Jump to content

Would you trade ads for less commercial time?


DrungoHazewood

Would you trade more on-field ads for less commercial time?  

28 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you trade more on-field ads for less commercial time?


This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

I would. BTW, the Tango thread was inspired by Bill Simmons, which it states there, but just wanted to point out for those who don't click on the link.

However, something Simmons mentioned and I agree with, is this would make more sense in basketball and football where they have more unnecessary ad time. Other than national games, I'm not sure that it would make much of a difference in baseball.

The real key is speeding up the game while it is going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would. BTW, the Tango thread was inspired by Bill Simmons, which it states there, but just wanted to point out for those who don't click on the link.

However, something Simmons mentioned and I agree with, is this would make more sense in basketball and football where they have more unnecessary ad time. Other than national games, I'm not sure that it would make much of a difference in baseball.

The real key is speeding up the game while it is going on.

Yes, pacing is a key, but I think cutting commercials could help in baseball. Even eliminating one minute per break in baseball would cut 20 minutes or so off a game (between half innings, plus pitching changes). By itself that's most of the difference between game times today and in 1950.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, pacing is a key, but I think cutting commercials could help in baseball. Even eliminating one minute per break in baseball would cut 20 minutes or so off a game (between half innings, plus pitching changes). By itself that's most of the difference between game times today and in 1950.

Do you know how long the breaks are for O's games? They seem pretty short.

Were commercials a lot shorter in previous decades for local broadcasts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like you say, pacing is key Drungo. I don't think cutting 10-15 minutes a game for commercials, which I think is more realistic, would make nearly as much of a difference to the fan compared to cutting the same amount of time from in game action. I love baseball, but it can be hard to watch at times due to the slow pacing. It would be much more enjoyable to me if that problem was fixed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you know how long the breaks are for O's games? They seem pretty short.

Were commercials a lot shorter in previous decades for local broadcasts?

I guess I don't know for sure. But I know that in college football a game is considerably shorter when it's only on the radio. And prior to about 1985 I'd guess 2/3rds of MLB games were only on the radio.

I think commercial breaks are about three minutes in a MLB game. And prior to any broadcasts the breaks were however long it took to get out on the field, which can't be anything like three minutes. In the Tango bit he mentions Morgan Ensberg says they do a lot of standing around between innings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said yes, but I think the real question is whether the owners and powers that be would trade one for the other. I think once the door to on-field advertisements is opened, they will just do both. In other words, sell as much commercial time as possible and as much field space.

And even if some teams wouldn't, Angelos would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like you say, pacing is key Drungo. I don't think cutting 10-15 minutes a game for commercials, which I think is more realistic, would make nearly as much of a difference to the fan compared to cutting the same amount of time from in game action. I love baseball, but it can be hard to watch at times due to the slow pacing. It would be much more enjoyable to me if that problem was fixed.

I'm not sure how you do that. In the real old days it was mother nature's clock. A lot of games started at 4:00 pm or 5:00 pm, and they had to be over before the sun went down.

Or before the last train left town. I'd always heard that the record 57-minute game was because one of the teams had a train to catch about two hours after first pitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I don't know for sure. But I know that in college football a game is considerably shorter when it's only on the radio. And prior to about 1985 I'd guess 2/3rds of MLB games were only on the radio.

I think commercial breaks are about three minutes in a MLB game. And prior to any broadcasts the breaks were however long it took to get out on the field, which can't be anything like three minutes. In the Tango bit he mentions Morgan Ensberg says they do a lot of standing around between innings.

For national games, I'd guess 3 minute breaks. I would be very surprised if the breaks on MASN were 3 minutes though.

You mention football, well again, I think that's easier to cut time from since they add in a lot of unnecessary breaks for TV games and they can make the breaks shorter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how you do that. In the real old days it was mother nature's clock. A lot of games started at 4:00 pm or 5:00 pm, and they had to be over before the sun went down.

Or before the last train left town. I'd always heard that the record 57-minute game was because one of the teams had a train to catch about two hours after first pitch.

You make the batter stay in the box and the pitcher pitch more quickly would be two ways. You reduce the frequency and time of mound visits by both coaches and players would be another. Calling more strikes works as well.

Simmons suggests eliminating the DH, which would help in that regard, but I don't support that at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make the batter stay in the box and the pitcher pitch more quickly would be two ways. You reduce the frequency and time of mound visits by both coaches and players would be another. Calling more strikes works as well.

Simmons suggests eliminating the DH, which would help in that regard, but I don't support that at all.

I can't believe Simmons would want to eliminate the DH when his favorite team directly benefits from it...and has benefited from it in their two most recent championships.

I remember reading somewhere that there was an umpire who called his last game before retiring...this took place somewhere in the mid-90's, IIRC. Anyway, he announced to both teams that he was going to call the strike zone as it's written in the rulebook, from the letters to the bottom of the knees.

The game was over in about two hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Posts

    • Yeah I was hopeful for him but after seeing last night (where it all caught up to him) I just don't think he has the stuff any more. He used to have an excellent 2 seamer with good velocity and arm side run but that doesn't seem to exist anymore with the velocity drop.
    • Well I was just a peon when I worked there, so it’s not like that experience mattered in my decision. And my view on extensions isn’t you are paying for past years. Hell, I would sign Holliday today and Gunnar is only a year into things. The issue with the extensions is that you are already have the player(s) locked up for most of the years anyway. So, when you sign them to an extension, you are guaranteeing 7-9 years but really all you are gaining is 2-3 years.  It’s a lot of money and guarantees for only a few years. Now, the one thing that I have talked about that is important here is if you don’t extend them, do you look to trade them 1-2 years away from free agency because you don’t want to lose a talent like Gunnar, for example, for nothing.  So, maybe the extension buys you a few additional years on top of what are already getting.  OTOH, you may just decide to go for it with the player and lose them for nothing. I guess you always have the option of going the Tatis route and go 14-15 years but I’m not sure of anyone who is advocating for that or would be ok with that.  As for your business decision point here..I think that’s probably the biggest reason you do it…because players like the commitment and the fans like the commitment and there is value to that.
    • Honestly, I’m much more concerned about Tate than Akin.   91.7 mph avg velocity on the sinker. 11.4% K rate. 11.4% BB rate. 91.8 mph exit velocity. 53.8% hard hit rate. 9.8% whiff rate. 14.5% chase rate. 3.8% swinging strike rate. 4.50 ERA. 5.70 FIP. 5.49 xFIP. 5.06 SIERRA.  6.30 xERA. 84 stuff+ on sinker. 88 location+ on sinker. The ground ball rate is still good, but I’m not sure that’s going to be enough to save him.    
    • Facing Ragans today. Must starts include Rutschman, Mountcastle, and McCann. Must sit is Holliday.   I think Adley might DH today unless Burnes insists on him catching his stuff.
    • Ben McDonald mentioned the leg kick maybe not working in the MLB. He is going to have to make an adjustment it seems like.  Just way too many swings and misses. 
    • I thought you were mistaken on the silver slugger award. I had to look it up. That was a very low bar and he benefited greatly by being in the utility category.  Gunnar is a special player and I would sign him to an extension as the primary goal. Obviously I would have all three on the team as long as they could, though. 
    • First hit was a good pitch on the outside corner maybe not a strike.   Second hit wasn’t that bad of a pitch either. 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...