Play all ... 154
- Thread starter E5 Yaz
- Start date
And hasn't it been mentioned that 154 is perfect for scheduling, if they want to make everything even for travel purposes. Probably the easiest way to achieve parity for travel schedules.
154 is fine (and probably the right thing to do based on the above reasons) but I'm not sure I'd want to go lower than that for selfish reasons. I love having baseball on daily.
How would this affect schedule making? Less four game series?
Right now every team gets 6 series vs division opponents, 2 series against non-division same-league opponents, 1 series against each team of an interleague division, and one "rivalry" interleague series. I'd like to see that kept
Right now every team gets 6 series vs division opponents, 2 series against non-division same-league opponents, 1 series against each team of an interleague division, and one "rivalry" interleague series. I'd like to see that kept
According to this article (http://houston.cbslocal.com/2015/04/06/mlb-154-game-schedule-could-make-baseball-more-relevant-again/) the easiest way to do it would just be to decrease the interleague games to 12, a 2 game series against each team in one division(same as all the other teams in your division) and then 4 against your "natural rival". He makes some other proposals that seem reasonable to me with the end result being the regular season ending on Labor Day.
You don't have to reduce the number of games to reduce the travel. Play longer series. If the players are willing to schedule some doubleheaders, they could probably build some downtime into the schedule in the form of a three day break several weeks before the ASG and another several weeks after it.
I don't think you'll see them agree to double headers, but the rise of the two game series is just moronic and needs to be done away with.
I totally agree on the two game series. I'd like to see five games become the standard series length, at least for divisional opponents. You'd play 20 games against division opponents in four series instead of 19 games in six. The way it is now, you play three games this week, then you play three next week and sometimes the pitching matchups skew dramatically for one team over the other. A five game series is once around the rotation so everyone sees everyone. And by reducing the travel from six series to four, you're reducing travel a fair bit.
If teams are willing to give up on having the home/road balance roughly equal for every team every year, they could play one five game series against non-divisional league opponents and alternate locations every year.
Do that and you've got 80 divisional games, 50 non divisional league games, and 30 games left to make 160. Take a division and have home and homes of three games, or have give games against each team in a division and reserve five for the special rival series. Either way gets you to roughly the same schedule as now with substantially less travel involved.
I wouldn't think the players would go for doubleheaders either, but if they were trading that for what are essentially two more all-star breaks with no chance of them having to actually go play the ASG, they might be interested.
Mind you, I'd bitch endlessly during those breaks, but them's the breaks.
19 games X 4 division opponents = 76
3 games against one inter league division that rotates every year, one more 3 with the stupid natural rival = 18
6 games X the other 10 teams in your league = 60
154 game schedule comprised of 3/4 game sets.
I have no idea if that's possible with practical travel logistics.
20 games against division opponents = 80
10 games against other league opponents = 100
Fuck interleague play, make the season longer, gimme doubleheaders, reduce travel, give the players more off days.
What, not gonna happen?
10 games against other league opponents = 100
Fuck interleague play, make the season longer, gimme doubleheaders, reduce travel, give the players more off days.
What, not gonna happen?
Are we moving Houston back to the NL, expanding or two teams not playing all the time?
Personally I am not a big fan of divisions, both because of the unbalanced schedules and having to see the same 4 teams for almost half the season. But after adding the 2nd wild card, it seems unlikely that they will scrap divisions. Making 154 games work though is pretty simple, just take 2 games out against divisional opponents.
16 games (4 x 4 games) against division = 64 games
6 games (2 x 3 games) against the rest of the league = 60 games
6 games (2 x 3 games) against an NL division, rotate every year = 30 games
It doesn't really reduce travel, but it would add a half dozen extra off days.
16 games (4 x 4 games) against division = 64 games
6 games (2 x 3 games) against the rest of the league = 60 games
6 games (2 x 3 games) against an NL division, rotate every year = 30 games
It doesn't really reduce travel, but it would add a half dozen extra off days.
Why in the name of Cthulhu are self-professed baseball fans arguing in favor of less baseball? "waaahhh, mista Manfred, I can't recover in this nice charter flight before my 5-hour-a-day job standing around an outfield!" Never thought I'd see the day. Hey, look, speed junkies are claiming they need their speed! No one could have anticipated THAT plot twist!
