|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
DH to the NL??
There are some stories in print and on the web stating that the NL may institute the DH starting in 2017.
I vote no and I think it should be done away with in the AL also. How do you guys feel? I would favor adding another player to the roster since bullpens are so deep and benches are so short. Any thoughts on that idea?
__________________
Sign up & receive my autograph price list. E mail me,richsprt@aol.com, with your e mail. Sports,entertainment,history. - Here is a link to my online store. Many items for sale. 10% disc. for 54 members. E mail me first. www.bonanza.com/booths/richsports -- "I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure."- Clarence Darrow |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The Dh starts in high school and doesn't disappear again unless you play in the NL, why the national league hasn't adopted a Dh yet perplexes me. Imo both leagues should have a Dh. If not using a Dh was beneficial then one of the NL teams should opt not to use in in the World Series.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The dh turns chess into checkers mixed with slow pitch softball.
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The AL has a distinct advantage during the WS and interleague play, using a real hitter to DH, while the NL uses some guy off the bench who probably did not bat a lot during the regular season.
__________________
Sign up & receive my autograph price list. E mail me,richsprt@aol.com, with your e mail. Sports,entertainment,history. - Here is a link to my online store. Many items for sale. 10% disc. for 54 members. E mail me first. www.bonanza.com/booths/richsports -- "I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure."- Clarence Darrow Last edited by RichardSimon; 01-22-2016 at 05:39 PM. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Tell me why it makes sense that two leagues that play the same game don't play the same game.
Tell me why it makes sense that 90% of relief pitchers can only pitch 1 inning, creating that long bench in the bull pen. Tell me why the best relief pitcher is utilized only when he is able to add to his statistical save total. Should the ability to get three outs before giving up three runs really determine how the game is managed? Tell me why the winner of an all-star exhibition (not really a game) determines home field advantage in a World Series between two teams that aren't playing the same game. It is as if the Patriots and the Colts were playing a football game and one team was using deflated footballs. Oh wait, they did.
__________________
FRANK:BUR:KETT - RAUCOUS SPORTS CARD FORUM MEMBER AND MONSTER NUMBER FATHER. GOOD FOR THE HOBBY AND THE FORUM WITH A VAULT IN AN UNDISCLOSED LOCATION FILLED WITH NON-FUNGIBLES 274/1000 Monster Number Nearly*1000* successful B/S/T transactions completed from 2012 to 2024. Over 680 sales with satisfied Board members served. If you want fries with your order, just speak up. Thank you all. Now nearly PQ. Last edited by frankbmd; 01-22-2016 at 06:23 PM. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I hate dh and believe if you pitch you should go up to the plate and swing the bat.
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
I don't like the DH but as a fan who is not a millionaire, my opinion doesn't count. The old school baseball purist owners in the NL are dying out and the new breed will eventually vote for the DL. At some point we might get a 2nd DL for the next position where MLB is having a tough time finding defensive players who can also hit - the catcher. Laugh, but if it makes money for the players and owners it will someday happen.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+ |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Never liked the DH; never will. I vote NO.
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Me too. Love NL style of ball-- double switches, cat and mouse between managers, well executed bunts, or better yet-well executed butcher plays, and the occasional pitcher who can absolutely rake (see MadBum).
Will be sad to see pitchers hitting go away completely. |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Well, it sure would make managing a team in the late innings a lot less challenging. But boring as heLL!
While I personally don't believe in using the beanball (and never did when I pitched), the adoption of the DH in the NL would take any accountability away from pitchers. Hence, more 'scrums' in the middle of the field - which would actually lengthen the games at a time when attention is focused on shortening them. This will also lead to more antsy and unruly fans - tossing 'god-knows-what' onto the field at the players and/or umpires. Then dogs and cats would start sleeping together... I say, discussion is fine and even healthy, but don't go down this path - for the sake of the GAME itself. . .
__________________
. "A life is not important except in the impact it has on others lives" - Jackie Robinson “If you have a chance to make life better for others and fail to do so, you are wasting your time on this earth.”- Roberto Clemente Last edited by clydepepper; 01-23-2016 at 12:16 AM. |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
I could manage in the American League
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
And...... I DO NOT understand why pitchers do not work on their hitting and bunting more than they do. These are good athletes! With a little cage time and working with the hitting coach you know they could be .200 - .220 hitters!
