Jump to content
kitekrazy

Morrisey - If MLB isn’t careful, it will die by its own boring

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, LittleHurt05 said:

Teams have used analytics to maximize their chances to win ball games and unfortunately, unlike other sports, those moves make the game more boring,

In basketball, shooting more 3's is exciting.

In football, spreading the field and running more plays is exciting. 

In baseball, seeing more pitches, the 3 outcomes, and using more relievers are not exciting, but that helps teams win ball games, so it's not going anywhere.

Raising the mound would change many of those variables, however it would decrease the offense which we know they don't want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, kitekrazy said:

 How would they do that?  I think there is a big difference in the talent from the pro level than the other sports.

2 ways, IMHO.

 

1. International draft. Pool all the players into a draft where every franchise has a shot at them. Yes, agents would freak out. But, maybe if you offered the MLBPA a carrot - like DH in the NL and the resulting 30+ more jobs that would come of it. 

2. The biggest one - trade draft picks. The way it is now, maybe you can add 1 top 100 player, maybe 2 really good prospects per year if you end up with a comp pick or something like that. If teams were able to stack up draft picks, say 3 or 4 in the first round in a particular year, then instead of one or at most two guys coming up and making a difference, you essentially would have a wave of young players coming up together. 

You can't do anything about minor league development time, but you can bunch the talent together so that you can turn over a roster quicker. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TenneSox said:

2 ways, IMHO.

 

1. International draft. Pool all the players into a draft where every franchise has a shot at them. Yes, agents would freak out. But, maybe if you offered the MLBPA a carrot - like DH in the NL and the resulting 30+ more jobs that would come of it. 

2. The biggest one - trade draft picks. The way it is now, maybe you can add 1 top 100 player, maybe 2 really good prospects per year if you end up with a comp pick or something like that. If teams were able to stack up draft picks, say 3 or 4 in the first round in a particular year, then instead of one or at most two guys coming up and making a difference, you essentially would have a wave of young players coming up together. 

You can't do anything about minor league development time, but you can bunch the talent together so that you can turn over a roster quicker. 

Well the number of jobs would be the same. There would just be one more player on the NL teams getting paid more to DH as opposed to a backup utility player making near league minimum.

Edited by soxfan2014
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Double edged sword.  Everyone wants to see more offense but great offense is where the extra time factors in.  Long innings, pitching changes etc...  Great pitching is where the time is saved--but no one wants to watch pitching duels anymore.  Check out Buehrle's game times.  His efficiency model--get it, throw it, induce weak contact that led to quick 1-2-3 innings.  In other words...FAST = the new boring to baseball viewers.  SLOW means giving the people more of what they want...offense.  SMH.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you need an example of the shifting landscape look what's happening in the NBA today and how it's taken over social media. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, we need Kardashians/Jenner’s to date MLB stars instead...and the various reality t.v. shows built-in around that.

And a baseball wives show as well.

In all seriousness, you would think someone in PR for MLB would be able to come up with something that’s not about making baseball more like a video game or app that young people could respond to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot about the shift. Part of me wants them to outlaw it. Say that ballplayers have to be within certain areas when in the field like the coaching box in college basketball.

The other part of me says keep the shift and tell these selfish big leaguers to hit singles through those big holes in the infield. I think it is embarrassing when the whole left side is open and some big lug lefthanded hitter hits it right to one of the three guys on the right side of the infield or pops out to RF. Take the single every time. It can't be hard to learn how to half swing or bunt the ball where one infielder is covering the whole side of the infield.

The shift is so damn annoying.

Edited by greg775
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/30/2019 at 9:50 PM, soxfan18 said:

If the Rays played where the Bolts did they would draw. Amalie is right in the heart of downtown and very accessible. 

Playing way out in St. Pete is a killer for the Rays. Just as elsewhere in the state, the Panthers play in the middle of nowhere and no one goes. They would draw much better if they played where the Heat do. 

The Rays drew 22,000+ for 3 straight years 2008-2010. The stadium is in the same place.  It has steadily declined ever since.  But also Hockey is not big in the South but it is in Tampa. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, FT35 said:

Double edged sword.  Everyone wants to see more offense but great offense is where the extra time factors in.  Long innings, pitching changes etc...  Great pitching is where the time is saved--but no one wants to watch pitching duels anymore.  Check out Buehrle's game times.  His efficiency model--get it, throw it, induce weak contact that led to quick 1-2-3 innings.  In other words...FAST = the new boring to baseball viewers.  SLOW means giving the people more of what they want...offense.  SMH.  

