|
|
Post by noetsi on Oct 4, 2021 22:07:44 GMT -5
To avoid hijacking another thread any longer. Another comment on what some see as a problem in baseball. My take on this is somewhat different, a lot of teams and their fans know there is zero chance of ever being in the play offs from day 1. The NFL addressed this issue and dynasties are rare there (when not led by Brady). Of course a counter to this is small market play offs might draw, have drawn I think, low viewer ship. Essentially MLB is focused on a few large urban areas with limited appeal elsewhere. I doubt that is good for the sport in the long run. sports.yahoo.com/where-did-all-the-stars-go-ml-bs-brightest-lights-are-out-for-the-playoffs-020038815.html |
|
|
|
Post by noetsi on Oct 4, 2021 22:13:16 GMT -5
From the article
"And yet, when we talk about all the ways the sport needs to change to save itself — and boy do we talk and write and pontificate about that — the limited impact of even the best players isn’t on the list. Games are too long, too slow. The league is too stodgy, too old school, deploys too many shifts and the pitchers are too good. But when it comes to the undeniable exciting talent in the game, the popular take is to blame bad marketing as if the basic facts aren’t working against them."
From the article above.
Most of us are older and MLB is I suspect an older men's game. I think Americans are not thrilled generally with 2-0 games with no hits. MLB has allowed pitchers to totally dominate the game. I think they should change that. And if Babe Ruth or Mickey Mantle would have disagreed (probably they would not have) tough.
They should outlaw the shift, limit the number of pitchers who can pitch in a game, make 3 balls a walk, and do something to balance spending.
|
|
|
|
Post by noetsi on Oct 4, 2021 22:21:34 GMT -5
I read long ago an article in SI that talked about the early fifties. No one stole, they relied on home runs, I think one year the most steals was 18. Then hispanic and (I think) african american players got into the game who stole lots of bases. The catchers went crazy, but I suspect that generated more interest in the game (and a wider audience as well given it was not white only).
It would be nice if we could have something like that again. But pitchers have totally taken over the league driven by relievers who only have to pitch one inning. If mantle and ruth had faced that, their history would have been very different. We need to stop the madness.
|
|
|
|
Post by inger on Oct 4, 2021 22:50:31 GMT -5
Instinctively, I want to limit pitching staffs to a max of 11 pitchers while limiting the number of players or player moves that can be made between the Mi and ML teams do that we don’t see pitchers called up for a weekend. But instinct is a poor leader at times for humanity. What of a two-way player? The Ohtanis, the Kishniecks, etc.? I suspect we may see more of these as time goes on, and the game has had more of them than it pretends as it markets Ohtani.
I’m not opposed to limiting assigned positions within certain areas, which would eliminate extreme shifts, including the four man outfield that we saw Tampa employ this week. (Which makes me wonder why the Yankees have never employed a two man catcher, with a catcher stationed behind Sanchez… alright, it’s not “legal” to have a player positioned in foul ground other than the catcher’s box). But you get it. If you are assigned to second or third or short there should be a limit to how far you can set up away from the recognized center of that position. The modern shift had a birth due to the batting skills and style of Ted Williams, so to a point it is rooted in tradition. It’s now over-employed.
There used to be an argument that baseball’s leisurely pace allowed one to get a snack or use the rest room during breaks in the action, but that was from a time when games tended to take 2-3 hours instead of 3-4.5 hours.
I’m against drastic change in basic rules, like the three ball walk, which could severely jar the rhythm of the game, and alter stats like the batting average, OBP, etc..
The umpires should not be so quick to allow the batters to step out of the box. An enforced pitch clock with no one on base would be helpful. The seventh inning stretch has lost its usefulness long ago. Keeping the action moving should be paramount.
Every batter seems to play the Mime Hargrove “Human Rain Delay” game now as they step out to readjust straps and pretend to wipe goop out of their eyes now. Time out is called with the pitcher in mid-motion.
There is too much time allowed for reviewed plays if a decision is not obvious enough within twenty seconds, then the play should stand as called…
|
|
|
|
Post by noetsi on Oct 4, 2021 23:08:46 GMT -5
Why is it illegal to have someone behind the catcher but ok for an infielder to play in the OF in the shift.
"The modern shift had a birth due to the batting skills and style of Ted Williams, so to a point it is rooted in tradition. It’s now over-employed."
