~2021 MLB Thread~

[OrangeAfroMan]

City treasurer begs to differ.

Unless the city treasurer sees through the bullshit of making it harder for the poor to vote.  Fewer polling places, more obstacles, it's embarrassing to pretend it's anything else. 

[ELA]

The problem is the game is both evolving and not evolving, in ways that is leading it to be more boring.  Basketball added a 3 point shot, which is FAR more drastic than anything people are proposing to baseball.  But then as guys became too good at it, they moved it back.

The analytics have made teams evolve how they play.  Part of that was due to a live ball, and pitchers becoming so dominant you couldn't hope to piece together 3 consecutive hits off one, particularly with the shifts.  You were better off going for one big hit.  Simply putting the ball in play, rather than striking out, wasn't worth sacrificing one shot at a HR.  Stealing a base to put a runner in scoring position wasn't worth the risk of him getting thrown out, versus the chance of him just standing on 1st when a HR was hit.  You can't work counts to learn a pitcher, and hopefully get into a battle with him in the 6th, because almost no pitchers are allowed to face a lineup a third time.  By the 6th inning, you are facing a parade of relievers who all throw 96+.

Much like basketball moved the 3 point line back, you can adjust things (not to speed up play), but to try to preserve the way the game is played, and de-incentivize the 3 true outcomes.  Move the mound back a foot.  Require 2 infielders on either side of 2nd, and positioned no farther back than the back of the dirt.  Limit teams to using no more than 4 pitchers per game.  Plus an additional arm for the 10th, 12th, 14th, etc... innings.

All those rules do is help re-incentivize a better brand of baseball.

[OrangeAfroMan]

longhorn would roll over in his grave

[OrangeAfroMan]

Baseball was invented with pitchers trying to throw a good pitch to hit.  Maybe we should go back to that time, before all this competition got in the way.

[betarhoalphadelta]

The MLB local ratings I believe are still strong.  It no longer exists as a national sport.  The NBA pivoted to marketing stars a generation ago.  A lot of people in their teens and 20s are more fans of players than teams.  So their national numbers are strong.  MLB doesn't have that.  Fans watch their teams, but don't care about the sport as a whole.

I think baseball has some issues, though. 

Those aren't reflected as much in the stadium attendance numbers, of course. Heck, I grew up in Chicago. Most years, going to Wrigley Field is just an excuse to get drunk with a bunch of other people in a communal environment, while there happens to be a baseball game going on. It's always more fun when the Cubs win... But it's still plenty fun when the Cubs lose. But TV-wise, I'm not sure it really works as well. 

Baseball has a serious problem with the 162-game season IMHO. We talk about the importance of the regular season in CFB and NCAABB, and how much individual games matter [and how much we want them to], but how does any individual game matter in a 162-game season? Why should I care, maybe absent a rivalry game, about any individual outcome? 

[OrangeAfroMan]

The average baseball fan couldn't pick Mike Trout out of a lineup....and he's the best player since Ted Williams or maybe even Ruth (we'll see where he ends up).  
That might be all you need to know.

[longhorn320]

The first one is semantics, as what is the game without anyone to watch it?
The second statement shows that you're out of your depth on the topic.  Not unique for you.

In neither of your examples did the game change what is so hard here to understand

You telling me Im out of my depth on the topic is just another personal attack you make when youre losing the argument

[longhorn320]

longhorn would roll over in his grave

Im not dead yet you egghead

at least wait for that before making such a stupid statement

[OrangeAfroMan]

In neither of your examples did the game change what is so hard here to understand

You telling me Im out of my depth on the topic is just another personal attack you make when youre losing the argument

It's not a personal attack at all.  You don't even know what you don't know.  The only way to lose an argument with you is to even begin one.  So I guess your'e right.

[OrangeAfroMan]

Im not dead yet you egghead

at least wait for that before making such a stupid statement

See, HERE is a personal attack:

oh, I'm sorry.  Your ideas are so antiquated that I assumed you were dead.
.

[FearlessF]

The average baseball fan couldn't pick Mike Trout out of a lineup....and he's the best player since Ted Williams or maybe even Ruth (we'll see where he ends up). 
That might be all you need to know.

I'm above average!!!

[ELA]

Baseball has a serious problem with the 162-game season IMHO. We talk about the importance of the regular season in CFB and NCAABB, and how much individual games matter [and how much we want them to], but how does any individual game matter in a 162-game season? Why should I care, maybe absent a rivalry game, about any individual outcome?

That has always been the case.  We discuss how the singular focus on CFP has diminished so much of the value of the regular season in football.  For very different reasons, the same title or bust focus has done the same for baseball.  If fans are struggling to find a reason to care between one of 12 games between a couple of 7-5 teams, good luck finding a reason to care about one of 162 games between a pair of 85 win teams.

Fans are increasingly championship or bust, and less and less able to enjoy the ride.  I like sitting outside in July, having a beer, and listening to a "meaningless" Tigers game.  I'm the exception.  

The result has been tanking.  The Royals were a pleasant exception this past offseason.  They added a couple vets to go from being bad to mediocre.  You almost never see that anymore.  A handful of teams are competing.  A lot of teams are tearing down, not even worried about getting good return.  It's hard to care when your team is actively trying to be bad.  But on the flipside, look at the White Sox under the previous regime.  They were always trying to patch holes with free agents, make marginal upgrades, etc...  They were never really bad, but they were never really a title contender either.  Since 2006, they've only had one playoff appearance, but they've also only finished last in the division once.  The Royals won a World Series 6 years ago...and have already had a pair of 100 loss seasons since.

NBA can survive it, because the superstars are so important, they can never really be on a bad team.  Their presence alone makes a team decent.  So nobody really pays attention to the tanking teams, when they are going through their tank, because the sport has a national following.  Baseball can't.  You have a generational talent and the most unique player of the modern era, playing together on a team that won't even make the playoffs.

[OrangeAfroMan]

And tanking is akin to the 3 true outcomes.

The worst thing a team can do is be average.  So there's a gap now, between the teams trying to win 90+ games and ones tanking and winning fewer than 75.  Between 85-75 is purgatory.  It's harder to go from 90 to 95 wins than it is from 85 to 90.  So being average is basically slamming your head against a wall every year.
.
It's another inefficiency that statistics has revealed for optimization of a franchise.  But it does nothing to help viewership.  Baseball's winning strategies are anti-viewrship.  That's a problem.  It is not something to ignore, sit on, and proclaim everything is fine.
.
I get the idea that longhorn is one of those people that think declaring bankruptcy involves yelling the word.  

[ELA]

On point


https://twitter.com/matttomic/status/1394498097254965249?s=19