Would you still love Baseball if the type of game changed again?

Excellent point! I, for one, wish there was more small ball being played. What I've noticed over this past generation of players is that very few know how to lay down a decent bunt. Consider the safety squeeze or even the bolder suicide squeeze. Not that either were ever common place in any era of the game but I do remember as a kid seeing plays like that more frequently.

We don't see the hit and run much anymore either. Like you said, "hope for a walk and a two run homer." That mentality has reduced the action considerably. I'm with you!

No Matter How Many Times They Change The Rules Baseball Will Still Be America's Pastime & It Would Never Affect The Way I Think About!!!!! The Reason Why The A.L. Has The Better Players & Teams Is Because They Have The D.H. Rule Which Gives Them An Advantage Every Game B/C They Get Real Good Offencively Players To Bat & In The N.L. The Pitchers Must Bat Unless There Vursing An A.L Team In The A.L's Team's Stadium.

Moneyball argues against the sacrifice in most circumstances. In the NL where the pitcher comes to the plate at least two or three times per game, the use of bunting increases. Many AL teams employ the hit and run to avoid potential double play situations. What you describe is actually how the second game of the World Series this year played out. That game took place in Boston with a DH. Still, there is nothing like a home run to get the adrenaline pumping in the crowd as in the fourth game of the World Series in Colorado. Just to pick two games.

If you look at a team like the Angels, who are structured more like an NL team, you will see that they have the speed, defense and strategy to win consistently during the regular season and to take the AL West. Once they are in the playoffs, they are mismatched.

If a team has power hitters and is in a park conducive to power hitting, it will rely on that type of offense. That is how the Red Sox have been lined up offensively since Ted Williams was a rookie. They win when they also have defense and pitching, which obviously they had in 2007.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. The basics needed to win stay the same no matter how much the game changes.

For example...if you take a look at football the rules have been opened within the last 30 years to make offense the key. It has opened up the passing game. Yet, to win you still need to run the football and have a solid defense.

The same can be said for baseball. Yes, the Red Sox had hitting like Manny, Ortiz, etc. But pitching and defense is ultimately what made them World champions.

Even though the home run seems to be a big part of baseball now, the basics and fundamentals are still needed.

I love this game, homers or SBs. I am a Mets fan, and as a lifelong NLer, I realize that small ball never really left -- three guys on the Mets had more than 20 sbs last year; all of the pitchers are taught to bunt; and Randolph prefers doubles and triples to homers. (Also, the Marlins won two championships with small ball, if you remember).

I also think that we should keep historical perspective here. Pitching and hitting have both been prominent in different eras and is likely to happen again. Like everyone here, I love the game anyway and everyway it is played.

Some changes that I think could make the game better: I think they should raise the mound a little and give pitchers the advantage they had before; contract two teams -- the Devil Rays are useless as are the Nationals; make the DH league wide; and, cut the crap with the World Series home field being determined by the All-Star game...stupid.

I don't give much about the HR's. I believe low scoring affairs are extremely exciting, as shown by the Red Sox vs. Mets game back in 2006. NL vs. AL, Curt Schilling vs. Tom Glavine. Two veterans facing off. The score was like 2-2 until the top of the 8th. Carlos beltran reaches first, then David Wright blasts a hard hit ball well to the right of Crisp. Crisp runs forever and dives and catches it. it was AMAZING. here is a pic and also a video of the actual catch. the sox ended up winning 4-2, the best game i have ever watched.

http://screwballs.blog-city.com/video_cocos_catch....

That is how i want baseball to be, not a game with 20 HR's in 5 innings or something.

There are three popular grips in golf. One is the OVERLAP where the pinky of the left hand overlaps the forefinger of the right hand. We are presuming that you are a right handed golfer. The second is the INTERLOCK where the forefinger of the right hand interlocks with the pinky of the left hand, which is a very secure grip but may let the right hand dominate the swing. The third is your BASEBALL grip which lays all 10 fingers on the grip. There is nothing wrong with this grip. What you must be aware of is how the fingers are placed on the club.You want the thumbs pointing down the center of the shaft for a neutral grip. If the thumbs are in the back of center you have a " hook" grip and if they are more toward the face of the club you are in a slice position. Just be aware at address that you always check your grip and your position to the ball and you should be consistent. The INTERLOCK would be my preference if you are used to the BASEBALL grip because that makes you work the hands in unison.Regardless of the grip , this is the object , to work the hands together, one assisting the other.

I might actually enjoy it more if it reverted to an old style, even though I have no problem with the home runs. I just really enjoy a game where teams have to scrape out runs, and where a comeback from 2-0 or 3-0 is difficult. To me, those lower-scoring games make runs and comebacks much more meaningful than doing the same in today's game.

I'm not hoping for a return to the Deadball Era, but I wouldn't mind more station-to-station play. I remember playing simulation games when I was younger, always enjoying the strategic game more than a power game. I guess that's still the way I feel.

I will always love the game.

It makes me think of why the game has changed.

The fundamentals haven't changed but the players outlook on the game and the money involved in the game have changed it in my opinion. HR hitters get big money even if they lead the league in SO's. I would like to think that baseball is at it's best when there is a well balance of everything. I think of myself as a baseball purest and love "small ball" but also like he big blast. Coaches or however influences the in game calls have a huge role in this as well. If you give a player a sign more than not he will try to execute. No sign no play.

I rarely ever see the hit n run anymore. But no matter what "small ball" will always be part of the game.

That sort of gameplay style shift wouldn't bother me. It's still throwing, hitting, catching the ball. This is why I reject the "cannot compare players across eras" nonsense -- with proper adjustments, the stats can be neutralized, but that's just a small part of it. The JOBS of the players haven't much changed -- pitchers want to keep men off base, fielders want to get the ball and make outs, hitters want to hit the ball and get on and come around to score. (Obviously home runs make this last one easier.) Other than telling half the pitchers that they no longer have to worry about picking up a bat (a change that does not bother me, as pitchers are not selected for the hitting skill set), the game has not changed much on a fundamental level.

Yes, I think I'd still love it.