1. Justin Slotman on January 28, 2004 04:56 PM writes...

I know Delaware is D-IAA football--they won the championship this year--and I think they're D-I in everything else. But--yes--go Blue Hens. Vote LIEBERMAN!

And my e-mail is actually justin_slotman at yahoo dot com. Ahyooyay is like profanity in these comments boxes, I guess.

2. mark nelson on January 28, 2004 08:35 PM writes...

I'd have to give in to technology in the case of contact lenses. It's just too hard to control, and does not "technically" change the dynamic of the game. In this case it gives an edge to the batter, but i'm sure it won't be long before some new technology helps out pitchers.

Can this be much different than video/film review, advanced training methods or other advancements? The game needs to evolve with the times.

However, i do believe that a very important part of baseball specifically, is tradition. For this reason i don't think something like computerized strike zones should be allowed. The umpire is an important part of the game. If you allow things like video review or computerized strike zones, you have eliminated the relevance of the umpire and changed a fundamental dynamic of the game. I don't think it would survive.

On the other hand, those type of technologies would seem perfectly natural in football, at least to me.

3. Rich B on January 28, 2004 10:48 PM writes...

I don't think contact lenses, even those of the UV reduction variety, can seriously impact the game. While a hitter might benefit from a better ability to pick up the ball - to decide more quickly where to get the barrel of the bat - as it leaves the pitcher's hand, corrective eye wear doesn't address timing and the basic mechanics necessary to hit.

If UV lenses did prove to seriously skew results in favor of hitters, I speculate that MLB would rule on a specific backdrop, a pitcher's background, to neutralize the benefit of UV reduction lenses.

The question does make me wonder if the particular lenses are only beneficial to particular types of light. Do they work in domes, or only in outdoor day games? Will they really help any Cincinnati Red not named Casey or Griffey get a ball out of the infield? Will they aid in Terrence Long's adventures in left field?

I just don't imagine that lenses are any more revolutionary than Lasik surgery, nor would they have as an immediate number skewing effect as bat manufacturing. Technologies that fuse ash and maple woods allow lifetime 40 HR hitters like Barry Bonds to suddenly hit 73 ... that's something that makes me look twice. Well, that and when a hitter's skull grows two hat sizes in one offseason, which I don't think occurs during the course of normal weight training and conditioning.

4. Michael J. Totten on January 29, 2004 12:08 AM writes...

Interesting question. I know one group who won't like these new contact lenses - famous retired hitters. The young guys will be able to top them more easily.

5. Daniel Simmons on January 29, 2004 01:03 AM writes...

But hasn't technology already upset the traditional dynamic of baseball toward greater offense? I don't have the numbers, but I believe teams are scoring much more now than in the past. It seems that technology is responsible for much of this change--be it a livelier baseball, different bats, better use of statistics, video replay, body armor, or better medical care. For some reason hitters seem to benefit more from new technology more than pitchers. But that's just my perception.

6. bob mong on January 29, 2004 05:48 PM writes...

First of all, if you want to argue baseball using the numbers, you should know and use baseball-reference.com. It is, hands down, the best sports website in existence.

So, using b-ref, I can say that: 1994-2000 was a historically high-scoring period in modern baseball (post 1900), comparable to the early 1930s. But current offensive levels (AL) are at about 4.85 runs/game which, while high, isn't really comparable to, for example, the 1930 NL, when the average team scored 5.68 R/G! And that's without the DH!

Current scoring levels are in line with the 1920s - though the scoring is driven by different things.

Interestingly, the drop in scoring between 2000 and 2001 (each league's scoring dropped by about a third of a run and has since stayed near that new, lower level) is widely attributed to the enforcement of the rule-book strike-zone (i.e., calling the high strike).

7. wm. tyroler on February 1, 2004 11:39 PM writes...

(Minor quibble: U of D is Div I-AA, not III.)

I'm not sure I understand the objection to the new lenses. Why are they any more a distorting event than any eye-corrective measure? Why not ban all contacts, or Lasik eye surgery?

There's also an assumption that these lenses would benefit only the offense. But isn't it plausible that if the batter sees the ball leave the pitcher's hand that much better, a fielder
would see it leave the bat that much better, too? And if the batter's reaction to the ball is assisted, perhaps the fielder's would as well.
I'm doubtful -- given the speed the ball gets to the plate -- just how much an advantage would be conferred, though that's probably beside the point.

8. Pouncer on February 3, 2004 11:09 AM writes...

May I humbly suggest the biggest technological change in baseball is the night-game? Playing under the lights on a warm summer night is infinitely more fun than playing under the sun on a brutally hot summer day.