A Baseball Purist's Response to Colin Cowherd

Myke FurhmanCorrespondent IApril 2, 2009

Colin Cowherd of ESPN Radio hosts The Herd from the Super Bowl XL Media Center at the Renaissance Center in Detroit, Michigan on January 30, 2006.  (Photo by Al Messerschmidt/Getty Images)


Long time listener, first time writer.

Even more so, I am a long time baseball fan.  In fact, I'm what some may call a purist...or as you so politely put it in this morning's show, "a phony."

Really, Herd?  All baseball purists are phonies?  And what's the basis for this argument?  That you think all purists don't like the home run and all we want to see is bunting and knuckleballs? 

I think your definition of "baseball purist" needs a little adjustment.  You claim that all purists are stuck in the "Dead-Ball Era," before the time of the home run. You claim that all purists care for are the singles, the hit-and-run, the station-to-station baseball that once was the game.

But I see a purist as a diehard baseball fan who loves the game, period. And just as the game has adapted, the purist must, too. 

You may think that goes against the nature of the baseball purist, but please, Mr. Cowherd, some of us deserve a little more credit.

You've argued over the years about how the NFL is the smartest league in the land.  That they adapt to technology and the fans. 

I have no argument against that, but when baseball came to adopt instant-replay on home runs, while some were calling for Selig's head...again...I did not.  And many baseball fans did not. Getting the call right doesn't lessen the integrity of the game, it makes the game fair.

"But baseball, as life, has not always been fair."  The response of a baseball purist?  Perhaps. It's true that, had baseball always been fair, the Orioles would have been in the 1996 World Series.  Had baseball always been fair, the Cardinals would have won the '85 World Series.  However, just as baseball adapted in the '20s to welcome the long ball, baseball will adapt to being fair.

Sure, some purists are against interleague play, but we all know it's helped the game for the better. Sure, some don't like the Wild Card, but we all know it's helped the game for the better.  Sure, some may dislike three divisions per league, the designated hitter, some still don't like expansion teams from the '90s, but the Marlins have two rings, the D-Backs another, and the Rays an AL Pennant!

Do you think we all still dislike the use of artificial grass, the lower pitchers mound, any team that came to existence after the '60s, the Braves moving from Boston to Milwaukee to Atlanta?  That'd just be ridiculous! 

I'm a baseball purist and have no problem that the Browns left St. Louis for Baltimore to become the Orioles to replace the O's that moved to New York to become the Yankees.  And I have no problem with the Dodgers and Giants being in California.

And I have absolutely NO problem with the home run.  I love the home run, it energizes the game. It gives teams hope trailing by only one in the ninth, and most importantly, it's what the fans want to see, even the purists.

I thank Mark McGwire. I thank Sammy Sosa, Joe Canseco, Barry Bonds, and Bud Selig, and every baseball purist should, too.  Because they hit home runs. 

They revitalized baseball when it had no pulse.  And even if they did take steroids, HGH, or other drugs, it was a part of baseball, it's part of the history, and even if the Hall of Fame doesn't like it, they need to devote a section.

That's all I have to say, Mr. Cowherd.  I don't appreciate being called a phony, but I love being called a baseball purist. 

I love the lower pitchers mound. I love the designated hitter. But I also love the power pitcher, and who in their right mind doesn't love the home run?

Keep up the great work, Colin.  Love the show.