Azzam the American reminds me of Dave Chappelle's comedy bit where a blind black man becomes an intellectual leader to white supremacists. Born Adam Pearlman, Azzam the American is, as his former last name suggests, Jewish, and as his current last name suggests, American. Normally, this combination would make him a dream candidate for an al Qaeda beheading. Mr. Pearlman-American, however, has joined the terrorists. This apparently means that he needn't worry about parting ways with his head anytime soon.

Mr. Pearlman-American should worry about other things. He is an American who has enlisted with the wartime enemies of the United States. This makes him a traitor. This makes him guilty of treason. Treason carries a maximum penalty of death. If Azzam the American doesn't die in combat operations, he will get captured at some point in the future.

In 1953, the United States executed the Rosenbergs for engaging in espionage for the Soviet Union. Fifty-one years later, are we serious enough about treason to punish Azzam the American in a manner more severe than the penalty meted out to John Walker Lindh?

Someone should have taken Lindh and Pearlman-American to a baseball game when they were kids.

I hope he meets the working end of an M-16.

While I am in principle against the death penalty, this is a situation that screams for it. Also, I would like to reference the Divine comedy, wherein the worst level of hell was reserved for the worst sinners...traitors.

Perhaps a better punishment would be similar to the one Mussolini had.

It is one thing to not side with your government during war and peacably protest. It is far another to become a murdering thug against your own people.

Brad,
Maybe Lindh and Pearlman did attend a baseball game when young but it was that monstrously un-American form of baseball known as American League baseball with its insane Designated Hitter.

Baseball is a game played by Two teams with NINE(!) players on the field.

How does everyone think Azzam's threat is going to effect the election? Are Democrats or Republicans more likely to execute that treasonous scum? Btw, has Virginia already sentenced the Beltway Snipers to death? I seem to be unable to recall.

There are two arguments NL'ers always make against the DH. The first is that it detracts from the complexity of the game: managing a game is much more difficult when the 'double-switch' is in the bag of tricks. The second is the one you have given.

I heard George Will make the first argument just the other day. Let me respond: Hogwash. Any moron can master the double-switch.

In response to your argument: Whatever a pitcher is doing at the plate with a bat in his hands, it isn't baseball. That a .200 BA is described as "good for a pitcher" should tell you everything you need to know.

I think the threat may give Bush a slight bump.

Given the importance of the issue, let me add the following: not only does the pitcher's presence in the batting order NOT make managing more complicated, it necessitates positively stupid managing decisions.

For example, I was watching a NL game this season. The team at bat was down by a run, and had runners at the corners with one out. Up comes the picther to the plate. Down a run, with a runner 90 feet away, and needing only a fly to the outfield to tie the game, do you know what they did? They bunted! I turned off the t.v. in disgust.

How could the threat give Bush a slight bump when no major news sources are discussing it at all?! Look at NYT, WPost, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, etc etc... They won't talk about it. CNN mentions it on their page, but only to say that the CNN won't 'authenticate' it because it doesn't match any terrorist voices they have in their database.

But of course IF they would talk about it -- if they did say that terrorists are threatening us not to vote for Bush -- Bush would get a point or two bump going into next Tuesday -- because we are not Spaniards, and we don't elect the person the terrorists tell us to.

When I read on Drudge that ABC had aired part of the tape, I turned on the TV expecting to hear people talking about it -- zilch, nothing, all al Qaaqa crap stumping for Kerry. It's disgusting.

Maybe if we just called it "putting him to sleep" instead of "sentencing him to death" people would feel better, like they would be putting him out of his pain and suffering. Sounds good to me.

The terrorism topic is much more important but I just can't let Brad's DH defense go by unaddressed.

I only want to say two things: 1) clearly you do not understand the game that well if you keep insisting that the "double switch" is the reason why baseball (I suppose I have to clarify by saying "National League" baseball . . . thus proving my original point) is more nuanced than what they do in the AL. The complexity of the game is not reducible to, or composed by, the art of the double switch.

