Monday, December 15, 2008
Perhaps the Bulls would be good if they played in an octagon
by Anonymous at 12:58 PM
Have you ever stopped and wondered why every MLB field has different dimensions? Don't answer that; it was rhetorical. Of course you've never stopped and wondered that. Only I stop and wonder silly things like that. But hear me out for a second.
Just a couple of examples: the right field foul pole at Fenway Park is 302 feet from home plate. On a good day, I could reach back and throw a baseball that far (probably not). At Petco Field, the right field pole is 322 feet away from home plate. Obviously, left handed pull hitters have a much better advantage playing at Fenway than they would by playing at Petco. With a little research, I could probably come up with a much better example than that one where the two fields I'm comparing have much different dimensions. But my point is this - every park is different. Some favor hitters, some favor pitchers, some favor neither.
Now imagine if the NFL allowed this. For instance, we all know that the Ravens have always been a better defensive team than offensive. So to exploit this, what if they decided to make their field 150 yards instead of 100? Opposing offenses would have further to go to score, which would give their defense an even bigger advantage than they already had coming in.
That'd be silly, right? So why does MLB allow it?
Okay, I'm shutting it now.
I feel obligated to respond on two points.
One, left handed pull hitters are at a distinct disadvantage at Fenway. The RF pole is indeed 302 feet, but the wall moves back drastically, to about 360 feet from home plate about 20 feet from the line. Unless a hitter can consistently drive it down the line, it's quite difficult to be an effective left handed home run hitter at Fenway. A better comparison to PETCO would be Yankee Stadium of the 1920s, which featured the "short porch" in right field (295 to the pole, and about 325 to right center).
Two, it's not a fair comparison to put baseball's rules up against football or basketball. The object of football and basketball is to advance a ball to a goal, where in baseball, the object is to advance a player to the goal. In that comparison, the distance is absolutely standarized from park to park.
Your first point I addressed when I said I'm sure with research, I could come up with a better example.
As for your second point, the object of baseball is to advance a player to a goal, that is correct. But how do you do it? By hitting a ball within a non-standardized playing field. So in my opinion, my point stands as valid.
This is all "mute" anyway since I really don't care all that much and part of baseball's charm is places like Fenway where the walls are different distances and heights. I was just posting nonsense that wasn't to be taken seriously.
I think your blog website needs an introduction that outlines the rules: you choose to ramble on about things that the normal person couldn't give a shit about, and then people comment about how they hadn't thought about that before or that you're an idiot.
Then we wouldn't have joke-ruiner Michael trying to make sense out of everything. Michael - I am glad you're feeling better, but c'mon!
Or I could say "this blog does not represent the opinions of Brian, even though it's his blog and he's the person writing on it. His lack of commitment to his own ideas and opinions allows him to use the crutch of not really caring just in case there's someone out there who disagrees with him. It's easier than actually forming an opinion and backing it up after being called out on his bullshit."
I like that disclaimer much more.
I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to sign up for your newsletter.
yes, I would like to sign up for your newsletter as well. It would be three lines long and mailed out every three weeks or so, but only if you felt like it. :)