What's wrong with Baseball?

[ashbury]

Because of the ridiculous arbitration system, most teams don't want to overhype their own guy until he's locked in for years to come. 

Really nice insight, and something that incoming commissioner Manfred and MLBPA executive director Clark should discuss over dinner and a bottle of good wine sometime.

[big dog]

Sure, if you go to 60 or 70 home games, you'll get to see Goldschmidt.  But I won't, and neither will most of the casual fans.  And if you go to that many home games, you are not the one baseball is trying to attract.

 

The odds that the D-Backs are going to be one of the 5-8 games I get to see in a year is extremely small.  And interleague play cut my chances of getting to see Mike Trout in half.  So I don't see how it makes the casual fan any better off.

 

I've been to some interleague games, but they were just the games that happened to be being played the night I was available to go to a game.  The Twins are the draw to me (sad as that sounds), money and time are the constraints.  The likelihood that I'll make a special effort to see one player from the NL is just too small to matter.

 

Is a casual fan going to check the schedule so they can go see the Dodgers game?  It's great for Dodgers fans who live in Minnesota, but it hurts any Angels fans who live in Minnesota.

 

To me, the best way to see if interleague games are popular is to look at TV ratings for interleague vs. non-division intra-league games.  My guess is that interleague was a lot more popular the first couple of years, and now it isn't helping.  I suppose walkup sales would be another way to do that since I doubt if interleague play sells any season tickets.  I doubt if Bud Selig's team has really evaluated this, but perhaps they have.

[Mike Sixel]

This we discussed earlier as really not true if you add up the time the ball is in play in each sport.  It is certainly a perception, but because not every pitch turns into an out or hit, there's a perception that it's not action like a no-gain run or incomplete pass is in football, even though they accomplish the same purpose as far as progression of the game.

 

Did you intentionally not read the second line, about replay and making it seem like there is action when there isn't?

 

"An NFL game can  be filled with replay (which distracts you from inaction), a baseball game is filled with dead air."

 

Where, anywhere, did I say there is more actual action in football?

[biggentleben]

Sure, if you go to 60 or 70 home games, you'll get to see Goldschmidt.  But I won't, and neither will most of the casual fans.  And if you go to that many home games, you are not the one baseball is trying to attract.

 

The odds that the D-Backs are going to be one of the 5-8 games I get to see in a year is extremely small.  And interleague play cut my chances of getting to see Mike Trout in half.  So I don't see how it makes the casual fan any better off.

 

I've been to some interleague games, but they were just the games that happened to be being played the night I was available to go to a game.  The Twins are the draw to me (sad as that sounds), money and time are the constraints.  The likelihood that I'll make a special effort to see one player from the NL is just too small to matter.

 

Is a casual fan going to check the schedule so they can go see the Dodgers game?  It's great for Dodgers fans who live in Minnesota, but it hurts any Angels fans who live in Minnesota.

 

To me, the best way to see if interleague games are popular is to look at TV ratings for interleague vs. non-division intra-league games.  My guess is that interleague was a lot more popular the first couple of years, and now it isn't helping.  I suppose walkup sales would be another way to do that since I doubt if interleague play sells any season tickets.  I doubt if Bud Selig's team has really evaluated this, but perhaps they have.

 

I guess I'm a Braves fan who went to every Braves game at the dome while I lived in the cities and made the six-hour drive to see them their first visit to Target Field, so I'm not understanding your comment.  I also bought many tickets to see guys like Griffey, Ripken, Sosa, Clemens, Ichiro, etc. when I was in the cities as well, even though none were on my favorite teams.  If I wasn't six hours away, Goldschmidt would be on the list of guys I'd buy a ticket to see live.

[biggentleben]

Did you intentionally not read the second line, about replay and making it seem like there is action when there isn't?

 

"An NFL game can  be filled with replay (which distracts you from inaction), a baseball game is filled with dead air."

 

Where, anywhere, did I say there is more actual action in football?

 

I guess I don't see any more or less replaying of a play in football than there is in baseball, so I was assuming you meant the actual replay system, which is a huge drag on football, and one that many people complain about the length of time it takes.  Baseball's replay system does the same thing, replaying the play over and over while they talk with New York until a decision is made.

[Mike Sixel]

Really? they replay ever single play (except in hurry up mode) in the NFL, they don't usually show the same pitch over and over between pitches. But maybe I'm wrong, maybe MLB does fill the time between pitches with replays of the previous pitch.