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Yeah, I like 'baseball' too
__________________
$co++ Forre$+ |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
You figure if there was a DH in babe ruth's time he would of had some more homers......I think a DH will be in the NL eventually...though I am against it but I think im the minority on that.
still I do think for all time home run leaders I would want to know how many of the homers were as a DH...its a lot easier to hit homers late in the career as DH than at 1b or OF.. |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
When I read discussions about whether or not a DH should be in the HOF, the points that various members make will often make me change my mind. But in the purest sense of the argument, if you can put someone in the HOF because they were a great manager or a great executive or a great umpire, why not just recognize that a DH is not a 'normal' player and just put them in because they were a great DH? But today I am still against putting Edgar in, as much as I like him. Another thought about Ruth - if they had had DH's in his time, perhaps he would have eaten even more hot dogs and drank even more, thinking he could hit just as well but not have to worry about fielding. Then he wears out even quicker.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+ |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
this is an easy decision. more jobs for the mlbpa, less exposure to injuries for your 25mil/yr pitchers. win win for players and clubs, the sooner the better.
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
At $25M/year for a pitcher, I want him to pitch. Not only that, I don't want to worry about him getting lifted in the 4th inning because I need a pinch hitter. I want him pitching and giving me 6-7 innings. I'd also rather see a competent hitter in the 9-hole as opposed to some sure out flailing helplessly at 3 straight pitchers. I'm as nostalgic as the next guy but I'm not so rooted in tradition that I expect bread to still be a nickel, and I don't expect baseball to never change just to placate the purists.
|
#19
|
||||
|
||||
If the NL goes the way of the DH (sad but true) - enjoy Bartolo while you can.
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#21
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
$co++ Forre$+ |
#22
|
||||
|
||||
I heard today, no DH for the NL anytime soon
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
An AL pitcher making 25 million a year would get pulled in the 4th inning if he gave up 9 earned runs as well....I don't think you need to worry about a pinch hitter in the 4-5th inning ruining a 25 million dollar pitchers outing......the 7th or 8th yes...but not the 4th and 5th (as per your example)....it just barely ever happens and I think if the game was in the AL even without having to pull the pitcher for a hitter they would still pull him in that horrendous outing situation.
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
You're assuming the starter got shelled. It could be a 1-1 game with runners on 1st and 2nd, 2 outs. You want to squander a scoring opportunity just because you need to lift your pitcher to get a run home? It's just silly tradition that keeps baseball from making changes. It's not 1940, let the pitchers focus on pitching and the hitters on hitting. Just the way I see it.
|
#26
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I love the anticipation ahead of each of these moments in an NL game (less than 2 out, 8 hitter up with RISP and pen warming up), and sometimes a manager surprises you. I love Boch for the fact he'll often leave a guy like Bum in to hit in the late innings of close games. Every time he does that, he's showing great faith in his guys, and I think this is one of the reasons his guys are so loyal. |
#27
|
||||
|
||||
Donnie,
Where did your information come from?
__________________
Sign up & receive my autograph price list. E mail me,richsprt@aol.com, with your e mail. Sports,entertainment,history. - Here is a link to my online store. Many items for sale. 10% disc. for 54 members. E mail me first. www.bonanza.com/booths/richsports -- "I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure."- Clarence Darrow |
#28
|
||||
|
||||
I saw it on Deadspin.
http://deadspin.com/the-national-lea...ile-1755150183 |
#29
|
||||
|
||||
Fact is the National League has been around since 1876. Why oh why now? Boredom from fans? More offense? UGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! If you find the game boring don't watch it.
I find as little reason to add a DH, thus changing more rules in a league that has not had a DH ever, as I found in adding instant replay, and pitch clocks to the game. All stupid reasons from people with slow attention spans, whom largely don't care about the game and never will. Baseball seems to think that tweeks like this will draw more fans due to more offense. Truth is if you don't like baseball you don't like it. I think they need to STOP. I'm sure the new commissioner has absolutely NOTHING to do with this either......................................
