Jim Kaat makes sense

I just finished reading Jim Kaat's essay on ESPN - http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/23474497/jim-kaat-says-mlb-adapt-7-inning-games-effort-improve-sport and I really liked it. I think it is well thought out and he strengthens it with some notes about how the game has already changed so drastically over the years. This is a good change and I would love to see it, but won't because it will be resisted by the union, the league, the traditionalists.

​But what is tradition? Is it a pitcher throwing half the games and winning 50? Is it one pitcher winning 511 games? Is it an era of 400 hitters? Is it the murderers row and the sluggers who followed (sluggers who could also get hits and not strike out all the time)? Is it the war years when a 15 year old starts for Cincinnati? Can we say it is when Jackie Robinson integrated baseball and changed the rosters and stars? Is it the Bronx Bombers who dominated the 50's? Maybe it is the expansion era when lots of new records were set and we went from 154 to 162 games but kept all the same records? Is it PEDs? Is it the era of Latin ballplayers? Perhaps we can say it is the era of wildcard teams. Is it the demise of starters and rosters of all relief pitchers? Is it the era of big Ks and lots of HRs? There is no true tradition. Each season stands alone.

That's why we can argue about eras and great players without winning or losing. Its why the HOF is merely an annual pissing contest of my era was better than your era and your stats don't count because now we do not care about BA and ERA and Wins.

The very discussion that games are too long is a reasonable topic and a serious one. Change is not going to come by the little things that have been done. Shaving 3 minutes off the game is not the answer. Go Jim. I hope someone else is listening. And by the way - I would put you in the HOF!