Fletch here. Remember me? I mostly stick to writing about movies over at Blog Cabins (and comments here), but I just couldn't resist writing this rant the other day, and I knew Adam could use a day off, so I sent it his way. Luckily, the Godfather approved it. Now sit back and enjoy the history being made.
Over the past few weeks and months, I've toyed with the idea of setting up a blog called Instant History. See, during that time, there have been a few events (the Bulls-Celtics series, LeBron James' Game 2 ending 3-pointer) that have made many in the media go batsh*t crazy, calling whatever just happened "the best ____ to ever happen!"
February's Super Bowl between the Cardinals and the Steelers? You guessed it - possibly the best ever! George W. Bush? "The worst President ever!" Some random performance by a golfer shooting 60 - best ever!
Now I'm no historian, and as you might tell by my movie tastes, I'm certainly not one of those people that claims that everything that happened in the past is better just because it happened in the past. Fact is, these things were made for arguing - no one can ever be right because I'm afraid we can't actually have a 30-year old Michael Jordan and today's Kobe Bryant go out on the court and play one-on-one. Just like no one can honestly say if one series of seven NBA playoff games played in 2009 is better than some series played in 1982, or whatever. So why the endless hyperbole and focus on whatever the flavor of the month is? Up may be great, but I better not hear anyone calling it the "best animated movie ever" (or even in Pixar's ouevre), without at least a few years in which to give perspective. Just call it really good and get it over with.
The latest chapter in this annoying saga is different, but still the same. The San Francisco Giants Randy Johnson just won his 300th game last week, becoming just the 24th pitcher in major league history to do so. Truly an impressive feat, and something that's happened only a handful of times over the last few decades. Helping those dwindling numbers is the style of baseball played over that time, in which we've seen starting pitchers throw for fewer overall starts and fewer innings per start. Not many current active players are projected to even come close to 300 wins, much less reach it.
So what does this mean? Obviously, according to several sources, that WE WILL NEVER SEE ANOTHER 300 GAME WINNER!
Really?? Never? Are you sure you want to use that word? Be my guest and say something along the lines of "it's likely that we won't see another player reach 300 wins in our lifetime." That's perfectly plausible, if not likely. But never's a mighty long time, and the arrogance it takes to claim that something will never be seen again, just because the current landscape doesn't project it, appalls me. Who's to say that baseball doesn't at some point revert back to a 4-man rotation, thus giving pitchers 5-8 more starts per year? Who's to say that average pitch counts don't rise up yet again when someone realizes that "100 pitches" means nothing in terms of long-term pitcher health when compared to, say, 125 pitches? Who's to say that MLB doesn't (god forbid) lengthen the season to 184 games in 2085? And, most likely (and the thing I'd really like to see), who's to say that some phenom (perhaps the one getting a ton of buzz for the 2009 draft) doesn't barnstorm through MLB hitters like Tiger Woods did the PGA and win 20 games a year for his first 7 years?
No one knows the future. Truth is, we MIGHT NEVER SEE ANOTHER 250 GAME WINNER! But I sure as hell don't want to make that claim with the only assurance I have being that no one will remember what I wrote and when I wrote it. Why are so many others so quick to?
And hey - no stealing my Instant History blog idea - that thing's gold.