MLB has to be anticipating more positive tests over the next couple days from the Phillies, right? are they just going to squeeze every regular season game they can for TV money, even with multiple teams going down?
Baseball is so terrible at marketing.Based on what’s happened so far, I think it’s going to take a lot for Manfred to actually shut this whole season down. I would guess at least four or five teams need to be at Marlins-level outbreak before he starts thinking about it, maybe not even then.
Baseball is ninety percent mental and the other half is physical.Baseball is "the cerebral game" apparently played by idiots.
Sure they are. Happens in the minors all the time. Youth and amateur baseball too. Maybe the phrase you're looking for is they're not "MLB baseball". Of course, every year there are official games shortened to 5, 6, 7 innings due to weather. How is a pair of 7 inning games in a double header any different?7 inning games are not “baseball”
And tee ball is ‘baseball’ too. It’s a joke. It’s not even spring training level legit.Sure they are. Happens in the minors all the time. Youth and amateur baseball too. Maybe the phrase you're looking for is they're not "MLB baseball". Of course, every year there are official games shortened to 5, 6, 7 innings due to weather. How is a pair of 7 inning games in a double header any different?
That’s quite a rational take, it’s just not one that was shared by a good chunk of the community here. We got a lot of attempts to compare it to strike shortened season, seasons that were during world wars or other pandemics but none of them were as small as 60 games.I think the ship sailed on this being any kind of a legit season the minute 60 games was announced. Watching some facsimile of MLB, strictly for distraction and entertainment, without the usual urgency regarding results, standings, etc. is the best they can offer, for as long as that is possible. There was never any way a "championship" from this year was going to be credible. So, 7 inning games, and whatever else, doesn't really bother me. The sounds(even if fake), and the sight of baseball has been nice for a few days. I highly doubt it has much longer to go, but I'll enjoy it while it's here.
Honestly, 81 games felt like the floor for something like a real season to me. Totally arbitrary, I know, but getting at least a half season in was needed to take this too seriously, IMO.That’s quite a rational take, it’s just not one that was shared by a good chunk of the community here. We got a lot of attempts to compare it to strike shortened season, seasons that were during world wars or other pandemics but none of them were as small as 60 games.
Eno Sarris wrote a piece in June or July, before they settled on 60 games, that mathematically determined that 60 games was a big tipping point to determine the best team. I can find and link it again if you want, but it was behind The Athletic's paywall.Honestly, 81 games felt like the floor for something like a real season to me. Totally arbitrary, I know, but getting at least a half season in was needed to take this too seriously, IMO.
Not an Athletic subscriber unfortunately, but I appreciate the offer. And I've no doubt there's a legit analytical case for that argument. 81 was just a feel thing for me, and my own intensity of interest.Eno Sarris wrote a piece in June or July, before they settled on 60 games, that mathematically determined that 60 games was a big tipping point to determine the best team. I can find and link it again if you want, but it was behind The Athletic's paywall.
Yeah, that's definitely an interesting analysis. Appreciate the pull.I will pull the crucial chart, interesting that it looks like there is not a huge difference between 60 and 80 games.
I've seen this sentiment expressed many times over the last few days, and I'm wondering who people think will actually cancel the season. The players want to play and earn their salaries. The owners and their ineffective commissioner want to get to the playoffs and collect their postseason money. The federal government wants people to think life can carry on as normal and that the pandemic isn't a big deal. Individual state governments may raise objections, but the would be under significant pressure not to ruin the whole season for everyone on account of one or two teams in their state. So I really think we're in this for the long haul now, even if it means we end up with some teams playing 20-30 more games than others within an already shortened season.The sounds(even if fake), and the sight of baseball has been nice for a few days. I highly doubt it has much longer to go, but I'll enjoy it while it's here.
I think this is right. They aren't likely to pull the plug until they absolutely have to, whenever that is.I agree with CP: you don’t start the season unless you intend to finish it. I have to think they anticipated positives and cancellations. I suppose there’s a point at which you quit but we aren’t close to there yet.
The main problem seems to be the underlying idea that to qualify for the post season, one ought to have beat out other teams through a mostly balanced competitive slate. Every year there's some kind of unbalancing randomness, especially with inter-league play. Here, it depends on just how unbalanced things become before questions of fundamental fairness and the integrity of the game are raised.CP does have a good point. I think a bunch of us have assumed that the MLB will run into serious scheduling problems trying to make up all the games that are getting postponed. But why should we assume that's the case? The season is already a weird sideshow, who gives a crap if some teams play 50 games, some play 55, some even play 45... if it's a team in playoff contention, they'll figure out how much they need to make up to make things work.
