LOCKOUT '22: When will we see baseball again?

[1776]

Jeff Passan

@JeffPassan

Meetings are done. Progress was minimal. There are four days left for MLB and the MLBPA to get a new labor deal or regular-season games are going to be canceled. They've had four days to move and there's been next to nothing -- just incremental. And that's that.

[gehringer_2]

4 minutes ago, Longgone said:

There is no correlation between a huge disparity in competitive resources, and the number of teams making the playoffs. More teams making the playoffs, and that hasn't even been agreed upon, would not address any competitive resource imbalance. A few teams could still outbid and outspend everyone else for talent.

right - we'll just get bad teams in the playoffs, which given the large random input factors in a baseball game will ensure that bad teams will end up winning the World Series. But that happens now anyway - it will just be a difference in degree more than kind.

[Longgone]

1 minute ago, gehringer_2 said:

right - we'll just get bad teams in the playoffs, which given the large random input factors in a baseball game will ensure that bad teams will end up winning the World Series. But that happens now anyway - it will just be a difference in degree more than kind.

I don't like expanded playoffs any more than Lee.

[Tiger337]

5 minutes ago, Longgone said:

There is no correlation between a huge disparity in competitive resources, and the number of teams making the playoffs. More teams making the playoffs, and that hasn't even been agreed upon, would not address any competitive resource imbalance. A few teams could still outbid and outspend everyone else for talent.

Sure, having more resources helps, but it doesn't mean you'll be more successful in the post-season crapshoot.  And there will be expanded playoffs.  I think that's a foregone conclusion.  

Besides, I think the fact that there are good teams and bad teams is entertaining.  Too much parity is boring.  You need some big villains and little heroes. 

[RandyMarsh]

I don't love the expanded playoffs idea but I don't hate it.  Yeah there's a real possibility some 85-90 win team ends up winning the World Series but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to deal with in exchange for more teams and markets playing meaningful games down the stretch.  Also short of going back to the days where there was just a World Series there is going to be a very real chance that the overall best team isn't going to win the championship regardless of the number of teams.  

[Longgone]

59 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Sure, having more resources helps, but it doesn't mean you'll be more successful in the post-season crapshoot.  And there will be expanded playoffs.  I think that's a foregone conclusion.  

Besides, I think the fact that there are good teams and bad teams is entertaining.  Too much parity is boring.  You need some big villains and little heroes. 

Sure, and it'd be fun to watch the heavyweight champ pummel a bantomweight amateur.

[Longgone]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

right - we'll just get bad teams in the playoffs, which given the large random input factors in a baseball game will ensure that bad teams will end up winning the World Series. But that happens now anyway - it will just be a difference in degree more than kind.

Tell me the truth, Lee. If you were starting a new league today from scratch, would you give a few teams an overwhelming competitive advantage and operational resources 10 to 20 times their competitors? That would be inane. You'd want every team to win or lose based on their skill and talent, not having the deck systemically stacked against you, no matter what you did. The idea that sometimes an underdog can rise up, doesn't make it fair competition in any way, and that's what makes a league viable, each team has the same opportunity and talent and skill wins, not your location or local tv deal.

[Tiger337]

36 minutes ago, Longgone said:

Sure, and it'd be fun to watch the heavyweight champ pummel a bantomweight amateur.

Baseball is not boxing.  Even great teams in any era lose 50-60 games a year.  

[Tiger337]

Just now, Longgone said:

Tell me the truth, Lee. If you were starting a new league today from scratch, would you give a few teams an overwhelming competitive advantage and operational resources 10 to 20 times their competitors? That would be inane. You'd want every team to win or lose based on their skill and talent, not having the deck systemically stacked against you, no matter what you did. The idea that sometimes an underdog can rise up, doesn't make it fair competition in any way, and that's what makes a league viable, each team has the same opportunity and talent and skill wins, not your location or local tv deal.

Some of the teams I remember most from my youth were dynasties like the Orioles, Athletics and Reds.  I like it when there are teams like that.  They become villains which every other team wants to beat.  I wouldn't want a league where all the teams were average and a different team wins every year.  

Look at NCAA football.  You've got the same teams winning every year and it's still very popular.  

[Longgone]

8 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Baseball is not boxing.  Even great teams in any era lose 50-60 games a year.  

Sure, and the bantomweight may get a few punches in, which illustrates how absurd the whole idea of a league with built in competitive disadvantage is. Competitive parity is the goal of every league.