2) Tradition and uniformity is important, even in sports. Rule changes should maintain the integrity of the game in its essential aspects, the DH violates everything that is good and true about God's favorite sport.

Changing the DH rule would go against everything Major League Baseball attempted to do in its attempt to win back its fans. The DH came about in the first place to put folks in the stands. That part I can understand, case in point was the World Series when watching Pedro Martinez try to swing a baseball bat! It was putrid to watch and almost comical to see a person who has grown up in his home country playing baseball everyday be so awful at it. Players today are placed into positions at a young age and they only practice that one position for the most part. Pedro is one of the main reasons there is a Designated Hitter in the game today. I did some homework on this and I have to be honest I was a big fan back in the day of seeing baseball played with the pitcher hitting, screw this talk about the double switch. The reason the double switch is around is because in basically no situation can the pitcher step up to the plate and do his job whether it be by sacrifice fly or something few in the majors can do, not just the pitchers but all players and that is bunt! Bunting isnt taught anymore and for professionals it is insulting to learn now. Anyway here are my stats on one player that I talked about Pedro Martinez, I think this will help answer why American League baseball is played with a DH.

Pedro has been up to bat 263 times in his career. His career batting average is .095!!! He has struck out 120 times in those 263AB's. I did the math for you and that is 46% of the time! That is down right awful and answers your questions about why it is for the good of the game to have the D.H!

Those stats on Pedro really don't address my contention. As a simple counter-example, take Babe Ruth, arguable the greatest hitter of all time. He would probably have been a hall of fame pitcher but was switched to the outfield because of how skilled a batter he was. My point in mentioning Ruth is that it is a chicken or the egg argument, I say that the reason pitchers do not hit well is because of the DH and that the stats for Pedoro are misleading b/c we are in the DH era. My objection is to ever changing to the DH in the first place, that it isn't baseball if the athletes aren't expected to play both sides of the ball (as they say in football). As to the pragmatic business argument that the change put fans in the stand, then why would the NL not make that change? Are those owners not interested in profit like the AL owners are?

Brian: "...clearly you do not understand the game that well...." This is below the belt; akin to the insult "You throw like a girl."

I am a student of the game, and as such, I know that there are no additional complexities worth mention on the NL (I'd say "minor league") side. Other than the sill "double-switch" (which you disregard), I challenge you to name one. Note: bunting runners into scoring position with one out doesn't count.

As for the Azzam the American, the odds of his tape getting any press are now nil with the appearance of Bin Laden himself. I think the Bin Laden tape may be better anyway. Bush's strength is the war on terror, and nothing brings it to mind more than the leader of Al Qaeda.

I would think that the OBL tape, which seems to be getting some press, could bring some attention to the as yet ignored Azzam the American tape. The two together would create a strong impression that the terrorists want to influence the election, and that would certainly benefit Bush.

As it stands now, the OBL tape on its own in the news might not have much of an effect, because Bush can't really work it. He had a little statement on it, and several people in the gym stopped and stood around the TV to see it because OBL's face was on TV and then W's, but if he really tried to work it, it might be too unbecoming and backfire.

But the other prob with the OBL (I almost typed ODB by accident ;) tape is that apparently he mentions Kerry as well. If true that is interesting since it would seem to confirm that he really is still alive but it also lets the media spin it as somehow Al Qaeda also doesn't like Kerry and finds him a threat, whereas the Azzam tape singles out Bush in a way that would work more in his favor. Also, if the tape confirms that OBL is still alive then what does that say about Bush's invasion of Afghanistan? It could be spun as having been ended preemptively and the hunt for OBL abandoned in order to take down a distraction In Iraq that had nothing to do with the war on terror.

Brian:

These are details. You should know by now that the American public doesn't have the patience or intelligence for details. All that matters is that they believe (for whatever reason; perhaps for no reason) that Bush is more capable at "prosecuting" the war on terror. Provided the OBL tape stirs up fears of terrorism, it will help Bush.