[big dog]

I guess I'm a Braves fan who went to every Braves game at the dome while I lived in the cities and made the six-hour drive to see them their first visit to Target Field, so I'm not understanding your comment.  I also bought many tickets to see guys like Griffey, Ripken, Sosa, Clemens, Ichiro, etc. when I was in the cities as well, even though none were on my favorite teams.  If I wasn't six hours away, Goldschmidt would be on the list of guys I'd buy a ticket to see live.

 

My main point is that you are not the fan MLB is trying to please- you go to a ton of games, and they should send you a thank-you card. 

 

Did you go to more games because of interleague play, or did you just choose different ones?

 

Suppose you were an Atlanta fan living in San Diego.  Now the Braves visit SD fewer times because of interleague play.  Would you go to more Padres games now, to see Miggy or Mike Trout, with the Braves visiting less often?

 

I'm not saying you won't- it's all up to individual preferences.  I'm just saying that I don't think it can amount to that many more tickets sold, though it might change the mix of games people choose to attend. 

 

One statistic is that attendance at interleague games is somewhat higher (though until recently they have tended to be weekend series during the summer, a big advantage).  If those gains come at the expense of reduced attendance for other games, because I can only afford 5 games, can we really say that interleague games increase the interest in baseball?  No.

 

So my point is, some people like it (you, mike), some people don't, some people are indifferent.  We're all entitled to our opinion.  But has it improved baseball's marketing or bottom line?  I don't see any evidence that it has.

 

But then I don't think having the Yankees play the Red Sox every Sunday night makes sense either, so it's entirely possible I'm a complete outlier.

[biggentleben]

My main point is that you are not the fan MLB is trying to please- you go to a ton of games, and they should send you a thank-you card. 

 

Did you go to more games because of interleague play, or did you just choose different ones?

 

Suppose you were an Atlanta fan living in San Diego.  Now the Braves visit SD fewer times because of interleague play.  Would you go to more Padres games now, to see Miggy or Mike Trout, with the Braves visiting less often?

 

I'm not saying you won't- it's all up to individual preferences.  I'm just saying that I don't think it can amount to that many more tickets sold, though it might change the mix of games people choose to attend. 

 

One statistic is that attendance at interleague games is somewhat higher (though until recently they have tended to be weekend series during the summer, a big advantage).  If those gains come at the expense of reduced attendance for other games, because I can only afford 5 games, can we really say that interleague games increase the interest in baseball?  No.

 

So my point is, some people like it (you, mike), some people don't, some people are indifferent.  We're all entitled to our opinion.  But has it improved baseball's marketing or bottom line?  I don't see any evidence that it has.

 

But then I don't think having the Yankees play the Red Sox every Sunday night makes sense either, so it's entirely possible I'm a complete outlier.

 

I'm actually going to maybe one game a year now total.  I do think baseball has royally screwed their marketing, but not necessarily on interleague as much as simply mismanaging player promotion.  Stars/celebrities is what sells in today's environment.  Mike Trout should be more of a household name than Johnny Manziel, but most casual sports fans couldn't tell you what team Trout plays for.  Add that to their stupid blackout policies, and you have a good place to start to really explode the game.

[Mike Sixel]

I would have paid to see Maddux or Bonds.....I am not as interested today (partly because they've decided MLB should not be on free tv anymore for the most part).

 

That's another delta between MLB and others........I don't have cable......If the NFL was on cable other than 1 game a week, I'd not watch it either*

 

*I watch way less sports than I used to, so many other ways to spend my time.....

[JB_Iowa]

I liked  interleague play when it was within a specified period (or periods) in the season.

 

Now it just seems as the NL teams have become "one more series" since it is all spread out.

 

It has lost that "special" feeling that occurred when it was concentrated at one or two times.

[TheLeviathan]

This we discussed earlier as really not true if you add up the time the ball is in play in each sport.  It is certainly a perception, but because not every pitch turns into an out or hit, there's a perception that it's not action like a no-gain run or incomplete pass is in football, even though they accomplish the same purpose as far as progression of the game.

 

Except it does accomplish more because football is a timed game.  An at-bat can go 1 pitch or 20, so one pitch transpiring doesn't really progress the game for sure.  Whereas every timed football play DOES in fact progress the game.

 

Football action has a finite amount of action because it's timed, but baseball can have "action" that is utterly meaningless to the game.

[Willihammer]

Except it does accomplish more because football is a timed game.  An at-bat can go 1 pitch or 20, so one pitch transpiring doesn't really progress the game for sure.  Whereas every timed football play DOES in fact progress the game.

