Fixing MLB
 

OK... I know, that implies it's broken, and I don't really think that... but I do think we've lost a lot of fans, from casual to serious, because of a number of issues. To me, all the gabbing about replay is immaterial to whether fans want to watch. It seems, from talking to people that don't watch, that the main culprit is the pace of the game and/or the length of the game.

Proposal:
1) Between pitches, the batter has 10 seconds to get his sign and get into the box, ready for the pitch.
2) Once the batter is ready, the pitcher has 10 seconds to pitch or throw to a base.
3) Pitchers may throw to a base only twice per "situation" (see below). A third throw MUST result in an out, or the baserunner advances (the allowing of the 3rd throw makes it so baserunners can take a little more lead after 2 throws ... but can't go TOO far as they are still liable to be thrown out)
4) Catchers may meet with a pitcher once per batter. A 2nd visit counts as a coach visit.

This would get rid of the endless getting in and out of the box, the batter calling time because the pitcher took too long, etc. It would also get rid of the waste-of-time lob-pickoff throw.

Part of the reason (sometimes) for the waste-of-time lobbing to a base is to allow a reliever to warm up a tad longer. Since we don't want added injuries caused by this speed up, a relief pitcher is allowed an extra minute on the mound when he first comes in.

(Situation: Defined as one specific batter/runner/outs configuration. Joe Smith batting, John Doe on first is a situation. Should Doe move to 2nd - we have a new situation, the throw-over counting starts over. Should Smith get out and a new batter come in, new situation. Should an out be obtained elsewhere or any other baserunner move, it's a new situation.)

If when I was between 8 and 25 you had told me that I would lose interest in Major League Baseball to the point where I watch only one or two games a year, I would have said you were nuts. But you would have been right.

The pace of the game is a big part of it. Nine-inning regular-season games that last 5 hours don't help. It's also the steroids, the overexpansion, the meaningless division championships, the weakened team identities. . . .

I last owned season tickets (Phillies) in the mid-1990s. When the inning ended, the players would sit in the dugout for a minute or so before walking out to their positions. Even then, they stood around until the signal came down from the box that the TV commercials were over. The advertising delays between innings must add half and hour to every nine-inning game.

Maybe something like the rules you're suggesting would help, but I remember well when nobody was hurrying the games along, yet they still were over in two hours. Everybody expected the game to move along, so it usually did.

In the meantime, I'll take NCAA softball over MLB any time.

Interesting idea. I seem to remember the SEC (and possibly other conferences as well) experimenting with a pitch clock similar to the shot clock in basketball. Never did hear how that worked out. Would be interested to know if anybody here has any insight.

That's all well and good, but (IMO) the biggest problem with the pace of games is the offense/defense imbalance. How do we measure time in baseball? OUTS! With bandbox ballparks, juiced balls, juiced players, a diluted talent pool, etc...outs can be darned hard to come by.

I guess chicks dig the long ball, but for five hours? Until the balance is restored at least somewhat, we are going to get long games. Let's start with slowing down the balls. The steroids issue seems to be heading down the right path finally. The breaks between innings is driven by TV. Never get that time back; no way the owners and players give that money back.

Start everyone with a 1-1 count. Some will argue that it "changes the tradition of the game"....but so does everything else being discussed...

JJ

That sounds communist, like 3 downs in football. Or Canadian. :D

I agree with 1 and 4. It doesn't take even 10 seconds to get a sign. And, coaches abuse the catcher going out far too often. This would help.

2 and 3 affect the game too much. A runner would just have to have to count to 10 and then start running. Less than 10, then they are on their own. If 10, just run. Why time it? And, after 2 throws, why worry about a pick-off attempt? Just wait 10 seconds and then run.

I agree with half but disagree with half. A real problem is many have developed attention deficit and can't stick with something too long. If there isn't immediate action within 10 seconds, it's time to change the channel. Baseball has been this way for a very long time.

Games average about 2 1/2 hours since I don't know when. Many are taking about 3 1/2 hours and maybe shouldn't. But, so does a football game. I know many times where the game started at 8 pm and wasn't over until well after 11 pm. The only difference is attention span that something isn't happening within 40 seconds of the last play more than just a pitch being thrown.

