MLB work stoppage almost certain on Dec. 2

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by rudel.dietrich

So people complain about batting average falling off a cliff but then complain when adjustments and fixes are applied.

Sometimes I hope the ****ing sport just dies. Its remanning fans are infuriating when it comes to trying to fix it.

TBH my thing there isn't any kind of "purist" argument that the shift ought to be banned - it's been around since at least the 1940s and probably should have always been used a lot more than it's been used up until lately - it's that I don't think that's going to make a whole lot of difference at all. BABIP is down all of 10ish points from its high in 2017 (when the shift was employed less often as well). If we ban it outright and it climbs back up to like .300, that raises leaguewide averages like what, 7 points or so? Yippee, the league is hitting .248 instead of .242, and the only cost was, players are locked in to positions in the field they only stood at because of historical tradition. And at that, the kind of "shift" that's going to get outlawed is just going to be something like "you have to have 2 players on each side of the infield at all times", which just means you have exactly the same setup as now only the shortstop is right next to second base against strong-pull lefties instead of shading to the left side of second base.

I think it's a bigger issue and I don't think it's one you solve by blaming players for higher launch angles (individual players will do what they can to stay in the league and HRs = jobs) or by blaming pitchers for, like, being too good at what they do, or even by blaming managers for pulling pitchers way earlier than they used to (for the latter, the league already has that rule in place to force any new pitcher to either complete the inning or pitch to at least 3 hitters, so the days of the LOOGY and the annoying "3 batters, 3 pitchers, with a commercial break between each" situations are gone). The fact is that pitchers strike out a lot of hitters nowadays and conversely hitters hit a lot of home runs. I think there are some very obvious - I wouldn't say "easy" because I think it's something you'd need to take a couple seasons in the lower minors to get right - solutions to this, but I also think that those solutions will make the purists absolutely howl.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

TBH my thing there isn't any kind of "purist" argument that the shift ought to be banned - it's been around since at least the 1940s and probably should have always been used a lot more than it's been used up until lately - it's that I don't think that's going to make a whole lot of difference at all. BABIP is down all of 10ish points from its high in 2017 (when the shift was employed less often as well). If we ban it outright and it climbs back up to like .300, that raises leaguewide averages like what, 7 points or so? Yippee, the league is hitting .248 instead of .242, and the only cost was, players are locked in to positions in the field they only stood at because of historical tradition. And at that, the kind of "shift" that's going to get outlawed is just going to be something like "you have to have 2 players on each side of the infield at all times", which just means you have exactly the same setup as now only the shortstop is right next to second base against strong-pull lefties instead of shading to the left side of second base.

I think it's a bigger issue and I don't think it's one you solve by blaming players for higher launch angles (individual players will do what they can to stay in the league and HRs = jobs) or by blaming pitchers for, like, being too good at what they do, or even by blaming managers for pulling pitchers way earlier than they used to (for the latter, the league already has that rule in place to force any new pitcher to either complete the inning or pitch to at least 3 hitters, so the days of the LOOGY and the annoying "3 batters, 3 pitchers, with a commercial break between each" situations are gone). The fact is that pitchers strike out a lot of hitters nowadays and conversely hitters hit a lot of home runs. I think there are some very obvious - I wouldn't say "easy" because I think it's something you'd need to take a couple seasons in the lower minors to get right - solutions to this, but I also think that those solutions will make the purists absolutely howl.

One aspect that is absolutely overlooked is that defenses are better than ever.
And the numbers back it up. More balls that are hit into play are being converted into outs than ever before. And fielders are making fewer errors than ever before.

You are right in that the effects will be small.
It would make changes in equipment to try and counteract it even more. Making the standard field glove smaller. Changing the baseball. Making the handle of the bat thicker and more uniform in thickness throughout its body.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by rudel.dietrich

One aspect that is absolutely overlooked is that defenses are better than ever.
And the numbers back it up. More balls that are hit into play are being converted into outs than ever before. And fielders are making fewer errors than ever before.

No, the opposite is the case, sort of. Prior to shifts being prevalent, more balls that are put into play turned into hits than at any point in MLB history. In 2017 the NL BABIP was .302, which was as high as it had been since 1930. At that, there was another high-BABIP season in 1922 and then the only other higher-than-.300 years were in the very early years of the two leagues. If anything, the rise in BABIP has helped to offset the massive rise since around 2007 in strikeouts. That said, the changes in BABIP are not huge; we're talking about .290-.300 now vs. .270-.280 in the 50s. What's been driving averages down more than anything else are all the Ks, offset only a little bit (runs per game is offset a bit more) by the increase in HR/9 (people talk about the increase of the 3TO but walks, while they were high-ish in 2020, are still generally in the low to mid 3s per 9 inning which is where they've been basically forever).

You are right in that the effects will be small.
It would make changes in equipment to try and counteract it even more. Making the standard field glove smaller. Changing the baseball. Making the handle of the bat thicker and more uniform in thickness throughout its body.

