TheLeviathan

I agree it's lip service, but eventually the cash cow they have (TV money) is going to need to be renegotiated. They'll want to be a lot closer to the NBA deal than the NHL one when that time comes.

It's not so much that the ratings were low as much as they lost viewers after they had an expected dip. If I'm MLB, I was thrilled to retain some of the 2016 numbers last year and would've liked to cement those going forward. To lose another significant chunk of them this year isn't good news. Maybe it was the bland series, certainly possible. Whatever the reason, it's the kind of thing you don't want to see. It shouldn't be controversial to say the news isn't good, especially when MLB itself (per fangraphs) is confused/taken aback by the numbers.

It is not in the MLS or NHL group yet. They are roughly similar to the NBA at this point, battling for the second spot. The unhealthy angle is more in the demographics, social media, etc. What makes this news unwelcome is that you'd have liked to retain the ratings of last year. I think everyone understands a drop-off from Cubs-Indians. That was an unsustainable spike. The problem is that there was a drop last year and another drop this year. That would indicate that some of the people you got to stay around and watch a year after the Cubs run, abandoned the Series two years later. That means that roughly 14% of people gave baseball another shot last year, but said the hell with it this year. Maybe they come back next year and it was the boredom of the series, but the general numbers on baseball do not indicate that optimism should be the default setting on such trends.

MLB doesn't have to trail the NHL or MLS, once it's in that group it's already a problem. You keep accusing me of an angle on this, but you clearly have one of your own. I'm not trying to put any other spin on this story but this: another ratings dip, with these two markets involved, is not good news. If you want to continue splitting hairs over that, you're on your own.

Right and NBA and NFL ratings (while slightly down) do not mimic the same trends. They have dipped with general ratings, but not by the same body blows MLB has endured. Being down 14% from last year (which is the rosiest spin on this presented yet) is still not good. This isn't losing joe schmo who turns on the TV and says "Oh...sure, baseball!" - you're starting to cut into the number of baseball fans willing to watch.

Considering you had two of hte largest markets, with the most heavily marketed franchises....I don't know how you possibly spin those ratings numbers as a good thing or even neutral. It may not be time to sound alarms, but it damn sure isn't good news. Down 14 or 25 or 40 is still down by a significant margin. Now all you're doing is arguing adjectives and missing the larger point.

Provus is really good though. I'd like to see him move to TV if that's an option.

I thought Alston did some nice things last year. Pressley credited him pretty clearly for his breakout. I don't know all the inner workings, that one just surprises me a bit.

Well...this isn't good news.

I'm very skeptical about how many players could do this well. I appreciate trying this in the minors or ST, but once the player is in the majors I am far more skeptical of experimenting.

I'm not trying to trip you up. I just read you taking a stance I can agree with (more flexibility) and taking it a step too far where it starts to butt heads with another item I value (defensive excellence). The idea of sticking outfielders at 3B or 2B very much makes me worry about quality of defensive play. Consider the value a great SS has over even an average one. Two high-end professional athletes, trained and experienced at the same position, but the inferior defender can have serious consequences for your team. Why wouldn't a left-fielder, stuck at 2B, also cause significant problems? Even in small samples? That's where you lose me. I don't want to experiment, in real games, to prepare for low probability scenarios. If I want to create flexibility, I'm using ST or Fall League for that.

I'm not convinced anyone who supports Trump would reel in horror about anything he says or does Brock. Trump himself said it - he could shoot someone in the middle of the street and they'd love him. I just don't see how this goes anywhere. Even if he signs the executive order I can't imagine the Supreme Court signing off on it. (Even as out of balance as that group is)

Well, he has said a lot of stupid things on Twitter and to the press and not all of them have come to pass. (Fortunately) I'm just not clear as to whether he is scheduled to put pen to paper or it's just his new, stupid sound byte.

Right now this is just bluster correct?

You use your phrases at the end of this. How is this not advocating the model of playing players at other positions, during the season, at positions they are not as good at, to prepare for off-chance/worst case scenarios/"failure"? Of course I lumped Shaw into this with Milwaukee. Why would your logic on his handling be any different than the examples here?

Trying some things out in ST is absolutely fine by me.

