Baseball Rule Changes...

[Bstewart]

Originally Posted by dddrees

Cool, if you don’t mind me asking what position and how long did he end up playing?

Looks like he was a pitcher, played minor league ball from 1968-1969 for the Pilots which became modern day Brewers.

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by Bstewart

Looks like he was a pitcher, played minor league ball from 1968-1969 for the Pilots which became modern day Brewers.

Thank you. Wow, I vaguely remember the Pilots. Pretty sure I probably had some Pilots trading cards.

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by Bstewart

I never claimed there were 0 elements of business or entertainment involved. Obviously there are. But your points were so extreme in the other direction I had to jump in.

What’s so extreme, it’s a business and it exist purely to make money just as any other for profit business.

[Bstewart]

Originally Posted by dddrees

What’s so extreme, it’s a business and it exist purely to make money just as any other for profit business.

We can agree to disagree.

[Maleg]

Originally Posted by dddrees

What’s so extreme, it’s a business and it exist purely to make money just as any other for profit business.

This is where I’m at. Businesses adapt to their market. Making “enough” money now doesn’t guarantee future profits in a changing market.

As an example, a company I worked for permanently closed a facility that had been operating almost 100 years. The facility was no longer needed or profitable for the business. I’m certain the employees who worked there their entire lives disagreed with the change, but the closure was necessary for the business to flourish.

MLB was America’s number one sport before TV. Now it’s third and losing market. Baseball isn’t going away, but it’s not going to hold it’s market without producing a TV product that can be enjoyed by everybody.

[Blansky]

Originally Posted by Bstewart

Nice to see you making up definitions to fit your narrative

Not at all. When players in a game are being paid, have fans paying money to see them, they have a responsibility to those fans, they transition from players to entertainers. They are paid to providing entertainment.

The game didn't change, but because they are now paid to do it, it changes their role.

I played a game for 60 years and sometimes with guys who were once pros, the game is the same, the only difference for the pros is they went from being entertainers to just participants, because now they were just doing it for their own enjoyment. They have no responsibility to anyone but themselves. They are no longer entertainers.

If you took a baseball game with Major League players over to a field with no fans, nobody watching, just them playing, then they are just playing the game, with no responsibility to anyone. It's just for fun. It doesn't matter how long it takes.

As soon as money enters the picture the game or sport moves from the realm of sport to the realm of entertainment. And since it's entertainment, tweaks to the game for the fans are going to happen. If you want the sport "pure" and unchanged, then it can't be with money and paying-fans involved.

[Bstewart]

Originally Posted by Blansky

Not at all. When players in a game are being paid, have fans paying money to see them, they have a responsibility to those fans, they transition from players to entertainers. They are paid to providing entertainment.

The game didn't change, but because they are now paid to do it, it changes their role.

I played a game for 60 years and sometimes with guys who were once pros, the game is the same, the only difference for the pros is they went from being entertainers to just participants, because now they were just doing it for their own enjoyment. They have no responsibility to anyone but themselves. They are no longer entertainers.

If you took a baseball game with Major League players over to a field with no fans, nobody watching, just them playing, then they are just playing the game, with no responsibility to anyone. It's just for fun. It doesn't matter how long it takes.

As soon as money enters the picture the game or sport moves from the realm of sport to the realm of entertainment. And since it's entertainment, tweaks to the game for the fans are going to happen. If you want the sport "pure" and unchanged, then it can't be with money and paying-fans involved.

I disagree. If you think players should be playing for entertainment rather than playing to win, then I'm not sure what else can be said. Winning is above all else, entertainment included.

[DocHorton]

Originally Posted by pickettt

Would you say televised baseball is more or less exciting and action packed than televised golf?

About the same, but I would much rather watch golf for a few reasons...the players are more well-known, golf has shots being hit every few seconds on TV, the crowd interaction is more enjoyable, no stupid "unwritten" rules, etc.

[DocHorton]

Originally Posted by Bstewart

I disagree. If you think players should be playing for entertainment rather than playing to win, then I'm not sure what else can be said. Winning is above all else, entertainment included.

No, no, no....winning is rarely above all else in professional sports. That's why players almost 100% of the time will sign with the team that pays them the most, not the team that gives them the best chance to win a championship. There are a few exceptions, like Tom Brady, but it is very, very rare for a player to forego money over winning.

