Photo

MLB Considering Expansion, Realignment, Shortening Schedule


  • Please log in to reply
209 replies to this topic

#61 JeremyStrain

JeremyStrain

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 13,386 posts
  • LocationFormerly known as allstar1579

Posted 13 May 2018 - 09:54 AM

I think that keeping things the way they are because that's how they have always been is a terrible way to think, but that's just my general philosophy, not even baseball specific.

 

You have no idea if radical changes will be better or worse until you try them, but dismissing things because you don't like change isn't going to improve anything.


@JeremyMStrain

#62 RShack

RShack

    Fair-weather ex-diehard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,994 posts

Posted 13 May 2018 - 12:56 PM

I think that keeping things the way they are because that's how they have always been is a terrible way to think, but that's just my general philosophy, not even baseball specific.

 

You have no idea if radical changes will be better or worse until you try them, but dismissing things because you don't like change isn't going to improve anything.

 

Where has a major sport ever undergone radical changes?


 "The only change is that baseball has turned Paige from a second-class citizen to a second-class immortal." - Satchel Paige


#63 Pedro Cerrano

Pedro Cerrano

    I Miss McNulty

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,702 posts
  • LocationEllicott City, MD

Posted 13 May 2018 - 12:57 PM

Where has a major sport ever undergone radical changes?


Jackie Robinson?

There is baseball, and occasionally there are other things of note

"Now OPS sucks.  Got it."

"Making his own olive brine is peak Mackus."

"I'm too hungover to watch a loss." - McNulty

@bopper33


#64 You Play to Win the Game

You Play to Win the Game

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,562 posts
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 13 May 2018 - 02:25 PM

Jackie Robinson?

That's a social change with sports as the proxy.

A game or a sport has not changed it's rules or structure as dramatically as some of these suggestions. Doesn't mean some of it wouldn't work, as Jeremy is saying.

#65 RShack

RShack

    Fair-weather ex-diehard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,994 posts

Posted 13 May 2018 - 05:20 PM

That's a social change with sports as the proxy.

A game or a sport has not changed it's rules or structure as dramatically as some of these suggestions. Doesn't mean some of it wouldn't work, as Jeremy is saying.

 

Any examples of when radical change worked... about any kind of sport or business or anything except when abject failure was the only alternative?


 "The only change is that baseball has turned Paige from a second-class citizen to a second-class immortal." - Satchel Paige


#66 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,401 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 13 May 2018 - 05:43 PM

Where has a major sport ever undergone radical changes?

 

MLB went through radical changes in the late 1800's through the teens. But of course it was much younger then and thus easier to change. 



#67 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,401 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 13 May 2018 - 05:45 PM

I'd be happy with a shorter schedule, but they should keep games at 9 innings. 



#68 Mike in STL

Mike in STL

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,346 posts

Posted 13 May 2018 - 05:52 PM

I would say basketball adding the shot clock and the three point line are pretty radical changes. For the better. A racing fan might consider restrictor plates at Daytona and Talladega a radical change, not sure if its for the better. Makes for a better fan experience maybe but exponentially more dangerous for the drivers. NFL adding the two-point conversion seemed well overdue, radical, and for the better.

In baseball though, making it a 7 inning game would be radical and not better. It'd be the same as making hockey 2 periods instead of 3, NFL and NBA 3 periods instead of 4 quarters. What if they said the Indy 500 was too long. It's only been a 500 mile race for over 100 years. Lets make it the Indy 400 from now on?

If they are willing to discuss 7 inning games, whats next? 2 strikes your out? Foul on 3rd strike is an out? Will the trickle down be that high schools would go to 5 inning games? Little league 4 innings?

The only radical change that can make baseball better is robo ump. Seems like in other sports the changes made scores higher. I don't think the steroid era, or the tightly would balls in play now a days are making the game better.
  • BSLChrisStoner and Nigel Tufnel like this
@BSLMikeRandall

#69 RShack

RShack

    Fair-weather ex-diehard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,994 posts

Posted 13 May 2018 - 06:13 PM

A racing fan might consider restrictor plates at Daytona and Talladega a radical change, not sure if its for the better. Makes for a better fan experience maybe but exponentially more dangerous for the drivers. 

 

Believe it or not, they did that for safety, not for a better fan experience.  The cars were hitting 230+ mph and that's too fast, given the limits of human reaction time, especially in slow-reacting cars like big NASCAR cars... restrictor plates created pack racing, which is unfortunate and presents it's own set of safety issues... but not as many as having cars get airborne at well over 220...

 

ps:  It's also a minor change, not a major one... NASCAR has a long history of rule-tweaking... often from one week to the next....


