The counter to that is if 162 games is enough games to create separation, then add adding playoff teams shouldn't be necessary. A team that wins 85 games has already demonstrated they're not as good as the team with 98 wins. They don't need an extra 3 (or 5 or 7) games to re-inforce (or negate) that conclusion.So you're proposing a regular season that would be roughly 100-110 games? Lop off about 1/3 of the season? I'm not sure that's enough games to create separation. IMO, if you increase playoff teams and cut that many games out of the season you're more likely to have multiple teams clustered with identical records. You might wind up with 8-10 teams in a division with the top six W-L records.
I'm not necessarily arguing for 162 or more playoff teams, but rather against 100-110 if you're going to add teams. I think it has great potential to create a log jam at the end of the season that may call for multiple playoff games just to get into the playoffs.The counter to that is if 162 games is enough games to create separation, then add adding playoff teams shouldn't be necessary. A team that wins 85 games has already demonstrated they're not as good as the team with 98 wins. They don't need an extra 3 (or 5 or 7) games to re-inforce (or negate) that conclusion.
I suppose, but if you're cutting out nearly two months worth of games, you've got time for those tiebreakers.I'm not necessarily arguing for 162 or more playoff teams, but rather against 100-110 if you're going to add teams. I think it has great potential to create a log jam at the end of the season that may call for multiple playoff games just to get into the playoffs.
Anywho, I don't see either side looking to looking to give up that much $$$.I suppose, but if you're cutting out nearly two months worth of games, you've got time for those tiebreakers.
And it's an absurd demand of the owners. Players are expected to receive no salary increases - which is to say declining real wages - for the next three years?This is a very reasonable ask from the MLBPA, and again it’s worth noting that this would not force any owner to spend any additional money that they chose not to.
View: https://twitter.com/jonheyman/status/1498755257773481984?s=21
I'd be thrilled to be proven wrong, but I don't think MLB is really negotiating a deal anymore, if they ever were. Instead, this is about finding a way to make the players look responsible for what MLB intends to be a very long stretch without baseball. I really hope popular players are willing to stand up in front of microphones and explain to fans what's going on, because the owners are clearly the villains here and should be cast as such.
View: https://twitter.com/JeffPassan/status/1498759338567024651And it's an absurd demand of the owners. Players are expected to receive no salary increases - which is to say declining real wages - for the next three years?
After playing through a horrendous CBA (that they admittedly voluntarily, but stupidly, agreed to) for the previous five years.And it's an absurd demand of the owners. Players are expected to receive no salary increases - which is to say declining real wages - for the next three years?
The last week was an incredible charade. Hope the players step up their PR game.They barely budged. It's ovah.
View: https://twitter.com/JeffPassan/status/1498761391049744389?s=20&t=pAIZWjR53A6Pev7tbaYaJQ
Unfortunately no one in America knows who any current baseball players are. Which is kind of the problem underlying this whole labor situation.I'd be thrilled to be proven wrong, but I don't think MLB is really negotiating a deal anymore, if they ever were. Instead, this is about finding a way to make the players look responsible for what MLB intends to be a very long stretch without baseball. I really hope popular players are willing to stand up in front of microphones and explain to fans what's going on, because the owners are clearly the villains here and should be cast as such.
The shift is only part of the equation though. Theo Epstein was on a Simmons pod at some point last year where he talked about not only the shift being an issue, but how the scientific advances behind pitching far outweigh those behind hitting. One of his major points iirc was that even without the shift hitters face a much tougher battle in this era than ever before, so they'd still be prone to trying for too much power since it's too difficult to string together enough hits to make small ball effective. Would be interested to know how much involvement (if any) Theo has behind the scenes here.Hitters absolutely COULD learn to hit to all fields, thus defeating the shift. The shift works because players don't want to - or can't presently given their commitment to pulling the ball for power - hit to all fields. It's the launch angle revolution, the fact that "chicks dig the long ball" - whatever euphemism you want to use to talk about how pulling the ball for power is where the most production is and thus where the most money is. Even if it makes for a less fun overall baseball experience.
One of the issues corresponding to all this is the rise in strikeouts. We have so many more pitchers throwing at such high velocity that it's made hitting - already the hardest thing to do in sports - even harder. But players are still swinging for the fences anyway, maybe figuring they won't hit the ball very often but if they do, they might as well try to send it a mile. However, they'd likely make more contact if they chose to, you know, hit for contact and spray it to all fields.
And if they make contact that way, hitting it where defenders aren't ought to lead to more men on base. More men on base means more base running action - which means more exciting fielding plays, more chances for steals, and more runners going from first to third, etc.
People want to see runs and action. Home runs obviously are fun and people like seeing those. But they also like seeing their team score by dynamic base running and exciting action in the field. Here are some charts, showing data from 1969-2021.
Runs per game by year
View attachment 49791
OBP by year
View attachment 49792
OPS by year
View attachment 49793
HR per game by year
View attachment 49794
Ks per game by year
View attachment 49795
Ks have gone up. HRs have gone up. OPS has gone up. This is all because guys are swinging for the fences. Hitting for more power, and also striking out more. But also, OBP has gone down. Guys are actually getting on base a lot less. And runs scored hasn't gone up THAT much. There was the steroid-era offense in the 90 and early 2000s that are seen in that big peak, but in 1970, teams averaged 4.34 runs per game. In 2021, teams averaged 4.53 runs per game. Not a huge difference. And a lot less action in 2021 than 1970.
1970 (individual team averages)
- 4.34 runs per game
- 0.88 home runs per game
- 0.49 stolen bases per game
- .254/.326/.385/.711
- 13.10 total bases per game
2021 (individual team averages)
- 4.53 runs per game
- 1.22 home runs per game
- 0.46 stolen bases per game
- .244/.317/.411/.728
- 13.69 total bases per game
There is, in other words, more than one way to skin a cat. If the goal is to produce offense, you can get there by putting the ball in play, striking out less, running the bases well, and putting pressure on the defense. You don't just have to stand there trying to jack everything.
TL;DR - I don't think the "solution" to the "problem" is to ban the shift. It's to get hitters to put the ball in play more and to use all fields. You don't change the game to accommodate their unwillingness to do so.
Recent history doesn’t bear this out. What is it about 162 games that would prevent this? Also, what does being the best over the course of a 162-game season even get you in today’s MLB?So you're proposing a regular season that would be roughly 100-110 games? Lop off about 1/3 of the season? I'm not sure that's enough games to create separation. IMO, if you increase playoff teams and cut that many games out of the season you're more likely to have multiple teams clustered with identical records. You might wind up with 8-10 teams in a division with the top six W-L records.
Expanded playoffs aren't going to bring fans back because diminishing the regular season isn't going to get more fans to watch the regular season, it's going to get more people to tune out and just wait until the playoffs to pay attention.Recent history doesn’t bear this out. What is it about 162 games that would prevent this? Also, what does being the best over the course of a 162-game season even get you in today’s MLB?
I don’t know, it’s very weird to watch this conversation where some people in this thread are arguing that baseball is losing fans left and right and others are then arguing that nothing about the game should change. I don’t know that expanded playoffs would bring young fans in and casual fans back, but it’s an idea.
I don't really have my fingers on the pulse of the entire fanbase of baseball, but I really haven't heard of anyone on the owners' side. Most of the press have come down pretty clearly on the side of laying the blame on ownership greed. It's more likely that fans react with apathy rather than taking the side of management.The last week was an incredible charade. Hope the players step up their PR game.
Well one of the scientific advances was the spider tack. If baseball outlawed all that for good and said rosin is all you can use, then that would likely bring crazy spin rates and such down and give the hitters a little chance.The shift is only part of the equation though. Theo Epstein was on a Simmons pod at some point last year where he talked about not only the shift being an issue, but how the scientific advances behind pitching far outweigh those behind hitting. One of his major points iirc was that even without the shift hitters face a much tougher battle in this era than ever before, so they'd still be prone to trying for too much power since it's too difficult to string together enough hits to make small ball effective. Would be interested to know how much involvement (if any) Theo has behind the scenes here.
Yah. The fact that they think they can use misinformation to try and win the PR battle is insane.I don't really have my fingers on the pulse of the entire fanbase of baseball, but I really haven't heard of anyone on the owners' side. Most of the press have come down pretty clearly on the side of laying the blame on ownership greed. It's more likely that fans react with apathy rather than taking the side of management.
I dunno, I'm hearing a lot of "both sides are at fault" and "why don't the players meet in the middle?" or "millionaires vs billionaires" narratives out there. I think there are certainly more fans on the players side compared to owners, but the majority don't pay attention and are angry at "both sides."I don't really have my fingers on the pulse of the entire fanbase of baseball, but I really haven't heard of anyone on the owners' side. Most of the press have come down pretty clearly on the side of laying the blame on ownership greed. It's more likely that fans react with apathy rather than taking the side of management.
Minimum salary seems to be the easiest thing to solve since we're talking a few thousand bucks per team per year.Yah. The fact that they think they can use misinformation to try and win the PR battle is insane.
i honestly hope this goes in front of the NLRB so that they can rip the owners a new one. It’s been clear as day that the owners never had any Intention of negotiating in good faith. And that all they wanted to do was break the union
View: https://twitter.com/sean_forman/status/1498763965698088965
sean is the president of sports reference
This is disgusting. Even Bud never did crap like this. This state of this sport is a disaster.While there's no deal, Manfred is looking like he wants to get a tee time at PGA National.
