Did MLB move some Sunday Night games to 7PM to get more eyeballs? That is what is listed for the July Sunday Fenway games w/ LAD and MFY. (September Yankees listed as 8:05)
I don’t understand the logic of starting games later (after 8pm) in “prime time.” Having games finish by 11-11:30 might be better ratings-wise. I’d expect the after-11 audience drop off to be greater than the number of people who can’t watch from 7-8. If it’s a question of having a lot of pregame ads, they could expand the 7th-inning stretch for nationally televised games and make up the revenue there.Did MLB move some Sunday Night games to 7PM to get more eyeballs? That is what is listed for the July Sunday Fenway games w/ LAD and MFY. (September Yankees listed as 8:05)
A full nine inning game would have 17 commercial breaks between half innings, which would work out to 34.41 seconds per break and that would be 36.56 seconds per break for an 8-1/2 inning game. That isn't much time for the two teams to change sides. It could be done but I'm wondering if there was some time between innings when there weren't actually commercials being shown. I seem to recall watching players running on and off the field (but that was a long time ago).("A 1952 TV broadcast [of a MLB game had] just 9 minutes 45 seconds of commercials.
Time a AAA game that isn’t televised. That’ll tell you, more or less, how long it takes to play a baseball game without television ads.A full nine inning game would have 17 commercial breaks between half innings, which would work out to 34.41 seconds per break and that would be 36.56 seconds per break for an 8-1/2 inning game. That isn't much time for the two teams to change sides. It could be done but I'm wondering if there was some time between innings when there weren't actually commercials being shown. I seem to recall watching players running on and off the field (but that was a long time ago).
Yes yes yes!! My solution here is for there not to be any national announcers, since they invariably suck, but just choose one announcer from each of the two teams for every nationally televised game including the playoffs. I'm sure there are issues there too, but as it is now, it is really terrible.And, to make things so much worse, during the playoffs when casual fans tune in, MLB decides to assign random announcers to each series. And add extra commercials. And start the games too late. They are terrible. It is a major downgrade as compared to the regular season, which makes no sense.
Or have each team's announcing pair swap innings. It would be great. Or just have Vin Scully do every series.Yes yes yes!! My solution here is for there not to be any national announcers, since they invariably suck, but just choose one announcer from each of the two teams for every nationally televised game including the playoffs. I'm sure there are issues there too, but as it is now, it is really terrible.
I don't know about you but I get to minor leagues all around the country at varying levels and one thing I have noticed in recent years is the time of those games is increasing. At first, it was more noticeable in Triple-A but even Double-A has been increasing in time (Gotta get ready for the Bigs.).Time a AAA game that isn’t televised. That’ll tell you, more or less, how long it takes to play a baseball game without television ads.
Just for the record, there are definitely complaints about the length of college football games. Here's an article from June 2017 about the SEC working to tighten game length.This is a pretty interesting piece comparing baseball, football, hockey, soccer, and basketball game times. Are there complaints about college football games taking too long? Because those games average nearly the same length as MLB games.
I hate the idea of telling fielders (aside from pitchers and catchers, obviously) where they can and can’t position themselves. It’s a can of worms that has the potential to totally screwup the game.Jayson Stark: Momentum is building to kill the shift.
I don't have full access, can anyone share some highlights?
Most shifts against left-handed batters are kind of the reverse of that. The shift is usually thought of or described as moving the SS or 3B to the right side of the infield, because that’s the position the player moved normally plays, but it could also be described as having four outfielders, one of them playing shallow right field.Continuing in that vein...bottom of a final inning with man (with speed) on third and a LHH at bat...not out of the question to bring in a fifth infielder from the outfield. Then what...
Because there's a massive discrepancy between a player/coach being a degenerate baseball gambler and a random fan.How can he say this with a straight face while Pete sits on the outside?
I don't think the 800 lost hits takes into account changes in swing approach resulting in more flyballs (which have lower BABIP) and more strikeouts.That's one missing hit per 3 games of baseball played. Is that actually worth legislating?
Baseball Prospectus’ Russell Carleton looks at this:I don't think the 800 lost hits takes into account changes in swing approach resulting in more flyballs (which have lower BABIP) and more strikeouts.
I think that we have our metrics for success on The Shift all wrong. Worse, they’re telling the wrong story. There appears to be little evidence that The Shift, as a defense against balls in play, is actually superior to the two-left-two-right defense. It’s very likely an inferior one. The Shift appears to “work” because the hitters who get shifted against are (on average) lower-BABIP hitters.
https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/36733/baseball-therapy-burn-shifts/
I lived in Tokyo for a few years and there was a button on the remote that eliminated the commentary which is as good as it gets. As for MLB announcers, I live in Northern California and like Kuiper and Krukow. They make it seem as if you're watching the game with some friends. The network guys are trying too hard to be funny or controversial and there is some guy that likes to talk about salad that irritates the he'll out of me.There's a cottage industry that has existed for eons where sports journalists claim baseball is dying. I googled it and found an early example in 1917. Every year. And, I recently made the mistake of listening to sports talk radio where they made the same tired arguments. And I had a revelation. Baseball is fine. It just needs better announcers (and maybe some innovative television production).