It's possible this was expected all along. Schedule 60 with assumption that some would get postponed (with no realistic option to make them up) and hope we get to 50 for everyone.CP does have a good point. I think a bunch of us have assumed that the MLB will run into serious scheduling problems trying to make up all the games that are getting postponed. But why should we assume that's the case? The season is already a weird sideshow, who gives a crap if some teams play 50 games, some play 55, some even play 45... if it's a team in playoff contention, they'll figure out how much they need to make up to make things work.
If they're postponing for a single positive (not sure this a single or actually a few), this season has no chance.Heyman reporting that tonight's Brewers/Cardinals game is postponed due to a positive COVID test.
Yeah---I thought the plan was that if there was a positive that person would get quarantined. Did they really not anticipate that if Player A tests positive that he was likely around other folks before?They are postponing a game for 1 positive test? If that is the case, they need a new plan - not just for this year, but 2021 and perhaps beyond.
At this point, I agree they are going to try to muddle through the season unless the situation gets much worse - and by that I mean widespread outbreaks on multiple teams in multiple divisions that effectively require them to cancel their seasons (maybe we are already there with the Marlins - not entirely clear).I've seen this sentiment expressed many times over the last few days, and I'm wondering who people think will actually cancel the season. The players want to play and earn their salaries. The owners and their ineffective commissioner want to get to the playoffs and collect their postseason money. The federal government wants people to think life can carry on as normal and that the pandemic isn't a big deal. Individual state governments may raise objections, but the would be under significant pressure not to ruin the whole season for everyone on account of one or two teams in their state. So I really think we're in this for the long haul now, even if it means we end up with some teams playing 20-30 more games than others within an already shortened season.
Looks like its multiple (possibly 2?) players, which makes more sense.They are postponing a game for 1 positive test? If that is the case, they need a new plan - not just for this year, but 2021 and perhaps beyond.
I agree with this. I’ve never really understood the immediate rush to say “ITS DOOMED!” in a lot of instances (not just baseball) just because there are so many unknowns. But yeah, if one positive is all it takes then the sand is basically on the bottom of the hourglassIf they're postponing for a single positive (not sure this a single or actually a few), this season has no chance.
Edit: Beaten by NJ
Fasle negatives range from 100% on day 1 to ~70% on day 4. (Pro tip: that is not good)Looks like its multiple (possibly 2?) players, which makes more sense.
Wish we had a sense of the false positive and false negative rates, so we could get a handle on p(virus | positive test).
Of course they can postpone games. Five days ago a team played a game despite having three positive tests and it turns out they have 17 (and counting) players plus coaches who have tested positive. And their opponent in that game has been quarantined all week in case they were infected (so far two staffers have tested positive).Still, even with 2 positive tests, they cannot postpone games. That essentially means that for the next several years, or indefinitely, they will be constantly canceling games. As @BaseballJones mentioned above, even with a vaccine (which we don't have) it is not going to go away.
So, cancel baseball forever then? Because 2 players testing positive will be a thing next year, and beyond. If that is their plan (postpone for 1 or 2 positives), they will never be able to play a complete season moving forward.Of course they can postpone games. Five days ago a team played a game despite having three positive tests and it turns out they have 17 (and counting) players plus coaches who have tested positive. And their opponent in that game has been quarantined all week in case they were infected (so far two staffers have tested positive).
Perhaps the bottom line here is THEY SHOULDN'T BE FUCKING PLAYING AT ALL.
From the abstract it looks like it bottoms out at ~20% after 8 days. If there haven't been improvements since that study, suggests that 2 negative tests in a row is probably not enough. Having trouble finding anything on false positive rate/specificity and the data that's out there does seem to be a bit sketchy + its a bit early to be confident in these things (at least from the perspective of being a data driven field that reacts to real world events, although not medical related, I tend to have some skepticism of the first few studies that come out on a big new event, until it replicates a bunch).Fasle negatives range from 100% on day 1 to ~70% on day 4. (Pro tip: that is not good)
https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/journal-scans/2020/05/18/13/42/variation-in-false-negative-rate-of-reverse
The above is why they have to shut it down with 2 positives for now. Pretty good chance that 1 - they have some pre-symptomatic players who will test positive going forward (as with the Marlins, who went from 4 to 18 pretty quick) and 2. If the study posted is more or less accurate, pretty solid chance that there is at least one false negative on the team. They need to do everything they can to stop this from turning into a Marlins situation (may already be too late, though) and also playing through it and having someone on another team catch it would accelerate shutting the whole season down.Still, even with 2 positive tests, they cannot postpone games. That essentially means that for the next several years, or indefinitely, they will be constantly canceling games. As @BaseballJones mentioned above, even with a vaccine (which we don't have) it is not going to go away.
If Twins are tested, they'll need to wait for results so there's a chance that Twin's and Indians would be postponed, yes?St Louis was just in Minnesota. I’m guessing all the Twins players and coaches now need to be tested immediately and the visiting clubhouse cleaned before the Indians game tonight.