Fixing MLB

[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.

[SAump]

Guys,

I know New York and Boston are the largest markets in sports, but New York can't win every year. Psst, come closer. The Yankees looked OLD on TV compared to the mighty Rangers. Have you ever seen a New York Yankees baseball team intentionally walk two different players in the late innings of an ALCS game they were losing by 5 runs?

The Phillies had a shot and lost to the Giants, and there are more people hating the Phillies (and Eagles) who would rather see the Giants in the WS. As far as ratings go, the best TWO teams in baseball earned a right to meet in the World Series. The new Texas Rangers "DYNASSTY" begins Wednesday night on FOX with a win over the Giants.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by SAump

I know New York and Boston are the largest markets in sports, but New York can't win every year.

No one ever said they should. The point I was making earlier was, with the major markets out, and "your haters" out (those who would tune in to cheer against the New York's, Boston's, Philies, etc.) there may not be much of a market left who will tune in to these games.

Originally Posted by SAump

The Yankees looked OLD......

Agreed.