Fixing MLB

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Baseball fans, or at least those who have been fans at some point, understand that the game has action, pause, action, pause... etc. The issue is that the pauses have become interminable. 45 seconds to throw a pitch is freaking ridiculous - and will lose the attention of many fans who were interested 45 seconds ago. Do this multiple times, and you wonder why the ratings are so low.

It's the same in football. A play happens. Then, it is 40 seconds to the next play. Basketball has the same thing. Pass the ball enough times for 35 seconds. The passing of time between actual "action" in the game is not necessarily the issue. Maybe the perception of how long that wait is between "action" but it is prevalent in all sports. Just some, like baseball, it seems more noticeable b/c all action waits on 1 person to do something rather than a couple of people.

The "time" issue is not a valid argument. It is much more than that.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by GA Umpire

It's the same in football. A play happens. Then, it is 40 seconds to the next play.

Not entirely true. The 40 second clock starts only at the pro and college level. Also the play clock (40 or 25) runs when the last play is ruled dead. And at both the college and pro level the clock is a 25 seconds for the play clock when certain action ends the play (after timeouts, injuries, incomplete passes or even penalties), not 40 based on what took place. And that only applies to teams that do not run a no-huddle that even take time between the plays.

The pitcher in a baseball game will get the ball back and take 40 seconds to throw a pitch after they have received the ball. And the batter will spend 20 adjusting everything on their uniform before they get back into the box after they took a pitch as well.

Originally Posted by GA Umpire

Basketball has the same thing. Pass the ball enough times for 35 seconds. The passing of time between actual "action" in the game is not necessarily the issue. Maybe the perception of how long that wait is between "action" but it is prevalent in all sports. Just some, like baseball, it seems more noticeable b/c all action waits on 1 person to do something rather than a couple of people.

The "time" issue is not a valid argument. It is much more than that.

And your basketball comparison is even sillier. For one the clock is running during all of “action.” And at the pro and college levels there is a shot clock. Even if nothing is going on in a basketball game, the clock is running. The game is going to get over sooner. Many teams do not wait for that clock to run that much to score.

We do not have to wait until an event to get the game over with like you do in baseball. And there is often no real possibility to score in baseball unless there is a home run. A basketball game they can score several times in a minute. Not going to happen even in a high scoring baseball game.

There is nothing wrong with liking one sport over another. We all have those preferences. But if one game is so unlike the others and they are not getting the same attention that can be a problem. I think there is nothing wrong with creating some rules to speed up the game that would allow the game to be seen without having to sit there for 3 hours all the time.

Peace

[GA Umpire]

Justify the argument anyway you want. But, it all has the same issue. Only perception makes it different. And, as you reiterated my point, in football and basketball, anything can happen to change how a team scores or gets on offense. Thus, making time "seem" different and irrelevant. In baseball, that can't happen.

Baseball is a completely different sport b/c it doesn't have that. Again, there is only 1 way to score and only 1 way to get on offense. No other sport I am aware of has those set rules to determine who is allowed to score and who is allowed to be on offense.

I have no problem sitting through a 3 hour football game or a 3 hour baseball game. So, as far as I see it, the game is fine. The only thing I would like is less commercials. That's it. There's a reason why baseball is a "thinking man's" game. I, like many fans, am not watching the game for all of the "action". I watch it for the game and all its aspects. I want the game left alone. Time is not a problem for me.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by GA Umpire

It's the same in football. A play happens. Then, it is 40 seconds to the next play. Basketball has the same thing. Pass the ball enough times for 35 seconds. The passing of time between actual "action" in the game is not necessarily the issue. Maybe the perception of how long that wait is between "action" but it is prevalent in all sports. Just some, like baseball, it seems more noticeable b/c all action waits on 1 person to do something rather than a couple of people.

The "time" issue is not a valid argument. It is much more than that.

No, this isn't even close. There are 25-40 seconds between plays in football. So a couple times a minute, we have an explosion of action to watch.

In baseball, the PITCHES are that far apart ... but the potential explosion of action doesn't happen every pitch, placing the action of the game 2 to 3 (to 4 or 5 sometimes) minutes apart. If we could get rid of the nonsense between pitches and cut that to 15-20 seconds, we'd get 2-3 pitches per minute, instead of 1.

The basketball comparison is completely ridiculous - almost not worthy of response. Come on. Basketball motion is constant, even away from the ball. Clock stoppages and time between plays is VERY short (maybe you can call the 4-6 seconds of dribbling the ball from basket to front court actionless ... but even if the dribbler is not moving, everyone else is most of the time.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by GA Umpire

I want the game left alone. Time is not a problem for me.

Part of the problem not mentioned here is the way the dead time is filled. It wasn't that long ago that baseball announcers had some credibility, not to mention just ability. They could keep you interested between pitches, and even educate. Now, it's meaningless (and often simply incorrect) drivel between two guys who seem to occasionally stop watching the game entirely, and just talk through the action as if we were tuning in to hear them.

