This topic has been discussed on this website many, many times, but I'll say again that Gladden is the one who is most likely to make me yell at the radio/TV. His understanding of the game and the stories he can tell, which are his strengths, would lend themselves better to working TV than radio. Working radio requires painting a picture of the action on the field with words and he is utterly incapable of doing so. Moreover, someone who has been involved with professional baseball for over 40 years ought to be able to pronounce Hispanic names correctly. He is an abject failure at that as well.
If this is to be used as a benchmark, then only the percentage of American-born players who are Black should be considered. For one thing, there are more Asian players in MLB now than 20 years ago. Even considering this, however, could lower the percentage because many players from Latin America are Black. Another factor that I think should be considered is the percentage of Black American-born players in the NBA and the NFL. What is the percentage of American-born Black players in all three sports as a whole? I'm going to guess (and it's only a guess) that this will point to an issue that Black American athletes are choosing football and basketball over baseball.
And here's another interesting thought about this proposal. In this system there would be more incentive for all but the top few teams to trade their top players for prospects. This has the potential to recreate a Cleveland-Spiders-like problem. So, no in-season trades. Each franchise must use only the players in its system for the entire season.
Here's a piece from 538.com: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/60-games-arent-enough-to-crown-the-best-mlb-team-but-neither-are-162-games/ The main reason I like a long season is simply that there are more baseball games to watch that way. But I think it's also better in terms of "justice being served" because teams that succeed over longer seasons are more likely to be the best teams overall. If the goal is for the World Champion to be the best team then probably the best way to accomplish that is to have a long season with a balanced schedule among all teams. Under the current 30-team configuration that would mean each team would play each other team 6 times for 174 games. Start at the beginning of April and finish during the middle of October. At that point the first place team is World Champion. No postseason. The end. That doesn't necessarily mean I think it should be done this way. I'm just putting this thought out there.
No. The following is unquestionably the worst song ever. I can't even get through the entire thing. I don't think anyone should even click on the link.
I'm 99.99% sure that Dozier's professional playing career is over. There is no indication that he will ever again be the hitter he was five years ago and he is at best an average fielder who can play only one position. In the current situation with the bare-bones draft it's all the more important to give priority to prospects. Teams can't use a roster spot and any other resources on--sorry to say it--a washed-up player.
None of those sports plays a 65-game home schedule. And you wouldn't have students attending (at reduced ticket prices) because they wouldn't be there and because it's not a school sport. If you look at the populations of the current AAA franchises there is none anywhere near as small as F-M and St. Cloud is about half the size of F-M. It's wishful thinking to consider those locations for AAA and business people know wishful thinking doesn't translate into revenue. And BTW the St. Cloud Rox you speak of were the equivalent of modern-day low-A or maybe rookie league and ceased to exist after 1971. Here's a link to the history of the Twins' minor league franchises. https://twinstrivia.com/twins-minor-league-history/
Respectfully, no way. The median AAA team averages about 6,900 attendance per game. To match that, 5% of the population of Fargo-Moorhead or 10% of the population of St. Cloud would have to go to EVERY game. Moreover, the ticket price would be significantly higher because Northwoods League players are not paid.
Other than St. Paul the only metro areas in the upper Midwest that will work for a AAA franchise are Des Moines and Omaha. The populations of other locations are just too small and/or do not have enough Twins fans. Sioux Falls, SD, Lincoln, NE, Madison, WI, and Rochester, MN are all non-starters. Des Moines and Omaha are not going to flip from the Cubs and Royals unless the parent clubs decide to get out, and that is extremely unlikely.
I can understand how a Twins fan in Omaha would love to have their AAA team in Lincoln. But realistically, I think the chance of a Twins AAA team succeeding there is infinitesimal. In business terms Lincoln is really part of the Omaha market and it's in the heart of Royals territory. I just can't see Twins executives giving the OK to go that way.
I'm with both of these posts. There's no reason for the fun atmosphere to be compromised. The quality of baseball would be way better than we get with the has-beens, never-wases and never-will-bes that make up the current AAIPB. And we'd have a chance to see our top prospects in person instead of being relegated to reading third-hand information about them. We've discussed this on a past thread but it's good news that this concept seems to have traction within the two organizations.
I noticed this one-sentence item in the most obscure part of this morning's StarTribune print edition: San Diego released former Twins All-Star second baseman Brian Dozier.
The aspect of the 2020 schedule that is the most favorable for the Twins is having no travel to Arizona, California, Florida, or Texas. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-us-cases.html
For the sake of factual clarity here are the starting pitchers from the 1965 season with the number of games started: Kaat, 42 Grant, 39 Pascual, 27 Perry, 19 Boswell, 12 Merritt, 9 Stigman, 8 Nelson, 3 Pleis, 2 Siebler, 1
Respectfully, no. Babe Ruth is the best player of all time. The reason that is the case is that Ruth, in addition to being one of the best batters of all time, was an excellent major league pitcher. There has been no player who was Ruth's equal as a batter who was even remotely close to being his equal as a pitcher.
It's analogous to the old saying that a bad day fishing is better than a good day working. (I don't fish but I still understand the sentiment.) The dullest real game is better than the most exciting simulated one. IMHO, of course.
I did a very small amount of online research to try to establish a timeline on name and mascot changes. 1969 - Students at Dartmouth College began promoting a team name change from "Indians". The change was made official in 1974. 1970 - University of Oklahoma retires "Little Red" mascot. 1971 - Marquette University abandons "Willie Wampum" mascot. The team name was changed from "Warriors" to "Golden Eagles" in 1994. 1972 - Stanford University drops "Indians" nickname and logo. 1972 - Dickinson (N.D.) State changed its nickname from "Savages" to "Blue Hawks". These are only the very earliest examples I found, and nickname/mascot changes became much more widespread not long afterward. Here in Minnesota, the State Board of Education passed a resolution in 1988 encouraging all school districts to remove Indian-related mascots. With all due respect, I find it impossible to believe that anyone who pays even casual attention to sports did not know that such nicknames were considered offensive "until a few years ago".
I should have expanded a bit on my previous response to this post. Is choosing Fighting Sioux as the sports mascot for a school really a good way to pay homage? It seems to me that if paying homage was truly what the school wanted to do there would have been a concerted effort to learn and thoughtfully present the history and lives of people of the Sioux Nation. It seems to me that a proud people, as you called them, would probably have felt hurt and demeaned to have been reduced to a caricature at football and hockey games.