This Was Expected, But Aaaaaarrrrrgggghhhh!!!!!

[Northside Hawk]

Not too surprisingly the MLB players have unanimously rejected the owners "best and final offer". So opening day is probably cancelled, and both sides may be preparing to dig in.

On the heels of a pandemic shortened 2020 season and a 2021 where attendance was restricted until June this of course isn't a good look. But if the owners are that financially well off that they can afford to diminish profits for a third season then it seems to play right into the players hands that players are getting screwed. Not the top superstars, but the ones who have middling careers for five or six years or are barely hanging on in the game. Those are the players that the well paid superstars seem to be standing up for.

Tanking seems to be a big sticking point, one of several. And I was thinking of a way to help alleviate it that would benefit both sides and the fans as well. How about cutting 18 games off the regular season, shortening it to 144 games, and expanding playoffs, where the owners claim they really make their money. Players for generations have complained that 162 games are too many and this could lead to happier, less tired players. And no owner is going to tank if he thinks he has a fair shot of making the postseason and getting a piece of that TV revenue and other $$$.

Come to a compromise there and is it possible that they can get past other sticking points and have more dominoes for in place?

 

[Fryowa]

How about cutting 18 games off the regular season, shortening it to 144 games, and expanding playoffs, where the owners claim they really make their money. Players for generations have complained that 162 games are too many and this could lead to happier, less tired players

I'm never in favor of that in any sport. It basically kills all relevance of season and career records and milestones. I know we're in the middle of a pitching-dominant era, but eventually the tide will swing like it always does and guys in 162/yr careers will challenge records.

If you all the sudden go and knock 11% off the season then you essentially encase the entire modern era of baseball in a time capsule and kill it. Are the records great and important achievements still? Absolutely. But if you shorten a season you kill any comparison of modern players with the greats. You can't even compare "per-game" stats over a career at that point because a modern player wouldn't have to be so durable.

The "162 games is too many" thing is horseshit anyway. It may be how players feel, and it may be what they think. But the game was played at 162 per year for 6 decades give or take a few strikes, and no one died from it. If guys with the technology and sports nutrition that existed in, say, 1967 could hack that many games, so can the pampered and fragilely-handled players of today. And let's not act like a whole generation of MLB players is going to give up billions in salary over 18 games. They'll still play because that's what their whole lives have been dedicated to. If as player wants to be a 144-game snowflake, put it in their contract that they only have to play 144 games. Let tough ball players still play 162.

 

[Fryowa]

Not too surprisingly the MLB players have unanimously rejected the owners "best and final offer". So opening day is probably cancelled, and both sides may be preparing to dig in.

On the heels of a pandemic shortened 2020 season and a 2021 where attendance was restricted until June this of course isn't a good look. But if the owners are that financially well off that they can afford to diminish profits for a third season then it seems to play right into the players hands that players are getting screwed. Not the top superstars, but the ones who have middling careers for five or six years or are barely hanging on in the game. Those are the players that the well paid superstars seem to be standing up for.

Tanking seems to be a big sticking point, one of several. And I was thinking of a way to help alleviate it that would benefit both sides and the fans as well. How about cutting 18 games off the regular season, shortening it to 144 games, and expanding playoffs, where the owners claim they really make their money. Players for generations have complained that 162 games are too many and this could lead to happier, less tired players. And no owner is going to tank if he thinks he has a fair shot of making the postseason and getting a piece of that TV revenue and other $$$.

Come to a compromise there and is it possible that they can get past other sticking points and have more dominoes for in place?

Expand the playoffs and pay minor leaguers better and I think you'd have a deal.

 

[Northside Hawk]

I'm never in favor of that in any sport. It basically kills all relevance of season and career records and milestones. I know we're in the middle of a pitching-dominant era, but eventually the tide will swing like it always does and guys in 162/yr careers will challenge records.

If you all the sudden go and knock 11% off the season then you essentially encase the entire modern era of baseball in a time capsule and kill it. Are the records great and important achievements still? Absolutely. But if you shorten a season you kill any comparison of modern players with the greats. You can't even compare "per-game" stats over a career at that point because a modern player wouldn't have to be so durable.

The "162 games is too many" thing is horseshit anyway. It may be how players feel, and it may be what they think. But the game was played at 162 per year for 6 decades give or take a few strikes, and no one died from it. If guys with the technology and sports nutrition that existed in, say, 1967 could hack that many games, so can the pampered and fragilely-handled players of today. And let's not act like a whole generation of MLB players is going to give up billions in salary over 18 games. They'll still play because that's what their whole lives have been dedicated to. If as player wants to be a 144-game snowflake, put it in their contract that they only have to play 144 games. Let tough ball players still play 162.