The NCAA is implementing the 20-second clock between pitches (with no runners on) and the 90-second clock between innings (108 seconds for televised games) for 2011. Some conferences are putting actual clocks in the stadiums during the season.

I think you guys are exaggerating this a little. There are rules in place to speed up games, but some umpires don't enforce them. One of the base umpires has a stopwatch and the between-inning breaks aren't what makes games take a long time. Also, aside from extra inning games, I haven't seen many, if any that last five hours.

A few seasons ago, one of the D3 conferences I was working made a huge deal about pace of play. So I started carrying a stopwatch out on the field and enforced the 1 minute rule strictly. At 1 minute after the third out (which was liberally measured, cause I wouldn't start the watch until the last player on defense crossed the foul line), I'd call for one more pitch. The first couple of innings, the pitchers only got a couple of pitches, but they caught on when they realized I was serious.

The next week I got a call from the assignor telling me to stop doing that. I asked him about the long spiel he made about pace of play and he cared more about the coaches whining to him than actually backing up what he said in the spring.

I'll believe it when I see it. One of the reasons I walked away from college baseball was the pace of play. The teams played 18-inning doubleheaders every day and I frequent had more than 6 hours at the ballpark and the most I ever made in those 6+ hours was $185. And with a 2 hour drive each way and the requirement to be there an hour early and no rooms for the umpires, it was an 11 hour Saturday with bad baseball.

With the new bats and actual clocks forcing things to move along, maybe college baseball will be a quick, crisp game again.

As I've mentioned before on these threads, in 1969 I played in a semipro tournament in which a 20-second clock had been implemented. Major League Baseball sent several officials, including Monte Irvin, to observe the effect of the clock on the game. (Even 41 years ago, MLB had some concern about the pace of the game.)

We were prepared—had a guy assigned to warn our pitcher when the limit was approaching. We were all watching the clock for a couple of innings, until everybody realized that 20 seconds was actually a pretty long time. Most pitches were 10-12 seconds apart, sometimes faster. After a few innings, nobody was watching the clock.

I think everybody back then was simply accustomed to a fairly brisk pace and went with the natural flow. Any batter who insisted on going through a 17-step ritual between pitches would have taken a lot of heat, and in those days the bench jockeying was bad.

[QUOTE=zm1283;697488]The NCAA is implementing the 20-second clock between pitches (with no runners on) and the 90-second clock between innings (108 seconds for televised games) for 2011. Some conferences are putting actual clocks in the stadiums during the season.

Do you know how the mechanics of this works? Which umpire watches the clock? When does the clock actually start and stop?

The clock in our tournament was mounted over the fence in dead center. Therefore, the PU, with the clock visible over the pitcher's head, must have had responsibility. I'm not sure exactly what the clock did when the digital countdown hit zero, but it must have lit up or buzzed or blinked or something obvious. (No microchips back then. It must have been a mechanical system like the old basketball scoreboards.)

The clock started when the pitcher regained possession of the ball, but I'm not sure of all the details, like what happened if runners were on or the batter stepped out or a pickoff was attempted. I'm also not sure exactly what had to be started or completed by the time the clock ran down.

The NJ newspapers mentioned the clock and the MLB reps but made a much bigger deal over the fact that Bernice Gera umpired some of the games. Some people attended just to see a woman umpire.

I think the clock was gone the next year, and the big news was that Jim Bouton brought his knuckleball to the tourney (for our team).

[QUOTE=centkyref;697502]Here is the NCAA rule change. The BU in a 2-man crew or U3 in a 3-man crew carry the stopwatch.

Rule 9-2c: Pace of Play. With the bases unoccupied, the pitcher shall deliver the ball within 20 seconds after receiving the ball. Add penalty to 9-2c: PENALTY: After a team warning, a ball will be called each time the rule is violated. A.R.—Coaches are prohibited from arguing a 20-second rule violation. A warning is given and an ejection of the head coach on subsequent violations.

Rationale: To address pace of play concerns.

