What's wrong with Baseball?

[Thegrin]

5 Ideas to improve Baseball

1) Let technology call balls and strikes. Hitters will be more confident that they know the strike zone. Pitchers will have to throw more "real" strikes.

Nobody has to worry about the umpire.  More hits and runs will result. Let fans see the pitch.

 

2) Strictly enforce the 12 second rule. If a pitcher doesn't throw the ball in time a strike will be called. Let the umpire signal when the batter is in the box. After that, let technology handle the details.

 

3) Add 2 more clubs.  Make 4 8-team leagues.  Each league plays some games against one other league for one season.  Each season, Leagues switch opponents.
EXAMPLE: 4 Leagues. A,B,C,D
  Year 1, A plays B. C plays D.
  Year 2, A plays C. B plays D.
  Year 3, A plays D. B plays C.
Every 3 years you have a chance to see all the stars of the game, multiple times.
Adding 2 more clubs would dilute the pitching and also result in more runs being scored.
This would make for some good playoffs as well.

 

4) Make a deal with the players union.  55% of all baseball revenues will go to the players union. The players union will pay the players. Players would get a base amount based on the number of years in the league and the number of years with their current team. The rest of the money would be distributed based on production. The best players would get the most money. 
a) This would slow down the movement of players to the largest markets.
This would cause fans to have more identification of a clubs players. (God bless Kirby Puckett and Kent Hrbek, they will always be ours.)

 

5) Have all team owners sell out their clubs to the public.  Let all baseball teams be like the Green Bay Packers. Let nobody own more than 2% of the shares.
give season ticket holders first rights to buy.  This will turn the regionalization of baseball into an asset.
* This would actually be a good idea for all teams in all leagues. There is no reason any athlete should be "owned".*

 

These are brief sketches of ideas that would, in fact, be difficult and complicated to accomplish, but it is fun to wish. 

[DocBauer]

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.

As do I!

 

I've even been known to rewind plays to watch again, and even to point out a great block or great move from the OL or DL. Lol

[DocBauer]

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.

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.

A small counterpoint if I may?

 

When I mentioned, earlier, one of my points about speeding up the game, I should have been specific. The average game time length of an NFL game and MLB game are very close. It's not about shortening the actual time of the game, but to simply speed of the processes of the game. The NFL went to a shorter game clock YEARS AGO not to necessarily shorten game time, but to get more plays/snaps within the game. I also wouldn't want to take away time for pitchers and batters to gather themselves, however, we can enforce a reasonable time limit to avoid human rain delays.

 

Those of us who know, love and appreciate the game, better understand how something different is in "play" with every pitch and count differential. To the less understanding, less patient, "new" or casual fan, getting to that next pitch, that next potential hit, HR, RBI, big defensive play sooner can keep them better involved.

[DocBauer]

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.

Great post! You actually said some of the same things I had mentioned earlier, but in a very unique and different perspective. Well done!

 

My wife happens to be a HUGE sports fan, and while she enjoys most sports, is in her own personal nirvana right now because college and NFL football seasons are now back in play.

 

She is not a big baseball fan, but enjoys it. She will watch college when the playoffs and CWS begin, will watch some little league, and has grown in her appreciation and understanding of the sport due to my love of the Twins. And one of the comments I have heard from her before is that she enjoys when things happen on the field, but gets distracted or frustrated at times from the length "between" plays, I.e. a pitch or ball in play.

[DocBauer]

OK, I've got a slightly pointed but also off point question to propose. This touches on poor marketing from MLB, but also touches, albeit briefly, on SD's comments regarding local cable networks possibly having an affect on baseball viewership, etc.

 

So here goes: Is there perhaps a problem with the WAY baseball is broadcast?

 

Consider for a moment in which the way football (college as well as professional) and the NBA present their product. We have pre and post game panels discuss the game(s) ahead, and offer their forms of insight, explanation, debate and opinion. There are recorded interviews with players, including personal stories if interest. There are sideline reporters, and even brief interviews with coaches before games, at halftime, even during time outs on occasion. Both sports, probable football more, have gone to great pains to provide interesting graphics and statistics...even interesting avatars at times...to provide fill in entertainment or perspective.

 

I'm not saying the game of baseball lends itself to a copycat formula, but certainly there have to be additional, similar opportunities to "jazz up" things for the viewer without interfering with the game itself. Yes?

 

Further, along the same lines, I wonder if the work of those actually calling the games couldn't be addressed or re-invented to some degree. Meaning absolutely no disrespect to the current Twins broadcasters, who I actually enjoy, radio and TV, but it seems to me there used to exist a different breed of announcers with more outgoing or distinctive personalities. I miss Herb Carneal greatly. Despite some name screw ups and the such on occasion, I always enjoyed the tremendous joy and emotional honesty of John Gordon. One of the things Twins fans always liked about Gladden as a player was his enthusiasm and a few of his rough edges. He will never be a polished broadcaster, but I enjoy that same edge in the radio booth, as well as the stories. And that goes for other non-Twins broadcasters. (With the exception of Hawk Harrelson. He might like the Twins, but I just can't bring myself to like him. But at least he's unique) Harry Carry was and remains a legendary figure in baseball broadcasting. And while his last few years he might have "lost it" a bit, he was unique and special. There will probably NEVER be another Vin Scully, the patheon of baseball broadcasters, but his style, professionalism, and stories, offers a benchmark perspective.

 

So perhaps, in some way, just the WAY baseball is broadcast these days could be marketed better.

[Mike Sixel]

Good post, Doc. I'd say probably, but I don't watch much baseball anymore, so hard to say.

[TheLeviathan]

I guess most baseball broadcasts I watch do exactly this kind of "jazzing up" before and during games as the other leagues.  It's pretty standard sports broadcasting fair as far as I can tell.  

 

Either way, I don't think baseball is going to improve it's standing by having better on-air talkers.  No matter how interesting the story is, if the sport itself isn't captivating you'll lose people. 

[Mike Sixel]

Another one.....and I expect y'all won't agree.....

 

But it is a barrier to relating to the players (and hence the game) that home team players' names are, um, not on the jersey. No other sport does that, do they? It is a quaint tradition, but it is a barrier to new/casual fans.

[Steven Buhr]

It's an interesting question, Doc.

 

NFL uses network-employed broadcasters that are assigned based on level of perceived interest in each game. MLB uses "homer" broadcasters that, frankly, would be out of a job if they became too "honest" about the home team's shortcomings, whether player, coach or front office. Personally, I would love to see more professional and unbiased broadcasting of all games.

 

Then again, those home-town broadcasters (no matter what we may think of their professionalism or talent) are generally VERY popular with the home town team's casual fan base, so moving away from that model could be counterproductive.

 

Football lends itself to use of replays to fill dead time. As has been pointed out, every play has 22 people in motion doing SOMETHING even if the play runs in the opposite direction. Multiple camera angles can show what a great (or poor) job of defending receivers was done away from where the play went.

 

Baseball has a tougher time filling that time between pitches. They can show the "K zone" graphic of where the pitch crossed the plate, but that's about it until a ball is actuall put in play. And a very small number of balls put in play are even interesting enough to delve in to multiple facets of the play.

 

Maybe George Carlin had it right all those years ago. Baseball and football are just very different games and appeal to different fan personalities (or even different personality aspects of the same fan).

 

I go to a lot of baseball games and I also am an Iowa football season ticket holder. I enjoy the college football crowd experience AND I enjoy the more relaxed environment of a minor league baseball game, just about equally. I simply don't expect one to duplicate the intensity or emotion of the other.

[iTwins]

 

 

NFL uses network-employed broadcasters that are assigned based on level of perceived interest in each game. MLB uses "homer" broadcasters that, frankly, would be out of a job if they became too "honest" about the home team's shortcomings, whether player, coach or front office. Personally, I would love to see more professional and unbiased broadcasting of all games.

 

 

That is an interesting point. When FS1 or FOX televises Twins games I usually cringe at having unfamiliar broadcasters call a game - but that may be more a reflection on having NFL or college guys call a baseball game rather than having someone that I'm not "used to".

 

(I still cringe thinking about a 2013 Twins / White Sox game on FOX where the announcer - a college football guy - called a play by saying "Mauer's throw to first is incomplete!")

 

Having a rotating cast of announcers, like CBS and FOX do for the NFL could create a more honest and insightful booth. It's jarring to hear Bert rip into the Twins, but even his "attacks" are tame for some of the transgressions. An unbiased broadcaster could provide critical reviews or genuine praise and that COULD certainly help the "at home" quality of the game.

 

On the other hand, a rotating crew could recycle the same storylines again and again (like what happens in the NFL) and be generally unfamiliar with the product overall or the team on the field. You'd have to develop a crew that JUST calls baseball (or, calls mostly baseball). If that's possible, it would certainly be interesting to implement.

[biggentleben]

Another one.....and I expect y'all won't agree.....

 

But it is a barrier to relating to the players (and hence the game) that home team players' names are, um, not on the jersey. No other sport does that, do they? It is a quaint tradition, but it is a barrier to new/casual fans.

 

Not every team does this.

[biggentleben]

It's an interesting question, Doc.

 

NFL uses network-employed broadcasters that are assigned based on level of perceived interest in each game. MLB uses "homer" broadcasters that, frankly, would be out of a job if they became too "honest" about the home team's shortcomings, whether player, coach or front office. Personally, I would love to see more professional and unbiased broadcasting of all games.

 

Then again, those home-town broadcasters (no matter what we may think of their professionalism or talent) are generally VERY popular with the home town team's casual fan base, so moving away from that model could be counterproductive.

 

Football lends itself to use of replays to fill dead time. As has been pointed out, every play has 22 people in motion doing SOMETHING even if the play runs in the opposite direction. Multiple camera angles can show what a great (or poor) job of defending receivers was done away from where the play went.

 

Baseball has a tougher time filling that time between pitches. They can show the "K zone" graphic of where the pitch crossed the plate, but that's about it until a ball is actuall put in play. And a very small number of balls put in play are even interesting enough to delve in to multiple facets of the play.

 

Maybe George Carlin had it right all those years ago. Baseball and football are just very different games and appeal to different fan personalities (or even different personality aspects of the same fan).

 

I go to a lot of baseball games and I also am an Iowa football season ticket holder. I enjoy the college football crowd experience AND I enjoy the more relaxed environment of a minor league baseball game, just about equally. I simply don't expect one to duplicate the intensity or emotion of the other.

 

First bolded point - I agree, but at the casual fan level only because I think hardcore sports fans can translate their fandom to whichever sports pique their interest.

Second bolded point - My deepest sympathies.