I'm on board with the retractable roof thing if and only if they can be designed well. Baseball must always feel like it is being played outside. If you have to deal with an old roof like Toronto's, where it feels more like sitting in a building with a hole in the roof than sitting outside, it could be a problem for the baseball experience. Also, there's no need for a retractable roof in a place like Miami or Tampa or Dallas where it's closed every day anyway. A permanent roof would be fine in those circumstances.
I think we've all gone over that in-game interviews are entirely meaningless, no matter what sport it is, but for whatever reason TV networks seem to not be able to get enough of them. Those that hold the money make the rules I suppose. At least they're not harmful. They're just a waste of time to watch or listen to. They are not too offensive to me.
Where you and I find the most common ground is number three. Keep statistics and the watching experience as far apart as possible. Leave the new fangled stuff for the commentators to talk about. Don't design graphics for it. For instance, if a CF makes a fantastic play, you can allow a commentator to say 'that's why he leads the NL in OAA!' However, do not make a graphic to talk about how he's the best defensive CF and have OAA as a stat on there. It's a subtle difference, but one that fans notice.
Advanced stats that people can see have no place in a game broadcast. When the NFL began showing estimated Win Probability in their broadcasts it infuriated me, because there's such a thing as too much information. How does it make me want to keep watching if I know my team as a 12% chance to win coming back from the halftime break? Baseball is the same thing. Why am I happy to know that my best player only hits the ball with the barrel of the bat 8% of the time? Don't use OPS+, just use OPS. In a current season broadcast, fans know what the league average is. You don't have to adjust for them. Things like this would go a long way towards helping the experience.
As far as the final two things, I can take or leave. I also appreciate traditional extra innings, but if the players (read: pitchers) want to draw a line in the sand on this, and they really don't want to have to pitch multiple innings in a long game, it's whatever. I used to love the yearly 18 inning game, but I think it's something that I'm willing not to go back to. The game 163 is somewhat redundant. We already let too many teams into the playoffs anyway. If you're fighting for the final spot, I really don't care about you. I like it in concept because it would mess up playoff rotations, making it harder for underdogs to win, which is good for the sport, because underdogs win too much in this sport, so I personally would bring it back, but it wouldn't be a particularly meaningful change I don't think.
Overall, this was not a bad list my friend. I enjoyed reading it! I think we land the same way on all these rule changes, although I think the on-field game is in a fairly good spot right now (except for the playoffs having too many teams in them continually causing teams to be mediocre on purpose), so all these changes feel fairly minor. That's probably a good thing I guess, but it dulls the blade of the list like this.
Great points and thanks for the thoughts. I agree with your last point that the on-field game is working well. The getting rid of shifts, even though it oddly enough hasn't helped with league batting average, still makes for a better watch.
Also, I don't mind 12 teams making the playoffs (never more than though or else we are in the same issue that the NBA and NHL are, where the regular season has little meaning) and am thankful that at least the Wild Card Round changed to Best-of-3. Had they not, then I'd rather the field stay right at eight teams as it was for years, and just get right to the LDS. But, with the expansion, definitely a quick three-game series at the better team's home is better than a one-game scenario.
I love the 12 team playoffs on the field, but if we're strictly considering entertainment on the field, why not let all 30 teams in? The problem with them is off the field.
The big playoffs are warping how teams are constructed. Everything is a race to the middle now, because there's functionally no difference between third and sixth. That's why there are no races for the first round byes in the current system, because everybody is content to just make the wild card. Look at the Royals. That's a team that would've bought big time in a smaller playoff format. Instead they went nowhere, because their level is a playoff level now.
We can construe this as a good or a bad thing, but I think that the big playoffs will continue to kill the trade deadline, continue to supress league payrolls, and continue to encourage teams to be mediocre. This is great for fans of teams like the Twins or Royals, who were going to be mediocre anyway for ownership reasons, but it's not great for fans of teams like the Red Sox and Astros, who can now get away with merely pretending to be in on the big free agents, and not really being big money teams anymore. There is no need to be a big money team. 86 wins and a playoff position is good enough.
The sport of baseball was not designed around that philosophy, and it will kill the game as we know it, not on the field but off the field. It's already happening in Houston and Boston. Who knows which owner next will give up on the big spending and realise that 86 wins is the way. Maybe everybody except Steve Cohen will.
I couldn’t agree more about the retractable roof for every team. Rainouts in 2024 shouldn’t be a thing lol
As someone who is more of a traditional baseball fan, I am surprised how much I actually like the extra innings. During the week, trying to stay up for a game that goes 12-14 innings is rough. I also hated watching teams try to hit the walk off home run. I know it’s not a rule for everyone but I’m actually alright with it.
I am so onboard with #4 and #5 on the list. Retractable roofs should be the standard. For instance, Minnesota is a beautiful ballpark for an outdoor game. But, it's in Minnesota! Last few days of March, April and early May not that warm. Bring back the Metrodome!
Yeah, in-game interviews completely useless in all sports. Must be a stipulation in the TV contracts with the league and/or teams.
