From: miked@pterodactyl.cis.ohio-state.edu (Michael Davey)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Baseball and Billions
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:03:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: cis.1992Aug31.160322.15565
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science

In article <1992Aug31.144703.24244@news2.cis.umn.edu> thornley@nano.cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley) writes:

>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.
	In general, there should be a set of factors used to determine the
appropriateness of a particular change. These factors should encompass
such factors and/or ideas as the impact of the change on the core fan
base, the impact on the fan base as a whole (realistically, the audience
and the money they contribute should not be ignored) the impact on the overall
competivness of the game, the impact on the challenge to the players of 
completing a particular endeavor(the reason such things as HR`s and no hitters
are lauded is they are recognized as accomplishments beyond the capability of
Joe Citizen and the everyday player), and the impact of the change on the 
historical precedence of these factors and the game in general. This does not
mean that historical precedence should be the only factor, but it is one of several factors that should be considered.

>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?
	I tried to define "integrity of the game" as strictly as possible in
an earlier post, maybe you missed it. Anyway, I think we can all agree that
there is something we call the integrity of the game, otherwise we wouldn't
be having this discussion. Determining what factors make up this entity is
the root cause of the dispute. A "traditionalist" will place most of the weight
on historical precedence, while a more, say, "modernist" for lack of a better
word, will place more emphasis on the impact of a change on the fan base as 
the mechanism or rule stick for determining or defining the integrity of the 
game. Both would, I think invoke general notions about sports, competition and
challenge in their explications of the IOTG, and the most accurate conception 
would lie somewhere in between both extremes. I totally agree with the nature
of the pragmatic beast that is Major League Baseball as you and most others
view it And have been labled here on the net as a boringly radically naive 
traditionalist. However, the real root of my position has all along been that
the focus on the fan base and its size and the money they spend as the most
important factor in determining where the IOTG lies and whether a change is
in violation of it (no matter what how we define it) is inappropriate and we 
need to include other factors into the calculation, such as those mentioned 
above. 


>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.
	I agree that there are problems with a "strong commissioner" in real
life. It is however, one of the only possible deterents to the owners 
doing whatever they want. The owners must work within the context of the
present system as you have outlined it (they cant undermine there fan base too
much for example), however, I do not see the fans having that much impact on
the owners decision`s as some here do. Granted, ideally the owners will put
pressure on each other to behave, but for whatever reason, it seems that this
does not occur very often and the owners universally act as a single interest
group and will only oppose each other in so far as it does not threaten 
to undermine the authority and influence of the owners as a whole. Marge Schott
said on CBS this weekend that she worries that not enough owners think about
how their actions will affect the game, and she is worried about what the 
owners are doing to the game. I do not mean to use her comments as a smoking
gun to support my positions. But I think it shows that even within the 
small community of owners there is concern about the impact the owners are 
having on the IOTG, and that leaving the owners and fans and players to 
interact in some kind of open, dog-eat-dog, market place, where the natural 
"rules" of the system will regulate behvior, may not be the best thing.

>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?
	No, it`s a very complex problem and I am not comfortable with hiring
quotas or any kind of enforced affirmative action type of regulation. However,
stonger penalaties for perceived racist behavior or policies and an independent
commision to look into player greviances, with the power to penalize clubs or
individual`s who are found guilty is a first step in the right direction.

>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.
	I agree with this particular e.g. but am uncomfortable with the 
underlying premise. The owners were able to collude under free agency and
even though they were caught, and were not operating with a system as 
you have outlined it, I would still hesitate not to have some system of
authority in place in case a collusion type situation arose again.

>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.
	There is no way of ensuring the commissionser's decisions are correct
but I cant think of an example where a commissioner might use his or her 
authority in an arbitrary manner. I realize it takes a majority of owners to
oust a commissioner but it does seem that the owners will usually vote 
as a block when the issue comes down to who should have absolute authority, the
owners as a group or a single individual commissioner. The upcoming battle
between Vincent and the owners will be an intersting litmus test for the
validity of the different sides in this discussion. Do we want an oligarchy,
a dictatorship, or a democracy? I don't think you can have a democratic-like
system involving the owners, fans, and players unless you have a strong
commissioner to offset the owners-group. What the hell, the owners appoint
the guy so its not like they won't have some say in who will be telling them 
what to do.

 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..."



-- 
 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..."