Red Mosquito

Norris wrote:I'm skeptical of any baseball fan who says the answer to baseball's problems is less baseball.

I get why non hardcore fans might say that, but. same

Norris wrote:I'm skeptical of any baseball fan who says the answer to baseball's problems is less baseball.

playing devil's advocate, MLB shouldn't be concerned with the crotchety, old-man-yells-at-cloud fan; its future depends on younger generations that, for all intents and purposes, are not tuning in and who want shorter games and seasons.

Norris wrote:I'm skeptical of any baseball fan who says the answer to baseball's problems is less baseball.

On the surface I can appreciate this, but would you say the same if seasons were 9 months and games were 20 innings?

Like many things in life: Find the balance.

Chris_H_2 wrote:

Norris wrote:I'm skeptical of any baseball fan who says the answer to baseball's problems is less baseball.

playing devil's advocate, MLB shouldn't be concerned with the crotchety, old-man-yells-at-cloud fan; its future depends on younger generations that, for all intents and purposes, are not tuning in and who want shorter games and seasons.

Yes, correct. You're welcome to have a 365 game season if you're not concerned with revenue and viewership.

Or, to put it another way, you're welcome to keep your long-ass regular season, but know that doing so means potentially more changes like the new extra innings rule.

Jeremy Giambi dead at 47.

That's sad.

He actually played over Ortiz at one point.

i love baseball but i think i'm done with it..if i'm in a city that has a team no matter how good or bad and if the traffic isn't bad i'll go to the stadium for a game..make me watch a game on tv thats not the playoffs or WS, no way...they can't sell their product anymore..im the old guy shaking his fist at the cloud...

good riddance to bad rubbish

That's great.

They’re probably going to start cutting real games by the end of the day.

I have a good feeling about tonight.

Not sure this gets done tonight but it sounds like expanded playoffs are a given, just a question of 12 or 14 teams.

The more I think about expanded playoffs, the more I think I'd accept a 12-team field. That would have added Toronto to the postseason last year for the AL, which would have been fun. They felt like a hot team that deserved a shot. The NL is dicier, though--did 83-79 Cincinnati really feel like a playoff team? If they beat the Giants in a 2 or 5-game series, it would feel like SF got all those wins in the regular season for nothing.

Thankfully by losing to the Dodgers they got all those regular season wins for something.

More years than not there's been a 90-win team (usually in the AL East) on the outside looking in, or subjected to a one-game playoff rather than a full series. With either 12 or 14 teams you're looking at a first round bye or two, and you're of course still looking at home field advantage.

I think whichever number they settle on, they need to make all the rounds seven games. If you really want to eliminate the potential capriciousness of a hundred game winner losing to an undeserving bubble team, let them play a full series.

Mickey wrote:More years than not there's been a 90-win team (usually in the AL East) on the outside looking in, or subjected to a one-game playoff rather than a full series. With either 12 or 14 teams you're looking at a first round bye or two, and you're of course still looking at home field advantage.

I think whichever number they settle on, they need to make all the rounds seven games. If you really want to eliminate the potential capriciousness of a hundred game winner losing to an undeserving bubble team, let them play a full series.

If you eliminate all the off days during the series in October, you could do it. Then teams who sweep get some extra days to rest players, plus the 4 teams that earn byes (assuming 12 teams) get an extra week of rest, which incentivizes winning your division + finishing in the top 2.

Simple Torture wrote:

Mickey wrote:More years than not there's been a 90-win team (usually in the AL East) on the outside looking in, or subjected to a one-game playoff rather than a full series. With either 12 or 14 teams you're looking at a first round bye or two, and you're of course still looking at home field advantage.

I think whichever number they settle on, they need to make all the rounds seven games. If you really want to eliminate the potential capriciousness of a hundred game winner losing to an undeserving bubble team, let them play a full series.

If you eliminate all the off days during the series in October, you could do it. Then teams who sweep get some extra days to rest players, plus the 4 teams that earn byes (assuming 12 teams) get an extra week of rest, which incentivizes winning your division + finishing in the top 2.

Or you trim the season down a bit--nothing major, 150 probably does it. I like it either way. I think 12 is my preference but there's a similar incentive structure with 14--the top team gets a bye but the other two division winners get the worst wild-card teams in the first round. I could stomach 5 games for the first and second round but the one-game playoff has to go.