The Best of All Games
John Rawls (1921 - 2002) was an eminent philosopher, perhaps the greatest America ever produced. He was also a devoted baseball fan. Contrary to widespread reports, he was never offered a contract to play professionally and, in fact, had not even played varsity baseball in college. Yet he had played on his high school team and starred on intramural and departmental softball games at Harvard. Often, as in his seminal article, “Two Concepts of Rules,” Rawls used examples from baseball to make technical philosophic points.
In the letter that follows, written in 1981, Rawls puts philosophy to the service of baseball and gives an account of the sport and its special appeal to the American people. The letter recounts a breakfast conversation some twenty years earlier with Harry Kalven (1914 - 1974) who had been a friend and colleague of mine at the University of Chicago. Kalven was a legal scholar of great distinction who specialized in torts, the jury, and free speech.
On his death, Kalven left a manuscript, to which Rawls alludes and which was eventually published in 1988 as A Worthy Tradition, on freedom of speech. Like Rawls, Kalven loved baseball. He was proud that his torts casebook contained more baseball cases than any of its competitors, and each year made a point of taking students to a Cubs game.
Rawls’s retelling of his conversation with Kalven can be taken as evidence of his remarkable powers of recall. Or it might be read as a tribute to the generosity of his spirit—his well-known inclination to give credit to others for his own ideas. In either event, his letter is part of a tradition—of spending Saturdays writing long, leisurely letters—that has all but vanished in the age of emails.
—Owen Fiss
Harvard University
Department of Philosophy
Emerson Hall
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
Saturday, April 18
Dear Owen,
Many thanks for sending me the bibliography of Kalven’s writings and the copy of your memorial address. When classes are over at the end of next week I hope to read some of his essays listed that I haven’t gotten to yet. I have until the end of May to revise the lecture (a copy enclosed) for publication in the Tanner volume. A lot needs to be done on it, although I feel better about it than I did around March 1st when I was having trouble deciding how to give a useful example or two and bring the thing to a close. Here especially, Kalven’s writings were most helpful. I look forward to seeing the MS should that be possible.
It is curious that although I only saw Kalven once to talk to, and that was in the summer of 1961 (I think, otherwise 1962) at breakfast while attending a conference sponsored by the Encyclopedia Britannica at Santa Barbara at Hutchins’s madhouse among the palms, we talked about the only subject that you never seem to have gotten around to in your conversations with him, namely baseball. I distinctly recall the conversation because he brought out to me many splendid features of the game which, though obvious, require his sort of brilliance to see the significance of. For example, he gave these reasons for why baseball is the best of all games.
First: the rules of the game are in equilibrium: that is, from the start, the diamond was made just the right size, the pitcher’s mound just the right distance from home plate, etc., and this makes possible the marvelous plays, such as the double play. The physical layout of the game is perfectly adjusted to the human skills it is meant to display and to call into graceful exercise. Whereas, basketball, e.g., is constantly (or was then) adjusting its rules to get them in balance.
Second: the game does not give unusual preference or advantage to special physical types, e.g., to tall men as in basketball. All sorts of abilities can find a place somewhere, the tall and the short etc. can enjoy the game together in different positions.
Third: the game uses all parts of the body: the arms to throw, the legs to run, and to swing the bat, etc.; per contra soccer where you can’t touch the ball. It calls upon speed, accuracy of throw, gifts of sight for batting, shrewdness for pitchers and catchers, etc. And there are all kinds of strategies.
Fourth: all plays of the game are open to view: the spectators and the players can see what is going on. Per contra football where it is hard to know what is happening in the battlefront along the line. Even the umpires can’t see it all, so there is lots of cheating etc. And in basketball, it is hard to know when to call a foul. There are close calls in baseball too, but the umps do very well on the whole, and these close calls arise from the marvelous timing built into the game and not from trying to police cheaters etc.
Fifth: baseball is the only game where scoring is not done with the ball, and this has the remarkable effect of concentrating the excitement of plays at different points of the field at the same time. Will the runner cross the plate before the fielder gets to the ball and throws it to home plate, and so on.
Finally, there is the factor of time, the use of which is a central part of any game. Baseball shares with tennis the idea that time never runs out, as it does in basketball and football and soccer. This means that there is always time for the losing side to make a comeback. The last of the ninth inning becomes one of the most potentially exciting parts of the game. And while the same sometimes happens in tennis also, it seems to happen less often. Cricket, much like baseball (and indeed I must correct my remark above that baseball is the only game where scoring is not done with the ball), does not have a time limit.
