MLB and Union talk major rule changes

[DrungoHazewood]

2 minutes ago, Number5 said:

No, there is no need to ignore some of the few years with higher attendance to state the clear fact that attendance is still historically high.

No, I'm ignoring pre-1900 and the steroid era only.  Both for obvious reasons.  You apparently are confusing the word high with the word highest.

I hope you're right, and that attendance isn't in decline, that the last six years of about 10% decline are just an anomaly.

And sure, if you only look at 1900-1990 today's offensive levels are probably a little bit above average, which I suppose you could interpret as "historically high."  In the same way that an 85-win season or a .281 batting average is historically high.

[Frobby]

Also, I don’t think lack of scoring is really an issue right now.   It’s lack of action.   Going to a 5-4 game with a combined 54 strikeouts and 9 solo homers isn’t as fun as going to a 5-4 game with 20 hits and 42 other balls hit into play.    Homers are exciting but not when there’s no other form of offense and nobody’s making contact.   At least, in my opinion.  

[osfan83]

49 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.

I never liked soccer......my son (17) played little league, but never watches a game on TV, and really doesn't like going to games (maybe once a season). What he does like is watching professionals play video games and commenting on them. 

[Number5]

4 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I hope you're right, and that attendance isn't in decline, that the last six years of about 10% decline are just an anomaly.

And sure, if you only look at 1900-1990 today's offensive levels are probably a little bit above average, which I suppose you could interpret as "historically high."  In the same way that an 85-win season or a .281 batting average is historically high.

You had to reach to find three seasons in all of the non-steroid years since each league had 8 teams that produced more offense than 2018.  It is pretense to suggest that offense is not historically high.

[atomic]

19 minutes ago, Number5 said:

No, there is no need to ignore some of the few years with higher attendance to state the clear fact that attendance is still historically high.

No, I'm ignoring pre-1900 and the steroid era only.  Both for obvious reasons.  You apparently are confusing the word high with the word highest.

So using your Coca Cola analogy.   If the Coke saws its sales decline for 6 straight years and was below its sales from 2003 if you were the CEO you would be fine with that because there are more profitable then they were in the 70's? 

[Number5]

1 minute ago, atomic said:

So using your Coca Cola analogy.   If the Coke saws its sales decline for 6 straight years and was below its sales from 2003 if you were the CEO you would be fine with that because there are more profitable then they were in the 70's? 

You have the habit of putting words in people's mouths.  There is a huge difference between being fine with a downturn and pushing the panic button to the point of changing the top selling product in the industry.  There are actions that can be taken other than massively changing the product.  Study marketing, delivery, and sales methods for possible improvements and creation of possible side or supporting products before meaningfully changing the main product.

Those of you advocating massive rules changes continue to pretend that those of us urging more caution are saying never change anything.  We aren't.  We are saying make sure there is a thorough assessment prior to taking drastic action.

[Number5]

15 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Also, I don’t think lack of scoring is really an issue right now.   It’s lack of action.   Going to a 5-4 game with a combined 54 strikeouts and 9 solo homers isn’t as fun as going to a 5-4 game with 20 hits and 42 other balls hit into play.    Homers are exciting but not when there’s no other form of offense and nobody’s making contact.   At least, in my opinion.  

Oh come on, FRobby, 9 home runs is pretty exciting.  

 

[Aglets]

36 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I don't know of any way to get millions of people to pay for my MLB or MASN streaming service who never watch it.  I pay $3 a month for MASN because the 80% of cable subscribers who never watch it also pay $3 a month.  They won't if they don't have to.  The solution is to charge more to the people who want it, but does the math work out the same?  Would you pay several hundred dollars a year for MASN?

You can bundle it in with Hulu TV or YouTubeTV or Sling or whatever........and bam.  You get a bunch of subscribers paying for it like they were in the old cable days.

And no I wouldn't pay hundreds of dollars a year to watch O's games but I would pay more than $3 * 12 months.  

The crazy thing now is I actually WANT MLB TO TAKE MY MONEY for MLB.TV but those blackout restrictions.................

Sooner or later that will get rectified.

[atomic]

16 minutes ago, Number5 said:

You have the habit of putting words in people's mouths.  There is a huge difference between being fine with a downturn and pushing the panic button to the point of changing the top selling product in the industry.  There are actions that can be taken other than massively changing the product.  Study marketing, delivery, and sales methods for possible improvements and creation of possible side or supporting products before meaningfully changing the main product.

