|
|
Post by utahyank on Jun 14, 2019 10:29:02 GMT -5
I am in my native Nebraska for the College World Series....and attended the first MLB game in the state last night between Kansas City and Detroit....I was with a small group and we had a live feed of the network broadcast...NBC had George Brett on as a guest, and he had some significant comments on the game he sees played today. I thought I would share because the Yankee game was on at the same time, so I doubt any of you heard his comments...
He hates the high strikeout rate...the beauty of baseball is the action when the ball is put into play...there are too many interludes when the ball is not put into play...He thinks it will affect the allure of the game.
He was very critical of hitters who would not take advantage of shifts....asked if he thought teams would have shifted on him if he were playing today, he said something like "they wouldn't dare...I would hit about .480 against a shift that left only one infielder on the left side, and I'm not kidding about that...I set up off the plate, and I could hit any pitch in the strike zone to the left side"...…….asked if shifts should be banned he said "No, of course not...if a 3rd baseman could not cheat in, Rod Carew would have had 4 bunt hits every game".....
What do some of the older guys think of this era of a game that continues to evolve? The long ball is exciting, especially when a Yankee hits it, but for the pleasure of watching, I do enjoy more the action when a ball is in play...
|
|
|
|
Post by inger on Jun 14, 2019 12:32:27 GMT -5
I’m pretty much of the same mindset as Brett...
|
|
|
|
Post by kaybli on Jun 14, 2019 13:06:08 GMT -5
Good to see ya utah!
I don't mind the high strikeouts as much because that's the effect of swinging for the fences, and I love the long ball. I agree that seeing the shifts are infuriating when the batter refuses to change his approach at all. I wish more batters would bunt or go the other way against the shift.
I am glad you're having a good time in Nebraska!
|
|
|
|
Post by pippsheadache on Jun 14, 2019 14:07:04 GMT -5
Hi Utah, and welcome back on here. This is an interesting topic. I love baseball in every manifestation I have seen since the 1950s, but I think for the most part I concur with Brett.
The era he played most of his career, the 70s and 80s, was probably the most balanced I have seen. There were plenty of long ball hitters, but also enough guys hitting for average and stealing bases -- more balls in play, more overall action -- but at the same time starting pitchers were far more important than they are today, with 20-game winners and the nearly forgotten concept of pitching duels. Seaver versus Carlton, Palmer versus Ryan, Hunter versus Perry, Guidry versus Morris, whatever. None of the constant pitching changes of largely anonymous and soon forgotten one-inning pitchers.
The game of the 50s, although I loved it, was dependent on a lot of slow sluggers with not much in the way of speed and with less emphasis on defense. The game of the 60s got way out of whack with an expanded strike zone and no mound height regulations so that it was far too dominated by pitchers.
The steroid era through today has cheapened the home run, minimized starting pitchers, and celebrates the "three true outcomes" concept. Home runs and strikeouts are a lot more exciting when they aren't so commonplace.
Hey, it's still baseball, it's still great. But it is the most unbalanced it has been since the pitching-dominated game of the mid to late 60s.
|
|
|
|
Post by utahyank on Jun 14, 2019 15:46:53 GMT -5
Hi Utah, and welcome back on here. This is an interesting topic. I love baseball in every manifestation I have seen since the 1950s, but I think for the most part I concur with Brett. The era he played most of his career, the 70s and 80s, was probably the most balanced I have seen. There were plenty of long ball hitters, but also enough guys hitting for average and stealing bases -- more balls in play, more overall action -- but at the same time starting pitchers were far more important than they are today, with 20-game winners and the nearly forgotten concept of pitching duels. Seaver versus Carlton, Palmer versus Ryan, Hunter versus Perry, Guidry versus Morris, whatever. None of the constant pitching changes of largely anonymous and soon forgotten one-inning pitchers. The game of the 50s, although I loved it, was dependent on a lot of slow sluggers with not much in the way of speed and with less emphasis on defense. The game of the 60s got way out of whack with an expanded strike zone and no mound height regulations so that it was far too dominated by pitchers. The steroid era through today has cheapened the home run, minimized starting pitchers, and celebrates the "three true outcomes" concept. Home runs and strikeouts are a lot more exciting when they aren't so commonplace. Hey, it's still baseball, it's still great. But it is the most unbalanced it has been since the pitching-dominated game of the mid to late 60s.a good, thoughtful reply....I agree, with the caveat that the 50's was beginning to produce more speedy, athletic players....the late 30's and 40's had some real plodders...I am thinking of guys like Foxx, Rudy York, and the poster child for that era, Sid Gordon... In my memory it was started by Robinson, of course, but it first became significant in 1951 when the White Sox and Senators both became better by getting players from the islands....Minoso, Jim Rivera, Carrasquel made quite a difference on both sides of the ball, along with the development of Nelson Fox and some pitching....Billy Pierce comes to mind.. I like the steroid era baseball but there were still hitters that brought an offensive balance to the game by doing what Brett would have done if they had shifted on him...………….yes, the offensive game is unbalanced right now....I believe there are many talented hitters who are being shunted aside in their early development because they do not fit the present paradigm......I hope some team, perhaps an Oakland or someone similar, might build a smaller-ball team from some of those cast-bys, and coupled with good defense and especially the pitching portion of defense bring some balance back to the offensive part of the game... |
|
|
|
Post by utahyank on Jun 14, 2019 15:54:38 GMT -5
Good to see ya utah!
