Welcome to a new feature on the Musicarium, "Let's Talk Turkey!" In this column my associate Brendan Leonard and I will discuss various topics, many of which you, the reader, will have no interest in! Ready? Let's Talk Turkey!
John's Expository Question: Why do you think that the NL is a better brand of baseball than the AL, despite the presence in the batting lineup of players who are incapable of hitting the baseball?
Brendan's Initial Response: Jackie, Jackie, Jackie. I bet you like The Phantom Menace more than Empire? Do you find yourself longing for the official death of the compact disc, as to give way to the convenience of the MP3? I am sure you prefer "Coke Zero" over "Coke-a-Cola?" Not me my friend, I prefer the real thing. A game where the nine men posted on the lineup card are expected to play the field and hit the ball, you know, play baseball.
I don't mind the AL, or the DH, for that matter. What does get me fired up is when AL snobs thumb their collective noses at the NL. They dismiss it as "boring" or "a second tier league." While there's certainly more offense in the AL (thus making it harder to pitch in that league) the NL offers more strategy, more surprise, and more athleticism. One of my favorite moments as a Chicago Cubs fan is when Pitcher and badass Kerry Wood belted a 3 run homer to tie game 7 of the 2003 NLCS. I won't go into how that one ended, but it's moments like that that make the game unpredictable and fun to watch.
Sure, 9 out of 10 times pitchers are nothing more than a time consuming out, but every once and a while something spectacular happens. Pitchers' batting also allows for more under-arching story lines to develop, often times lost on the Sportscenter/Deadspin bred "sports" fans. Hypothetical: it's game 7 of the NLCS, it's 1-1 in the 7th inning. Your pitcher is lights out, but is at bat with 2 outs and a man on 2nd. What does the manager do? I love these moments, the game within the game, the decisions that can make or break a season. This only happens in the NL. In the AL, it's easier and more black and white, all a manager needs to worry about is when to pull a pitcher when he's struggling, which is pretty obvious most of the time. If he's in trouble, yank him, or pull a Grady Little.
So Jackie, other than being a Red Sox fan, why would you prefer the AL? I would suggest you're yet another victim of the "Sportscenter-ization" of the American sports fan.
John's Rebuttal:
Well, it's true that I grew up a Red Sox fan and an AL guy, as you grew up a Cubs/NL guy. So obviously we're predestined to feel the way we do on the subject. But you said it yourself; "sure 9 out of 10 times pitchers are nothing more than a time consuming out". Why do I want to watch that? The one time out of ten the pitcher manages a seeing-eye single doesn't completely discount the 90% out rate. It's boring and illogical. There's a man taking up one of the precious nine spots in the batting order, that for all intents and purposes, cannot hit.
The strategy aspect you mention rings hollow, too. Is it really riveting, edge of your seat stuff for a manager to call for the pitcher to lay down a sacrifice? I feel like National League fans act as if the double switch is brain surgery that only "their managers" can comprehend. It's pretty fucking easy to follow, and I don't think AL managers are/would be dumbfounded by the concept. And AL fans aren't lunkheaded morons who just love to see moon shots and nothing more; we appreciate the game just as much as NL fans. Just because the NL has been around slightly longer and because there's more "strategy" involved doesn't automatically make that league somehow superior.
I prefer the AL because it's more difficult and because it's a true test of a baseball player. If a player succeeds in the AL, chances are they can succeed anywhere in the league. The reverse of that is not necessarily true. We see it all the time. Pitchers the caliber of Greg Maddux (taking nothing away from him) used to say they'd never pitch in the AL. Pitchers like Brad Penny and John Smoltz, with proven pedigrees and track records, haven't been able to hack it in the AL. Middling pitchers like Jeff Suppan and Jeff Weaver have struggled mightily in the AL and then turned into 1968 Bob Gibson in the National League. It's simply tougher to play in the AL; the pitching's better, the hitting's better, the lights are brighter, and the pressure is up. Is that not true?
Brendan's Counterpoint:
First off, let me tell a quick story. About a year ago I got a phone call from you while you were playing a baseball game for PlayStation 3, and the purpose of the call was to ask me how to effectively pull off a double switch. I explained it, and you executed it. While I agree it's far from brain surgery, you still didn't know how to do it, thus making your "AL fans aren't lunkheaded morons who just love to see moon shots and nothing more" comment a tad off base, but I digress.
I agree with you, it's certainly harder to play in the AL, and that is solely because of the DH. Not only because the pitcher doesn't have to bat, but also because the DH frees up lineup spots for potential free agents or trade acquisitions. Take your beloved Red Sox, for example; there are rumors that they're going to go after Padres first base masher Adrian Gonzalez this offseason. They are doing this despite the fact that they already have two capable first baseman. If they were to get Adrian Gonzalez, they'd move "The Greek God of Walks" to third, and Cool Uncle Mike Lowell and David "I'm too out of shape to play the field" Ortiz would share DH duty.
