Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
flavum

MLB considering 154 game and delayed schedule

Recommended Posts

Just now, Jack Parkman said:

There is no advantage in expanded playoffs to win 95 games vs 84-88. 

Where teams become disincentivized is at the top. Teams that are already good have no reason to plug roster holes. 

Also, if you go back there are a lot of 77-80 win teams that qualify for the playoffs under this scenario. It could lead to widespread mediocrity rather than excellence from a few teams. 

Sure there is. 7 teams in each league. Being the top seed gets you a bye. Winning the division gets you home field advantage in the first round and last at-bats. How is that different than before? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, southsider2k5 said:

The players care about getting paid.  This gets them paid.

Only if they're thinking short-term. In the long term it gets them paid less. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

playing 8 less games for full play in exchange for getting more playoff teams and players getting playoff shares?  This sounds like something players should jump at honestly.

Full prorated pay.  It's actually a 5% pay cut.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I'm anti-zero sum game, not anti ownership. Don't be condescending to me. Economics is a hobby of mine. I tend to focus on the practical side rather than the theoretical side. (hint-practical side says theory is incorrect) 

They say that a rising tide should lift all boats, but everywhere in American society that's not happening. 

Think win-win. 

The owners think win-lose. They make more money and engage in anticompetitive behavior. That's not how it should work. 

I'm all for being reasonable, but generally, people need to make a living wage and in the upper reaches like Baseball, owners are not sharing enough of the revenue with the players. 

I'm not saying that owners shouldn't turn a profit, but I am saying that the proportion of profit to salaries/wages is out of whack. Not just in baseball, but everywhere. 

It's not like anyone else here has degrees in this or anything, but everyone Jack has this as a hobby so we should all go his way.  F*** talk about condescending.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Jose Abreu said:

I don't think this was posted here actually:

Lots of good insight in there for why they'll reject, such as the proposal including Manfred having full authority to halt the season, the fact that pitchers are already ramping up and would likely see an increase in injuries (like last year), the lack of off days in the proposal and their impact on health, and more

Now this is a problem.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

Sure there is. 7 teams in each league. Being the top seed gets you a bye. Winning the division gets you home field advantage in the first round and last at-bats. How is that different than before? 

MLB playoffs are a crapshoot. 

It's different because generally you have to win 90 games to make the playoffs with the 10 team structure. If you go back in history, that threshold with 8 drops to around 79-81. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

Full prorated pay.  It's actually a 5% pay cut.  

The proposal says they’re getting paid for 162 still. 

Share this post


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

Not if you realize that expanded playoffs are a salary suppression tool. 

No expanded playoffs without a floor and soft cap. 

You keep saying this, but the reality is that it makes it harder for teams to sell off as even the worst and mediocre teams are now on the edge of the playoffs.  It puts a lot more pressure on the middle tier of teams to stay in races that they would ordinarily not be in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jack Parkman said:

MLB playoffs are a crapshoot. 

It's different because generally you have to win 90 games to make the playoffs with the 10 team structure. If you go back in history, that threshold with 8 drops to around 79-81. 

Yeah I understand what variance is. More teams will try to compete though with expanded playoffs. I don’t have the same doomsday thoughts that the MLBPA does. There will still be awesome teams regardless of how many of them are allowed in the postseason. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

It's not like anyone else here has degrees in this or anything, but everyone Jack has this as a hobby so we should all go his way.  F*** talk about condescending.  

That's not what I was trying to say at all, but ok. I was defending my position, not attacking others. 

Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss. 

Edited by Jack Parkman
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

There is no advantage in expanded playoffs to win 95 games vs 84-88. 

Where teams become disincentivized is at the top. Teams that are already good have no reason to plug roster holes. 

Also, if you go back there are a lot of 77-80 win teams that qualify for the playoffs under this scenario. It could lead to widespread mediocrity rather than excellence from a few teams. 

Yep.  Instead of signing Andrelron Simmons for $10.5M just sign Freddy Galvis for $1.5M.  We're gonna make the playoffs either way.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HahnsKiddieTable said:

Well here we go again, Who is ready for only a 75 game season....

