June 29, 201610 yr The only two real changes baseball needs to make: 1) DH is either in or out in both leagues. I say in in both, but can get behind neither having them. 2) Stop having the old dudes managing wearing baseball uniforms. They look ridiculous. And a 3rd one that is unrealistic, but should have been implemented long ago... Make all the darn ballparks uniform dimensions. It's absurd that we have every park with different dimensions. It's the only pro sport around that doesn't have the same playing dimensions. My wife and I were at a Twins' game recently and I was talking to her about the baseball uniforms for managers. I always use the alien test. If an alien was put on planet earth and went to a baseball game, I believe they would leave the ball park more confused as to why the coach/manager is dressed as if they are suiting up for a game than anything else. Once this custom is removed I think the world will one day look back and say that is the dumbest thing in sport's history.
June 29, 201610 yr A few thoughts: Baseball isn't going to do anything radical to shorten games. Unless TV steps up to compensate teams , MLB teams are not going to play less games per year. Baseball attendance is not suffering. Why do we think they would make any radical changes?
June 29, 201610 yr Most things suggested deal with the length of games. While some of the time concerns are legit, the length of games is not the problem, it is the product. What intricacies within the game can be instituted or modified to make the games more exciting? The DH one is a no-brainer. If you are one that loves to watch a .160 batter come to the plate to see how the offense adjusts, you are part of the problem, grandpa.
June 29, 201610 yr Most things suggested deal with the length of games. While some of the time concerns are legit, the length of games is not the problem, it is the product. What intricacies within the game can be instituted or modified to make the games more exciting? The DH one is a no-brainer. If you are one that loves to watch a .160 batter come to the plate to see how the offense adjusts, you are part of the problem, grandpa. I'm fine with whatever a league decides to do regarding the DH. However, not having it seems like an odd reason to dislike the game or product. Those who say no to it may like the late-game strategies involved. They like to play manager.
June 29, 201610 yr What I would love to be privy to is MLB's internal debate about the long-term view of the product. Are there real concerns about the popularity of the game 10 to 20 years down the road? Do they look that far?
June 29, 201610 yr Details, please. That would cut out the worst 150 players in the league. Better players on the field (in general) would equate to quicker games.
June 29, 201610 yr Those who say no to it may like the late-game strategies involved. They like to play manager.The people who "like to play manager" are not the people baseball should be trying to appeal to. If the flip side to this is getting to watch an actual batter bat in the non-late innings of games then I still see it as a no-brainer. I have never followed this argument about "strategy" as if it goes away if you have a DH.
June 29, 201610 yr That would cut out the worst 150 players in the league. Better players on the field (in general) would equate to quicker games. Gotcha. Not sure if I fully agree . I need to think about it. Less talented batters also get on base less which means outs happen faster so...
June 29, 201610 yr The people who "like to play manager" are not the people baseball should be trying to appeal to. If the flip side to this is getting to watch an actual batter bat in the non-late innings of games then I still see it as a no-brainer. I have never followed this argument about "strategy" as if it goes away if you have a DH. I have no empirical data but my gut says less pitching changes and less pinch-hitters with the DH.
June 29, 201610 yr Details' date=' please.[/quote'] That would cut out the worst 150 players in the league. Better players on the field (in general) would equate to quicker games. Gotcha. Not sure if I fully agree . I need to think about it. Less talented batters also get on base less which means outs happen faster so... UMKF is correct. Expansion over the years has watered down the talent level at the ML level. You'd have about 66 less pitchers in the league. Better pitching equals less walks, and better hitters equals less strikeouts and more guys putting the ball in play.
June 29, 201610 yr UMKF is correct. Expansion over the years has watered down the talent level at the ML level. You'd have about 66 less pitchers in the league. Better pitching equals less walks, and better hitters equals less strikeouts and more guys putting the ball in play. This one is false, more and more your "better hitters" also are team leaders in strikeouts each year.
June 29, 201610 yr UMKF is correct. Expansion over the years has watered down the talent level at the ML level. You'd have about 66 less pitchers in the league. Better pitching equals less walks, and better hitters equals less strikeouts and more guys putting the ball in play. I dont think expansion is the issue, you have had 4 expansion teams in 24 years. Of which all 4 of them have been to the world series, 2 of which have won a world series, one team twice.
June 29, 201610 yr No one enjoys academic discussions more than me but I think we can all agree MLB is not contracting.
June 29, 201610 yr No one enjoys academic discussions more than me but I think we can all agree MLB is not contracting. Oh no doubt about that. I was simply trying to point out that I believe expansion is a key reason the length of games has increased over the years.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.