It’s not as if it’s an original story, I worry. Shouldn’t a young kid bring his own quirks, his own idiosyncrasy? A goofy windup, a cool pitch? Or is such a frill just a way of disguising an old plot?
And it’s not as if anybody would want a totally odd string of affairs. Sports’ laws build in norms, only allowing mildly variant actions. Should a cunning coach find a way around any of it, bigwigs will codify that no, in fact, you cannot do that. This maintains a fair way of playing. Or, a drastic lack of pitching/hitting parity will prompt a switch (1968). Looking back throughout history, you can watch months form clumps of similar ways of playing, still staying within rigid forms but changing slightly until what you and I know today is put down in ink.
In such a long span of history, many stars stand out. Many start slowly, many start quickly. Many play for a long duration; not all do. All bring an individual story, an arc, a plot. But thinking about many, you can group stars too into similar clumps.
Just in my conscious sports-watching days, things vary. Artificial All-Star drama–“Oh, this counts! It’s important! Uh-huh!” is not that old. Instantly watching film to fight callings is also not that old. Still, I’m not so old as to know how it was during a major variation, nor during a squad’s total introduction.
Though I do know about a squad moving to a distinct city. Country, too.
But if this variation is slowing down, could plots go too quickly without varying? Look good, start folks talking, sign, hang out in minors, go up to Majors, still look good, look not so good, fight off injury, try again, and…
And do much of it in just months?
Slow down. I don’t know how this will finish. But I’m afraid.