will be running into every wall and every catcher. If you get injured, that's the price you'd pay for the chance at a major league opportunity. If you injure the other team's catcher, you'll probably get rewarded.
-
comparing home and second
To answer the question some have had about the rules for blocking the plate compared with blocking second base, the written rules are the same. While many "unwritten rules" are bogus (i.e. not bunting to break up a perfect game) others are real, and enforced by the umpires. This is one of the real ones.
It is commonplace that the official written rules don't match up exactly with actual practice. This happens all the time. The development of modern overhand pitching derives from 19th century pitchers continually cheating on their deliveries just a bit, and the rules committee incrementally bowing to reality. Ideally, in my opinion, the rules committee should do the same thing here and make official the different acceptable practices at home and at other bases. But in the meantime, we all pretty much know what is what.
-
2K is a masterbrewer of the ha
Absolutely right on. This column just swung at my 3-0 meatball.
-
Chipper Jones
got caught in a rundown the other day, and cracked up everyone by attempting to call time out. Now there's a guy who's not fighting for a job.
-
King Kaufman
I say that based on the fact that it's very trendy to bash the Yanks for generally being less then, how do we say, masculine?
Any player who gets hurt before opening day on an intentional play is a moron. MLB is a business.
-
typical yankees
the team is owned by pre madonnas, and so goes the organization. remember how they lost to the Indians supposedly because of the bug infestation, and how they complained that the game should have been stopped? what a joke!
I heard Steve Phillips say today on Espnradio that if you don't want to get bowled over as a catcher then you shouldn't block the plate. good point.
-
Slippery Slopes
That's not a bad idea, though I can see it becoming kind of a slippery slope. What would get banned next? And at what point would it start to really affect how players approach the game.
I don't think it needs to be a slippery slope, because I can't think of any other play in baseball where the point of the play is to initiate violent contact with another player. Even in takeout slides, the point is not to wrack the guy up as it is to make him avoid you long enough to not turn a double-play. But the point of the plate collision is to hit the guy so hard he can't hold a ball.
(The only other exception I can think of is the beanball, which is not easily tolerated. To the extent that it's obvious a pitcher is headhunting, there is a pretty quick hook -- one could even argue that being ejected is already a more serious punishment for the same thing than simply being called out on a play.)
Honestly, I can't see it changing the approach to the game much at all. It would just be a different rule, and one that is pretty easy to adapt to at that.
-
Billy Crystal
Given that the Yankees have signed 59-year old comedian Billy Crystal to play a game in Spring Training, I think it's clear that yes, they do view Spring training games as unserious exhibitions.
This would never have happened in George Steinbrenner's prime. I loathe the man but to be fair, it's baffling to see that Yankees franchise whining that another team is too physical. That would never have happened in the 70s. What would Thurman Munson say?
(Oh, and I loved the Monkees as a kid, but I suspect the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame prefers bands that played their own instruments on all of their albums.)
-
Tit for tat
No one seems to remember that in the 'good old days" a Bob Gibson or a Don Drysdale or a hundred other guys like that would come WELL inside on this minor's leaguers rib cage. They didn't try to knock you down or get you off the plate, they came inside to hit you.
That's how the game was played then. No longer is that tolerated. IF you're a guy who's established and still on the hill.. you bust the guy inside. IF you're trying to make the roster.. you nail the guy and take the ejection. Show the skip you're gonna protect your guys.
-
Whispers
You mean a band like The Byrds or The Beach Boys? Wait sorry, they used studio musicians for much of their recordings. Their in though, aren' they.
-
ok no more typos
They're in aren't they.
-
rock and roll hall of fame
Well, I'm not here to defend them, but I think everybody knows that the Monkees were simply a creation to make a TV show. I don't think anybody has said the same about the Beach Boys or the Byrds.
To dig more deeply into the difference here: the members of the Monkees were actors pretending to be musicians. There is a difference between working with studio musicians and being the public face for musical work that is entirely the creation of studio musicians. That's really not an accusation that can be laid at the feet of the Byrds or the Beach Boys. It's true that by the end of their run, the Monkees had finally gotten up to playing their instruments themselves, but the ongoing charade was part of the reason the group broke up - that and the fact that Mike Nesmith wanted to play folk music, not pop tunes.
In any case, the idea that Madonna and the Monkees should be considered at roughly the same level, which was the implication of the first post on this topic, seems way off. While I'm not a Madonna fan, it's hard to deny the fact that she's been at the top of the charts for the better part of two decades. And certainly she is herself the driving force behind her own success.