The shift works because major league batters are unable or unwilling to bunt down the third base line. If they did there would be no shift. That is why it was not tried in the past because that is exactly what they would have done. Only the end of bunting, and batter who could only bat to one field makes it possible.
I think rather than limit the number of pitching positions they should limit the number of pitchers who could pitch in a game to 3. That would be the single biggest reason for an offensive renaissance there could be.
|
|
|
|
Post by inger on Oct 5, 2021 0:01:42 GMT -5
Why is it illegal to have someone behind the catcher but ok for an infielder to play in the OF in the shift. "The modern shift had a birth due to the batting skills and style of Ted Williams, so to a point it is rooted in tradition. It’s now over-employed." The shift works because major league batters are unable or unwilling to bunt down the third base line. If they did there would be no shift. That is why it was not tried in the past because that is exactly what they would have done. Only the end of bunting, and batter who could only bat to one field makes it possible. I think rather than limit the number of pitching positions they should limit the number of pitchers who could pitch in a game to 3. That would be the single biggest reason for an offensive renaissance there could be. In reference to the illegality of a player behind the catcher, it is illegal to have any player play in foul territory and it should be obvious that it would be dumb to do so. The only possible reasons would be potentially nefarious intentions to perhaps distract the pitcher or to provide a pickoff play for a base runner. The shift? You are correct, but you are over emphasizing the bunt versus place hitting. It doesn’t matter much what vehicle is used to make the defense eschew the shift, but a soft ground ball, line drive, or even pop up hit to or through the third (or first) base positions can turn into a double. Bunts typically do not, and can also often be fielded by the pitcher or catcher. Just something to bear in mind… |
|
|
|
Post by inger on Oct 5, 2021 0:04:42 GMT -5
Why is it illegal to have someone behind the catcher but ok for an infielder to play in the OF in the shift. "The modern shift had a birth due to the batting skills and style of Ted Williams, so to a point it is rooted in tradition. It’s now over-employed." The shift works because major league batters are unable or unwilling to bunt down the third base line. If they did there would be no shift. That is why it was not tried in the past because that is exactly what they would have done. Only the end of bunting, and batter who could only bat to one field makes it possible. I think rather than limit the number of pitching positions they should limit the number of pitchers who could pitch in a game to 3. That would be the single biggest reason for an offensive renaissance there could be. In reference to the illegality of a player behind the catcher, it is illegal to have any player play in foul territory and it should be obvious that it would be dumb to do so. The only possible reasons would be potentially nefarious intentions to perhaps distract the pitcher or to provide a pickoff play for a base runner. The shift? You are correct, but you are over emphasizing the bunt versus place hitting. It doesn’t matter much what vehicle is used to make the defense eschew the shift, but a soft ground ball, line drive, or even pop up hit to or through the third (or first) base positions can turn into a double. Bunts typically do not, and can also often be fielded by the pitcher or catcher. Just something to bear in mind… Limiting to three pitchers simply is too restrictive. I don’t have an answer for that one beyond that single point. Perhaps something works without going to that extreme, like ruling tgat a pitcher must allow at least one run or pitch a full inning before being removed from the game except at the change of an inning. It’s worth a study… |
|
|
|
Post by noetsi on Oct 5, 2021 10:38:08 GMT -5
Why is it illegal to have someone behind the catcher but ok for an infielder to play in the OF in the shift. "The modern shift had a birth due to the batting skills and style of Ted Williams, so to a point it is rooted in tradition. It’s now over-employed." The shift works because major league batters are unable or unwilling to bunt down the third base line. If they did there would be no shift. That is why it was not tried in the past because that is exactly what they would have done. Only the end of bunting, and batter who could only bat to one field makes it possible. I think rather than limit the number of pitching positions they should limit the number of pitchers who could pitch in a game to 3. That would be the single biggest reason for an offensive renaissance there could be. In reference to the illegality of a player behind the catcher, it is illegal to have any player play in foul territory and it should be obvious that it would be dumb to do so. The only possible reasons would be potentially nefarious intentions to perhaps distract the pitcher or to provide a pickoff play for a base runner. The shift? You are correct, but you are over emphasizing the bunt versus place hitting. It doesn’t matter much what vehicle is used to make the defense eschew the shift, but a soft ground ball, line drive, or even pop up hit to or through the third (or first) base positions can turn into a double. Bunts typically do not, and can also often be fielded by the pitcher or catcher. Just something to bear in mind… I am suggesting that if NL pitchers can bunt anyone can if they practice it. Not everyone can hit. |
