What do the players have to complain about?

[Porky]

5 hours ago, LookinUp said:

While not compromising on a salary cap or fully guaranteed contracts. 

I gotta admit, this entire period seems contrived to me from both sides. A lot of posturing. In the end I predict some tweaks on service time, maybe the DH and maybe some penalty for tanking over time, but nothing massive changes. The money's too good for all right now.

Definitely true. I think Manfred, executives, and players have been pretty vocal this past year about MLB facing some existential issues (tanking, three-true-outcomes, etc). It seems like they recognize the same problem and seem motivated to do something about it, but whether they can agree on the solutions is another question. 

I think I'm inclined to agree with your prediction - the lockout will put their backs up against a wall and ultimately they won't really change anything too substantial.

[spiritof66]

1 hour ago, Philip said:

The changes they have made don’t address it and don’t accomplish anything. But spending a lot of time addressing this mythological “pace of play” demon takes time from the important issues, and the important issues is that nothing happens in the game. What’s the most exciting play you can think of?

Whatever it is it’s not the strike out, it’s not the walk, and it’s not the home run.

edit:

Well, it can be the home run, but the home run by itself isn’t much. The camera work of a home run shows how boring a home run is. We see crowd reaction, pitcher reaction, dugout reaction, and eventually we see a guy jogging around the bases. That’s not exciting. In all sports there is absolutely nothing more boring than the replay of a home run.

However, I have watched countless replays of countless double plays with undiminished joy. Leaping catches, tags at third base, or at home, those are the exciting parts of a baseball game.

On the home run point, I often wonder why the batter is even required to circle the bases once a home run is called. Because once out of every 10,000 times he'll pass a baserunner and be called out? I suppose it's because 120 years ago most home runs didn't leave the park, and the batter was racing against the actions of chasing OFers, relaying IFers, and tagging catchers. I can't think of another sport where a player acts out something that's as mechanical as the modern-day home run.

But more generally, I think there's a general understanding that baseball has some serious problems, and is losing its audience to other established sports and to new ones. Most of those who have been hard-core baseball fans for decades -- and who post on or read discussion boards like this, even when the team they root for has been and is terrible -- aren't going to be as concerned about these problems, and they will continue to follow MLB. But not as many casual fans and not-yet fans, especially younger fans, aren't following baseball as much as they did. These are among the problems:

1. Slow pace of play/length of games (from a variety of sources, including pitchers taking time, batters stepping out, number of pitching changes, batters seeking foul balls with bats designed to further that goal)

2. Lack of action -- too many walks and strikeouts/too few balls in play (from a variety of sources, including pitchers throwing fewer pitches faster and over a shorter distance, increased value to walks, bat design)

3. Motivation of non-contending teams to perform poorly in order to gain higher draft choices

4. Inability of some franchises to compete in part because of revenue disparities (Colorado, Arizona, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati)

5. Transparency of poor ball/strike umpiring

6. Lack of ballplaying by kids, especially those who aren't especially talented playing informally without adult supervision

7. Teams' unwillingness/inability to retain star players

I'm sure I left some stuff out.

There have been multiple, serious proposals that would address at least the first five of these. There are two overall problems with making any changes. First, there's a common delusion that the game shouldn't be tinkered with because it's so perfect: 90 feet, 60 feet six inches, nine fielders, etc. Second, so far as I can tell there's nobody who has the job of understanding, and taking seriously, these problems, coming up with ways to do something about them, and deciding to try those things. The Commissioner's role is to protect the owners' investments, and the union's job is to maximize the players' stake. (Moreover, the last couple of Commissioners appear to have been, whether by luck or design, two of the least thoughtful and imaginative human beings you could find for the job.) So the process of deciding to consider, test, and then adopt changes becomes excruciatingly slow.

 

 

[Frobby]

2 hours ago, Philip said:

In all sports there is absolutely nothing more boring than the replay of a home run.

Oh, I can think of a few dozen things more boring.   Looking at sideline shots of a football coach talking on his headset.   Teams that are hopelessly behind in a basketball game committing fouls in the hope the other team will miss their foul shots.   Watching football referees watch a replay.   I could go on.   

Given that the average baseball game only has 2-3 home runs total between the two teams, I can tolerate the replays of those while we’re awaiting the next batter.   

I’d just like to see fewer strikeouts.   The increase is driven by higher velocity/frequent pitching changes to a fresher arm.   If nothing is done to change those causes, the trend will continue.   

 

[Yossarian]

31 minutes ago, spiritof66 said:

On the home run point, I often wonder why the batter is even required to circle the bases once a home run is called. Because once out of every 10,000 times he'll pass a baserunner and be called out? I suppose it's because 120 years ago most home runs didn't leave the park, and the batter was racing against the actions of chasing OFers, relaying IFers, and tagging catchers. I can't think of another sport where a player acts out something that's as mechanical as the modern-day home run.

But more generally, I think there's a general understanding that baseball has some serious problems, and is losing its audience to other established sports and to new ones. Most of those who have been hard-core baseball fans for decades -- and who post on or read discussion boards like this, even when the team they root for has been and is terrible -- aren't going to be as concerned about these problems, and they will continue to follow MLB. But not as many casual fans and not-yet fans, especially younger fans, aren't following baseball as much as they did. These are among the problems:

1. Slow pace of play/length of games (from a variety of sources, including pitchers taking time, batters stepping out, number of pitching changes, batters seeking foul balls with bats designed to further that goal)

2. Lack of action -- too many walks and strikeouts/too few balls in play (from a variety of sources, including pitchers throwing fewer pitches faster and over a shorter distance, increased value to walks, bat design)

3. Motivation of non-contending teams to perform poorly in order to gain higher draft choices

4. Inability of some franchises to compete in part because of revenue disparities (Colorado, Arizona, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati)

5. Transparency of poor ball/strike umpiring

6. Lack of ballplaying by kids, especially those who aren't especially talented playing informally without adult supervision

7. Teams' unwillingness/inability to retain star players

I'm sure I left some stuff out.

There have been multiple, serious proposals that would address at least the first five of these. There are two overall problems with making any changes. First, there's a common delusion that the game shouldn't be tinkered with because it's so perfect: 90 feet, 60 feet six inches, nine fielders, etc. Second, so far as I can tell there's nobody who has the job of understanding, and taking seriously, these problems, coming up with ways to do something about them, and deciding to try those things. The Commissioner's role is to protect the owners' investments, and the union's job is to maximize the players' stake. (Moreover, the last couple of Commissioners appear to have been, whether by luck or design, two of the least thoughtful and imaginative human beings you could find for the job.) So the process of deciding to consider, test, and then adopt changes becomes excruciatingly slow.

 

 

31 minutes ago, spiritof66 said:

 

To your point that I have bolded -- perhaps the quarterback kneeling three times at the end of a game to run out the clock is the only comparable exercise in meaningless waste of time/motion.

You make some good points.  I have said this before - one thing that would improve parity and overall quality of play/product on the field is contraction of the league.  There are too many teams with marginal big league players filling out the rosters.  The level of play and competition among teams would be better with fewer teams.  I know - baseball wants to expand markets, not contract them.  I say that more and more, pro sports are becoming a "watch on TV" type of entertainment, rather than in person.  The cost of tickets/parking has made regular attendance at pro sporting events less accessible to the masses.  A large screen TV and an annual subscription to the MLB package is much more affordable and accessible to people.

I don't want to see baseball changed dramatically.  The easy pace with sudden spurts of athleticism or skill make it interesting.  I contend that the constant back and forth action of basketball and the violence on every play in football dampen the highlights, rather than make them more interesting.  Baseball requires a long attention span and patience between moments of "wow".  You have to earn your reward with baseball by knowing what is going on behind every pitch.  It is the only professional sport that I follow with any interest, really.
 

Getting more youth interested is difficult.  Like you said - it takes a lot of people a lot of equipment, and a large field to play.  You don't just go find a pick-up baseball game at the local park or school.  It requires effort and resources.  It is also a very difficult game to play.  I think this forces kids to drop out.  Soccer, basketball, and even football are much easier to play.  And those sports don't have nearly as much of the focus on failure that baseball does.  A marginal player can hide in the crowd more with other team sports.  With baseball - everyone knows when you are in the batter's box and they see your failures.  It's tough on a kid.

 

[wildcard]

To me a player making 600k for three years then gets millions for three years in arbitration before he gets to try for a long term contract that is in the 10s  or 100s of million is a pretty good living.

Average and fringe players are lucky to be in a system like that and the stars get a meg contract. Heck, Gausman made almost 19m/yr while waiting for a long term contract in free agency.  And a veteran who sounds like a hard liner just signed for 43m per year.  Don't cry for me Argentina.

What is to complain about?  That you have to wait a few years while getting paid before getting paid big time?      Sounds like a bunch of spoiled athletes to me.   

 

 

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, wildcard said:

To me a player making 600k for three years then gets millions for three years in arbitration before he gets to try for a long term contract that is in the 10s  or 100s of million is a pretty good living.

Average and fringe players are lucky to be in a system like that and the stars get a meg contract. Heck, Gausman made almost 19m/yr while waiting for free agency.  And a veteran who sounds like a hard liner just signed for 43m per year.  Don't cry for me Argentina.

What is to complain about?  That you have to wait a few years while getting paid before getting paid big time?      Sounds like a bunch of spoiled athletes to me.   

 

 

No he didn't.

 

[Moose Milligan]

4 minutes ago, wildcard said:

To me a player making 600k for three years then gets millions for three years in arbitration before he gets to try for a long term contract that is in the 10s  or 100s of million is a pretty good living.

Average and fringe players are lucky to be in a system like that and the stars get a meg contract. Heck, Gausman made almost 19m/yr while waiting for free agency.  And a veteran who sounds like a hard liner just signed for 43m per year.  Don't cry for me Argentina.

What is to complain about?  That you have to wait a few years while getting paid before getting paid big time?      Sounds like a bunch of spoiled athletes to me.   

 

 

That would be good money for you or me or practically anyone else on this board.  600k for three years is something I'd gladly sign up for.  That's probably life changing money if you invest it right and dodge taxes (legally, of course).

It's easy to label them as spoiled athletes, but it seems like you're being intentionally obtuse to what they're looking for in the next CBA.  

[HowAboutThat]

46 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Oh, I can think of a few dozen things more boring.   Looking at sideline shots of a football coach talking on his headset.   Teams that are hopelessly behind in a basketball game committing fouls in the hope the other team will miss their foul shots.   Watching football referees watch a replay.   I could go on.   

Given that the average baseball game only has 2-3 home runs total between the two teams, I can tolerate the replays of those while we’re awaiting the next batter.   

I’d just like to see fewer strikeouts.   The increase is driven by higher velocity/frequent pitching changes to a fresher arm.   If nothing is done to change those causes, the trend will continue.   

 

A sideline video of a coach is not gameplay, a home run replay is gameplay, and yes there’s not a damn thing more boring in all sports then the replay of a home run. Most of the time you can’t even see the ball in the view screen.

Yes they replay the video after the play And I can endure that, but what is it? you see the swing, you see the look, you see the crowd reaction, A disgusted look on the pitchers face, the dugout. You may see the camera panning across the crowd in an arc, but you’ll have to take on faith that somewhere in that shot is a white little ball traveling to a destination in the stands at somewhere.

Boring.

On the other hand, I’ll tell you, there was a double play in the Division series with the Tigers, started by Flaherty, swinging to Schoop from his knees, who pivoted on one foot to fling to Davis. That never gets old.

[HowAboutThat]

1 hour ago, spiritof66 said:

On the home run point, I often wonder why the batter is even required to circle the bases once a home run is called. Because once out of every 10,000 times he'll pass a baserunner and be called out? I suppose it's because 120 years ago most home runs didn't leave the park, and the batter was racing against the actions of chasing OFers, relaying IFers, and tagging catchers. I can't think of another sport where a player acts out something that's as mechanical as the modern-day home run.

But more generally, I think there's a general understanding that baseball has some serious problems, and is losing its audience to other established sports and to new ones. Most of those who have been hard-core baseball fans for decades -- and who post on or read discussion boards like this, even when the team they root for has been and is terrible -- aren't going to be as concerned about these problems, and they will continue to follow MLB. But not as many casual fans and not-yet fans, especially younger fans, aren't following baseball as much as they did. These are among the problems:

1. Slow pace of play/length of games (from a variety of sources, including pitchers taking time, batters stepping out, number of pitching changes, batters seeking foul balls with bats designed to further that goal)

2. Lack of action -- too many walks and strikeouts/too few balls in play (from a variety of sources, including pitchers throwing fewer pitches faster and over a shorter distance, increased value to walks, bat design)

3. Motivation of non-contending teams to perform poorly in order to gain higher draft choices

4. Inability of some franchises to compete in part because of revenue disparities (Colorado, Arizona, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati)

5. Transparency of poor ball/strike umpiring

6. Lack of ballplaying by kids, especially those who aren't especially talented playing informally without adult supervision

7. Teams' unwillingness/inability to retain star players

I'm sure I left some stuff out.

There have been multiple, serious proposals that would address at least the first five of these. There are two overall problems with making any changes. First, there's a common delusion that the game shouldn't be tinkered with because it's so perfect: 90 feet, 60 feet six inches, nine fielders, etc. Second, so far as I can tell there's nobody who has the job of understanding, and taking seriously, these problems, coming up with ways to do something about them, and deciding to try those things. The Commissioner's role is to protect the owners' investments, and the union's job is to maximize the players' stake. (Moreover, the last couple of Commissioners appear to have been, whether by luck or design, two of the least thoughtful and imaginative human beings you could find for the job.) So the process of deciding to consider, test, and then adopt changes becomes excruciatingly slow.

