Tigers vs. Royals September 27, 2020 Game 58

[byco42]

oh, I know they would never do it, I was just saying that there is no need for 162 games when other sports can do it in 14, 17 or 30

Baseball is not like the other sports.

 

[tomdalton22]

Baseball is not like the other sports.

of course it isn't...all sports are different. But that really isn't a reason that 60-80 games isn't enough. The only argument I have really heard was that the awards would be tainted, but individual awards are pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of an entire sport.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Got no idea what that is supposed to mean. Figuring it out is like trying to slip a pitch past Hank Aaron.

More a brain spasm not sure why I said 'ware." Not even close to what I meant to say, chore is what I meant to say.

 

[Mitchrapp]

The basic about all sports is the length of the season is generally the same. 6 - 8 months or so.

 

[byco42]

of course it isn't...all sports are different. But that really isn't a reason that 60-80 games isn't enough. The only argument I have really heard was that the awards would be tainted, but individual awards are pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of an entire sport.

There?s a reason why professional hockey, football, and basketball players do not play 162 games. That?s what separates baseball from them.

 

[Mitchrapp]

The thing about say 60 baseball games it would be like this season and you just play your division. So no Detroit vs the NYY or Red Sox or so many other teams. Even if you play less in your division 60 just isn't near enough.

 

[Mitchrapp]

of course it isn't...all sports are different. But that really isn't a reason that 60-80 games isn't enough. The only argument I have really heard was that the awards would be tainted, but individual awards are pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of an entire sport.

Stats. Baseball more than any other is about stats. We like to compare them. This isn't about MVP but the fact 1100` hits would be equivalent to 3000. That just looks wrong.

 

[tomdalton22]

There?s a reason why professional hockey, football, and basketball players do not play 162 games. That?s what separates baseball from them.

right...because baseball isn't physically demanding when compared to every other sport. But my main point about the legitimacy of a season with 60-80 games is still relevant. There is no reason that 60-80 games wouldn't be enough to determine which teams are good enough / deserving to make the playoffs.

 

[Rebbiv]

oh, I know they would never do it, I was just saying that there is no need for 162 games when other sports can do it in 14, 17 or 30

All sports are businesses. They "franchise" their brand to owners, who have to following the business plan. Athletes for these teams are just high paid "employees", but belong to a labor union. Commissioners of each sport are comparable to being a CEOs. They are there to make money for the "owners"/sport.

Average Ticket To Attend

MLB = $33 (x 81 = $2,673 x 28,317 avg attendance = $75.7 Mil)

NBA = $89 (x 41 = $3,649 x 17,750 avg attendance = $64.8 Mil)

NHL = $135 (x 41 =$5,535 x 17,377 avg attendance = $96.2 Mil)

NFL = $151 (x 8 = $1,208 x 66,151 avg attendance = $79.9 Mil)


Average Player Cost

MLB = $4.43 Mil x 25 = $110.8 Mil

NBA = $7.7 Mil x 15 = $115.5 Mil

NHL = $2.76 Mil x 23 = $63.48 Mil

NFL = $3.20 Mil x 48 = $153.6 Mil



So, if we cut MLB games in half or in third. To make up the difference, we reduce the number of players to 5 on the field (pitcher, catcher, 2xinfielders and 1xoutfielder). If a player hits the ball to the opposite field, they are automatically out.

Problem solved. Who cares to alters the statistical paradigm?


Or, we double or triple fan cost. Probably they price themselves out of most fan's budget.

Problem solved. Who cares about the people who actually attends games?

And I assume the workers at the stadium are used to taking less money now that COVID hit. Or even businesses near the stadium (restaurants, hotels, etc)

Local economies draw from sporting events. Reducing the number or games impact those businesses. In addition, taxing on restaurants, hotels, etc, etc go back to the local governments.

What is the problem that is being solved by reducing to 60 games? I believe it is a cinch if you want to cut back to say 154-games. Franchises only lose 4 games at home. But you want to reduce 51 games and maintain their same expenses, that isn't going to happen without unrealistic changes.

 

[tomdalton22]

All sports are businesses. They "franchise" their brand to owners, who have to following the business plan. Athletes for these teams are just high paid "employees", but belong to a labor union. Commissioners of each sport are comparable to being a CEOs. They are there to make money for the "owners"/sport.

Average Ticket To Attend

MLB = $33 (x 81 = $2,673 x 28,317 avg attendance = $75.7 Mil)

NBA = $89 (x 41 = $3,649 x 17,750 avg attendance = $64.8 Mil)

NHL = $135 (x 41 =$5,535 x 17,377 avg attendance = $96.2 Mil)

NFL = $151 (x 8 = $1,208 x 66,151 avg attendance = $79.9 Mil)


Average Player Cost

MLB = $4.43 Mil x 25 = $110.8 Mil

NBA = $7.7 Mil x 15 = $115.5 Mil

NHL = $2.76 Mil x 23 = $63.48 Mil

NFL = $3.20 Mil x 48 = $153.6 Mil



So, if we cut MLB games in half or in third. To make up the difference, we reduce the number of players to 5 on the field (pitcher, catcher, 2xinfielders and 1xoutfielder). If a player hits the ball to the opposite field, they are automatically out.

Problem solved. Who cares to alters the statistical paradigm?


