From: thornley@nano.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley)
Subject: Re: Baseball and Billions
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:47:03 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.134623.12550@cis.ohio-state.edu> miked@pterodactyl.cis.ohio-state.edu (Michael Davey) writes:
>	I really am not trying to advocate that baseball should remain
>static or that it ever existed in an ideal state. My original argument was
>simply that how much money a given change could generate should not be
>the primary factor in determining whether or not to initiate that change. 

Unfortunately, you never have specified a primary factor.  You have mentioned
the "integrity of the game", and given examples of specific things you
think violate it, but never given us a hint of a definition.  Since baseball
is a game constructed by humans, and in constant change in various ways,
there is neither a natural form nor a single historical form to judge
changes from.  If you wish to continue the discussion, please suggest some
way of determining whether a proposed change to the game is good or bad.
You don't have to be detailed or exact, just general.

>[I meant to define "integrity of the game", in response to Sherri, as
> something violated when decisions are made about baseball soley in the
> context of money.]
>Change is inevitable and some changes are good while
>others are bad. I happen to *think* (not believe) that it is unrealistic
>to hold the position that we fans can stay away from the game and therefore
>influence the owners in a meaningful way to initiate change. What ends up 
>happening is the owners make decisions based on the bottom line only, and
>on the impact the fans have on the dynamic only in so far as it affects the
> bottom line, and this leads to decisions that, (Everybody! All together now!) 
>COMPROMISE THE INTEGRITY OF THE GAME.

What does happen is that baseball tends to cater to the marginal fan, since
there are a lot more of them.  This does have the advantage that baseball
is accessible to new fans, therefore helping the fan base to grow.  On the
other hand, baseball would suffer a serious economic blow if it seriously
alienated its current fan base, so there are limits to the changes possible.
Again, what we need is some sort of indication from you about what the
"integrity of the game" really means.  Was the DH rule any more drastic than
the earlier rule change that permitted a team to make a player substitution
without their opponent's permission?

 Some of my examples of this occuring,
>such as: the segregation of baseball, the DH, astroturf, Domes, the Cub's 
>lawsuit, have caused most of the hyperbolic rhetoric on the net and the
>tangential posts. I tried to get everyone to see that the particularities
>are not the issue. It is the general issue that the owners have nothing
>to curb their decision making process that is the issue I am trying to
>address,so I suggested, by way of agreeing with the original post to a 
>certain extent, that a strong commissioner could be a way of solving this 
>dillemma.

So who appoints the commissioner, and who enforces his or her rulings?
How do we get a commissioner to veto unlimited substitution without
forbidding the commissioner to veto integration?  Remember that a strong
commissioner enforced segregated baseball, and baseball was integrated
by owners under a weak commissioner.  After some teams were integrated,
others were forced to integrate by competitive pressures.  It wasn't a
real clean solution, but it worked to some extent.

>Personally,
>I do not like the DH or Domes or Astroturf, but have never advocated that
>a strong commissioner should act to overrule owners or communities who want
>these changes. My arguments to that affect were generally taken out of the 
>greater context of the discussion as a whole. In fact, these things really are
>not the type of issues that I feel compromise the integrity of the game to 
>the extent that something should be done to "save the game from the hands of 
>the evil owners." But the racism that still exists in the game is.

Eliminating racism from the top down is appallingly difficult, and requires
very strict regimentation.  We can say that the owners are probably racist,
based on racial hiring statistics, but we cannot say that any individual
decision is based on racism.  Are you advocating that the Commissioner have
the power to declare that Don Baylor is the new manager for the Texas Rangers?

I would recommend giving players more freedom as a method of reducing racism.
If players had some method of selecting which team they played for before
six full years in the majors, teams that made every skin tone feel welcome
would have a competitive advantage, and this could lead to a breakdown of
racism.

>And the 
>Cub's lawsuit is to a certain extent. And the fact that the owners can get rid
>of a commissioner who gets a few of them angry (like Chandler and now Vincent)
>is, to my thinking, reason for looking into the possibility of increasing
>the power of the commissioner. 

The Cubs are suing because that is their *only* method of appeal from a
ruling that overrides the National League constitution.  If you want this
behavior banned, you *must* provide a way of ensuring that the commissioner's
decisions are correct, and that the commissioner not use his or her authority
in an arbitrary manner.  Nor can a few angry owners remove a commissioner; if
it is possible at all, it takes most of them.

>Whether that is really a solution or not
>is in many ways a question that encompases issues in political science and
>political philosophy (as some of the posts have suggested) as it deals
>with factors such as leaders, representation, and the notion of what consitutes
>a community. I hope this clears up the whole mess a bit and at least defuses
>the situation so some meaningful dialogue can continue.
>
It has to start as a meaningful monologue.  So far, you've mentioned some
things you see as wrong with the present system.  I'd like to see you put
forth some semblance of a solution in operational form.

David Thornley
"And should Your Commissionership look down from the seat of your lofty
sky box towards this humble spot in the low minors...." - Niccolo Machiavelli,
bucking for a promotion.


Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball