The Official Forum - Fixing MLB

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)

- - Fixing MLB (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/59493-fixing-mlb.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie (Post 698264)

Yeah, with a 20 minute half time, at least 6, and as many as 18, timeouts -- not including TV, change of possession, scoring, etc. Take away the planned dead time and the actual on field dead time for an NFL game is less than 30 minutes. You reach that in the 3rd inning of MLB.

Make that closer to 11 minutes of actions according to a study by the Wall Street Journal

Football Games Have 11 Minutes of Action - WSJ.com

Quote:

Originally Posted by greymule (Post 698494)

"Besides it's been a 162 game season since 1961 with expansion from the 16 teams that had been the norm for decades."

In the beginning (1903), God created the American League and the National League. And God said, "Let there be eight teams in each." Those original 16 remained until the fall from grace, when the Boston Braves moved to Milwaukee in 1953. (Quick: Who was the only man who played for the Braves in Boston, Milwaukee, and Atlanta?)

I remember when you could go virtually anywhere and strike up a conversation about MLB. I also remember when "everybody" could name most of the starters on every team. Come to think of it, I could even today name all but a few subs on the two teams that played in the World Series of 50 years ago, and tell you the pitchers and the scores of all 7 games, including who hit home runs. But I couldn't name a single Pirate today, and I'd run out of Yankees fast.

It's hard to explain, but though I love baseball in the abstract—and maintained season tickets for the Phillies until the 1994 strike—I have lost interest entirely in MLB. I'd rather watch old highlight films than the live World Series game.

Season's too long. Too many teams. Too many lousy teams. Meaningless division races. Too many home runs. Talent too diluted. Too few teams have a distinctive identity. Too few fans have a deep attachment to their team.

So maybe it's not the pace of the game. Maybe if you don't care what happens, the games just seem too slow.

Right off the top of my head, I would say the American League formed in 1901. In 1903, the original Baltimore Orioles moved to New York and I believe they were the Highlanders until they changed to Yankees. Also, that same year, the first World Serious was played by the Pittsburgh Pirates and the Boston Americans (Red Sox), if in fact that was their nickname back then. Quite possibly the Boston Braves where the Boston Braves back then, too. I also found the other nicknames for the NL Boston team. They were the Braves (twice), Red Caps, Beaneaters, Doves, Rustlers and Bees. You'd have to look it up in fact to make sure I'm right.

However, I actually think the answer to your trivia question is Eddie Matthews. who also adorned the first cover of Sports Illustrated in 1954.

I used 1903 only because that was the year of the first World Series. I know there were other teams before that.

I was unaware of some of those team nicknames, though. The Boston Americans were also the Pilgrims. The Phillies were the Blue Jays for a time (in the 1940s, I think; the owner rightly thought the name "Phillies" was trite). The Dodgers were the Robins when Bill Wambsganss made the unassisted triple play against them in the World Series (1920). The Cleveland Spiders became the Naps, and in 1915 the owner let the fans choose the nickname, and they selected "Indians," which I had always thought was to honor their recently deceased former star Chief Sockalexis, but apparently that's disputed.

I remember when the Dodgers were "Dem Bums" and headlines like "Bums Win" or "Bums Mugged in Philly" would grace the back cover of the NY Daily News.

Yes, Eddie Mathews is the answer. Many people guess Warren Spahn.

[QUOTE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GA Umpire (Post 698441)

1. I think you miss the point when I say "many". I am NOT saying "all".

8. Oh, and they seem to be doing pretty well. As long as people watch, what is there to fix?

Who is watching?

Check out the attached link

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/10/29...up-rises/70103

The ratings for this year's world series are down 31% compared to last year

Shrek on NBC beat out the WS. That's all one needs to know about the state of baseball these days. Unless you are in San Fran or Arlington NO-ONE cares

Pete Booth

[quote=PeteBooth;698852]

Quote:

Not that I disagree with the point you're trying to say, but how does Shrek's 2.5 (18-49) beat the World Series' 4.0?

[QUOTE=PeteBooth;698852]

Quote:

Not exactly true. The Big Bang Theory beat out the WS. So did "The Office" and "Grey's Anatomy."

Something is wrong with baseball, but it was not be cause of Shrek. :D

Peace

[QUOTE=PeteBooth;698852]

Quote:

I wouldn't say that I don't care, but its just not any fun to watch an entire baseball game on TV. Players are slow, pitchers are slow, there is no action between pitches, ... I usually just tune in to check the score and then go back to College football or whatever else in on. If it's late in the game and close, then i watch.

Basically, we all love baseball, we are umpires, but we know the game is really BORING! And it's getting worse instead of better.

At least in NFL you have something going on even between plays. NBA has a shot clock, MLB has nothing, even the managers are boring to watch in todays game.

Thanks
David

Quote:

Originally Posted by David B (Post 698937)

Basically, we all love baseball, we are umpires, but we know the game is really BORING! And it's getting worse instead of better.

I was standing in "A" last weekend around the 7th inning or so, and the first base coach said between pitches, "You look really bored, Blue." I replied, "Extremely." It did cause me to bear down more and try not to appear unexcited by the snooze-fest they were calling a baseball game :D.

Quote:

Originally Posted by david b (Post 698852)

i usually just tune in to check the score and then go back to college football or whatever else is on. If it's late in the game and close, then i watch.

A lot of Rangers/Giants Fans Tuned in Yesterday.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by grunewar (Post 699359)

World Series Game 5 beats Monday Night Football in ratings - Game On!: Covering the Latest Sports News

It was an elimination game. That is the way it is expected. Especially to the match-up the NFL had on this night.

Peace

Whistles!! I think they should give Baseball umpires whistles! And flags! Not those namby-pamby yellow ones like the NFL, but bright red ones! Not sure how we'd use 'em, but certainly would make it more like Football, if that's the goal. :)

I think the pace of the game—the extra hour or so compared to the "old days"—is only a small part of the problem.

I suspect the key to the sagging interest in MLB is the answer to the question, Why does nobody really care who wins or loses? If you are deeply emotionally involved, the pace of the game becomes irrelevant.

People were certainly involved years ago—to the point of exhilaration and despair. I know I was. What happened since the days when the World Series would set records for TV audience?

Quote:

Originally Posted by greymule (Post 700049)

People were certainly involved years ago—to the point of exhilaration and despair.

It was certainly true this year...at least for the Giants fans. After their record in the postseason, especially the 2002 World Series, to say we were on edge would be an understatement. That is but one reason why we've come to dub Giants baseball as torture.