Purists: Explain thyselves - Page 8

Bald Eagles · 05-11-2002, 04:13 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by hellfrozeover:
In addition, I hate interleague games EXCEPT for Cubs-Sox games....those are great. BUT, if that idiot Selig would get rid of interleague play, I can live without the crosstown games. Besides the Cubs have no problem selling out the stadium, it's the Sox who can't sell more than 19,000 a game even when they were in 1st place back in 2000.<hr /></blockquote>I agree. I think Interleague Play should be for crosstown classics only. Chicago and New York are the only two cities currently with multiple MLB teams. Houston and Texas, Los Angeles and Anaheim, San Francisco and Oakland and other nearby cities with teams in each league are also good 'crosstown classics'.

D Love · 05-11-2002, 05:12 AM

For anyone who has read up on their baseball history, particularly articles written since the 1910's, you'll see that baseball is almost always on a decline. Some thought the 1910's were the peak of baseball and that Ruthian HRs destroyed that. Now, we think the 1920's era was a golden age and that home runs today are ridiculous.

I don't think there has ever been a time when people did not say baseball was worse off than before.

Malleus Dei · 05-11-2002, 05:25 AM

Damn, Moyer, you nailed it.

"I'm only 25, but I would've loved 60's baseball. Being able to go to a game after work and knowing that I'd be home before 10pm would be great."

And it was great. Afternoon Dodger and Padre and Giant games were the high sports points of the sixties and seventies for me. I still go to at least 50 games a year now, counting college, minor and major league games, and there's no comparison.

"All other things aside, there was an enthusiasm for the game that isn't there anymore - among owners, players, or fans."

There was also a love of the game that isn't there any more. The pre-free-agent game was a LOT more about baseball rather than money than today's game is. I remember when Drysdale and Koufax threatened not to play for a year if they didn't get huge raises; my father was absolutely livid over it and called them ungrateful wretches who were ruining the game for the sake of their pocketbooks. People were publicly outraged by what they did. Today? Some middle infielder who is statistically pathetic gets 4 million a year instead of the $40,000 he is actually worth and no one even blinks.

"Malleus has a good point that people seem to be ignoring. Baseball was the National Pasttime."

And they called it that and everyone knew it was true because in those days it WAS the National Pastime - it was THE sport of the U.S. and we all knew it. Football and basketball were lesser sports; as a boy, my grandfather taught me that football and basketball fans were made up of peasants and the uneducated.

"I think if it weren't for the strike of 94, baseball would still be the #1 sport in the USA."

Almost certainly so. Player greed and incredibly stupid owners combined to ruin baseball.

Jason Moyer · 05-11-2002, 02:12 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by BaseballMan:
I do gree the 95-2000 series werent that exciting but mainly cause of the yankee dominance not the strike. But weve been there before 1936-1939, 1949-1953.<hr /></blockquote>Yes, and during those periods baseball was still by far the most popular sport in this country. Fans will tolerate dynasties more than season-destroying labor stoppages.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Dont count out baseball just because of a strike.
Dont forget footballs had their strikes and hey if they can cancel the world series it could happen with the super bowl too though i doubt it will but seems to me the league would have more to lose seeing how so their is so much money made and wagered on that one game.<hr /></blockquote>The 1994 strike is the first of its kind that I can remember in any sport. Previous strikes were annoying but a.) didn't destroy the season and b.) resulted in something important being changed.

The strike in 1981 was over free agency rights. While I think free agency has hurt the game, on a labor-rights level I think that until 1981 players were always being shortchanged by the owners. Sure, Nolan Ryan or Mike Schmidt making $1-2 million dollars seems outrageous - until you think about how much money management is making from their marquee players. I think that modern players have lost sight of the arguments for free agency - the idea was always that players weren't being compensated fairly in proportion to the amount of profit that the ballclub was generating. Now, a guy who no one has heard of with practically no value as a player or entertainer is asking for $5mil a year. That is pure greed.

In 1994, the strike was over the distribution of TV money. When the strike finally ended, nothing was resolved. While the strike sucked, baseball could have come out of the 94 strike stronger than ever had they actually acknowledged and fixed the problems that led to the strike. The teams could have used the work stoppage to fix the game, and they didn't. If the Yankees play the Royals, give the Royals half the TV money for those games instead of letting the Yanks have it all. This is only logical and fair. If TV money was redistributed like this the Yankees would have 3 times as much money as everyone else instead of 50 times as much money. Competitive balance increases interest in the sport. Not the only thing wrong with baseball, but something that would have a positive effect if taken care of. Instead of taking care of the problem, the owners decided to ignore the real issue and put on a fake front of solidarity. In reality, teams like the Royals and Twins should simply refuse to play the Yankees. If the Yankees are playing in their town, they should cancel the games. Think baseball would just pretend there's not a problem then?

Jason

BaseballMan · 05-11-2002, 09:16 PM

Well you know we can complain about it all we want but until we form a strike of our own as fans i dont see what we else we can do about it.
No matter what happens i still think the 4 major sports will be baseball, football, basketball, & hockey. I dont see any other sport overtaking them no matter how many strikes. Eventually the fans will always come back.
I just enjoy what i got. I dont see the point in getting worked up over things i cant control.

Le Grande Orange · 05-11-2002, 09:41 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jason Moyer:
1. The DH/strikezone create more offense.
2. More offense creates longer games.<hr /></blockquote>Does anyone know the average length of current MLB games? It would be interesting to know whether AL or NL games take longer to play these days...

