Fixing MLB

[jicecone]

Open up the strike zone. For years we have all learned if a pitch is bordedrline it is probably best to call it a strike, except in MLB. The zones are way too tight.

I agree all this electronic, supposedly accurate technology may have some officials gun shy but i still believe it will open up the game.

Good pitching will STILL prevail.

[DG]

While I am sure the pace could be improved, if you don't like the pace as a fan leave in the 6th inning, or come in the 4th and stay till the end. You will get the amount of time you are asking for.

Measured an NFL game lately, or NHL? A 3+ hour event is very likely.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by DG

A 3+ hour event is very likely.

Exactly.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by DG

A 3+ hour event is very likely.

But people are watching the NFL. MNF had more viewers (and the game was bad on top of that) than the LCS. It is much more than pace of the game.

Peace

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

MNF had more viewers (and the game was bad on top of that) than the LCS. It is much more than pace of the game.

Peace

And, now that the Yanks and the Phils are out, what do we think viewership for the WS will be with Tex vs SF? With the major markets out, only followers of those teams and the purists may watch...... If I'm an advertiser or network exec......

[greymule]

With that said, baseball is a very, very simple game as far as strategy goes when you really get down to it.

Can't agree there. Fielders, for example, have to consider many factors in deciding where to position themselves, how to move, where and how hard to throw, what the contingencies are and how they change as a play unfolds. The announcers don't mention a lot of this, but if you've played infield at some reasonably high level, then you know what I'm talking about.

Further, the fact that some pitchers with less "stuff" than others can end up in the Hall of Fame is attributable largely to strategy and psychology. High school pitchers throw harder than Bobby Shantz, Stu Miller, and Harvey Haddix, yet those small guys were great. (I met Shantz years ago. He looked like a jockey.) There a whole lot more going on than appears to the casual observer. I'm reminded of when I was watching a World Cup soccer game on TV in the presence of a bunch of guys from Guatemala. They would suddenly get excited when it appeared to me that absolutely nothing was happening.

All sports have their intricacies. But some sports are "understandable" to an enjoyable degree even for people who don't know much. I know only the basics of football, and learning all the rules about who can block whom when and where wouldn't enhance my enjoyment of the game. I do appreciate it, though, when a couple of friends—one who played in the NFL briefly, another who coaches in college—point out important elements I'd never have noticed on my own.

The players are definitely bigger and faster than they were 40-50 years ago, so I would bet the players from past decades would have a harder time with football now than the baseball players would.

Pro linemen are almost all over 300 pounds today, aren't they? What did they average in the 1970s—275? In the 1950s—225? Remember Sherman Plunkett, whose 300+ pounds made him unusual?

One of my former schoolteachers played center for Princeton in the (Heisman trophy winner) Dick Kasmaier days. I think Princeton was undefeated and ranked in the Top Ten one of those years. This guy was tough and determined, but he was about 5'5" and couldn't have weighed 150 pounds. In 1966, when the former football captain of that school tried out for his college team (a good football school in the south), the coach said that he was the best football player he had ever seen, pound for pound. Trouble was, at 157, there just weren't enough pounds. (Today the guy is a billionaire, so don't feel too sorry for him.)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by greymule

With that said, baseball is a very, very simple game as far as strategy goes when you really get down to it.

Can't agree there. Fielders, for example, have to consider many factors in deciding where to position themselves, how to move, where and how hard to throw, what the contingencies are and how they change as a play unfolds. The announcers don't mention a lot of this, but if you've played infield at some reasonably high level, then you know what I'm talking about.

I am do not need to hear what the announcers are saying to know that moving fielders around is not the same as a defensive coverage in other sports changing. And certainly not the same when the basics of baseball is execution. Even if they shift fielders you still have to hit the ball where they are not. I do not consider that as an an earth shattering or hard to counter.

Originally Posted by greymule

Further, the fact that some pitchers with less "stuff" than others can end up in the Hall of Fame is attributable largely to strategy and psychology. High school pitchers throw harder than Bobby Shantz, Stu Miller, and Harvey Haddix, yet those small guys were great. (I met Shantz years ago. He looked like a jockey.) There a whole lot more going on than appears to the casual observer. I'm reminded of when I was watching a World Cup soccer game on TV in the presence of a bunch of guys from Guatemala. They would suddenly get excited when it appeared to me that absolutely nothing was happening.