__________________
429/524 Off of the monster 81% 49/76 HOF's 64% 18/20 Overlooked by Cooperstown 90% 22/39 Unique Backs 56% 80/86 Minors 93% 25/48 Southern Leaguers 52% 6/10 Billy Sullivan back run 60% 237PSA / 94 SGC / 98 RAW Excel spreadsheets only $5 T3, T201, T202, T204, T205, T206, T207, 1914 CJ, 1915 CJ, Topps 1952-1979, and more!!!! Checklists sold (20) T205 8/208 3.8% |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#31
|
||||
|
||||
Rob Manfred made a statment stating no NL DH in the foreseeable future. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
right it never happens in the 4th or 5th inning...if the 25 million dollar pitcher is pitching well...7th inning yes ....no way in heck the 4th or 5th inning..that would be brutal on the bullpen for the next game..and afterall part of getting paid 25 million is not just to win games but its to help save the bullpen with long outings |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Everyone likes to see a pitcher hit a homer. Just like they like to see a lineman score a touchdown. It makes you think you could do it too.
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#35
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
And trust me, anyone who's watched the Giants regularly over the past two years knows Bum rakes. We always knew he had power, maybe more than anyone on the roster, but it took him a few years to catch up with MLB pitching. Now that he has, he's become a legitimate threat like Zambrano, Ankiel, Hampton, Drysdale, Spahn, Ferrell before him. Very honestly, he is my favorite Giant to watch hit. He always swings from the heals (part of what's fun to watch) and does strike out at an incredible rate, but also routinely gets big run producing hits, and has 9 HRs over the past two years. He's also able to bunt when needed, and even his strikeouts are entertaining because you see how much passion he takes to the plate. I wish all NL pitchers took hitting as seriously. Would I get tired of an everyday player striking out 200+ times a year, yes... but I'll gladly take three big swinging Bum ABs every 5 days. I also have no problem seeing the game played by two sets of rules, especially since the AL DH is not going away. I think it adds to the charm of the WS, and frankly the WS needs any additional allure it can drum up since much of the novelty of "NL vs AL" disappeared in 1997 with the advent of interleague. Consistency can be a good thing, but isn't this game about its asymmetry as well? Weird ivy covered walls and Green Monsters? If it need be totally consistent, I guess we better standardize foul territory and make all fences 335' down the lines, 385' to the allies and 400' to center. Baseball has quirks and I'm fine with that. I am not opposed to change (happy to see drug testing, MLB's attempt to promote as a world game, even OK seeing home plate collisions phased out) but totally prefer keeping this as is. |
#36
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
So it seems what you're saying that the NL should change the rules of the game for no other reason than to match the AL. If that is so, why not have the AL change to match the NL and get rid of the DH? The weakness of the pitcher hitting is part of the strategy of the game. The only part of the game that is enhanced by the DH is the ability to score runs. IMHO, the people who only watch and enjoy baseball for the run scoring are missing out on much of the joy of the game. You see these types of changes in all the sports to enhance scoring as apparently, no one will watch if the teams aren't scoring runs all the time. I guess a 1-0 game is waay less entertaining then a 9-8 game.
__________________
My signed 1934 Goudey set(in progress). https://flic.kr/s/aHsjFuyogy Other interests/sets/collectibles. https://www.flickr.com/photos/96571220@N08/albums My for sale or trade photobucket album https://flic.kr/s/aHsk7c1SRL |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#38
|
||||
|
||||
Very shocked as I assume (no offence) that most of you are from the older crowd (40+). It has been the norm with this crowd for change in our beloved sport. I just for the life of me can't figure out why.
I hardly ever believe in the phrase "If it ain't broken don't fix it" but MLB WAS the case. The replay bull shit started, the pitch clock, and now this shit. All the while I feel like the MLB is trying to keep up with the NBA and NFL. Both of which, in my opinion, are extremely hard to watch or care for. Both of which I stopped following some 10 years ago easily.