Such, as I recall, was the substance of the conversation one morning with Kalven as I and several others had breakfast with him. And having played baseball some I tried to draw him out a bit. I’m sure there were many more things I’ve forgotten, and I’m also sure he could have gone on forever, if we hadn’t had to stop.
Again many thanks for sending me the things. They will be most helpful to me.
Best,
Jack
Comments
About the Author
John Rawls (1921-2002) taught political philosophy at Harvard University, and is author of A Theory of Justice (1971), Political Liberalism (1993), The Law of Peoples (1999), and Justice as Fairness: A Restatement (2001).
It puzzles me why Kalven should have made this mistake and Rawls failed to correct it. Perhaps one or both of them were aware of Lord Mancroft's cruel (some would say barbaric) quip that the English, "not being a spiritual race, had to invent cricket to give themselves a sense of eternity".
Second, commentators have made the point that
the game is changed significantly in Denver where the high altitude changes the trajectory of batted balls and the 'perfect' geometry of the game as played at sea level.
Anyway, the article claims to be about the greatest of all sports. Surely, then, mentioning another sport is entirely on topic. Unless we rule out of order all sports not currently played at a professional level in the US (even if they are sports in which the US was once a world beater).
http://SouthernCrossReview.org/53/diamond2.htm
The comparison of the two games was not, by the way, the purpose of my earlier remarks. I was merely responding to the points made by Kalven, many of which applied to other games, and one of which (about cricket) contained a glaring factual error.
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/articles/2008/04/05/taking_a_swing_at_baseball_philosophy/
but i second ken donow's comments. i've had it to the gills with limeballs wauling about how baseball isn't this or that and is derivative of some other thing. look, you lost in 1781, get over it.
I think one could argue that a home run still isn't an example of scoring with the ball. Though the ball's inaccessibility guarantees the runner's safe passage, they must still run and tag each base. Failure to tag will result in no score. The words "home run" contain their own physicality: one must literally run home.
Personally, I rather enjoy baseball. And, to respond to some of the weirder comments on this thread, I have no desire to re-invade North America - though the 1781 reference is way off the mark, since baseball actually emerged as the dominant game only after the Civil War (and the first professional team, the Cincinnati Red Stockings, had a substantial input from former cricketers of English origin). I also greatly liked Rawls with whom I once spent a pleasant afternoon. My original point was that there are a lot of errors in the argument - mainly because it either ignores other sports (in what seems to me an astonishingly parochial way for such cosmopolitan figures) or misrepresents them. So even if baseball were to be regarded as the best of games (whatever that might mean), it can't be so for the reasons Kalven states.
Kalven's aspects of baseball that make it a great game is an interesting list but could be used equally if not more so to explain the popularity of the beautiful game.
Football's rules have also remained remarkably constant (odd tweaks aside like the backpass rule) over the years and the continents showing the basic soundness of the game.
Any physical type can play football as well but in addition no special equipment or setting is required.
Leaving side the goalkeeper, throw-ins and use of the head in football (very unwise in baseball I imagine) the fact that outfield players can't handle the ball in regular play hardly means that only the lower half of the body is used in football(a supposedly telling point against "soccer"). I would suggest that running around for 90 minutes is a better all round work out than baseball.
All football plays are open to view but maybe not to the referee so maybe this counts for baseball.
Maybe there is something in the not scoring with the ball point also but in football only the rankest amateur player or spectator is caught "ball watching". The important action is nearly always off the ball i.e. the attacking and defending runs of the other players. This aspect of football also means that all the players are involved throughout the game unlike in baseball.
Kalven's final point is also interesting but it is a time aspect that I think is one of the main reasons for football's popularity. Football is low scoring relative to other sports. It is very hard to score against well organised professional teams. The effect is to introduce a Poisson distribution where you can get unlikely outcomes. So statistically the superior teams will come out on top but in any one-off game the inferior team can win. This plus the fact that when goals do happen they can happen very quickly means that matches are often very tense right up until the end.
Two of Rawls points in particular I disagree with. I believe his second point is actually a negative. I much prefer a game like basketball that encourages and rewards players for expanding their skill set and requires all players to play both offense and defense well rather than encouraging specialization in hitting, pitching, or fielding. I find the idea of a pinch hitter or runner opposed to the very idea of team sports.