Le Grande Orange · 05-11-2002, 10:07 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Steve Wagner:
Baseball should (but never would):
- Play more Doubleheaders to shorten season<hr /></blockquote>Even with the extra round of playoff thanks to the wildcard, baseball actually has the third longest season of the four major professional sports in North America.

If you count from the start of the regular season to when the playoffs are concluded, the NHL has the longest season, at some 8.5 months. The NBA is close behind in second place, at around 8 months. MLB comes in third, with a season that is just under 7 months long. The NFL has the shortest season, with only 5 months between the first regular season game and the playing of the Super Bowl.

Of course, how long a season feels versus how long it actually is is another story entirely.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Philetus:
Contrast that to the last pennant race: 1993. Braves and Giants. 104 wins to 103. And no safety net. No talk of, "Well, we weren't good enough to win the division, but there is something waiting for us too." They weren't good enough, they went home. Was it bad luck that the Giants played in the only division in baseball that had a team win 104 games? Sure was.<hr /></blockquote>It was more than just bad luck. It should be remembered that the divisional structure in 1993 was in fact arbitrary and not particularly fair.

Why? Because in 1993 the leagues played a balanced schedule. Teams played more games against non-divisional opponents (84) than they played against divisional opponents (78). As a result the divisional structure was actually meaningless. It would've been more fair to have had only a single division and simply taken the top two teams.

The only time a divisional structure has any genuine meaning is when teams play a majority (and more properly a solid majority) of their games against their divisional opponents.

If this is not the case, then the divisional groupings are purely arbitrary and of little value other than for show...

[ 05-12-2002, 04:12 AM: Message edited by: Le Grande Orange ]

Jason Moyer · 05-11-2002, 11:05 PM

This is old data (the values have been steadily increasing since this report was made) but you get the idea:

<a href="http://roadsidephotos.com/baseball/95gamelength.htm" target="_blank">http://roadsidephotos.com/baseball/95gamelength.htm</a>

Jason

bkurtz · 05-12-2002, 04:44 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Malleus Dei:
Aadik, that really was one of my sons. He quit playing OOTP and thinks that the lot of you here are such scum that he has yelled at me more than once for still posting here.<hr /></blockquote>any psychiatrist in the room?

wireman · 05-12-2002, 09:02 AM

There are empirical arguments to be made for "old-time" baseball having been better. There are also counterarguments. I guess it could go on forever.

I know why, for me, baseball was better in 1955. Everything was fresh and new and awe-inspiring because I was fresh and new and it was my time to live and breathe baseball. The game was filled with magic and wonder and Griffith Stadium was a breathtaking shrine and the players were titanic heroes (even Jim Busby). Because I was a kid.

I don't think I could ever be so impressed by anything today, because I'm not young anymore. In fact, I probably haven't watched three games since the strike, I was so disgusted.

But if you're somebody for whom this is your time to love the game as much as I did, you're right to do that and you're right to defend the way it's played. I wish you only the best.

One other thing. I don't want to start a dustup with Malleus (or anybody else), but I think he would concede one small point about experience. It's beneficial if you know how to use it, but there are plenty of people who get the experience and never learn a thing from it (although I don't count Malleus among them).

-- Louie

Malleus Dei · 05-12-2002, 12:16 PM

"there are plenty of people who get the experience and never learn a thing from it"

Sadly true. And if you don't learn anything from experience then it's effectively the same thing as never having ever had it.

"(although I don't count Malleus among them)."

Nice of you to say that.

Crapshoot · 05-12-2002, 05:20 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Jason Moyer:
.

The strike in 1981 was over free agency rights. While I think free agency has hurt the game, on a labor-rights level I think that until 1981 players were always being shortchanged by the owners. Sure, Nolan Ryan or Mike Schmidt making $1-2 million dollars seems outrageous - until you think about how much money management is making from their marquee players. I think that modern players have lost sight of the arguments for free agency - the idea was always that players weren't being compensated fairly in proportion to the amount of profit that the ballclub was generating. Now, a guy who no one has heard of with practically no value as a player or entertainer is asking for $5mil a year. That is pure greed.

In 1994, the strike was over the distribution of TV money. When the strike finally ended, nothing was resolved. While the strike sucked, baseball could have come out of the 94 strike stronger than ever had they actually acknowledged and fixed the problems that led to the strike. The teams could have used the work stoppage to fix the game, and they didn't. If the Yankees play the Royals, give the Royals half the TV money for those games instead of letting the Yanks have it all. This is only logical and fair. If TV money was redistributed like this the Yankees would have 3 times as much money as everyone else instead of 50 times as much money. Competitive balance increases interest in the sport. Not the only thing wrong with baseball, but something that would have a positive effect if taken care of. Instead of taking care of the problem, the owners decided to ignore the real issue and put on a fake front of solidarity. In reality, teams like the Royals and Twins should simply refuse to play the Yankees. If the Yankees are playing in their town, they should cancel the games. Think baseball would just pretend there's not a problem then?

