MLB Off-Topic

[jake44np]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

How about we just leave the game alone.

Because todays youth cant stand watching it. If you lose them the game will suffer in about 10-20 years and beyond.
They don't have the attention span to enjoy how slow the game is.
They game is going to die if they don't make changes.

I can tell you my 11 year old loves the NBA, loves College and Pro football.
But would rather go to the dentist than sit and watch a MLB game.

[CMH]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

The 3 batter rule is absolutely stupid. It requires a bunch of other rules that no one wants to monitor.

If this happens, I guarantee you'll have the announcing team asking their former umpire what the rule stipulates in this unlikely scenario no one thought about because baseball is a beautiful sport.

What happens if youre up 4 and start the inning with your non closer. That reliever walks two.

So now instead of inserting your closer, your reliever has to face another batter and potentially throw the game into chaos? Sure, let's see how long that lasts before fans scream in outrage.

Does a reliever have to face 3 batters or finish an inning? So what if my reliever faces two hitters to end an inning and now my offense is on a tear. The reliever has to sit and wait 30 minutes to go back in to face one guy? Can't wait for the injuries to pile on.

Oh and they want to go back to a 14 day DL. Sure. Let's water down the product some more by giving bad pitchers more opportunities.

What if in the previous scenario there was a rain delay? My pitcher has to wait 2 hours so they can pitch to one guy? Sounds fun. Really speeding up the game now.

It's like these guys sit around talking about dumb stuff for 55 minutes and then realize the meeting is almost over and asks everyone to shout out ideas. "Let's go with those!"


Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[areobee401]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Because todays youth cant stand watching it. If you lose them the game will suffer in about 10-20 years and beyond.
They don't have the attention span to enjoy how slow the game is.
They game is going to die if they don't make changes.

I can tell you my 11 year old loves the NBA, loves College and Pro football.
But would rather go to the dentist than sit and watch a MLB game.

Amazes me how many baseball fans refuse to acknowledge the lack of interest today’s youth has for the game as a major problem.

[countryboy]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Because todays youth cant stand watching it. If you lose them the game will suffer in about 10-20 years and beyond.
They don't have the attention span to enjoy how slow the game is.
They game is going to die if they don't make changes.

I can tell you my 11 year old loves the NBA, loves College and Pro football.
But would rather go to the dentist than sit and watch a MLB game.

If that's the reason, I don't see how any of the proposed changes are going to change that mindset.

It's not like the changes mentioned are going to condense the game from 2 1/2 to 3 hours down to 90 minutes.

The game is long by nature because there is no timed clock. Even with all these rule changes you can still have 3+ hour games that only go 9 innings because its not unheard of for an inning of baseball to last 30 minutes if a team rallies.

If the sole purpose of changes is to shorten the games so that people will watch the game then actually do something that accomplishes that purpose instead of making unnecessary changes to the game that really accomplishes nothing, aside from possibly causing traditionalist or older fans to tune out, thus not passing the love of the game onto their children.

People want to shorten the game but yet they add things that cause the game to last longer...example replay.

[Speedy]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I dont think the focus should necessarily be on shortening the game. It should be on cutting out the dead time where nothing is happening.

I understand that sounds related but there is a difference as it would eliminate stupid rule changes like the proposed 3-batter min.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Operation Sports mobile app

[countryboy]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I dont think the focus should necessarily be on shortening the game. It should be on cutting out the dead time where nothing is happening.

I understand that sounds related but there is a difference as it would eliminate stupid rule changes like the proposed 3-batter min.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Operation Sports mobile app

I understand that, but aside from the 20 second pitch clock, which of those proposed rule changes is cutting out the dead time where nothing is happening?

[DieHardYankee26]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I don't think there's any rule changes to be made to help. It's more a culture issue IMO, baseball is "lame".