I don't mind the high strikeouts as much because that's the effect of swinging for the fences, and I love the long ball. I agree that seeing the shifts are infuriating when the batter refuses to change his approach at all. I wish more batters would bunt or go the other way against the shift.
I am glad you're having a good time in Nebraska!
hey, kay...……..it's always good to be in Nebraska....I always catch up on my Runza intake while I'm here....lol.... The CWS is a real spectacle, if you like college sports....lots of interesting teams and their fans...getting to see the future stars before they become generally known....lots and lots of games....if wouldn't disappoint any baseball fans for pageantry and fun... |
|
|
|
Post by kaybli on Jun 14, 2019 16:01:22 GMT -5
Good to see ya utah!
I don't mind the high strikeouts as much because that's the effect of swinging for the fences, and I love the long ball. I agree that seeing the shifts are infuriating when the batter refuses to change his approach at all. I wish more batters would bunt or go the other way against the shift.
I am glad you're having a good time in Nebraska!
hey, kay...……..it's always good to be in Nebraska....I always catch up on my Runza intake while I'm here....lol.... The CWS is a real spectacle, if you like college sports....lots of interesting teams and their fans...getting to see the future stars before they become generally known....lots and lots of games....if wouldn't disappoint any baseball fans for pageantry and fun... I had to look up Runza. Didn't even know what that is! Looks tasty though. You should do some scouting for the Yankees while you're there! You can find the next Aaron Judge!  |
|
|
|
Post by utahyank on Jun 14, 2019 16:11:01 GMT -5
yeah....Runza's are good, but one of those sandwichs that are great for the first one...pretty good the second day you have one, and blah on the 3rd...…..at least with me...then 6 months later I want a Runza in the worst way...it's a regional thing....Czech heritage I think....that and a ranch dressing that goes on everything....it has a womans name....Dorothy Lane or something like that....
edit....I had to look it up...it is Dorothy Lynch, and yes she was a real person who developed a better ranch dressing......
|
|
|
|
Post by kaybli on Jun 14, 2019 16:12:57 GMT -5
yeah....Runza's are good, but one of those sandwichs that are great for the first one...pretty good the second day you have one, and blah on the 3rd...…..at least with me...then 6 months later I want a Runza in the worst way...it's a regional thing....Czech heritage I think....that and a ranch dressing that goes on everything....it has a womans name....Dorothy Lane or something like that.... Hey, I'm supposed to be on a diet. Don't make me hungry or I'll go order a sandwich on GrubHub/Door Dash or something. I envy you and your lean build. |
|
|
|
Post by pippsheadache on Jun 14, 2019 16:13:20 GMT -5
Utah, great to see those old names like Rivera and Carrasquel and Minoso and Fox. Then in the mid-50s came Looey Aparicio, who dominated the stolen base crown for a decade. A lot of these guys seemed to be around where Al Lopez was. A great manager and as I am sure you know the only non-Yankee manager to win an AL pennant between 1949 and 1964. Once with Cleveland in 1954 and once with Chicago in 1959.
Some of the big slow sluggers I think of from the 50s are Ted Kluszewski, Joe Adcock, Gus Zernial, Wally Post, Steve Bilko, Roy Sievers, Del Ennis, Bob Cerv, Luke Easter, Rocky Colavito. Most of those guys were good players actually, but not what you would call five tool.
