The Baseball Digest Archive

February 1985

As is often the case, several pieces in this month’s issue read a lot differently when seen through a modern perspective. For example, right now the designated hitter rule is the settled law of the land, but in 1985 it was only a dozen years old, so it could still be seen as a bit of a novelty. More importantly, there was a clear delineation between the two leagues and the level of support that fans of each league had for the rule. NL fans slowly began to come around over the years, but as of 1985 polling among the NL fanbase for the DH was overwhelmingly negative. In the article in this issue then-Commissioner Peter Ueberroth sounded open to the idea of abolishing the DH if enough fans were against it. (Spoiler alert - he didn’t.)

The article on Japanese baseball largely focused on American born players who had moved overseas, such as Warren Cromartie and Reggie Smith. That makes sense; as of 1985 there had only been one Japanese born player in MLB, and that was Masanori Murakami more than 20 years earlier. Hideo Nomo’s arrival in the US was still a decade in the future. The main focus in the article in this issue was the stark difference in the game’s culture between the two nations.

Another one of those ongoing debates concerns the MVP award - how should it be defined? Should it automatically go to the best player in the league, or should the subjective word “valuable” be taken more into account? In Bob Ryan’s article in this issue he seems to lean towards the former but doesn’t really take a huge stand either way.

This month’s cover feature was on Don Mattingly, and this 1984-85 period was his peak period, when he was one of the players who could reasonably be called the best player in the game. The headline on the article described him as a born hitter, and that is a very apropos description of Donnie Baseball. He had such a pure swing, it was a beauty to watch.

One of the big stories of the 1984 season was the San Diego Padres winning the NL pennant, ending a 15 year run of futility, and 2 articles this month featured the Padres. Kurt Bevacqua, who was previously best known for winning a bubble gum blowing contest and the classic Topps card that it produced, served as San Diego’s DH in the World Series. He memorably hit a WS home run, blowing kisses to the stands as he rounded the bases. The issue also discussed the franchise’s somewhat dubious history, such as manager Preston Gomez once pinch hitting for Clay Kirby while he was working on a no hitter. There was once a time when pulling a pitcher during a no-hit game was unheard of, believe it or not.

Finally, legendary Dodgers manager Walter Alston passed away in late 1984, and this issue featured a brief tribute article on him. He famously led the Dodgers for 23 seasons, working on a 1 year contract every single time, managing them to 4 world championships on his way to the Hall Of Fame. I always loved the odd note about his playing career; it consisted of exactly one major league at bat. He struck out.

Today’s Olympic Thoughts

I eventually had to get around to this. The Outrage Industrial Complex was bound to find a way to assemble during a high profile event such as the Olympic Games. Such was the case with the controversy surrounding the women’s boxing competition. The culture warriors came out in full force, facts be damned.

Imane Khelif of Algeria and Lin Yu-Ting of Taiwan won gold medals in their respective weight divisions. Both boxers had been banned from the previous year’s world championships by the International Boxing Association due to some poorly explained gender eligibility issues. Sounds cut & dried, but there’s much more to the story.

First off, boxing’s continuing inclusion in the Olympics has been hanging by a thread for years. (As of this moment, it is not on the program for Los Angeles 2028.) This is due to ongoing issues with officiating and corruption in the IBA. If your organization is so corrupt that it’s even too corrupt for the IOC, then you’ve got an issue. In this instance, the IBA gave no real details regarding the two banned boxers. What type of tests, if any, did they allegedly fail? I realize there are privacy issues, but the IBA was so vague, and the organization’s history doesn’t give them any benefit of the doubt.

Now, any allegations that either of these women are trans are complete BS. They are both women, were both born women, and both are confirmed as women on their birth certificates and passports. Yes, they are each more muscular than the average woman, but are we really going to question every female athlete because of an inherent natural physical advantage? Guess what, an innate advantage comes with the territory. Victor Wembanyama is 7’ 4” with the footwork of a man a full foot shorter. That gives him an advantage. Michael Phelps has webbed toes and an unnaturally large lung capacity. That gave him an advantage. The two boxers are no different.

Here’s where I need to go into an all-caps rant. Look at Khelif’s home nation. Algeria. Just think about this for 10 seconds. THERE IS NO WAY THAT ALGERIA WOULD EVER SEND A TRANS ATHLETE TO REPRESENT IT IN THE OLYMPICS. Don’t insult people’s intelligence by alleging otherwise.

Khelif is fighting back. She has filed a lawsuit in France to push back against the cyber bullying she has had to face; among those named in the suit are Elon Musk and J.K. Rowling. (Internet sleuths noticed that Rowling had suddenly stopped tweeting in the days just before the suit was filed; sure looks like she sensed that she was facing trouble.)

