Add new comment

Part 1

.

=== DH ===

An argument floated around the 'net this week, pointing out that if you reject the DH on moral grounds :- ) you've got to reject relief pitchers too.  Brilliant!  :guinness:

(We might add, how about "one-dimensional" pitchers generally -- they only help in one half of the inning, as is true with the DH -- but let's not and say we did.)

While we're on the topic of subjective factors, like hatred of the DH, I personally had guessed that it was going to count for a whale of a lot, that Edgar:

1. Played in one, blue, uniform his entire career including minors, and
2. Is such a sugar-sweet guy, and
3. Was such an oasis of non-covetousness in a greed-crazed era, and
4. Personally saved baseball from the soul-burning 1994 strike (the 1995 ALDS re-booted the fan network's love for the game), and
5. Personally saved the Mariners from Tampa Bay (without Refuse to Lose, Safeco isn't built) ... 

... Would count for a whale of a lot with writers. 

However, their negativity about the DH overwhelmed all that other stuff. 

Among the subjective factors on Edgar, most are very positive.  With this buffet selection of emotional Edgar topics to discuss, national writers have made the sour choice and have grimly focused on what gripes them.

Hey, if you're going to keep Dick Allen and Barry Bonds and Pete Rose (when it comes down to it) out because they're jerks, then you've got to factor it in when a ballplayer is Nature's Perfect Ambassador.  You don't get to count personality only when you're in a bad mood.

Edgar stands for everything that's right about baseball.  It is not a Hall of the Best.  It is a Hall of Fame.  The street outside Safeco is named for Edgar, not Randy Johnson. 

Edgar's more "famous" in Seattle than the Big Unit -- he is more "widely honored and acclaimed."  Acclaiming the Edgar Martinezes of baseball is partly what the HOF is for.

.

=== DH's Outside the Hall ===

Lonnie asked me, in the 10 Q's deal at Mariner Central:

Q10 - Do you think the DH position is good or bad for baseball?

In the 1950's, offensive linemen kicked field goals.  As the sport progresses, that starts to get kind of silly.

Watching Tim Lincecum try to hit Roy Halladay is like asking Walter Jones to kick a field goal.  I don't value yesteryear that much.  I'm an old guy, but don't have a lot of desire to argue that everything was better in the 1960's.

James wrote that rules have to flex or pro sports break.  There have been 9,000 rules changes in the NBA, precisely to keep the sport from "breaking," becoming boring, as the players and fans change. 

Baseball is absolutely unique in its desire to represent -- as much as possible -- that it had everything "correct" in 1906.  Baseball changes things only when it has a gun to its head.  That's unhealthy.

.....

I think I read 23 articles this week that read, "I didn't vote for Don Mattingly.  So I'm not voting for Edgar."  However, you and your amigos did vote for 153 other batters who accomplished less than Edgar did.  

You might consider the +153 players as well as the -4, now that you're an objective "journalist" as opposed to just a sportswriter.

....

In my view, the condescension against "specialized" players is traditionalism in its worst sense.  It is nostalgia squaring off against normal and healthy progress. It is asking others to validate our childhoods, even when it forces others bear a sacrifice that we do not share in.

A lot of the national writers are out there arguing furiously, "Careful, boys, it's a slippery slope and the next thing you know, we'll have five of those slimy DH's in!" -- has been breathtaking.  A guy 50 lbs. overweight, with a hot dog in his hand, complaining that an MLB batting champion isn't a real athlete. 

Edgar was a great athlete, boys.

.....

It was a privilege Gar,

Dr D