 "The only change is that baseball has turned Paige from a second-class citizen to a second-class immortal." - Satchel Paige


#70 Pedro Cerrano

Pedro Cerrano

    I Miss McNulty

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,702 posts
  • LocationEllicott City, MD

Posted 13 May 2018 - 06:17 PM

Believe it or not, they did that for safety, not for a better fan experience.  The cars were hitting 230mph and that's too fast, given the limits of human reaction time, especially in slow-reacting cars like the big NASCAR cars... restrictor plates created pack racing, which is unfortunate and presents it's own set of safety issues... but not as many as having cars get airborne at well over 220...

 

ps:  It's also a minor change, not a major one... NASCAR has a long history of rule-tweaking... often from one week to the next....

 

How fast do those funny cars (or drag racing cars) go?  Those things look like they'd be death machines if they spun out and went flying.


There is baseball, and occasionally there are other things of note

"Now OPS sucks.  Got it."

"Making his own olive brine is peak Mackus."

"I'm too hungover to watch a loss." - McNulty

@bopper33


#71 RShack

RShack

    Fair-weather ex-diehard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,994 posts

Posted 13 May 2018 - 06:31 PM

How fast do those funny cars (or drag racing cars) go?  Those things look like they'd be death machines if they spun out and went flying.

 

The fastest drag racers are the Top Fuel rail cars... they can hit 330+mph... but they never turn, never follow the same path or overlapping paths (only parallel tracks)  and rely on dual parachutes, not just brakes, to slow down...

 

Once they broke 300 mph, and in response to a fatality, they shortened the race dx from 1/4 mile (1320 ft) to 1000 ft (but just for the top classes; normal drag racing is still a quarter-mile).   

 

They take slightly more than 3.5 seconds to do it.

 

That's a pretty short race compared to multi-hour Talledega races...


 "The only change is that baseball has turned Paige from a second-class citizen to a second-class immortal." - Satchel Paige


#72 RShack

RShack

    Fair-weather ex-diehard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,994 posts

Posted 13 May 2018 - 06:37 PM

MLB went through radical changes in the late 1800's through the teens. But of course it was much younger then and thus easier to change. 

 

Right... it was neither an established sport nor an established business....

 

The last major change any major sport made to the game itself (as opposed to scheduling and playoff issues) that I'm aware of is when basketball quit having jump balls after every dang basket... that was shortly before WW2...


 "The only change is that baseball has turned Paige from a second-class citizen to a second-class immortal." - Satchel Paige


#73 RShack

RShack

    Fair-weather ex-diehard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,994 posts

Posted 13 May 2018 - 06:40 PM

I would say basketball adding the shot clock and the three point line are pretty radical changes.

 

I guess we have a definition disagreement... I'd call that tweaking to help the offense, not radical change... but I can see how you'd disagree...


 "The only change is that baseball has turned Paige from a second-class citizen to a second-class immortal." - Satchel Paige


#74 You Play to Win the Game

You Play to Win the Game

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,562 posts
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 13 May 2018 - 06:49 PM

Hockey with the nets/equipment too. 



#75 RShack

RShack

    Fair-weather ex-diehard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,994 posts

Posted 13 May 2018 - 07:03 PM

Hockey with the nets/equipment too. 

 

When (more or less) ?


 "The only change is that baseball has turned Paige from a second-class citizen to a second-class immortal." - Satchel Paige


#76 JeremyStrain

JeremyStrain

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 13,386 posts
  • LocationFormerly known as allstar1579

Posted 14 May 2018 - 07:12 AM

Where has a major sport ever undergone radical changes?

 

Didn't I literally JUST SAY saying it can't work because it's never been done, and doing the same things forever the same way for lack of wanting to change is a poor way to think?

 

I never even came close to implying that it's happened before, although there have been plenty of changes that people consider or don't consider to be radical...that's semantics and opinion. What you might think is some huge radical change, I might think isn't a big deal because I don't think that change is important. Ice size and equipment in hockey. 3 point lines in basketball. Forcing players to wear helmets in hockey (yes, even in the 80s it wasn't mandatory). 2 point conversions in football.

 

That's kind of my overall point, who knows what will work until it's tried. Baseball could be a much better product by changing it to 7 innings. None of us have a clue cause we've never watched an extended period at 7 innings. People talk about fully adopting or getting rid of the DH all the time, that would be a radical change for some. Maybe quicker and more competitive games would make some people happier?

 

I kinda compare this to trying to get kids to eat vegetables. They might fight and scream and cry because they don't like it before they've ever tried it, and then they do and love them and enjoy them all the time afterwards. You just don't know until you try.


