Jump to content

How many games will the O's play in 2021?


wildcard

Recommended Posts

The O's played 60 games in 2020 mainly because the owners did not want to pay players to play in empty ball parks.  No fans, limited games.   So what is your guess on what happens in 2021?

I have seen Dr Fauci say that the vaccine will not be readily available until the 3rd and 4th quarter of 2021.  That is his educated guess.  Opinions may vary.    That may means July  as the most likely time for large distribution of  the vaccine which may signal time for the clubs to have fans in the stands.    So do the owners open before that?    

What are your thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The World Series is happening, with fans, in the midst of one of the more serious surges of the pandemic. (Non New York category.)

So yeah, with that as a precedent + a whole winter to prepare, I think the most likely outcome is a full season and even some amount of fan attendance from day 1. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I heard most recently was second or third quarter of 2021 for the vaccine available to anyone who wants it so that would put us sometime during the season. Right now we are seeing fans in the stands for the World Series (albeit just 11,000).

A lot will depend on what happens over the next few months in terms of the pandemic. We've seen some of the highest numbers nationwide. If that doesn't get a bit more under control by March we may see a shorter season, but if most--if not all--stadiums can accommodate 8-10K fans per game, that goes a long ways towards being able to at least afford a much longer season. 

I'm expecting (optimistically) a crowd-less spring training and a full season (for now) with limited fans in the stands particularly to start with the stadiums able to be at least 50-75% full by season's end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From MLBTR:

While the obvious hope is that fans will be back in the park for a full 162-game slate next season, that’s wholly dependent on the status of the coronavirus and the associated public health guidelines in place. To this point there’s no clear timeline on when a vaccine will be produced, approved, scaled and distributed such that clubs could expect business as usual. And while Manfred has previously taken an optimistic tone on that front, he struck a different chord in speaking with Bloom this week.

t’s going to be difficult for the industry to weather another year where we don’t have fans in the ballpark and have other limitations on how much we can’t play and how we can play,” Manfred told Bloom. “…It’s absolutely certain, I know, that we’re going to have to have conversations with the MLBPA about what 2021 is going to look like. It’s difficult to foresee a situation right now where everything’s just normal.”

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2020/10/rob-manfred-mlb-debt-revenue-losses-commissioner.html

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting question. Remember that the owners are greedy and have demonstrated time and again that they are more interested in money than anything else. With that in mind I think they will push for a full season and partial stadiums. Bearing in mind that most games have ~50% capacity or less, proper spacing should be pretty easily attained.

player risk can be dealt with as well, with enlarged rosters or another player pool group.

The owners want their money.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LookinUp said:

As do the players. When the pot to share from is half full, the people sharing are fighting over less. Fighting. Will get as ugly in MLB as any sport. 

I think it will play out like this season with players wanting the maximum number of games and owners trying to reduce the total games played while lowering player salaries by a similar amount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think it will play out like this season with players wanting the maximum number of games and owners trying to reduce the total games played while lowering player salaries by a similar amount.

Manfred pulled some kind of trump card this year didn't he? Was there ever really an agreement or was he able to use his existing authority to essentially force the solution on the players? My guess is that's the plan again for next year absent a change in Covid (which could happen too).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

Manfred pulled some kind of trump card this year didn't he? Was there ever really an agreement or was he able to use his existing authority to essentially force the solution on the players? My guess is that's the plan again for next year absent a change in Covid (which could happen too).

I'm sure he's going to be working with ownership to help force a deal that is as advantageous as possible for them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Posts

    • Great post.  I like your optimism, and I'll try to believe this team can turn things around just in the nick of time like some classic Hollywood baseball movie.
    • I think Elias has mostly done an excellent job with one exception -- he seems like he treats the bullpen like an afterthought.  I doubt that will happen again this coming offseason. I don't really blame him for the current offensive struggles overall.  Just too many injuries late in the season.  That said I don't understand how we went from dealing Austin Hays, Connor Norby and Ryan McKenna just so we could land the right handed bat of, gulp, Austin Slater.  
    • Man this team has no shot. Right now they may not even make it. 
    • Most of these guys are only playing because of injuries to starters.  But Austin Slater I'm guessing was brought in to replace the traded Austin Hays.  The problem is that Slater has shown little ability to hit lefties this year, after hitting them pretty well up to this season.  This must be why two teams dropped him before the O's picked him up.  I know he was let go much earlier in the season, but is Ryan McKenna actually worse than this guy?  I don't understand how the front office went from releasing McKenna to later trading Hays and Norby -- thinking their right handed bats could adequately be replaced by someone like Slater.  
    • I'm willing to give Elias some rope because of the strict limitations he was under with JA but he better not be so damn conservative again this year and let every serviceable FA out there sign with other teams while he's busy picking up reclamation projects again. Minus Burns of course.  
    • I agree completely that it’s irrelevant whether it worked.  But I don’t agree that bunting is clearly the right decision in either scenario, and I think that decision gets worse if it’s intended to be a straight sacrifice rather than a bunt for a hit. To be clear, the outcome you’re seeking in tonight’s situation, for example — sacrifice the runners over to 2nd/3rd — lowers both your run expectancy for the inning (from 1.44 to 1.39) and your win expectancy for the game (from 38.8% to 37.1%). It increases the likelihood of scoring one run, but it decreases the likelihood of scoring two runs (which you needed to tie) and certainly of scoring three or more runs (which you needed to take the lead).  And that’s if you succeed in getting them to 2nd/3rd. Research indicates that 15-30% of sacrifice bunt attempts fail, so you have to bake in a pretty significant percentage of the time that you’d just be giving up a free out (or even just two free strikes, as on Sunday). The bunt attempt in the 3rd inning on Sunday (which my gut hates more than if they’d done it today) actually is less damaging to the win probability — decreasing it only very slightly from 60.2% to 59.8%. More time left in the game to make up for giving up outs, I guess, and the scoreboard payoff is a bit better (in the sense that at least you’d have a better chance to take the lead).   At the bottom of it, these things mostly come down to gut and pure chance. The percentages are rarely overwhelming in either direction, and so sometimes even a “lower-percentage” play may work better under some circumstances. You would have bunted both times. I wouldn’t have bunted either time. Hyde bunted one time but not the other. I don’t know that anyone is an idiot (or even clearly “wrong”) for their preference. Either approach could have worked. Sadly, none of them actually did.
    • Wasn't Hyde always thought of more or less as a caretaker? I'm on the fence about him coming back. I totally get the injuries and that needs to be taking into consideration but man this collapse some heads have to roll who's I'm  mot sure 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...