Okay, fine then - start the season a week earlier, biasing venues towards warmer climates for the first few weeks, balanced out by a preference for northern cities in the heat of the summer. Seven more offdays in the season. Schedule some doubleheaders if need be, the customers will be just as happy to pay to see 2/3s of a team play 2/3s of a team twice a day. Just not often enough to make a farce out of 25-man rosters.
But cut the nostalgic crap for 154-game seasons, as if that number was handed down on stone tablets. If the current season was 180 games, they'd be arguing that 170 was just perfect. If they were playing 154 games today, the MLBPA would be saying that's too much for the rigors required of a modern training regimen and it really ought to be 140. They're a union, they're negotiating a CBA, they need leverage chips for a multi-pronged agreement. All well and good, but sophisticated fans ought to see that for what it is, and not buy in so readily to the idea that players could play 162 game seasons every year since 1961 but suddenly find themselves overwhelmed by the demands of a 19th-century pastoral game. Let's root, root root for more baseball being played. Or at least no less.
Okay, fine then - start the season a week earlier, biasing venues towards warmer climates for the first few weeks, balanced out by a preference for northern cities in the heat of the summer. Seven more offdays in the season. Schedule some doubleheaders if need be, the customers will be just as happy to pay to see 2/3s of a team play 2/3s of a team twice a day. Just not often enough to make a farce out of 25-man rosters.
But cut the nostalgic crap for 154-game seasons, as if that number was handed down on stone tablets. If the current season was 180 games, they'd be arguing that 170 was just perfect. If they were playing 154 games today, the MLBPA would be saying that's too much for the rigors required of a modern training regimen and it really ought to be 140. They're a union, they're negotiating a CBA, they need leverage chips for a multi-pronged agreement. All well and good, but sophisticated fans ought to see that for what it is, and not buy in so readily to the idea that players could play 162 game seasons every year since 1961 but suddenly find themselves overwhelmed by the demands of a 19th-century pastoral game. Let's root, root root for more baseball being played. Or at least no less.
Boy, it must be really taxing flying on luxury private jets, staying in luxury hotels, playing a kids' game, and making millions of dollars for that sacrifice in your 20s and 30s. And being home for three and a half months, with nothing to do except work out and stay in shape. It's borderline abusive I can see how they need more days off. Poor babies.
I assume the players will take a pro-rated cut in the size of current contracts, right? BWAHAHAHAHA
How about expand the roster by a couple players, and then give more "scheduled days off" like the good managers already do to let people recover from all the minor ouchies.
I assume the players will take a pro-rated cut in the size of current contracts, right? BWAHAHAHAHA
How about expand the roster by a couple players, and then give more "scheduled days off" like the good managers already do to let people recover from all the minor ouchies.
I love this idea. A 30 man roster would seem to benefit the players on the whole as well.
You'd have to cap the bullpen size or the number of pitching changes that could be made in an inning though, or games would all take forever. It would also disadvantage smaller payroll teams pretty severely.
Maybe they could consider a best of 3 wild card or best of 7 divisional round. Extra playoff games could make up quite a bit of revenue. I'm willing to bet neither players or owners would mind that. Especially the moronic play-in game, though that is extra travel.
Of course, not every team would be in the postseason though, so that only benefits a few teams a season.
This attitude is incredibly naive and uninformed. It takes a ton of work, physical effort, and wear and tear on a body to play every day. Not to mention the mental energy component. There's nothing wrong with getting a few more days off during the six month season. Just because the players aren't bashing each others' skulls in like in football games doesn't mean baseball isn't very strenuous.
I'm all for a slightly shorter season. But the worst thing they can do is use a revised schedule to increase divisional games. Teams already play their division rivals 47% of the time. It would be really nice to see teams other than the AL East more than about half of the time.
Maybe one of you guys should ask Pedroia if he has a five hour per day job.
1. Grow up.
2. If the players are less worn out the product on the field would be better. Do you want to see Xander Bogaerts play ~140 games at peak level, and watch David Price pitch 25% of the Red Sox' games, or would you prefer to watch Josh Rutledge and Marco Hernandez and Sean O'Sullivan? Apparently from your suggestion to expand the roster size, you like watching bad players.
