An Open Letter to MLB Commissioner Robert Manfred
- Thread starter JesusQuintana
- Start date
For those of you that enjoyed Justin's last article, here's the follow up piece about expansion:
http://sonsofsamhorn.com/baseball/why-manfred-should-expand-major-league-baseball/
http://sonsofsamhorn.com/baseball/why-manfred-should-expand-major-league-baseball/
Good piece. Interleague play and the All Star Game counting feel like the sports equivalent of Poochy from the Simpsons. Calculated attempts (a la the NFL London games or shootouts in hockey) to "drive up fan interest" rarely feel natural to me once he novelty wears off.JesusQuintana said:
I could be convinced to add the DH to the NL as well, esp. if they muck around with interleague play (which I kind of despise at this point).
Also a really good piece. Not to damn Justin with faint praise or anything but this is exactly the kind of thing that would be nice to read on Sunday's in the Globe in lieu of Cafardo.The Tax Man said:
Van - thanks for both comments and for reading!
I think there's a lot of merit to the argument of eliminating the DH from the NL altogether - with few exceptions, there's no entertainment or offensive value in a pitcher hitting. And (let's face it) Zambrano is gone, so those few exceptions just got fewer. Either way, that might be a topic for a future piece, as it is a deep argument on both sides - but it got a LOT of debate from the usual baseball writing suspects last month when Wainwright snapped his Achilles.
Additionally - I agree. Interleague play sucks, but I think we're all going to be stuck with it.
I think there's a lot of merit to the argument of eliminating the DH from the NL altogether - with few exceptions, there's no entertainment or offensive value in a pitcher hitting. And (let's face it) Zambrano is gone, so those few exceptions just got fewer. Either way, that might be a topic for a future piece, as it is a deep argument on both sides - but it got a LOT of debate from the usual baseball writing suspects last month when Wainwright snapped his Achilles.
Additionally - I agree. Interleague play sucks, but I think we're all going to be stuck with it.
The thing about interleague that drives me most insane isn't that the games aren't interesting. It's that we end up playing teams in our own league only a handful of times a year.
Anyone who grew up watching the Red Sox at Fenway has numerous memories of seeing great series against teams like the Oakland A's and the Cleveland Indians. With the current format it feels like nearly a third of the season is against teams that we have no real investment in as fans at all. And yeah, when you open the season with one of these games it feels like a really odd fitting exhibition game more than a tradition as sacred to fans as "Opening Day." And I don't even consider myself a traditionalist!
Any rate, I love these pieces. As a writer myself, it's awesome to see you so many posters spread their wings as full-fledged writers. Nice work.
Anyone who grew up watching the Red Sox at Fenway has numerous memories of seeing great series against teams like the Oakland A's and the Cleveland Indians. With the current format it feels like nearly a third of the season is against teams that we have no real investment in as fans at all. And yeah, when you open the season with one of these games it feels like a really odd fitting exhibition game more than a tradition as sacred to fans as "Opening Day." And I don't even consider myself a traditionalist!
Any rate, I love these pieces. As a writer myself, it's awesome to see you so many posters spread their wings as full-fledged writers. Nice work.
We saw the Indians more because they were in the AL East.
I really, really like interleague games, it's a great chance to see other teams, parks, and players, and I think it provides a different kind of challenge to the teams wrt familiarity. I definitely tune in more for them than I do for divisional games, since I know I can see them play AL East teams anytime I want. I also would like to see more games against the AL West and AL Central, but I'd rather it come from divisional games going from 19 to 15 or 16, since I frankly get tired of seeing the same four opponents for half the season. Back in the old 8 team AL East, 12 games x 7 teams wasn't as monotonous as 19 x 4 is today. It would also make schedules for teams contending for the WC more comparable
I really, really like interleague games, it's a great chance to see other teams, parks, and players, and I think it provides a different kind of challenge to the teams wrt familiarity. I definitely tune in more for them than I do for divisional games, since I know I can see them play AL East teams anytime I want. I also would like to see more games against the AL West and AL Central, but I'd rather it come from divisional games going from 19 to 15 or 16, since I frankly get tired of seeing the same four opponents for half the season. Back in the old 8 team AL East, 12 games x 7 teams wasn't as monotonous as 19 x 4 is today. It would also make schedules for teams contending for the WC more comparable
I'm also generally a fan of interleague play and I think the attendance and ratings means it'll never go away. I do agree with Jesus that it could be cut down a bit and shifted to the summer months. But I also totally agree with Infield that more games should be shifted to opponents within your league and out of your division. This makes too much sense during the era of 2 wild cards.
Personally, I love the idea of adding the DH to the NL. Pitchers are becoming too good to make watching opposing pitchers hit even tolerable. I'm kinda surprised the MLBPA hasn't made this one of their priorities. They'd be the big winner there - especially if they could push expanded rosters into the discussion.