All fair points. But baseball, which was king in my youth of the 1970's, has fallen far behind football and basketball. The powers that be have not marketed the game or its superstars properly and very few inner city kids are playing the game.

Manfred is a huge problem. I would like to see Theo Espstein get appointed commissioner, see the game get marketed properly to snag young fans,, and set up programs where inner city kids can play it and fall in love with it.

 

[Northside Hawk]

I'm never in favor of that in any sport. It basically kills all relevance of season and career records and milestones. I know we're in the middle of a pitching-dominant era, but eventually the tide will swing like it always does and guys in 162/yr careers will challenge records.

If you all the sudden go and knock 11% off the season then you essentially encase the entire modern era of baseball in a time capsule and kill it. Are the records great and important achievements still? Absolutely. But if you shorten a season you kill any comparison of modern players with the greats. You can't even compare "per-game" stats over a career at that point because a modern player wouldn't have to be so durable.

The "162 games is too many" thing is horseshit anyway. It may be how players feel, and it may be what they think. But the game was played at 162 per year for 6 decades give or take a few strikes, and no one died from it. If guys with the technology and sports nutrition that existed in, say, 1967 could hack that many games, so can the pampered and fragilely-handled players of today. And let's not act like a whole generation of MLB players is going to give up billions in salary over 18 games. They'll still play because that's what their whole lives have been dedicated to. If as player wants to be a 144-game snowflake, put it in their contract that they only have to play 144 games. Let tough ball players still play 162.

Certain numbers, such as 56 and .406, carried a certain amount of romanticism for decades and shortening the season would kill anyone's chances of ever reaching certain numbers again. But those numbers aren't as romantic to people as they once were. It's sad, but it's the current state of affairs.

Tough players or not, it's going to be increasingly difficult to both stay at 162 and also expand the playoffs, especially in cold weather cities.

The pendulum in baseball is always swinging back and forth as it struggles to balance hitting and pitching. Two things are working against hitters right now. Launch angle and the high strike.

The uppercut has always been a longer swing path, and trying to launch the ball leads to more hit in the air, but also more fouled off or missed. And about twenty years ago baseball, tired of seeing umpires like Eric Gregg expand the outside corner four to six inches, told the umps to call the strike zone as its stated in the rules. And graded them after each plate job. Pitchers who control the top of themstrike zone can feast up there, because most batters can't hit it and umpires are once again giving pitcher's that strike.

 

[ajdwhs87]

How about cutting 18 games off the regular season, shortening it to 144 games, and expanding playoffs, where the owners claim they really make their money. Players for generations have complained that 162 games are too many and this could lead to happier, less tired players.

Not gonna change it for the records and the $$$. For sure I don't want to watch 162 anymore esp. the way baseball is being played now. Also the ADD, social media gen coming up now have no interest in 162 games.

As for the players, they don't have to get jobs in the off season anymore and travel is much better. They are kind of entitled and whiny. They run around chasing skirts, partying till late, doing commercials, radio shows, and other opportunities to "build their brand" but they blame the game as the reason they are tired. They also don't have to work out like they are a running back either. They play baseball. Better for players to look like Reggie Jackson than Giancarlo Stanton.

 

[Northside Hawk]

Not gonna change it for the records and the $$$. For sure I don't want to watch 162 anymore esp. the way baseball is being played now. Also the ADD, social media gen coming up now have no interest in 162 games.

As for the players, they don't have to get jobs in the off season anymore and travel is much better. They are kind of entitled and whiny. They run around chasing skirts, partying till late, doing commercials, radio shows, and other opportunities to "build their brand" but they blame the game as the reason they are tired. They also don't have to work out like they are a running back either. They play baseball. Better for players to look like Reggie Jackson than Giancarlo Stanton.

Reggie, one of the strongest men and best athletes of his generation, weighed around 205 for most of his career.

That's utility infielder size today. Baseball players should train for strength and flexibility, not to look like Lee Haney. There is no doubt that overtraining can lead to knee problems and soft tissue injuries.

I have no problem with a player, entitled whiny primadonna or not, getting whatever value the market will support. Those those who complain about it (and I'm not specifically saying you or anyone else) if you don't like it then stop paying g $150 for a ticket. Stop paying $25 for parking, $15 for a beer. Don't drive TV ratings.

 

[ajdwhs87]

Reggie, one of the strongest men and best athletes of his generation, weighed around 205 for most of his career.

That is what I mean. Reggie is where is should be or should stop. This...

Is not what it should be even for an outfielder. Maybe esp. for an outfielder since they should be lighter than a weightlifter type and run better to cover ground.

Don't care about and didn't mention $$$ paid or how much things cost. I said some do a bunch of off field stuff but blame the game as what tires them or is too much. As if baseball is cramping their style. Not that they need be Monks but find the right balance.