On June 8 the Boston Red Sox took on the Los Angeles Angels times two due to a rainout June 7. Los Angeles won the first game (9-5), and the Red Sox won the second (7-2). I can’t believe double headers used to be scheduled for baseball organizations to increase their revenue. In my opinion, it’s just not healthy for players to go out on the field for that length of time in one day. I know they are professionals, but they are also only humans just like you and I. I think it’s too much to ask of them, to do their best and play their all for 18 plus straight innings. So, to answer the question, “are double headers disadvantageous?” I say yes; especially if the guys have to travel and play a game the next day. It’s definitely overworking them although, back in the day, late 1800’s and early 1900’s, starting pitchers used to pitch 18 straight innings without a hitch. (When bullpens were used infrequently) To top it off, there were pitchers that used to complete both games with victories, Ray Collins (1914), for instance, of the Red Sox, and Carl Mays (1918).
In any case, I’m all about health and I worry about not only the Boston Red Sox, but also players on other teams. We want to see a ball game, not a bunch of lethargic ballplayers go out and pretend to be conscious. I’m glad double headers are not scheduled as they were 21 years ago, and they are only used in unruly situations such as the search for the Boston Marathon suspects and rainouts or snow because just like you and I, those guys need their time off to recharge their batteries and to put forth a good show.
I know there are many out there who would disagree with me. In fact, there is contemplation among the organization to bring back scheduled double headers, again, to maximize revenue. I guess I would like to ask you, as fans, your opinion on the double header situation. “Are double headers disadvantageous?”