*** Baseball to Change Rules, Not Most Wins, Most Runs? ***

[Khaotic]

Chicken, Phanatic Make Their Case

The San Diego Chicken and the Philly Phanatic have joined forces to make a profound arguement ... the top teams in each division with the most runs batted in will go on to the playoffs.

The Chicken and the Phanatic underscored in a press conference that they don't think it's fair that the team with the most wins should go on to represent their division.

They want to change the rules to reflect what they consider to be the "real" talent and hard work of each game played and insist that the teams with the most runs scored throughout the season should progress forward to the playoffs.

The Chicken made the biggest case, stomping and flapping his wings, and said there have been countless teams with a huge amount of runs throughout a given season that may not have won the most games, thus were cheated out of the playoffs and a shot at getting into the World Series.

The Chicken crowed that he won't stand for it and that the rules need to change.

The Phanatic let out a screeching and enthusiastic honk from his horn in agreement with the Chicken.

Major League Baseball could not be reached for a reply on their thoughts in regard to the two rogue mascots.

Both the Chicken and the Phanatic stayed after the press conference for many hours to give out promotional photographs and shake hands with fans.





=======================================================

UPDATE: Press photographers followed the Chicken and Phanatic to their dressing rooms and managed to get a photo of the two cleaning up after they got out of their costumes.




=======================================================

[lisa58]

1. good one!

[guyanakoolaid]

2. What a load of crap

Everybody knows it should be most walks in the season.

Don't disenfranchise the base-on-ball!



(Go 'Stros)

[Khaotic]

4. I don't know

Maybe the teams that sell the most hot dogs throughout the seaon should rep their division.

Hot dogs are America's favorite food, as American as Apple Pie!

One thing though ... Hot Dogs served with yellow mustard don't count, only Hot Dogs served with brown mustard count.

[guyanakoolaid]

5. Oh, that's just fucking great, disenfranchise hamburgers and pretzels, too

Geesh

:P

[mcctatas]

3. Who cares....

the brewers still won't have a chance....
friggin brewers
Oh wait, you're talking about team Clinton! Even if they do that rule change, what about the games (ie caucuses) where they didn't keep track of runs, only wins? Are we going to disenfranchise those fans too?

:shrug:

[Khaotic]

6. That's the point

You have to use the rules you set out with at the start of the season.

Why in the hell are we even paying attention to the Chicken and the Phanatic?

The point of my post is that it's one big fucking joke and no one should be laughing ... maybe at my post, but not the reality of the Clinton's arguement.

[mcctatas]

9. yeah...

I got that...
And I agree...

[dmallind]

10. Does that however apply to ALL the rules you started the season with

Say including the rules that umpires get to make their own call regardless of what the fans think happened?

[Khaotic]

13. The Foundation of the Game

The very foundation of the game is that the teams with the most wins go forward to the playoffs.

It's pretty simple to know that the most runs scored matters when determining an individual game, but you don't wait till you're near the end of the season and try to make the case that it should be the most runs scored throughout the season.

Can anyone imagine if that were true?

Hell, if a team were winning a game by 10 runs there would be no reason to layoff. Fuck it ... if a team can run up the board and win a game by 50-3 then great. Whatever it takes right?

There are several reasons why a win is a win when it comes to the individual games, and how illogical it would be to add up all the runs scored during the season to determine who goes to the playoffs.

If you can't figure it out then you're daff.

That foundation of the game is completely different than starting a discussion about an umpire's call, what's a ground rule double, or any other small rules in baseball. Heck, some rules even differ from league to league, as do elections rules from state to state.

You have to get the point that the Clintons are trying to change the foundamental structure of the rules that were agreed upon at the onset of the primaries, it's about following abiding by the DNC rules.

The campaigns are run based on winning the most pledged delegates. If you change the game and say it's about most votes, count votes from states that broke the rules, AND discount caucuses, then that's changing the rules.

With the new rules in place and the use of a Delorean with a flux capacitor, we could go back to the beginning of the primary season.



If we could then I would bet that all candidates involved would run their campaigns differently, expending a vastly different amount of assets across different districts across each state. It would result in a different outcome and a different popular vote.