Jason[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>Jason, this is precisely the mindset I disagree with; you dont think that a certain player is worth 5 million, so he isnt ? We live in a capitalist society; if you are important enough in your organization that someone percieves your value as 5 million, than that is what it is; your organization has the right not to make the offer, in which case you are free to leave. Baseball and all the major sports still are under the strictest labor laws of anyone; they can be traded, waived without any notice, etc. Can you imagine doing this to a regular employee at GM ? He would have the option of quitting and going elsewhere; the organization cannot force him to move.
Look, I realize purists dont like free agency and think its all about greed, but I find it patently unfair that you would deny them their basic labor rights. Baseball needs to be seen as what it is; entertainment where the people providing the entertainment are entitled to whatever the market will bear. The common fallacy that high salaries are the reason for high ticket prices is crazy; if anything, the ticket prices are based on analysis of what the market can bear. I believe baseballprospectus.com did a great article on this once. No one forces you to go to the games or support it; you choose to do so.
Basically, the greed argument is patently unfair in my opinion; you are entitled to want to maximize your earnings, and its a hallmark of society that you can do just that. A baseball player has the same rights. Malleus, I recall reading your points on the "clutch hitting" myth, and your point that we have to look at facts; while I dont know your stance on free agency or the money in the game today, I would think the idea of looking at the facts behind salaries and money in baseball is also reasonable. This is one of the reasons I have issues with baseball in the 50's and 60's, and the periods before that.
If you get to the end of this, understand that I do not mean to insult anyone; I just dont understand how anyone with a basic perception of labor law can argue against free agency.

Jason Moyer · 05-13-2002, 07:51 AM

I have no problems with players making a lot of money. If the teams are generating a lot of money then invariably the players are going to make a lot of money.

My problem with the last strike is that it was over the distribution of TV contracts, and nothing was really resolved - except that the gap between poor teams and rich teams was widened further. I seriously wish the Royals or the Twins or another poor team would boycott all of their games against the Yankees until the Yankees agreed to divide their broadcast revenue 50/50 with whomever they're playing.

Baseball is still profitable, but only for a small percentage of the teams. If something isn't done to redistribute broadcasting money more fairly, the contraction of the Twins and Expos will be the tip of the iceberg.

Jason

Jim Lynch · 05-13-2002, 02:16 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Malleus Dei:
Damn, Moyer, you nailed it.

"I'm only 25, but I would've loved 60's baseball. Being able to go to a game after work and knowing that I'd be home before 10pm would be great."

And it was great. Afternoon Dodger and Padre and Giant games were the high sports points of the sixties and seventies for me. I still go to at least 50 games a year now, counting college, minor and major league games, and there's no comparison.

"All other things aside, there was an enthusiasm for the game that isn't there anymore - among owners, players, or fans."

There was also a love of the game that isn't there any more. The pre-free-agent game was a LOT more about baseball rather than money than today's game is. I remember when Drysdale and Koufax threatened not to play for a year if they didn't get huge raises; my father was absolutely livid over it and called them ungrateful wretches who were ruining the game for the sake of their pocketbooks. People were publicly outraged by what they did. Today? Some middle infielder who is statistically pathetic gets 4 million a year instead of the $40,000 he is actually worth and no one even blinks.

"Malleus has a good point that people seem to be ignoring. Baseball was the National Pasttime."

And they called it that and everyone knew it was true because in those days it WAS the National Pastime - it was THE sport of the U.S. and we all knew it. Football and basketball were lesser sports; as a boy, my grandfather taught me that football and basketball fans were made up of peasants and the uneducated.

Well almost everyone who likes baseball also likes football and basketball. How would your grandfather explain Duke student/basketball fans. Would they be 'peasants' or 'uneducated'.

"I think if it weren't for the strike of 94, baseball would still be the #1 sport in the USA."

Almost certainly so. Player greed and incredibly stupid owners combined to ruin baseball.<hr /></blockquote>Well, if you asked someone just a little bit older than you, they would tell you Giant/Dodger games were great. Of course the games they would be talking about would have been played at the Polo Grounds or Ebbets Field. So would someone with more 'experience' than you be able to say you are wrong because of their 'experience'.
Anyone who wants to join me in the upper deck at Yankee Stadium this week will see that there are plenty of fans with 'passion' and 'enthusiasm'. You also don't have to look very hard for players with the same qualities.

A middle infielder in the major leagues would be one the 120 (30 x 4) best at their jobs in the world. I work in a department at a Fortune 500 company that has about 120 employees. I can tell you even the biggest idiots, who I would put in the lower half of the population make well more than $40,000. I mean this statement is so stupid it defies explanation.

Well almost everyone who likes baseball also likes football and basketball. How would your grandfather explain Duke student/basketball fans. Would they be 'peasants' or 'uneducated'?

Baseball was well on it's way to second class status behind the NFL long before 1994. It's no secret why. Everyone gambles on it.

[ 05-13-2002, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: Jim Lynch ]

BaseballMan · 05-14-2002, 01:11 PM

Good point there. I never thought about all the
betting on nfl games. Come to think of it most of the people i can think of have betted on nfl, nba or horse racing. Not too many i can think of that bet on baseball games except maybe Pete Rose.
But then again im not much of a gambler

SaberGrey · 05-16-2002, 11:56 AM

I like the wild-card system as it stands now. I don't want to see the post-season watered down with too many teams like in the NBA and NHL and even the NFL to some extent.

I don't like the DH. There is less strategy required in a DH league. Besides, as the rule states, baseball is a game played by 9 players...the DH violates this rule!

BaseballMan · 05-16-2002, 01:15 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by SaberGrey:
I like the wild-card system as it stands now. I don't want to see the post-season watered down with too many teams like in the NBA and NHL and even the NFL to some extent.

I don't like the DH. There is less strategy required in a DH league. Besides, as the rule states, baseball is a game played by 9 players...the DH violates this rule!<hr /></blockquote>Im not for or against the DH but im not so sure the Dh violates that rule.
I think batting is playing the game or else no team would ever score. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
But i dont know wether the rule states 9 players should play the game or that 9 players should bat and field or 9 players should bat or field.
So i think it depends on what the current rules say regardless of what pre 2002 rules say unless your running a historical replay from that season.
I mean if you wanna go by the original rules that might have said 9 players to bat and field then you have to have the other original rules too which was like 8 strikes and 9 balls i beleive.
But dont take this has i favor the dh. But at the same time i do like the leagues being different.

KC · 06-22-2002, 05:01 PM

For most of my life, I'd have to say that I was a fan of the DH. I'm an AL fan, and the DH has been around as long as I have... Ron Bloomberg stepped up to the plate a few weeks before I was born. But, as I get older, I'd have to say that I really don't see a practical reason for the DH.

The DH was just a ploy to bring more people into the stands. People wanted to see more home runs, and they were not getting that in 1972. Pitching was dominating the game in the last 60s, and the paying fan didn't want to see a pitcher's dual. Since I see this now as a pure finanical move on the part of the baseball owner, I'm beginning to dislike the DH.

Interleague play is another financial move that helped bring back the fans after the 1994 strike. If you remember, fans were slow to embrace the sport again after '94. I remember fans in Baltimore were greated at the gates of Camden Yards by none other than Cal Ripken, Jr. and the rest of the Oriole team. The game was hurting. In the first year of interleague play, my Yankees lost the AL East pennant because of their record against the Florida Marlins. If it wasn't for interleague play, the Yanks could have won the pennant. At the time, that meant a lot. Point is: interleague games do not help teams out in the standings. I'd rather have those few games converted back to inter-division matches that will help decide who wins the pennant.

Six divisions vs. two leagues: I'm toying with the idea of starting a league with only 16 teams, eight teams representing the National League and the other eight representing the American League. The complaint about today's game is that purists view the overall talent as being AAA or AA at worse. I don't agree with that, except on the concept of pitching. My argument is that more players are being allowed to play the game now than in 1948, when the game comprised of mostly white players on 16 teams. The talent pool was limited to white men before Jackie Robinson came along. Now, we have so much more. If there were only 16 teams, pitching staffs would be hellish on the league offenses and players like Mike Piazza (picked last by the Dodgers) would have been lost in the minor leagues, if picked at all. You'd have yourself a product worth paying $5 for a hotdog to see.

The Wild Card has to go. Football needs it for a few things. One reason that stands out is that if a team has a few bad games in one season, those few games will cost them the chance to go to the playoffs. Football only plays 16 games. The best team in the league, because they failed to read the defense properly a few times against the Falcons, could wind up sitting at home in December if there wasn't a wild card. Baseball is 162 games. Most of the time, those few bad games are lost in the blur that is the rest of the season. Before the wild card, it was safe to say that the best team one the pennant. There was no chance for the "team of the moment" to come over and spoil everything (excluding the 1978 season, as I believe the Red Sox were better).

I'll go one step farther and comment on the five-man rotation and the over use of the reliver. I remember when it was common to see double-digits in the complete game column for a team's ace pitcher. The last time I saw 20 complete games from someone was Ron Guidry in 1983 (as Billy Martin was notorious for keeping his starters in). That's pretty extreme, but no worse than seeing your ace pitcher show up every fifth day to pitch only five innings. To see Roger Clemens win the Cy Young award without ever seeing the end of a game is a joke, no matter how well he pitched. Now, a record such as Nolan Ryan's strikeout record for a season will never be broken. He pitched over 300 innings to reach that mark. Randy Johnson has to pull an act of super-human proportions just to get close. If the Diamondbacks opted for the four-man rotation, and gave Johnson and Schilling 40 starts each, Ryan's record could be broken. (And, besides, why couldn't they do it today WITH the way relievers are used today?)

KC · 06-22-2002, 05:13 PM

Moyer,

You touched upon something I failed to mention. Night games. Hate them. You are absolutely right. It's insane that here on the East Coast, post season games are started at 8:30-9 o'clock at night. In 2000, the two teams involved in the World Series were both in New York. You can say the majority of the fan base was on the East Coast, yet broadcast television has to cater to the West Coast and start the games at a ridiculous hour.

Tape delay broadcasts and scroll "tickertape" advertisments on the bottom of the screen. Because of those people involved with the game, baseball has surpassed as the National Pastime.

KC · 06-22-2002, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jason Moyer
I have no problems with players making a lot of money. If the teams are generating a lot of money then invariably the players are going to make a lot of money.

My problem with the last strike is that it was over the distribution of TV contracts, and nothing was really resolved - except that the gap between poor teams and rich teams was widened further. I seriously wish the Royals or the Twins or another poor team would boycott all of their games against the Yankees until the Yankees agreed to divide their broadcast revenue 50/50 with whomever they're playing.

Baseball is still profitable, but only for a small percentage of the teams. If something isn't done to redistribute broadcasting money more fairly, the contraction of the Twins and Expos will be the tip of the iceberg.