The 3 hours AT a ballpark, to me, are easy. 3 hours watching them on TV? I rarely have the patience (conversely, I can sit for 3 hours solid, sometimes 6, watching football, and wonder where the time went).

Can we legislate out the stupidity in the booth?

First to go ... McCarver and Morgan.

[nopachunts]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

can we legislate out the stupidity in the booth?

First to go ... Mccarver and morgan.

+1

[greymule]

You even try to say anyone was better than Babe Ruth or Hank Aaron on some lists there are people that act like Barry Bonds or even Sammy Sosa could not match them.

I often experience the opposite. I've routinely heard people claim that Sandy Koufax couldn't deal with today's hitters, that Bob Feller would be just an ordinary pitcher today, that Cobb and Hornsby wouldn't hit .300. And the announcers love to hype "postseason" (rather than World Series) records, simply because with more games, players will naturally rack up higher numbers. I even heard that MLB instructed their announcers not to talk about "a bunch of dead guys." In other words, today's players are all that matter.

It's difficult if not impossible to compare players across eras, but the discussions/arguments will never end. (How do you compare Honus Wagner, who played on rock-strewn fields and whose glove was just a pad of leather, to a guy who plays on a synthetic surface and has a sophisticated ball trap for a glove?) Different ballparks, equipment, quality of fields, shape and distance of fences, use of relief pitchers, modes of travel, use of steroids, type of incentives—and a very different pool of players, too: 60 years ago every kid in America dreamed of being a big league ballplayer. Only three other sports had a nationwide following: college football, horse racing, and boxing. Today even American blacks have apparently lost interest (most in MLB today are from the Caribbean). High schools used to have a hundred kids try out for the baseball team; today, some of those same high schools can't even field a team.

In terms of whether the sport is good or bad, I wouldn't make too much of segregation. Yes, baseball was segregated, but so was the entire nation (in practice, if not by law), certainly until well after World War II, and—let's face it—it still is in many areas of life. Even in the 1970s, at least one MLB team had segregated showers. No signs. No official policy. But everybody knew that's the way it was. So it's not as if in the 1920s and 1930s black players were showing up to try out and being told to go home.

[greymule]

Part of the problem not mentioned here is the way the dead time is filled. It wasn't that long ago that baseball announcers had some credibility, not to mention just ability. They could keep you interested between pitches, and even educate. Now, it's meaningless (and often simply incorrect) drivel between two guys who seem to occasionally stop watching the game entirely, and just talk through the action as if we were tuning in to hear them.

I could not agree more! The (local) announcers in the good old days could keep your interest even during long rain delays. Now I can't stand to listen to any of them. They hype coming shows for the network, they over-over-analyze obvious plays, they spout nonsense about rules. On the rare occasions that I do watch, I put music on and mute the TV sound.

Oh, for Red Barber, Waite Hoyt, Richie Ashburn, even Dizzy Dean!

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

No, this isn't even close. There are 25-40 seconds between plays in football. So a couple times a minute, we have an explosion of action to watch.

In baseball, the PITCHES are that far apart ... but the potential explosion of action doesn't happen every pitch, placing the action of the game 2 to 3 (to 4 or 5 sometimes) minutes apart. If we could get rid of the nonsense between pitches and cut that to 15-20 seconds, we'd get 2-3 pitches per minute, instead of 1.

The basketball comparison is completely ridiculous - almost not worthy of response. Come on. Basketball motion is constant, even away from the ball. Clock stoppages and time between plays is VERY short (maybe you can call the 4-6 seconds of dribbling the ball from basket to front court actionless ... but even if the dribbler is not moving, everyone else is most of the time.

Again, the ADD factor and basketball is relevant. Again, the "action" is needed to keep the attention. Hmmmmm. Could that be a reoccurring theme? It seems to be for those who want to change the pace of the game. Seems to be common and keeps coming up. As I said, the pace of the game is fine for me. It has been this way for years. And, now it is b/c announcers can't cure the ADD of fans.

It's a thinking man's game which requires patience. So many arguments illustrate that not too many have it.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by greymule

60 years ago every kid in America dreamed of being a big league ballplayer. Only three other sports had a nationwide following: college football, horse racing, and boxing. Today even American blacks have apparently lost interest (most in MLB today are from the Caribbean). High schools used to have a hundred kids try out for the baseball team; today, some of those same high schools can't even field a team.

60 years ago, there weren't computers and video game systems.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by greymule

You even try to say anyone was better than Babe Ruth or Hank Aaron on some lists there are people that act like Barry Bonds or even Sammy Sosa could not match them.

I often experience the opposite. I've routinely heard people claim that Sandy Koufax couldn't deal with today's hitters, that Bob Feller would be just an ordinary pitcher today, that Cobb and Hornsby wouldn't hit .300. And the announcers love to hype "postseason" (rather than World Series) records, simply because with more games, players will naturally rack up higher numbers. I even heard that MLB instructed their announcers not to talk about "a bunch of dead guys." In other words, today's players are all that matter.