That's it. For every team. MLB should hold a reality TV competition to find new announcers for 80% of the teams. And vote the crappy announcers out each year. Because right now most games are unwatchable with the sound on. And, to make things so much worse, during the playoffs when casual fans tune in, MLB decides to assign random announcers to each series. And add extra commercials. And start the games too late. They are terrible. It is a major downgrade as compared to the regular season, which makes no sense.
So, want to fix MLB? Get better announcers. Problem solved.
Also, this article is awesome, shows how good announcers can make a bad team into good entertainment, and almost makes me kind of like the Mets.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/25/magazine/mets-baseball-gary-keith-ron.html?fbclid=IwAR38M5LdCbwoiB-7MvMFn3w8b8S3Wn-VdkE6dcTSQTr7hwDQNoWctXknlKI
The number of foul balls has increased by 11.98 percent from 1998, when baseball expanded to 30 teams, according to a FiveThirtyEight analysis of Baseball-Reference.com data. There were almost 14,000 more foul balls last season than there were 20 seasons earlier. In 1998, 26.5 percent of all strikes were foul balls. That share increased to a record 27.9 percent of strikes in 2017 and 27.8 percent last season, the top rates since pitch-level data was first recorded in 1988.
From the following two quotes in the article, my solution would be to start batters at a 1-1 count.A plague of foul balls is slowing the game down...
FiveThirtyEightVerified account @FiveThirtyEight 5m5 minutes ago
There were almost 14,000 more foul balls last season than there were 20 seasons earlier.
How would widening the arc work? Would 1st - 2nd and 2nd - 3rd be more than 90 feet or would there be fair territory on the current foul sides of the basepaths? I see what your goal is, but that solution seems to cause more problems than it would be worth.Make the field wider.
Instead of fair territory being 90 degrees if arc, make it 100 degrees of arc.
Or let catchers catch a ball coming down the backstop as an out.
We could always blame it on Boggs.How would widening the arc work? Would 1st - 2nd and 2nd - 3rd be more than 90 feet or would there be fair territory on the current foul sides of the basepaths? I see what your goal is, but that solution seems to cause more problems than it would be worth.
I think this was proposed by Charlie FinleyMake the field wider.
Instead of fair territory being 90 degrees if arc, make it 100 degrees of arc.
Or let catchers catch a ball coming down the backstop as an out.
How many long ABs are remembered fondly? Last year Mookie had one that was really cool. There`s quite a few others .Or make any foul ball a strike, even if the batter already has two strikes on him.
That would drop offense and increase strikeouts a bunch, which most people do not want.Or make any foul ball a strike, even if the batter already has two strikes on him.
They have already started "during inning" commercials. Perhaps not to the extent you suggest but they are there.We've allowed networks to fill up the screen with other sport scoreboard crawls along the bottom, with game score info in the top left, with PitchZone in the bottom right. TV screens are enormous now compared to the screens we all had as recently as 25 years ago. We could give up one inch along the bottom to a banner ad.
I hadn't considered that, but this makes more sense than moving the bases out.How would widening the arc work? Would 1st - 2nd and 2nd - 3rd be more than 90 feet or would there be fair territory on the current foul sides of the basepaths? I see what your goal is, but that solution seems to cause more problems than it would be worth.
Yeah, that’s what I was going to say. The problem of more foul balls is exacerbated by there being so much less foul territory in the new parks. I wonder if you could include that in the study. Has there been an increase in foul balls at stadiums that have been roughly unchanged over that period?I hadn't considered that, but this makes more sense than moving the bases out.
And of course this won't work in probably 26 current ballparks without making a 200 foot HR possible.
No. Seeing commercials between batters or even between pitches (which may have been done during last year's World Series) are horrible. I'd rather have longer periods between half-innings.How about in game banner ads with shorter delays between innings?
That's a good question.Yeah, that’s what I was going to say. The problem of more foul balls is exacerbated by there being so much less foul territory in the new parks. I wonder if you could include that in the study. Has there been an increase in foul balls at stadiums that have been roughly unchanged over that period?
I too hated the in game commercials. I was suggesting a fixed banner ad at the bottom one inch of the screen. No crawl, no animation, no audio.No. Seeing commercials between batters or even between pitches (which may have been done during last year's World Series) are horrible. I'd rather have longer periods between half-innings.
Interesting idea, I guess, although he glosses over the biggest part of his proposal - how teams are going to use minor league call-ups or the injury list to create more de facto pitching spots.Nate Silver has a plan: limit rosters to 10 pitchers (+ an emergency pitcher)
It's not the worst idea, but the strikeout and usage numbers are also pretty nice to see simply
Never mind, I failed at reading comprehension.Per Rosenthal, 26 man roster with 13 pitcher max, and 28 man Sept roster (14 pitchers) is close to a done deal. So is 3 batter minimum for relievers (no mention of what happens with an injury). No pitch clock