Basketball clearly surpasses baseball using the criteria in the third point. Not only does the level of skill and athleticism required of the whole body surpass that of baseball but unlike baseball different parts of the body and the skills associated are used simultaneously. When a player dribbles or penetrates he uses his hands to dribble and his feet to run. When he shoots he uses his feet to jump and his hands to shoot.
In addition there are two traits that Rawls doesn't mention which I believe are essential in a discussion of this sort. First is teamwork. Of all the major team sports baseball requires the least amount of teamwork. The main action of the game takes place between only two people the pitcher and the batter. Indeed, the pitcher fails at his job if his teammates are required to get involved by fielding.
Second is creativity. There is very little room for creativity in baseball. Baseball is basically a game of execution rather than invention. Whereas in basketball and football creativity in set plays, and how individual players react in the moment plays a major part in determing success or failure.
I would argue that ice hockey takes the best aspects of every sport and mooshes them together. It's fast-paced and exciting, with no planned interruptions of play, as in baseball or (American) football, where there is zero activity in between plays. It requires the conditioning of soccer players and the fortitude of football players. A hockey player's skills supercede those of any baseball player, as far as running or keen eyesight go. It requires more, and more constant, team coordination than baseball; due to hockey's faster pace than football, soccer or basketball, and the fact that player substitutions occur DURING gametime, I'd argue that it requires more coordination than any of them. Finally, hockey is a beautiful amalgam of grace and violence. There's an old joke that "a hockey game broke out at the fight last night," but anyone who has seen Bobby Orr or Wayne Gretzky deftly glide from one end of the ice to the other, weaving between and around his opponents can attest that physical violence will only go so far in the game. Indeed, some of the best players in the game are not fighters at all.
The only strike against hockey that I see is that it is a bit inaccessible to the common man. To play, one needs to be able to skate, needs a thick sheet of ice. For non-fans, the game can be a bit dizzying to watch. I'd counter that for non-fans of baseball, the game is dreadfully boring. Frankly, I'd rather watch golf than baseball. At least golf doesn't have any pretention of being a team sport.
A fellow by the name of Greg Maddux--one of the finest pitchers to ever play the game--would certainly disagree with the above sentiment. Maddux was a master at getting batters to hit weak infield groundballs, resulting in an easy put-out at first base. These plays, of course, require the defense to get involved--someone has to field the ball and throw it to first, and the firstbaseman must make the play.
But from the pitcher's perspective--this is the most efficient way to get a batter out, requiring only a single pitch. A strikeout requires three pitches at a minimum, and pitch count is an important concern for pitchers. And whether the batter gets blown off the plate or is thrown out at first, either way he is out; there is of course no penalty assessed on the pitcher or the defense for "assisted" putouts.
I'll conclude by noting that love of sport--like love of art, music, and literature--is a matter of taste. To suggest that there exists a measure of merit by which all sports may be evaluated, and one found to be supreme, is folly of the highest order. Some find poetry in a 6-4-3 double play; others find it in a slam dunk, a bone-rattling quarterback sack, a header into the corner of the net, or a perfect shot to the green. That either philosophy or the populus might elevate one sport all others, misses the point that the games are played for the simple enjoyment of mankind.
1. For a spectator's experience to be rewarding, a high ratio of successful execution to successful scoring is key. In hockey, for example, it seems that many goals occur by near accident, or that successfully beating one's defender hardly assures a scoring chance. In baseball and football, such a high percentage of the game's scoring can occur on one play at that these games favor "freak" luck more than basketball, in which one "freak luck" play can only give you 2 points out of the 90+ it will require to win the game.
2. A team sport should highlight both the individual athletic talents of its members, while depending critically on the strategic execution of other athletes. In basketball, the one-on-one elegance of the game's elite players (Kobe Bryant, LeBron James) showcases unique athletic talent, but their teams cannot win without the integrated execution of their teammates. Individual brilliance and team performance should be rewarded in equal measure, and basketball best achieves this balance. In football, the team execution overwhelms individual performances in 98% of all plays. In baseball, team defense is a far less decisive factor than the individual performances of batters and pitchers.
3. The higher-scoring a game, or rather, the more scoring opportunities that are presented to both teams, the less likely it is that the scoring will be dominated by luck. One lucky shot out of 50 scoring plays is far less significant than one lucky hit out of 5 scoring plays. As a result, in basketball games it is more rare for the "better" team to lose than in baseball, where even the best team can win only 60% of the time against the worst teams in the league.
So to summarise.