|
|
|
Post by noetsi on Oct 5, 2021 10:39:25 GMT -5
In reference to the illegality of a player behind the catcher, it is illegal to have any player play in foul territory and it should be obvious that it would be dumb to do so. The only possible reasons would be potentially nefarious intentions to perhaps distract the pitcher or to provide a pickoff play for a base runner. The shift? You are correct, but you are over emphasizing the bunt versus place hitting. It doesn’t matter much what vehicle is used to make the defense eschew the shift, but a soft ground ball, line drive, or even pop up hit to or through the third (or first) base positions can turn into a double. Bunts typically do not, and can also often be fielded by the pitcher or catcher. Just something to bear in mind… Limiting to three pitchers simply is too restrictive. I don’t have an answer for that one beyond that single point. Perhaps something works without going to that extreme, like ruling tgat a pitcher must allow at least one run or pitch a full inning before being removed from the game except at the change of an inning. It’s worth a study… It is exactly what would have been done I am sure in the golden age of baseball where specialized relievers were rare to non-existent. Tired pitchers were why teams got so many hits. |
|
|
|
Post by pippsheadache on Oct 5, 2021 11:05:05 GMT -5
To avoid hijacking another thread any longer. Another comment on what some see as a problem in baseball. My take on this is somewhat different, a lot of teams and their fans know there is zero chance of ever being in the play offs from day 1. The NFL addressed this issue and dynasties are rare there (when not led by Brady). Of course a counter to this is small market play offs might draw, have drawn I think, low viewer ship. Essentially MLB is focused on a few large urban areas with limited appeal elsewhere. I doubt that is good for the sport in the long run. sports.yahoo.com/where-did-all-the-stars-go-ml-bs-brightest-lights-are-out-for-the-playoffs-020038815.htmlIt is not true that there is more competitive balance in the NFL than in MLB. At least if you go by the most important games in each sport. Over the last 20 years, 22 of the 30 major league teams have played in at least one World Series. Over that same span, only 17 of the 32 NFL teams have played in a Super Bowl. The Patriots have played in nine of them. In that period, no MLB team has played in more than four World Series -- those would be the Red Sox, Giants and Cardinals. The Yankees, Dodgers and Astros have each played in three. It's always true heading into any season that there are teams like the Orioles and Pirates this year who knew they had virtually no shot of making the World Series. By the same token, the two teams in the NFL's biggest market know they ain't playing for the Lombardi Trophy this year (apologies to Kaybli from a Cleveland Browns fan who understands futility.) |
|
|
|
Post by pippsheadache on Oct 5, 2021 11:51:32 GMT -5
An unusually slow and drizzly day here (rare but cherished) permitted some research into baseball viewership and attendance. Per game attendance in MLB for 2019 (obviously the most recent normal year) was 28,199. That is the lowest figure since 2003, when it was 27,831.
The highest per game attendance ever in MLB history came in 2007, when the average was 32,696. So while attendance is clearly on a downward slope, it is declining from fairly recent historical highs. The first time baseball ever averaged over 20,000 per game was in 1979.
As a further point of comparison, per game attendance in 1950 (the furthest back Baseball Cube calculated per game) was 14,106. It fell as low as 11,600 in 1953 before starting a mostly upward trend for the next 54 years.
But this is not limited to baseball. While the NFL unquestionably attracts more fans in general than MLB (I spent enough time in Vegas Sports Books to witness it first hand), average attendance at NFL games was 66,648 in 2019. That was the lowest number since 2004. So it isn't just baseball, although football is starting from a higher plane.
For viewership, the only baseball numbers I can find are for the World Series. I think it's pretty well established that unlike the NFL, baseball is very regional in its following. That's why baseball gets these lucrative local broadcast deals which allow for those $100 million plus player contracts.
The NFL is national. That's what Draft Kings and Caesar's Palace can do for you. The same jamoke in Peoria who will watch a Monday night game between the Jacksonville Jaguars and the Cincinnati Bengals because he has 50 bucks riding on it wouldn't think of tuning into an important game between the Dodgers and the Giants, even though he might watch every game the Cubs play.
World Series viewership reached an all-time low in game three of 2020 at an average of 8.156 million. The highest single World Series game viewership was game seven of 1986 between the Mets and Red Sox, with an average of between 55-60 million. The highest average for an entire series was 1978 Yankees-Dodgers, which stood at over 44 million. Hard to believe.
