~2024 MLB Thread~

[OrangeAfroMan]

I like the pace-of-play changes.  A 2.5 hour baseball game is better than a 4 hour baseball game.  

[longhorn320]

I like the pace-of-play changes.  A 2.5 hour baseball game is better than a 4 hour baseball game. 

the 2023 average time is 24 min shorter then the 2022 time

not enough to make me want it

[FearlessF]

I'm old school but like the shorter games

[OrangeAfroMan]

Shorter games ARE old school.  Games were barely 2 hours back before lights were a thing.  They had to get the game in before the sun went down.

[FearlessF]

up, well aware

easy before the creation of batting gloves w/velcro

[FearlessF]

[ELA]

Yeah, all the timing rules do is get the game back to how it was always played.

I like all of the other changes they made this year (larger bases, pickoff limits, shift restrictions)

I don't like the Manfred Man/zombie runner though.  That, like the 7 inning DH, was a COVID rule when there were no real minor leagues, so you couldn't really adjust your roster on the fly after having to burn your entire pitching staff with 18+ innings in a day.  There is no reason to keep it.

Same way I feel about college football, even before they made everything after the first 2 OTs a 2pt contest.  Once you change the game fundamentally that much, just to declare a winner,.I'd rather just have ties.  

[OrangeAfroMan]

He led the league in ERA one year with an 8-16 W-L record.

[OrangeAfroMan]

Same way I feel about college football, even before they made everything after the first 2 OTs a 2pt contest.  Once you change the game fundamentally that much, just to declare a winner,.I'd rather just have ties. 

I haven't really thought about overtime rules.  What they have in place right now is genuinely bizarre.  It's like something you tinker with little by little until it's just crap.

My idea to fix it would be for tie games to have 1 OT.  Both teams get the ball, like now.  But the idea is the team that gets the ball 2nd has to go for the win.
SO, if:
Team A doesn't score, Team B wins with any score.  If Team B fails to score, it's a tie.
Team A kicks a FG, Team B has to go for a TD when they have the ball.  No ties.
Team A scores a TD + XP*, Team B has to score a TD and must go for 2.  No ties.
.
So the only way a game can end in a tie is if both teams poop the bed.  That's like kissing your sister, right?  They'd have patheticked their way to a tie.
.
*Team A cannot go for two.  They can earn their win by not allowing a TD to Team B or denying their 2-pt conversion.  

[Gigem]

.
Having teams that finished 15 games back in your playoff is sheer obliviousness and is solely for money.  Throw competition out the window.  Entertainment only. 
There is ZERO interest in the champion being the best team. 
.
I simply don't see the point of that.
If this isn't the appropriate place to share that, then what is? lol

Psst. Don’t tell anybody, but it’s all for entertainment. 
Carry on. 

[OrangeAfroMan]

It is, but up to a point.
The competition aspect is vital, as it's what draws the best players to the field.  Trotting out a fat 50 year old would be entertaining, in a #failarmy kind of way, but he'd suck and not help his team win.  

Sports viewing is generally correlated with mastery and skill of the athletes.  pro attendance > college attendance > women's sports, etc.  
Athletes are drawn to sports to show how good they are, win games, and find out who is best.  
The more we screw around with that, the riskier it gets.  

I could see professional sports as we know it falling off a cliff 20 years from now, having sold out on entertainment and eschewing actual competition.
I don't think it's LIKELY, but the intro in the movie BASEketball could easily happen.  We're in a post-truth, 9-second attention span world and baseball with football safeties taking people out or basketball requiring 1 woman on the court at all times is possible.  Anything that gets 1 more click or like is a possibility.  

While it's far-fetched and unlikely and perhaps silly to talk about, how would it start?  
Players making more money pitching products than pitching baseballs.
Kids getting paid millions before taking a snap.
Teams finishing a distant 2nd (or 3rd) place, but being crowned champions.
A season-ending conference championship outcome being irrelevant.
Losses in a short regular season lacking any consequence in the polls.
And so on and so on.

[GopherRock]

I've been umpiring softball for a long time, and we've started extras in non-HS ball with the last runner due up on 2nd. That doesn't bother me. 

[FearlessF]

It is, but up to a point.

the point is $$$ = entertainment
deserves has nothing to do with it

[ELA]

If you made me Commissioner, I'd abolish divisions, but keep the AL (with a DH) and the NL (without one).  No crossover games.

Top 8 from each league would make the playoffs.  The higher seeded team would host all games.  The lower seeded team would always have to win 4.  But the higher seeded team would have to win 1, 2, 3 or 4, based on their seed.  So...

AMERICAN

• #8 Yankees at #1 Orioles (Yankees would have to win 4 in a row)
• #7 Twins at #2 Rays (Twins would have to win 4 of 5)
• #6 Mariners at #3 Astros (Mariners would have to win 4 of 6)
• #5 Blue Jays at #4 Rangers (true best of 7)

NATIONAL

• #8 Reds at #1 Braves (Reds would have to win 4 in a row)
• #7 Cubs at #2 Dodgers (Cubs would have to win 4 of 5)
• #6 Diamondbacks at #3 Brewers (Diamondbacks would have to win 4 of 6)
• #5 Marlins at #4 Phillies (true best of 7)

I think that would keep fan bases involved, while still valuing the regular season, better than it does now.  And I'm sorry, no matter how great you were for 162 games, if you lose 4 straight playoff home games, against the 8th best team in your league, you deserve nothing