There's no given that revenue would go down for most teams. Demand for baseball will remain the same, supply of baseball will decline so ticket prices will rise. Per game attendance will probably increase too, because the families that go once a year will distribute themselves over a smaller schedule, except for the handful of teams like Boston who sell out everything already and they're the ones who will jack up ticket prices th most. The network TV contracts will stay the same, as they'll still do the same number of games, or could even up if they add postseason games like some have suggested.
The only teams that will lose are the ones who have their own TV channels. So this will be bad for NY and Boston.
Even "bad" major leaguers are still the best in the world. Do you consider minor league games a waste of money to attend? Do you not watch the college World Series? If Jeff Rutledge is a terrible baseball player, what's that make the 75% of college players who are never even drafted?
Do you pay the same amount for a ticket to a minor league game and show up expecting the same level of quality? And stop it, you know he is talking in terms of relativity. Jeff Rutledge is a better player than some college kid with no hope of the majors, we all know this. But compared to the majority of players on a big league roster, yes, he sucks.
First you argued that baseball players should be able to play everyday because it's so easy with their chartered flights and luxury hotels. Now you're arguing that there's nothing wrong with giving the starters rest so that the Rutledges of the league can play more. Which is it?
When I was researching the Tris Speaker article, there was an article from the Globe in 1916 in which they wanted to cut the 154 game schedule down and start the season in mid-late April to avoid playing in the cold. They also felt such a long season was unnecessary. This has been a discussion from the very beginning.
I'm sure coal miners, nursing home aides, and migrant farm workers could really relate to how tough it is to be a major league baseball player. Maybe those people should only work 140 days a year too.
That might be one of the stupidest comparisons I've seen on this site in a long time. I'm sure those jobs are quite tough, I just don't care to pay to watch those people do their jobs ably. And I imagine they probably should work 140 days, they just don't make enough money to do so because their skillset isn't unique enough and they aren't as directly responsible for the revenue generated as Big 4 athletes.
Yeah all that stuff after "stupid comparison" is perfectly true. So let's reframe the discussion. Baseball players have a lot of market power and want to use that power to work less for the same pay. That's reasonable.
The argument that their life is really hard because they have to play 162 baseball games before getting 3-1/2 months off (4-1/2 months off if their team sucks) isn't reasonable.
The only thing I care about is how will this affect the Red Sox? If it would help them, I'm for it. If not, I'm not.
Don't know how to answer the question. Seems like the East more seasons than not is pretty good so increasing the relative importance of division games seems like it would disadvantage the Sox viz. weaker divisions. But that's all I got on this.
If there is no expected benefit to the Red Sox, then I am against it. It's the middle of July. We just had a week off baseball. But it's an off day after three games. This sucks. I want baseball tonight. Eight more of these a year would suck x 8.
Don't know how to answer the question. Seems like the East more seasons than not is pretty good so increasing the relative importance of division games seems like it would disadvantage the Sox viz. weaker divisions. But that's all I got on this.
If there is no expected benefit to the Red Sox, then I am against it. It's the middle of July. We just had a week off baseball. But it's an off day after three games. This sucks. I want baseball tonight. Eight more of these a year would suck x 8.
Nobody said their life is hard. People did say it takes a toll on your body. Which it does. Because running, sliding, swinging, and other such activities can create pain when done over and over again in a short time period where the body doesn't get ample time to heal and recover.
And they don't get 3.5 months off with training and winter ball. The issue is comparing the rigors of being an elite athlete to a normal job, like there can be any sort of comparison that isn't flimsy at best. Not to mention they probably work more hours (ballpark time, travel, training, charity, etc.) during the season than most people do in a year.
And they don't get 3.5 months off with training and winter ball. The issue is comparing the rigors of being an elite athlete to a normal job, like there can be any sort of comparison that isn't flimsy at best. Not to mention they probably work more hours (ballpark time, travel, training, charity, etc.) during the season than most people do in a year.
Fuck that, their life is hard. They travel a shit ton with time zone changes on a regular basis, they work 6/7 days a week, probably for far longer a day than most here put into a day and certainly at a far more physical level, they are separated from their families for half their year and if they're any good they have no privacy and can't live a normal life for their relevant term. During their offseason, they're training and unless they're Pablo, watching their diets, etc, winter ball, training sessions, flying in and out to go on a fantasy cruise or appear at a charity function. Id imagine the entire thing is exhausting.
