Forum Thread

What does the Home Run Derby say about MLB?

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 3 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?

    To be honest, this hasn't really ever been on my radar. I've heard some call it boring, and I've seen where other MLB fans will geek out entirely of seeing position players pitching, etc. I myself appreciate the bones of the game - what it was before, and what it struggles with now; home runs vs balls in play. To me, a crisp double play is way more exciting than a home run hit just over the wall, followed by fireworks and some tired sports theme playing over the speakers.

    When so much pomp and revelry is made about every single home run, doesn't it lose it's uniqueness? Well, to be honest, home runs aren't all that unique anymore. In may of this year, baseball set a new record for the most home runs hit in one month. To top it off, in June, that record was broken again. So doesn't that take away from the Home Run Derby itself? In a way, isn't just like watching a glitzy version of batting practice?

    Teams nowadays hire their hitters the same way they hire their pitchers. They want to see grand slams as much as shut outs. I think that's why there has been talk among MLB fanboys, to just leave the sluggers out of the Home Run Derby altogether. Which I don't necessarily agree with that idea. Does this take away from the reputation of MLB, or does it only further what seems like it's new viewer-grabbing doctrine?

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?

    Well said. I do think you lose nuance for glitz with the league focusing too heavily on home runs over really good hits inside the field of play. Reminds me of the NFL, with the increased attention on scoring and touchdowns and all the rule changes to gear the game toward making more touchdowns happen, becoming much more of a passing sport.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    I think every major sport is trying to condense and speedup. Attention spans are like that of gnats now.