19th Hole: The Readers Take Over

NATIONAL LEAGUE SUPERIORITY
Sir:
I commend Jim Kaplan on his American League vs. National League story (It's the Nationals' Pastime, April 4). I've been a dedicated Phillies fan for years and am relieved to discover I'm not the only one who thinks the National is the superior league. Everyone in my family roots for the White Sox, and I rarely can mention the National League without enduring an American League rebuttal. Ever since I showed my family this article, however, things have been pretty quiet around our house.
PAUL KELLY
Joliet, Ill.

Sir:
In response to Jim Kaplan's assertion that the National League is "vastly superior" to the American League, I say baloney! He says, "In truth, there was more to St. Louis' win [in the '82 Series] than the missing [Brewer Pitcher Rollie] Fingers." Like what? The Cardinals try harder? They're more team oriented? They've got more tradition? They're better players because they're accustomed to performing on a carpet? No thanks! I can't buy it! And I can't buy Bum Luck, The Star Syndrome, The Pete Rose Syndrome or Ballpark Fever either.

As for Kaplan's "innings" seven and eight, concerning umpiring and the DH rule, both pertain to an aspect of baseball that is subjective. Kaplan likes ground balls; I like home runs. As for his points about blacks and Hispanics and farm systems, I'll grant that the National League may have the edge there, but he's wrong in his ninth inning, entitled Speed Kills. When you play defense on a cement slab, as half the teams in the National League do in their home parks, you'd better be fast, which carries over to the offense in terms of stolen bases and extra bases. It's easier to hit a ball through a hole on a rug, so faster players—which often means weaker hitters—are perfect. But is this turf-tailored speed to be interpreted as constituting a more aggressive league? Then I suppose artificial turf is better. Come on, Kaplan, get serious!

When the Cardinals have to come from three runs behind in the seventh game—the fourth played on artificial turf—to win against a team stripped of its relief ace, I'm not so sure I'd call them vastly superior.
THOMAS O'FLANAGAN
Barron, Wis.

Sir:
Jim Kaplan's article proclaiming the National League's supposed superiority made my American League blood boil. The American League is no pushover! In fact, it might be better than the National League.

In the first place, the All-Star Game proves nothing, except perhaps that National League fans are better at choosing players for their team. As for the World Series, Texas Vice-president and General Manager Joe Klein is absolutely right: The only thing that the National League's winning of the World Series proves is that it is better in four out of seven games in October. Many times only one run better!

Using the fact that the National League has won four Series in a row as evidence of overwhelming supremacy is simply wrong. I'd like to see one of your prized National League teams in the American League East. At least the Toronto Blue Jays would have some company!
BOBBY RUE
New York City

Sir:
At the same time Jim Kaplan was relegating the American League to Triple A status, American Leaguers were routing the Nationals up and down both coasts of Florida and in the deserts of Arizona.

If Kaplan's right, it would seem that the National League should have dominated the exhibition season. No way. The American League played .554 baseball, the National .436. Nine American League teams were over .500; only two National League clubs hit the break-even figure.

Is the National League really as dominant as Kaplan says—or is he just biased?
DICK ILIFF
West Palm Beach, Fla.