Are they compensated extremely well for this? Absolutely. No one disputes that. But i can't imagine it's a dance around the maypole. And some lucky ones have their retirement to ease back and make more money off their careers. But even that doesn't give the right to say they should be hamsters on a wheel.
I'm not saying 'boo hoo poor MLB ball players". They certainly have a nice life but it's not gifted to them. They work hard and make sacrifices many of us here would not like or be willing/able to make. I'm also not going to go to the other extreme and say that these guys should cover their eyes when they pass a school teacher.
Does anyone criticize the developers of a video game company that makes millions of dollars, sitting behind a computer? No. Why is it we sometimes chastise people that make millions 'playing a game' while we sit on our ass watching, while we have no problem with those who sit on their ass to build a game for us to sit on our ass and play? What the fuck is the difference?? Our thumbs moving?
I dont have a problem with them wanting a shorter season and I don't see the harm. 162 games is stupid long. As bad as it sounds it was one thing when greenies were allowed. I'd challenge any of you to work a physically demanding job six or seven days a week and perform at a top level. Even if I told you you had a big fat check waiting at the end. That's why a lot of guys fail, they can't do it.
Cut the season back. They should have a day off at least every other week. We'd have a better product to show for it, if nothing else.
Are they compensated extremely well for this? Absolutely. No one disputes that. But i can't imagine it's a dance around the maypole. And some lucky ones have their retirement to ease back and make more money off their careers. But even that doesn't give the right to say they should be hamsters on a wheel.
I'm not saying 'boo hoo poor MLB ball players". They certainly have a nice life but it's not gifted to them. They work hard and make sacrifices many of us here would not like or be willing/able to make. I'm also not going to go to the other extreme and say that these guys should cover their eyes when they pass a school teacher.
Does anyone criticize the developers of a video game company that makes millions of dollars, sitting behind a computer? No. Why is it we sometimes chastise people that make millions 'playing a game' while we sit on our ass watching, while we have no problem with those who sit on their ass to build a game for us to sit on our ass and play? What the fuck is the difference?? Our thumbs moving?
I dont have a problem with them wanting a shorter season and I don't see the harm. 162 games is stupid long. As bad as it sounds it was one thing when greenies were allowed. I'd challenge any of you to work a physically demanding job six or seven days a week and perform at a top level. Even if I told you you had a big fat check waiting at the end. That's why a lot of guys fail, they can't do it.
Cut the season back. They should have a day off at least every other week. We'd have a better product to show for it, if nothing else.
Last edited:
Very good post, PP. Also if they were able to start the season later or end it earlier it would help with weather-related issues. Even if P91 argues that the players should be able to tough it out when it's 30 degrees because of their cushy flights and hotels, it sucks for fans who have to sit in the cold for three hours.
Have to?
To be clear, I'm not complaining that ball players are well compensated. The money either goes to them or to the owners, better that it be the players.
I'm complaining that they're complaining about doing their jobs in a way that is callow and insulting.
Basically, it would be like me standing in line at Wegmans with the stuff I need to make a filet and lobster surf and turf dinner and two $60 bottles of wine and complaining to the minimum wage earning cashier about how bad my job is.
Not very nice.
If the players start bitching directly to the fans while they stand in the on deck circle or lean up against their Porsche complaining as a church group files through the turnstiles next to them, then sure, that would be like your scenario. But they're not doing that. So I'm not sure why you would be insulted by it unless one of them recently called you at home to bitch about it.
I'm also not sure why you feel a union employee should be criticized for expressing concerns over their working conditions to their union leadership. Isn't that kinda, like, one of the points of a union? I don't see any quotes from any players in that article, so I'll go back to my earlier point that these guys live under a microscope that the average human doesn't have to experience. I'm sure you have at some point complained you were working too much, perhaps unnecessarily so. The only difference is in the grand scheme no one gives a shit about you or your job so it didn't make the papers and allow a bunch of basement dwellers to whine about it.
As someone else said, keep the V&N schtick in V&N.