Rule 9-2i: Procedure between innings. For non-televised games, teams will be allowed a maximum of 90 seconds between half-innings. For televised games, it is recommended that the time between each half-inning will be 108-seconds between each half inning. For games being played under a television agreement, the time between innings may be extended by contract. The clock starts with the last out of an inning and stops when the pitcher engages the rubber. In the case of an injury or an ejection of the pitcher, the umpire-in-chief shall allow the relief pitcher an adequate time to warm-up.

PENALTY for i: A ball will be called when the defense violates and a strike will be called when the offense violates.

Rationale: The time between innings, in some cases, is a cause of longer game times. Timing and making this sequence consistent will assist in the overall administration of the game.

Count the commercial breaks during Monday night football...by far more breaks in the action with nothing going on than baseball.

Going to a football game in person is even dumber...watch the players stand around at change of possession for three minutes doing nothing until TV tells them it's okay to keep playing.

I think the main difference is that a true intellectual appreciates the intricacies of baseball, so you have to have some level of thinking to understand and appreciate the game for what it is. Football (certainly the teams prepare), but any idiot can watch it and appreciate it for exactly what it is which is why they can get away with the type of announcing that they have...the casual fan doesn't care about the Tampa 2 defense, but they can understand that if the offense get into the endzone it's a good thing...

I couldn't try to explain to somebody the strategies of baseball, working the count, trying to advance a runner, going to the mound to buy more time for the bullpen pitcher, to throw over to first to see if the batter tips the defense to the fact that he might be bunting. The casual fan can't possibly understand OR appreciate that stuff unless you choose to learn about the greatest game on the planet.

The reasons above, is why it's now become virtually impossible to sit in the stands and watch a game with a "normal" crowd. They literally have no idea what they're talking about.

I'm not saying this to imply that I'm baseball genius guy, because I'm not. I would be interested to read other ideas though.

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.

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.

Exactly.

I would think so.

Wally Bell was doing his best to do that last night...even on non borderline pitches.

You're kidding right? If any level should call close to the rulebook, it's MLB. Were you a fan of Eric Gregg?

Want a bigger zone? Get MLB to get a bigger plate. Openly violating the rules is not the best path to shorter games. It would be, however, a great path to increased ejections. That might be fun. ;)

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

i hate to break it to you, but the 20 sec has been a rule for at least 5 yrs now...

The SEC used it int he Conference tourney, they will use it this yr. the others conferences have the choice to use, if 1 school doesn't want to use, then none of them use it.

tony Thompson was telling us about it last weekend at his camp.

according to a couple of articles in the Wall Street Journal over the past several months, there's more "action" in a baseball game than in a football game.

Both are under 20 minutes, however, in the 3+ hour total.

I think the action piece is misleading.

In the NFL use a stop watch and actually time the plays from snap to tackle.

The people would be surprised. People don't like baseball, because it is a hard game to enjoy if you don't understand the finer points of the game.

I do not think the issue is the actually time of "action" that takes place. The bottom line football has more going on even when nothing is taking place and I bet most series of downs take place faster than many at bats. Heck there are innings that take an hour (and in this post season). That is too much time for a game that could cut that time in half if they did the right things.

There is a reason why baseball is lacking in participation to the other major sports in our country. It is more than how long the game takes.

Peace

Honestly, comparing baseball to football is comparing apples to oranges.

People watch football for the hits, touchdowns, and cheerleaders. :D Baseball doesn't have any of this and very few hits. Wouldn't mind the cheerleader part though.

Football is designed for ADD fans (Fans who need constant changes in the game). Baseball is designed for non-ADD fans (Fans who watch the game or at least like it enough to watch for their favorite player or team). In football, the ball can go from one team to another instantly. Baseball has to get 3 outs somehow. In football, the score can change by a variety of ways and by a variety of points. In baseball, there is only 1 way to score 1 run. It may vary in the number of them and how it happens. But, the method is the same: "Touch" all of the bases in order.

All of the reasons are not as black and white as this either. We have become a society who craves the fast pace things of life. I mean look at how quick the hottest game/movie becomes the coldest in a matter of weeks.

