And those "it won't be the same" seem to get used often through this thread as reasons why "they can't."and saying they "can but it won't be the same".
And those "it won't be the same" seem to get used often through this thread as reasons why "they can't."and saying they "can but it won't be the same".
Cool. I'm saying if they do it won't be the same. I'm also saying I don't think they can do it safely. Or that they will come to an agreement regardless. I also don't think it's smart for many reasons on both sides as well as for public health. All of those are independent, pragmatic ideas and thoughts. I'm sure I am not alone in that. There's a Venn diagram in there somewhere, but I think you're mistaking doubt or skepticism for eagerness. No one wants the season cancelled. I'd love to take my wife to a restaurant right now, but even if I could I wouldn't, because I don't think it'd be safe. That doesn't make me eager to stay cooped up and cook for the 93rd night in a row.And those "it won't be the same" seem to get used often through this thread as reasons why "they can't."
We've had a season where the two teams with the best records didn't make the playoffs. We had a year in the previous decade when the team with the 13th best record won the World Series. As soon as they expanded the playoffs beyond two teams anything was possible. It's still the World Series and it will still count the same as any other year...if it happens.At this point 100+ games can't happen without playoffs extending into Thanksgiving. But even 81 games isn't really a full season and shouldn't be treated as such. Whatever ends up happening, whoever wins the playoffs should be considered the champion of 2020, but not a World Series winner. I completely understand it's a silly semantic thing and does not matter at all in the big picture. It would just feel wrong to me to see the Rangers hoisting the trophy for winning a 60 game season with 50 man rosters.
Yes they are. And 1981 is the year where the two teams with the best records in baseball were the Cards and the Reds and they didn't make the playoffs.Count me as someone who doesn't understand the talk that if the season isn't X games long, it's not legitimate or not "the same". Considering the season, if it happens, is going to be shortened due to circumstances outside anyone's control and for which there was no contingency plan, I think anything that results in competitive games being played and a playoff tournament being held is a great outcome. I don't care if it's 30 games plus playoffs or 162 games plus playoffs.
In 1981 due to a strike, they essentially played two ~50 game seasons and expanded the playoffs by a round. In fact, teams didn't even play the same number of games, in either half (e.g. the Yankees played 56+51=107 total while the Tigers played 57+52=109 total) Are the 1981 Dodgers not World Series Champions?
I'm ok with 1918 not counting if 1941 and 1943 and 1950-1953 (especially 1943, 1952, 1953 since Ted was out) also don't count.I don’t want to pile on, but if we’re questioning the legitimacy of part-season championships then we’re saying that 1918 (where games were missed because of the war and the flu) didn’t count. Although I guess it would be funny if Yankees fans spent decades chanting the wrong year at us.
It's a dry heat.Arizona is fvcking HOT in August.
KC in the summer was famously described as “two rats fvcking in a wool sock,” and AZ is hotter.
The D-Backs do. But none of the spring training facilities in AZ (or FL) are indoors, which is what HPC was responding to...the idea of having teams play the season in their training facilities rather than their home cities.They also play indoors
MLB has rejected the union’s 114-game regular season proposal. They plan no counter. They are sititng on essentially implementing a 48-54-game season for full prorated salaries or 82-ish at less than prorated, sources tell The Post
I have heard greater pessismism today from folks on both sides about MLB launching a season than at any point. People who previously thought the sides would find a way, now expressing at least greater doubt (often more than that).
Yeah it does seem crazy. However.... wouldn't that make it also kind of exciting in a way like never before? Suddenly every team has a chance, unlike most seasons when like 1/3 of the teams have absolutely no shot at all, and we all know it. It would be a crazy fun experience for just once, to have every team truly having a chance.Is it better for the players? I don't see it. Same risks, in a slightly* shorter window for less money? It also ignores sample size for any kind of playoff that wouldn't just be gratuitous. At the 50 game mark last season, the Nationals had the second worst record in baseball. Even 60 seems silly.
Probably something like 45% vs 33%.I guess I'm inferring that "82-ish at less than prorated" is not necessarily the same total money as "48-54-game season for full prorated salaries," right? Or else why would the players even consider the former?
Y'all don't see the difference between a 120 game season and a 50 game season? Or two 50 game seasons and a 120 or 162 game season (that one was creative, I'll grant). Isn't part of the "beauty" of the game the grind of a long season, played almost everyday for 6+ months? Call it fun or exciting, ok, I can certainly see that and probably would even be on board with it once it got going. But legitimate? I'd have trouble with that and I'm not even someone you'd call a "purist". I'm not exactly going to lose sleep over it, but if the Sox won it, I wouldn't exactly brag about it. 50 games, with 40-50 man rosters wold be like being valedictorian of summer school.I don’t want to pile on, but if we’re questioning the legitimacy of part-season championships then we’re saying that 1918 (where games were missed because of the war and the flu) didn’t count. Although I guess it would be funny if Yankees fans spent decades chanting the wrong year at us.
