Thursday, October 30, 2008

Perhaps the Worst Idea Ever

Someone tracked down Whitey Herzog and allowed him to once again voice his long-held belief that the World Series should be played in a neutral, fair weather city with the whole enterprise being promoted as "World Series Week."

I am not going to dignify such a wrongheaded idea with a response. Thankfully, however, I don't have to, because Jason at IIATMS has already done so.

Please click through to IIATMS, because I love Whitey Herzog, and I simply couldn't bear to tear him a new one over this.

5 comments:

Ken Dynamo said...

i dunno, i dont think its that bad an idea. it would definitely be tough on home town fans. youre asking a lot of people to commit to a lot of money AND a week vacation. but it has its appeal. ideally you'd tighten the season up so it doesnt last as long. but since that makes owners less money theres fat chance of that happening. if MLB studies this neutral site idea and figure theyll make more money doing it i wouldnt be shocked if they do do it. then fans will adjust. no big whoop.

mooseinohio said...

I think playing in late October is more the issue and shortening the season by: 1)reducing the number of games 2) adding more double headers (with two gates for owners) or 3) a combination of the two would allow the first round to begin the last week of September. Also - get rid of some of the travel days between games, which is more like the regular season anyways, and the WS can be played and completed in mid-October.

Games should be played in the team ballparks and cities for a number of reasons including: the fans deserve it; the cities receive the financial benefit and with all these publically funded stadiums the local taxpayers see some return on their investments; and homefield advantage is more than just being able to sleep in your own bed it also mean your fielders know how to play the unique characteristics of the their own ballpark. JD Drew is better at digger the ball out of the corner in Fenway because it is his ballpark and the visiting RF may not be able to make the same play cutting down the runner trying to stretch the single into the double. That is part of the advantage playing at home, not just batting in the bottom half of the inning.

Anonymous said...

If it isn't the worst idea, it's got to be in the top five, right up there with inter league play, indoor baseball and the DH. But you have to consider the source. This is the manager who thinks he lost a world series because of one bad call, a series in which his team was outscored about twelve badzillion to three.

Prediction: You won't hear Joe Maddon spend the next twenty years grousing about the terrible umpiring his team was subjected to for the entire series. It's called class.

Bob Timmermann said...

Aside from Herzog, the proponents of a neutral site World Series are all members of the media, who no doubt don't appreciate getting stuck in the cold and traveling a lot.

Selig and Fehr both oppose a neutral site World Series so it ain't gonna happen.

Don't forget about the uproar that would happen if the Cubs had to play their first World Series game since 1945 in NASHVILLE. Meanwhile, the Friendly Confines remain dark.

The neutral site World Series is a cure in search of a disease.

Excuse me, I need to go to my doctor and get these leeches removed.

Richard Dansky said...

Weirdly enough, Gammons sounded like he was endorsing a neutral site World Series today on Tirico and/or Van Pelt. Then again, he's been oddly grumpy about the whole Series.