While there are ideas to help speed up the game, none of it truly matters b/c it is so much more than that. So much more is involved and the style of the games is so different. Speeding it up only changes when you go to bed at night after the late game. That's it.

Ice hockey has more "action" than either baseball or football; so does indoor soccer, pro wrestling, bicycle racing. . . .

Baseball has long periods of anticipation, punctuated by fast and important action. And it helps to know what's going on, which is why I couldn't stick with watching guys from India play cricket in a New Jersey league that played in the same park where I often umpired.

But as GA said, it's apples and oranges. Action is overrated. Movies today are full of 3D truck crashes and all kinds of action special effects. Yet I'd rather watch The Treasure of the Sierra Madre for the 50th time than Terminator XVII.

I used to be a huge NBA fan, too. Loved the Knicks, hated the Celtics. Now I think I'd watch British soccer over dunkball. The game just doesn't interest me any longer. I hate to say it, but neither does MLB, though I still enjoy watching old World Series highlight films.

You are right, but that plays a role in today’s games to many people.

Also the biggest problem is in my opinion is the way the game of baseball is sold to the public. For one they need to stop playing the biggest games when most young people will not be able to watch. Even the Super Bowl is played in the afternoon or very early evening and ends before 10:00 in the Eastern Time Zone on a Sunday. Baseball wants to start games late and then end even later on a school day mind you.

Also the dumbest thing baseball does is try to convince the public that guys that played in a segregated era were much better than what we see today. Then you vilify the players that are your stars because they did something that was legal or not outlawed. At least the NFL can show video of players that have not played in 40 years and we can judge how good they are to today's players. Baseball just gives numbers and wants us to believe that there is no way a player today was as good or better all because of some numbers. Jim Brown has been passed on the rushing charts by 8 players on the All-Time Lists, but in his era and still in some people's minds he was unmatched. That is fine, but at least there is a discussion. 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. That hurts your sports when people have witnessed things and you dismiss what they witnessed. And you have no video of those players to prove they were not as good. It is kind of silly to the public and makes people not want to watch.

Peace

Well
 

I don't think things are more boring than this thread.....:rolleyes:

Anywho, I went to game 2 of the ALCS last Saturday. The game lasted approximately 3 1/2 hours. I had a blast throughout the whole game. I had taped the Texas-Nebraska game and watched it when I got home. I fast forwarded through all timeouts, commercials, and halftime. It took me about 1 1/2 hours to watch the game. I throughly enjoyed it also.

My advice. Deal with it. It is what is.

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.

They are dealing with it. Monday Night Football was on and they watched that and not the baseball game. ;)

The question was how do you fix that? And MLB has to be concerned that a post season game is not doing better than a blowout or not two of the biggest draws in the NFL. It was not like the Colts were playing New England on MNF. It was a decent team playing a team that was even worse. And both of the QBs were knocked out of that game.

And being at the game is completely different than watching it on TV. Not a good comparison at all if you ask me.

Peace

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.

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.


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

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.

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.

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.

Stupidity
 

+1

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.

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!

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.

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

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

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.

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. :rolleyes:

Peace

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.

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.

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.

I was being a little facetious in my response because you made it sound like there was so much complicated to the strategy to baseball. Oh, that is ground breaking that we now a pitcher throws a sinker. At least they know he can throw that pitch it is about execution. In football they might not know they run a play out of that formation. The team may think they run to one side and because of motion or other movements they run to another side. Football is much more of a chess game than any baseball game as there is not much you can do in baseball but throw the ball and try to make the batter miss it. Even basketball has many more variations to offenses and defenses than that. All these sports have strategy, but to say that the dots are too simple in other sports and baseball is the complicated mind game, you cannot be serious.

Not sure what ADD has to do with more people want to go watch a game. Baseball at the high school and college level is not even a revenue sport for most schools across the country. And the games as the high school level are theoretically much shorter than high school games. After all there are only 7 innings in baseball at the high school level. Many games end in less than 2 hours (and that is with speed up rules unlike the pros). High school football games almost always go over 2 hours and can be longer. It is much more than attention span that is drawing people in.