The retractable roofs idea I would have thought all franchises looking to build new stadiums over the last 15 to 20 years would have wanted. However, it probably all goes back to the idea of "Do we actually need it? Will fans stop coming to games if they get screwed over by the weather?" I think Minnesota is a great example of a stadium, given its climate, that absolutely should have a roof of some sort.
The only way I see this becoming a thing well down the road is if more and more games each season are canceled. I think the 30 doubleheaders in '24 are probably around average and are not considered a 'Red Alert' situation. But I'm thinking more about the fans who go home disappointed each time this happens. Most people take a full day to get to the game, watch the game, and get back home. Not cool if it's all for nothing.
And, yes, as you said about the in-game interviews..."Completely useless in all sports."
Happy New Year Justin. Agree in particular on game 163! As for the runner in extras, pushing that to the 11th or 12th inning is fine and would be a decent compromise. Destroying a bullpen for a couple of weeks in a 15-inning game does not make baseball better in my view. Thanks!
Thanks for the comments. And, yes, completely understand before the pitch clock when nine-inning games would usually take over three hours and then extra innings could go on a long while. I just feel with the pitch clock already speeding up the game by about 30 minutes every contest, I don't think games going 15 once in a while in the traditional setting is a big deal.
There have been a few crazy games under Manfred Man that have gone to 14 or 15, which is crazy to think considering the odds of that. I like Mark Kolier's idea of starting the man on second maybe in the 12th or 13th. A compromise. Also, the bullpens can get burned in an extremely long game, but you know, maybe that is why starting pitchers ought to stay in longer. A conversation for another day.
Yeah, Game 163 is not only #1 on the list for being, in my mind, the most likely to one day make a return, but also because I think it's the most important of them all. The excitement of that final Sunday is not the same without the possibility of a tiebreaker settled on the field. It seems like an easy fix and something MLB could easily schedule without pushing the postseason back much further, if at all.
I understand, in a way, about what your thoughts are on extra innings. If lots of games went to the 15th throughout the season pre-change, then I might agree. I don't mind your idea of letting the game go, maybe three innings of extras before adding that man on base. Kind of a compromise to both systems. But certainly not in the first few frames.
Let these guys play. The relievers are the ones who must come in with the man on, and regardless if the runner from second who comes around to score is an 'unearned run' to the pitcher, he is still credited with the loss if his team is defeated because of it.
I'm on board with the retractable roof thing if and only if they can be designed well. Baseball must always feel like it is being played outside. If you have to deal with an old roof like Toronto's, where it feels more like sitting in a building with a hole in the roof than sitting outside, it could be a problem for the baseball experience. Also, there's no need for a retractable roof in a place like Miami or Tampa or Dallas where it's closed every day anyway. A permanent roof would be fine in those circumstances.
I think we've all gone over that in-game interviews are entirely meaningless, no matter what sport it is, but for whatever reason TV networks seem to not be able to get enough of them. Those that hold the money make the rules I suppose. At least they're not harmful. They're just a waste of time to watch or listen to. They are not too offensive to me.
Where you and I find the most common ground is number three. Keep statistics and the watching experience as far apart as possible. Leave the new fangled stuff for the commentators to talk about. Don't design graphics for it. For instance, if a CF makes a fantastic play, you can allow a commentator to say 'that's why he leads the NL in OAA!' However, do not make a graphic to talk about how he's the best defensive CF and have OAA as a stat on there. It's a subtle difference, but one that fans notice.
Advanced stats that people can see have no place in a game broadcast. When the NFL began showing estimated Win Probability in their broadcasts it infuriated me, because there's such a thing as too much information. How does it make me want to keep watching if I know my team as a 12% chance to win coming back from the halftime break? Baseball is the same thing. Why am I happy to know that my best player only hits the ball with the barrel of the bat 8% of the time? Don't use OPS+, just use OPS. In a current season broadcast, fans know what the league average is. You don't have to adjust for them. Things like this would go a long way towards helping the experience.
As far as the final two things, I can take or leave. I also appreciate traditional extra innings, but if the players (read: pitchers) want to draw a line in the sand on this, and they really don't want to have to pitch multiple innings in a long game, it's whatever. I used to love the yearly 18 inning game, but I think it's something that I'm willing not to go back to. The game 163 is somewhat redundant. We already let too many teams into the playoffs anyway. If you're fighting for the final spot, I really don't care about you. I like it in concept because it would mess up playoff rotations, making it harder for underdogs to win, which is good for the sport, because underdogs win too much in this sport, so I personally would bring it back, but it wouldn't be a particularly meaningful change I don't think.
Overall, this was not a bad list my friend. I enjoyed reading it! I think we land the same way on all these rule changes, although I think the on-field game is in a fairly good spot right now (except for the playoffs having too many teams in them continually causing teams to be mediocre on purpose), so all these changes feel fairly minor. That's probably a good thing I guess, but it dulls the blade of the list like this.