It's difficult if not impossible to compare players across eras, but the discussions/arguments will never end. (How do you compare Honus Wagner, who played on rock-strewn fields and whose glove was just a pad of leather, to a guy who plays on a synthetic surface and has a sophisticated ball trap for a glove?) Different ballparks, equipment, quality of fields, shape and distance of fences, use of relief pitchers, modes of travel, use of steroids, type of incentives—and a very different pool of players, too: 60 years ago every kid in America dreamed of being a big league ballplayer. Only three other sports had a nationwide following: college football, horse racing, and boxing. Today even American blacks have apparently lost interest (most in MLB today are from the Caribbean). High schools used to have a hundred kids try out for the baseball team; today, some of those same high schools can't even field a team.

In terms of whether the sport is good or bad, I wouldn't make too much of segregation. Yes, baseball was segregated, but so was the entire nation (in practice, if not by law), certainly until well after World War II, and—let's face it—it still is in many areas of life. Even in the 1970s, at least one MLB team had segregated showers. No signs. No official policy. But everybody knew that's the way it was. So it's not as if in the 1920s and 1930s black players were showing up to try out and being told to go home.

I do not totally disagree with what you are saying. I just think a couple of rules changes and a couple of philosophy changes would not hurt MLB. I used to grow up wanting to watch every minute of the post season, even when they came up with the Division series I was a fan. Now I cannot stand to watch the games. They take too long and it is only worth watching the last inning or so when the game is on the line. I cannot even stand the All-Star game anymore.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by GA Umpire

Again, the ADD factor and basketball is relevant. Again, the "action" is needed to keep the attention. Hmmmmm. Could that be a reoccurring theme? It seems to be for those who want to change the pace of the game. Seems to be common and keeps coming up. As I said, the pace of the game is fine for me. It has been this way for years. And, now it is b/c announcers can't cure the ADD of fans.

Again MNF had more viewers and the post season in baseball. I would suspect that any post season of the big three would out due in ratings in any regular season game. And a regular season game that did not even have the marquee players or teams featured. It has nothing to do with ADD, it has to do with someone is not watching the sport and baseball is about the forth or fifth played sport amongst boys in high school. Something is wrong.

Originally Posted by GA Umpire

It's a thinking man's game which requires patience. So many arguments illustrate that not too many have it.

Let me say this. How hard is it to know someone is going to bring in the lefty to face the lefty? Really that is a big time strategy to figure out? If anything it is the "over-thinking" man's game when most of what happens in baseball is very predictable and obvious what moves a manager is going to make. And in this day's game they bring in one pitcher to pitch to one guy. Really ground breaking stuff right there.

Peace

[GA Umpire]

Oh, if it were only as simple as which pitcher might come in, thanks for sharing that. It is never just about "a lefty facing a lefty". Sometimes, it is "This LH hitter can't hit a sinker and our RHP is the best in this situation b/c he throws a sinker." So much more. Not to mention having to worry about if the other team is going to bring in a switch hitter or change to a RH batter.

Now, I know why you don't like it. There are no simple connect the dots in the game.

Again, it does have everything to do with ADD. And, as far as HS boys, that is not a fair assessment (yet again). Let's see. Free shots to hit someone. More are allowed to be on the team. HS girls cheerlead and come to the game. The list can go on and on including how the game of football works with its other rules.

Also, football is far simpler in its method of play which is why there are fewer rules in it than in baseball. And, perception of "time delay" in the game is different.

[mbyron]

Nobody with power cares a fig about pace. Follow the money: money comes from TV. TV makes money from selling ads. The longer the game, the more ads they sell, the more money they make.

There does come a point of diminishing marginal returns, when you start to lose audience because the game is too damn slow and long. People get paid money to find that point, and the games won't get any shorter than that.

[greymule]

I just think a couple of rules changes and a couple of philosophy changes would not hurt MLB. I used to grow up wanting to watch every minute of the post season, even when they came up with the Division series I was a fan. Now I cannot stand to watch the games. They take too long and it is only worth watching the last inning or so when the game is on the line. I cannot even stand the All-Star game anymore.

I won't disagree with anything there. I remember that when the World Series was on, the nation seemed to stop and focus on the games. You'd see drivers holding transistor radios to their ears as they went down the highway. (Many cars didn't have radios in those days.) When our school let the kids bring radios so they could listen (on the little earphone) to the continuing coverage of John Glenn in orbit, we were delighted, because we could actually listen to the Yankees versus the Reds. And the All-Star game was of great importance to us kids, as it seemed the world was divided between American and National League fans, and of course the winner of the All-Star game "proved" their league was better.

I was looking through my 50-year-old junior high school yearbook recently and realized that for every boy pictured, I could cite the team he played for in Little League and the MLB team of which he was a fan. (In those days, it was Yankees, Dodgers, Giants, or Cardinals.) Many people today don't realize how deeply baseball permeated American culture in the "old days." I suspect that's gone forever.