 

Football action has a finite amount of action because it's timed, but baseball can have "action" that is utterly meaningless to the game.

What would be the correct number of pitches?

 

This complaint reminds me of a scene from a movie.

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

What would be the correct number of pitches?

 

This complaint reminds me of a scene from a movie.

 

I think you missed my point.  It was a complaint about the number of pitches, just pointing out that the notion of how action "progresses" the two games are very different.  Just because an incomplete pass doesn't move the offense forward, doesn't mean it's the same as a pitch fouled off.  The component of football being a timed game makes that analogy bunk IMO.

[ashbury]

Except it does accomplish more because football is a timed game.  An at-bat can go 1 pitch or 20, so one pitch transpiring doesn't really progress the game for sure.  Whereas every timed football play DOES in fact progress the game.

 

Football action has a finite amount of action because it's timed, but baseball can have "action" that is utterly meaningless to the game.

The pitches that come before the batter either puts the ball in play or strikes out have about as much interest to most fans on instant replay as that of the quarterback's choice of individual calls ("hut, twenty-three, hut-hut")  when trying to draw the opponents offside.

[TheLeviathan]

The pitches that come before the batter either puts the ball in play or strikes out have about as much interest to most fans on instant replay as that of the quarterback's choice of individual calls ("hut, twenty-three, hut-hut")  when trying to draw the opponents offside.

That's fine but that's not the same point. An incomplete pass still winds time and advances a down. QBs that stand at the line are still eating play clock that shortens the game. Mike Pelfrey's song and dance does not. Baseball being untimed comes with many positives, but there are drawbacks too. One of those is that some of the "action" is utterly meaningless. That is less the case in any timed contest be it football or otherwise.

[Mike Sixel]

this conversation has devolved to one of my points......baseball fans are indignant when people state their FEELINGS about what they like or don't like (or opine on why others don't like it).

 

Logic used against emotion does not work, that's not how the world works.

[USAFChief]

Except it does accomplish more because football is a timed game.  An at-bat can go 1 pitch or 20, so one pitch transpiring doesn't really progress the game for sure.  Whereas every timed football play DOES in fact progress the game.

 

Football action has a finite amount of action because it's timed, but baseball can have "action" that is utterly meaningless to the game.

Is an extra point timed?

 

Until there are 2 strikes on a hitter, every pitch does "progress the game." It's a ball or a strike or a HBP or a balk or a ball in play. Not meaningless at all.

 

And I would argue that even with two strikes, every pitch still "progresses the game."

[TheLeviathan]

Is an extra point timed?

 

Until there are 2 strikes on a hitter, every pitch does "progress the game." It's a ball or a strike or a HBP or a balk or a ball in play. Not meaningless at all.

 

And I would argue that even with two strikes, every pitch still "progresses the game."

 

If untimed extra points are the best retort I'd suggest the exception proves the rule pretty much handles that argument.  

 

The difference with every pitch is that there isn't a finite, known number the game will have.  In football, the game will be played in a designated amount of time that is chunked into designated smaller amounts of time that don't change much.  (OT/extra innings doesn't change this for either argument) The important distinction there is "time" as opposed to "events".  Time is a unit of measure that doesn't change, the "events" that drive progress in baseball are frequently subject to change.  So no matter what the result of a particular bit of "action", football will advance more towards the conclusion on average than a bit of baseball "action".

 

Again, I'm not saying this is a negative about baseball, but it is a consequence of being an untimed game.  There are consequences people probably like about that feature too, but it's not what ben was arguing.

[ashbury]

Until there are 2 strikes on a hitter, every pitch does "progress the game." It's a ball or a strike or a HBP or a balk or a ball in play. Not meaningless at all.

If you're drawing the analogy to the clock in other sports, every man reaching base negates the progress made toward completion that any previous strikes in that plate appearance had seemed to create. 

 

The clock moves only forward in those other sports, with exceptional cases of referees adding a few seconds when there is a dispute about when the previous play ended in football or basketball, or soccer stoppage time.  But in baseball, the "clock" ebbs and flows, mostly forward, but with periodic backward motion that is an integral part of the game.

 

None of which has much to do with the topic - more an observation about poetry of the game than anything else.

[TheLeviathan]

None of which has much to do with the topic - more an observation about poetry of the game than anything else.

 

A good example of another consequence (positive) with baseball being untimed.  

[Steven Buhr]

I can't believe it took me so long before I decided to click on this thread and read it. What a great discussion (at least until it became about what did or didn't advance the game of baseball/football... that's when ya lost me).

 

A few general (and hopefully quick) observations.

 

Most of us are very interested in the subtleties of the game. Backing up the play, pitch selection, "productive outs," etc. But if you never played the game as a kid, would you be as in tune with those things? I think part of the problem is that fewer kids are playing the game (more options) and so, as they grow up, baseball is just a spectator sport that lacks obvious action.

 

Selig and the owners have intentionally taken the regional sports path, because that allowed a "competitive balance" model that did not require true revenue sharing. As previously pointed out, they also have plenty of financial motive to minimize the "fame" of individual players.

 

But to what end? If (and I might argue, "when") the cable/regional sports network bubble bursts because non-sports fans refuse to subsidize the increased RSN fees being demanded, where will MLB turn to then for revenue?

 

NFL and MLB each have doomsday scenarios on the horizon and I'm not sure which will occur first.

 

For the NFL, it happens when enough parents refuse to let their kids play a game that could cause serious and permanent brain injuries. Kids not participating means lesser levels of talent and less adult fan interest.

 

For MLB, it's also fewer kids participating, but in their case, it means less understanding of what makes the sport "great" to those who do understand it, but also results in less adult interest, to the point where RSNs can't blackmail cable companies in to enormous rights fees because cable companies can't make the money back from the broader customer base.

 

NFL is (and should be) jealous of MLB's (and NBA's) global interest in their game. They will need more international players as domestic supplies diminish.

 

MLB, meanwhile, is allowing the RSNs and cable companies (two dinosaurs who simply don't know they're about to become extinct) to impede the distribution of the MLB product and waste the technological advantages they have developed over rival sports leagues.

 

As for pace of game, you can't just make a simple change without it having unwanted consequences. Sure, calling a strike a strike would speed up play because batters wouldn't take so many pitches. But it would also mean much less successul hitting and result in a lot more 1-0 games. That might make it more interesting to soccer fans, but not many others.

 

Enforcing the pitch clock would do little. The rule, I believe, says the time starts when the batter is ready for the pitch. So the clock wouldn't even start until the batter adjusts his gloves, redigs his foot hole, and adjusts his jock.

 

Games are longer as much because of increased time between innings, to allow more advertising, than anything else. Good luck getting MLB to do anything about that. They essentially slowed the game down to sell more beer and now want the players to make adjustments to compensate for that.

 

I'm as old school as just about anyone and it will bother me to see certain things change. But change must occur and that change must come in some form that (1) makes the game's "stars" more famous to young people, (2) makes more kids want to play the game, in addition to watching it, and (3) makes EVERY GAME involving every team available to every fan to watch via the devices they are most likely to use (smart phones, tablets, etc.).

 

EDIT: so much for being "quick" points, sorry. And I learned you have to use (1) (2) (3) rather than letters (a)..., etc., or you end up with a bunch of emoticons and symbols! Ah technology.

[Steven Buhr]

Since I was so abbreviated in my prior point (sarcastic cough), let me just add one more point.

 

All of the adjusting of batting gloves and pacing around the mound and other things that batters and pitchers do between pitches is, I believe, for one purpose only... to buy time to think about and prepare for what comes next - the next pitch.

 

Pitchers use the time to regroup, consider what they want to throw, what the baserunners are doing and who knows how many other things that they have gone over with their catchers and coaches while putting together a strategy for facing each hitter in the opposing line up. Some guys process all that infor quickly. Others don't.

 

Hitters similarly are regrouping, calming themselves from the adrenaline rush of the last pitch, pondering what they think the next pitch will be, based on everything they've done to prepare. Essentially, to put aside the last pitch and focus on the next. Some can do that quicker than others.

 

Honestly, I'm not sure whether I would want to do anything that results in either combatant being less prepared to face off with one another. It seems, to me, like hurrying them would be comparable to outlawing all huddles in football and forcing offense and defense to just get in to whatever formations their first instinct might be.

 

Obviously, some boundaries must be applied or a game will never end. But I'd rather trim back replay time, coaches/catchers/infielders visits to the mound, time between innings (and advertising) rather than mess with the two guys who are facing off head-to-head every pitch.

[Mike Sixel]

I agree both the NFL and MLB have some potential issues.....but, just like the military, sports will be the "path to money/job/opportunity" of the less well off, and there will always be people willing to jeopardize their health for money (and our entertainment). Not sure that is a good thing, or not. It is one reason I am watching less NFL than I used to, though I do still watch it.