Jason

George Steinbrenner has said he's against revenue sharing as there are a lot of morons out there who call themselves baseball owners, yet have no idea how to run an organization. And, I believe he's right. I can see his point, but somehow baseball has to develop into a single entity, where baseball teams are only "branch offices" of the corporation. Guys like Steinbrenner, who has developed into a sports world financial genius, need to realize that without the entire product, there is no place else to sell their team. The Yankees are doing extremely well financially, but if the rest of the league fails, where are they going to get the other nine players to play against?

Major League baseball just may very well die off and lead the way to the re-birth of semi-pro and minor league baseball. Wouldn't you know it, most of the things that we all love about the sport lie in those smaller leagues anyway.

05-11-2002, 04:13 AM	#141
Bald Eagles Major Leagues Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Waveland & Sheffield Posts: 402	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by hellfrozeover: <strong>In addition, I hate interleague games EXCEPT for Cubs-Sox games....those are great. BUT, if that idiot Selig would get rid of interleague play, I can live without the crosstown games. Besides the Cubs have no problem selling out the stadium, it's the Sox who can't sell more than 19,000 a game even when they were in 1st place back in 2000.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I agree. I think Interleague Play should be for crosstown classics only. Chicago and New York are the only two cities currently with multiple MLB teams. Houston and Texas, Los Angeles and Anaheim, San Francisco and Oakland and other nearby cities with teams in each league are also good 'crosstown classics'.

05-11-2002, 02:12 PM	#144
Jason Moyer Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 5,067	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by BaseballMan: <strong>I do gree the 95-2000 series werent that exciting but mainly cause of the yankee dominance not the strike. But weve been there before 1936-1939, 1949-1953.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yes, and during those periods baseball was still by far the most popular sport in this country. Fans will tolerate dynasties more than season-destroying labor stoppages. </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>Dont count out baseball just because of a strike. Dont forget footballs had their strikes and hey if they can cancel the world series it could happen with the super bowl too though i doubt it will but seems to me the league would have more to lose seeing how so their is so much money made and wagered on that one game.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The 1994 strike is the first of its kind that I can remember in any sport. Previous strikes were annoying but a.) didn't destroy the season and b.) resulted in something important being changed. The strike in 1981 was over free agency rights. While I think free agency has hurt the game, on a labor-rights level I think that until 1981 players were always being shortchanged by the owners. Sure, Nolan Ryan or Mike Schmidt making $1-2 million dollars seems outrageous - until you think about how much money management is making from their marquee players. I think that modern players have lost sight of the arguments for free agency - the idea was always that players weren't being compensated fairly in proportion to the amount of profit that the ballclub was generating. Now, a guy who no one has heard of with practically no value as a player or entertainer is asking for $5mil a year. That is pure greed. In 1994, the strike was over the distribution of TV money. When the strike finally ended, nothing was resolved. While the strike sucked, baseball could have come out of the 94 strike stronger than ever had they actually acknowledged and fixed the problems that led to the strike. The teams could have used the work stoppage to fix the game, and they didn't. If the Yankees play the Royals, give the Royals half the TV money for those games instead of letting the Yanks have it all. This is only logical and fair. If TV money was redistributed like this the Yankees would have 3 times as much money as everyone else instead of 50 times as much money. Competitive balance increases interest in the sport. Not the only thing wrong with baseball, but something that would have a positive effect if taken care of. Instead of taking care of the problem, the owners decided to ignore the real issue and put on a fake front of solidarity. In reality, teams like the Royals and Twins should simply refuse to play the Yankees. If the Yankees are playing in their town, they should cancel the games. Think baseball would just pretend there's not a problem then? Jason __________________ "I pretty much popped everything cold turkey. We were doing steroids they wouldn't give to horses." -- Tom House "I was very fortunate to have a pitching coach by the name of Tom House...Tom, I really miss those days that we spent in the weight room and out on the field working together." -- Nolan Ryan's HoF Induction Speech

05-11-2002, 09:41 PM	#146
Le Grande Orange Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Up There Posts: 15,644	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Jason Moyer: <strong>1. The DH/strikezone create more offense. 2. More offense creates longer games.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Does anyone know the average length of current MLB games? It would be interesting to know whether AL or NL games take longer to play these days...

05-11-2002, 10:07 PM	#147
Le Grande Orange Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Up There Posts: 15,644	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Steve Wagner: <strong>Baseball should (but never would): - Play more Doubleheaders to shorten season</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Even with the extra round of playoff thanks to the wildcard, baseball actually has the third longest season of the four major professional sports in North America. If you count from the start of the regular season to when the playoffs are concluded, the NHL has the longest season, at some 8.5 months. The NBA is close behind in second place, at around 8 months. MLB comes in third, with a season that is just under 7 months long. The NFL has the shortest season, with only 5 months between the first regular season game and the playing of the Super Bowl. Of course, how long a season feels versus how long it actually is is another story entirely. </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Philetus: <strong>Contrast that to the last pennant race: 1993. Braves and Giants. 104 wins to 103. And no safety net. No talk of, "Well, we weren't good enough to win the division, but there is something waiting for us too." They weren't good enough, they went home. Was it bad luck that the Giants played in the only division in baseball that had a team win 104 games? Sure was.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">It was more than just bad luck. It should be remembered that the divisional structure in 1993 was in fact arbitrary and not particularly fair. Why? Because in 1993 the leagues played a balanced schedule. Teams played more games against non-divisional opponents (84) than they played against divisional opponents (78). As a result the divisional structure was actually meaningless. It would've been more fair to have had only a single division and simply taken the top two teams. The only time a divisional structure has any genuine meaning is when teams play a majority (and more properly a solid majority) of their games against their divisional opponents. If this is not the case, then the divisional groupings are purely arbitrary and of little value other than for show... <small>[ 05-12-2002, 04:12 AM: Message edited by: Le Grande Orange ]</small>

