Photo

MLB Considering Expansion, Realignment, Shortening Schedule


  • Please log in to reply
209 replies to this topic

#81 RShack

RShack

    Fair-weather ex-diehard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,999 posts

Posted 14 May 2018 - 11:56 AM

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.

 

 

You're the one using the word [radical], not me. 

 

Um, no... you started out by dissing the idea of dismissing radical change.   

 

I responded by saying that's inconsistent with any experience known to the modern sports world... and not because of stubbornness or fear, but rather for very good reason....radical change has not been shown to work anywhere.... 


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


#82 JeremyStrain

JeremyStrain

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 13,400 posts
  • LocationFormerly known as allstar1579

Posted 14 May 2018 - 12:08 PM

Um, no... you started out by dissing the idea of dismissing radical change.   

 

I responded by saying that's inconsistent with any experience known to the modern sports world... and not because of stubbornness or fear, but rather for very good reason....radical change has not been shown to work anywhere.... 

 

Fair enough. I didn't even remember using it, I just saw you had replied using it and was going off that. Semantics like I said. What's radical for you might be mundane for me.

 

But yes, that is exactly my point. You are trying to find pre-existing times these things have happened. My point is that the first change has to start somewhere, you don't have to have prior experience to do it. It doesn't matter if it's been shown to work somewhere. If there's an idea to change things, hopefully for the better because people don't generally TRY to change things for the worse, then the only way to know is to try.

 

What is good reason to not change for one person is stubbornness and refusal to change to another. It all comes down on your opinion on the potential changes, but to not change just for the sake of not changing is impeding progress.


@JeremyMStrain

#83 RShack

RShack

    Fair-weather ex-diehard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,999 posts

Posted 14 May 2018 - 12:26 PM

Fair enough. I didn't even remember using it, I just saw you had replied using it and was going off that.

 

No worries...

 

But yes, that is exactly my point. You are trying to find pre-existing times these things have happened. My point is that the first change has to start somewhere, you don't have to have prior experience to do it. It doesn't matter if it's been shown to work somewhere. If there's an idea to change things, hopefully for the better because people don't generally TRY to change things for the worse, then the only way to know is to try.

 

What is good reason to not change for one person is stubbornness and refusal to change to another. It all comes down on your opinion on the potential changes, but to not change just for the sake of not changing is impeding progress.

 

You seem to be deeming some very iffy changes as being *so* badly needed that radical, er, um, decisive (??) change is called for.   Where do you get this?   Where do you see any example that tells you that such change is needed?   Why do you think radical change would work here when there is zero track record to go by? 

 

It's not like nothing has changed in the sports world.  Tons of change has occurred in the sports world.  Yet you seem to be taking the position that the sports world won't change, and that some collection of change is somehow required... and that those who oppose those things are somehow being change-averse pussies.   Why do you think that?   

 

Successful change is generally incremental, slow, gradual, etc.  Why?  Because that's what works.


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


#84 JeremyStrain

JeremyStrain

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 13,400 posts
  • LocationFormerly known as allstar1579

Posted 14 May 2018 - 12:48 PM

No worries...

 

 

You seem to be deeming some very iffy changes as being *so* badly needed that radical, er, um, decisive (??) change is called for.   Where do you get this?   Where do you see any example that tells you that such change is needed?   Why do you think radical change would work here when there is zero track record to go by? 

 

It's not like nothing has changed in the sports world.  Tons of change has occurred in the sports world.  Yet you seem to be taking the position that the sports world won't change, and that some collection of change is somehow required... and that those who oppose those things are somehow being change-averse pussies.   Why do you think that?   

 

Successful change is generally incremental, slow, gradual, etc.  Why?  Because that's what works.

 

Remember I still haven't stated my side on the proposed changes at all, as far as you know I'm good with things as is and don't want change.

 

My issue is more philosophical where it comes to change. Not particularly the sports world itself, but I have seen some of the most severe responses to change come where sports is concerned, so I think plenty of people are adverse to it (both in and out of sports) and would like things to stay as is. If it ain't broke, don't fix it mentality. 

 

Change doesn't have to be general, and gradual though. Change isn't scary, but inflexibility is. I'm a very outside the box thinker, and will come up with creative solutions to problems. I really get irritated when you hear "this is how it is, cause that's how we've always done it" or "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" because they get overused. Sure, if all is right with the world and no one is complaining, then you don't need to tinker for the sake of tinkering, but if the theory is thought out well, and there's potential to IMPROVE things, I don't understand why people get so dug in and won't even listen.

 

I mean hypothetically, the 7 inning thing. (Honestly haven't thought about it and don't even know how I'd feel about it) but why could it be better/worse? Shorter games, could shave innings use off of pitchers and keep them healthier. Teams might take more risks with less time to come back or stay ahead, which could make the game more interesting. A non-contending team could try something "moneyball esque" and sign a bunch of really good couple inning RP versus the high dollar figure that comes with SP, and still find a way to compete, by having 2 guys go 3 IP and a closer, versus a SP, 2 RP and a CL. It could potentially alter how teams construct rosters and allow more teams to stay in contention longer.

 

I don't know truthfully, I'm spitballing here, just my point is that while things may be fine, or good even, depending on your opinion, you never know when a change is out there that makes you like it more. Who knows what sports would look like with a 4 point line in basketball, or no kicking allowed in football, or no offsides in hockey. I can't say that any of these sound like a great idea, but I may watch and be like wow, this is way more exciting, i like this better.