For the record they cheer in soccer because there is a possibility to score.

Originally Posted by greymule

All sports have their intricacies. But some sports are "understandable" to an enjoyable degree even for people who don't know much. I know only the basics of football, and learning all the rules about who can block whom when and where wouldn't enhance my enjoyment of the game. I do appreciate it, though, when a couple of friends—one who played in the NFL briefly, another who coaches in college—point out important elements I'd never have noticed on my own.

I was really not trying to get into a full debate of what the sport has more strategy. The point is that a lot of baseball strategy is so simple that it is predictable on many levels. Many things are not surprises even to the other coach. Heck we know when they are going to change a picture. We know when the batter is going to be pinch hit for. Those are not things that catch everyone by surprise. When a bunt situation is on it is not a surprise. Even a shift is extremely obvious when executed. A blitz by the defense in football is not so obvious and the result that comes from it is not obvious either. The reason a basketball coach requests a timeout is because something was changed by the other team and their team has not made an adjustment or totally caught off guard by that strategy.

Whatever the reason the public is not watching. And I do not see anything wrong with changing rules to make the game more watchable. And no that is not going to be because of instant replay.

Peace

[greymule]

And, now that the Yanks and the Phils are out, what do we think viewership for the WS will be with Tex vs SF?

There was one WS 10-12 years ago that neither I nor anyone else watched. It got the lowest ratings ever. Not surprisingly, I can't remember who played in it. It might have been the Marlins and somebody.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by grunewar

And, now that the Yanks and the Phils are out, what do we think viewership for the WS will be with Tex vs SF? With the major markets out, only followers of those teams and the purists may watch...... If I'm an advertiser or network exec......

This will be in my opinion one of the lowest rated in recent years. I will never say it will be that low, but not what MLB would like to see. At least not compared to other numbers of other post season events and other things that are not as important to watch.

Peace

[Texas Aggie]

Measured an NFL game lately, or NHL? A 3+ hour event is very likely.

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.

Face it: even for my generation (~X) baseball is BORING. The game was perfect for my Dad's generation -- one who grew up either without TV or got it in their mid- to late- childhood. Nothing else to do on a Saturday afternoon for decades. Last 25-30 years pretty well changed all that.

[GA Umpire]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

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.

Face it: even for my generation (~X) baseball is BORING. The game was perfect for my Dad's generation -- one who grew up either without TV or got it in their mid- to late- childhood. Nothing else to do on a Saturday afternoon for decades. Last 25-30 years pretty well changed all that.

Hence, my ADD comments. It is a different culture now. And, the misconception that there is no "dead" time in football, basketball, or hockey. It is there but many choose not to see it. This pretty much sums up everything. It is the pace many are living at and don't want to watch something that takes its time to develop and finish.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by GA Umpire

Hence, my ADD comments. It is a different culture now. And, the misconception that there is no "dead" time in football, basketball, or hockey. It is there but many choose not to see it. This pretty much sums up everything. It is the pace many are living at and don't want to watch something that takes its time to develop and finish.

Why does it have to be about ADD? Maybe the sport is just not appealing. There are people that do not like to watch Soccer or the World Cup and there is much more action in that sport than any other I can think of. It is not about ADD, it is about appeal. When baseball was the National Pastime, there was not TV and sports like Boxing was something the nation paid attention to. Both were heavily followed on the radio. I bet without looking, hardly anyone could name the Heavyweight champion in any division and I bet that the casual fan could not name 5 players on each WS team. This has more to do with the public have moved on to watch and focus on other things. Football is just more appealing. It works better on TV and the media spent all summer talking about a free agent in a sport and they finally played a game last night. And the average person probably would not know who Cliff Lee if he walked into their house. But they could identify some player that is not even that famous and they wear a helmet. It is just a different era and the rules should change just like any other sport that wants to stay relevant. And if they don't then they will have more people watch NFL and NBA games during the WS. And I will hardly watch much of the series because I have other things to do just at the time the games are being played. Baseball is just not appointment TV anymore like it probably once was.

Peace

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Why does it have to be about ADD? Maybe the sport is just not appealing. There are people that do not like to watch Soccer or the World Cup and there is much more action in that sport than any other I can think of. It is not about ADD, it is about appeal. When baseball was the National Pastime, there was not TV and sports like Boxing was something the nation paid attention to. Both were heavily followed on the radio. I bet without looking, hardly anyone could name the Heavyweight champion in any division and I bet that the casual fan could not name 5 players on each WS team. This has more to do with the public have moved on to watch and focus on other things. Football is just more appealing. It works better on TV and the media spent all summer talking about a free agent in a sport and they finally played a game last night.

Rut you are "right-on"

I was listening to the radio and one of the broadcasters mentioned that "back in the day" Baseball was number 1 followed by Boxing and believe it or not Horse - Racing (at least in Calif and NY) Football was 4th on the list at best UNTIL the Giants / Colts Over-time game which was the "spring-board" to put the NFL "on the map"

The NFL commissioners most notably Pete Rosell were visionaries and did a really good marketing job making football a NATIONAL sport. That's where baseball went wrong.

Baseballs downfall was the firing of Fay Vincent a "TRUE" Commissioner and putting in "one of their own" in Bud Sileg. Other then the fans of a particlar team like Yankee Fans for the most part No one watches baseball anymore.

Look at the Yankees / BOSOX series. One year you have the Yankee fans "hating" Johnny Damon and the next year "loving" him. Again another major drawback of baseball. That's equivalent of Dennis Potvin (NHL - NY Islanders) being trading to the NY Rangers (NHL). If any one follows hockey they know Ranger fans "hated" Dennis Potvin.

Today in baseball it's quite common. The player that you "hated" is now a member of YOUR team.

Also, baseball is boring especially the Yankee Bosox games which last 4 hours or so.

All in all baseball is a Regional Sport with the owners of the small market teams like the Pirates simply pocketing the money and NOT investing in the team. In a way you can't blame them because even if they did invest the money in the team they still could not compete with the other BIG market teams.

The Yankees are also what's wrong with baseball. They set the bar so high that other teams cannot compete for Free agents. 2 yrs. ago they got CC, Teshera and Burnett.

The NBA is following suit as Mega stars are teaming up together leaving the league "barren" At least Commissioner Stern has the "guts" to mention that the NBA needs to contract to make the league more competitive and attractive.

"Back in the day" not only did I know the members of my team but I knew many players on the "other" teams as well. As you say how many people really KNOW or would recognize Cliff Lee? However, most KNOW and would recognize Peyton Manning or Tom Brady in a heartbeat.

Football is KING by a HUGE margin. I bet the Steelers / Saints game on NBC's SNF will "destroy" the ratings on Fox which is carrying the Giants / Rangers series. Game 4 of the series is scheduled at the same time slot as the football game.

Pete Booth

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

Football is KING by a HUGE margin. I bet the Steelers / Saints game on NBC's SNF will "destroy" the ratings on Fox which is carrying the Giants / Rangers series. Game 4 of the series is scheduled at the same time slot as the football game.

Pete Booth

Wow, I thought the NFL took off for that Sunday of the World Series? That game will likely be much more interesting than the World Series unless it is an elimination game. And even then it might not be that interesting.

Peace

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I bet without looking, ... the casual fan could not name 5 players on each WS team. This has more to do with the public have moved on to watch and focus on other things.

I think it has to do with the fact that there's more teams. In 1939 (the first year baseball was on television), there were 16 teams in two leagues. Now, we've got 30 teams in 6 divisions. Add the fact that players move from team-to-team now -- in the past, players -- especially marquee players -- stayed with the same team. "The Curse of the Bambino" would be 5th page news in the Sports section.

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

Today in baseball it's quite common. The player that you "hated" is now a member of YOUR team.

It's the same in every sport. How many Vikings fans hated Favre when he "retired," then signed with the Jets? How many of them instantly turned to fans when the Vikings signed him? How about Lebron James? Do you honestly think Heats fan liked him before he signed with them?

It's not fair to use this argument, as it happens in EVERY sport in America. Yes, I agree that baseball has taken a sharp downturn, but not for that reason.