Essentially they don't have to get rid of anyone of purpose to gain someone of purpose. Sure, some players will get less playing time, but they still will have tremendous depth in case of injury. Now take my Cubs; they simply can't get Gonzalez without getting rid of Derrek Lee. I am aware that he's less versatile than Youk, but for argument's sake let's say he can play third. If you move him to third, then Aramis Ramirez is out of the lineup, and more likely off the team. I am aware of your argument about high priced players not wanting to DH, but what if they're acquired from a trade? Look no further than Victor Martinez last year, you got him (a capable catcher/1B) and you didn't have to get rid of any of your normal starters or change your lineup drastically. The DH allows you to do so, a luxury that doesn't exist in the NL.
So while you say it's harder to "play" in the AL, and I agree with you, keep in mind that the rules of the league allow teams to build deeper/more talented teams than the NL. Now you could argue that this makes for a better brand of baseball because of these stacked teams, but I find it pretty sterile and expensively cheap. It's probably why 5 of the top 6 payrolls in the Major Leagues belong to AL teams (the Mets are the lone NL team in the group - a fact that makes me chuckle). Call me old fashioned but I still love the games within the game of baseball. Subtle nuance and tradition is still alive and well in the NL, the same cannot be said (to a degree) about the AL. Again, I am of the ilk that if you are expected to field you should be expected to hit. But god forbid Chien-Ming Wang be forced to run the bases.
"I just think it's time the NL joined the 21st century... Truthfully NL owners should be concerned with it, even with the practice their pitchers get doing it. You don't need to lose your best pitcher. The pitcher has enough work to do. It's something Bud (Selig) needs to address and he needs to address it soon. Don't give me that traditionalist crap."
- Yankees Owner/AL Buffoon Hank Steinbrenner's reaction to starting Pitcher Chien-Ming Wang hurting himself running from third to home.
John's Response:
First, I want to say that your story is true, but in a way is proves my point. I'm an AL guy, and though I've obviously watched NL games in my lifetime, I wasn't fully aware how to perform a double switch. I asked you, you told me how to do it, and I immediately executed it successfully. So, as I said in my original point, it really isn't hard to do. NL managers and NL fans shouldn't be lauded as smarter baseball people because they have different rules that any baseball fans can pick up right away.
Your points about the AL as compared to the NL are moot points, as well. I agree with them in theory; I can't argue that the AL teams have more flexibility to make moves than NL teams. But all NL teams are operating under the same set of rules and restrictions, as are AL teams. NL teams are competing against each other based on those same decision-making principles; they're not at an inherent disadvantage against each other, which is really all that matters. AL teams can add another bat if they have the resources; as you mentioned, the Red Sox are looking at adding Adrian Gonzalez and having Ortiz and Lowell split DH time. But players that play the field are always more valuable than those that can't, and without the DH the AL teams would simply drop the old, broken down hitters the way NL teams have to. I think that you overstate the importance of this roster spot; AL teams aren't going to bring a marquee player in to play DH, they simply shuffle an older guy or a "professional hitter" to that spot. In any case, the fact that each league operates under the same principles makes this argument not really matter.
You also write, "Call me old fashioned but I still love the games within the game of baseball. Subtle nuance and tradition is still alive and well in the NL, the same cannot be said (to a degree) about the AL". But at what point does the "new" rule become tradition itself? The DH has been in place in the AL since 1973; that's a pretty long fucking time. It was ten years before either of us were born, and it's now an important part of baseball in itself. Just because something existed a certain way before the DH doesn't automatically mean the DH is stupid. I'd like to think that 36 years with the rule would be long enough for it to be considered tradition in and of itself.
Additionally, it's not fair for you to quote Hank Steinbrenner as if he speaks for anyone with half a brain, let alone me. As Homer Simpson's hippie associates once said, "This man does not represent us."
Brendan's Final Thoughts:
When I was watching game 4 of the World Series last night, a series in which I have little emotional investment, I found myself screaming at the TV during one particular at bat. Pitcher C(arsten) C(harles) Sabathia was up with runners on 1st and 2nd with nobody out. This was an obvious bunting situation. CC showed bunt right away and waived his bat as if he was trying to execute a billiards trick-shot at the first pitch. Eventually he struck out with a similarly dismal bunt attempt. I said to my friend, "If that was Greg Maddux (longtime NL pitcher/badass), those runners would be at 2nd and 3rd right now." The point of this story is not how AL pitchers can't bunt, we know this, the point is that I really do like the fact that the two leagues are so different because of that one simple rule.
Admittedly, if I were a White Sox fan I am sure I would prefer the American League, but my choice of allegiance to a team is the foundation for my allegiance to the NL. It's what I know, what I am used to, and what I am, in a weird way, proud of. But the fact that there are different rules for these two leagues makes baseball more interesting as a whole. The scenario I described earlier is microcosm of how the little things in the World Series, the battle of the NL's best versus the AL's best, can be captivating. Especially since the emergence of interleague play, I am glad there are still things that differentiate the two leagues. I like seeing the career path of AL lifer vets (i.e. Johnny Damon) vs. NL lifer vets (i.e. the Captivating Craig Counsell). I like when AL headhunters (Roger Clemens) are forced to bat, and face teams that may have a score to settle. And most of all, Jackie my boy, the dichotomy of these two cherished leagues just gives us another thing to argue about. For that, I am very grateful.
Brendan Leonard/John Lacey
No comments:
Post a Comment