NFL per game viewership was 14.9 million in 2020. That compares to 17.9 million in 2010, which is the furthest back I could find. Those are still great numbers, but nevertheless a steep decline for a decade. Sports viewership and attendance is declining everywhere-- check out NBA Championship ratings if you want to see free-fall.
Forgive the Jwildonian dissertation!
|
|
|
|
Post by pippsheadache on Oct 5, 2021 12:03:17 GMT -5
A few more points on attendance. The Yankees were the first team to ever draw one million fans in a season. That was in 1920, when they still played in the Polo Grounds and drew 1,289,422. In 1919, playing in the same stadium, they drew 619,164. Likewise, MLB attendance in general went from 6,532,439 in 1919 to 9,120,875 in 1920.
Hmm, what happened in 1920 to cause the single largest attendance spike in baseball history? How about Babe Ruth hitting 54 home runs, nearly doubling his own record.
Whatever they were paying him, it wasn't close to what he brought in.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizzuto on Oct 5, 2021 12:04:54 GMT -5
To avoid hijacking another thread any longer. Another comment on what some see as a problem in baseball. My take on this is somewhat different, a lot of teams and their fans know there is zero chance of ever being in the play offs from day 1. The NFL addressed this issue and dynasties are rare there (when not led by Brady). Of course a counter to this is small market play offs might draw, have drawn I think, low viewer ship. Essentially MLB is focused on a few large urban areas with limited appeal elsewhere. I doubt that is good for the sport in the long run. sports.yahoo.com/where-did-all-the-stars-go-ml-bs-brightest-lights-are-out-for-the-playoffs-020038815.htmlIt is not true that there is more competitive balance in the NFL than in MLB. At least if you go by the most important games in each sport. Over the last 20 years, 22 of the 30 major league teams have played in at least one World Series. Over that same span, only 17 of the 32 NFL teams have played in a Super Bowl. The Patriots have played in nine of them. In that period, no MLB team has played in more than four World Series -- those would be the Red Sox, Giants and Cardinals. The Yankees, Dodgers and Astros have each played in three. It's always true heading into any season that there are teams like the Orioles and Pirates this year who knew they had virtually no shot of making the World Series. By the same token, the two teams in the NFL's biggest market know they ain't playing for the Lombardi Trophy this year (apologies to Kaybli from a Cleveland Browns fan who understands futility.) The San Francisco Giants were predicted by many to be no better than .500, some calling for as few as 75 wins. Instead, with 107 wins, they set the all-time franchise record, exceeding the mark from 1904, when Christy Mathewson was toeing the rubber. |
|
|
|
Post by pippsheadache on Oct 5, 2021 12:14:34 GMT -5
It is not true that there is more competitive balance in the NFL than in MLB. At least if you go by the most important games in each sport. Over the last 20 years, 22 of the 30 major league teams have played in at least one World Series. Over that same span, only 17 of the 32 NFL teams have played in a Super Bowl. The Patriots have played in nine of them. In that period, no MLB team has played in more than four World Series -- those would be the Red Sox, Giants and Cardinals. The Yankees, Dodgers and Astros have each played in three. It's always true heading into any season that there are teams like the Orioles and Pirates this year who knew they had virtually no shot of making the World Series. By the same token, the two teams in the NFL's biggest market know they ain't playing for the Lombardi Trophy this year (apologies to Kaybli from a Cleveland Browns fan who understands futility.) The San Francisco Giants were predicted by many to be no better than .500, some calling for as few as 75 wins. Instead, with 107 wins, they set the all-time franchise record, exceeding the mark from 1904, when Christy Mathewson was toeing the rubber. The Giants had a group of veterans who all inexplicably played near peak levels at the same time-- Buster Posey, Brandon Belt, Brandon Crawford, Evan Longoria-- very unusual. Plus solid contributions from unknowns like LaMonte Ward and others. Nobody saw that coming. |
|
|
|
Post by pippsheadache on Oct 5, 2021 12:24:41 GMT -5
Those 1904 Giants had only five pitchers pitch as many as ten games. Iron Man McGinity threw 408 innings. Pampered Mommy's Boy Matty cruised with 367 IP. The great Hooks Wiltse was on that staff.
The previous year of 1903 featured the first World Series with the upstart American League. But Giants Manager John McGraw refused to participate in 1904, believing that the National League had nothing to gain. The backlash was enough that he relented the next year, and the Giants beat Connie Mack's Athletics, with Matty winning three games (all shutouts I believe.)
|
|