Fewer rules than baseball??? Really???

Do you realize that there are over 300 rules differences from college to pro? Do you realize there over 200 from college to high school? Fewer rules?? I could step into working a MLB game right now and not pick up a rulebook at that level and function. You cannot do that in football, not even close. There are so many different penalties differences or so many mechanics difference. When I started working baseball I did not have to completely change the way I thought of the game to umpire unlike I had to in other sports. Of course there are rules in baseball that are not easy or well understood, but let us not make it seem that someone that watches a high school game cannot figure out when someone is out or when someone is safe in a baseball game. There are big time football fans that do not realize what is legal or illegal in a basic game because the levels have so many differences. And still the public loves to watch football much more than baseball. Remember, a MNF game had more people watch than a post-season baseball game, with two middle of the road teams with nothing on the line in that game. Both LCS have players that are the best in the game and two of the more popular teams in them and they were outdone by a regular season football game. And if San Francisco wins against Philly we will see worse ratings differences. I would have never imagined that when I was a kid.

Peace

I guess you've never seen the defense adjust for a pull hitter. How about moving in for the possible bunt?

As I recall, you have often claimed that you weren't a baseball person.

Well, I guess you were right.

And that quoted along with the now known, to me, knowledge of him not being a baseball person explains everything. Now, I know what I am dealing with and that it is a complete waste of time to explain the game. Thanks for informing me.

I guess to you that is big time strategy.

Peace

I am not a baseball person from the standpoint I do not live and die with the game. And it appears I am in the norm as most people watching are not either. Which again you have not been able to address why a post season game has fewer people watching than a regular season game. The NFL would never have less ratings than another sport in their post season. Talking about what people do not understand about the sport and assuming they are not as intelligent is not helping baseball very well now is it? :D

Peace

I heard a story once, Ted Williams was asked, long after he retired, about the pitching at present. He was asked to compare against pitchers of his day. He said he would not be able to bat much over .300 against today's pitchers. The questionaire asked if the pitchers were that much better these days, and he said no, I'm in my 60's now...

I love baseball. It's my favorite sport to officiate and it and the NFL are my favorites to watch. With that said, baseball is a very, very simple game as far as strategy goes when you really get down to it. Execute on offense, make defensive plays, and throw strikes. Now actually doing those things well takes a lot of talent, but you can't tell me that preparing/strategizing for an NFL game is less complicated than figuring out that you need to put the shift on when Ryan Howard is up.

I think that despite the differences, baseball players from different generations would be able to compete fairly evenly against players of other times, i.e. players from the 50s/60s would do fine in today's game. I don't know if I would say the same about football. 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.

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...... :eek:

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.)

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

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.

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

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

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.

Low TV Ratings?
 

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.

A fan of the Rangers are we?
 

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.

Agreed.

[QUOTE]
While the pace of the game is A reason IMO, it's not the MAIN culprit.

IMO, the MAIN culprit is Cable specifically channels such as the YES network etc.

In order to compete, teams need their own cable deals. Unlike the NFL, baseball is a REGIONAL sport.

A good example is last weeks Monday night game between the Titans and the Jags which was up against the Phillies / Giants.

The Titans / Jags football game is Not a BIG game yet it still had better ratings than the baseball game. Yes the baseball game was on Turner compared to the football game which was on ESPN, but the point is football is KING.

The OTHER MAIN culprit is that baseball does NOT have a salary cap which means for the most part you can "pencil in" the Yanks every year for a playoff berth. Since 1995 the Yanks have only missed the playoffs once.

IMO, a system that allows one team to spend over a zillion dollars on players is a joke.

Just look at the Cleveland Indians. At one time the Indians had both Lee and CC on THEIR team. Those 2 F1's are no longer there.

At one time the Seattle Mariners had AROD, The BIG UNIT and Griffy Jr. (in his prime) all on the same team. Talk about a potential dynesty. They all left.

The Yankee infield alone is over $80 million.

Look at the Tampa Bay Rays. They will go through another transition year. They can't sign Crawford etc.