Brad,

I take arguments about baseball almost as serious as arguments about religion. In fact, at certain times of the year I take them more serious. One such time is the space between the end of the World Series and the start of Winter talks when I am jonesing for baseball.

So the below the belt ad hominem was regrettable but justified.

I didn't disregard the double switch as a complexity, I just contend that the defense of pitchers hitting is not reducible to that one aspect of managing. Some more ways that pitchers hitting affect the game include:

1) the high and tight pitch, that is pitchers who throw at batters have to take into account that they will be at bat themselves;

2) it affects the way that a pitcher manages the lineup he is facing, that is, with the 9-spot considered an "easy" out, a pitcher will change how he pitches to the 6-7-8 spots hoping that he can count on at least getting the pitcher out. This leads to all sorts of issues and nuances, think about it, for example, the aggressiveness with which a pitcher goes after the 8-spot with 2 outs in order to insure that the pitcher leads off the next inning instead of the lead-off man and vice versa, the aggressiveness and hitting strategy of the 7 and 8 spots based on the fact that they can't count on the pitcher to drive them in;

3) the fact that the pitcher has to bat leads to issues of fatigue for the pitcher that the AL doesn't deal with, that is, NL pitchers have to be all-around athletes and compete like anyone else on the field;

4) the running game is improved by the presence of a spot in the lineup that can't necessarily be counted on for good situational hitting (as your early example of a one out bunt indicated);

6) and finally, the double switch.

Look. The argument about pitchers being weak with the bat really doesn't justify a major change to the essence of the game. Plenty of positions on the field are very often treated in a similar fashion, in that a starting catcher, for example, or a starting middle infielder could be in the lineup every day despite hitting .220 with a .280 obp and similar slugging pct., simply b/c of their skill defensively. Rey Ordonez was a perfect example of a gold glove winning shortstop who routinely did nothing at the plate. His best batting average for a season was .258 and he consistenttly would have less rbi's and even home runs than several pitchers on the teams he has played for. In fact he has 12 career HRs in over 3000 at bats while pitcher Mike Hampton haws 14 HRs in 639 at bats. Catchers are routinely anemic hitters as managers care more about their skills calling the game, managing the pitching staff, and defensively. The relative weakness of a given position isn't an argument for the DH, otherwise why not have two DHs and not make the fat ass slow catchers hit and run? Who wants to see that?

I am such a dork arguing this and writing all this out on a Friday night.

Brian,

Rebuttal:

1. In the AL, if they hit your player, you hit theirs; e.g., if the Yanks hit Manny, the Sox hit A-Rod. And if that doesn’t solve matters, you clear the bench. These considerations deter pitchers from hitting batters just as much as the pitcher standing in the box.

2. Likewise, if the 9-spot isn’t occupied by a girl-scout, then the pitcher is more concerned about putting men on or in scoring position in front of him. As a result, he will pitch the 6, 7 and 8 hitters more carefully.

3. This is a non-issue. With the evolution of the bull-pen, pitchers in either league rarely go past the 6th inning. Besides, how much athletic ability does it take to stand out there, take three lame swings, and walk back to the bench?

4. My “one out” example had nothing to do with the running game. It was an example of giving away an out that, under normal circumstances (i.e., when there is a batter capable of putting the ball in play), no manager would EVER give away. You act like teams don’t run in the A.L. Don’t be ridiculous.

5. As I stated earlier, any moron can grasp the double-switch.

Your argument featuring Ordonez doesn’t hold water. Just to illustrate this in one of many ways: The cumulative BA for second basemen last season was .279, for SS it was .267, for catchers it was .258, and finally for pitchers… .146. The defense rests.

