Comments on: Blinded With Science (Poetry in Motion)

By: phil_bonanno

phil_bonanno — Fri, 11 May 2012 21:55:07 +0000

I’ll confess that I had fallen in with the science crowd a little too much on this particular debate. Then, something changed. After nearly 20 years of absence, I put the cleats back on and played on not one but two baseball leagues – one that was a little competitive and one that was mostly social. My biggest takeouts from it are not revelatory, but balancing. First, the frequency of play whilst carrying niggling injuries makes it hard to heal (admittedly I am nowhere near the shape of most MLBers, esp since Rich Garces left the bigs), and this has a major impact on the energy required to play. And speaking of energy, the biggest requirement and challenge of playing ball (warning, cliche coming) is staying mentally alert, esp in the field. It’s easy to get lost in your head out there. Last big takeout – can’t emphasise enough the importance of camaraderie (you listening, B Valentine?), seasons are long, and players make A LOT of mistakes – dealing with them, supporting the teammate and moving on is the team’s job – good teams do this instinctively.

Now, I realise that MLB is about 50 levels above what I experienced (btw, I HIGHLY recommend joining a league, and dont take softball as a substitute, it’s gotta be hardball!), but it was great and I’ll do it again. Why? because it’s a great game, best I’ve found on this planet (and I live in Australia, home of aussie rules footy, rugby codes and cricket) and a helluva lot of fun to play. And I suppose that’s where I come down on the art/science debate (cue Crash Davis), it’s meant to be fun, damnit! Triple slash lines are just the new box score and ISO and Babip the new RBIs and SLG. No big deal. Don’t know about you – as a kid I loved pouring over the box score at the breakfast table and then going out and playing….and I still do. Do yourself a favor and PLAY BALL.

By: Jon DeRosa

Jon DeRosa — Fri, 11 May 2012 20:47:16 +0000

What we’re talking about is baseball through the eyes of the voyeur. That’s why Glenn’s thinking gets turned on its head when he starts playing again.

I’m with Alex in that calling it an art or a science says more about the person doing the calling than it does about the game. But I disagree that it’s both. It’s pretty clearly neither of those things in itself. It only becomes art or science for the outsider.

And then it can be both, but we’re not talking about baseball the sport anymore, we’re talking about baseball fandom (for lack of a better term).

By: Alex Belth

Alex Belth — Fri, 11 May 2012 19:59:51 +0000

It’s both, that’s right. For some fans it becomes more about one than the other. And that’s okay too. Says more about the fan. Movies and books are an art but some people like to rank them, make top-ten lists, pick “the best,” give out awards. That is inherently crazy on one level. On another, it just seems like fun.

You say potato…

By: Bronx Boy in NC

Bronx Boy in NC — Fri, 11 May 2012 19:08:56 +0000

Oh fer criminy's sake, it's both. Baseball is a story that happens in flesh and blood and random gusts of wind and pebble-bounces in the infield dirt and how much glycogen is left in a pitcher's leg muscles with two on and two out in the seventh. And numbers help us record that story, contextualize it, and have conversations about it. Ted Williams wasn't .406. He was an insanely good hitter. ".406" just helps us frame that story and compare him to others. ".406" is true. But that's like saying the Mona Lisa is "light blue... then some muddy brown... then some black... then some blue again..." That would be true too. It's both. Art and science. That's the whole answer. Everything else is just chest-thumping.

By: Ben

Ben — Fri, 11 May 2012 19:02:18 +0000

Even science is an artform.

Baseball is somethign like an art(in)form(ed). It’s also a game!