__________________
429/524 Off of the monster 81% 49/76 HOF's 64% 18/20 Overlooked by Cooperstown 90% 22/39 Unique Backs 56% 80/86 Minors 93% 25/48 Southern Leaguers 52% 6/10 Billy Sullivan back run 60% 237PSA / 94 SGC / 98 RAW Excel spreadsheets only $5 T3, T201, T202, T204, T205, T206, T207, 1914 CJ, 1915 CJ, Topps 1952-1979, and more!!!! Checklists sold (20) T205 8/208 3.8% |
#39
|
||||
|
||||
No. Just....no. The designated hitter is one of the worst decisions in baseball history. Hitters should be required to field, and pitchers should be required to hit.
__________________
Building these sets: T206, 1953 Bowman Color, 1975 Topps. Great transactions with: piedmont150, Cardboard Junkie, z28jd, t206blogcom, tinkertoeverstochance, trobba, Texxxx, marcdelpercio, t206hound, zachs, tolstoi, IronHorse 2130, AndyG09, BBT206, jtschantz, lug-nut, leaflover, Abravefan11, mpemulis, btcarfagno, BlueSky, and Frankbmd. |
#40
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Basketball? I haven't watched an NBA game in 10 years, if not longer. I used to love the game, but it became more about making Sportscenter highlights, and less about fundamentals. No thank you.
__________________
Building these sets: T206, 1953 Bowman Color, 1975 Topps. Great transactions with: piedmont150, Cardboard Junkie, z28jd, t206blogcom, tinkertoeverstochance, trobba, Texxxx, marcdelpercio, t206hound, zachs, tolstoi, IronHorse 2130, AndyG09, BBT206, jtschantz, lug-nut, leaflover, Abravefan11, mpemulis, btcarfagno, BlueSky, and Frankbmd. |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
I'm just curious why this seems to be the over-riding sentiment. A lot of people obviously agree with this statement, but this is a "what", not a "why." Just curious what makes people think this is better - not simply preferential, but better - than having a DH.
|
#42
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The short answer? It's a matter of opinion, really. The long answer, however, is a tad more involved. When it comes to baseball, I am a purist. This game has been played for a very long time with essentially the same rules. Nine men on the field. Three outs in an inning. Nine innings in a game. Baseball, in its design, is beautiful. It is unique. There is no clock. The defense has the ball, and, unlike football, soccer, hockey, or basketball, where a lead can become essentially insurmountable because of the time remaining, in baseball, a team can overcome nearly any deficit if they play smart, and work together. But unlike these other sports, you cannot keep feeding the ball to one player. The greatest hitter in the game comes to the plate once every nine at bats. Then he sits down. There is no Michael Jordan taking the game winning shot, and you can't keep feeding the ball off to Earl Campbell. Every man in the lineup has to come up, and swing the bat. Every man, likewise, should take the field. Implementing the designated hitter meant one less skill that pitchers had to master. It also meant that players who could hit, but were poor defensively, could still play the game. It meant that careers were being artificially prolonged. Fundamentally, I take issue with a player who comes to the plate three or four times, takes his swings, and then sits on the bench for the remainder of the game. If he's not good enough to play defense, as well, then he shouldn't be in the Major Leagues. Some changes that have been made to the game have improved the overall enjoyment level of baseball. Whereas you used to have only one team in each league going to the post season, you now have division winners, and a select few wildcard teams, playing for the right to be world champions. The road to the World Series is infinitely more difficult. More teams have a chance to win it all, and more fans can cheer their teams on in the post season. The designated hitter change, however, was an overreaction to the pitching dominance of the late 1960s. And now, you have the American League playing one style of baseball, while the National League plays quite another. If I had my way, the DH would be eliminated, and those hitters who could not field would be putting in extra time working with the glove, or get sent packing back to the minors.
__________________
Building these sets: T206, 1953 Bowman Color, 1975 Topps. Great transactions with: piedmont150, Cardboard Junkie, z28jd, t206blogcom, tinkertoeverstochance, trobba, Texxxx, marcdelpercio, t206hound, zachs, tolstoi, IronHorse 2130, AndyG09, BBT206, jtschantz, lug-nut, leaflover, Abravefan11, mpemulis, btcarfagno, BlueSky, and Frankbmd. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
I appreciate the well thought out reply. While I respect your opinion, what I'm reading is that the long answer is really just expounding on the short answer - personal preference. And that is completely fine. It does however confirm my suspicions that most anti-DH folks are in the purist group. Again, fine to appreciate the nostalgia of the game but it doesn't lend itself to a high degree of change. It's a little like saying the GPS is terrible because folding maps worked just fine.
