Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Denver Mods 7/26/84) 6/24/83; site drutx.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!bellcore!allegra!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!drutx!djvh
From: djvh@drutx.UUCP (VanHandelDJ)
Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball
Subject: RE: Change in baseball
Message-ID: <2732@drutx.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 9-May-85 18:13:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: drutx.2732
Posted: Thu May  9 18:13:45 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 12-May-85 11:38:10 EDT
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver
Lines: 23

>
> As far as the comment of not allowing baseball to move in the direction of
> trying to spice up the offense, what of the lowering of the pitcher's mound
> (was it the late sixties) in both leagues to aid the offense.  I don't feel
> that that was a mistake, do you Dave?
>

From the stats of 1968 (I believe the mound was lowered following that year)
it was probably a good idea to lower the mound.  The AL had only one qualifying
batter over .300, and Campy Campaneris led with only 177 hits.  In the NL,
Gibson had a 1.12 ERA.  From the overall stats, the balance appeared to be lost;there was more defense than offense.  
	It might have been a better idea to wait another year, though, since
the 1967 records look OK.

I have to agree with those of you who are against artificial turf and such.
I miss the days when all firstbasemen were slow, overweight home run hitters.
In my book, that type of player is still more valuable than a speedy singles
hitter.
	I also dislike seeing stadiums "cloned" from city to city.  It's more
fun watching teams built for their home park.  Please don't ever take away
Fenway or Wrigley.

					Dave Van Handel