To my knowledge that is the only instance of a player being killed--by accident, of course--in a major league game. But kids get killed in high school ball now and then, usually by a hard line drive (off an aluminum bat!) right back at the pitcher.>

I could have cited greenies, or alcoholism, or idiot teams destroying their star pitchers (see Koufax, Sandy) or the reserve clause, or lots of other things that were wrong with baseball in days gone by. My point was that all eras have flaws, and you shouldn't let the flaws of the current era destroy your enjoyment.

<Meanwhile, I prefer baseball without steroids to baseball with steroids.>

Me too. In fact, I'm down on the lively ball. I think baseball was a better game when you could lead the league with ten homers. I think that's a lost battle, though.

First I think the game you see when you're there is really different than when you watch on TV, or of course if you're just listening on the radio. (I sometimes think radio is better than TV if the announcers are good.)

When you're at the game and there's an extra base hit with men on (or a single with a man on second), you not only see the ball in play but also the runners charging around the bases. You also see the infielders, catcher, and pitchers rotating to get into position. And sometimes a long, powerful throw. That's exciting (to me) and you can't appreciate it all on TV. Don't tell me about replays.

So that's where the homers instead of balls against the wall are so much less exciting. Plus the close plays at the plate or on the bases. On TV you don't see the difference quite so much.

Maybe I'm just saying I like to see speed and good throwing arms more than power, especially watching in person.

All eras have (had) flaws. What I miss today is the lack of stability on the rosters. I realize this is more fair to the players than in the days the players had to either take it or leave it from the owners, but it was more enjoyable to have a core of players working together to win over the years.

Two examples of teams of "mine" which won the World Series: the 1972 A's and this year's Giants.

The Giants this year had a young rotation, all up from the farm system, and that was great. But the team on the field was a bunch of spare parts I felt little connection to. Nice but not great.

But the A's! That team came to Oakland in 1968, had been a terrible team in KC, but played about .500 ball that year. And they had young or youngish players at a number of positions with potential: Reggie, Monday, Bando, Campaneris, Dick Green, Odom, Catfish Hunter, Fingers, Duncan. It was exciting.

And all those guys played key roles on the A's amazing win over Cincinnati in the 1972 Series. (I count Monday, because he still was valuable, being traded for starting pitcher Ken Holtzman.) They'd added Rudi in left, Blue in the rotation, plus a passable first baseman in Mike Epstein. But basically it was the same team that I'd been watching improve for several years. More satisfying than the Giants win this year.

The same could be said about most winning teams of the 60s and 70s, certainly Detroit 1968, St. Louis 1967, or any of the Dodgers of the 60s. Plus of course all the Yankees teams of that time.

And then there are the little bitty things, each of them annoying in itself, all adding up--for me, personally--to disenchantment: parks named after sponsors (I hate that, I really do), umpteen pitching changes per game, too many post-season games, too much expansion, interleague play, and constant tinkering with the game to make it look better than it is.

I found myself nodding along with everything you mentioned.

But he had to have veterans who knew how to be professionals and didn't have to be taught the game. He didn't do well with young teams, and ruined several promising players by rushing them to the major leagues and praising them so extravagantly that they cracked under the pressure.

The media loved him, since he had a of Stengelesque shtick and was always good for a quote. And he was universally respected as a fine and charitable person off the field, and maybe that's even more important.

Pay close attention, you can actually see our very own <Phony Benony> in the video, cleverly disguised as a 'filmer' with a camera blocking his face.

I know it's him, but I can't tell you how I know, if I do, I'd have to 'take care' of you...

<Jim Bartle> Didn't Joe Morgan get in a bit of trouble for saying on the air the very thing you've said in this forum, about American blacks vanishing from baseball?

But OCF is right. The Big Red Machine had Hall of Fame quality players at catcher and the entire infield, and two solid all-stars in the outfield. Centerfielder Cesar Geronimo was the only non-star, and he was still a pretty darn good player.