I don't think that's true. Buerhle games are what fans want. What they get are long at bats while the pitcher wanders around the mound. People want balls in play and faster ABs regardless of outcomes. I'm just not sure guys throwing 100 mph can get it and throw it like MB did. And everyone throws hard now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, G&T said:

I don't think that's true. Buerhle games are what fans want. What they get are long at bats while the pitcher wanders around the mound. People want balls in play and faster ABs regardless of outcomes. I'm just not sure guys throwing 100 mph can get it and throw it like MB did. And everyone throws hard now.

Well that’s my point, they want the fast games, but the fast games are pitcher’s duels and lack extensive offense.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, G&T said:

I don't think that's true. Buerhle games are what fans want. What they get are long at bats while the pitcher wanders around the mound. People want balls in play and faster ABs regardless of outcomes. I'm just not sure guys throwing 100 mph can get it and throw it like MB did. And everyone throws hard now.

Everyone tries to throw as hard as they can now. Buerhle could have added a few mph on his fastball if he only planned on going 5 innings too. Wildness also goes along with near max effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2019 at 10:23 AM, SCCWS said:

 The Rays drew 22,000+ for 3 straight years 2008-2010. The stadium is in the same place.  It has steadily declined ever since.  But also Hockey is not big in the South but it is in Tampa. 

22k is still awful, though.  Maybe they could've gotten 30 in a better location.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the concern about tanking ruining sports, but if the alternative is the ridiculous European Soccer model where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, I'll take some teams tanking.  There are about ten football clubs worth anything anymore and almost every league is a two horse race.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AustinIllini said:

I understand the concern about tanking ruining sports, but if the alternative is the ridiculous European Soccer model where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, I'll take some teams tanking.  There are about ten football clubs worth anything anymore and almost every league is a two horse race.

For all of the popularity and attention the NBA gets, they have to do something about competitive balance, because if they don't they're going to continue to lose fans like they lost me. Lack of competitive balance sucks the life out of any sports league, and all leagues are having a problem with it. The NHL probably has the best competitive balance out of any league (however, it is somewhat artificial due to how they award standings points) and they can't get a mass audience. I find it interesting that the leagues that are worst in terms of competitive balance(The NBA and NFL) are more popular than leagues with better competitive balance. There hasn't been a back to back champion in baseball since 2000, and there have only been two since 1995 in the NHL. Furthermore, for all of the whining about lack of competitiveness in the AL, there have only been 2 back to back champions in baseball since 1980: the Blue Jays in 1992-93 and the Yankees from 1998-2000. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

For all of the popularity and attention the NBA gets, they have to do something about competitive balance, because if they don't they're going to continue to lose fans like they lost me. Lack of competitive balance sucks the life out of any sports league, and all leagues are having a problem with it. The NHL probably has the best competitive balance out of any league (however, it is somewhat artificial due to how they award standings points) and they can't get a mass audience. I find it interesting that the leagues that are worst in terms of competitive balance(The NBA and NFL) are more popular than leagues with better competitive balance. There hasn't been a back to back champion in baseball since 2000, and there have only been two since 1995 in the NHL. Furthermore, for all of the whining about lack of competitiveness in the AL, there have only been 2 back to back champions in baseball since 1980: the Blue Jays in 1992-93 and the Yankees from 1998-2000. 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_sports_leagues_by_revenue

And yet MLB is still generating considerably more than the NBA in revenue.  The latest figure for 2018 is around $9.4 billion.

Basically, MLB is directly in the middle, between the NFL and NBA.  This is despite all the doom and gloom articles from the 1980’s on about the death of baseball.  

It’s never going to be like the glory days of the 50’s and 60’s again but...cue Janes Earl Jones speech from Field of Dreams.

 

“The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball.

America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It's been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt, and erased again. But baseball has marked the time.

This field, this game -- it's a part of our past, Ray. It reminds us of all that once was good, and it could be again.

Ohhhhhhhh, people will come, Ray. People will most definitely come.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the Manny being Manny video. He certainly tries to take guys out at second, the hell with the new rules. And he gets very very upset when guys pitch inside to him. That one was scary when Boston fired a fastball basically at his face.