I'm not even too sure about changing the bat size would be that big of a deal TBH, as they aren't particularly heavily inspected prior to games and would need to be to enforce that. I also wouldn't make the glove smaller because, again, BABIP is actually trending fairly high (though sure, reverting to old timey gloves would for sure raise them). Personally my changes would be making the baseball larger and spongier (which you'd have to calibrate in the low minors) and/or moving the mound back (which would also need to be calibrated).

[mytreds]

I miss the days when going to a day game was 10$ and I didn’t have to argue statistics to enjoy a game. Just sitting down, having a hotdog, beer, getting some sun and watching some baseball. And not being surrounded by people on their phones.

[thehef]

https://sports.yahoo.com/looking-pla...110000067.html

From the perspective of anything that blames the Astros is fine with me (after seeing them get off with a mere wrist slap re their cheating scandal)...

[BBGiovanni]

Originally Posted by Westheim

I only got an email today (well, sent Tuesday US time) that they would let me continue to have access to the available archive until the stupid millionaires and billionaires are done tugging on the bags with dosh in them.

They didn't word it exactly like that.

I'm staying. Where else would I get baseball?

I cancelled my auto-renewal that day. I don't really watch archives much or can find stuff on YouTube if I am desperate for some reason. I'm not necessarily going to stay away forever, but I'm not spending money on another farcical display like 2020. If they put in real spring training and field teams with a non-stupid playoff structure I might pay up. But I am not going to rely on their decisions as to how to prorate for lost games/partial season cost, etc.

[CONN CHRIS]

Originally Posted by BBGiovanni

I cancelled my auto-renewal that day. I don't really watch archives much or can find stuff on YouTube if I am desperate for some reason. I'm not necessarily going to stay away forever, but I'm not spending money on another farcical display like 2020. If they put in real spring training and field teams with a non-stupid playoff structure I might pay up. But I am not going to rely on their decisions as to how to prorate for lost games/partial season cost, etc.

I heard from my son that MLB signed some sort of deal with Amazon TV+ for Friday night double headers. I smell more blackouts and a slipping desire to re-sign with MLB TV after 10 + years of patronage.

You knuckleheads are going to drive away your most devoted fans at some point.

[CONN CHRIS]

Originally Posted by CONN CHRIS

You knuckleheads are going to drive away your most devoted fans at some point.

... of course, this knucklehead isn't driven off just yet, simply irritated. The second I can watch the Tigers again I will probably be begging them to take my money. :-)

[Bobbyraz49]

Hello from Buffalo. Our AAA team, the Bisons, are still advertising April 5th as opening day.
Does the current lock out affect the minors ? Are minor league players allowed to practice in their MLB team's facilities ? Normally our local TV stations send crews down to Florida to cover the Bisons but I haven't seen any reports.
Thanks.

[lizardkingjim]

Originally Posted by Bobbyraz49

Hello from Buffalo. Our AAA team, the Bisons, are still advertising April 5th as opening day.
Does the current lock out affect the minors ? Are minor league players allowed to practice in their MLB team's facilities ? Normally our local TV stations send crews down to Florida to cover the Bisons but I haven't seen any reports.
Thanks.

Minor league teams are not affected by the lockout for their seasons. Minor league players not on the parent teams 40-man roster also are not affected by the lockout.

[BBGiovanni]

Originally Posted by CONN CHRIS

... of course, this knucklehead isn't driven off just yet, simply irritated. The second I can watch the Tigers again I will probably be begging them to take my money. :-)

Yeah, I don't pretend to be that resolute, I just won't pay for/waste time with another "season" full of minor leaguers and partial schedules.

Not that it matters, but that "Friday Night Baseball" thing is with Apple+. I imagine the streaming platforms demand exclusivity as a condition of carrying baseball at all. But I don't know how many serendipity-based viewers they can possibly attract. Or vice versa, I signed up for Paramount+ this year just for the Serie A (Italian soccer) games, but they have ALL the games, even other tournaments), and I figured anything else I found on the network would be gravy. Which hasn't been much, but we have too many services.

I don't see who will say "oh, random Friday baseball games, stand back while I sign up for Apple+".

[PSUColonel]

[QUOTE=Rain King;4869084]If you agree they have been fleeced in the past few CBA's how is it that you can consider anything MLB has offered at this point "a reasonably good deal"?

The owners have gone full-blown villain/bully status here as far as I can tell...even as much as throwing new random stuff into their last-minute offers hoping the players might miss it due to the deadline.

How do you think the previous bad deals came to be? The owners have and continue to strong-arm the union while using their vast resources to buy positive PR and make the players out to be the villains.

The union isn't even really standing up to them, their last offer doesn't really get them anything they were hoping to get at the beginning of this process, which is younger players getting paid closer to the value they are providing and rules to prevent teams from going into full tank mode (a la Astros, Cubs, etc.).