View: https://twitter.com/MikeSilvermanBB/status/1498739860009594898
Honest question: WHY NOT? I mean, if there's no present collective bargaining agreement, what's to stop those players from playing? Is there a rule within the minor league teams? Or is it a MLB rule? If it's a MLB rule, just break it. I mean, right now there ARE no MLB rules since they have no CBA, right?The people this is the worst for is the prospects already on 40 man rosters (guys like Duran and Downs for BOS), who cannot participate in the minor league season if this is not settled.
They can go to Korea or Japan to play. Any player can do this.Honest question: WHY NOT? I mean, if there's no present collective bargaining agreement, what's to stop those players from playing? Is there a rule within the minor league teams? Or is it a MLB rule? If it's a MLB rule, just break it. I mean, right now there ARE no MLB rules since they have no CBA, right?
Because they want to pocket the money. They don’t care about winning. They care about their bottom line.I don't understand why owners like Bob Nutting care about CBT thresholds. It's not like the Pirates are making a serious attempt to win baseball games.
which should be exhibit A when the players file with the NLRB.
If there's a lockout, please please please let us watch Jacob DeGrom throw 99 MPH sliders to the Nippon Ham Fighters.They can go to Korea or Japan to play. Any player can do this.
See I don't think the data necessarily supports your theory - I could just as easily make the opposing argument:Hitters absolutely COULD learn to hit to all fields, thus defeating the shift. The shift works because players don't want to - or can't presently given their commitment to pulling the ball for power - hit to all fields. It's the launch angle revolution, the fact that "chicks dig the long ball" - whatever euphemism you want to use to talk about how pulling the ball for power is where the most production is and thus where the most money is. Even if it makes for a less fun overall baseball experience.
One of the issues corresponding to all this is the rise in strikeouts. We have so many more pitchers throwing at such high velocity that it's made hitting - already the hardest thing to do in sports - even harder. But players are still swinging for the fences anyway, maybe figuring they won't hit the ball very often but if they do, they might as well try to send it a mile. However, they'd likely make more contact if they chose to, you know, hit for contact and spray it to all fields.
And if they make contact that way, hitting it where defenders aren't ought to lead to more men on base. More men on base means more base running action - which means more exciting fielding plays, more chances for steals, and more runners going from first to third, etc.
People want to see runs and action. Home runs obviously are fun and people like seeing those. But they also like seeing their team score by dynamic base running and exciting action in the field. Here are some charts, showing data from 1969-2021.
Runs per game by year
View attachment 49791
OBP by year
View attachment 49792
OPS by year
View attachment 49793
HR per game by year
View attachment 49794
Ks per game by year
View attachment 49795
Ks have gone up. HRs have gone up. OPS has gone up. This is all because guys are swinging for the fences. Hitting for more power, and also striking out more. But also, OBP has gone down. Guys are actually getting on base a lot less. And runs scored hasn't gone up THAT much. There was the steroid-era offense in the 90 and early 2000s that are seen in that big peak, but in 1970, teams averaged 4.34 runs per game. In 2021, teams averaged 4.53 runs per game. Not a huge difference. And a lot less action in 2021 than 1970.
1970 (individual team averages)
- 4.34 runs per game
- 0.88 home runs per game
- 0.49 stolen bases per game
- .254/.326/.385/.711
- 13.10 total bases per game
2021 (individual team averages)
- 4.53 runs per game
- 1.22 home runs per game
- 0.46 stolen bases per game
- .244/.317/.411/.728
- 13.69 total bases per game
There is, in other words, more than one way to skin a cat. If the goal is to produce offense, you can get there by putting the ball in play, striking out less, running the bases well, and putting pressure on the defense. You don't just have to stand there trying to jack everything.
TL;DR - I don't think the "solution" to the "problem" is to ban the shift. It's to get hitters to put the ball in play more and to use all fields. You don't change the game to accommodate their unwillingness to do so.
And again, the question no one is asking: if this is essentially about the owners trying to put restraints on the few mega-spenders, why was Steve Cohen approved 25-4 when it was crystal clear what he’d do if approved?I don't understand why owners like Bob Nutting care about CBT thresholds. It's not like the Pirates are making a serious attempt to win baseball games.
We got Red Sox teams in Worcester, Portland Me, Greenville SC and Salem VA. We have other teams in Hartford, Norwich, and Somerset NJ.We need a Lockout game thread so we can spit and cuss. Baseball = Summer and not having it will be devastating to so many.
They did for like 3 months in 2019 (iirc) and plan on repeating the strategy once every 10 yearsI don't understand why owners like Bob Nutting care about CBT thresholds. It's not like the Pirates are making a serious attempt to win baseball games.