Although I hate interleague play, this weekend's Cubs-Red Sox series - the first time the teams have met since the 1918 World Series - is an opportunity to plug a great baseball book. I'm not exactly impartial - Allan wrote it and I edited and publicized it. But seriously, everyone who reads it, loves it.
Babe Ruth and the 1918 Red Sox is a fascinating look at a little-known time in baseball, when there were eight teams in each league, a western road trip took you to St. Louis, Babe Ruth was a pitcher and the Red Sox were a dynasty. If you like Ruth, after reading this book, you'll fall in love with him. Part country bumpkin, part hell-raiser, part soft-hearted hero to children - and in many ways a child himself - in 1918 Ruth made the historic transition from pitcher to slugger that would change the game forever.
That's from some promo copy I wrote. Not bad.
If you are into baseball history, I promise you will not be disappointed.
26 comments:
Laura, you hate interleague play? Traditionalist though I am, I was happy to see it go. It always frustrated me that, aside from the off chance of two particular teams winding up in the World Series, there were hundreds of players you'd never get to see line up against each other. That never made sense to me. The whole NL/AL thing struck me as an artificial holdover from a time when they were in real competition, not united in a US-government-sanctioned monopoly. Even more frustrating was the fact that since there were only two teams in Canada -- the Jays and the Expos -- and they were in opposite leagues, there was no way in the regular seasons for the teams from these two cities to meet and clash, as naturally they would. Now at last there's interleague play... just in time for the death of the Expos. :(
I didn't know I'd hate interleague play until it started. After one season, I understood and agreed with all the arguments against it. For me, there are three reasons:
1. The biggest problem for me is that with the unbalanced schedule (accent on divisional play) plus interleague, there are whole divisions that we hardly ever see.
The AL East plays the AL Central twice - three games at home, three games away - and that's it. The White Sox and the Indians (eg), as AL rivals, are more important to me than, say, the Phillies, and I never get to see them.
2. It's unfair to contending teams. Two teams battling in the standings should play the same teams the same numbers of time. Interleague changes that. (That's why it's played early in the season, to not completely fuck up penant races.) One team may play (eg) the Devil Rays in interleague while its rival has to contend with the first-place White Sox.
3. It has destroyed, or at least diminished, the mystique of the World Series. When two teams meet in the World Series, they should never have met before, unless they've played each other in another World Series. There should be practically no stats to match-ups - just conjecture and imagination. That's what makes the WS what it is, and why having two leagues is not anachronistic.
Interleague play makes the AL/NL division anachronistic. Without it, having two leagues serves a very real purpose.
I know there is a range of opinions on this. However, I don't know how you can say "The whole NL/AL thing struck me as an artificial holdover from a time when they were in real competition" and call yourself a traditionalist.
"not united in a US-government-sanctioned monopoly"
And by the way, there has always been a body that governed both leagues, ever since the AL was born. It was once called The National Commission, before it was changed to the Commissioner, then the Office of the Commissioner.
The biggest difference now is that players move between the leagues, which used to be unheard of. But both AL and NL have always been part of a larger entity.
I don't know how you can say "The whole NL/AL thing struck me as an artificial holdover from a time when they were in real competition" and call yourself a traditionalist.
Obviously I don't make a fetish of it. :) But I'll keep the Queen on the money, the Union Jack on Ontario's flag, things like that. I've had to budge on a few things... the Mounties' uniforms, the Lord's Prayer in morning assemblies, Christmas pagents... and interleague play. While I really do have to nod to your point about the mystique of the World Series -- there's definitetly something to that point -- I think we're approaching it from different aspects. I'm willing to accept the World Series as simply the annual final reckoning rather than an epochal meeting if it means more varied and potentially interesting match-ups. The segregation into leagues seems arbitrary to me if it's so ironclad that the Yankees and the Mets never play (or yes, okay... ALMOST never). I'm glad that things like that are in cards now. I appreciate your point of view, I just don't share it. Some of the greatest hockey ever played involved the grudge match between the Leafs and the Canadiens. There could have great Toronto-Montreal baseball like that, but alas...
I agree with you. Interleague sucks.
AL has the DH rule, right? All of a sudden, for a number of three or four game sets, the guy has to sit (because how many DHs are really good positional players? A few, but most are only in the bigs due to slugging power, not defensive ability). As for the NL teams, they have to make sure they have to pull a guy off the bench to bat DH. In many cases this means they need an extra bench guy, so down to the minors goes a pitcher might would normally be in the bigs. That's not fair to him - sent down due to scheduling? WTF is that about?
On topic with pitchers: Now, I love NL baseball (especially the Cubs, though I have a thing for the Reds also). Don't get me wrong. I like seeing pitchers who can hit, and I love the strategy involved (pinch hit, pinch run, double switch, does the pitcher stay in and bunt, or does he swing, all of it). But there is one great inequality. AL PITCHERS NEVER TAKE AN AT-BAT!!! These guys don't hit! DH rule! And no, that does not balance with NL players having to DH. It is much more of a hindrance to the AL team to have a pitcher bat than it is to some NL team whose guy coming off the bench to DH plays semi-regularly. Complete and utter BS for the AL fan (Jays, naturally, and the White Sox) in me.
That brings up the 4th reason to hate interleague play: different rules. Until the DH is abolished, it's kind of insane to suddenly have different rules in the middle of the season.