MLB and union are pretty much in agreement on a couple things: expanded playoffs and universal DH. And they are close to agreeing on the all-important health protocols. Of course if MLB imposes a very short season — 40-50 games — all bets are off on anything and everything else.
As I’ve assumed all along, I believe that’s the plan.I guess I'm inferring that "82-ish at less than prorated" is not necessarily the same total money as "48-54-game season for full prorated salaries," right? Or else why would the players even consider the former?
Agree. Anything less than 81 games seems like a sham. Don't get me wrong, a sprint would be fun, but I would slap an asterisk on the eventual champion's achievement. Massive asterisk if it's MFY.Y'all don't see the difference between a 120 game season and a 50 game season? Or two 50 game seasons and a 120 or 162 game season (that one was creative, I'll grant). Isn't part of the "beauty" of the game the grind of a long season, played almost everyday for 6+ months? Call it fun or exciting, ok, I can certainly see that and probably would even be on board with it once it got going. But legitimate? I'd have trouble with that and I'm not even someone you'd call a "purist". I'm not exactly going to lose sleep over it, but if the Sox won it, I wouldn't exactly brag about it. 50 games, with 40-50 man rosters wold be like being valedictorian of summer school.
Unless of course those other sports returns end up being disasters or failures in one way or another.Baseball looks horrible in this. Both sides, players and owners. NHL, NBA, NFL and international sports (soccer) are all back, or finding a way to come back. Really is truly pathetic. Owners crying over their lost millions and players using the excuse they could get a virus that in all probability wouldn’t effect them at all, instead of just admitting it’s all about the money.
Not an expert on the subject, but this article states that because the NBA has salary caps based on revenue it's easier to reach agreement. That they had already completed most of the regular season helps as well:Baseball looks horrible in this. Both sides, players and owners. NHL, NBA, NFL and international sports (soccer) are all back, or finding a way to come back. Really is truly pathetic. Owners crying over their lost millions and players using the excuse they could get a virus that in all probability wouldn’t effect them at all, instead of just admitting it’s all about the money.
Sure, but it seems doubtful. My facility is testing hundreds of patients and staff a week and we have not had anyone symptomatic in weeks, and I'm dealing with an elderly and vulnerable population. We have had a few asymptomatic people test positive but again, that's a handful in hundreds of tests and they have had no issues. This is a far cry from say March/early April. I just cannot see with even basic precautions how this would become a disaster.Unless of course those other sports returns end up being disasters or failures in one way or another.
There's a chance that just happened yesterday as Japanese baseball approaches the delayed beginning of their season.Unless of course those other sports returns end up being disasters or failures in one way or another.
That, and also how the economics affect individual players, particularly in a football vs. baseball discussion. Even the average professional baseball player on the low end of the salary scale is in a far better position to sit out 2020 than the average non-star NFL player. Add in the militancy of the MLBPA versus the historically weaker NFLPA - if the NFL players had more bargaining power, the news stories would likely be very different, given the much higher viral transmission risk football players face.In regard to your last sentence: Of course it's all about the money and that's true for every professional sport.
Maybe "disaster" is too strong a word because we're talking in relative terms. But, in light of that story above about the Japanese League, what does even a "few asymptomatic people testing positive" mean for a US sports league, both from a "what will the players and staff do?" standpoint, and a PR standpoint.Sure, but it seems doubtful. My facility is testing hundreds of patients and staff a week and we have not had anyone symptomatic in weeks, and I'm dealing with an elderly and vulnerable population. We have had a few asymptomatic people test positive but again, that's a handful in hundreds of tests and they have had no issues. This is a far cry from say March/early April. I just cannot see with even basic precautions how this would become a disaster.
OK, so basically nothing here is correct and/or relevant. What's happening or not happening in other countries is pretty irrelevant. None of the NBA, NHL or NFL are back (do I live in a different world from you?) and if I was setting odds in Vegas, I'd say there is at least a 50 percent chance that MLB will be playing games before the NBA will, as their current plan is aiming for July 31.Baseball looks horrible in this. Both sides, players and owners. NHL, NBA, NFL and international sports (soccer) are all back, or finding a way to come back. Really is truly pathetic. Owners crying over their lost millions and players using the excuse they could get a virus that in all probability wouldn’t effect them at all, instead of just admitting it’s all about the money.