 

 

Your comment is very well received. Nicely thought out.
The solution to the game is to make it more interesting. The way to make it more interesting is not to make it shorter. Being unengaged for one hour is no different than being unengaged for three hours. You’re still not caring. The way to make people care is to make them interested. That means you have to make the game more interesting and you do that not with stupid bullshit like three batter minimums and pitch clocks, But by increasing activity on the base paths. 
Supposedly, deadening the ball was supposed to decrease the number of home runs, I don’t know whether it worked, but that’s stupid. We don’t want more home runs we want more contact, we want more line drives to write center that fall for hits and roll to the wall. Eliminating sticky stuff is stupid.

Pitching is so fundamentally more successful than hitting that the problem is that the pitching is getting better faster than the hitting can compensate. Think about it, who is the highest batting average in history, 406 Ted Williams right? Something like that. That means  he failed 60% of the time. Hitting is hard in the best of times, we have to do something to increase the success rate of the hitter. Pitch clocks won’t do that.

What will? Maybe moving the mound back, or lowering the mound? I don’t know but I wouldn’t be averse to those suggestions. Definitely make it easier for a player to get on base. Allow for a steal of First base on a wild pitch, for instance: award first base for a certain number of foul balls, which makes a foul ball strategically valuable instead of a waste of time.

Have a minimum required dimension for the outfield. Shape and overall size are up to the team, but it Has to be at least X. Raise the outfield wall to increase the number of line drives that hit off the top of the wall instead of going out, but don’t raise it too far because you still want the outfielder to be able to steal a home run. Have a barrier of 18 inches between the wall in the end of the grandstand so that there are no more fans stealing fly balls out of gloves.

Those are all workable suggestions none of them is a drastic suggestion, all of them would help the game. 

[Frobby]

10 minutes ago, Philip said:

A sideline video of a coach is not gameplay, a home run replay is gameplay, and yes there’s not a damn thing more boring in all sports then the replay of a home run. Most of the time you can’t even see the ball in the view screen.

Yes they replay the video after the play And I can endure that, but what is it? you see the swing, you see the look, you see the crowd reaction, A disgusted look on the pitchers face, the dugout. You may see the camera panning across the crowd in an arc, but you’ll have to take on faith that somewhere in that shot is a white little ball traveling to a destination in the stands at somewhere.

Boring.

On the other hand, I’ll tell you, there was a double play in the Division series with the Tigers, started by Flaherty, swinging to Schoop from his knees, who pivoted on one foot to fling to Davis. That never gets old.

They show replays of about half the pitches these days, even those that don’t result in an out or a hit.   I don’t find those less boring than watching a home run replay.   What I’d like is for there to be an insufficient amount of time between pitches to even consider showing a replay.   

And sure, a great defensive play is more inherently interesting to watch than a home run.   The more strikeouts there are, the less opportunity there is to see a great defensive play, or a bad one.   

[Can_of_corn]

6 minutes ago, Frobby said:

They show replays of about half the pitches these days, even those that don’t result in an out or a hit.   I don’t find those less boring than watching a home run replay.   What I’d like is for there to be an insufficient amount of time between pitches to even consider showing a replay.   

And sure, a great defensive play is more inherently interesting to watch than a home run.   The more strikeouts there are, the less opportunity there is to see a great defensive play, or a bad one.   

I'm fine with strikeouts.  I think a number of strikeouts are really entertaining to watch.

I just want the pitcher to throw the damn ball and the hitter to stay in the box.

[Frobby]

5 minutes ago, Philip said:

Think about it, who is the highest batting average in history, 406 Ted Williams right? 

There’s so much I could say in response to your long post, but I couldn’t let this misstatement of baseball history get buried.   

Ted Williams was the last .400 hitter, but his .406 was not the highest in baseball history.   Depending on who you are including (e.g., Negro Leagues) and when you are starting (pre- or post-1900), there are any number of players who hit higher than .406.   BB-ref now ranks Williams at 42nd on the all time list, and even if you stripped out the Negro Leagues and pre-1900 players, you’d have at least 7 seasons where someone outhit .406.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/batting_avg_season.shtml

 

[Moose Milligan]

Frobby keeping his baseball history pimp hand strong.  

[Frobby]

7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I'm fine with strikeouts.  I think a number of strikeouts are really entertaining to watch.

I just want the pitcher to throw the damn ball and the hitter to stay in the box.

Well, I want those things too.   But I also want fewer strikeouts.  It’s very hard to accomplish that though.   I don’t see a solution other than moving the mound back, which I can’t say I like either.   

[survivedc]

Like it or not, baseball will need to do something to keep younger fans interested in the game and the pitch clock seems to be the perfect solution. 30 seconds (sometimes) between pitches makes it so easy to pick up your phone and do some scrolling.

Further, it’s not as if reducing time between pitches fundamentally alters the game. In the 60’s and 70’s plenty of pitchers worked much quicker.