Or, we double or triple fan cost. Probably they price themselves out of most fan's budget.

Problem solved. Who cares about the people who actually attends games?

And I assume the workers at the stadium are used to taking less money now that COVID hit. Or even businesses near the stadium (restaurants, hotels, etc)

Local economies draw from sporting events. Reducing the number or games impact those businesses. In addition, taxing on restaurants, hotels, etc, etc go back to the local governments.

What is the problem that is being solved by reducing to 60 games? I believe it is a cinch if you want to cut back to say 154-games. Franchises only lose 4 games at home. But you want to reduce 51 games and maintain their same expenses, that isn't going to happen without unrealistic changes.

sure it's a season, and it's probably the right length. The only reason the season is 162 games is so they can make a bunch of money (which is perfectly fine)

so it is about money

 

[byco42]

so it is about money

Suggestion: You follow MLB for the first 60 games next season and award the title to the team with the best WP. In the event of a tie, contrive some kind of tiebreaker.

We’ll continue to follow the actual season as you look to other pursuits.

 

[tomdalton22]

Suggestion: You follow MLB for the first 60 games next season and award the title to the team with the best WP. In the event of a tie, contrive some kind of tiebreaker.

We?ll continue to follow the actual season as you look to other pursuits.

this is kind of funny but I was mainly talking about that 60 games is enough to determine which teams are good enough to make the playoffs. I fully understand that it won't happen and I'm not saying it should.

I will be there next year with the rest of the Tigers fans. I will watch parts of some games and will check the box score every morning to see how shitty they were the night before.

Looking forward to another sub .500 season. My early guess is 67-95

 

[byco42]

this is kind of funny but I was mainly talking about that 60 games is enough to determine which teams are good enough to make the playoffs. I fully understand that it won't happen and I'm not saying it should.

I will be there next year with the rest of the Tigers fans. I will watch parts of some games and will check the box score every morning to see how shitty they were the night before.

Looking forward to another sub .500 season. My early guess is 67-95

The Nationals, Cardinals, and A?s would not have made the playoffs were the 2019 season 60 games, but the Phillies, Cubs and Rangers would have. (NYY, HOU, MIN, TB ? LAD, ATL, MIL) were the teams that would have after 60 games and did.

 

[Mitchrapp]

So, if we cut MLB games in half or in third. To make up the difference, we reduce the number of players to 5 on the field (pitcher, catcher, 2xinfielders and 1xoutfielder). If a player hits the ball to the opposite field, they are automatically out.

As a young teenager sometimes we had to do this when we were short other kids.

 

[tomdalton22]

As a young teenager sometimes we had to do this when we were short other kids.

I grew up in a rural area. Sometimes we had to play 2 on 2 using a tennis ball so the ball wouldn't go too far. Had to play in a yard that was long and narrow. Tree line and bushes on both sides were outs. Pitcher's hand out (on the mound) at any base.

It was an odd way to play, but it was so much fun.

 

[byco42]

It’s how I learned to hit oppo. I was a lefty, usually the youngest player, and RF was out.

 

[byco42]

I grew up in a rural area. Sometimes we had to play 2 on 2 using a tennis ball so the ball wouldn't go too far. Had to play in a yard that was long and narrow. Tree line and bushes on both sides were outs. Pitcher's hand out (on the mound) at any base.

It was an odd way to play, but it was so much fun.

We played pitcher’s out, too. Ghost runners that had to be forced in. Lots of other ancillary games, too. Pickle, HRD, Whiffle Ball, Rain on the Roof, 500, etc.

 

[Rebbiv]

so it is about money

But you counter with other sport's season length. It is also about money in those sports as well.

Baseball players, pro-rated on 60-game seasons, would not take the pay cut.

Stadium workers, pro-rated on 60-game seasons, would not take the pay cut.

The only person on earth that suggesting 60-game season outside of Covid is you.

 

[tomdalton22]

But you counter with other sport's season length. It is also about money in those sports as well.

Baseball players, pro-rated on 60-game seasons, would not take the pay cut.

Stadium workers, pro-rated on 60-game seasons, would not take the pay cut.

The only person on earth that suggesting 60-game season outside of Covid is you.

sorry if I wasn't really clear. I wasn't suggesting they shorten the season. I just said I liked the shorter season and that the shorter season (60 games) is plenty to determine the teams that are worthy of the playoffs. I am in no way suggesting that baseball should shorten it, because I understand it isn't financially feasible.

 

[tinselwolverine]

sorry if I wasn't really clear. I wasn't suggesting they shorten the season. I just said I liked the shorter season and that the shorter season (60 games) is plenty to determine the teams that are worthy of the playoffs. I am in no way suggesting that baseball should shorten it, because I understand it isn't financially feasible.

Well of course it is. It was this year wasn?t it?

As long as every team plays the same amount of games as every other team, virtually any amount is enough. It could be 32 games. It could be 324 games. It could be anything.

In a 60 game season, the teams that were the best for those 60 games were the best teams, because that?s how many games they all played.

I guess St. Louis played only 58 games, but that doesn?t matter. If they had played the two additional games against the Tigers, and had lost both, the standings wouldn?t have been changed, as I understand it.

At least that?s what I heard Jim Price and Danny boy saying.