MLB What Do You Think?

[fireground_piper]

So this is obviously a polarizing subject. Anyone read the linked article? Thoughts on what the author has to say about the chances of longevity of the game?

I read it, and mostly disagreed with it. To call the current state “faster, better and more exciting” omits a number of major problems the current version of the game has.

It’s become a home run or strikeout game. Gone are the interesting lineups utilizing different talents like average, extra base and speed. Strikeouts are through the roof and it makes for a slow game day after day. Throw in things like the shift and it makes an already slow offense even slower.

Analytics have killed a lot of any strategy by the manager. It’s all good for most of the game, but there’s regular failures that analytics make which is the human aspect and the ability to succeed or fail under pressure. Time and again, someone looks in the book to make a pressurized decision instead of maybe the guy who elevates under pressure (or at least doesn’t buckle).

The slow, out of shape (according to the article) players of yesterday used to throw complete games, play 162 games a year repeatedly and play competitive ball pretty late in a career. Todays ripped athletes need weekly breaks, get injured all the time and teams loath those last 5 years on a contract for drastic reduction in performance.

I don’t know how a case could be made for longevity without addressing many of the big problems it has.

 

[Streeper541]

Anyone read the linked article?

I read it. I wasn't overly impressed.

As for the longevity of the game... well, like anything else in life, that remains to be seen. I would say longstanding entertainment institutions such as the MLB have a better chance of surviving social & technological changes than other do other things like movies or tv.

 

[leonardbill1]

Not a fan of the DH in the NL. I think that the NFL will continue to kick MLB's ass. But glad that the season was salvaged.

 

[jpmcwjr]

Fair weather fan of the SF Giants. I hate the crowds at games, parking hassles etc., so it's TV only. So far so good, two games in.

 

[Bengel]

It’s become a home run or strikeout game. Gone are the interesting lineups utilizing different talents like average, extra base and speed

Bring back small ball to the game, I agree.

 

[Bengel]

I don’t know how a case could be made for longevity without addressing many of the big problems it has

Maybe it will become smaller and localized.

 

[Bengel]

MLB have a better chance of surviving social & technological changes than other do other things like movies or tv.

Or maybe just baseball in general, enjoy those minor league games. Our local team is no longer affiliated, but when they were we saw both Baez and Schwarber play the year before they went to the series with the Cubbies!

 

[Bengel]

To clarify, I do not agree with all the author says, thought it was a good catalyst for a discussion. I do, however, believe in the game and it’s longevity, place in history and continued relevance. Thanks for all the comments!

 

[Bengel]

Not a fan of the DH in the NL

Also not a fan, but it got Albert back to saint Louis? and gives some of the big hitters a chance to keep playing later into their careers (looking at you Frank Thomas).

 

[HawkeyeLinus]

I have friends who have maintained deep rooted passion for baseball since childhood and still get into the game. The Iowa Cubs have been a good local minor league team for a long time. I grew up, when I watched the Cubs, with Jack Brickhouse, later Harry. I enjoyed all things Curt Gowdy. Kubek and Costas were the best and I'd watch other games from time to time and usually got into the playoffs and World Series every year - Houston's run with Nolan Ryan was one of my favorites, Orioles with Boddicker, Cubs with the Red Baron in particular. I remember where I was watching at the U of I when Reggie Jackson hit his famous three home runs. I watched the Cubs World Series not too long ago, but it wasn't life or death like it would have been way back when. Time moves on, and I had less time for sitting in front of the TV for longer and longer games (pre-laptop era, lol), and I didn't like a lot of what MLB had become and has become. I eventually lost all interest in pro football for similar reasons, haven't watched an entire Super Bowl since Kurt Warner played in it. Sunday afternoons became a lot more precious, let alone Sunday and Monday nights. My connection with bats and gloves and balls went through a couple of daughters and softball for many years and what a great way to spend time.

I love that many still have the passion for baseball and hope someday the game is structured so they can watch what they love about the game instead of, IMO, being force fed what is a walk, strikeout or home run exercise, again, IMO, because I question whether those lovers of the essence of what I think the game is really get to watch it in the way they'd like to see it presented.

At the heart of it, it's a great game but it needs some help and I don't see ownership structure or motivations these days getting it the help it needs - again, IMO.

If you love and watch baseball my hat is off to you for sure.

 

[Bengel]

IMO, because I question whether those lovers of the essence of what I think the game is really get to watch it in the way they'd like to see it presented.

At the heart of it, it's a great game but it needs some help and I don't see ownership structure or motivations these days getting it the help it needs - again, IMO.

This!

 

[brandaves]

I love baseball. The sport will always have meaning for me. I'm one of those crazy idiots who sits at home and keeps score (on a scorecard I made because I can't find a commercially produced one I like). Very few people actually watch baseball. I mean really watch baseball. There are things that happen during any given game that are just magic but are often missed by the casual fan. Every live game I've kept score at people have approached me about one play or another which was vitally important to the outcome but might not have been clear to the casual observer what had happened. I love that. There is so much going on but you'd never know unless you know the game.

For the record, I hate that MLB is getting rid of the shift. Its been around since Ted Williams and a coach ought to be able to field his team any way he sees fit. I'd rather see hitters evolve. After all, the shift leaves massive sections of field unprotected. Its only downside for me is that it makes score keeping more of a challenge at times.

 

[fireground_piper]

For the record, I hate that MLB is getting rid of the shift. Its been around since Ted Williams and a coach ought to be able to field his team any way he sees fit. I'd rather see hitters evolve. After all, the shift leaves massive sections of field unprotected. Its only downside for me is that it makes score keeping more of a challenge at times.

That’s a bit of a stretch though. Existing vs being abused are different things. Especially at a time when a player evolving his ability to hit to different fields does not align with the pat scales and desirable demand of the current game.

The NL did not have a DH for almost 50 years but the fact that something existed for a while clearly isn’t a reason to keep it.

 

[Sweet Home Alabama]

My son played into college and I grew to enjoy. It’s a game of nuance. I prefer small ball, moving runners using hit and run. Also, like good defense from infielders.

For me, the best baseball is amateur.

 

[alaskanpiper]

I could care less if MLB ceased to exist. They seem to strike more than they play. To me, boring to watch.

Fully agree. It’s like watching paint dry. Plus, if you can have a gut like Manny Ramirez or Tito Ortiz and be an “all star” I think calling it a “sport” becomes debatable. More like a life size board game.

 

[brandaves]

That’s a bit of a stretch though. Existing vs being abused are different things. Especially at a time when a player evolving his ability to hit to different fields does not align with the pat scales and desirable demand of the current game.

The NL did not have a DH for almost 50 years but the fact that something existed for a while clearly isn’t a reason to keep it.

I don't think baseball should leave the shift alone only because it's been around awhile. I think they should leave it alone because it was an innovative solution to a fielding problem. Ted Williams was a natural hitter, even when he wasn't hitting home runs. They figured he was swinging for the fences everytime (which he was) so even if he missed he had a good shot at dropping one in for extra bases. So, they made him make a choice. Change your tactic and go for the base hit or continue to swing for the fence. Ted continued to swing for the fence and had trouble facing the shift the remainder of his career. It was a revelation for baseball because it required ingenuity to orchestrate and serious balls to actually do on the field...and it works.

People don't like the DH for the same reason. Sure, not having the DH makes the game a hell of a lot more difficult for the manager and more interesting in that regard. Seriously though, who really enjoyed watching the majority of pitchers stand up there and hack at a few pitches just to strike out? Pitchers batting adds nothing to the game except boring at batt that rarely added anything but 3 outs to the opposing teams card and some fenageling by the manager. I think the universal DH is good for the game. It protects pitchers and allows for a more quality at batt. I know that isn't a popular opinion, but that's mine.

 

[fireground_piper]

I don't think baseball should leave the shift alone only because it's been around awhile. I think they should leave it alone because it was an innovative solution to a fielding problem. Ted Williams was a natural hitter, even when he wasn't hitting home runs. They figured he was swinging for the fences everytime (which he was) so even if he missed he had a good shot at dropping one in for extra bases. So, they made him make a choice. Change your tactic and go for the base hit or continue to swing for the fence. Ted continued to swing for the fence and had trouble facing the shift the remainder of his career. It was a revelation for baseball because it required ingenuity to orchestrate and serious balls to actually do on the field...and it works.

People don't like the DH for the same reason. Sure, not having the DH makes the game a hell of a lot more difficult for the manager and more interesting in that regard. Seriously though, who really enjoyed watching the majority of pitchers stand up there and hack at a few pitches just to strike out? Pitchers batting adds nothing to the game except boring at batt that rarely added anything but 3 outs to the opposing teams card and some fenageling by the manager. I think the universal DH is good for the game. It protects pitchers and allows for a more quality at batt. I know that isn't a popular opinion, but that's mine.

Batters would adapt more if the league incentivized that style of play. They don’t anymore, so the shift becomes a negative tool so long as the league discouraged a complete batter.

By your own argument, perhaps a pitcher should just “adapt” and not be a useless offensive hole for his team instead of going the route of a DH? Be a more complete player?

 

[--dante--]

I love baseball. The sport will always have meaning for me. I'm one of those crazy idiots who sits at home and keeps score (on a scorecard I made because I can't find a commercially produced one I like). Very few people actually watch baseball. I mean really watch baseball. There are things that happen during any given game that are just magic but are often missed by the casual fan. Every live game I've kept score at people have approached me about one play or another which was vitally important to the outcome but might not have been clear to the casual observer what had happened. I love that. There is so much going on but you'd never know unless you know the game.

For the record, I hate that MLB is getting rid of the shift. Its been around since Ted Williams and a coach ought to be able to field his team any way he sees fit. I'd rather see hitters evolve. After all, the shift leaves massive sections of field unprotected. Its only downside for me is that it makes score keeping more of a challenge at times.

They're getting rid of the shift? How robotic are we trying to make this game?

 

[cfreud]

Yes, it is very trendy to pooh-pooh baseball these days, particularly after the game shot itself in the foot by only playing 60 in 2020 and almost torpedoing 2022. Yet for all its warts (the three true results, payroll discrepancy, etc.), it is still the sport of my life. Go Giants.

 

[sparker69]

I was not sure if I was looking forward to the season starting, not sure if I cared anymore. Now that opening day is come I think I have hope for a new season. What are your thoughts? Hope your teams are starting well.

Baseball's Golden Age

MLB may be less culturally central than in the past, but its recent innovations and natural advantages will enable it to outlast all competitors

www.tabletmag.com

I have to say I'm happy it's started. I guess I can get upset about all the business and the astronomical salaries and the continual wanting to speed up the game debates and other nonsense, but at the end of the day, it's probably my most common and favourite pipe smoking companion - over a book or music. I always go back to a quote from Michael Chabon that seems to sum it up for me: "The fundamental truth: a baseball game is nothing but a great slow contraption for getting you to pay attention to the cadence of a summer day." Oh - and I'm an old early 80's Expos fan - have an '82 Tim Raines jersey. Since they're gone, I go for the Tigers, but since we get all the Jays games here, I get into them as well. Just love a good game.