To be fair, all 6 teams not to have won a WS were founded after there were 50 states. If it was before 2016 WS, the Cubs would've last won when their were only 45 states. It is a clever visual. Seattle's failure to even appear in a WS ain't right either. A Seattle/Cleveland ALCS would be emotionally brutal.
This is actually a very good thing ... ... To be happening in Spring Training. The eyeballs and attention it will get can help drive the message that you really do need to pay attention and be ready to play ball. Now, I think this particular call might have been a little too nitpicky. But I'm ok with it. Baseball told the umpires to not hold back and let Spring Training be a "****show" and so here we are. The only way it could have gone better is if it had happened with a superstar at the plate.
something something learning curve, something something spring training, something something adjustment period
I'll only be satisfied if these new rules actually trim down an average game to a length that you can see. Like I'll be watching a Yankees' night game at Fenway during the season and it's over by around 9:30pm.
Man Robfred can do no wrong in my opinion! Shorter games? Brilliant! Runners a foot away from home starting in the Third Inning? Genius! Umps having even more power to determine the game? Transcendent!
None of this would be necessary if they just re-emphasized how important an enjoyable game to watch is. This players/managers etc have a dream job, and the least they can do is try a LITTLE BIT to make more fun for people who are paying to watch them. This is an entertainment enterprise. Many of these players treat it as a drudge because they are worried too much about the stats that become factors in contracts. Managers often treat every game like a playoff game because every win matters in contracts. And I think the answer to that comes down to new incentives. More Money. Can't be less money. Can't be "forget about the money". Money is the only motivation. Like a bonus scale for players based on pitches taken against hits and number of times they step in and out of the batters box. You see 4 pitches and strike out...$100 bonus...You see 11 pitches and still strike out...no bonus. Over the course of a season, that could seriously add up, especially for low salary guys. Similar bonuses for pitchers for step-offs, throw overs, and length of innings (carefully measured based on actual ball in play results) Bonuses for contact, not just average or Slugging %. These hitter who wear a strike out record as a badge of honor must stop. I'd be thrilled with a guy who hits .280, but almost always hits the ball into the field of play. Managers...give them a bonus if they can work a game with 1 or 2 pitchers. Bonus if they call for an unexpected bunt! Pitchers...Complete game bonus! Relievers...escalating bonus for every batter they can face. This game has been so dissected to find the science of winning, that the fun and artistry are often lost in hours of uniform, perfunctory strategy. And, let's face it, a good third of the teams every year are not even SNIFFING being competitive, even with expanded playoffs. Wins for a club that is going to go 52-110 don't mean much to anybody. But if that team is fun to watch, that means something. Heck, I'd give a bonus for players who laugh and smile on the field. Look like you are LUCKY MAN, man. They want to cut corners and legislate a "brevity" to the game, because people don't want to endure it. Make it worthwhile for players to take risks that may not end up leading to wins, and it just might inject a little freedom into the game which might translate to a more attractive product. Then, even if the game time doesn't shrink much, at least people are enjoying the experience.
Congratulations You just made heels dome plan sound so much better by comparison. "Let's pay the players extra money to take on strategies that knowingly reduce their odds of winning" sounds a whole lot like the Black Sox Scandal ... That's probably not the baseball history we should be trying to recreate
Considering this country's rediscovered passion for gambling, who knows! j/k Seriously though, I think there are ways to boost activity on the field, without it being detrimental to "winning." When a guy is hitting .190...is he really that more likely to get a hit on the 10th pitch over the 5th pitch? Are the teams chances of winning that different based on 5 pitches? I could be wrong, but I'd at least like to try something. I used a be a "this game is perfect as it is". But this is not the game a grew up loving anymore. Something already changed. It needs to be fixed. ----------- Besides, those ideas are more practical then my other idea...make all outfield walls a minimum of 400 feet at any point. Not only would it drastically curtail homeruns; it would increase the size of the outfields, allowing more fly balls to land fair between fielders. Alternatively, we could return to the "deadball", but without modifications to the field, I think that would just lead to more shutouts and no-hitters.
109 years ago John McGraw wrote an article in the NYT describing his view of an exhibition game he and the New York Baseball Giants played against the White Sox Spoiler: Large images
Apparently the King got a kick out of fans heckling the pitcher and the ump Spoiler: Another large image
the catcher wears armor to protect themselves from judge judy and imagine if the king had witnessed the stanky maneuver, would have changed his life
So I watched two Met games over the weekend on SNY and they have made every effort to include the pitch clock but also make it as unobtrusive as possible. They don't start showing it until it hits 8 seconds and even then it takes up a very small portion of the score bug. Today they are on ESPN. ESPN, it will not shock you to learn, does a full countdown with an unnecessarily large box added to their score bug so your eye is naturally drawn to it. Amazing.