Kip’s Mailbag
You wrote, and he answered! To have your letter appear in a future issue, email kip.shoremore@si.com.
Carter writes: Hi, Kip. Should NFL fans vote for who they want the team to draft? Because the draft can make fans so happy or so angry.
I think this idea is fabulous, Carter. I’ve often thought I know better than my favorite team. Still, I can foresee a few small problems. For one, this system would probably work for only the first round. How many fans know the names of the players who will go with the 40th pick, much less the 140th? Secondly, how do you secure the vote? When an adult votes for the president, it doesn’t matter who they support, since a vote for one candidate is implicitly a vote against another. If the draft operated on some kind of internet polling system, it’d be rife with jealous trolls who’d probably try to stick the Patriots with a punter or something. The location-tracking technology on smartphones could help, but doesn’t totally eliminate the problem: Jets fans would be as eager to ruin the Giants’ pick as they would be to vote on their own. So let’s cut out the middle man, Carter. Next year, let’s just you and me make all the picks.
Theo writes: Hi, Kip. My question is: Are some ballparks easier to hit in than others? Thanks, Theo.
The availing statistical evidence shows that some parks are easier to hit in. The Colorado Rockies even keep their balls in a special humidifying chamber to try to counteract the thin mountain air, which supposedly makes the ball soar off the bat. Personally, though, I find them all pretty hard to hit in.
Akaal writes: Hi, Kip. I am a big fan of your magazine and I want to give you a recommendation for a future article: Take all the worst NFL teams ever and put them in a playoff tournament to decide who will come on top.
First of all, Akaal, thank you for the kind words. I love the idea of a “loser bracket,” a concept that’s highly underutilized outside of bronze-medal games. I’m not sure if the players would be so excited, though. Unless, of course, you meant a purely hypothetical bracket to determine the best of the worst. In that case, let’s combine your and Carter’s ideas and take a vote.
Tom writes: Baseball should have a salary cap. As a fan of the Milwaukee Brewers, I have the right to say this. Baseball would just be so much more competitive! We won’t have teams like the Yankees or the Red Sox winning each year! New teams, like the Rockies or the Brewers, would be playoff contenders. This needs to be changed. Now. As a bandwagon fan of several big-market franchises (Cowboys, Yankees, Lakers), I can’t sympathize, Tom. But I empathize. Who would a salary cap in baseball really help, however? Here’s a dirty little secret: Most, if not all team owners—no matter the size of their city—would love a salary cap because it would save them money.
Last year’s World Series featured that tiniest of the small-market teams, the Tampa Bay Rays. And I think your Brewers made the playoffs, too. Bottom line: If you’re rich enough to own a baseball team, you’re probably rich enough to pay for some better pitchers. The owners in Major League Baseball don’t need any help being cheap.
Eli writes: Hi, Kip. I really love your column. It is the first thing I read. My question is: Why only four downs in football? Why not three or five?
You’ve stumped me, Eli. I know the concept of “downs” comes from football’s predecessor, rugby. In modern rugby, teams get six “tackles,” the equivalent of a football down. So why four? Heck, why not five?
STEVE RUSSELL/TORONTO STAR/GETTY IMAGES (LATTE); IAN BARRETT/AFP/GETTY IMAGES (SCHUMACHER);
GETTY IMAGES (X-RAY, ACROPOLIS, CHICKEN); ISTOCKPHOTO/GETTY IMAGES (TELESCOPE); SEAN M. HAFFEY/GETTY IMAGES (GLIFBERG); NERTHUSZ/ISTOCKPHOTO/GETTY IMAGES (TELESCOPE); DAVID E. KLUTHO (WADE)