Edited February 25, 2022 by Longgone

[Tiger337]

1 hour ago, RandyMarsh said:

I don't love the expanded playoffs idea but I don't hate it.  Yeah there's a real possibility some 85-90 win team ends up winning the World Series but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to deal with in exchange for more teams and markets playing meaningful games down the stretch.  Also short of going back to the days where there was just a World Series there is going to be a very real chance that the overall best team isn't going to win the championship regardless of the number of teams.  

There will be more bad teams playing "meaningful" games down the stretch.  The good teams will be able to cruise at the end which is boring.  

[buddha]

9 hours ago, oblong said:

They seem to be pretty far apart on the CBT... my understanding is the owners are actually offering a worse deal in that regard than what expired, once you factor in the penalties.

If the owners have learned their lesson and are being smarter... then why do they need it?    I always viewed the NBA salary cap as not a deterrent for out of control spending but to ensure the players a certain % of revenue.  

Make the penalities voluntary.  If the owners are so noble and good to each other they should pay it.  18 MLB owners are asking the players to make sacrifices because those 18 owners don't trust 6 other owners.

The owners can do this without colluding.  

because they can get it, that's why.  lol.

you dont think their are smart teams out there that have figured out how to work the current system more efficiently?  i certainly do. 

the playera will go to their death fighting against a "salary cap" so that the sotos on the scherzers of the world can make $40 million a year while the owners will turn around and squeeze the majority if the players who will never be that good.

if the owners wanted to put the union in a real bind, they'd agree to increase the first three year salary but refuse to budge on lowering the tax ceiling.

[Longgone]

5 hours ago, oblong said:

I know.... I just can't get past the "We need you guys to help us control ourselves"

 

There is a huge competitive disparity between clubs. This is a mechanism that reduces that disadvantage. It's a problem that some clubs can simply, vastly outbid other clubs, and this is a mechanism to reduce that advantage. Do you have any better ideas?

[1984Echoes]

At some point...

If we're talking about expanding Playoffs...

The league is going to have to drop us back down to a 154 game regular season schedule.

I'm just thinking out loud...

[gehringer_2]

8 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

At some point...

If we're talking about expanding Playoffs...

The league is going to have to drop us back down to a 154 game regular season schedule.

I'm just thinking out loud...

well, you would think there is no way for that not to happen, just like you'd think there was no way you ever see an inning start with a man on 2nd.....

[buddha]

1 hour ago, 1984Echoes said:

At some point...

If we're talking about expanding Playoffs...

The league is going to have to drop us back down to a 154 game regular season schedule.

I'm just thinking out loud...

good.  the season is too long and the playoffs should end before it starts snowing.

[Tiger337]

I don't think the playoffs are going to last much longer than they already have.  They are talking about the first round as three games all at the park of the better team, so they wouldn't need a travel day during the series.  This would replace the play-in game they now have.  Then the rest of the playoffs will be the same as usual.   

[RedRamage]

MLBPA really need better communication efforts to the fans.  MLB has put out daily updates the last few days and while I know it's propaganda, it's still hard now to get a jaded view of the union based on how MLB has put out their info. 

[gehringer_2]

3 minutes ago, RedRamage said:

MLBPA really need better communication efforts to the fans.  MLB has put out daily updates the last few days and while I know it's propaganda, it's still hard now to get a jaded view of the union based on how MLB has put out their info. 

Hard not to conclude Tony Clark has been worse than a disaster.

[chasfh]

18 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

When 14 teams make the playoffs, everybody has a chance to be competitive regardless.  If you can't be competitive with that, then you should sell your team.  

Isn’t one of the underlying ideas for expanding the playoffs suppressing the need to spend in order to make the playoffs? It’s easier to fund a team to make the playoffs as a wild card with 85 wins than to fund a 95-win division champ.

[RedRamage]

14 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

Some of the teams I remember most from my youth were dynasties like the Orioles, Athletics and Reds.  I like it when there are teams like that.  They become villains which every other team wants to beat.  I wouldn't want a league where all the teams were average and a different team wins every year.  

Look at NCAA football.  You've got the same teams winning every year and it's still very popular.  

I don't think NCAA football (or Basketball) is quite the same animal.  The fan base for these teams is a totally different things... every year you import thousands of new fans who are living in a small close community re-enforcing that fandom and feeding on itself. 

After four years of this they are released into the world... some of them will remain rabid fans... some will become casual fans and some will lose their fandom.  But even if 80% of those leaving the school completely stop following their teams that still means 20% remain fans... and thousands more replace them in the new freshman class.