@JeremyMStrain

#77 JeremyStrain

JeremyStrain

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 13,386 posts
  • LocationFormerly known as allstar1579

Posted 14 May 2018 - 07:14 AM

When (more or less) ?

 

They change goalie pads and goal sizes fairly often. That's their go-to whenever offense is up or down too much. Fairly similar to the juiced ball theory that MLB never really owned up to that had the same effect.


@JeremyMStrain

#78 RShack

RShack

    Fair-weather ex-diehard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,994 posts

Posted 14 May 2018 - 09:47 AM

Didn't I literally JUST SAY saying it can't work because it's never been done, and doing the same things forever the same way for lack of wanting to change is a poor way to think?

 

I never even came close to implying that it's happened before, although there have been plenty of changes that people consider or don't consider to be radical...that's semantics and opinion. What you might think is some huge radical change, I might think isn't a big deal because I don't think that change is important. Ice size and equipment in hockey. 3 point lines in basketball. Forcing players to wear helmets in hockey (yes, even in the 80s it wasn't mandatory). 2 point conversions in football.

 

That's kind of my overall point, who knows what will work until it's tried. Baseball could be a much better product by changing it to 7 innings. None of us have a clue cause we've never watched an extended period at 7 innings. People talk about fully adopting or getting rid of the DH all the time, that would be a radical change for some. Maybe quicker and more competitive games would make some people happier?

 

I kinda compare this to trying to get kids to eat vegetables. They might fight and scream and cry because they don't like it before they've ever tried it, and then they do and love them and enjoy them all the time afterwards. You just don't know until you try.

 

So, now when a sport tweaks things to increase scoring and/or implement safety measures, that is "radical"?   Come on... if you're gonna label any significant tweak as "radical", well, why even use the word at all?

 

No sane person is gonna impose radical change on a functioning enterprise.... it's just not gonna happen.... because it *should not* happen.  Radical change is just that: radical.   Show me an instance in *any* kind of enterprise which is not about to fold where radical change has been implemented at all, let alone for the better.  I can't think of one.  AFAIK, nobody else can either.  Because people in charge of successful enterprises aren't nuts.

 

To advocate radical change on a functioning enterprise just because it *might* work is reckless and irresponsible.


 "The only change is that baseball has turned Paige from a second-class citizen to a second-class immortal." - Satchel Paige


#79 JeremyStrain

JeremyStrain

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 13,386 posts
  • LocationFormerly known as allstar1579

Posted 14 May 2018 - 10:40 AM

So, now when a sport tweaks things to increase scoring and/or implement safety measures, that is "radical"?   Come on... if you're gonna label any significant tweak as "radical", well, why even use the word at all?

 

No sane person is gonna impose radical change on a functioning enterprise.... it's just not gonna happen.... because it *should not* happen.  Radical change is just that: radical.   Show me an instance in *any* kind of enterprise which is not about to fold where radical change has been implemented at all, let alone for the better.  I can't think of one.  AFAIK, nobody else can either.  Because people in charge of successful enterprises aren't nuts.

 

To advocate radical change on a functioning enterprise just because it *might* work is reckless and irresponsible.

 

You're the one using the word, not me. I said no one knows if change is good or bad, and not making it for fear of it being bad, or just the unknown in general is dumb. Is there anything stopping changing something back if it doesn't work well? Is the world going to implode if it doesn't go well?

 

You decided to add the term radical. Just because you are resistant to change doesn't mean that other people feel that way as well, so don't project their feelings onto others.

 

Again, you are the one throwing out the terms. No one said to change things for no reason what so ever. I believe the hypothetical discussion started because people AREN'T completely happy with the game and would like to see some changes. I'm guessing the data behind that is that baseball which used to be "America's Sport" has lagged behind football, and is falling more in line with Basketball, Golf, NASCAR and other sports or "sports". So if less people are playing, and watching and coming out to watch, then maybe there is a problem.

 

Just remember not to point it at me, I at no point in any of this have even said if I was in favor of the change or not. My point is that nothing has to stay the way it is. Ever. Change can be bad. Change can be good. But the unknown will never get known without trying.


@JeremyMStrain

#80 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,401 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 14 May 2018 - 11:18 AM

I would actually say that the shot clock and the 3pt line are in the same ballpark in terms of impact as shortening the game by 2 innings would be.

Also, I'm not sure that shortening the game would help with popularity, but I also doubt it would negatively impact it much. Many would disagree with it, but I doubt they'd stop watching over it.
  • JeremyStrain likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Our Sponsors


 width=