[Bstewart]

Originally Posted by DocHorton

No, no, no....winning is rarely above all else in professional sports. That's why players almost 100% of the time will sign with the team that pays them the most, not the team that gives them the best chance to win a championship. There are a few exceptions, like Tom Brady, but it is very, very rare for a player to forego money over winning.

Thanks for the lesson on what players do. Not sure why I thought I knew more than you.

[DocHorton]

Originally Posted by Blansky

Not at all. When players in a game are being paid, have fans paying money to see them, they have a responsibility to those fans, they transition from players to entertainers. They are paid to providing entertainment.

The game didn't change, but because they are now paid to do it, it changes their role.

I played a game for 60 years and sometimes with guys who were once pros, the game is the same, the only difference for the pros is they went from being entertainers to just participants, because now they were just doing it for their own enjoyment. They have no responsibility to anyone but themselves. They are no longer entertainers.

If you took a baseball game with Major League players over to a field with no fans, nobody watching, just them playing, then they are just playing the game, with no responsibility to anyone. It's just for fun. It doesn't matter how long it takes.

As soon as money enters the picture the game or sport moves from the realm of sport to the realm of entertainment. And since it's entertainment, tweaks to the game for the fans are going to happen. If you want the sport "pure" and unchanged, then it can't be with money and paying-fans involved.

Well said, 100% correct.

[DocHorton]

Originally Posted by Bstewart

Thanks for the lesson on what players do. Not sure why I thought I knew more than you.

You're welcome....it's fairly obvious, so I'm not sure why you didn't already know it.

[Blansky]

Originally Posted by Bstewart

I disagree. If you think players should be playing for entertainment rather than playing to win, then I'm not sure what else can be said. Winning is above all else, entertainment included.

Amateur players play to win as well.

And I didn't say players SHOULD be playing for entertainment, it's just that once you are being paid to play, you ARE entertainment. And winning is a part of that as well. Winning is entertaining.

People are paying you to entertain them.

And back to the original premise of rule changes to enhance entertainment, (whether it actually will or not is debatable) once you sign to contract to play, you are in fact an entertainer and as long as you entertain adequately you will continue to be paid. When you don't, you can play as an amateur, same game, but you are no longer an entertainer.

You seem to think that being an entertainer is a derogatory word. Dancing for your supper sort of thing. But being an entertainer is providing joy and fun and inspiration to people and young kids. AND it provides the entertainer with a lot of money. Ed Sheeran made 100 million in 2018 singing songs to an audience. Lionel Messi made 100 million a couple of years ago.

[pickettt]

Originally Posted by dddrees

Cool, if you don’t mind me asking what position and how long did he end up playing?

As Bstewart alluded to, yes, my dad was a pitcher with the Pilots, which became the Brewers. He made the move to Milwaukee, but never played a single with them. What happened is never really talked about in our family, but since both of my parents were functioning drug addicts, I suppose it may have had something to do with it.
If you've ever seen A League of Their Own, with Tom Hanks, Madonna, Gina Davis, etc., you would notice the old 1940s era ballpark they played at. That ballpark is in the city I now live in. It is only a couple of miles from where my dad went to high school. Formerly John Galvin Park, that ballpark has been renamed after the man standing behind my dad in that newspaper photo, Jay Littleton. My dad spent his American Legion years there at that park.
My dad would tell me stories of traveling across the country with the Pilots and how upon getting off planes in the South or Midwest, the very first thing he and the few other black players would do would be to go to hardware stores or gas stations to buy tire irons and chains to defend themselves against the racism of the era. He also told of the loyalty that (most of) his white teammates had for them, and how those white players would take beatings while defending their black teammates.

To be continued...dog surgery emergency

[Maleg]

Originally Posted by Bstewart

I disagree. If you think players should be playing for entertainment rather than playing to win, then I'm not sure what else can be said. Winning is above all else, entertainment included.

Interesting red herring (bringing winning in).

The rules applied fairly don’t stop winning from happening. The players still play to win, they just do it in a way that is exciting and fun to watch for the masses. You are in the entertainment business, yet are upset that potential fans expect you to be entertaining.

Tiger Woods is pretty entertaining and he won a lot. So too Tom Brady. Why is it baseball players insist on a chess match that is only interesting to baseball insiders (notice you never see televised chess matches).