The owners are flat-out trying to break the union at this point.[/QUOTE

Would you still disagree with me after today?]

[PSUColonel]

I think it’s pretty clear at this point the MLBPA isn’t going to agree to anything less than a blowout win for themselves. The owners have made a good, reasonable offer, and the union suddenly decided the international draft issue was more of a problem than it has been to this point.

[PSUColonel]

Basically, I don’t think the players care about losing a month of the season to be honest.

[low]

And we've lost another week of games...

[MathBandit]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I think it’s pretty clear at this point the MLBPA isn’t going to agree to anything less than a blowout win for themselves. The owners have made a good, reasonable offer, and the union suddenly decided the international draft issue was more of a problem than it has been to this point.

Did the owners offer a $180M floor and no cap/CBT while I was working? Because at that point I'd say the deal is probably about 50-50. Anything less (which includes the deal that will eventually be signed) is a blowout win for the owners.

I'd argue the owners haven't even made a single offer that as good for the players as the old CBA is. Which is further evidenced by the fact the owners chose to lock out the players in December rather than let them continue to work under the old agreement while negotiations continued.

[snarls200]

Originally Posted by MathBandit

Did the owners offer a $180M floor and no cap/CBT while I was working? Because at that point I'd say the deal is probably about 50-50. Anything less (which includes the deal that will eventually be signed) is a blowout win for the owners.

I'd argue the owners haven't even made a single offer that as good for the players as the old CBA is. Which is further evidenced by the fact the owners chose to lock out the players in December rather than let them continue to work under the old agreement while negotiations continued.

Also that when the lockout happened the players were kicked out ofteam run rehabilitation.

[Dave Stieb II]

Originally Posted by MathBandit

Did the owners offer a $180M floor and no cap/CBT while I was working? Because at that point I'd say the deal is probably about 50-50. Anything less (which includes the deal that will eventually be signed) is a blowout win for the owners.

I'd argue the owners haven't even made a single offer that as good for the players as the old CBA is. Which is further evidenced by the fact the owners chose to lock out the players in December rather than let them continue to work under the old agreement while negotiations continued.

I'm really risk averse to getting drawn into this discussion/debate but I think your idea of a "50/50" deal and that anything less would be a "blowout win for the owners"....might be JUST a little high and outside.
A tad extreme.

But that's just my opinion.

I knew back in November, when I saw what the owners were proposing under the guidance of Moron Manfred (definitely less than the previous CBA, I agree), and that the players were attempting to make up for 27 years of poor negotiating (asleep at the switch) in one fell swoop that we were headed for this. I'm pretty sure I said so right here in these forums.

At this point, I don't even really follow it day to day anymore because I think bad faith bargaining, a lack of realism re: interest in the game, etc. etc. is a trademark of both sides. They'll come to terms, or they won't, and it's out of my hands so why waste time on it.

And finally, both sides are, of course, guilty of spin. But the one that really jumps out is that the owners are somehow to blame for ALL of this because they chose to lock the players out. "They wanted this"...."the players would be in camp right now and ready to bargain in good faith"...."they're trying to break the union".....etc.
Yes the owners locked the players out.
And they did it for a very good reason.
In 1981 and again in 1994 there was no lock out. Both sides agreed to continue on per normal and bargain in good faith.
Yah, right.
And what happened......the players waited until well into the season before going on strike, hoping to use the timing as a bargaining tool to create pressure. It didn't end well for baseball on a whole either time, especially in 1994.
So, three strikes and you're out. The owners would have been absolute fools to NOT lock the players out this time. Better a late start - or no start - to the season that the risk of 1994 repeating itself.
Now I wonder, would the players agree to no strike in-season if the season started on time? Would they agree to 2022 extension of the previous CBA if a settlement is not reached by a certain point?
My guess....not on your life.

[MathBandit]

I mean, as of 2018 the owners each receive over $200M per year from revenue-sharing and national TV deals alone, before selling a single ticket, concession, piece of merch, their own local TV deal, or any of the new league-wide deals since then (gambling, the new Apple deal, etc).

So if the owners have a floor of $200M in national revenue and no cap to their possible earnings, is it so crazy to suggest that a true fair 50-50 deal would give the players a similar floor with no cap?

Here's some comparisons for example:

• NBA Salary Cap: 2011 $58M, 2021 $112M
• NFL Salary Cap: 2011 $120M, 2022 $208M
• MLB CBT: 2011 $178M, 2022 (Owners $220M, Players $238M)

Sure looks to me like neither offer is remotely in line with what it would be if it almost doubled from 2011, like MLB revenues did and the caps in the other leagues did. A CBT of almost $300M for 2022 would probably be the number if both sides wanted to keep it exactly in line with the previous deal (that everyone agrees was very pro-owner).

[tejdog1]

The owners are being little disingenious amorals

If you side with them, I don't even know