How do you like the new “three batter” rule?

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, terpspe said:

Attendance isn’t the only metric that matters.  Rights fees have skyrocketed with more offense.

Have they?  Since 2016?  They are increasing at a faster rate?

[Scalious]

3 minutes ago, terpspe said:

Attendance isn’t the only metric that matters.  Rights fees have skyrocketed with more offense.

You are half right. It's how many sets of eyes that matter,  not attendance.  Getting people to go the actual game just yields the most profit. The combination of going to game/watching it on TV/streaming. 

The question is not attendance. It's "are more or less people watching baseball?"  If rights fees are going up and demand is not. All it's doing is creating a bubble that will be asked to be pop'd at some point.

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, Beef Supreme said:

I would argue that the post-season is when this rule damages competition the most.

 

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

I would argue it doesn’t damage competition at all, so long as the rules are the same for both teams.   

 

2 hours ago, Beef Supreme said:

I think the comment about the "rules (being) the same for both teams" is disingenuous as nobody has suggested that the rules would be applied differently to different teams. 

There is nothing disingenuous about my comment.    My point is that if a rule change is made that applies to both teams, then it doesn’t damage competition.   

[bird watcher]

8 hours ago, Scalious said:

You are half right. It's how many sets of eyes that matter,  not attendance.  Getting people to go the actual game just yields the most profit. The combination of going to game/watching it on TV/streaming. 

The question is not attendance. It's "are more or less people watching baseball?"  If rights fees are going up and demand is not. All it's doing is creating a bubble that will be asked to be pop'd at some point.

 

9 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Has attendance been up or down since they started juicing the balls?

 

8 hours ago, terpspe said:

Attendance isn’t the only metric that matters.  Rights fees have skyrocketed with more offense.

 

8 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Have they?  Since 2016?  They are increasing at a faster rate?

Changes to the game to promote offense may take time to yield results.  There is a generational gap forming that baseball needs to get ahead of. From what I have gathered younger people aren’t as into baseball as they once were.  The pace of play and scoring are obstacles in our culture whether we like it or not. Balls in play equal action.  Just my opinion

[DrungoHazewood]

11 hours ago, Beef Supreme said:

There should be a "penalty" for swapping pitchers!? smh 

There should be a penalty or disincentive for trading out action for commercial breaks and warm-ups.  Baseball is the only sport I know of (well, maybe cricket) where you get unlimited time outs.  I'm pretty sure without trying that hard the Red Sox could have an average game time of four hours without adding a single meaningful bit of action to the game.  Maybe you like endless dead time and games that don't end until 11pm.  I don't.

[DrungoHazewood]

9 hours ago, terpspe said:

Attendance isn’t the only metric that matters.  Rights fees have skyrocketed with more offense.

We're going to need some evidence here. Analysis that controls for other influences.  I'm extremely skeptical about this comment.

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

We're going to need some evidence here. Analysis that controls for other influences.  I'm extremely skeptical about this comment.

Me too.  And two points:

1.    How many people are actually watching?    Is that number up?    Rights fees can increase for reasons unrelated to how many people are watching.    In particular, sports are one of the very few forms of entertainment where many people insist on watching live, and will tolerate sitting through commercials.     Thus, let’s say a baseball game draws the same total viewership as some other TV show.     Advertisers will pay more for the baseball game because most viewers actually watch it live and sit through the commercials, whereas with the other show many people will DVR it and fast forward through all the ads.    That dynamic has driven large increases in rights fees even if total viewership is down.    
 

2.    In any event, where is the evidence that rights fees or viewership increases with offense in baseball?

[Beef Supreme]

On 12/18/2019 at 11:12 PM, Frobby said:

 

 

There is nothing disingenuous about my comment.    My point is that if a rule change is made that applies to both teams, then it doesn’t damage competition.   

Tell me what rule in baseball only applies to one team. Yes, that kind of snarkiness is, indeed, disingenuine as well as unnecessary. It's the kind of thing you say to a child. Such bullshtt.

[Beef Supreme]

On 12/19/2019 at 7:42 AM, DrungoHazewood said:

There should be a penalty or disincentive for trading out action for commercial breaks and warm-ups.  Baseball is the only sport I know of (well, maybe cricket) where you get unlimited time outs.  I'm pretty sure without trying that hard the Red Sox could have an average game time of four hours without adding a single meaningful bit of action to the game.  Maybe you like endless dead time and games that don't end until 11pm.  I don't.

You sure do love fallacious arguments, Drungo. You make them more frequently than any other poster I have read on here. Continually making fallacious, baseless accusations does not reflect well.

fwiw: no sport with a clock could have "unlimited" timeouts, by the fact that they have clocks. And as weams has pointed out repeatedly, all those sports have "commercial breaks," but baseball does not

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Beef Supreme said:

fwiw: no sport with a clock could have "unlimited" timeouts, by the fact that they have clocks. And as weams has pointed out repeatedly, all those sports have "commercial breaks," but baseball does not

I'm not entirely sure what this part means.  I don't like that baseball teams have almost limitless opportunities to stop the game. Baseball doesn't need dedicated commercial breaks because the action stops for several minutes 25+ times a game.  We don't need any more, 3-4 hours per game is plenty.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

12 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I'm not entirely sure what this part means.  I don't like that baseball teams have almost limitless opportunities to stop the game. Baseball doesn't need dedicated commercial breaks because the action stops for several minutes 25+ times a game.  We don't need any more, 3-4 hours per game is plenty.

Playing the Yankees is the worst with the stoppages in play between pitching changes, mounds visits and hitters stepping out of the batters box on seemingly every pitch. 

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, Beef Supreme said:

Tell me what rule in baseball only applies to one team. Yes, that kind of snarkiness is, indeed, disingenuine as well as unnecessary. It's the kind of thing you say to a child. Such bullshtt.

Clearly we are not communicating on the same wavelength.   I meant nothing snarky by my post.   Have a good day. 

[Oriole40]

i do not think I like it. Inflated ERAs .

[Beef Supreme]

On 12/24/2019 at 2:43 PM, DrungoHazewood said:

I'm not entirely sure what this part means.  I don't like that baseball teams have almost limitless opportunities to stop the game. Baseball doesn't need dedicated commercial breaks because the action stops for several minutes 25+ times a game.  We don't need any more, 3-4 hours per game is plenty.

I agree with you. But there is no guarantee this rule will shorten the length of the average game. It may, actually, increase the length of game.

[Beef Supreme]

On 12/24/2019 at 3:30 PM, Frobby said:

Clearly we are not communicating on the same wavelength.   I meant nothing snarky by my post.   Have a good day. 

OK. Have a good day, too.