05-11-2002, 11:05 PM	#148
Jason Moyer Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 5,067	This is old data (the values have been steadily increasing since this report was made) but you get the idea: <a href="http://roadsidephotos.com/baseball/95gamelength.htm" target="_blank">http://roadsidephotos.com/baseball/95gamelength.htm</a> Jason __________________ "I pretty much popped everything cold turkey. We were doing steroids they wouldn't give to horses." -- Tom House "I was very fortunate to have a pitching coach by the name of Tom House...Tom, I really miss those days that we spent in the weight room and out on the field working together." -- Nolan Ryan's HoF Induction Speech

05-11-2002, 05:12 AM	#142
D Love All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Queens, NY Posts: 907	For anyone who has read up on their baseball history, particularly articles written since the 1910's, you'll see that baseball is almost always on a decline. Some thought the 1910's were the peak of baseball and that Ruthian HRs destroyed that. Now, we think the 1920's era was a golden age and that home runs today are ridiculous. I don't think there has ever been a time when people did not say baseball was worse off than before.

05-11-2002, 09:16 PM	#145
BaseballMan Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 6,491	Well you know we can complain about it all we want but until we form a strike of our own as fans i dont see what we else we can do about it. No matter what happens i still think the 4 major sports will be baseball, football, basketball, & hockey. I dont see any other sport overtaking them no matter how many strikes. Eventually the fans will always come back. I just enjoy what i got. I dont see the point in getting worked up over things i cant control.

05-12-2002, 04:44 AM	#149
bkurtz Minors (Double A) Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 161	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Malleus Dei: <strong>Aadik, that really was one of my sons. He quit playing OOTP and thinks that the lot of you here are such scum that he has yelled at me more than once for still posting here.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">any psychiatrist in the room?

05-12-2002, 09:02 AM	#150
wireman All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Harrisonburg VA Posts: 765	There are empirical arguments to be made for "old-time" baseball having been better. There are also counterarguments. I guess it could go on forever. I know why, for me, baseball was better in 1955. Everything was fresh and new and awe-inspiring because I was fresh and new and it was my time to live and breathe baseball. The game was filled with magic and wonder and Griffith Stadium was a breathtaking shrine and the players were titanic heroes (even Jim Busby). Because I was a kid. I don't think I could ever be so impressed by anything today, because I'm not young anymore. In fact, I probably haven't watched three games since the strike, I was so disgusted. But if you're somebody for whom this is your time to love the game as much as I did, you're right to do that and you're right to defend the way it's played. I wish you only the best. One other thing. I don't want to start a dustup with Malleus (or anybody else), but I think he would concede one small point about experience. It's beneficial if you know how to use it, but there are plenty of people who get the experience and never learn a thing from it (although I don't count Malleus among them). -- Louie __________________ "Sometimes the magic works and sometimes it doesn't."

05-12-2002, 05:20 PM	#152
Crapshoot Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: watching: DArwin's missing link in action Posts: 3,112	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Jason Moyer: . The strike in 1981 was over free agency rights. While I think free agency has hurt the game, on a labor-rights level I think that until 1981 players were always being shortchanged by the owners. Sure, Nolan Ryan or Mike Schmidt making $1-2 million dollars seems outrageous - until you think about how much money management is making from their marquee players. I think that modern players have lost sight of the arguments for free agency - the idea was always that players weren't being compensated fairly in proportion to the amount of profit that the ballclub was generating. Now, a guy who no one has heard of with practically no value as a player or entertainer is asking for $5mil a year. That is pure greed. In 1994, the strike was over the distribution of TV money. When the strike finally ended, nothing was resolved. While the strike sucked, baseball could have come out of the 94 strike stronger than ever had they actually acknowledged and fixed the problems that led to the strike. The teams could have used the work stoppage to fix the game, and they didn't. If the Yankees play the Royals, give the Royals half the TV money for those games instead of letting the Yanks have it all. This is only logical and fair. If TV money was redistributed like this the Yankees would have 3 times as much money as everyone else instead of 50 times as much money. Competitive balance increases interest in the sport. Not the only thing wrong with baseball, but something that would have a positive effect if taken care of. Instead of taking care of the problem, the owners decided to ignore the real issue and put on a fake front of solidarity. In reality, teams like the Royals and Twins should simply refuse to play the Yankees. If the Yankees are playing in their town, they should cancel the games. Think baseball would just pretend there's not a problem then? Jason[/QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Jason, this is precisely the mindset I disagree with; you dont think that a certain player is worth 5 million, so he isnt ? We live in a capitalist society; if you are important enough in your organization that someone percieves your value as 5 million, than that is what it is; your organization has the right not to make the offer, in which case you are free to leave. Baseball and all the major sports still are under the strictest labor laws of anyone; they can be traded, waived without any notice, etc. Can you imagine doing this to a regular employee at GM ? He would have the option of quitting and going elsewhere; the organization cannot force him to move. Look, I realize purists dont like free agency and think its all about greed, but I find it patently unfair that you would deny them their basic labor rights. Baseball needs to be seen as what it is; entertainment where the people providing the entertainment are entitled to whatever the market will bear. The common fallacy that high salaries are the reason for high ticket prices is crazy; if anything, the ticket prices are based on analysis of what the market can bear. I believe baseballprospectus.com did a great article on this once. No one forces you to go to the games or support it; you choose to do so. Basically, the greed argument is patently unfair in my opinion; you are entitled to want to maximize your earnings, and its a hallmark of society that you can do just that. A baseball player has the same rights. Malleus, I recall reading your points on the "clutch hitting" myth, and your point that we have to look at facts; while I dont know your stance on free agency or the money in the game today, I would think the idea of looking at the facts behind salaries and money in baseball is also reasonable. This is one of the reasons I have issues with baseball in the 50's and 60's, and the periods before that. If you get to the end of this, understand that I do not mean to insult anyone; I just dont understand how anyone with a basic perception of labor law can argue against free agency. __________________ Senior Senor Member of the OOTP Boards Pittsburgh Playmates- OTBL

