Register now to remove this ad

Page 2 of 20 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 288

Thread: The future of baseball

  1. #16
    Deity
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    12,151
    Quote Originally Posted by Northern Star View Post
    NL needs the DH, which means longer games, which means a pitching clock.

    I get sick of the length of some ABs with countless foul offs. Don't really want to tinker with the format of an AB though. That would be a drastic change to the game. I wouldn't be 100% against reducing the game length to seven innings, which obviously would be a huge change. I'm not saying I'm 100% for it, either.

    Way too many stats. The media likes to tell us stuff like this was the first time there have been champagne celebrations in the opposing team's locker room on back to back days. Who gives a shit?

    The real problem regards the length of games is that baseball was invented before tv and smartphones. Those two things have shortened our collective attention spans.

    Also, MLB needs to market their stars better. No one cares about them.
    1) DH needs to be ubiquitous, Step up, NL,

    2) There are rules in the rulebook for how long a pitcher can hold the ball between pitches. These need to be enforced.

    3) Don't sweat the shift. I'd rather see a hitter try to beat the shift than watch an annoying LOOGY come in to face one batter.

    4) Baseball hs become heavily dependent on analytics and statistics, but why do opponents of this pretend this is unique to baseball? Other sports have copied it, but done so poorly. For example, the NBA was seeing a rise in analytics from fans and bloggers, and then teams hired these guys too quickly to get ahead of the opponent, and didn't allow for them to actually collaborate and work out the flaws in their systems. At least MLB did it right.

    5) Yes, there are a lot of home run dependent offenses. But this could also be a fad. In the 1980's, the game was heavily dependent on stolen bases, which were suddenly the secret offensive weapon. Fad. Gone. The early 2000's saw teams relying heavily on walks. Not so any more. These things do change, despite everyone saying "No this is different" every time.

  2. #17
    Deity Kimmi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    20,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellhorn04 View Post
    We had that moment this year when Mookie Betts pulled out and flashed his 'cheat card' after making a catch. A lot of folks found this funny/entertaining.

    Personally it made me a little queasy. No reflection on Mookie, of course. Just the fact that fielders now need these cards to know where to position themselves on every play.
    I found this moment absolutely awesome. For me, it's one of the many highlights of the season.

    It's not that he flashed the card, per se. It's that Mookie was waaaayyy out of position for a right fielder, and McCann hit the ball right to him. I don't think he even had to take a step. It's like the waving of the card was symbolic of Mookie probably being hesitant about playing that far towards center field, but then acknowledging the mantra, "In Cora We Trust".

  3. #18
    Deity Bellhorn04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Halifax
    Posts
    23,108
    Quote Originally Posted by Kimmi View Post
    I found this moment absolutely awesome. For me, it's one of the many highlights of the season.

    It's not that he flashed the card, per se. It's that Mookie was waaaayyy out of position for a right fielder, and McCann hit the ball right to him. I don't think he even had to take a step. It's like the waving of the card was symbolic of Mookie probably being hesitant about playing that far towards center field, but then acknowledging the mantra, "In Cora We Trust".
    There you go. We all have our different reactions.

    I don't really know if analytics will be good or bad for the game over the long run. Time will tell.

  4. #19
    The Lemon Drop Kid Northern Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    11,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellhorn04 View Post
    There you go. We all have our different reactions.

    I don't really know if analytics will be good or bad for the game over the long run. Time will tell.
    Aren't there analytics on the analytics?
    Priorities:
    1. Yankees lose
    2. Red Sox win

    don't put up no brick

    Quote Originally Posted by joeycaps View Post
    So shut up because you have no idea on what you say on anything as evidence of some of your ridiculous posts.

  5. #20
    Deity Bellhorn04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Halifax
    Posts
    23,108
    I'm staggered by the predictions of $420 million for Harper and $390 million for Machado. If Harper gets that much it will smash the record currently held by Stanton by $95 million. How can baseball survive that kind of inflation? And both of these guys carry some significant question marks. They're not Mike Trout.

  6. #21
    Deity Bellhorn04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Halifax
    Posts
    23,108
    Quote Originally Posted by Northern Star View Post
    Aren't there analytics on the analytics?
    I think the closest thing to analytics on analytics would be a poll on positive or negative response.