With the way the game has become specialized, it takes some changes to stay competitive and keep the winning edge. A purist example might be that pitchers regularly finished the games they started, or even logged 250, even 300 innings a season. With pitch counts that is becoming more and more of a rarity. The bullpen is critical, and it's gone beyond simply a dominating closer, to now having 7th inning guys, setup men, LOOGIs, etc. To say that hasn't been an improvement for the game depends on what side of the fence you're on. A fan may think, from a purist standpoint, this has diminished the quality of pitching. The teams however, feel it increases their chance of winning, and that is the paramount goal of every team. Just ask the last several World Series winners how they feel about bullpens and their importance to the game. The same can be said of the DH. I know as a Yankee fan much of my life that David Ortiz in 2004 was a killer, and whether he played the field or not he certainly was a major player in the Sox curse-ending WS run. I didn't take the time to research this, but it may even be argued that without having to focus on other aspects of the game, pitching has improved in the AL because pitchers can focus solely on their primary function. There are only so many hours in a day, and any time spent in the cage is time they are not working on grips, release points, arm angles, landing off the mound, overall philosophy, etc. Again, not sure this is a proven fact but on the surface makes sense to me that focusing on one aspect versus two or three would yield better results. I definitely agree with your point on the AL and NL playing very different games, and that's mostly my biggest problem with all of this. It's increasingly apparent too, with interleague play now integrated into the schedule every day and not just some cross-town novelty. Interesting topic. Another unique thing about baseball is the hours of debate that can be had about all of the game's subtle nuances. Thanks for your thoughtful response! |
#44
|
||||
|
||||
Derek, I think you are oversimplifying by saying those against the NL DH are "purists", "antiquated" in our thinking, and refusing any change. I think several have acknowledged what we've considered as having been good changes, just don't think this one is good.
As said, it's a personal preference. I personally love getting deep into the strategy of the game while watching (similar to watching NFL), anticipating managerial moves, etc. From this standpoint, I find AL games boring as hell in comparison to NL games. I'm a huge Giants fan who likes the A's, but I'd be much more likely to watch the Bucs play the Cards on Sunday night than I would to sit through any A's game. This has nothing to do with being unwilling to accept change, just prefer the more dynamic tactics and strategies at play in NL ball. I'm happy to agree to disagree, as long as the DH doesn't invade the NL. You clearly enjoy the game differently than those who oppose the DH. Totally fine, you have your league and we ours. |
#45
|
||||
|
||||
I may be a purist, but as I clearly indicated, I have no problem whatsoever with changing the game when it is warranted. The example you provided of purists viewing GPS as terrible because "folding maps worked just fine" is a bit specious, logically. The technological advance realized by GPS makes traveling easier, and safer, and nobody in their right mind would forego the use of a TomTom, if available, out of some misplaced affinity for maps. Baseball purists are not archaic thinkers, not by a long shot. Yes, we are mindful of the game's past, but that doesn't mean we are so set in our ways that we won't consider or embrace change. Rather, we don't want the fundamentals of the game changed unnecessarily. And we certainly would never support a rules change which affected only half of the game.
