(Edit: Orioles get 1st pick after walkoff homer by Diamondbacks)

[Mr. Chewbacca Jr.]

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

Is it really better in the NFL, where they have a salary cap and floor, etc.?  I count 8 teams who won 5 games or less last year - that’s the equivalent of 50 games or less in baseball.  Another three won 6 games.   How many of those teams were realistically “in it” halfway through the season?

Basketball, which has salary restrictions on both ends, had five teams playing below the winning percentage that gets you to 50 wins in baseball.   The worst team went 17-55, the equivalent of a 55-game season.   

In other words, I’m not sure a salary floor fixes the problem.   I realize that every sport is different and just by the nature of the sport itself it’s more likely that a bad team can beat a good one on any given day, compared to football and basketball.  

The NFL is a totally different animal. Teams that constantly lose do have difficulty pulling in fans, for example Jacksonville. But, two crappy teams playing on MNF in a meaningless game will draw more viewers than the World Series, NBA Finals, etc. The NFL and College Football is just a magical beast.

I agree with you though - I'm not sure a salary floor fixes the problem, either. Teams still need to be well run and it doesn't really stop teams from stinking in sports that have salary floors.

I think a comparison between MLB and English Soccer might provide an answer. I'd argue that the Premier League has a bigger problem with mega-rich teams dominating the standings than MLB. But with Premier League - they also have so many other side-competitions that you can be in last place and your team still has something to play for. They have two knock-out tournament cups, relegation, Champions League, Europa League.

Perhaps what MLB's problem is they only have one competition and one trophy. Obviously, relegation will never happen - but I think more creative ideas could help. I think the Field of Dreams game and the national interest that came with it really shows that fans out there are interested in new and different things. Just for starters, what if there was a single-game, knock-out tournament that happened throughout the season? And, rosters could expand for this tournament to include a team's top prospects and maybe recently-retired veterans, so that the regular 26-roster doesn't have to be used up?

[eddie83]

4 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

The NFL still has the unbalanced schedule right?  If the 2022 Orioles play 20 games each against the Rangers and Diamondback one of those teams is going to win more games next year.

Won't mean the team is actually better.

3 of 17 games are based on previous season 

[eddie83]

4 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Fix the system.  Seven of the 30 MLB teams are at least 18 games out of first and are done for the year.  Plus teams like the Nats who were within shouting distance of a wildcard before throwing in the towel.  When there are no real consequences to losing and real benefits to draft position and saving on expenses teams will follow the incentives.

It is the way it is because the entire history of MLB involves accepting that many teams will simply not be competitive for years on end.  If they really wanted to fix this they could have.  But they prioritize the owners' finances and wishes over the fans and they always have.

Why is this an issue? In 17 in July and August the Tigers dealt everything not bolted to the floor away. They didn’t get much in return from the deals, Candelerio has played well this year though. Top position player by bWAR. They finished with worst record in sport. Went 13-41 last 54, 6-23 in September. Casey Mize top pick next year. Best pitcher on team now. Tigers lost 98 games that year, 98 next and 114 in 2019. Now people praise them because they spent a little bit of money. They ignore how they got here. 
 

In 17 the Orioles did the opposite. Angelos refused to sell. Added Beckham, played well until Labor Day weekend. Only game or 2 out of WC, then they collapsed. Added more pieces in 18. Then blow it up after trying to win for to long. Pieces they dealt diminished in value. 
 

You can suck for 2 months and try to rebuild earlier or you can wallow in mediocrity for 2 months which accomplishes nothing other than delaying the inevitable. 

[eddie83]

4 hours ago, Frobby said:

Is it really better in the NFL, where they have a salary cap and floor, etc.?  I count 8 teams who won 5 games or less last year - that’s the equivalent of 50 games or less in baseball.  Another three won 6 games.   How many of those teams were realistically “in it” halfway through the season?

Basketball, which has salary restrictions on both ends, had five teams playing below the winning percentage that gets you to 50 wins in baseball.   The worst team went 17-55, the equivalent of a 55-game season.   

In other words, I’m not sure a salary floor fixes the problem.   I realize that every sport is different and just by the nature of the sport itself it’s more likely that a bad team can beat a good one on any given day, compared to football and basketball.  