  7. #22
    2013 WS Champions redsoxrules's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    11,665
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellhorn04 View Post
    I'm staggered by the predictions of $420 million for Harper and $390 million for Machado. If Harper gets that much it will smash the record currently held by Stanton by $95 million. How can baseball survive that kind of inflation? And both of these guys carry some significant question marks. They're not Mike Trout.
    Yeah I agree. I've said many times that Harper ain't nothing special. Aside from his one season that he had a 9 WAR hes been around 4 for his other seasons.

    I do not get the love for this guy. I also seen a graph that he was one of the worst base runners in the game this past season.

  8. #23
    Deity moonslav59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Sugar Land, Texas
    Posts
    29,243
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellhorn04 View Post
    I'm staggered by the predictions of $420 million for Harper and $390 million for Machado. If Harper gets that much it will smash the record currently held by Stanton by $95 million. How can baseball survive that kind of inflation? And both of these guys carry some significant question marks. They're not Mike Trout.
    Owners make untold millions through TV, concessions, memorabilia and the gate, but perhaps most of all, they make a tremendous profit when they sell their teams.

    I'm never surprised by how much salaries are increasing. Look at what Oprah makes. Look at what actors and musicians make. Entertainment is big business.

  9. #24
    Deity Bellhorn04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Halifax
    Posts
    23,108
    Quote Originally Posted by moonslav59 View Post
    Owners make untold millions through TV, concessions, memorabilia and the gate, but perhaps most of all, they make a tremendous profit when they sell their teams.

    I'm never surprised by how much salaries are increasing. Look at what Oprah makes. Look at what actors and musicians make. Entertainment is big business.
    I understand. But there has to be some correlation between the inflows and the outflows, and if attendance and TV viewership are going down, the inflows have to go down at some point.

    I thought that the modest increases in the tax threshold in the new CBA were an indicator that salaries were going to level off at least.

  10. #25
    Deity moonslav59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Sugar Land, Texas
    Posts
    29,243
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellhorn04 View Post
    I understand. But there has to be some correlation between the inflows and the outflows, and if attendance and TV viewership are going down, the inflows have to go down at some point.

    I thought that the modest increases in the tax threshold in the new CBA were an indicator that salaries were going to level off at least.
    Well, the threshold and salaries are still going up.

    Maybe owners are making more off jerseys and memorabilia than before.

    TV contracts have been going up. I haven't noticed anyone getting less with new deals.

    Team values are sky-rocketing.

    Attendance and viewership are not causing any of these to go down-- so far.

  11. #26
    Deity Bellhorn04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Halifax
    Posts
    23,108
    Quote Originally Posted by moonslav59 View Post
    Well, the threshold and salaries are still going up.
    The threshold goes from 189 in 2016 to 210 in 2021. That's 11.1% over 5 years, or about 2% compounded annually. That's tiny, really. And of course the penalties are steeper.

  12. #27
    The Lemon Drop Kid Northern Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    11,760
    I always looked at a player's value from the salary compared to onfield production, and criticized deals like Stanton, because there's a ceiling to potential production. I don't think I considered the other factors like merchandise, pulling fans into seats on star value alone. I'm sure teams have their own equations that they use to determine how much they value players internally, that then informs their bids to free agents.
    Priorities:
    1. Yankees lose
    2. Red Sox win

    don't put up no brick

    Quote Originally Posted by joeycaps View Post
    So shut up because you have no idea on what you say on anything as evidence of some of your ridiculous posts.

  13. #28
    Deity moonslav59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Sugar Land, Texas
    Posts
    29,243
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellhorn04 View Post
    The threshold goes from 189 in 2016 to 210 in 2021. That's 11.1% over 5 years, or about 2% compounded annually. That's tiny, really. And of course the penalties are steeper.
    I know it's not much, but if baseball was losing money, shouldn't it be going down?

  14. #29
    Deity Bellhorn04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Halifax
    Posts
    23,108
    Quote Originally Posted by moonslav59 View Post
    I know it's not much, but if baseball was losing money, shouldn't it be going down?
    Clearly it's not losing money. These tiny increases are more indicative of things leveling off, stabilizing.

  15. #30
    Deity moonslav59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Sugar Land, Texas
    Posts
    29,243
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellhorn04 View Post
    Clearly it's not losing money. These tiny increases are more indicative of things leveling off, stabilizing.
    Hasn't it always been increasing this slowly? (Granted, it hasn't been around for too long.)

    The only blip on the near meteoric rise of player's salaries over the years, is when the owners got caught colluding and last winter, wen several of the highest spending teams chose to reset the tax during the same winter.

    This winter will be a good gauge on the trend. All the big players will be in spend mode. Even the Sox may spend $25-30M or more (per year).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •