From: snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Baseball and Billions
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:07:20 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated

In article <1992Aug26.183229.3136@cis.ohio-state.edu> miked@pterodactyl.cis.ohio-state.edu (Michael Davey) writes:
>	The integrity of the game does not reside solely in competition. It is 
>comprised of a variety of elements which combine to give it its unique 
>character and identity. The more elements you change, the farther removed
>from the original it becomes and the more compromised its integrity
>becomes.

Perhaps you can tell me more explicitly then, what exactly does comprise
the "integrity of the game"?  

>	In many people's oppinion, lowering the pitchers mound did compromise
>the integrity of the game.

"Many" people's opinion?  Where do you get that?  

>150 years ago. I don`t think you can compare these changes to the drastic
>change of adding a hitter to the line-up.

Why not?  Changing the length of the basepaths is a much more fundamental
change to the nature of the game than is adding another hitter.

>>No, I don't think so.  The issue is, should "The Game" be removed from the
>>control of owners.  Well, owners are in large part responsible for
>>establishing "The Game" as whatever part of our culture it occupies.  So,
>>were those owners okay, and today's owners evil?
>	This reply is puzzling. It really does not relate to what I originally
>posted. The issue is not and has never been should the game be removed from 
>the control of the owners.

Where have you been?  The post that created this thread, and that I
responded to, was about a review of a book that advocated the formation of
a federal sports commission to oversee baseball.

> It has been should the commissioner have the power 
>to protect the game from owners whose vision is extremely short and who would
>prefer to make obscene amounts of money by instituting practices that 
>are unreasonable in the light of current circumstances.

One, how is giving the commissioner power over decision-making *not* taking
control out of the owners hands?  And two, why is it that you think
commissioners, whose tenure has generally been short compared to the tenure
of individual owners, have a longer-range view than the owners?

> You continually turn
>the argument into "Owners Good-You bad" If you believe that the owners should
>have absolute power and are never wrong and never make incorrect decisions, 
>etc, etc, there is no grounds for further discussion. You are turning 
>everything into a choice between two polar opposites, which my positions
>have never suggested.

No, I'm not.  I'm trying to understand what exactly it is that you think
baseball ought to be, and if it's ever been there.  Define your terms.

>>I believe I stated in my original post that the anti-trust exemption should
>>be revoked.
>	Yes, but until it is revoked, your continued inclusion of money in the
>dynamic is inappropriate.

What?  That makes no sense.

>>What exactly *is* the ideal, and has it ever existed?
>	It never exists,

Ok, so have we ever been closer to the ideal than we are now?

> but you seem to deny there is anything wrong with the 
>current state of affairs and do not hold the owners responsible for there role
>in things at all.

Why don't you tell me exactly what you think is wrong with the current
state of affairs?

>>Give me a break.  My whole point is that AL fans enjoy the game, *with the
>>DH*, just as much as NL fans.  Why, then, is the DH evil?
>	Because it was instituted to increase revenue first, not fix a problem
>with the game itself, otherwise, as I stated, the NL fans in the `60 would 
>have wanted it also.

If you have trouble with the concept of money driving the game, think of it
another way.  The owners said, "what can we do to make the game more
enjoyable for fans?", and added the DH.  The fans showed that they liked
it, so it stayed.  Why is that evil?  

>>Do you live in Tampa?
>	No, but I have a set of grandparents there and I visit often and I
>cannot see how if Miami can play outdoors, where the average rainfall is
>greater than that in Tampa, the Tampa-Bay Giants cannot play outdoors.

The think that's missing in all your discussion is the notion of who makes
the decision.  Do you believe that the commissioner should have the power
to declare that no, St. Petersburg's climate is perfectly okay for
baseball, and they don't need a dome?  I don't.  I think the people of St.
Petersburg should get to decide.  They're the ones who will attend the
games there, and who footed the bill for the dome.

>	The reason they lowered the mound was not because of attendence but due
>to the fact that batting averages in both leagues were way down due to the 
>wide spread use of the slider. 

Why do you think they cared that batting averages were down? 

>given time the batters would have adjusted and offense would have gone back up.The DH, on the other hand, was introduced to increase revenue, not offenses 
>specifically.

Why do you think they thought the DH would increase revenues?

>	Yes, the DH was a success. No, not all AL fans like the DH. 

The majority do.  There is *nothing* that *all* fans like or dislike.

>Again, as
>I have shown, your repeated invoking of capitalism and free market theory is
>invalid.

Shown where?

 The most you can do is affirm as a first principal that for you, if 
>a lot of people like something and spend money on it,  than it automatically 
>has value and merit and corresponds to tradition.

That has nothing to do with anything I've said.  I've not said anything
about tradition, other than to try and get you to define exactly what it
is.  

> (You can never prove a first
>principal by its very nature, so please do not try and argue in this space
>about it. Instead read some introductory books on logic or epistemology). 

>In this case, we might as well all start watching stock car racing as 
>more money is spent on stock car racing and more people attend stock car 
>racing than any other sport in this country.

How do you get that out of anything I've said?  

> And by your reasoning, stock
>car racing has more integrity as an athletic contest than any other athletic
>endeavor.

Please define "integrity" for us. 

Sherri Nichols
snichols@adobe.com