This is not baseball. An opinion.

[tntoriole]

If they play, I will watch.  But frankly, I have more pressing issues in my world each day, so I am not going to spend much time trying to sort out the details of the business dispute between owners and players.  Both sides have a long history of mistrust and antipathy and I think it will actually be surprising if they work out any arrangement that results in play this season.  

[Spider44]

7 hours ago, atomic said:

When a lot of those retail personnel are older and in poor health.  The players are more at risk driving to the game. There are some older managers and coaches that are taking chances.  
 

Maybe someone like Dusty Baker of the Astros could do a live video feed into the dugout instead of attending games in person.  

Ha! I see what you did there! The Astros having another live feed in the dugout. That’s hilarious!

[tntoriole]

The NFL has not had to step out into the harsh light quite yet like MLB just has with this document ....NFL owners hoping against hope for normalization to break out....but their task of safety policy development and protocols of distancing, protecting, sanitizing, etc are going to be even more difficult to jibe with playing their game. 

[Tony-OH]

1 hour ago, SteveA said:

Really?  I saw nothing political in that link.   It was all scientific, and a very educational read.

And -- I feel that it had some encouraging ideas about the potential for fans of an outdoor sport like us.   In the vast outdoors with outdoor air circulation, if you follow the science in the article, the transmission risk is not that bad, other than the people directly around you.   

Seemed like worse news for enclosed restaurants or workplaces where the air mostly remains in the room and a number of people staying in place for several hours.   But for ballparks, beaches, and things like that, it seems like it could be interpreted positively.

That's your opinion and I respect that. When your first two paragraphs make sure to talk about Armageddon like deaths and keeping everything closed or dire consequences will occur, I tend to stop reading and know I'm dealing with propaganda. 

 

[Tony-OH]

3 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I always thought Base Ball was ruined when The New York Game won out over The Massachusetts Game and soaking the runners with the ball was outlawed.  Circa eighteen hundred and sixty.  Imagine a fine strapping athlete like Jonathan Schoop pelting a base-runner with a ninety mile an hour toss like a musket ball.  Exhilarating!  But maybe that's just me.

Say what you want, put some padding on people and I'd watch that version!

Seriously though, we used to use that rule in whiffle ball. I've pelted kids hard enough to leave the whiffle indentations! 

[UMDTerrapins]

Feel free to rip up this idea if you wish. Nobody likes the idea of fanless games, but most of us want to see baseball. So why not have a limited capacity of fans allowed at the game, that can be kept at a safe distance and managed before and after the game? 1000 seats, auctioned online in blocked out denominations that maintain distances from other groups. The proceeds from the games are used by the home cities to pay salaries of low-mid income employees of local businesses. There would be costs of security, ushers, limited concessions, and plan management. But if the average seat is auctioned at $250+, that’s $200,000+ per home game after expenses (41 home games - $8.2 million) to support the local economy and residents. I think it may even pull in much more given corporate support and other donations  

 

Think of the riot game vs the White Sox.....it was great that a minimal number of fans were out there cheering...not just total silence. It gives the players some feedback and makes the broadcasts tolerable, while giving something back to the community. 
 

Is that impractical?
 

 

[Frobby]

On a related note, I run an informal softball game in my neighborhood on Sundays.   Normally we start the weekend after Mother’s Day (yesterday).     But we postponed our start this year.   Now I’m going to need to think about when we should start up (if at all) and what conditions, if any, to impose.    Our players run from roughly ages 16 to 70+, so we do have some in the higher risk age groups (me included).     It’s going to be a tricky call.   

[Philip]

You can call it whatever you wish, but at some point, the game on the field gets far enough away from the game in your head and in your heart that it no longer becomes “baseball,” but a pale shadow, with neither sound nor fury, but signifying nothing.

To me, the Sims are not baseball, but daydreaming; it’s “what if” and to me it’s meaningless so I do not participate.

Manfred has been a disaster, and the Virus is not giving him a chance to redeem himself.

