MLB and Union talk major rule changes

[Number5]

3 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.

I think you and others are massively misreading the tealeaves.  Attendance is historically high.  Revenue is historically high.  Offense is historically high.  Those are facts.  There is no correlation to NCAA basketball of the late 60's/early 70's, where offense was historically low and games were actually completed faster due to far fewer clock stoppages.  You really are mixing apples and oranges.  Making knee-jerk rules changes based on this type of misunderstanding of what is happening can be disastrous.  Minor tweaks in the rules are on-going normal practices within the game.  Numerous massive changes without a realistic assessment of what really is the current state of the game and what the possible outcomes of the changes might be is simply poor business.  Again, look at Coca Cola's decision to change their formula and the disastrous results that resulted.  If baseball is to look at business analogies, it is vital that they look at the applicable ones.

[jabba72]

3 minutes ago, Sessh said:

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.

Agree that 3 hour pitching duels with multiple bullpen changes are probably too boring. Which is what the game has now. Im pretty sure HR's are still plentiful aren't they? Just the shift is taking away alot more singles.   

[atomic]

1 hour ago, Sessh said:

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.

Calls don't always have to be right.  Also I suggested banning managers from coming on to the field.  So managers can argue from the dugout all they want but the game will go on. 

[DrungoHazewood]

12 minutes ago, Aglets said:

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.    

I think they'll try to do things to keep revenues increasing.  We'll see if they work indefinitely.  It's hard to deny some of the realities, like cord cutting, and aging demographics, and splintering of the entertainment landscape.  My kids are bigger soccer fans than baseball fans and they don't watch 1/10th as much soccer as I did baseball at their ages.  They play Fortnight and Minecraft and watch YouTube.  They rarely watch baseball without me prodding or taking them.

[Sessh]

1 minute ago, atomic said:

Calls don't always have to be right.  Also I suggested banning managers from coming on to the field.  So managers can argue from the dugout all they want but the game will go on. 

Do you feel the same about balls and strikes?

[atomic]

11 minutes ago, Number5 said:

I think you and others are massively misreading the tealeaves.  Attendance is historically high.  Revenue is historically high.  Offense is historically high.  Those are facts.  There is no correlation to NCAA basketball of the late 60's/early 70's, where offense was historically low and games were actually completed faster due to far fewer clock stoppages.  You really are mixing apples and oranges.  Making knee-jerk rules changes based on this type of misunderstanding of what is happening can be disastrous.  Minor tweaks in the rules are on-going normal practices within the game.  Numerous massive changes without a realistic assessment of what really is the current state of the game and what the possible outcomes of the changes might be is simply poor business.  Again, look at Coca Cola's decision to change their formula and the disastrous results that resulted.  If baseball is to look at business analogies, it is vital that they look at the applicable ones.

Coca Cola's flavor and baseball are nothing related.  I guess you don't like change under any circumstance.  Were you opposed to foul balls becoming strikes? You want to go back to cork centers in baseballs?

[atomic]

9 minutes ago, Sessh said:

Do you feel the same about balls and strikes?

Yeah the human element is fine with me. If the umpires consistently get calls wrong replace them. But nothing wrong with an occasional bad call.  

[Sessh]

Just now, atomic said:

Yeah the human element is fine with me. If the umpires consistently get calls wrong replace them. But nothing wrong with an occasional bad call.  

Fair enough. At least you're consistent. I share your frustrations with replay, but I think if it was more efficient, it wouldn't be a big deal. I gotta tell you, though. If we get rid of replay, I want to see managers arguing with umpires on the field. I do miss it, I can't lie.

[Aglets]

3 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I think they'll try to do things to keep revenues increasing.  We'll see if they work indefinitely.  It's hard to deny some of the realities, like cord cutting, and aging demographics, and splintering of the entertainment landscape.  My kids are bigger soccer fans than baseball fans and they don't watch 1/10th as much soccer as I did baseball at their ages.  They play Fortnight and Minecraft and watch YouTube.  They rarely watch baseball without me prodding or taking them.