For that matter, it's even crazier to play with one set of rules all year, then ask the two league-champion teams to suddenly play under different rules in the most important games all year (WS). Baseball has got to do something about this. Of course they either never will, or when they do, it will be the exact wrong thing.
Being from Chicago, I must notify you all that the Cubs will slaughter the red sox .
But baseball's not hockey. The Yankees and Mets should never play each other unless it's for all the marbles. (Just like the Dodgers-Yankees and Giants-Yankees rivalries before them. It didn't make those rivalries any less intense.
Hey, I'm in NYC for godsakes and we are SO sick of the stupid subway series. Doing it every year has taken all the excitement out of it.
Lots of people feel interleague is really just the Yankee Road Show. All the other teams want the big attendance draw that the Yankees (and to a lesser extent, the Red Sox) bring.
Being from Chicago, I must notify you all that the Cubs will slaughter the red sox.
That would be something! We shall see. It'll be a great series.
Wrigley and Fenway - the two greatest ballparks in the country. As for Chicago, I'll take the White Sox, my "other" AL team.
I have to admit, I never liked the DH rule. Excusing the pitchers from batting seemed like promoting them to royalty or something. You have your spot on the field, you have your turn at the plate. That just seems fair. I think the DH rule should be dropped too.
But baseball's not hockey.
No need to apologize. We understand. ;)
Yeesh. I like hockey. I love baseball. I wouldn't care if three people in the world watched baseball, it would still be the one true sport of my heart. That's all that matters to me.
Ya know, I got to pee next to a person who knew Vin Scully.
Regardless of how you feel about the Dodgers, you gotta love Vin Scully.
I like the Dodgers (they're my favorite NL team) - mostly because I love Dodger Stadium and especially Vin Scully. There's not another like him in the world.
Many nights when our AL East games are done, I flip over to a Dodgers game. I can't stay awake for much of it, but even to hear his voice for a few innings is a joy.
Do we need to start a "famous people I have peed next to" thread?
ALPF goes first!!
In exact order...
Glen Campbell (1988), Don Cherry (1989) I used to be his cue-card holder for Grapevine, Jim Carrey (1989), Guy Lafleur (1990-91?) Hulk Hogan (1991), Jack Layton (2004), Paul Martin (2005)
Wow. As impressive a list of urinary neighbors you'll find anywhere.
I've seen many famous people in NYC, but being female, I don't know if I've peed beside any of them.
What about a "famous people I have peed on" thread? Oh, the stories I could tell! ...None of them would be true, of course, but I bet they'd still be amusing, and Rob could put them down to liberal bias. :)
LOL
I'm sorry if I offended anyone with that... it's just the idea occurred to me, and then as I read "Glen Campbell, Don Cherry, Jim Carrey, Hulk Hogan, Paul Martin"... it just got funnier and funnier. :)
I too peed beside Paul.
Think this is in an earlier comment somewhere - seems the subject has come up before. Urine is a popular subject - just blogged on it myself the other day!
The weird thing about peeing beside Paul was there was no security present at all. If it was Bush you wouldn't be able to get near the washroom itself; with Paul there was the standard one-urinal buffer and that was it. Guys, you all know what I mean by the buffer zone.
The cool thing was that he came in after I was already there - I appreciate a Prime Minister who shows respect for the buffer zone when choosing the appropriate urinal (yes I do notice these things; never said I wasn't weird). Put him in a whole new light in my mind right then and there.
On Topic:
For good fun, play the Urinal Game!
(requires Flash)
The weird thing about peeing beside Paul was there was no security present at all. If it was Bush you wouldn't be able to get near the washroom itself
God no. And there'd be someone there from the Secret Service collecting it. Can't let the public have access to the semi-divine essence. No doubt a horrendous security breech. :)
Boy... this came a long way from interleague play, didn't it? Is there an objective way to measure just how far a thread strays in conceptual distance?
Think this is in an earlier comment somewhere - seems the subject has come up before.
Indeed it has. ALPF was very excited about having peed beside PM PM, and you told us you had, too. The subject's reappearance caused me to say maybe we should start a special thread on it.
Urine is a popular subject - just blogged on it myself the other day!
I was very jealous of your potted plant adventure. Female New Yorkers know all the places where you can find a toilet. It's the only good thing about Starbucks and Barnes & Nobles having taken over the city.
The weird thing about peeing beside Paul was there was no security present at all.
ALPF said the same thing.
Boy... this came a long way from interleague play, didn't it?
And in fact my post wasn't even about interleague play, I was plugging my partner's book!
And speaking of which... check this out!
The weird thing about peeing beside Paul was there was no security present at all.
ALPF said the same thing.
I think that's one of the other notable differences across the border. When the President wants to get the word out, he schedules a press conference, the right people are invited, screened, sat down, lectured, and then raise their hands like any obedient class to be have their questions cherrypicked by the President. Here, the Prime Minister comes out of the House of Commons into the foyer of the Centre Block, and he's immediately surrounded, physically, by the press in what's known as a "scrum". He looks like a queen bee. Reporters shove mikes, cameras, and tape recorders in his face, and fire questions at him. The Mounties don't dive in and carve them off; it's accepted that the press will have access to politicians when they leave either house of Parliament. This is where the real rhetorical skills of the politicians shine... nothing they say in the House of Commons can be used to charge them with slander... but once they're in the foyer, those laws apply, and the rules change. They're a lot more temperate in a scrum. :)
Progressive Americans are well aware of this crucial difference. We watch Question Time on the BBC and drool with envy.
Post a Comment