 Those of you advocating massive rules changes continue to pretend that those of us urging more caution are saying never change anything.  We aren't.  We are saying make sure there is a thorough assessment prior to taking drastic action.

Probably just about what the CEO of Blockbuster said.  

[DrungoHazewood]

55 minutes ago, Number5 said:

You had to reach to find three seasons in all of the non-steroid years since each league had 8 teams that produced more offense than 2018.  It is pretense to suggest that offense is not historically high.

If you want to think offenses are historically high in a year that's 85th out of 147 years of MLB history, go for it.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

If you want to think offenses are historically high in a year that's 85th out of 147 years of MLB history, go for it.

Maybe they are confusing home runs with total offense?

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, Number5 said:

Those of you advocating massive rules changes continue to pretend that those of us urging more caution are saying never change anything.  We aren't.  We are saying make sure there is a thorough assessment prior to taking drastic action.

I don’t necessarily agree with all the proposals.   I’ll say this, the 20 second rule has been thoroughly tested in the minors.    There’s really no more studying to be done, you either adopt it or you don’t.   But the players were vehemently opposed when they last raised this.    

[Number5]

17 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Maybe they are confusing home runs with total offense?

No, we are accounting for the steroids era and eliminating 1800's baseball.  Drungo knows this.  I've supported my comments and stand by them.  There is no reason to continually make inappropriate comparisons.  Lack of offense is not a game-threatening issue at this time and to complain about lack of offense while also complaining about the length of games is self-contradictive, IMO.

I'm not totally opposed to the idea of ever changing the rules.  I just think that MLB needs to think it trough before making knee-jerk changes, as well as limiting the number of changes.  Making numerous massive changes - some to increase offense and some to shorten game time - gives us a convoluted situation where we can't really assess what the heck is going on. 

Heck, one major change I'd like to see them look at would be to reduce the number of balls for a base on balls to three.  I think that one move would accomplish everything folks are trying to do much more assuredly and quickly.  I think MLB pitchers would then throw more strikes, thereby reducing strikeouts, as well as speed up the game.  Yes, more pitches over the plate would reduce strikeouts, IMO.  But it is just a theory and MLB should study it first.  Maybe try it in a AAA league, where pitchers aren't quite as wild as the lower levels, for a season and see what happens.

[Legend_Of_Joey]

 

[DrungoHazewood]

14 hours ago, Number5 said:

No, we are accounting for the steroids era and eliminating 1800's baseball.  Drungo knows this.  I've supported my comments and stand by them.  There is no reason to continually make inappropriate comparisons.  Lack of offense is not a game-threatening issue at this time and to complain about lack of offense while also complaining about the length of games is self-contradictive, IMO.

Heck, one major change I'd like to see them look at would be to reduce the number of balls for a base on balls to three.  I think that one move would accomplish everything folks are trying to do much more assuredly and quickly.  I think MLB pitchers would then throw more strikes, thereby reducing strikeouts, as well as speed up the game.  Yes, more pitches over the plate would reduce strikeouts, IMO.  But it is just a theory and MLB should study it first.  Maybe try it in a AAA league, where pitchers aren't quite as wild as the lower levels, for a season and see what happens.

- You also elmminated most of the 1920-60 era that saw as much or more scoring as today.  

- I don't think offense is a problem, either  I agree with Frobby that the type of offense and lack of action is the major problem.  I'd be very happy if we contined at 4.5 run/game baseball but looked more like 1935 or 1977/79 with a lot more balls in play, fewer homers, some players with really high averages, and more stolen bases.

- If you went to three balls for a walk that would be a big change.  Walks are now right around historic averages at about 3.25/team/game.  I'd guess they'd go up to around 4.5/team/game.  The all-time high is 4.03 in 1949.  Strikeouts would do down a bit, with somewhat fewer long/deep counts.  But you're trading a lot of walks for a few strikeouts.  This won't do anything for action, my guess is overall balls in play as a percentage of at bats would go down a bit. Scoring would go up roughly 0.5 run/game, back to 2000-ish levels.  But don't know how many people would be on board with pushing three true outcomes to higher levels.