[chasfh]

15 hours ago, Longgone said:

Tell me the truth, Lee. If you were starting a new league today from scratch, would you give a few teams an overwhelming competitive advantage and operational resources 10 to 20 times their competitors? That would be inane. You'd want every team to win or lose based on their skill and talent, not having the deck systemically stacked against you, no matter what you did. The idea that sometimes an underdog can rise up, doesn't make it fair competition in any way, and that's what makes a league viable, each team has the same opportunity and talent and skill wins, not your location or local tv deal.

So, you want socialism. Do we have that straight?

[chasfh]

13 hours ago, 1984Echoes said:

At some point...

If we're talking about expanding Playoffs...

The league is going to have to drop us back down to a 154 game regular season schedule.

I'm just thinking out loud...

It makes me chuckle every time I see someone suggest reducing the schedule to 154 games, specifically, as though that were the one and only magic number written on the tablet that was handed down to Baseball Moses from Baseball Yahweh. Other than history, what makes 154 such a magic number? Why not 156 or 152? I'm not actually pitching a bitch about this—I just find it genuinely amusing that this is the magic number everyone always brings up. To me, this makes sense only to people who actually attended games at Ebbets Field.

Personally, I like 162 games. I'd rather have more baseball than less. Hell, I'd be up for expanding the schedule to 168 games! How fun would that be? But I do agree with you that, perhaps after expansion, they will probably end up reducing the regular season schedule (although I wouldn't doubt if they brought it down to 144 or even 140 so they could clear the entire month of September plus October for an expanded playoffs of all best-of-seven series involving 16 teams). Given how revenue in the sport has moved from primarily gameday receipts in the east-of-the-Mississippi 16-team universe to multiple league-wide revenue streams split among all 30 teams, the business imperative for every team to host as many as 81 home games has been dramatically reduced.

[Motor City Sonics]

They'll probably have to expand the rosters to 28 for the start of the season if they have a shortened Spring Training because we'll have a lot of 3-inning starts.  They'll need a couple of extra pitcher.     The September call up roster needs to be higher than 28.  Make it 32.   Never understood the extreme change from 40 to 28.  

 

If the owners really don't want to start until May - why don't we just go to a shorter schedule overall every year.   148 games. 

Your own Division -  16 games per team  =  64

The other Divisions in your league 6 games per team = 60

Four interleague teams 6 games each = 24.

Start around April 10th, shorten the All Star Break a day.    6 teams per league in the playoff tournament.   The Top 2 teams get  first round bye. 

First round 6 vs. 3,  4 vs 5 = 3 games (the 3rd seed, a division winner, gets 3 home games)

Second Round = 5 games

Championship Series = 5 games

World Series = 7 games

Ban the Shift (or seriously modify it).  Two players on each side of second base.  infielders can't position beyond the lip of the grass.  It's hurting the game.  

Universal DH

Pitch Clock /  Batter Clock.    Get the ball, throw the ball.   Get in the box, set your damn feet and lets go.  

Manager/Coach gets 3 times per game inside the baselines Period (injuries don't count against that).    This would be for mound visits or arguments with the umps.  No more stalling.   A manager can tell if his pitcher is done without going to the mound.  The manager does not need to hand the ball to every reliever.  They can call the bullpen, then call time and tell ump a pitching change is coming (if it's after the 3 visits)  A catcher can relay to the bench when a pitcher is gassed.    Pitchers can walk over to the baseline to have a 10 second chat with the Skip, they won't break.   Yep, some pitchers won't like being pulled without talking to the manager.  Well, grow up, it's a harsh world.   

Replays.  90 seconds max.  If they can't make the video replay determination within 90 seconds then the call stands.    Not usually a problem in baseball, but lets set that too. 

The financial stuff,  I can't possibly figure that out but they players will likely get almost all of what they want, like they always do.   The owners know this, so lets stop being babies about it.   If the owners are having financial issues then open the books.  Wait, that'll never happen, so just shut the fuck up about it and lets go.      You knew what you were getting into when you bought the team. 

Respect the game, you're losing ground, stop being ignorant about it.  Try to show some humility.  Fake it if you have to.   

Institute a salary floor.   Too many teams aren't even trying.  

FIRE ROB MANFRED -  he's the worst pro commissioner in sports.  

Edited February 25, 2022 by Motor City Sonics

[Tigeraholic1]