Jump to content

Vaccine/fans in the stands/revenue


wildcard

Recommended Posts

Top goverment official is saying that,   If you want a vaccine you  can get in in the US by June.    I have to feel this is great news for the MLB.   That could mean fans in the stands in larger numbers by June.   2/3 of the season yet to be played.     It might even have some teams deciding to spend some what close to  normal season rates.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/100-of-americans-that-want-the-vaccine-will-have-had-the-vaccine-by-june-says-operation-warp-speed-official-11606795433

How do you think this impacts the O's season.  The planning for the season and the spending that may occur?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the vaccine goes into circulation next month there is no way it will take until June for the general public to have access to it.  

There are only so many healthcare workers and elderly people out there.  A fraction of the larger population and don't underestimate the number of anti-vaxers out there or simply people that want to wait it out before getting the vaccine themselves.  I also think that traveling entertainers such as athletes and actors will have access before the general public.  They may be considered semi-essential. 

I think the general public will begin to have access by March or April and the NBA/MLB possibly before that.  There is a huge financial incentive to get the vaccine distributed to as many people as possible as fast as possible. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, ChuckS said:

If the vaccine goes into circulation next month there is no way it will take until June for the general public to have access to it.  

There are only so many healthcare workers and elderly people out there.  A fraction of the larger population and don't underestimate the number of anti-vaxers out there or simply people that want to wait it out before getting the vaccine themselves.  I also think that traveling entertainers such as athletes and actors will have access before the general public.  They may be considered semi-essential. 

I think the general public will begin to have access by March or April and the NBA/MLB possibly before that.  There is a huge financial incentive to get the vaccine distributed to as many people as possible as fast as possible. 

I don’t think the article said the vaccine wouldn’t be available to the general public until June.   It said that by June, everyone who wants the vaccine will have had the opportunity to take it.    That’s very different.   Let’s say the vaccine is available to the general public in April but they can only administer 40 million doses a month (I am making up that number).   In that case, it takes a few months before everyone who wants the vaccine has had it.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Practically, other than pure money, I feel like the effect will be that as games are less likely to be canceled, there’s less of a reason to keep Chris Davis on the team. That will create a little roster flexibility that could be significant for a notable piece like Diaz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I don’t think the article said the vaccine wouldn’t be available to the general public until June.   It said that by June, everyone who wants the vaccine will have had the opportunity to take it.    That’s very different.   Let’s say the vaccine is available to the general public in April but they can only administer 40 million doses a month (I am making up that number).   In that case, it takes a few months before everyone who wants the vaccine has had it.

I was also replying to Weems who is calling for half-season at best in 2021.  I think that's absurd. 

Now, I'm not sure we get a full season.  But I would hope close to it or something like 120 games. Starting in May and ending in November also isn't out of the question. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, ChuckS said:

I was also replying to Weems who is calling for half-season at best in 2021.  I think that's absurd. 

Now, I'm not sure we get a full season.  But I would hope close to it or something like 120 games. Starting in May and ending in November also isn't out of the question. 

Honestly, it’s anybody’s guess what they’ll do.    Besides the question of how many people get vaccinated and how quickly, there’s also the question of how fast the virus is spreading as of March/April/May.  The owners are going to want to minimize the number of games played without fans (or with very limited fans).    And whether fans can attend games is not really in their control.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

Practically, other than pure money, I feel like the effect will be that as games are less likely to be canceled, there’s less of a reason to keep Chris Davis on the team. That will create a little roster flexibility that could be significant for a notable piece like Diaz.

O's will keep Davis until they know if there will be a work stoppage because of the new CBA negotiations in 2022 is my guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Honestly, it’s anybody’s guess what they’ll do.    Besides the question of how many people get vaccinated and how quickly, there’s also the question of how fast the virus is spreading as of March/April/May.  The owners are going to want to minimize the number of games played without fans (or with very limited fans).    And whether fans can attend games is not really in their control.  

Early indications are its going to be like a million infections per week all through the winter months. Who knows what MLB will do about ST, but MLB players will likely be first in line for a vaccination, so maybe they will play the full 162.  Stands probably wont return to capacity until '22 at the earliest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Honestly, it’s anybody’s guess what they’ll do.    Besides the question of how many people get vaccinated and how quickly, there’s also the question of how fast the virus is spreading as of March/April/May.  The owners are going to want to minimize the number of games played without fans (or with very limited fans).    And whether fans can attend games is not really in their control.  

We could have (and should have) played 80 games in 2020, so to think they won't greatly exceed that in 2021 seems unreasonable considering we have a vaccine now.  Not to mention, the fans just won't tolerate it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jabba72 said:

Early indications are its going to be like a million infections per week all through the winter months. Who knows what MLB will do about ST, but MLB players will likely be first in line for a vaccination, so maybe they will play the full 162.  Stands probably wont return to capacity until '22 at the earliest. 

It will be interesting to see if pro athletes get any special preference.   Whether they should is a political topic I suppose, so I’ll avoid that one.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChuckS said:

I was also replying to Weems who is calling for half-season at best in 2021.  I think that's absurd. 

Now, I'm not sure we get a full season.  But I would hope close to it or something like 120 games. Starting in May and ending in November also isn't out of the question. 

Absurd?  Have you not been paying attention to the reaction to this?  I think half a season is being optimistic personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • 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...