I understand the competitive advantages teams seek as a means of increasing the likelihood of winning, but that's just the thing. The example you provided of the change in pitcher utilization (starters throwing complete games in the olden days vs the specialized relievers prevalent in today's game) is not really germane to this discussion. Why? Because it wasn't a mandated change to the game that brought about this evolution. Major League Baseball did not decree that "starting pitchers must throw a maximum of x pitches per season", thereby requiring that teams keep on hand a number of specialists ready to go on a moment's notice. Baseball evolved on its own. And, that's how the game should change, if it is going to change. Occasionally, MLB makes prudent decisions. Decades ago, the requirement that batters wear helmets at the plate increased player safety, as did the eventual addition of the ear flap to the helmet. But changing the game just for the sake of making a change doesn't enhance the game at all, rather, it diminishes it. And the implementation of the designated hitter was completely superfluous. Again, the designated hitter's introduction amounted to overcompensation by the league. Tweaking the strike zone and lowering the pitcher's mound was sufficient to reign in pitching dominance. How do I know this? The mound was lowered, and the strike zone expanded after the 1968 season, when an average of 3.43 runs were scored per game in the National League. In 1969, that averaged jumped to 4.05 runs per game, and 4.52 in 1970. That's a statistically significant change achieved with pitchers still appearing in the lineup every day. In the American League, an average of 3.41 runs per game were scored in 1968. After the changes, that average jumped to 4.09 in 1969, and 4.17 in 1970. In 1972, the American League average dropped back to 3.47 (it was 3.91 in the N.L.). The DH was implemented in the American League in 1973, and scoring jumped to 4.28 runs per game, and has never been below 4.0 runs per game again. But in the N.L., which did not see the designated hitter, scoring jumped to 4.15 runs per game for the 1973 season. In 1974, the National League, with no designated hitter, averaged 4.15 runs per game, while the American League, with the DH, averaged 4.10 runs per game. Between 1968 and 1972, the National League saw an average of 3.96 runs scored per game. The American League, over the same period, saw an average of 3.80 runs per game. The N.L. realized a +0.16 runs per game differential. Scoring across the leagues was pretty close, as one would expect. In the 16 years between 1975 and 1990, the National League saw an average of 4.10 runs scored per game, while the American League, over the same sixteen year period, saw an average of 4.41 runs scored per game. While the National League realized a slight change to runs scored per game (+0.14), the American League saw a huge, and I would argue, unnatural spike in runs scored per game (+.61). The designated hitter being introduced to the game was completely unnecessary, not because purists entertain some misplaced fondness for how the game used to be, but because it amounted to the placing of a Band-Aid when there was no cut. And now, we have this ridiculous imbalance between the Leagues. Giving the National League the DH is a stupid idea. Get rid of the DH altogether, and restore competitive balance.
__________________
Building these sets: T206, 1953 Bowman Color, 1975 Topps. Great transactions with: piedmont150, Cardboard Junkie, z28jd, t206blogcom, tinkertoeverstochance, trobba, Texxxx, marcdelpercio, t206hound, zachs, tolstoi, IronHorse 2130, AndyG09, BBT206, jtschantz, lug-nut, leaflover, Abravefan11, mpemulis, btcarfagno, BlueSky, and Frankbmd. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
I think the designated hitter is fine for the AL because it changes the game for half the league. That makes watching an AL game and an NL game different. That makes things exciting. That makes inter-league games fun. That makes the World Series more fun.
But if everything was the same you lose a lot of intrigue and if baseball is looking to be more exciting, then cutting out an intriguing part of the game is the wrong direction to go in. |
#47
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
$co++ Forre$+ |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Ian and Bill, that's exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for. I just kept hearing blanket statements like "The DH sucks!" with little other explanation behind it, so it led me to believe it was simply out of rigidity that people didn't want changes made in the game. I now understand a lot better why some folks are so against the DH position, and see how some would feel it equates to the rules implemented to protect a quarterback that have essentially turned the NFL into a two-hand touch league. I think it was Maddux that said "chicks dig the longball." Points well taken and I appreciate the time put into the thoughtfulness of your responses!
|
#49
|
||||
|
||||
Haha, possibly the greatest sports commercial ever. Maddux smacking Glavine in the abs over and over with a bat, "step into it Alice!".
Yes, agreed, good banter back and forth on the topic and appreciate all points of view. I agree with an idea someone else mentioned, baseball is great in that there's enough fan passion (and attention to detail) you can debate something like this forever. |
#50
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Building these sets: T206, 1953 Bowman Color, 1975 Topps. Great transactions with: piedmont150, Cardboard Junkie, z28jd, t206blogcom, tinkertoeverstochance, trobba, Texxxx, marcdelpercio, t206hound, zachs, tolstoi, IronHorse 2130, AndyG09, BBT206, jtschantz, lug-nut, leaflover, Abravefan11, mpemulis, btcarfagno, BlueSky, and Frankbmd. |
|
|