Last year will be the closest comparison will we ever have with the NFL. The Orioles and Tigers IMO would have lost 100 games last year. The Royals probably around 95. Instead Boston finished behind the Orioles. 

[eddie83]

1 hour ago, Mr. Chewbacca Jr. said:

The NFL is a totally different animal. Teams that constantly lose do have difficulty pulling in fans, for example Jacksonville. But, two crappy teams playing on MNF in a meaningless game will draw more viewers than the World Series, NBA Finals, etc. The NFL and College Football is just a magical beast.

I agree with you though - I'm not sure a salary floor fixes the problem, either. Teams still need to be well run and it doesn't really stop teams from stinking in sports that have salary floors.

I think a comparison between MLB and English Soccer might provide an answer. I'd argue that the Premier League has a bigger problem with mega-rich teams dominating the standings than MLB. But with Premier League - they also have so many other side-competitions that you can be in last place and your team still has something to play for. They have two knock-out tournament cups, relegation, Champions League, Europa League.

Perhaps what MLB's problem is they only have one competition and one trophy. Obviously, relegation will never happen - but I think more creative ideas could help. I think the Field of Dreams game and the national interest that came with it really shows that fans out there are interested in new and different things. Just for starters, what if there was a single-game, knock-out tournament that happened throughout the season? And, rosters could expand for this tournament to include a team's top prospects and maybe recently-retired veterans, so that the regular 26-roster doesn't have to be used up?

How many people watch March Madness who don’t watch 5 regular season games all year?  How many watch the NIT?  Nobody. 

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, eddie83 said:

Why is this an issue? In 17 in July and August the Tigers dealt everything not bolted to the floor away. They didn’t get much in return from the deals, Candelerio has played well this year though. Top position player by bWAR. They finished with worst record in sport. Went 13-41 last 54, 6-23 in September. Casey Mize top pick next year. Best pitcher on team now. Tigers lost 98 games that year, 98 next and 114 in 2019. Now people praise them because they spent a little bit of money. They ignore how they got here. 
 

In 17 the Orioles did the opposite. Angelos refused to sell. Added Beckham, played well until Labor Day weekend. Only game or 2 out of WC, then they collapsed. Added more pieces in 18. Then blow it up after trying to win for to long. Pieces they dealt diminished in value. 
 

You can suck for 2 months and try to rebuild earlier or you can wallow in mediocrity for 2 months which accomplishes nothing other than delaying the inevitable. 

So you're good with teams not trying to win for 3, 4, 5 years? I understand why they do it, why the Orioles do it.  They don't really have a choice.  But I wish the system were set up so that everyone can try to win every year.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, eddie83 said:

Last year will be the closest comparison will we ever have with the NFL. The Orioles and Tigers IMO would have lost 100 games last year. The Royals probably around 95. Instead Boston finished behind the Orioles. 

The Red Sox threw the season because they knew that nobody really cared about a strange 60-game season anyway and it got them a set of high draft picks and saved them cash.

[eddie83]

4 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

So you're good with teams not trying to win for 3, 4, 5 years? I understand why they do it, why the Orioles do it.  They don't really have a choice.  But I wish the system were set up so that everyone can try to win every year.

If everyone tried to win every year we would see hardly any trades. No Jones, Tillman, Davis, Hunter. Maybe you can get someone like the Hardy deal. 
 

The Padres never get Tatis, The White Sox who dealt Tatis never get Moncada, Kopech, Jimenez and Giolito. After all you need to try and win as many games as possible right? There is a cost in trying to win. That gets ignored.

No system can fix the age curve. The subset of players most available are also the least productive. 

[Can_of_corn]

10 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

The Red Sox threw the season because they knew that nobody really cared about a strange 60-game season anyway and it got them a set of high draft picks and saved them cash.

Also their manager was suspended. 

[DrungoHazewood]

7 hours ago, eddie83 said:

If everyone tried to win every year we would see hardly any trades. No Jones, Tillman, Davis, Hunter. Maybe you can get someone like the Hardy deal. 
 