05-13-2002, 07:51 AM	#153
Jason Moyer Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 5,067	I have no problems with players making a lot of money. If the teams are generating a lot of money then invariably the players are going to make a lot of money. My problem with the last strike is that it was over the distribution of TV contracts, and nothing was really resolved - except that the gap between poor teams and rich teams was widened further. I seriously wish the Royals or the Twins or another poor team would boycott all of their games against the Yankees until the Yankees agreed to divide their broadcast revenue 50/50 with whomever they're playing. Baseball is still profitable, but only for a small percentage of the teams. If something isn't done to redistribute broadcasting money more fairly, the contraction of the Twins and Expos will be the tip of the iceberg. Jason __________________ "I pretty much popped everything cold turkey. We were doing steroids they wouldn't give to horses." -- Tom House "I was very fortunate to have a pitching coach by the name of Tom House...Tom, I really miss those days that we spent in the weight room and out on the field working together." -- Nolan Ryan's HoF Induction Speech

05-13-2002, 02:16 PM	#154
Jim Lynch Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Connecticut Posts: 22	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Malleus Dei: <strong>Damn, Moyer, you nailed it. "I'm only 25, but I would've loved 60's baseball. Being able to go to a game after work and knowing that I'd be home before 10pm would be great." And it was great. Afternoon Dodger and Padre and Giant games were the high sports points of the sixties and seventies for me. I still go to at least 50 games a year now, counting college, minor and major league games, and there's no comparison. "All other things aside, there was an enthusiasm for the game that isn't there anymore - among owners, players, or fans." There was also a love of the game that isn't there any more. The pre-free-agent game was a LOT more about baseball rather than money than today's game is. I remember when Drysdale and Koufax threatened not to play for a year if they didn't get huge raises; my father was absolutely livid over it and called them ungrateful wretches who were ruining the game for the sake of their pocketbooks. People were publicly outraged by what they did. Today? Some middle infielder who is statistically pathetic gets 4 million a year instead of the $40,000 he is actually worth and no one even blinks. "Malleus has a good point that people seem to be ignoring. Baseball was the National Pasttime." And they called it that and everyone knew it was true because in those days it WAS the National Pastime - it was THE sport of the U.S. and we all knew it. Football and basketball were lesser sports; as a boy, my grandfather taught me that football and basketball fans were made up of peasants and the uneducated. Well almost everyone who likes baseball also likes football and basketball. How would your grandfather explain Duke student/basketball fans. Would they be 'peasants' or 'uneducated'. "I think if it weren't for the strike of 94, baseball would still be the #1 sport in the USA." Almost certainly so. Player greed and incredibly stupid owners combined to ruin baseball.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Well, if you asked someone just a little bit older than you, they would tell you Giant/Dodger games were great. Of course the games they would be talking about would have been played at the Polo Grounds or Ebbets Field. So would someone with more 'experience' than you be able to say you are wrong because of their 'experience'. Anyone who wants to join me in the upper deck at Yankee Stadium this week will see that there are plenty of fans with 'passion' and 'enthusiasm'. You also don't have to look very hard for players with the same qualities. A middle infielder in the major leagues would be one the 120 (30 x 4) best at their jobs in the world. I work in a department at a Fortune 500 company that has about 120 employees. I can tell you even the biggest idiots, who I would put in the lower half of the population make well more than $40,000. I mean this statement is so stupid it defies explanation. Well almost everyone who likes baseball also likes football and basketball. How would your grandfather explain Duke student/basketball fans. Would they be 'peasants' or 'uneducated'? Baseball was well on it's way to second class status behind the NFL long before 1994. It's no secret why. Everyone gambles on it. <small>[ 05-13-2002, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: Jim Lynch ]</small>

05-14-2002, 01:11 PM	#155
BaseballMan Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 6,491	Good point there. I never thought about all the betting on nfl games. Come to think of it most of the people i can think of have betted on nfl, nba or horse racing. Not too many i can think of that bet on baseball games except maybe Pete Rose. But then again im not much of a gambler

05-16-2002, 11:56 AM	#156
SaberGrey Bat Boy Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 13	I like the wild-card system as it stands now. I don't want to see the post-season watered down with too many teams like in the NBA and NHL and even the NFL to some extent. I don't like the DH. There is less strategy required in a DH league. Besides, as the rule states, baseball is a game played by 9 players...the DH violates this rule!