You could do that, you could also ride any pending Free Agents you aren't planning to resign in case things get interesting. Workman, JBJ. Any others?At this point if I am the Red Sox, I would treat whatever season they have as an extended Spring Training and not have any pitcher go more than 2-3 innings and rest regular players liberally. No one is going to care about these games and the team in non-competitive from a talent standpoint. Just mail it in, maybe see if you can trade for some younger talent from teams that are financially strapped by this and think 2021 and beyond
I’m sure GMs would have a good enough idea of their needs. My thought is that many more teams will be in the race for the whole season so there would be far fewer sellers.Will there be a trade deadline? There has to be, but I can’t imagine a GM would know what his teams need are after 25 games (of whenever the day will be).
The shortened season means a less talented team has a better chance to compete. Get off to a hot start in the first 2 weeks and you're right in the pennant race for half the season at least. And few guys playing over their heads for 2 months would be vastly more impactful than in a full season.At this point if I am the Red Sox, I would treat whatever season they have as an extended Spring Training and not have any pitcher go more than 2-3 innings and rest regular players liberally. No one is going to care about these games and the team in non-competitive from a talent standpoint. Just mail it in, maybe see if you can trade for some younger talent from teams that are financially strapped by this and think 2021 and beyond
The playoffs are presumably going to be expanded,and that’s a bit of a crapshoot. It’s hard for me to see the argument that they should mail it in with the Blue Jays, Orioles and Marlins in the same league; depending on the number of teams that make it the Ted Sox May be favorites to make the post-season.At this point if I am the Red Sox, I would treat whatever season they have as an extended Spring Training and not have any pitcher go more than 2-3 innings and rest regular players liberally. No one is going to care about these games and the team in non-competitive from a talent standpoint. Just mail it in, maybe see if you can trade for some younger talent from teams that are financially strapped by this and think 2021 and beyond
Wasn't there just 21K new cases like two days ago from the riots?Sure, but it seems doubtful. My facility is testing hundreds of patients and staff a week and we have not had anyone symptomatic in weeks, and I'm dealing with an elderly and vulnerable population. We have had a few asymptomatic people test positive but again, that's a handful in hundreds of tests and they have had no issues. This is a far cry from say March/early April. I just cannot see with even basic precautions how this would become a disaster.
Are they abandoning leagues? I hadn't seen that.The playoffs are presumably going to be expanded,and that’s a bit of a crapshoot. It’s hard for me to see the argument that they should mail it in with the Blue Jays, Orioles and Marlins in the same league; depending on the number of teams that make it the Ted Sox May be favorites to make the post-season.
Last I saw, the plan was for teams to play their division and the teams in their corresponding division in the other league. So for the Sox, their schedule would include the Rays, Yankees, Orioles, Blue Jays, Mets, Phillies, Braves, Marlins, and Nationals.Are they abandoning leagues? I hadn't seen that.
That was considered, and I'm sure the owners would have been all for it. I don't think the players were keen on spending that much time away from home.Honestly, why have players travel at all, since there's no home field advantage with no fans? Find central location and just let them but nearby, reduce risk and cost.
Is there no home field advantage just because there are no fans? I can see that argument for pretty much any other team sport since the playing field/surface is the same everywhere. Absent fans, the Garden is no different than MSG or Staples Center or Barclays Center. Ballparks have unique features that can affect how the game is played. Maybe not significantly in some places, but Fenway is not Yankee Stadium which is not the Trop which is not Camden Yards. I have to think there's at least some advantage to playing in their true home park versus a generic spring training facility or a neutral site.So presumably it would be to reduce travel or accommodate the tiny schedule, either to the goal of reducing risk? Honestly, why have players travel at all, since there's no home field advantage with no fans? Find central location and just let them but nearby, reduce risk and cost.
This is literally dumber and dumber the more it advances.
Fair enough; I don't think it's that big of a deal end of day, but I see your angle.Is there no home field advantage just because there are no fans? I can see that argument for pretty much any other team sport since the playing field/surface is the same everywhere. Absent fans, the Garden is no different than MSG or Staples Center or Barclays Center. Ballparks have unique features that can affect how the game is played. Maybe not significantly in some places, but Fenway is not Yankee Stadium which is not the Trop which is not Camden Yards. I have to think there's at least some advantage to playing in their true home park versus a generic spring training facility or a neutral site.
As an Austinite, I can tell you that our Texas state government is not staffed with the sharpest knives in the drawer. We're giving the virus a homefield advantage.The Rangers and Astros can allow fan attendance up to 50% of stadium capacity.
View: https://mobile.twitter.com/Evan_P_Grant/status/1268654467957829633
View: https://twitter.com/MelissaBlasius/status/1269020760393146374Banner Hospital (largest healthcare delivery system in AZ) says ICU beds are nearing 100 percent capacity. Doctors urge people in the community to act now to reduce transmission of COVID-19.