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by pickettt

As Bstewart alluded to, yes, my dad was a pitcher with the Pilots, which became the Brewers. He made the move to Milwaukee, but never played a single with them. What happened is never really talked about in our family, but since both of my parents were functioning drug addicts, I suppose it may have had something to do with it.
If you've ever seen A League of Their Own, with Tom Hanks, Madonna, Gina Davis, etc., you would notice the old 1940s era ballpark they played at. That ballpark is in the city I now live in. It is only a couple of miles from where my dad went to high school. Formerly John Galvin Park, that ballpark has been renamed after the man standing behind my dad in that newspaper photo, Jay Littleton. My dad spent his American Legion years there at that park.
My dad would tell me stories of traveling across the country with the Pilots and how upon getting off planes in the South or Midwest, the very first thing he and the few other black players would do would be to go to hardware stores or gas stations to buy tire irons and chains to defend themselves against the racism of the era. He also told of the loyalty that (most of) his white teammates had for them, and how those white players would take beatings while defending their black teammates.

To be continued...dog surgery emergency

Thanks for sharing, and I find it very interesting. i look forward to hearing more when you have time later.

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by Maleg

Interesting red herring (bringing winning in).

The rules applied fairly don’t stop winning from happening. The players still play to win, they just do it in a way that is exciting and fun to watch for the masses. You are in the entertainment business, yet are upset that potential fans expect you to be entertaining.

Tiger Woods is pretty entertaining and he won a lot. So too Tom Brady. Why is it baseball players insist on a chess match that is only interesting to baseball insiders (notice you never see televised chess matches).

I don’t play the game but I would venture to guess because of tradition because that’s the way it has always been. Baseball has a long history and that’s something that makes baseball very special.

[Dubshack]

The biggest issue baseball has, to me, is how many strikeouts there are. Every hitter is trying hit a home run. Launch angle!

There’s very rarely any bunts, hit and runs, stolen bases, amazing defensive plays, etc. when 25-33% of the outs per game are a strikeout.

Some quick math, total strikeouts across the league have risen 71% since 1990. Over that same time the runs scored have only gone up 16%.

So baseball has slightly more runs due to some bigger splash plays like a home run, but the rest of the game sacrifices as a result.

I don’t think any of these measures MLB is taking will fix this problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Blansky]

I think both the last two comments are true, baseball has a long tradition, AND the game has gotten less exciting.

To some a pitching duel is exciting but to most people lots of hits and plays are far more so.

Technology has changed a lot of games as well. Tennis used to have long rallies when wooden rackets were used. In hockey, the sticks have massive flex now and wrist shots can get around 80 MPH. The skates are way better and players are a lot faster.

Players are way better trained and talented these days as well in a lot of sports, perhaps due to better coaching and even Utube.

And sometimes rules have to reflect these changes and adapt. And take in the concept that most sports fans are now watching on TV and not in the venue.

And there is a big difference between live sports and TV stuff.

[Krash]

Getting back to the TV comment…I think ratings are probably a big factor for the rule changes, no doubt.

However, I do know a lot of people that hate going to baseball games. They just don’t want to sit in an uncomfortable seat in the hot summer sun for 3+ hours while the game is moving as slow as molasses.

It’s generally not an issue for World Series caliber teams. The better teams generally do a good job of filling the stadium up with people. However, lots of stadiums are half empty, and in some cases, more than half empty.

So it could be a bit of both. They want better ratings and more ticket sales too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by Krash

Getting back to the TV comment…I think ratings are probably a big factor for the rule changes, no doubt.

However, I do know a lot of people that hate going to baseball games. They just don’t want to sit in an uncomfortable seat in the hot summer sun for 3+ hours while the game is moving as slow as molasses.

It’s generally not an issue for World Series caliber teams. The better teams generally do a good job of filling the stadium up with people. However, lots of stadiums are half empty, and in some cases, more than half empty.

So it could be a bit of both. They want better ratings and more ticket sales too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The game has not changed but people have. Maybe not the fans, but most others and their expectations have.

[Bstewart]

Originally Posted by Blansky

Amateur players play to win as well.

And I didn't say players SHOULD be playing for entertainment, it's just that once you are being paid to play, you ARE entertainment. And winning is a part of that as well. Winning is entertaining.

People are paying you to entertain them.

And back to the original premise of rule changes to enhance entertainment, (whether it actually will or not is debatable) once you sign to contract to play, you are in fact an entertainer and as long as you entertain adequately you will continue to be paid. When you don't, you can play as an amateur, same game, but you are no longer an entertainer.

You seem to think that being an entertainer is a derogatory word. Dancing for your supper sort of thing. But being an entertainer is providing joy and fun and inspiration to people and young kids. AND it provides the entertainer with a lot of money. Ed Sheeran made 100 million in 2018 singing songs to an audience. Lionel Messi made 100 million a couple of years ago.