Me! And expand the playoffs. Let's play May to September. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

I don’t agree with this at all. Expanded playoffs leads to more teams trying. With 5 in each league, there will be much more tanking. What is the incentive for anyone in the NL West to try and win if it’s 5 teams per league? Why would the Phillies or Marlins add anymore at all? People agree with you but I don’t think it makes any sense 

The top teams will still spend to win.  Teams like the Dodgers were already essentially playoff teams, but they are still trying to spend to win it all.  They seem to not be content with 84 wins and a playoff appearance.  They aren't alone.  Look at the Padres loading up.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

The top teams will still spend to win.  Teams like the Dodgers were already essentially playoff teams, but they are still trying to spend to win it all.  They seem to not be content with 84 wins and a playoff appearance.  They aren't alone.  Look at the Padres loading up.

Shh, you're talking sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jack Parkman said:

First off, I think a lot of what they teach in school about economics is wrong and designed to fit a certain worldview, but that's another story. Economic theory and reality are nowhere near aligned. 

But you have seen through it all, and are here to save us who actually deal in real life economic theory.  Again, don't lecture people about being condescending, and post BS like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Harold's Leg Lift said:

Full prorated pay.  It's actually a 5% pay cut.  

That isn't what is being reported.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Y2Jimmy0 said:

Sure there is. 7 teams in each league. Being the top seed gets you a bye. Winning the division gets you home field advantage in the first round and last at-bats. How is that different than before? 

Parkman is correct as to the high degree of variance that short series playoffs bring. Look how long the Dodgers were probably the best team and yet the randomness of the playoffs made it such that it took forever for them to actually win a title. Home field and all that stuff doesn't make that much difference as compared to other sports in the playoffs. The incentive to suppress salaries is much greater than to spend 30m more in budget to get a bye or have one extra playoff home game. The cost benefit isn't worth it due to luck and matchups in the draw you get dictating alot of what happens.

  • Thanks 1
  • Fire 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

But you have seen through it all, and are here to save us who actually deal in real life economic theory.  Again, don't lecture people about being condescending, and post BS like this.

PM me and we can discuss dude. 

That's not what I'm saying at all, but go on....

 

 

Edited by Jack Parkman
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

The top teams will still spend to win.  Teams like the Dodgers were already essentially playoff teams, but they are still trying to spend to win it all.  They seem to not be content with 84 wins and a playoff appearance.  They aren't alone.  Look at the Padres loading up.

I do not believe that. I believe that the top teams will spend to a point where they're comfortable and have a relatively low risk of missing the playoffs. 

The more rounds a playoff team has to win, the lower the return on investment is and the harder it is to win a championship. 

Edited by Jack Parkman
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

 Now this is a problem.

There are plenty of issues with that proposal, and boiling it down to just expanded playoffs versus regular playoffs just really misses the point

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SoCalChiSox said:

Parkman is correct as to the high degree of variance that short series playoffs bring. Look how long the Dodgers were probably the best team and yet the randomness of the playoffs made it such that it took forever for them to actually win a title. Home field and all that stuff doesn't make that much difference as compared to other sports in the playoffs. The incentive to suppress salaries is much greater than to spend 30m more in budget to get a bye or have one extra playoff home game. The cost benefit isn't worth it due to luck and matchups in the draw you get dictating alot of what happens.

You guys think teams will spend less money. I think more teams will spend money. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jack Parkman said:

I do not believe that. I believe that the top teams will spend to a point where they're comfortable and have a relatively low risk of missing the playoffs. 

The more rounds a playoff team has to win, the lower the return on investment is and the harder it is to win a championship. 

So you don't believe exactly what is happening in baseball right now.  You don't believe it when you see teams in other sports like the LA Lakers coming off of a world championship, and are trying to add Bradley Beal, even though they are a championship caliber team.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

That isn't what is being reported.  

 

On the other hand, it seems irresponsible for reporters to claim it's 162 game pay for 154 games, while ignoring that Manfred can pause/reduce the season whenever he wants, and if he does so, full pay is not guaranteed 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

So you don't believe exactly what is happening in baseball right now.  You don't believe it when you see teams in other sports like the LA Lakers coming off of a world championship, and are trying to add Bradley Beal, even though they are a championship caliber team.

 

What I see in baseball right now is the overwhelming majority of teams, with the exception of the Padres and Blue Jays so far, cutting payroll or remaining neutral from last year. I see the Pittsburgh Pirates trading everyone with a guaranteed contract away. Even the Dodgers and Yankees have cut payroll so far. 

Why wouldn't I believe that would continue? 

You're pointing to the Padres, and they are the exception rather than the rule. 

Edited by Jack Parkman
  • Thanks 1

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×