Personally, I love the idea of adding the DH to the NL. Pitchers are becoming too good to make watching opposing pitchers hit even tolerable. I'm kinda surprised the MLBPA hasn't made this one of their priorities. They'd be the big winner there - especially if they could push expanded rosters into the discussion.
I like interleague play, I just wish they would come up with a consistent rotating format like the NFL does. For example, it's been almost 20 years now and the Red Sox have played THREE games in Milwaukee since they moved to the NL. Total. I had a wedding to go to that weekend and couldn't make the trip out for the series in 2003. Little did I know a dozen years later that they still wouldn't have made it back. I was lucky enough to catch the 2007 series in Arizona, because they haven't been there before or since.
Meanwhile they've played 34 games in Philadelphia and 29 games in Atlanta. Part of the appeal of interleague play is seeing new teams and players and getting the chance to catch your team on the road in a new venue. But playing the same handful of teams every year completely defeats the purpose.
Likewise, a set rotation plan would help with site imbalances. The aforementioned MIL H2H has seen 75% of the games in BOS. ARI-BOS has been 80% in BOS, PIT-BOS and SF-BOS have been only 25% in Boston (Pirates and Giants have each played ONE series in Boston since interleague play began).
I'd do away with the natural rivals. Somehow the NFL gets by with the Jets-Giants, Cowboys-Texans, etc. only happening every 4 years. That, moreso than interleague play in general, is what screws the schedules up so badly.
Meanwhile they've played 34 games in Philadelphia and 29 games in Atlanta. Part of the appeal of interleague play is seeing new teams and players and getting the chance to catch your team on the road in a new venue. But playing the same handful of teams every year completely defeats the purpose.
Likewise, a set rotation plan would help with site imbalances. The aforementioned MIL H2H has seen 75% of the games in BOS. ARI-BOS has been 80% in BOS, PIT-BOS and SF-BOS have been only 25% in Boston (Pirates and Giants have each played ONE series in Boston since interleague play began).
I'd do away with the natural rivals. Somehow the NFL gets by with the Jets-Giants, Cowboys-Texans, etc. only happening every 4 years. That, moreso than interleague play in general, is what screws the schedules up so badly.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
Van Everyman said:
Complaints about interleague are some of the strangest "baseball traditionalist" rants in what's already a strange category.
In the NFL, teams play 37.5% of their games against their own division, 37.5% against other divisions in their conference, and 25% against one division of the other conference.
In the NHL, teams play 35-37% of their games against their own division, 25-29% against the other division in their conference, and 34-39% against the whole other conference.
In the NBA, teams play 19.5% of their games against their own division, 44% against other divisions in their conference, and 36.5% against the whole other conference.
In MLB, teams play 76 games (47%) against their own division, 66 games (41%) against the other divisions in their conference, and 20 games (12%) against one division in the other conference.
Interleague is tiny by the standards of modern pro sports leagues. That you want it to go away, or at least be relegated to an even smaller sideshow, is just a reflection of the history of the leagues - they never played each other in the regular season until 1995 - rather than any worth about those contests themselves.
This is a good post and I'm not disagreeing – I want robots to replace umpires and hate "guardians of the game," so I'm hardly a traditionalist. I think a big piece of it is also that I hate as a Sox fan that we have to sit Ortiz and watch stupid small ball bullshit every time we play an NL team away. I just kind of preferred when interleague felt special and we had mini rivalries against AL Central and West teams.
When the NBA, NFL and NHL force the road team in an interleague game to play under different rules then MDL's comparison will have some validity. I don't think anyone really has a problem with seeing different NL teams once in a while. The opposition to IL is probably something like 75% because of the DH issue, 20% because it takes an already very unbalanced schedule among teams competing for a WC spot and further unbalances them, and 5% traditionalist arguments.
Scheduling should be easy:
18 games vs. each divisional rival (9 home, 9 away), which means 72 total.
6 games vs. each league rival in other divisions (3 home, 3 away), 60 total.
6 games of interleague vs. each team in the same regional division (3 home, 3 away), 30 total.
Total games: 162.
Perfectly balanced, problem solved.
18 games vs. each divisional rival (9 home, 9 away), which means 72 total.
6 games vs. each league rival in other divisions (3 home, 3 away), 60 total.
6 games of interleague vs. each team in the same regional division (3 home, 3 away), 30 total.
Total games: 162.
Perfectly balanced, problem solved.
A thousand times this, and its understated how big a problem it is that almost half the games in a lomg season are against 4 opponents. I find myself not even tuning in for divisional games because I've seen it a thousand times (and that includes Sox/Yanks which should be must see TV). I'd cut division games down to 13 vs each in division (52 games), 8 against each other AL team (80), and 6 vs each in one interleague division (30). You'd have to play some home/away imbalance in the division but you preserve the "season series" tiebreaker.Infield Infidel said:
Ya I'd personally love to see less than 18 games against the division rivals every year. That's still 72 games a year against NYY, Balt, Toronto, and Tampa. I think that's way too many.