The Yanks will most likely sign Lee next year plus who knows. That's what is wrong with baseball. Many of the teams like the Pirates are no more than an advanced Triple A team who support the bigger clubs once a player can get arbritration or go through Free agency. It's an 'auction" once these teams know that cannot pay the player.

While the pace of the game etc might be a factor, IMO those are minor compared to what's really wrong with baseball.

Pete Booth

A common misconception or misunderstanding. Popular to contrary belief,

Organizations like the Pirates and other lower level lower market franchises make boat loads of cash. The make the majority of this money by keeping costs low (salaries) and having revenue high (localized TV deals). Performance of the team no longer matters since they do not rely on the gates to run the organization.

The TV deals are driven up and up and up by ESPN and the higher markets. Localized Fox Sports affiliates still are paying alot of money for the rights to cover even the lower level teams.

The Yankees / Red Sox / Mets have a business model that is just different than the lower level teams. Both methods make money. If you are a lower-market franchise, why risk spending more on performance when there is no payout for it other than increased ticket sales, which will not drive up overall revenue since you had to pay players in order to get that attendance.

So it becomes a popularity contest. Which teams have the most fans watching every game, which leads to higher TV contracts? Those are the teams that spend the most. Its the best situation the league could ask for, the fan base's favorite teams most likely will be around come October.

Parody in performance will only dilute the dollars, which the owners simply do not want. They like it the way it is, and so do the players. Its a business...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haHlFA_bDkI

You know I could go back and edit it, but that would just take away from your wonderfully humorous observation. Well done my friend.

Parity.

[QUOTE]You nailed it

Your aforementioned statement is the MAIN reason for the decline in attendance at baseball games. The length of games etc. is simply "window-dressing"

In order for baseball to draw more fans the System / economic models need to change. IMO, you cannot have a system where the owner of the team simply pockets the money and does NOT invest in the team. I realize the owner of the Pirates is making money BUT there should NOT even be a team in Pittsburgh it's STEELERS country.

Pete booth

2 things... first, I direct you to the Texas Rangers payroll this year... (25M less than the Yankee infield alone).

Second, I agree that the revenue sharing must be fixed. Some sort of salary FLOOR needs to be in place, and teams should be FORCED to spend their revenue sharing money on NEW talent, or lose it.

There is a salary floor.

Pete Booth:

Is the Newburgh Diner still in operation?

(This is relevant, because my team ate there after playing a game nearby.)

And are Sr and Jr really feuding or is it for show?

That Monday night football between Titans and Jags in late October on ESPN got higher ratings than a baseball playoff game on Turner is not surprising at all.

Season is much, much too long.....
 

and now the NBA is starting. Good luck MLB. :(

The season might be getting longer. Saw today where the executive director of the MLBPA Micheal Weiner, said the union would be open to discussion about adding more teams to the playoffs and extending the division series to seven games.

Six of One, Half Dozen of Another.....
 

This article suggests, if you're going to expand the playoffs......shorten the regular season. And so it goes.

APNewsBreak: Union would consider bigger playoffs - MLB - Yahoo! Sports

Hey, if you're going to shorten the season and extend the playoffs, why not have a "regular season", and then instead of Divisional Playoffs, have the two winners (NL & AL) just play a "best of 50" World Series? Then have all the teams share the revenue...:p

JJ

And let's hope they're tied at 25 each... then we can have the wonderful advertisement: "THIS SATURDAY... 8 PM EASTERN... THE GAME THAT REALLY COUNTS!!!"

Let's not forget that they'll get a week off before the deciding game, too.

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.

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

[QUOTE]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

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

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.

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.

Everything I have said is being reiterated in this one post. Word it how you want to so you will accept the reason. But, it still comes down to "What people are willing to sit through and watch". The down time is still the same. Even in soccer, the ball is passed around until someone goes for the shot. The "dead" time is passing the ball around until a score attempt is made. Perception of "action" is everything. ALL sports have "dead" time. What the viewer perceives as that time is PERCEPTION.

"Appeal" and "ADD" are pretty interchangeable in this context. Some movies don't have "appeal" but some watch those movies while others don't. Same concept here only some refuse to accept it and move on with their lives. Think about it. I could watch "The Green Mile" even though it was about 4 hours long. However, I can't sit through some movies and they are only 2 1/2 hours b/c I didn't want to watch them. They lasted too long for me. Same here. You don't want to watch a 3 hour baseball game, I do. So I have no issues with it.

I think yawetag makes an excellent point about the number of teams/divisions as well. Make too many and no one can keep up. Boxing did the same thing and now no one knows who is champion of which division. However, in the UFC, they have about 5 and everyone can keep up with that. And, I don't watch most of it but I can keep up b/c there are only a few to keep up with.

I did not like DS play when it came out and still don't. NCAA has this same issue in the spring. Many watch for their favorite team in the top 64 and lose interest for a while if their team isn't in it anymore. Then, when it dwindles down to the top 16 or even 4, those not watching watch b/c the number involved is less. But, again, it comes down to "ADD". I have it when it comes to the NCAA tournament.

You don't want to pay attention to the game b/c of its duration and "lack of pace" which you don't like. Then, don't watch it and don't complain about it when it happens. I like the game just fine the way it is. Have since I was 7. And, I don't want it to change. It is a great sport for ME.

And, I don't think marketing has anything to do with it. It is just a personal preference for each individual. You either watch it and like it or you don't. Marketing isn't going to change the length of time the game takes. No amount of marketing is going to change that. Maybe not forming "dynasties" will help but not really. Fans of a team will watch regardless of who their team is playing.

I think the playoffs are too long and drawn out with DS play. The same teams are being displayed for about 4 weeks to everyone. And, now there is discussion of stretching the playoffs. That is a major reason why people are bored with the playoffs. They are lasting too long with the same teams. Football and NCAA don't have this. Each day the sports play, the opposition is different.

I felt like creating a PeteBooth post with this one.

I am not trying to continue to debate this time. But Soccer if understood is considered one of the most action packed games. I was at the World Cup this summer and it was clear that there was a lot of action and a lot to watch. TV does not do that game justice as there is so much of the field/pitch that the public does not see only on TV. Games are much more exciting in person or on HDTV. But then again the world watches that game on a bigger scale than anything that is seen in this country. Much more passion by the average person in that sport. The entire country talks about their team playing in the World Cup or a major tournament. I do not see any real equivelant in our American Sports. Maybe the Super Bowl, but that is a one day event.

Really? I think the NCAA Men's Tournament has more viewers than just about any major sporting event that last over an extended period of time other than the NFL Playoffs and if you want to include the Super Bowl. CBS paid more money to have the rights for the Super Bowl than just about any other national contract. And it is a month long event. And you have a passionate fan base when people that went to those schools are watching and even communities those kids came from are playing. As well as exciting finishes and seeing an underdog beat a big boy in that tournament. I know people that take off work or watch online games in the middle of the day. Do they do that for baseball?

I will comment on the game all I want to. If you do not like others saying why they do not like the sport as much, you are just going to have to deal with it. ;) And this thread was asking what can be done to fix the game. I think the game needs fixing and how long the game takes is directly involved in what goes on inbetween pitches and how long it takes for a batter to get back to the box. Something needs to be done or the dial will change (showing my age). ;)

That is fine. But if the public has no idea who the top player is at a big time position that is a problem. It is really a problem if you want someone to watch your game and they cannnot even identify who the stars are. There are more stars than A-Rod and Jeter. You obviously not selling the game to the right people and you are not making it viable for the kids to watch by playing games 12:00am before the game is over on a school day. Again the game starts tonight on a school day and will not end early enough for most of the kids to watch. You better market something if you want them to stay up or their parents to allow them to stay up.

And you do not think marketing has anything to do with this at all? Someone at MLB thinks something is wrong or they would not bring in the idea.

Peace

[QUOTE]Check out the attached link which lists the Nielson ratings for the World Series.


http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/11/10...-phillies/1379


Bottom Line - People are NOT watching baseball anymore. Marketing DOES play an important role and the NFL prooves it. As mentioned the NFL was NO -where near baseball "back in the day" and now it's KING

WHY! MARKETING

You cannot sell your product without it.

As Rut said other then Jeter and AROD what other baseball star(s) is a "household word" In football there are plenty of them.

Baseball needs fixing.

Pete Booth

Favre, Adrian Peterson, TO, Ocho Cincho (not even there real or original names), Tebow, Drew Brees, Ray Lewis, Big Ben, Vince Young, Payton Manning, Eli Manning, Reggie Bush, Randy Moss and Tom Brady. I could go on and on too. We know who the person that is on the cover of Madden Football (the highest selling video game). Most people do not even know what the MLB video game is or cares who is on the cover. And this is a sport with helmets and their faces being covered. There is more talk about Tom Brady's hair than there is about Cliff Lee or Halladay pitching ability. Football has 53 guys on each roster and baseball has only 25 for most of the season. We know what colleges a football player is in and the NFL even moved their draft to a Thursday and it had better ratings than many NBA playoff games.

It is all about the marketing.

Peace

1. I think you miss the point when I say "many". I am NOT saying "all". I said I am one of those people and there ARE many others like that. They quit watching after their team is eliminated. I did NOT say "all" stop watching and I did NOT say "most". Again, NCAA tournament and NFL playoffs, each game features 2 DIFFERENT teams playing each other each day. The playoffs feature the SAME 2 each game and is overly drawn out. Many can attest to that b/c many were/are against the DS now. Many, not most and not all and I am one of them. I don't even watch until it gets to the LCS.

2. I can go on and on with names as well. Why, b/c I want to watch the game. Could it be b/c I like watching it and you don't? Maybe. But, I can do the same so who cares how many you can name off. People can do the same for Soccer, Basketball, NASCAR, and even bull riding. Why? B/c that is what they are into.

3. Marketing won't change a thing if YOU don't want to watch it. If CC becomes a household name, it won't change any viewers if the viewers don't want to sit through 3 hours of it. Marketing helps but only to a certain extent.

4. This comment "I will comment on the game all I want to. If you do not like others saying why they do not like the sport as much, you are just going to have to deal with it." is ridiculous at the least. What you quoted has nothing to do with this at all. And, I said nothing of the sort like this. Not even in what you quoted. I never said anything about those who "complain" about the game. Watch it, don't watch it. Comment, don't comment. I don't care.

5. Marketing helps to draw attention but is not the final answer. I can agree to "when" the games should start to help keep from losing viewers at 12 am. But, if a viewer(regardless of how much marketing is done) has no interest to watch a 3 hour game, then it doesn't matter if it started at 3 pm.

6. Everything you say about the football players, I know nothing about. WHY? B/c I don't care to watch it or know their names. WHY? B/c that is my PERSONAL preference. Which is the MAIN problem and at least, I am acknowledging that. Others on this thread seem to be avoiding that issue they seem to have with baseball games. In fact, I know of maybe half of the ones you listed. I couldn't care less for any of them. WHY? PERSONAL preference and that I like baseball more. NOT b/c of marketing.

7. Most of this, if not all of it, is a personal preference. Bottom line. Either you like it or you don't. Kids know about the game. Adults know about it as well. They know where they can go to watch it. It isn't a kept secret. Either you can sit through the game or you can't. Again, marketing helps but won't change a person's PERSONAL preference.

8. Oh, and they seem to be doing pretty well. As long as people watch, what is there to fix? TBS and FOX carried the games. Paid a lot of money for them too, I'm sure. Seems like there is a lot of money being made and is keeping the game on the TV. It appears they have been doing well. So, what is there to fix? Plenty of "dials" are staying where these companies want them to be. Wonder why? Many, not most or all, want the game on TV and are watching it.

And it is what is, just a suggestion. I really don't think owners in a playoff race, whether they make it or not, would want a shorter season. It would make for less revenue and a decreased chance of making the playoffs.

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

"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.

There's a lot of people that are in the same boat. MLB was good until the 1994 strike.

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

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]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]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]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]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

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.

Bad Game 3 Ratings


NFL vs. World Series


Peace

+1