Somebody help me with this one. My adoptive team, the Texas Rangers, has lost six straight games to my beloved Detroit Tigers this year—all in Detroit. (The teams have not yet played in Arlington.) When my teams play, I remain neutral. It's like watching two of your children play tennis against one another. About all you can do is hope (1) that nobody gets hurt and (2) that both of them perform well.
Rangers' television announcer Josh Lewin wondered aloud the other day why the Rangers don't play well in Detroit. He speculated that the Rangers are psyched out by the spacious outfield. By comparison, the Ballpark in Arlington is cozy. I'm not getting this. Why would a Ranger hitter be psyched out, unless he had only one goal in every plate appearance, namely, hitting a home run? The spacious outfield in Detroit means that it's easier to get a single, double, or triple. Isn't it reasonable to tailor one's objectives to the ballpark in which one is playing? Are players so unadaptable that they can't change their strategy?
Apply this in other realms. Imagine someone who is a good 5K runner. She signs up for a marathon. Would she go out at a 5K pace? Of course not! That is a recipe for disaster. She will hit the wall at about six miles, if not earlier. Nor would a marathon runner go out at marathon pace in a 5K race. He or she can go a lot faster than that because of the shorter distance. The point is that a rational person adapts his or her pace to the distance to be run. Why can't a baseball player adapt his swing to the ballpark in which he is playing? Save the home run swing for the Ballpark in Arlington. Hit line drives in Detroit.
Sometimes I think Major League baseball players are retarded.
