Real life.

You tend to get pissy when people don’t like your ideas. Yes, I think ideas like ‘the game would be better if there was less of it’ are not compatible with liking the sport.

_________________

The game would be better with more in person reports.

_________________

Agree 100%.

Really, almost all other sports that use a ball or similar object are variations on the same game, i.e. a goal where you try to get the ball while the defense tries to stop you. Baseball is unique and elegant.

_________________
General Jim wears Fort Bragg down... to get it!

The elephant in the room that no one wants to discuss and something that is exacerbated in the playoffs is the commdrcial breaks.

_________________
General Jim wears Fort Bragg down... to get it!

me personally, it would just raise the stakes if there were less games. i don't want less games because i don't like baseball. but i don't need baseball after halloween and before april fool's day.

If EVER there was a suggestion that a casual fan would make, it would be this one

I think baseball would be better with "less of" pitchers batting. I mean does that mean that I don't like baseball? Need ruling on that.

I think baseball would be better with "less of" pitching changes. I mean does that mean I don't like baseball? Need a ruling on that.

I think baseball would be better with "less of" pitchers stalking the mound trying to "execute" each pitch with the sole goal of a max effort K. I mean does that mean I don't like baseball? Need a ruling on that.

I think baseball would be better with "less of" guys standing around. Does that mean I don't like baseball? Need a ruling on that. I'd argue that it means I like baseball because I want to see more actual baseball and less standing around. But you're the expert around here on who does or doesn't like baseball so please do issue your rulings. Thanks in advance.

I’ve think you’re not fully understanding what less baseball means (hint: shorter season, fewer innings). But to your questions:

1) no, that alone doesn’t mean you dislike baseball
2) arguable; depends on your rationale and whether you’ve considered the potential consequences
3) yes, you dislike baseball
4) yes, fuck off with that nonsense

_________________

In an earlier post you essentially equated suggested rule changes that you don't agree with to "not liking baseball" - regardless if they resulted in fewer innings or games. Now you're moving the goalposts.

Again, just because someone wants to change something or wants to change something in different ways than you would like doesn't mean that they don't like that thing.

I wish it were like this.

They need to slash the prices to games, too. It's insane. You want people to go to games because of the money (obvi), but also because you miss so much on tv. I think baseball is the one game you really need to learn a lot about to follow intelligently--and it pays off when you do. The other sports can be complicated, but not like baseball.

Slash game time and ticket prices. You'll get more fans who are into it.

_________________

2 outs. Managers get 3 "out mulligans" per game but can only use 1 per inning.

That does the trick.

_________________
My Maserati does 186.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

That’s fair, though I walked it back before your tantrum. I then defined things as ‘less baseball,’ ‘worse baseball,’ and ‘longer baseball.’ You locked in on the first one.

I even had a whole list of changes, implying that either I consider myself someone who dislikes baseball or that I don’t think change itself is inherently bad (just changes that seem aimed to please people who don’t like baseball).

_________________

Endeavor announced today that they have formed a minor league team operations subsidiary and have purchased nearly a dozen minor league franchises, with more to come. Includes all four Braves teams from AAA to A, the Iowa Cubs, and the Yankees and Dodgers AAA affiliates, and the Giants' A ball team in San Jose.

Stated purpose is to run what we would consider the Brooks Boyer or Crane Kenney job - facilities, promotions, product sales, media. They eventually want to get up to 20-25% of the current 180 affiliated teams.

Endeavor also owns Learfield Sports which does a lot of the NCAA radio type stuff.

I don't quite know what to make of this.

_________________
"When people want their version of the truth, they go find it, no matter how baseless their beliefs." -- Ken Rosenthal

The start of unionizing the minor leagues?

The major league teams are still going to provide the coaches and players as per the minor league agreement. But this feels like they are expecting a day 10 years from now where the whole player development tree gets switched to some sort of UFC type model.

Then again, this is private equity so who knows how much money they are going to take out of the businesses first.

_________________
"When people want their version of the truth, they go find it, no matter how baseless their beliefs." -- Ken Rosenthal

Nobody is into this idea?

I think it brings all kinds of new aspects to the game.

Starters are more important.

Managers have to make real decisions that are subjective.

Stolen bases have more impact.

Games are shorter.

Closers can do more than 1 inning, potentially.

The game has more action since innings that start with 2-outs are given up on most of the time.

I'm just brainstorming. Something needs to change.

The record book argument is pretty much over since none of that matters any more.

You start a new era of records. A reboot of MLB.

_________________
My Maserati does 186.

I have to admit being a big fan of One Post on the muscle.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.

One Post will take on anyone. He's not fazed (or "phased," as teens write) by anyone.

_________________

If we can get cheerleaders, I'll sign on.

_________________

"I'm a baseball fan. Here's 20 ways to change it so I don't have to watch as much of it."

Fucking kids these days.

_________________

Bingo! I don't watch baseball at all anymore and the biggest reason is because of how slow and boring the game is. I want to see action and walks and strikeouts are not interesting to me. Quicken the pace and get the games close to NBA/NHL times and they might get back casual fans like me.

_________________
Lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be.

I don't get how 162 games is not a problem with how the modern game is constituted and how they go through pitchers' arms like shit through a goose. Pitchers' skills need to be optimized, not blown away like tumbleweeds. It's damn near a crime how guys get used up and then kicked to the curb.

I do know that when they made changes (extra inning rule, etc) those changes sucked.

I'd sooner just have ties after 9 (unlike Farnsworth who preferred Ties after 4) than the man on second base rule.

Baseball is pretty great. Just speed it up. You can do that without fundamental changes.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

Sure people don't want the season as long. But when ever was a pro season made shorter by design? It is like you do not get the way sports economics works.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

For me, it isn't that the season is too long. It's that cold ass April baseball in the Northeast and Midwest sucks. If it were 70 degrees everywhere year round I would have no problem if baseball lasted the entire year.

The season has to be long enough for the best to rise to the top. That can't happen in 40 or even 80 games (see 2020). The difference between Babe Ruth and Tuffy Rhodes within the space of 5 at-bats is negligible. In fact, if you pick the right five at-bats, Tuffy is the Hall of Fame legend and Ruth is a worthless bum.

And that's at the heart of my basis for judging starting pitchers primarily by their winning percentage. The offenses they all face are not radically different within the tiny space of a nine inning game. And so that winning percentage (given enough repetition and a large enough sample) is illustrative of how a pitcher is performing vis-a-vis his peers who are actually pitching in the same games as he is. And it isn't dependent on Rob Manfred deciding this would be a good game to use the lively home run baseball.

_________________
General Jim wears Fort Bragg down... to get it!

Yep

_________________
Elections have consequences.

I don't think its salvageable. Locally, it will attract attention when a team goes to the World Series, but nationally, it will be a niche sport like boxing or tennis. However, just speaking selfishly, my enjoyment of the game would be enhanced if they capped the number of pitchers a team could use to four a game (baring injury), if they put a clock on the pitcher, and if they allowed only one time out per at bat for the batter. It was a reasonably quick game for well over a century, there's no reason why it can't go back to being reasonably quick.

The great thing about capitalism is competition

_________________