Sure, even in the 50s there were fast guys. In addition to those you named, Richie Ashburn, Willie Mays and nobody then or now faster than Mickey Mantle.
|
|
|
|
Post by kaybli on Jun 14, 2019 16:14:30 GMT -5
Utah, great to see those old names like Rivera and Carrasquel and Minoso and Fox. Then in the mid-50s came Looey Aparicio, who dominated the stolen base crown for a decade. A lot of these guys seemed to be around where Al Lopez was. A great manager and as I am sure you know the only non-Yankee manager to win an AL pennant between 1949 and 1964. Once with Cleveland in 1954 and once with Chicago in 1959. Some of the big slow sluggers I think of from the 50s are Ted Kluszewski, Joe Adcock, Gus Zernial, Wally Post, Steve Bilko, Roy Sievers, Del Ennis, Bob Cerv, Luke Easter, Rocky Colavito. Most of those guys were good players actually, but not what you would call five tool. Sure, even in the 50s there were fast guys. In addition to those you named, Richie Ashburn, Willie Mays and nobody then or now faster than Mickey Mantle. You have a great memory, pipps. I can barely remember what I ate for lunch yesterday. |
|
|
|
Post by pippsheadache on Jun 14, 2019 16:18:06 GMT -5
Utah, great to see those old names like Rivera and Carrasquel and Minoso and Fox. Then in the mid-50s came Looey Aparicio, who dominated the stolen base crown for a decade. A lot of these guys seemed to be around where Al Lopez was. A great manager and as I am sure you know the only non-Yankee manager to win an AL pennant between 1949 and 1964. Once with Cleveland in 1954 and once with Chicago in 1959. Some of the big slow sluggers I think of from the 50s are Ted Kluszewski, Joe Adcock, Gus Zernial, Wally Post, Steve Bilko, Roy Sievers, Del Ennis, Bob Cerv, Luke Easter, Rocky Colavito. Most of those guys were good players actually, but not what you would call five tool. Sure, even in the 50s there were fast guys. In addition to those you named, Richie Ashburn, Willie Mays and nobody then or now faster than Mickey Mantle. You have a great memory, pipps. I can barely remember what I ate for lunch yesterday. Kaybli, I can't remember what I had for lunch today either. But without much difficulty I could rattle off almost the entire roster of the 1957 Milwaukee Braves. Limited space in my noggin, most of it occupied by old baseball players. |
|
|
|
Post by utahyank on Jun 14, 2019 16:36:40 GMT -5
Utah, great to see those old names like Rivera and Carrasquel and Minoso and Fox. Then in the mid-50s came Looey Aparicio, who dominated the stolen base crown for a decade. A lot of these guys seemed to be around where Al Lopez was. A great manager and as I am sure you know the only non-Yankee manager to win an AL pennant between 1949 and 1964. Once with Cleveland in 1954 and once with Chicago in 1959. Some of the big slow sluggers I think of from the 50s are Ted Kluszewski, Joe Adcock, Gus Zernial, Wally Post, Steve Bilko, Roy Sievers, Del Ennis, Bob Cerv, Luke Easter, Rocky Colavito. Most of those guys were good players actually, but not what you would call five tool. Sure, even in the 50s there were fast guys. In addition to those you named, Richie Ashburn, Willie Mays and nobody then or now faster than Mickey Mantle. you are right of course that there were many plodders in the 50's, I just saw it as a transition period as more athletic guys had a chance...Mays and Mantle...two fantastically gifted athletes....Billy Bruton could fly....I remember some rob jobs he pulled in CF with the Braves in 57 and 58 in the WS... Mantle was the fastest of course of the Yankees...but Rizzuto was quick....otherwise not much speed in the 50's...Woodling had decent speed....Bauer faster then one might think...Tresh pretty good....Bobby Brown was decent too.... Do you remember a relief pitcher named John Wyatt with the KC Athletics?......I was assigned to a struggling division in KC in 1964, I think, and got acquainted with Wyatt....had some barbecue with him a time or two....John was a vigorous eater, and I picked up the tab...lol......one of his favorite things was taking some money from a young white kid in a bet on a footrace....John was heavy, and looked out of shape, but he could really run...for a short distance anyway....he would draw a line from second base and they would race the 90 feet to the first base line....do you remember Nelson Matthews?....he could run well, and John took his money...…. |
|
|
|
Post by noetsi on Jun 14, 2019 17:03:28 GMT -5
The shift is the product of focusing on players who 1) can't bunt and 2) are focused on hitting home runs. They are one dimensional players. If players bunted to the opposite side of the shift teams would stop using the shift (in my mind I remember Jason Giambi bunting down the third base line against the shift and reaching first with no trouble).
But players are not interested in getting on base, they are interested in hitting home runs. As long as that attitude continues the shift will work. If it stops it will end.
|
|
|
|
Post by inger on Jun 14, 2019 18:35:34 GMT -5
If it stops it will end is one of the most profound statements I have ever read... At least not said by Yogi Berra or Casey Stengel... (:
|
|