I still find your assertions somewhat offensive

[Krash]

Originally Posted by dddrees

The game has not changed but people have. Maybe not the fans, but most others and their expectations have.

Operating costs have changed, that's for sure.

Player contracts are enormous nowadays. For example, the Phillies have eight players making more than $15 million a year. Six of those are making more than $20 million a year.

These new standiums are expensive to build, expensive to maintain, and expensive to operate on a daily basis.

They don't come out and explicitly say it, but MLB wants better TV ratings and more ticket sales.

[Bstewart]

Originally Posted by Dubshack

The biggest issue baseball has, to me, is how many strikeouts there are. Every hitter is trying hit a home run. Launch angle!

There’s very rarely any bunts, hit and runs, stolen bases, amazing defensive plays, etc. when 25-33% of the outs per game are a strikeout.

Some quick math, total strikeouts across the league have risen 71% since 1990. Over that same time the runs scored have only gone up 16%.

So baseball has slightly more runs due to some bigger splash plays like a home run, but the rest of the game sacrifices as a result.

I don’t think any of these measures MLB is taking will fix this problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think these are pretty decent points.

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by Krash

Operating costs have changed, that's for sure.

Player contracts are enormous nowadays. For example, the Phillies have eight players making more than $15 million a year. Six of those are making more than $20 million a year.

These new standiums are expensive to build, expensive to maintain, and expensive to operate on a daily basis.

They don't come out and explicitly say it, but MLB needs better ratings and more ticket sales.

I don’t disagree. If they aren’t feeling the pinch yet, I’m sure the owners don’t like the trend it’s taking. On the other hand I imagine Jerry Jones has to be extremely happy. I mean he doesn’t even have to win which he’s shown to be lacking for decades and he’s got the most valuable franchise in the Cowboys.

[Bstewart]

Originally Posted by pickettt

As Bstewart alluded to, yes, my dad was a pitcher with the Pilots, which became the Brewers. He made the move to Milwaukee, but never played a single with them. What happened is never really talked about in our family, but since both of my parents were functioning drug addicts, I suppose it may have had something to do with it.
If you've ever seen A League of Their Own, with Tom Hanks, Madonna, Gina Davis, etc., you would notice the old 1940s era ballpark they played at. That ballpark is in the city I now live in. It is only a couple of miles from where my dad went to high school. Formerly John Galvin Park, that ballpark has been renamed after the man standing behind my dad in that newspaper photo, Jay Littleton. My dad spent his American Legion years there at that park.
My dad would tell me stories of traveling across the country with the Pilots and how upon getting off planes in the South or Midwest, the very first thing he and the few other black players would do would be to go to hardware stores or gas stations to buy tire irons and chains to defend themselves against the racism of the era. He also told of the loyalty that (most of) his white teammates had for them, and how those white players would take beatings while defending their black teammates.

To be continued...dog surgery emergency

This is extremely interesting and would also love to hear more.

[GB-man]

That’s it I have the solution then. Getting a single is worth 1/3 a point, double 2/3 and triple an entire point in addition to the 1 when you cross home plate

No? Ok I’ll see my way out.

[dddrees]

Originally Posted by Bstewart

I still find your assertions somewhat offensive

Wow, and I thought he laid it out fairly well and went about it in a fairly polite way.

I do think if baseball didn’t charge so much for seats maybe more of us might be able to think of this as more just a pure sport rather than a business.

[Maleg]

Originally Posted by Krash

Operating costs have changed, that's for sure.

Player contracts are enormous nowadays. For example, the Phillies have eight players making more than $15 million a year. Six of those are making more than $20 million a year.

These new standiums are expensive to build, expensive to maintain, and expensive to operate on a daily basis.

They don't come out and explicitly say it, but MLB wants better TV ratings and more ticket sales.

The NFL gets around $9 billion in TV money for a 17 game season. MLB gets around $2 billion for a 162 game season. MLB owners would love to add $7 billion to their balance sheet, but they won’t get there without a more attractive TV product.

[Bstewart]

Originally Posted by dddrees

Wow, and I thought he laid it out fairly well and went about it in a fairly polite way.

I do think if baseball didn’t charge so much for seats maybe more of us might be able to think of this as more just a pure sport rather than a business.

You're on a forum dedicated to Rolex watches and think seats are too high?