>>I think the commissioner's office is a little off-base on this. Combining
>>Minoso with the last game in historic Comiskey park would have been a great
>No, it would have been a joke. It would have been the last step in the "This
>isn't a sport, it's entertainment" slide. It would have been confirmation by
>the commissioner's office that individual records are more important than the
>integrity of the game.
Uh, WHAT integrity of the game? The one with fairness, umpires, three
outs and nine innings? Nobody's trying to compromise that.
But the Sox are eliminated. Having Minoso bat would only offend stats
freaks; the game would go about as planned otherwise. The game is
played ONLY for entertainment; that's why it's played at all, once the
pennant race is done.
There is certainly precedent for this: Minoso's appearances in 76 and
80. Before that, there was Nick Altrock.
>The entire value of individual records is that they were achieved while
>playing major-league baseball. Hitting 66 HR in the minors is an oddity,
>not an historic accomplishment. The difference is entirely due to the fact
>that MLB is what it is, and minor league baseball isn't. When we start
>fudging what MLB is, just to create funny records, then this distinction (and
>many others) go away.
Well, who CARES about the record for most decades played in? MLB is a
lot of things. There have been far worse pollutions of the game. The
KC A's were partly a Yankee farm club in their first decade of
existence. The NL expansion draft of 62 created impossibly weak teams.
Weak teams biased records, as did weird parks. Late-season games have
always had their share of weirdness. Just read some baseball history.
>By this same logic, I don't accept Pete Rose's hit record as particularly
>valid. He used his special position (player/manager) to extend his career
>far beyond its "real" baseball lifespan (i.e. how long he could have kept
>playing if he weren't coaching himself and chasing a record), to the detriment
>of his team and the game as a whole. Why do you want to encourage this sort
>of behavior? (Yeah, yeah, I know it's only for one at bat or something, but
>why make a mockery of the game?).
When you consider the players baseball has had in the past, keeping Pete
Rose on the roster as long as he stayed is nothing at all out of the
ordinary. Ty Cobb hung on for two years himself, with the A's, after
leaving Detroit. He had Tris Speaker as a teammate, doing the same
thing. By then, they were VERY slow out in the OF.
Pete Rose had been a star entertainer for a long time; he continued to
be up to the end. His record is no better and no worse than Cobb's had
been; a career is a career. To tell the two players apart, we have
batting average. 60 points worth.
Heck, Rose got to play in 8 more games every year of his career, due to
schedule. That's the record right there. Do we put in a footnote?
Baseball is far too much fun to worry about admissibility standards for
players, records, etc. Down in front!