Some things that will make this season interesting

[HowAboutThat]

43 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

In 1914 2% of all MLB games ended in ties.  In the era before lights and modern groundskeeping and train travel most teams had several ties a season.  I believe it was 1908 that the great three-team pennant race between the Cubs, Giants, and Pirates was impacted by the fact that the teams had (IIRC) nine ties between them.

If you have to go back 106 years in order to find some thing that addresses the issue, I think that proves my point.

[SteveA]

2 minutes ago, Philip said:

If you have to go back 106 years in order to find some thing that addresses the issue, I think that proves my point.

Drungo doesn't have to go back 106 years, he's already back there.

[scOtt]

It has nothing to do with the new rules or how the season is set up... but I'm excited to see Jose Iglesias at SS! He's going to be a treat.

[HowAboutThat]

4 minutes ago, SteveA said:

Drungo doesn't have to go back 106 years, he's already back there.

 Well the point is that baseball isn’t really set up for ties, of course I suppose we could, we can do anything and call it baseball but  this suggestion is foolish because it doesn’t solve a problem, and answers a question nobody asked.

[DrungoHazewood]

16 minutes ago, Philip said:

 Well the point is that baseball isn’t really set up for ties, of course I suppose we could, we can do anything and call it baseball but  this suggestion is foolish because it doesn’t solve a problem, and answers a question nobody asked.

One of baseball's problems is that they're very reluctant to ask hard questions. And even more reluctant to do anything to fix problems. 

I think it's legitimate to ask if it serves any purpose to have 17 inning games where you're basically flipping a coin to declare a winner, the game ends at 2am, and six people are still watching.  I know your position is that that's baseball.  My question is why?  Besides "we've always done it that way", of course.

I think the powers-that-be need to put more emphasis on what makes for a compelling game of baseball, and less on refusing to change anything because of tradition.  And, yes, I realize that a lot of people equate compelling with however the game was played when they were kids.  Unfortunately for more and more people baseball isn't something they watch(ed) as kids.

[DrungoHazewood]

28 minutes ago, Philip said:

If you have to go back 106 years in order to find some thing that addresses the issue, I think that proves my point.

I'm simply saying that the idea that ties don't have a part in baseball wasn't always the case.  And it's not really even now. 

106 years ago baseball was the most popular sport in the country, and it wasn't close.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I'm simply saying that the idea that ties don't have a part in baseball wasn't always the case.  And it's not really even now. 

106 years ago baseball was the most popular sport in the country, and it wasn't close.

Boxing was pretty popular.

[DrungoHazewood]

11 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Boxing was pretty popular.

As was horse racing.  But they started calling Base Ball the national pastime in the 1850s, and I think it passed everything else by the turn of the century, if not earlier.

At my grandma's old farmhouse there is a set of World Book Encyclopedias.  The 1948 annual update volume had a decent sized writeup on baseball.  The football article was mostly about college, with a few paragraphs tacked on the end about the National (Football) League.  Basketball was a kind of a primitive curiosity, and pro hockey wouldn't branch out from six northeastern/Canadian cities until the mid 1960s.  Back when games were two hours with four strikeouts baseball was the big thing.

[Win Column]

 Seems like this would've been a no-brainer. 

[scOtt]

15 minutes ago, Win Column said:

 Seems like this would've been a no-brainer. 

Manfred is a "no-brainer."

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, scOtt said:

Manfred is a "no-brainer."

I think he's a very smart man, who is not a baseball fan.

[scOtt]

34 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think he's a very smart man, who is not a baseball fan.

I know that. Humour me.

[HowAboutThat]

4 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

One of baseball's problems is that they're very reluctant to ask hard questions. And even more reluctant to do anything to fix problems. 

I think it's legitimate to ask if it serves any purpose to have 17 inning games where you're basically flipping a coin to declare a winner, the game ends at 2am, and six people are still watching.  I know your position is that that's baseball.  My question is why?  Besides "we've always done it that way", of course.

I think the powers-that-be need to put more emphasis on what makes for a compelling game of baseball, and less on refusing to change anything because of tradition.  And, yes, I realize that a lot of people equate compelling with however the game was played when they were kids.  Unfortunately for more and more people baseball isn't something they watch(ed) as kids.

 The answer, “because it’s baseball“ is actually the best answer there is. Baseball is an activity to which we attach meaning. It is artificial.  If we make changes, those changes are only worthwhile if they benefit our enjoyment of the game. Otherwise they are by definition useless. 

If the game goes 16 innings, that’s because it went 16 innings, and if there are only six people remaining at the end, there are six people who care about the result. Are you going to tell them that they don’t matter because going 16 innings is somehow illogical And because there are only six of them?

I suppose we have to ask Frobby  how many 16 inning games we’ve had recently, and whether they represent a meaningful percentage of the total games, which I fervently doubt. 

I think the number of games that go extra innings even as far as 12 is so small has to be statistically insignificant, certainly not warranting any major rule change.

I certainly agree that we need to make the game more interesting, and If I am understanding you correctly, you agree that most of the stuff our comrade commissioner has done has had the opposite effect. If I am incorrect about that assumption I apologize, but This is without a doubt a silly rule with no beneficial effect.

[SteveA]

COVID-19 Health and Safety Protocols for MLB 2020

-- Temperature/symptom checks twice daily

-- Antibody testing 1/month

-- Social distancing encouraged on & off the field

-- Non-playing personnel must wear masks in dugout & bullpen

-- No pregame exchange of lineup cards

-- No celebratory contact

-- No spitting or chewing of tobacco/sunflower seeds

-- Ball will be thrown out once touched by multiple players

-- Fights are strictly prohibited

(Source:  MLBN)

Some thoughts:   Isn't the ball touched by multiple players on every pitch that isn't hit (pitcher, catcher)?   No celebratory contact -- guess we won't be bringing the pies back.

[HowAboutThat]

18 minutes ago, SteveA said:

COVID-19 Health and Safety Protocols for MLB 2020

-- Temperature/symptom checks twice daily

-- Antibody testing 1/month

-- Social distancing encouraged on & off the field

-- Non-playing personnel must wear masks in dugout & bullpen

-- No pregame exchange of lineup cards

-- No celebratory contact

-- No spitting or chewing of tobacco/sunflower seeds

-- Ball will be thrown out once touched by multiple players

-- Fights are strictly prohibited

(Source:  MLBN)

Some thoughts:   Isn't the ball touched by multiple players on every pitch that isn't hit (pitcher, catcher)?   No celebratory contact -- guess we won't be bringing the pies back.

So finally… Fights are strictly prohibited!

They should’ve had this rule in place along time ago!