@JeremyMStrain

#85 bnickle

bnickle

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,177 posts

Posted 14 May 2018 - 01:15 PM

Baseball is boring because balls arent put in play. So lets go to 7 innings where youll only see more relief pitchers matching up and starting pitchers giving max effort for 50-70 pitches per game vs pacing themselves for 100
  • DJ MC and Mike in STL like this

#86 DJ MC

DJ MC

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,680 posts
  • LocationBeautiful Bel Air, MD

Posted 14 May 2018 - 05:41 PM

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.

 

Nah. I would consider the former to compare to the adjustments made to balls, strikes, and the mound distance in the 1800s, and the latter to the implementation of the DH. One (or one group) was made to increase action, and the other to increase scoring.


@DJ_McCann

#87 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,422 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 14 May 2018 - 07:24 PM

Nah. I would consider the former to compare to the adjustments made to balls, strikes, and the mound distance in the 1800s, and the latter to the implementation of the DH. One (or one group) was made to increase action, and the other to increase scoring.


One is a drastic change to how the game is played, the other is to how long the game is played.

If anything, I think the former is more significant.

#88 Mike in STL

Mike in STL

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,346 posts

Posted 14 May 2018 - 09:24 PM

Rock and Jock Softball and Basketball had some radical changes for the better. The 25 point basket!!


@BSLMikeRandall

#89 Pedro Cerrano

Pedro Cerrano

    I Miss McNulty

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,829 posts
  • LocationEllicott City, MD

Posted 14 May 2018 - 10:06 PM

At the final six minute mark of an NBA game stop the clock.

If a team is trailing by 10-15 points they can elect to shoot a half court shot. If it goes in the game is instantly tied. If they miss the other team wins automatically.

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


#90 RShack

RShack

    Fair-weather ex-diehard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,999 posts

Posted 14 May 2018 - 10:10 PM

At the final six minute mark of an NBA game stop the clock.

If a team is trailing by 10-15 points they can elect to shoot a half court shot. If it goes in the game is instantly tied. If they miss the other team wins automatically.

 

You wanna replace the only part of NBA games that matter and replace it with a free-fro?


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


#91 Pedro Cerrano

Pedro Cerrano

    I Miss McNulty

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,829 posts
  • LocationEllicott City, MD

Posted 14 May 2018 - 10:13 PM

You wanna replace the only part of NBA games that matter and replace it with a free-fro?


Haha I don’t axtually endorse this idea. Just having fun.

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


#92 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 156,939 posts

Posted 25 June 2018 - 01:46 PM

The Athletic: https://theathletic....&source=fbadsbc

#93 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 156,939 posts

Posted 18 July 2018 - 04:10 PM

CBS Sports: Commissioner Rob Manfred 'hopes' MLB expands to 32 teams, names potential markets
https://www.cbssport...ential-markets/



#94 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 61,347 posts

Posted 18 July 2018 - 04:17 PM

I don't want expansion, nor do I want to change how the divisions are set up currently (or who direct our competition is), but I do like the symmetry of the 32-team league.  It's definitely a more elegant configuration.



#95 bnickle

bnickle

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,177 posts

Posted 18 July 2018 - 04:18 PM

Get us out of the division with Bos and NY and we have a chance to compete much more often

#96 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 61,347 posts

Posted 18 July 2018 - 04:23 PM

I'd rather work to beat them than run away.  Even if it means winning less often because the competition is more fierce.  Big part of why I hated Maryland's move to the Big Ten.  MSU and Indiana and Michigan and OSU may be similar overall level of competition as the ACC, but we don't get to beat Duke anymore.  Even if we win more overall, it's not as enjoyable for me.



#97 bnickle

bnickle

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,177 posts

Posted 18 July 2018 - 04:26 PM


I'd rather work to beat them than run away. Even if it means winning less often because the competition is more fierce. Big part of why I hated Maryland's move to the Big Ten. MSU and Indiana and Michigan and OSU may be similar overall level of competition as the ACC, but we don't get to beat Duke anymore. Even if we win more overall, it's not as enjoyable for me.

I disagree. Its different when there is a tournament that has 34 auto bids. I want a division with Was, Phi, and Atl or Pitt

#98 RShack

RShack

    Fair-weather ex-diehard

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,999 posts

Posted 18 July 2018 - 04:28 PM

I don't want expansion, nor do I want to change how the divisions are set up currently (or who direct our competition is), but I do like the symmetry of the 32-team league.  It's definitely a more elegant configuration.

 

Except I bet they're gonna turn this into a reason to have even more wildcards... we're already borderline about who's earned a postseason slot, and they're gonna make it worse....


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


#99 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 61,347 posts

Posted 18 July 2018 - 04:35 PM

Except I bet they're gonna turn this into a reason to have even more wildcards... we're already borderline about who's earned a postseason slot, and they're gonna make it worse....

 

I wouldn't hate 12/32 compared to 10/30.  Not a huge difference.  I agree that any higher than that and it gets ugly, and a pretty mediocre team would sneak in every now and then if it's 6 per league.



#100 bnickle

bnickle

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,177 posts

Posted 18 July 2018 - 04:47 PM

I mean I loved the old ACC but it was more about the home and homes vs playing Duke and Carolina.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Our Sponsors


 width=