Aren't the granular examples the ones that matter? It's one thing to argue that guys can move around to accommodate acquisitions, it's another thing to suggest that Boston and Milwaukee should have played those guys at 2B earlier in the year. You said that several times, isn't that playing a guy at a noticeably inferior position on the off-chance something happens in the future? I don't think that's sound thinking. I'll cross that bridge when it comes, I'm not going to use prep for worst case scenarios drive my every day lineups. So when you suggest things like that, it does seem like you're willing to choose things at the detriment of the team in the name of flexibility.

When do we start phasing out Bremer? I kinda care more about that than Blyleven.

I didn't include single payer because I was trying to focus on the moral issues with racism and the repugnant behavior on the right. I think single payer would make the world a better place for sure, but I was trying to focus on how to tear the foundation of ignorance out of parts of America. The ignorance that fosters so much hate/fear/racism in our country. I admit, I don't know if even major education reforms would fix such entrenched thinking.

Well, there may be reasons beyond positional flexibility that are aiding the Dodgers and Cubs success. Just saying. As for the rest, I don't find "Prepare for Failure" to be particularly helpful as an answer. You gave a lot of examples of shuffling outfielders. That's fine, but that's the easy answer. I don't think most people would find the view that you play your LF/RF/CF somewhat interchangeably as all that new or unusual. Where I get....skeptical?....is when you criticized Milwaukee and Boston for not playing Shaw and Mookie at 2B during the season. Which plays to this "prepare for failure" mantra and how the rubber meets the road. You seem to imply that teams should knowingly play guys at inferior positions to get them experience in worst case scenarios, but you don't seem to see the problem with how far you extend that thinking. I mean, should the Twins start Tyler Austin at catcher because he's the emergency guy just to get him reps there? If Sano at SS is plan C....should we start him there 10 times a year? On the off-chance we acquire a shortstop mid-season should we play Polanco in CF just in case? That's where I struggle with some of your comments. "Failure" can mean a lot of different things. Playing Shaw at 2B in April when they didn't have a good backup 3B, just on the off-chance they made a July trade....seems like a bizarre way to approach things. I don't think that's sound thinking at all.

I think things are trending better, even if it may not feel like it now. So I'm not sure we're quite ready to declare the last fifty years wasted for one. If we're trying to make the world a better place (I assume you mostly mean America) I think a great deal of that has to be done through law and policy. And that requires winning elections. So, whether it's incompetence, bad luck, or whatever, I do think it's important for Democrats to reverse the long-standing trends they have in failing to get out youths, blacks, and re-establishing their cred with blue collar people. If that happens, I'd like to see the following things be high priorities: 1) Universal basic income 2) Education reform (I don't want federal control - imagine the nightmare that would be with Trump - but I do want federal oversight on dollars allocations) I would aim there for two reasons - one of the reasons that you've hinted at as a cause of racism is a lack of education. I agree with you. It's also fundamental to the desperation so many black Americans are forced to grow up with. The value of the property near you should not dictate your educational experiences. That needs to stop. A fundamental change there is a chance to narrow class gaps and offer more opportunity to all people. I think this could also combat the ease with which propaganda from the right infiltrates many poor white communities. Education is the great neutralizer for the kind of manipulation. And UBI would be another step in that direction. Eliminate government programs that hand out assistance in clunky, stupid ways and just level the playing field. As for the hate in people's hearts? I don't have a good solution to that. I don't know how you force people to live an experience different than theirs. I don't know how you teach empathy to some 40 year old white guy. I think it helps to call out racists for what they are. We can't allow dog whistling and subtle racism to escape scrutiny. Past that....I have no idea. I wish I did.

I wonder what the blitz rate is the Vikings are facing. Perhaps some of the pressure rate and success is driven by that? Hey, if I'm wrong I'll be happy to admit it. But I've seen a lot of NFL games this year where some QBs are getting worn the hell out by pass rushes.

The premium on pass-rushers has to do with the frequency and quickness of the NFL passing game. That's what makes the offensive line play even more staggering. They aren't even asked to block as long and are still failing it at it relative to their peers of the past.

I also find it hard to believe we have more racists than 1960. I would like to see some evidence for that.

Why do you think the premium being paid for pass rushers is so high? Look what the Saints paid for Davenport. And some of the FA contracts. So no, I don't agree with that logic at all.