One thing about baseball: Nobody's afraid of Manny. They go after him when Manny acts up.

I'd much much much rather have Harper but we shall see. Manny is a timebomb but can back it up cause he's a physical force and a good baseball player. It's amazing how he thinks nobody should ever pitch inside to him, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎3‎/‎2019 at 1:56 AM, Jack Parkman said:

For all of the popularity and attention the NBA gets, they have to do something about competitive balance, because if they don't they're going to continue to lose fans like they lost me. Lack of competitive balance sucks the life out of any sports league, and all leagues are having a problem with it. The NHL probably has the best competitive balance out of any league (however, it is somewhat artificial due to how they award standings points) and they can't get a mass audience. I find it interesting that the leagues that are worst in terms of competitive balance(The NBA and NFL) are more popular than leagues with better competitive balance. There hasn't been a back to back champion in baseball since 2000, and there have only been two since 1995 in the NHL. Furthermore, for all of the whining about lack of competitiveness in the AL, there have only been 2 back to back champions in baseball since 1980: the Blue Jays in 1992-93 and the Yankees from 1998-2000. 

 

Everyone says this about the NBA all the time and I want to know when this mythical time was everyone speaks of, where the NBA was balanced and people didn't have a general idea of who'd be in the conference finals in October.

In my lifetime (I'm 37) it's basically been Celtics, Lakers, Pistons, Bulls, Lakers, Spurs, Heat, Warriors with a few blips here and there and the league is as popular as it's ever been.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, lostfan said:

Everyone says this about the NBA all the time and I want to know when this mythical time was everyone speaks of, where the NBA was balanced and people didn't have a general idea of who'd be in the conference finals in October.

In my lifetime (I'm 37) it's basically been Celtics, Lakers, Pistons, Bulls, Lakers, Spurs, Heat, Warriors with a few blips here and there and the league is as popular as it's ever been.

 

People are starting to consume sports differently. They're starting to root for the name on the back of the jersey as well as the name on the front. They have their favorite team and their favorite players, and I guess that is helping them through the lack of competitive balance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, lostfan said:

Everyone says this about the NBA all the time and I want to know when this mythical time was everyone speaks of, where the NBA was balanced and people didn't have a general idea of who'd be in the conference finals in October.

In my lifetime (I'm 37) it's basically been Celtics, Lakers, Pistons, Bulls, Lakers, Spurs, Heat, Warriors with a few blips here and there and the league is as popular as it's ever been.

 

The NBA is so unique that a superstar player or player(s) with the super-teams now popular change a team's fortunes because of their dominance. 

In baseball, how many great hitters single handily get their teams to the playoffs, even if they do put up massive numbers? I understand the value of pitching in a short series - we've seen an ace go 2-3 times in a 7 game series to win a series.

Even in football, the elite QB's, while needed to a championship, do not guarantee a playoff spot with injuries and other weaknesses on a team.

The NBA is a league built on dynasties and individual play and the NFL (see the Patriots) are capable of that with an all-time great QB/coach.

Baseball has been there with the Yankees, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think baseball needs to shorten games as much as it needs a shorter season.  Not that making shorter games won't help, but I think a shorter season and a longer playoffs would make things more exciting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GoSox05 said:

I don't think baseball needs to shorten games as much as it needs a shorter season.  Not that making shorter games won't help, but I think a shorter season and a longer playoffs would make things more exciting. 

I agree. But definitely work on expanding the league first to 16 teams in each league so they can make a more balanced schedule before cutting off say 2 weeks of the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, soxfan2014 said:

I agree. But definitely work on expanding the league first to 16 teams in each league so they can make a more balanced schedule before cutting off say 2 weeks of the season.

I think it's going to be a tough sell for owners to just drop a bunch of games off the season. 

You would have to sell them on the idea that you might not have as many games, but chances of making the playoffs is easier and those games will be highly popular games and big sellers and good tv ratings. 

I think the other thing they need to do is have less day playoff games.  I think they are the only sport that still does that. 

Edited by GoSox05

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, GoSox05 said:

I don't think baseball needs to shorten games as much as it needs a shorter season.  Not that making shorter games won't help, but I think a shorter season and a longer playoffs would make things more exciting. 

Fighting over 154 vs 162, in my opinion, is a complete wasted effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×