The Padres never get Tatis, The White Sox who dealt Tatis never get Moncada, Kopech, Jimenez and Giolito. After all you need to try and win as many games as possible right? There is a cost in trying to win. That gets ignored.

No system can fix the age curve. The subset of players most available are also the least productive. 

Most teams aren't set up such that all 26 players on the roster are the same age.

[eddie83]

7 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Most teams aren't set up such that all 26 players on the roster are the same age.

Is it a coincidence that teams age out at some point? How good were Hardy, Wieters, Jones, Tillman etc in 2012-14. How good were they in 2018? Hardy was out of the sport. 
 

You aren’t going to get all players the same exact age but obviously you want your core to be as much in their prime as possible. 
 

Teams like the Orioles in an “attempt to win” need to either not trade off veterans or sign veterans who are for most part past their prime. 

[Roll Tide]

17 hours ago, eddie83 said:

How many people watch March Madness who don’t watch 5 regular season games all year?  How many watch the NIT?  Nobody. 

I play in a pool …so actually watch March Madness. I only ever watched a NIT game a few times. 

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, eddie83 said:

Is it a coincidence that teams age out at some point? How good were Hardy, Wieters, Jones, Tillman etc in 2012-14. How good were they in 2018? Hardy was out of the sport. 
 

You aren’t going to get all players the same exact age but obviously you want your core to be as much in their prime as possible. 
 

Teams like the Orioles in an “attempt to win” need to either not trade off veterans or sign veterans who are for most part past their prime. 

All I ask is that you consider that there may be different and perhaps better frameworks for a professional baseball league that might even result in fewer teams throwing in the towel for years on end. The current setup wasn't designed whole, it was put in place piecemeal by committee and through negotiations by people who didn't always understand the long-term implications of what they were doing.  We could do worse than taking a look at other sports and leagues and what strategies they use to provide better competitive balance and maintain fan interest.

[DrungoHazewood]

19 hours ago, Mr. Chewbacca Jr. said:

The NFL is a totally different animal. Teams that constantly lose do have difficulty pulling in fans, for example Jacksonville. But, two crappy teams playing on MNF in a meaningless game will draw more viewers than the World Series, NBA Finals, etc. The NFL and College Football is just a magical beast.

I agree with you though - I'm not sure a salary floor fixes the problem, either. Teams still need to be well run and it doesn't really stop teams from stinking in sports that have salary floors.

I think a comparison between MLB and English Soccer might provide an answer. I'd argue that the Premier League has a bigger problem with mega-rich teams dominating the standings than MLB. But with Premier League - they also have so many other side-competitions that you can be in last place and your team still has something to play for. They have two knock-out tournament cups, relegation, Champions League, Europa League.

Perhaps what MLB's problem is they only have one competition and one trophy. Obviously, relegation will never happen - but I think more creative ideas could help. I think the Field of Dreams game and the national interest that came with it really shows that fans out there are interested in new and different things. Just for starters, what if there was a single-game, knock-out tournament that happened throughout the season? And, rosters could expand for this tournament to include a team's top prospects and maybe recently-retired veterans, so that the regular 26-roster doesn't have to be used up?

I've suggested this many times, but the standard response is "We didn't do it 1920 or 1950, so it's completely irrelevant to baseball. Stop talking about soccer. We like 29 teams going home disappointed every year, it's a feature not a bug. Nobody likes watching losers in loser tournaments. Stop messing with baseball it's glorious the way it is, except for all the things I complain about that are different from when I was 12 years old."

[DrungoHazewood]

20 hours ago, OrioleDog said:

It is probably a bridge too far to hope for a balanced schedule return.   That would help the next few years until the teams get good enough to hold their own with the rest of the division.   But I think the gist of it is the players don't like the travel, and the owners don't like the travel expenses, so that's perhaps the one thing they've got.

 

One of my pie-in-the-sky ideas is having four regional leagues of eight teams each with little or no interleague play.  Each of those leagues plays a perfectly balanced schedule, and rarely has to travel more than one time zone away.

And if you want to get real crazy have a regular season of 120-130 games and take one week a month for a super-tournament including all the teams in all four leagues.  Or a WBC-like tournament with Japan, Korea, Mexico, etc, but for club teams instead of national teams.