05-16-2002, 01:15 PM	#157
BaseballMan Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 6,491	</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by SaberGrey: <strong>I like the wild-card system as it stands now. I don't want to see the post-season watered down with too many teams like in the NBA and NHL and even the NFL to some extent. I don't like the DH. There is less strategy required in a DH league. Besides, as the rule states, baseball is a game played by 9 players...the DH violates this rule!</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Im not for or against the DH but im not so sure the Dh violates that rule. I think batting is playing the game or else no team would ever score. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> But i dont know wether the rule states 9 players should play the game or that 9 players should bat and field or 9 players should bat or field. So i think it depends on what the current rules say regardless of what pre 2002 rules say unless your running a historical replay from that season. I mean if you wanna go by the original rules that might have said 9 players to bat and field then you have to have the other original rules too which was like 8 strikes and 9 balls i beleive. But dont take this has i favor the dh. But at the same time i do like the leagues being different.

06-22-2002, 05:01 PM	#158
KC Major Leagues Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: On my ass, you wanker. Now, sod off. Posts: 400	For most of my life, I'd have to say that I was a fan of the DH. I'm an AL fan, and the DH has been around as long as I have... Ron Bloomberg stepped up to the plate a few weeks before I was born. But, as I get older, I'd have to say that I really don't see a practical reason for the DH. The DH was just a ploy to bring more people into the stands. People wanted to see more home runs, and they were not getting that in 1972. Pitching was dominating the game in the last 60s, and the paying fan didn't want to see a pitcher's dual. Since I see this now as a pure finanical move on the part of the baseball owner, I'm beginning to dislike the DH. Interleague play is another financial move that helped bring back the fans after the 1994 strike. If you remember, fans were slow to embrace the sport again after '94. I remember fans in Baltimore were greated at the gates of Camden Yards by none other than Cal Ripken, Jr. and the rest of the Oriole team. The game was hurting. In the first year of interleague play, my Yankees lost the AL East pennant because of their record against the Florida Marlins. If it wasn't for interleague play, the Yanks could have won the pennant. At the time, that meant a lot. Point is: interleague games do not help teams out in the standings. I'd rather have those few games converted back to inter-division matches that will help decide who wins the pennant. Six divisions vs. two leagues: I'm toying with the idea of starting a league with only 16 teams, eight teams representing the National League and the other eight representing the American League. The complaint about today's game is that purists view the overall talent as being AAA or AA at worse. I don't agree with that, except on the concept of pitching. My argument is that more players are being allowed to play the game now than in 1948, when the game comprised of mostly white players on 16 teams. The talent pool was limited to white men before Jackie Robinson came along. Now, we have so much more. If there were only 16 teams, pitching staffs would be hellish on the league offenses and players like Mike Piazza (picked last by the Dodgers) would have been lost in the minor leagues, if picked at all. You'd have yourself a product worth paying $5 for a hotdog to see. The Wild Card has to go. Football needs it for a few things. One reason that stands out is that if a team has a few bad games in one season, those few games will cost them the chance to go to the playoffs. Football only plays 16 games. The best team in the league, because they failed to read the defense properly a few times against the Falcons, could wind up sitting at home in December if there wasn't a wild card. Baseball is 162 games. Most of the time, those few bad games are lost in the blur that is the rest of the season. Before the wild card, it was safe to say that the best team one the pennant. There was no chance for the "team of the moment" to come over and spoil everything (excluding the 1978 season, as I believe the Red Sox were better). I'll go one step farther and comment on the five-man rotation and the over use of the reliver. I remember when it was common to see double-digits in the complete game column for a team's ace pitcher. The last time I saw 20 complete games from someone was Ron Guidry in 1983 (as Billy Martin was notorious for keeping his starters in). That's pretty extreme, but no worse than seeing your ace pitcher show up every fifth day to pitch only five innings. To see Roger Clemens win the Cy Young award without ever seeing the end of a game is a joke, no matter how well he pitched. Now, a record such as Nolan Ryan's strikeout record for a season will never be broken. He pitched over 300 innings to reach that mark. Randy Johnson has to pull an act of super-human proportions just to get close. If the Diamondbacks opted for the four-man rotation, and gave Johnson and Schilling 40 starts each, Ryan's record could be broken. (And, besides, why couldn't they do it today WITH the way relievers are used today?) __________________ KC Ted Williams: "When you foul a pitch off, does it ever smell like scorched wood?" Mark McGwire: "All the time."

06-22-2002, 05:13 PM	#159
KC Major Leagues Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: On my ass, you wanker. Now, sod off. Posts: 400	Moyer, You touched upon something I failed to mention. Night games. Hate them. You are absolutely right. It's insane that here on the East Coast, post season games are started at 8:30-9 o'clock at night. In 2000, the two teams involved in the World Series were both in New York. You can say the majority of the fan base was on the East Coast, yet broadcast television has to cater to the West Coast and start the games at a ridiculous hour. Tape delay broadcasts and scroll "tickertape" advertisments on the bottom of the screen. Because of those people involved with the game, baseball has surpassed as the National Pastime. __________________ KC Ted Williams: "When you foul a pitch off, does it ever smell like scorched wood?" Mark McGwire: "All the time."