Brian I usually agree with you but not this time. Tell your no DH theory to a dad who takes his family to a game these days and after all is said and done is lighter in the pocket by three hundred dollars! Further evidence backing this theory are attendance records between the AL and NL. National League baseball is bad when the pitcher has to hit and you know this. Just because you mention Mike Hampton, one of the best hitting pitchers around doesn't sell anything. Comparing the best to one of the worst is no way to convince someone they maybe overlooking something. You have to take all pitchers and figure out overall stats and when you do you can only come to one conclusion. One would rather not spend todays money on a ballgame to see a pitcher flat out stink at hitting rather than see a Edgar Martinez or a Ortiz step to the plate four times in a game. Its the money people care about, from making it to spending it, the bottom line is the DH makes more dollars and sense!!!!

To Brad:

Look, arguing for the DH by setting up the argument to be one in which your opponent has to prove that the NL is more "complex" or "subtle," or "better managed" does not address my fundamental point about protecting the integrity of the game, defending that which is essential to it. I am willing to make the argument you are focusing on, however. For example, I score every baseball game I attend and I attended 24 games this season in 3 different cities and most of them were AL games. But all you have to do is glance at my scorecards and compare the NL to the AL games to see that many more decisions of critical impact were made in the NL b/c of the lack of a DH. I don't see how that claim is controversial.

Second, your other arguments focus on the relative prowess at the plate of pitchers and b/c you apparently only care about seeing old guys who can't run or field prolong their careers b/c the juice they are on allows them to still crush a 430 foot home run every now and again between strikeouts and harmless pop-ups, you find the weak hitting of pitchers reason enough to change the game drastically. To this prejudice against seeing pitchers hit I would say that the deterioration in pitcher's hitting ability is a product of the 5 man rotation, and this new era of extreme specialization in which they simply aren't expected to hit or even practice at it. I do think this is a unfortunate development BUT I do not think it justifies major changes to the game itself. There are many other unfortunate developments in baseball which likewise should be tolerated or worked to change but w/o harming the integrity of the game.

Finally, you still keep thinking that "any idiot could master the double switch" is an argument. First of all, for some reason Phil Garner didn't master it in the playoffs and it almost cost him dearly. But more to the point, I am not arguing that AL managers are somehow stupid or that the double switch is rocket science and alone makes baseball the great sport that it is. What I am claiming is that managers who have to "master" the double switch are managing BASEBALL in its true form and that AL managers are not. Dealing with soft-swinging pitchers is part of the game, no matter how unfortunate you think that part of the game is. The infield fly rule is another annoying part of the game but one that is actually necessary for maintaining the integrity of the game. I am saying that the game has been essentially changed by the DH in a way that it hasn't by other novelties such as, say, the wild card or night baseball.

To Bob,

I don't care about the economics of the game or of this issue. But even if I did it isn't a persuasive argument.

First, the DH was instituted, as you indicate, b/c baseball was in one of its dominant pitching dead ball eras and the powers that be thought they would increase revenue and attendance by increasing offense. I think this was an unjustifiable change, economic considerations should not rule the day on matters of the integrity of the sport. But, anyway, once baseball came out of the dead ball seventies and particularly now when it seems steroids are simply accepted as a means of increasing offense, that argument for the DH disappears.

Furthermore, you seem to imply that AL baseball is somehow more popular than NL baseball but the facts don't bear this out. I suspected it wasn't the case but have only been able to find the attendance stats for last season but these definitely make my case. This past season, 2004, saw a all time record for attendance at over 73 million. The mark was 3.8 % higher than the previous record and 8.1% higher than last years attendance mark. What is interesting is that 2 AL teams had over 3 million fans in attendance, Anaheim and the Yankees. But in the NL a full 7 teams passed the 3 million mark (St. Louis, Chicago, Philly, San Diego, San Fran, LA, and Houston). Clearly the NL is able to draw in the fans by the bushel w/o the cheap offensive gimmick of the DH.

But the bottom line is that this isn't an economic issue and has nothing to do with whether or not pitchers can hit very well. Baseball is a game played by 2 teams with nine players on the field, period.

Not anymore Bri