It just so happens the past really was better

There was The Strike. There's inter-league play. Don't forget wild-card teams. Ugh! What else is there not to like for the baseball purist? Don't worry, I'll think of something.

Bryce Martin
10/18/2001

Call me a baseball purist, a legalist, or a similar word of your choosing.

I won't be offended. No apologies will be forthcoming. None are needed. And don't expect to hear any through-the-hoops bits from me about the past being better. The past is just that, the past.

That does not mean I have to like all that is current regarding Major League Baseball. The needless gimmicks make my stomach churn with disgust. Inter-league play is heresy. Wild-card teams are bl-ooo-ey.

But that is the company line for purists, you say. Give me more, you say. Bear with me, I aim to please.

Not that long ago (or was it?), the American League and the National League had eight teams each. The two teams from each league with the best records met in the World Series. It was quite simple then, much like the game itself.

It was not a perfect system. There were times when a team had built a large enough lead near the end that they captured the pennant, but, due to injuries and declining production, another team had peaked late and was probably the better of the two at that point. Tough luck. Winners deserve their due. It was singular, clear-cut, and offered no distractions. It was two teams going for all the marbles. Take your pick.

Unfortunately, that method could not work today. With so many more teams involved, a playoff system seems only fair. The idea of having wild card teams thrown in dilutes the concept. It is about money, more of it, and not about creating more "fan interest," as some would like us to believe. Actually, few fans should be interested. The playoffs, in general, encourage an outcrop of problems. For example, I can't help but flinch when I hear certain snatch pieces delivered from national sports radio and television commentators. Ditto from the print media. Snippets such as those having to do with Derek Jeter's string of getting on base in 19 consecutive postseason games. The spoon-fed drama of his dancing on the precipice in challenging Lou Gehrig's total in postseason games is asinine. Gehrig only played in World Series contests, strung out over long intervals. A player on a hot streak can carry it through in as many as 17 games in the playoffs.

How about this one? "Jim Thome has 17 homers in postseason play, trailing only Reggie Jackson and Mickey Mantle, who both hit 18." So what? Mantle's efforts all came in World Series games, in 230 at bats.

It won't be all that long until someone has hit 100 homers in the new and improved, ever-expanding version of postseason play. Is that a fair or meaningful comparison? As for Jackson, he had 10 World Series home runs and the other eight were spread between divisional and league championship playoff series. All told, he hit his 18 in 281 at bats.

Furthermore, with the setup being the way it is now, it makes absolutely no sense to compare players of the past who contributed statistics only in World Series games, when playoffs did not exist, to those of today. I know what postseason means. My complaint has nothing to do with applying asterisks to allow for distinctions. It's that I don't understand the thinking behind what I hear and read. How could anyone lump it all together like it really means anything? There's nothing wrong with stating the facts as they are. The really irksome facet is how this apples/oranges drivel is dispensed so casually from people you expect to have some insight.

I have a respectful admiration and fascination with baseball statistics. I see it this way: to take offense is to recognize a problem where one exists.

Spoken like a true purist, don't you think?

I hope so, anyway.
...