I miss baseball terribly, but this caricature is like Ersatz coffee. Terrible but considered better than nothing.

Except I don’t think it is better than nothing.

i agree with the original post.

 

[atomic]

Who will be there to do the wave and yell “Charge”

Maybe Fancy Clancy can have a zoom session during the game where he says “itsok to have a beer while watching a game at home” repeatedly.

[atomic]

23 minutes ago, Frobby said:

On a related note, I run an informal softball game in my neighborhood on Sundays.   Normally we start the weekend after Mother’s Day (yesterday).     But we postponed our start this year.   Now I’m going to need to think about when we should start up (if at all) and what conditions, if any, to impose.    Our players run from roughly ages 16 to 70+, so we do have some in the higher risk age groups (me included).     It’s going to be a tricky call.   

Have the catchers stand 10 feet back of the plate and you should be Ok.  But is it really softball if you don’t go out for beers afterwards.  

[atomic]

45 minutes ago, UMDTerrapins said:

Feel free to rip up this idea if you wish. Nobody likes the idea of fanless games, but most of us want to see baseball. So why not have a limited capacity of fans allowed at the game, that can be kept at a safe distance and managed before and after the game? 1000 seats, auctioned online in blocked out denominations that maintain distances from other groups. The proceeds from the games are used by the home cities to pay salaries of low-mid income employees of local businesses. There would be costs of security, ushers, limited concessions, and plan management. But if the average seat is auctioned at $250+, that’s $200,000+ per home game after expenses (41 home games - $8.2 million) to support the local economy and residents. I think it may even pull in much more given corporate support and other donations  

 

Think of the riot game vs the White Sox.....it was great that a minimal number of fans were out there cheering...not just total silence. It gives the players some feedback and makes the broadcasts tolerable, while giving something back to the community. 
 

Is that impractical?
 

 

The problem is bathrooms.  I guess you could allow only 1 person in at a time but once the drinking kicks in people would disregard rules. Also you would need the cities approval and right now that seems unlikely in Baltimore.

[atomic]

1 hour ago, Tony-OH said:

Say what you want, put some padding on people and I'd watch that version!

Seriously though, we used to use that rule in whiffle ball. I've pelted kids hard enough to leave the whiffle indentations! 

I once did a sneak switch of the baseball with a tennis ball.  And then beaned my neighbor. He wasn’t amused. 

[Frobby]

14 minutes ago, atomic said:

Have the catchers stand 10 feet back of the plate and you should be Ok.  But is it really softball if you don’t go out for beers afterwards.  

Well, we play at 9 am on Sundays, so there’s no beer involved. 

[Aristotelian]

2 hours ago, UMDTerrapins said:

Feel free to rip up this idea if you wish. Nobody likes the idea of fanless games, but most of us want to see baseball. So why not have a limited capacity of fans allowed at the game, that can be kept at a safe distance and managed before and after the game? 1000 seats, auctioned online in blocked out denominations that maintain distances from other groups. The proceeds from the games are used by the home cities to pay salaries of low-mid income employees of local businesses. There would be costs of security, ushers, limited concessions, and plan management. But if the average seat is auctioned at $250+, that’s $200,000+ per home game after expenses (41 home games - $8.2 million) to support the local economy and residents. I think it may even pull in much more given corporate support and other donations  

 

Think of the riot game vs the White Sox.....it was great that a minimal number of fans were out there cheering...not just total silence. It gives the players some feedback and makes the broadcasts tolerable, while giving something back to the community. 
 

Is that impractical?
 

 

I'm OK with fanless. It will add to the sense of history. If fans want to congregate outside (like the riot game) let them do so, spread out six feet apart. Kind of what we are doing as a country now, getting back to normalcy but not the same. 

[DrungoHazewood]

10 hours ago, atomic said:

Who will be there to do the wave and yell “Charge”

Maybe Fancy Clancy can have a zoom session during the game where he says “itsok to have a beer while watching a game at home” repeatedly.

No one.  And it will be beautiful and perfect.  No one should ever do the wave.