Agree. 72 intradivision games is almost half the season. That's entirely too big a sample size to determine who wins the pennant. Those could be reduced by a series a piece and still be an accurate gauge of "who the best team within their division" was at the end of the season.
I would prefer something like
14 games vs. each division opponent = 56 games (14 allows for two 3 game series and two 4 game series)
10 games vs. other AL opponents who did finish in same place as you = 20 games (allows for two 3 game series and one 4 game series)
7 games vs. other AL opponents who didn't finish in same place as you = 56 games (allows for one 3 game series and one 4 game series)
6 games vs. rotating NL division = 30 games
Adds an element of schedule balancing like the NFL where you play against the teams in the other conference divisions who finished in the same place as you. Also means division play is down to 35% of games and non-division league games are up to 47% (and other league is then 18%). Very similar to the NFL where 37.5 is division, 37.5 is conference, 25 is other conference.
14 games vs. each division opponent = 56 games (14 allows for two 3 game series and two 4 game series)
10 games vs. other AL opponents who did finish in same place as you = 20 games (allows for two 3 game series and one 4 game series)
7 games vs. other AL opponents who didn't finish in same place as you = 56 games (allows for one 3 game series and one 4 game series)
6 games vs. rotating NL division = 30 games
Adds an element of schedule balancing like the NFL where you play against the teams in the other conference divisions who finished in the same place as you. Also means division play is down to 35% of games and non-division league games are up to 47% (and other league is then 18%). Very similar to the NFL where 37.5 is division, 37.5 is conference, 25 is other conference.
What I'd like to see is this:
-Shorten the season by 5 games
-8 games vs. same league=112 games
-3 games vs. other league=45 games (rotate home field every year)
What I'd like to see assuming that we'll never totally get rid of unbalanced schedules:
-Shorten the season by 9 games
-12 games vs. division=48 games
-6 games vs. non-division, same league=60
-3 games vs. other league=45 (rotate home field every year)
-Shorten the season by 5 games
-8 games vs. same league=112 games
-3 games vs. other league=45 games (rotate home field every year)
What I'd like to see assuming that we'll never totally get rid of unbalanced schedules:
-Shorten the season by 9 games
-12 games vs. division=48 games
-6 games vs. non-division, same league=60
-3 games vs. other league=45 (rotate home field every year)
I think shortening the season is far less likely than eliminating unbalanced schedules. Starting from a point other than 162 seems pointless IMO
You're probably right, but 1)I think the season should be shortened and 2)I was trying to make my numbers work out.
For what it's worth, Manfred did toss around the idea of a shortened season, and it's received a fair amount of discussion. Not saying it's any more likely than the elimination of unbalanced schedules (to tims4wins' point) but it's gotten some press in 2015, whereas MLB unbalanced schedules hasn't really been talked about prominently in a few years. The links to the shortened season articles are in my Open Letter piece, for quick reference.
Cuzittt said:
Just wanted to mention - I wrote the piece that Cuzitt linked as sort of a response to the piece in the opening piece. Some highlights:
JesusQuintana said:
Bartolo "they're-timing-him-with-a-sundial" Colon says "Hiya!"
Not to disagree with many of your good ideas. Less inter-league play would be better, and would seem a natural place to cut games if the 154-game schedule plan were to go forward.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
Doooweeeey! said:
It's not "going forward". Will never happen. Happy to bet on this, proceeds to charity, if we define a timeline with an end date. There's no constituency who wants a 154-game schedule: not the players, whose pay is greater with 162 games than with 154; not the broadcasters, not the league, not the teams, nobody. Hell, I fail to understand why there are even some fans who prefer "less baseball" to "more baseball", but I've long since given up trying to fix fan stupidity. Take this to the bank: baseball will not be decreasing the length of its annual schedule, at any point between now and the Second Coming. I wish people would stop talking about it like it's a real possibility whose merits we ought to discuss seriously.
Now, jiggering with what distribution of games are played on that schedule, sure, that's something that could happen, because nobody really loses there. But if fewer MLB games are played, everyone involved loses, financially.
The reason why the players would want a shorter season is the same reason why NFL players don't want to make their season longer. The more you play the more likely it is you'll break down, get injured, or shorten your career. It's really not that complicated. Baseball is obviously a very different game than football but playing almost every day for six months can be brutal. And the reason fans may prefer fewer games is because 150+ games is plenty and if it leads to better baseball because the players aren't as beaten up then that seems like a positive to me.
And the players won't agree to shortening the season because less games = less revenue = less payroll $$
Manfred on Boomer and Carton:
Debate is great, but that's a really dumb reason to continue with a completely illogical distinction between the leagues.
Debate is great, but that's a really dumb reason to continue with a completely illogical distinction between the leagues.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
Yeah, let's have a rule that runners in the NL have to chug a beer at 3B before proceeding to home plate. Sure, it'll make a farce of the proceedings, but at least there'll be fan debate!