 

One of the happiest days of my life was when my son quit playing football. 

[iTwins]

I was set to post my take on the issue and argue some of the finer points mead within the thread - but I stopped when an idea hit me.

 

It's hard (or darn near impossible) for baseball fans to objectively define what's wrong with their sport simply because they, (by the very definition of being a fan) enjoy the game already. Are their elements that I'd like to tweak? You bet, but maybe the issues the game has are from things that we, as fans of the game, take for granted.

 

So, I looked at things from my wife's perspective. She's relatively new to baseball (a fan for 3 years) and while she watches most games with me - she's not really "watching" a majority of the action. Here's what I got from her:

 

1. Interleague play: the rules change based on the park, the match-ups are weird and typically not a draw (Miami vs. Minnesota! ... uh... Twins vs. D-Backs? ... hmm). It dillutes natural AL / NL rivalries (MIN / MIL) to the point where it all feels like a waste of time.

 

2. Slow pitchers: My wife's attention wanes when Pelfrey or Tommy Milone are on the mound. There is simply too much time taken between pitches. I don't know if a play clock is the answer - umpires should really just enforce the rules already in place.

 

3. Inconsistent rules / strike zones: In trying to teach my wife the workings of baseball, this was the area that gave me the most trouble and frustrated her as a casual fan the most. Some umpires are blatantly incosistent or just flat out bad and yet they are not held accountable for their poor jobs. I don't know if the fix is "robot" umps calling balls and strikes or if MLB needs to add a reward / penalty system for umpries calling the zone behind the plate, but clearly for new or casual fans - this is a frustration.

 

 

Things I would have added regarding competitive balance and international free agent / draft rules don't even hit my wife's radar. In the end, it was pretty simple. Inconsistent rules / rulings and the pace of the game were her big issues.

[ashbury]

Good post, iTwins.

 

With regard to the inconsistent application of rules I'm not sure there's a lot of difference between baseball and the other sports - it's said that holding in football could be called on nearly every play as a matter of degree, and in basketball the difference between a charge and a block is hard for most people to discern (similar to pass interference in football, come to think of it).  So I would think if it was killing baseball it would be hurting other sports too.  Instead it seems to feed the interest of those sports.  Does your wife get bugged about these too, or maybe she doesn't watch those sports?

[Mike Sixel]

Except no one watches line play on every play to see holding, but they do see awful umpiring every play it exists. That is another thing i line about football. I can choose to watch different pays off the action. With baseball, you are always watching the pitcher and hitter, then you watch the ball. In football, I can sort of watch other things, depending on the coverage.

[iTwins]

Good post, iTwins.

 

With regard to the inconsistent application of rules I'm not sure there's a lot of difference between baseball and the other sports - it's said that holding in football could be called on nearly every play as a matter of degree, and in basketball the difference between a charge and a block is hard for most people to discern (similar to pass interference in football, come to think of it).  So I would think if it was killing baseball it would be hurting other sports too.  Instead it seems to feed the interest of those sports.  Does your wife get bugged about these too, or maybe she doesn't watch those sports?

 

She doesn't care much about other sports. She'll watch football or college basketball, but she hasn't made an effort to learn the rules or penalties like she has in baseball. That's a good point - across all sports, the rules (and inconsistent application) are likely a deterent to new fans, I've just noticed this with baseball because my wife has made the effort to learn the game.

[biggentleben]

Except no one watches line play on every play to see holding, but they do see awful umpiring every play it exists. That is another thing i line about football. I can choose to watch different pays off the action. With baseball, you are always watching the pitcher and hitter, then you watch the ball. In football, I can sort of watch other things, depending on the coverage.

 

I do!! 

[ashbury]

Except no one watches line play on every play to see holding, but they do see awful umpiring every play it exists.

I'm trying to consider the very casual fan's perspective, and the point about holding isn't whether they watch for it, but whether they get frustrated by the calls being difficult to understand.  A casual fan rooting for his local team throws up his hands when a gain is called back for the good guys, and I doubt if that is balanced by happiness over a call going the other way in the next series, when he doesn't really understand why the calls are made in the first place.  That's where I see the parallel to inconsistent calls in baseball.

[Mike Sixel]

Except the casual fan is annoyed with every bad pitch call, and that is a lot ....my point was that you see every part of every baseball play.