Baseball - boring to watch and to play.
Basketball - exciting to watch (if you like to see the "best" team win every time) and to play (if you are a physical freak).
American Football - intermittently exciting to watch, boring to play (and then only if you are a physical freak and have all the gear).
Ice Hockey - exciting to watch and to play (if you have an ice-rink and a propensity for violence).
Football - exciting to watch (for both sets of supporters) and to play (for anyone anywhere with a ball).
I suppose that is why it is the most popular game on Earth and even in US seems to be more widely played than the more watched sports.
So to summarise.
Baseball - boring to watch and to play.
Basketball - exciting to watch (if you like to see the "best" team win every time) and to play (if you are a physical freak).
American Football - intermittently exciting to watch, boring to play (and then only if you are a physical freak and have all the gear).
Ice Hockey - exciting to watch and to play (if you have an ice-rink and a propensity for violence).
Football - exciting to watch (for both sets of supporters) and to play (for anyone anywhere with a ball).
I suppose that is why it is the most popular game on Earth and even in US seems to be more widely played than the more watched sports.
That is, unless you're talking about the amount of fun the professional level athletes have while playing. I don't worry much about them.
My rather simplistic summary above was based on the idea that when playing proper American Football at least half of the team is sitting down doing nothing for large stretches of time. Then there are the breaks and the fact that most of the outfield players are never going to touch the ball in most plays.
To be fair to baseball my summary should have said: boring to watch and to play but provides a nice setting in which to spend some time and lots of nice stats for nerds (all of which applies equally to cricket).
- events per second
- excitement (thrill, adrenaline)
- physical enjoyment
- dead time
- teamplay (social aspect)
For example, soccer has very low "dead time" and high "physical enjoyment" (if you enjoy running around a lot). There's an element of excitement near the goal since scoring a goal is so difficult. Teamplay is also relatively important.
However, soccer has low events per second. Sure, you need to constantly dribble the ball and run into position. You are constantly moving, but you are not constantly reacting. Compared to others sports such as hockey or basketball, soccer ranks low in this category. The playing field is so much bigger than you spend long seconds moving from strategic point a to strategic point b.
Taking this same thinking can explain why American football is so much fun.
1) Events per second
I played a running back, and the brunt of the action spanned perhaps 2 seconds. In that two seconds, you had to read your blocker, you had to read the defense, you had to figure out where to go, and things could change in a tenth of a second. Everything had to happen almost subconsciously. I remembering once just running straight ahead before getting tackled, but on tape, I was jumping over and weaving through multiple defenders. In terms of pure actions per second, football was by far the highest due to the promixmity of players and the speed of the game.
2) Excitement
The physical and perhaps violent nature of the game leads to greater gravity of the situation. And the fact that you count down the hike builds anticipation for a sudden burst of events. Add in that you are wearing basically armor and diving into people, and you have a very exciting situation.
In pro sports, I imagine the situation might change with fans and being the center of mass attention, but there are varying situations of visibility and focus even within single sports.
3) Physical enjoyment
I would say this is pretty low in football.
4) Deadtime
Very high in football. There are breaks between plays and if you're on offense or defense. However, the breaks between plays are really part of the game. In the huddle, you are trying to figure out what to do as a team in a limited amount of time. You also need that breather because every second of actual play is a full-on sprint. Sitting while the defense or offense is up might be a bit different. I played mostly ironman (both sides), so it's hard to say.
5) Teamplay
Very high because 1) the game relies on team execution and 2) you have to trust your teammate to protect you. It's not just a matter of helping you get points, but also a matter of bodily harm. There's a very high level of comradreship.
It's hard to compare baseball to football or even basketball. They are different categories of sports. Baseball is a recreational sport. There's a lot of downtime, but maybe that's part of the appeal. As a group, you get to relax while everyone's attention is on the batter versus pitcher matchup.
Depending on how you set up your standards, anything can be good or bad. I think if someone argues for something other than plain arguments sake and tries to describe some sport as perfect shows a limited understanding of people.
Personally, I like basketball the best. There's a high actions per second and high teamplay. The game requires all sorts of abilities with a variety of different specialities. The excitement factor is somewhat low other than in crunch time with so many scoring opportunities, but that's balanced by immediate feedback for taking "a good shot". But bottomline, I just find the game fun at this time and place for whatever reason. Nothing seems more natural to me than trying to grab a rebound. If only I had been a foot taller, maybe I could have been the next Charles Barkley.