From: miked@pterodactyl.cis.ohio-state.edu (Michael Davey)
Subject: Re: Baseball and Billions
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:46:23 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.191310.26215@u.washington.edu> sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:

>One of the charms of baseball (for me, anyway) is its weird 
>combination of tradition and innovation.  The Game has never
>reached a point of perfection that everyone involved could sit
>back and agree that no further changes were needed.  I was 

>Sometimes, it seems that some fans think there is a Platonic
>Form of Baseball from which certain rule changes or other
>modifications detract.  Perhaps those who are better trained
>in metaphysics than me can elucidate on this point.

>Remember, at one time there was no Green Monster, no ivy
>in Wrigley Field, no batting helmets, and no Harry Carry (I think).
>But now we have all of these wonderful additions to the
>traditions of baseball, and many more, including the 
>designated hitter; divisional playoffs; and the greatest
>of all, Domed Stadiums!
	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. 
A lot of my statements after that were tangential due to the nature of the 
responses to my original posts. My point about the "integrity of the game" was
in response to one of Sherri`s posts, and was meant to define integrity in
the context of arguing that basing decisions about the game on the bottom line
and not on other factors as well, compromises the integrity of the game, as
defined in the post. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

 Michael J. Davey                          "I believe in the small of a women's
 The Ohio State University                  back, the hangin' curve ball, high 
 Computer and Information Science Dept.     fiber, (and) good scotch..."




Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball