MLB and Union talk major rule changes

[Number5]

58 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

That's the challenge, isn't it?  Any business has to walk the line between bringing in new customers and not alienating their existing base.  Baseball has a huge problem in that they're popular enough now, but you can see the demographic cracks.  The average age of a baseball fan is 174.  I kid, but it's not great for the future of the game.  Couple that with cable being a potential bubble - eventually there will be enough cord cutters to take a cut out of mandatory $3 montly MASN fees.

Baseball may choose to follow your path and not change anything, and let the game wander around wherever it sees fit.  That's how we've gotten to long games with relatively little action besides strikeouts and homers.  Personally I think it's stupid to see the writing on the walls with regards to an aging fanbase and a younger generation uninterested in long, tedious games, and do nothing.

I see baseball's current situation as somewhat analogous to basketball prior to the shot clock and 3-point line.  College basketball wasn't exactly in trouble when they did those things, but they saw obvious problems like stalling tactics and four-corners, and the dominance of 7-footers instead of athletic players and they did something about it.  And now March Madness is probably bigger than the World Series.  It wouldn't be if North Carolina was able to hold the ball for the last 18 minutes of a 19-14 game.

Your NCAA analogy is way off the mark.  MLB scores today are certainly not at all-time lows.  Apples and oranges.

[Sessh]

1 hour ago, atomic said:

 And now we even have replays in baseball I would love to remove replays from baseball.  Another needless delay of the game. 

I wouldn't say it's needless if it means getting the call right. Besides, take away replays and you'd just have delays in the form of managers arguing with umpires for a couple minutes. I would prefer to make the replay process better and faster as opposed to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's a good idea, but it is not implemented as efficiently as it can be. The problem is the people at home can determine what the right call is five minutes before the replay judges do. The problem isn't replay itself.

[Sessh]

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Personally I think it's stupid to see the writing on the walls with regards to an aging fanbase and a younger generation uninterested in long, tedious games, and do nothing.

Thing is, interest in sports seems to be falling across the board in all sports among youth. They just don't seem to be as interested in pro sports generally, so then the question is how much catering should be done to them and how much collateral damage is acceptable? Changes always come with unforeseen problems and some of them can be catastrophic. The potential of alienating everyone is a very real one IMO if the wrong changes are made and too many changes are made at the same time. If young people just have better things to do and aren't interested in sports, I don't think any of these changes is going to reverse that.

I think we have to be open to the possibility that pro sports are generally on the way out or at least on the way down. I also think people would rather enjoy sporting events from home than at the park where food is too expensive, the temperature may not be ideal and stadium seats aren't as comfortable as sitting on your couch, recliner or bed wearing whatever you want with the bathroom a few steps away and being able to turn over and sleep immediately after the game ends.

It's complicated for sure, but I think these proposed changes have too much of a "knee jerk" quality to them. I am not inherently against change, but I think it's not being considered with the proper care and respect it needs. A strike would make it all moot, though. I really think that's the endgame especially if these changes don't go over well. These next couple years are going to be done on thin ice IMO.

[MikeAD]

13 minutes ago, Sessh said:

Thing is, interest in sports seems to be falling across the board in all sports among youth. They just don't seem to be as interested in pro sports generally, so then the question is how much catering should be done to them and how much collateral damage is acceptable? Changes always come with unforeseen problems and some of them can be catastrophic. The potential of alienating everyone is a very real one IMO if the wrong changes are made and too many changes are made at the same time. If young people just have better things to do and aren't interested in sports, I don't think any of these changes is going to reverse that.

I think we have to be open to the possibility that pro sports are generally on the way out or at least on the way down. I also think people would rather enjoy sporting events from home than at the park where food is too expensive, the temperature may not be ideal and stadium seats aren't as comfortable as sitting on your couch, recliner or bed wearing whatever you want with the bathroom a few steps away and being able to turn over and sleep immediately after the game ends.

It's complicated for sure, but I think these proposed changes have too much of a "knee jerk" quality to them. I am not inherently against change, but I think it's not being considered with the proper care and respect it needs. A strike would make it all moot, though. I really think that's the endgame especially if these changes don't go over well. These next couple years are going to be done on thin ice IMO.

Disagree strongly. NFL Doing great despite rampant CTE, constant off the field drama and arrests, fans mad at other fans over anthems, boycotts from any number of groups etc etc.  the NBA has shifted away from the old networks and all nba tv broadcasts advertise future broadcasts on all networks and steaming services.  Both NBA and NFL have moved content to Instagram, youtube etc.  NBA is doing better than ever especially among younger fans. They condense whole games down to Snapchat sends. You arent  going to ever get that with baseball especially when the older fans would rather sit in an empty stadium than see some arbitrary rules change in a child’s sport. No shareable highlights outside of homers. MLB has done a great job as a whole with social media and they make a ton off the steaming capabilities that other outlets use (MLB hosts WWE network for instance) but there’s huge inconsistencies when so much of the output is from the team level, there is no cross promotion and it’s hard enough to get anyone kid or adult to sit still for four hours when very little is going on the field. Nba has pretty much accepted they have a tv audience and a limitless growth possibility global and online audience.  They cater to everyone without making the sport something it’s not. MLB will be hurting after this next strike 

[Dipper9]

13 minutes ago, Sessh said:

Thing is, interest in sports seems to be falling across the board in all sports among youth. They just don't seem to be as interested in pro sports generally, so then the question is how much catering should be done to them and how much collateral damage is acceptable? Changes always come with unforeseen problems and some of them can be catastrophic. The potential of alienating everyone is a very real one IMO if the wrong changes are made and too many changes are made at the same time. If young people just have better things to do and aren't interested in sports, I don't think any of these changes is going to reverse that.

I think we have to be open to the possibility that pro sports are generally on the way out or at least on the way down. I also think people would rather enjoy sporting events from home than at the park where food is too expensive, the temperature may not be ideal and stadium seats aren't as comfortable as sitting on your couch, recliner or bed wearing whatever you want with the bathroom a few steps away and being able to turn over and sleep immediately after the game ends.

It's complicated for sure, but I think these proposed changes have too much of a "knee jerk" quality to them. I am not inherently against change, but I think it's not being considered with the proper care and respect it needs. A strike would make it all moot, though. I really think that's the endgame especially if these changes don't go over well. These next couple years are going to be done on thin ice IMO.

The bolded section above is the #1 reason attendance is down.  Crystal clear 50 inch HD television makes it really easy to stay home rather than fight all kinds of "issues" to go to the park.  

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, Dipper9 said:

The bolded section above is the #1 reason attendance is down.  Crystal clear 50 inch HD television makes it really easy to stay home rather than fight all kinds of "issues" to go to the park.  

Fifty inch?  High Definition?

Look whose living in 2015.

[DrungoHazewood]

52 minutes ago, Sessh said:

Thing is, interest in sports seems to be falling across the board in all sports among youth. They just don't seem to be as interested in pro sports generally, so then the question is how much catering should be done to them and how much collateral damage is acceptable? Changes always come with unforeseen problems and some of them can be catastrophic. The potential of alienating everyone is a very real one IMO if the wrong changes are made and too many changes are made at the same time. If young people just have better things to do and aren't interested in sports, I don't think any of these changes is going to reverse that.

I think we have to be open to the possibility that pro sports are generally on the way out or at least on the way down. I also think people would rather enjoy sporting events from home than at the park where food is too expensive, the temperature may not be ideal and stadium seats aren't as comfortable as sitting on your couch, recliner or bed wearing whatever you want with the bathroom a few steps away and being able to turn over and sleep immediately after the game ends.

It's complicated for sure, but I think these proposed changes have too much of a "knee jerk" quality to them. I am not inherently against change, but I think it's not being considered with the proper care and respect it needs. A strike would make it all moot, though. I really think that's the endgame especially if these changes don't go over well. These next couple years are going to be done on thin ice IMO.

I don't think a league or a business of any type would take the approach that their product is fading away and they should just kind of accept that.  I would expect that baseball fights for market share.  I just don't see a situation where the owners and Manfred accept that baseball will no longer be viable on the level they are today.

Can you imagine presenting a business plan to your investors that is basically making the aging and curmudgeonly fanbase comfortable until the end inevitably comes?

[DrungoHazewood]

41 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Fifty inch?  High Definition?

Look whose living in 2015.

I'm sure MASN will be streaming in 4K in 2033.  It takes a long time to build up those trucks, or so rshack said.

[DrungoHazewood]

48 minutes ago, MikeAD said:

Disagree strongly. NFL Doing great despite rampant CTE, constant off the field drama and arrests, fans mad at other fans over anthems, boycotts from any number of groups etc etc.  the NBA has shifted away from the old networks and all nba tv broadcasts advertise future broadcasts on all networks and steaming services.  Both NBA and NFL have moved content to Instagram, youtube etc.  NBA is doing better than ever especially among younger fans. They condense whole games down to Snapchat sends. You arent  going to ever get that with baseball especially when the older fans would rather sit in an empty stadium than see some arbitrary rules change in a child’s sport. No shareable highlights outside of homers. MLB has done a great job as a whole with social media and they make a ton off the steaming capabilities that other outlets use (MLB hosts WWE network for instance) but there’s huge inconsistencies when so much of the output is from the team level, there is no cross promotion and it’s hard enough to get anyone kid or adult to sit still for four hours when very little is going on the field. Nba has pretty much accepted they have a tv audience and a limitless growth possibility global and online audience.  They cater to everyone without making the sport something it’s not. MLB will be hurting after this next strike 

And soccer is reaching critical mass in the US, despite the top domestic league being what we'd call a minor league.  There have been something like 20 new soccer-specific stadiums built for MLS in the last decade or so.  I can watch every Premier League game on whatever device I want.  And baseball would kill for soccer's demographics, most of the fans will still be alive in 20 years.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Number5 said:

Your NCAA analogy is way off the mark.  MLB scores today are certainly not at all-time lows.  Apples and oranges.

I think you're whistling past the graveyard.  Everything is fine... just fine, don't touch anything that might upset the guys who root for the Brooklyn Dodgers.

[osfan83]

5 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I'd be fine with a rule that says the reliever has 30 seconds to be ready to pitch to a batter.  The manager has to alert the ump of a sub.  The pitcher, who has already walked in from the pen to the dugout, goes to the mound and we're ready to go.

I have a strong memory of my first game at the age of eight, sitting in yellow seats in the mezzanine.  So someone will probably post a photo of 1979, with the mezzanine being blue or green.

The pitch clock might work, but it's failed in some experiments.  Banning the shift will do nothing to fix balls in play - in fact it might exacerbate the problem by making it easier for Chris Davis types who both strikeout every third PA and pull the ball a ton to succeed.

 

There is no real difference between the leagues besides the DH rule.  They used to have seperate umps, offices, presidents, etc.  Offensive levels often varied by quite a lot.  Balls were different.  Now the differences are the DH, paper, and history.

Baseball has refused to change almost any rules for over a century.  And the game has evolved itself from a game of 2.50 ERAs, two Ks a game, and teams with < 10 homers a season to what we have today.  When you never change anything people get really good at finding loopholes and ways around the rules.  I doubt any rules changes they'll consider will be a greater impact than the differences we've seen organically.  At least with rules changes they have a chance to drive the changes in positive directions.  As it is now they're random.

I really, really want to see a park with a really, really deep outfield.  I wish New Yankee Stadium had the same dimensions as original Yankee, which was something like 310, 350, 466, 450, 315, 296.  The Polo Grounds might be a little extreme - I doubt 257' signs would go over well with pitchers, even if balanced by a CF fence that's over 500' with a 50' wall that's in play.  

My feeling is that free agency has had a significant impact on dimensions.  It's hard to get pitchers to sign with the Rockies, so it might be difficult to get any sluggers to go to a place where it's 475' in the gap.

What I really want is a test case - it just has to be one or two fields.  I want to see if it's the dimensions or the quality of the fielders that has driven triples and ISTP HRs to near-extinction.  It's probably both, so I'd bet that even with a bunch of huge parks we'd never get back to the triples levels of the deadball era and the 1920s.  The fielders and positioning are too good.

I understand it's part of the charm of baseball...but isn't it weird that dimensions can vary from park to park? And why only the HR wall. Why not distance from the mound to the plate....some teams make it 80 feet...some make it 40 feet. Why can't teams change the dimensions of the bases? 

Why can't some NFL teams make their field 120 yards? 

Always thought it was funny that baseball allowed different sized playing surfaces. But it also makes baseball pretty cool.  

[Aglets]

2 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I think you're whistling past the graveyard.  Everything is fine... just fine, don't touch anything that might upset the guys who root for the Brooklyn Dodgers.

As long as MLB revenues continue to increase every single year I find all the assertions that 'the end is nigh' to be more than a tad overblown.   I've been hearing alarms like this basically my entire adult life.  Obviously they can make improvements and they should look to do so.  Especially those that make people more inclined to come to the ballpark and watch games on TV.    

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, osfan83 said:

I understand it's part of the charm of baseball...but isn't it weird that dimensions can vary from park to park? And why only the HR wall. Why not distance from the mound to the plate....some teams make it 80 feet...some make it 40 feet. Why can't teams change the dimensions of the bases? 

Why can't some NFL teams make their field 120 yards? 

Always thought it was funny that baseball allowed different sized playing surfaces. But it also makes baseball pretty cool.  

Amount of foul territory varies.

[Sessh]

2 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I don't think a league or a business of any type would take the approach that their product is fading away and they should just kind of accept that.  I would expect that baseball fights for market share.  I just don't see a situation where the owners and Manfred accept that baseball will no longer be viable on the level they are today.

Can you imagine presenting a business plan to your investors that is basically making the aging and curmudgeonly fanbase comfortable until the end inevitably comes?

Well, I'm not saying that, but I'm saying that any approach to remedy the situation needs to be done with care and not in a reactionary way which is what this feels like. I know I am always in the comfortable minority here on this topic, but I think what we're seeing in part is the unintended consequences of trying to make the game "clean" when the game has never been clean at any time in it's history. This has been a large scale experiment and it has been a failure. It has just taken this long for it to really become obvious.

I don't think people cared much about three hour games in the 90's because it was exciting and someone could hit one out of the stadium at any time. You really had to pay attention and not miss a beat. Now, this "cleaner" product is nowhere near as exciting or alluring to people. Then, people complain that the ball is juiced. What people are essentially asking for is another dead ball era where even less happens than now and probably back then as well.

The #1 thing people love about baseball are home runs and the longer, the better. A cleaner game is without the fuel that supplies all those home runs and I would argue that this cleaner product is far worse off than it ever was when the league had players like Sosa, McGuire, Bonds and Canseco. It's just a better product with those guys than without them and the game has suffered. No PED's and no juiced ball is an on-field product that has literally never existed before in baseball history. It has never been clean, ever. Trying to make it so has failed and something has been lost that was very important to the survival of the sport. There might also be a case to be made about the decline in other areas like stolen bases because, as has been said on here before, stealing bases also takes a physical toll on the body which may not have been so bad with PEDs. The game people fell in love with was up to it's eyeballs in PEDs including steroids which have been around since the 30's and now, people want the same game without all that stuff and it's just not going to happen.

While I don't see that changing any time soon, I don't think wildly flailing around and making changes on the scale that is being suggested is going to improve the situation. I think it's the way further into it. It feels more like the actions of someone who is panicking than anything else.

[DrungoHazewood]

10 minutes ago, osfan83 said:

I understand it's part of the charm of baseball...but isn't it weird that dimensions can vary from park to park? And why only the HR wall. Why not distance from the mound to the plate....some teams make it 80 feet...some make it 40 feet. Why can't teams change the dimensions of the bases? 

Why can't some NFL teams make their field 120 yards? 

Always thought it was funny that baseball allowed different sized playing surfaces. But it also makes baseball pretty cool.  

Because outfield fences were originally just the boundary of the property.  They'd put up 10' walls so you couldn't stand just outside the field and watch without paying.  It was 295' to RF at Ebbets Field because there was a road at 300'.  To standardize the outfields in 1900 would have meant very small fields because of a lot of parks were like Ebbets, you physically couldn't go farther without getting the city to remove a street or a building, or buying up the property next door.