A very good friend of mine out in Giants land sent me the article being discussed over here.
It got me to thinking, and I sent him this reply:
Edit: To acknowledge Lose's direction of my attention to a topic previously introducing the subject, but to emphaisze that this topic is really intended to explore something quite different.
It got me to thinking, and I sent him this reply:
I realize the idea I floated in bold above is not likely to come to fruition, but the questions remain:
Not mentioned is the result of fewer of our youth taking up the game: the erosion of the talent pool that will make up future major league rosters. As a result, I would imagine the quality of the product on the field likely will also be diminished.
Whether we like it or not, baseball is in the early stages of a death spiral, and it appears that fidgeting with marginal things like cutting 8 minutes off the length of time it takes to play the average ML game ain't gonna fix it. It seems that very dramatic changes are needed - perhaps to an extent that would make the future version of baseball look quite unlike what it does today.
For example, would baseball consider constructing games as "games within games", somewhat like tennis, where you have, say, three 3-inning "periods" with the score being reset to 0-0 after each period. Win the first 2 sets...game over. Constructing tiebreakers could prove interesting.
- Is baseball in the beginning stages of a death spiral?
- Can it be saved?
- What measures can be taken to either preserve the structure of the current game as much as possible, or to abandon in some measure the current game (within a range of infinitesimally small to draconian) and revamp to a more interesting and attractive game - both from a participant and fan's view.
Edit: To acknowledge Lose's direction of my attention to a topic previously introducing the subject, but to emphaisze that this topic is really intended to explore something quite different.