From: snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols)
Subject: Re: Baseball and Billions
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:34:10 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.165903.22739@cis.ohio-state.edu> miked@pterodactyl.cis.ohio-state.edu (Michael Davey) writes:
>to try and make money. I`m just arguing that The game itself as an abstract
>idea is not a business.

That may be.  However, major league baseball is, and always has been, a
business.  

>the bottom line in mind, however. Lots of things can be done to increase
>attendence without adding a DH, for example. This implies there is something
>wrong with the game itself. Which there is not. If you start making changes
>based on how much money you can generate, the integrity of the game is 
>compromised, no matter how you slice it.

I disagree strongly.  The integrity of the game is intact as long as the
goal of teams is to win.  

Was the integrity of the game compromised when they lowered the pitcher's
mound?  Sometimes, there *is* something wrong with the game itself, and it
has to be fixed; else people find it less interesting.

>>Let me ask you a question: do you think baseball owners are worse now than
>>they were in the past?  Why?  
>
>	This question is irrelevant.

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?

>owners now, in my oppinion, make stupid decisions. Everything I have read
>regarding the salary structure, free agency, etc... fingers the owners as 
>the most responsible party for the current economic problems affecting the 
>game.

What exactly are those problems, and are they different than problems that
owners faced in the past?

>allows the owners the power to make the bone-headed decisions they make. The
>general structure of your arguments indicates what you really want is a 
>competive open market where the exchange of commodities can occur and those
>organizations that are less competitive will suffer. In such a market, your
>focus on the bottom line as the best measure for the validity of a particular
>decision affecting the game might be warranted. Without a truly open exchange,
>however, i.e. no anti-trust exemption, your argument is invalid as no free
>and equal interaction between player, owners, and fans is occuring.

I believe I stated in my original post that the anti-trust exemption should
be revoked.

>	I guess if you are satisfied with the status quo no matter how
>from the ideal it is, then your correct.

What exactly *is* the ideal, and has it ever existed?

>>What a concept: try to give the fans something they enjoy!
> 	Give me a break. NL fans enjoy the game just as much as AL fans.

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?

>>Why is your opinion on that matter
>	At this point I would not argue to lose the DH in the AL if the fans
>there like it so much. A dome in an area where the climate is inhospitable
>is a prudent decision. A dome in a beautiful climate (like Tampa) is
>stupid.

Do you live in Tampa?

>The point is that the DH was introduced because the owners in the AL saw that
>atttendence was down and wanted to generate interest by fixing something that
>was not broken. Are you going to seriously argue that in the late sixties
>all the people in AL cities happened to find the game boring while all 
>the fans in the NL cities did not?

No, as a matter of fact, all the people in all cities found the game
boring in the late sixties.  Offense was way down, and so was attendance.
That's why *both* leagues took measures to increase offense.  Then, in the
seventies, with the AL still trailing in attendance versus the NL, the AL
took further measures.

 Yeah right. Comparing the DH to the shot
>clock in the NBA is another inappropriate counterexample. Games in the NBA
>were boring for everybody because a team could sit on the ball and wind the 
>clock down, contrary to the spirit of the game as everyone agreed. It did
>not make sense to allow delaying tactics so they changed the rules. 

>Again,
>the DH was originally introduced by unimaginative owners to affect the bottom
>line, not because of the universally perceived flaw in the rules of the game,
>otherwise, the NL fans would have clamored for the DH in their league as well.

It may not have been universally percieved, and indeed may still not be
universally perceived, but do you deny that the DH has been a success?
That fans of the AL *do* like it, and would regard the abolition of the DH
as a serious mistake?  I really don't understand why you think that
something which people clearly *like* and are willing to pay money for,
shows such a lack of respect to the traditions of "The Game"?  Who decides
what the proper respect of the traditions of "The Game" are, anyway?  I
claim that the fans decide this, with their wallets.

Sherri Nichols
snichols@adobe.com