Florida and Michigan would've had their elections on the right day. Obama would have campaigned in both states and been on both ballots.

I know Clinton supporters get IT, but they know playing by the rules results in a loss for their candidate, so for them they can constitute breaking the rules and rewriting history. Sounds a lot like the Republicans doesn't it?

[dmallind]

17. That's 90% strawman

We can stretch this metaphor as much as you like, but the idea that any one political side is best supported by a metaphor of sticking to the rules needs to include all the rules. You seem to be under the misapprehension that I disagree with either the core premise or the political analogy. Neither are the case. But the silly idea that we have a pure and true vs evil and corrupt case to address here is just hyperbolic beyond all reason. What we have, to stretch the analogy once more, are two very closely matched sides who both want to engage their fan base and generate support for a late season pennant run by showing why they are better than the other guys.

[Khaotic]

19. two very closely matched sides?

It's not close.

Delegates are the way this is measured and, plain and simple, Obama is waaaaaaaaaaaaayyyy ahead.

It's really that simple.

No reasoning needed, just the Clintons and their supporters who insist on making shit up and forcing people to explain why things are the way they are.

I shouldn't have to explain why the sky is blue, but in this case it's expected.

Even though I know the DNC will stick by their rules, that MI and FL won't count, and that the individual with the most pledged delegates will get the support of the majority of SDs; I DON'T want the Clinton's efforts to bring down the party and seperate us beyond the ability to come back together.

That's really the only thing they're accomplishing at this point.

[flvegan]

7. They'll just move the left field fences in.

Cut the Green Monster down to 8 feet tall. Create artificial updrafts.

[bunnies]

8. perfect analogy!

:rofl: perfect!

[dmallind]

11. Yes it would be - if you could answer post #10 NT

[bunnies]

18. SD's get to pick whomever they want.

Fine by me. Im sure they understand the ramifications of over-turning the pledged delegate count. If they're willing to do it anyway, more power to 'em.

[Khaotic]

20. Or

... in their case less power, in that they won't be reelected.

[PVnRT]

12. I would vote for the San Diego Chicken

He would bring a level of awesome to the White House never before seen.

[Khaotic]

15. Not a bad idea

That way when he lays a big egg everyone can cheer! :-)

[damntexdem]

14. And late rainouts shouldn't count at all --

they're anti-democratic, err ..., anti-run, because more runs might have been scored in the omitted innings. Only the activists score runs in the early innings, most voters, err ... batters, are left out in rainout games.

[Khaotic]

16. What about suicide bunts ...

that result in scoring runs?

Should those count?

I think it's a risky and very liberal tactic. Maybe it shouldn't count either. ;-)

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. The Rules are simple, straight forward, and long in place. Both sides agreed to play by them

The first candidate to reach a majority of all of the certified delegates at the Democratic National Convention becomes the Democratic nominee for President.

Show me where the rules were changed especially for Obama to claim that Super Delegates must vote to support a candidate who holds a lead in pledged delegates but who has not won a majority of all of the delegates. Or are you propsing such a change in the rules now?

[Khaotic]

22. Not as a rule

But by what logic would SDs vote for the candidate who isn't supported by the pledged delegate vote?

That logic is subjective and contrived at best.

If manufacturing reality is your thing, then supporting the SDs vote for anyone other than the winner of the pledged delegate vote just isn't logical.

I guess we could be like the Republicans and operate in an illogical world, passing illogical legislation, and support only the upper 1/16th of the population ... yes, we could be illogical and it wouldn't be breaking any rules.

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. Your side of this debate is the one engaged in blatant spin

It starts with the bold repeated assertion of a lie; that it is "changing the rules" not to give the nomination to the candidate who is ahead in pledged delegates regardless of any other factor even when that candidate does not have a majority of all delegates.

Up is Down. The only change in the rules anyone is talking about is overturning the rule that states Super Delegates are free to vote their conscience. The premise of this thread starts with a lie. It is an argument IN FAVOR of changing the rules disguised as an argument AGAINST changing the rules. If you really want to have a discussion about the substance of this argument, join me at this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5439012