Great points and thanks for the thoughts. I agree with your last point that the on-field game is working well. The getting rid of shifts, even though it oddly enough hasn't helped with league batting average, still makes for a better watch.
Also, I don't mind 12 teams making the playoffs (never more than though or else we are in the same issue that the NBA and NHL are, where the regular season has little meaning) and am thankful that at least the Wild Card Round changed to Best-of-3. Had they not, then I'd rather the field stay right at eight teams as it was for years, and just get right to the LDS. But, with the expansion, definitely a quick three-game series at the better team's home is better than a one-game scenario.
I love the 12 team playoffs on the field, but if we're strictly considering entertainment on the field, why not let all 30 teams in? The problem with them is off the field.
The big playoffs are warping how teams are constructed. Everything is a race to the middle now, because there's functionally no difference between third and sixth. That's why there are no races for the first round byes in the current system, because everybody is content to just make the wild card. Look at the Royals. That's a team that would've bought big time in a smaller playoff format. Instead they went nowhere, because their level is a playoff level now.
We can construe this as a good or a bad thing, but I think that the big playoffs will continue to kill the trade deadline, continue to supress league payrolls, and continue to encourage teams to be mediocre. This is great for fans of teams like the Twins or Royals, who were going to be mediocre anyway for ownership reasons, but it's not great for fans of teams like the Red Sox and Astros, who can now get away with merely pretending to be in on the big free agents, and not really being big money teams anymore. There is no need to be a big money team. 86 wins and a playoff position is good enough.
The sport of baseball was not designed around that philosophy, and it will kill the game as we know it, not on the field but off the field. It's already happening in Houston and Boston. Who knows which owner next will give up on the big spending and realise that 86 wins is the way. Maybe everybody except Steve Cohen will.
I couldn’t agree more about the retractable roof for every team. Rainouts in 2024 shouldn’t be a thing lol
As someone who is more of a traditional baseball fan, I am surprised how much I actually like the extra innings. During the week, trying to stay up for a game that goes 12-14 innings is rough. I also hated watching teams try to hit the walk off home run. I know it’s not a rule for everyone but I’m actually alright with it.
Great post!
Great Top Five!
I am so onboard with #4 and #5 on the list. Retractable roofs should be the standard. For instance, Minnesota is a beautiful ballpark for an outdoor game. But, it's in Minnesota! Last few days of March, April and early May not that warm. Bring back the Metrodome!
Yeah, in-game interviews completely useless in all sports. Must be a stipulation in the TV contracts with the league and/or teams.
Thanks for the reply.
The retractable roofs idea I would have thought all franchises looking to build new stadiums over the last 15 to 20 years would have wanted. However, it probably all goes back to the idea of "Do we actually need it? Will fans stop coming to games if they get screwed over by the weather?" I think Minnesota is a great example of a stadium, given its climate, that absolutely should have a roof of some sort.
The only way I see this becoming a thing well down the road is if more and more games each season are canceled. I think the 30 doubleheaders in '24 are probably around average and are not considered a 'Red Alert' situation. But I'm thinking more about the fans who go home disappointed each time this happens. Most people take a full day to get to the game, watch the game, and get back home. Not cool if it's all for nothing.
And, yes, as you said about the in-game interviews..."Completely useless in all sports."
Fair points in the retractable roof. We can dream though!
Happy New Year Justin. Agree in particular on game 163! As for the runner in extras, pushing that to the 11th or 12th inning is fine and would be a decent compromise. Destroying a bullpen for a couple of weeks in a 15-inning game does not make baseball better in my view. Thanks!
Thanks for the comments. And, yes, completely understand before the pitch clock when nine-inning games would usually take over three hours and then extra innings could go on a long while. I just feel with the pitch clock already speeding up the game by about 30 minutes every contest, I don't think games going 15 once in a while in the traditional setting is a big deal.
There have been a few crazy games under Manfred Man that have gone to 14 or 15, which is crazy to think considering the odds of that. I like Mark Kolier's idea of starting the man on second maybe in the 12th or 13th. A compromise. Also, the bullpens can get burned in an extremely long game, but you know, maybe that is why starting pitchers ought to stay in longer. A conversation for another day.
Hey Mark. Happy New Year to you as well.
Yeah, Game 163 is not only #1 on the list for being, in my mind, the most likely to one day make a return, but also because I think it's the most important of them all. The excitement of that final Sunday is not the same without the possibility of a tiebreaker settled on the field. It seems like an easy fix and something MLB could easily schedule without pushing the postseason back much further, if at all.
I understand, in a way, about what your thoughts are on extra innings. If lots of games went to the 15th throughout the season pre-change, then I might agree. I don't mind your idea of letting the game go, maybe three innings of extras before adding that man on base. Kind of a compromise to both systems. But certainly not in the first few frames.
Let these guys play. The relievers are the ones who must come in with the man on, and regardless if the runner from second who comes around to score is an 'unearned run' to the pitcher, he is still credited with the loss if his team is defeated because of it.
Thanks for the reply.