[BigOscar]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

The draft really needs to be changed, 100%, it's embarrassing that the last place team gets the first pick. Maybe it's acceptable to Americans because it's been normalised, but the idea of incentivizing losing utterly baffles me and I can't believe it's lasted as long as it has. That's worse than "everyone gets a trophy", you're actively rewarding and encouraging failure.

I get the desire to keep everyone competitive and stop "dynasties" winning all the time, but it doesn't work and has led to a long list of unhealthy practices that are terrible for the game. The reality is that teams work on vastly different payrolls so you'll never have anything resembling balance.

All you get is teams not trying to win, which means turgid baseball for fans and players who could improve those teams not getting signed, because why pay extra money to make your team better if making your team better is bad? Teams should be encouraged to try and compete to the best of their abilities, not penalised.

How you implement that, I don't know. Maybe a draft lottery for team outside the playoffs or under .500, maybe give priority to teams who just missed out on the playoffs instead of those who just sucked. I don't know, but I can't think of a much worse system than the current one tbh

[DieHardYankee26]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

This conversation would make more sense in the NBA forum IMO. The MLB draft is not even one where the 1st pick means all that much. Start a lottery, the Orioles are the worst team in the league. They now get the 7th pick, what problem does that solve?

I think the better (but would never happen) idea is get rid of revenue sharing like Master said. Teams are probably breaking even or close to it before they sell a ticket. You want to incentive winning, tell them if you don't give your fans a reason to show up you don't make any money. An owner can have a team win 60 games and it's still a win for them. Gotta move the goalposts.

[CMH]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

The draft really needs to be changed, 100%, it's embarrassing that the last place team gets the first pick. Maybe it's acceptable to Americans because it's been normalised, but the idea of incentivizing losing utterly baffles me and I can't believe it's lasted as long as it has. That's worse than "everyone gets a trophy", you're actively rewarding and encouraging failure.

I get the desire to keep everyone competitive and stop "dynasties" winning all the time, but it doesn't work and has led to a long list of unhealthy practices that are terrible for the game. The reality is that teams work on vastly different payrolls so you'll never have anything resembling balance.

All you get is teams not trying to win, which means turgid baseball for fans and players who could improve those teams not getting signed, because why pay extra money to make your team better if making your team better is bad? Teams should be encouraged to try and compete to the best of their abilities, not penalised.

How you implement that, I don't know. Maybe a draft lottery for team outside the playoffs or under .500, maybe give priority to teams who just missed out on the playoffs instead of those who just sucked. I don't know, but I can't think of a much worse system than the current one tbh

Correct me, please, because I don't know for sure.

In soccer, teams sign amateurs they discover, right? I know transfers and all that but let's ignore that part because we can say it's equivalent to trades in MLB.

Now here's my real question. What changed in that the always lower end teams in soccer appear to now be competitive or upsetting top tier teams? I'm speaking mostly to Premier League since it's the most popular foreign league in America from what I can tell.

Because the old system of just signing guys always benefitted the rich teams. That's how the Yankees were so elite in the mid 1900s. A draft added some more balance.

But if no draft, how did this start to swing for lower revenue squads?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[CMH]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Amazes me how many baseball fans refuse to acknowledge the lack of interest today’s youth has for the game as a major problem.

It's hard to take it seriously when it's been the media cry for one hundred years.

It may very well be happening but none of the rules will change someone's interest level.

Imo, it starts with the pitcher vs batter. The second you drop an uninterested fan in front of a pitcher vs batter first pitch strike or ball, they don't care about the rest. They don't care if that pitcher has to face three batters. They don't care if the hitter is a DH.

That first pitch where "nothing" happens makes or breaks them.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[BigOscar]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Correct me, please, because I don't know for sure.

In soccer, teams sign amateurs they discover, right? I know transfers and all that but let's ignore that part because we can say it's equivalent to trades in MLB.

Now here's my real question. What changed in that the always lower end teams in soccer appear to now be competitive or upsetting top tier teams? I'm speaking mostly to Premier League since it's the most popular foreign league in America from what I can tell.

