Because so often an inside the park home run requires some dunderheaded defensive play that, in a fair world, would be called an error but isn’t.  Guys falling down, bad hops, etc.  I haven’t seen a ton of inside the park home runs, but many of them I have seen ended up with no real play or no real close play at the plate. Triples are subject to this too, but more often they are simply clean gappers hit by a guy with serious wheels, leading to a close play at third.

Excitement is in the eye (or gut) of the beholder, and this beholder has simply gets more excited by triples.

As cool as triples and inside-the-park HRs are, in my mind, the outright steal of home is the most exciting play in baseball. There’s ALWAYS a play at the plate, it takes a great amount of luck, and it’s exceedingly rare. I don’t want players on my team trying it, ever; but seeing it happen is the most exciting thing I’ve ever seen on a baseball field.

Oh, I tend to think the pulling-back of a sure HR is about as exciting as they come.  To watch Torii Hunter scale a wall and pull one back is much more exciting (and difficult) a play than a guy motoring around the bases.

I can watch track for pure speed.  But give me a guy with speed AND a glove AND the skill to time a jump/climb up a wall and I’m giddy.

Thanks for the explanation, CC. 

FWIW, I lean Jason’s way on this. I love the brilliant “oh no he din’t” defensive plays.  They’re awesome the first time, and they have replay value (all hail Web Gems!).

As a Mets fan, I have to disagree with Templeton about Lima Time. It’s fun to say, but I would not wish it on anyone.

If that were true, then there would be *more* triples hit per ballpark in 2008 than in 1998 or 1988 or 1978. Except…

2008: 28.58
1998: 29.97
1988: 32.31
1978: 39.23

...it’s quite the opposite, isn’t it?

Exactly. The relatively smaller ballparks are *not* seeing more triples as a result of OF miscues. The evidence does not support the delusion.

“But given how relatively small the dimensions are in most new ballparks, you could easily say the same about triples too.”

The logical inference from the above is that the (so-called) smaller ballparks have led to more triples, which is not true. I’m not the one making any argument here, I’m merely refuting this mistaken notion.

No, the inference is that there would be even fewer triples than there are, were defensive mistakes not a factor. Nowhere in the quoted text is the inference that there should be more total triples in smaller ballparks. For that to happen, defensive mistakes would have to increase in frequency at a rate proportionately greater than the decrease in park size.  Quoting totals doesn’t tell us anything about the number of triples that were the result of defensive errors.  Though now that you mention it, it is interesting that the rate of decrease between 98 and 08 is quite a bit smaller than those of previous decades.

No sense in arguing with someone that doesn’t understand that a runner that reaches third as a result of an error did not hit a triple. Or who doesn’t fully understand what an inference is.