I'd be curious to know the experiences of parents on here that are NOT enormous soccer fans themselves.      

Their mileage may vary a little bit.

The answer to the cord cutting thing is simple.........just figure out a way to get streaming to work.  It's clearly the future.  The other stuff you're always gonna have.  I'm more pessimistic about the future of the NFL 25 years from now than I am about MLB.

[Number5]

1 minute ago, atomic said:

Coca Cola's flavor and baseball are nothing related.  I guess you don't like change under any circumstance.  Were you opposed to foul balls becoming strikes? You want to go back to cork centers in baseballs?

 

The point is making change just to change is counterproductive.  Assess the situation and change things when and where they need to be changed.  To look at the state of baseball today and come to the conclusion that it is in dire straights and needs massive changes to the product is an incredibly poor assessment by any reasonable business standard.  If you are focused on the fact that baseball isn't a soft drink you are lost.

[atomic]

9 minutes ago, Aglets said:

I'd be curious to know the experiences of parents on here that are NOT enormous soccer fans themselves.      

Their mileage may vary a little bit.

 The answer to the cord cutting thing is simple.........just figure out a way to get streaming to work.  It's clearly the future.  The other stuff you're always gonna have.  I'm more pessimistic about the future of the NFL 25 years from now than I am about MLB.

Football is doing well.  I would like to see more women professional sports. Seems like everything is male dominated. Why not a pro softball league. They could share the baseball stadiums with  the guys.  

[atomic]

9 minutes ago, Number5 said:

 

The point is making change just to change is counterproductive.  Assess the situation and change things when and where they need to be changed.  To look at the state of baseball today and come to the conclusion that it is in dire straights and needs massive changes to the product is an incredibly poor assessment by any reasonable business standard.  If you are focused on the fact that baseball isn't a soft drink you are lost.

Baseball isn't going to give you diabetes.  Really I don't drink soda but Coca Cola never really changed their formula back.  When they went to new coke they went from using Sugar to Corn Syrup. When they supposedly went back to the old flavor they still used Corn Syrup.  So I am not sure what your example is supposed to prove. Maybe interesting in a business class but has nothing to do with the situation.  Unless you want us to trick you into thinking nothing changed. 

And originally Coca Cola had cocaine in it.  

Baseball has issues. You can ignore them and by the time you got around to fixing the issues it would be too late to save. 

[jjnono]

I don't know if this has been brought up, but I'd imagine that if a three-batter rule were implemented for relief pitchers, the amount of intentional walks would increase noticeably.  I bring my relief pitcher in one batter-early, and walk the first guy he faces in order to get to the guy I want him to face, especially if the guy I want represents the last out of an inning.  Then I only have to pitch to the first guy in the next inning.  

And while I understand the DH promotes job openings and career longevity for players, I wish it would be thrown out altogether...  But I agree there needs to be similarity in both leagues with regard to its usage (or preferred non-usage)...

[DrungoHazewood]

17 minutes ago, Number5 said:

I think you and others are massively misreading the tealeaves.  Attendance is historically high.  Revenue is historically high.  Offense is historically high.  Those are facts. 

MLB attendance has declined in five of the last six seasons.

Revenues are at or near historic highs.

Offense is nowhere near historic highs.  2018 was the 85th-highest scoring season of all time, 55th-highest since 1900, 31st-highest since WWII, and 13th-highest since 2000.

[DrungoHazewood]

12 minutes ago, Number5 said:

 

The point is making change just to change is counterproductive.  Assess the situation and change things when and where they need to be changed.  

Isn't that what we're doing?  Trying to assess the negatives in the sport and attempting to figure out solutions to keep the game viable among the next several generations of fans who probably don't have the same preferences and experiences as baseball's core fanbase?