Because the old system of just signing guys always benefitted the rich teams. That's how the Yankees were so elite in the mid 1900s. A draft added some more balance.

But if no draft, how did this start to swing for lower revenue squads?

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

It's hard to compare soccer, as we have relegation which is always the ultimate deterrent of failure. So teams are battling tooth and nail until the final game of the season to avoid being in the bottom 3 teams, it's as much part of the excitement as the top of the table. Getting relegated from the PL means losing literally £100m in TV revenue, which is more than half a lot of teams budgets, so it frequently leads to financial troubles if the club isn't well run. So the bottom of the table potentially has far more at stake than the top.

As for the academies, yes they are how it works, but they aren't nearly as important as people think. Most teams are almost entirely made up of players they've bought from other clubs. It's pretty impossible to really compare tbh as there are just so many more players available in football and so many more teams. Even the poorest team in the PL is a bigger fish than 100's of other professional teams in Europe who have players they could go after.

That said, teams at the bottom don't regularly beat teams at the top. It's a pretty unfair system where the richest teams dominate year in, year out with only very infrequent exceptions. Soccer teams can financially bully far, far easier than American sports teams as there are no salary caps at all and no concept of team control. If you want a player from a smaller team, you offer enough money that the team accepts, or the player starts kicking up a fuss and demanding a transfer until the club has no choice to sell them. (its vey unfair, but it's not trying to be fair)

The MLB already has the team control rules and the incredibly generous revenue sharing agreement, along with the luxury tax. That really is more than enough to make the league more balanced, the problem then is how do you keep the games as competitive as possible as the season goes on. The wild card was great for that, it kept more teams in it for longer and cut out dead games, but still so many teams end up with absolutely nothing to play for. Giving better draft picks for being the worst makes this situation worse, as it encourages teams to be all or nothing, either trying to win the whole thing or trying to be as bad as possible, no middle ground.

If the bad teams were still trying to get ahead of each other, for example to get the better draft picks, that would at least give some purpose to their last 50 games and encourage them to invest in trying to do well even in years they know they won't win the WS. Maybe instead you get less revenue share money for being last? I don't know, but coming last needs a deterrent, not a reward.

[SPTO]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

It's hard to take it seriously when it's been the media cry for one hundred years.

More like 30 years though i've seen and heard of the stray article here and there in the '50s that worried about interest from youth but that was drowned out by mostly positive press.


I'm not against cutting out the dead time and there are actually rules on the books to do so but no one has the will or the inclination to enforce them. Every time the umpires try to enforce those rules the star players bitch and moan and then it's back to the way it used to be.

[CMH]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

More like 30 years though i've seen and heard of the stray article here and there in the '50s that worried about interest from youth but that was drowned out by mostly positive press.


I'm not against cutting out the dead time and there are actually rules on the books to do so but no one has the will or the inclination to enforce them. Every time the umpires try to enforce those rules the star players bitch and moan and then it's back to the way it used to be.

I'm more against these rule changes under the assumption it'll suddenly interest young people. I just have a hard time buying it.


Scoring isn't up in the NBA compared to the 80s. That's not why young people like basketball. They like the actual sport and that something is always happening.


Unless they want to dramatically change baseball, it will always have a disadvantage when it comes to always-in-action sports like hockey and basketball.

[SPTO]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I'm more against these rule changes under the assumption it'll suddenly interest young people. I just have a hard time buying it.


Scoring isn't up in the NBA compared to the 80s. That's not why young people like basketball. They like the actual sport and that something is always happening.


Unless they want to dramatically change baseball, it will always have a disadvantage when it comes to always-in-action sports like hockey and basketball.

Yeah, I don't think they're actually saying these are proposals to interest young people though that was the selling point of some of the pace of play initiatives when they first came out. I think Manfred and the owners realize that's a faulty argument. The main thing they want to achieve is to move the game along. If it means games are shortened time wise than that's great but it's not necessarily about shaving time off the clock as it's more about eliminating some of the dead space that CAN turn a lot of people off.