Thinking Outside The Box

I recognize that complaints about how soft the modern ballplayer is are as old as the game itself. I understand why these feelings are so prevalent. I grew up in a golden era of durable starting pitchers. The pitchers from the Seaver/Carlton/Palmer age routinely threw 250+ innings without showing any health issues from those heavy workloads. That seems like a lot of innings now, but that was lighter than that of their predecessors, who generally worked in 4 man rotations, not to mention even earlier generations who pitched as many as 300-400 innings in a year. The fact of the matter is that over the course of time pitcher usage has always evolved and always will. As much as I lament seeing how rare complete games have become, going back is unlikely.

It’s still worth trying to find a way to resuscitate the importance of the starting pitcher. The latest proposal was seen in last week’s story on ESPN which stated that MLB is interested in some drastic rule changes. The plan is to mandate that starting pitchers must pitch at least 6 innings, with a few exceptions. A pitcher could be removed before 6 if he throws more than 100 pitches, gives up at least 4 earned runs, or suffers an injury that forces him out of the game. To avoid a Rodney Dangerfield “ow, my arm!” scenario such a removal would necessitate a stint on the IL. Will these measures work?

First off, even if this moves past the theoretical stage, don’t expect to see any such changes on the major league level for some time. Major League Baseball uses minor leagues and independent leagues as a testing lab. Beyond that, I’m skeptical. There are two connected reasons why inning totals from starting pitchers have dropped so drastically. One is strategic. The data is crystal clear that pitchers are much less effective third time through the order. It’s one thing when you’re dealing with a top of the rotation ace. Even with the slight loss of effectiveness he’s still pitching at a high level that he’s likely the best option as long as he’s not gassed. But if you’ve got your #3 or 4 guy on the mound, a fresh arm from the bullpen is a much better alternative. It makes all the sense in the world to make the change.

The bigger issue is a factor that is found to some extent with virtually every sport - as the level of play rises players have to push their limits further in order to survive, let alone succeed. In other words, players have gotten too good. Look back again to the time of Seaver/Carlton/Palmer. Most lineups were so thin that by the time the lineup would turn around to the 7 spot, the starter is facing nothing but light hitting defensive specialists and the opposing pitcher. A guy could more easily pace himself and save his bullets for the real hitters. That luxury doesn’t exist today. I’m not saying that every lineup is filled with mashers from 1-9, but even hitters lower in the order are able to work counts and force the pitcher to throw a lot of pitches, with max velocity and spin along which then produces inordinate stress on shoulders and elbows. They get worn out much more quickly than earlier generations.

Now, could pitchers be trained differently? Perhaps. In essence, every modern pitcher is being trained to be Usain Bolt; preparing for a sprint with few trained as middle distance runners. In theory, a 6 inning mandate would then therefore require that pitchers prepare better to build endurance. But that also means they would need to dial it back a bit. Would that essentially make them sitting ducks? And what happens if a pitcher develops a blister while pitching? An open blister is usually cause to remove the hurler from the game, but remember that the proposed rule would also mean a stint on the IL. Would the league actually force a pitcher to stay in the game with a blister, or go on the injured list unnecessarily for such a minor ailment? All of this is what the testing period is for. I’ll keep an open mind, but I don’t know how workable this would be.

Current Chicago White Sox Pace

39-123, and they were mathematically eliminated from the wild card race this weekend.

50 Years Ago - The Taking Of Pelham One Two Three

I’m generally not someone who reflexively reacts negatively to a remake of a great film. Great stories are meant to be retold; did people in the Elizabethan Age use their version of Twitter to complain about a new production of Hamlet? Besides, when a film is remade the original still exists for everyone to see. That said, there are certain movies that should be left alone.

The original version of The Taking Of Pelham One Two Three is one of the most quintessentially 1970’s movies ever made. To be more specific it perfectly embodied the grime of New York City from that era. Every single character was grizzled and disheveled, seeming to have worn the same suit for days. Or to put it this way, the character that Jerry Stiller played was practically a male model compared to everyone else on screen. Every one was irritable and seemed like they could go off on a tirade at any moment. It was also a reflection of shall we say a less-enlightened time, the receptionist in the movie was portrayed as some sort of alien interloper. What was a woman doing working in a police precinct?

It’s no surprise that the movie starred Walter Matthau. Was there ever a great actor more rumpled than he was? The plot involved 4 hijackers (each of whom used a different color as an alias; Quentin Tarantino clearly took notes when he saw this) taking over a NYC subway car, pledging to kill one hostage per hour unless their ransom demands are met. The movie was not just a tense thriller, it was also a great game of cat & mouse, as the police had to track down and catch the hijackers after the ransom was paid.

The movie had some awesome That Guy energy; one of the criminals was played by Earl Hindman, who years later would go on to portray Tim Allen’s unseen neighbor Wilson on Home Improvement. This also came in the middle of that era when Robert Shaw specialized in playing characters who might as well be named Wu-Tang - this is post-The Sting and pre-Jaws. He ain’t nothing to f*** with. He had one of the most spectacular exit scenes you will ever see. The movie also had an extremely memorable final shot.

All due respect to Denzel Washington, the remake was terribly unnecessary. The original version achieved near perfection.

Closing Laughs

That should be enough for today. Thanks again for stopping by. See everyone again on Wednesday.