Saving Baseball - Considering Dramatic Restructuring of the Game

SoxJox

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2003
7,082
Rock > SoxJox < Hard Place
A very good friend of mine out in Giants land sent me the article being discussed over here.
 
It got me to thinking, and I sent him this reply:
 
 
Not mentioned is the result of fewer of our youth taking up the game: the erosion of the talent pool that will make up future major league rosters.  As a result, I would imagine the quality of the product on the field likely will also be diminished.
 
Whether we like it or not, baseball is in the early stages of a death spiral, and it appears that fidgeting with marginal things like cutting 8 minutes off the length of time it takes to play the average ML game ain't gonna fix it.  It seems that very dramatic changes are needed - perhaps to an extent that would make the future version of baseball look quite unlike what it does today.
 
For example, would baseball consider constructing games as "games within games", somewhat like tennis, where you have, say, three 3-inning "periods" with the score being reset to 0-0 after each period.  Win the first 2 sets...game over.  Constructing tiebreakers could prove interesting.
I realize the idea I floated in bold above is not likely to come to fruition, but the questions remain:
 
  1. Is baseball in the beginning stages of a death spiral?
  2. Can it be saved?
  3. What measures can be taken to either preserve the structure of the current game as much as possible, or to abandon in some measure the current game (within a range of infinitesimally small to draconian) and revamp to a more interesting and attractive game - both from a participant and fan's view.
I truly love baseball, but am really starting the thread just to explore ideas - however wild or improbable they may be.  Just what is it that makes baseball sacrosanct, if it is considered to be that any longer, and to be shielded and preserved?
 
Edit: To acknowledge Lose's direction of my attention to a topic previously introducing the subject, but to emphaisze that this topic is really intended to explore something quite different.
 

SoxJox

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2003
7,082
Rock > SoxJox < Hard Place
Apologies. Didn't see that topic.  But now that I have read it, it's not really what I'm focusing on here.  Most of the discussions center around speeding up the game. increasing offense, etc. - all what I would characterize as the mechanical, play-by-play qualities of the game.  Or, more generally - RULE changes.
 
The article my friend sent me suggested very strongly that the game itself is in jeopardy - and it has nothing or very little to do with those rule-related topics that are otherwise worthy of discussion.  Today's youth - across America - are simply not interested in playing the game, which in turn will likely lead to a lessening of interest to follow the game when they come of age and progress through their adult years.
 
So, beyond rule changes, I offered the topic to discuss game-construct changes, if it might be considered a topic of interest.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Something that dramatic would scare away the current fans remaining, but would not appeal to the kids who aren't following the game now.

I do,like that it made me think of the CBA's old "7 point game" shtick, about a decade ago.
 

4 6 3 DP

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 24, 2001
2,370
I don't know where this response fits. 
 
I have an 11 yr old who played LL at a young age, though now does other things as extracurriculars. But plenty of my friends in town talk about how painful the 8-11 or so year old baseball leagues are with kids pitching. Up in the northeast, it's freezing, the kids have no control, the games last forever, and have way too many walks. I think a lot of kids go to lacrosse at that age because of that. 
 
Rather than talk about major league baseball, I think improving the transition between tee-ball/coach pitch baseball and Babe Ruth/High School ball is the key to keeping interest. I don't have a 100% fix to it (I'd let coaches pitch a couple years more) but I think thats the real youth baseball challenge.
 

SoxJox

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2003
7,082
Rock > SoxJox < Hard Place
Lose Remerswaal said:
Something that dramatic would scare away the current fans remaining, but would not appeal to the kids who aren't following the game now.

I do,like that it made me think of the CBA's old "7 point game" shtick, about a decade ago.
I think that's the point.  Once current fans are gone - which seems an inevitably slow and painful result, who replaces them?  Can the game survive as currently structured, even with what really amount to modest rule changes?
 
If we were to replace the game and truly make it more exciting, what could it look like?
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Just like bowling is still on TV on Saturday afternoons, baseball will never totally go away under its current format.

Or, if you prefer, dead sports like boxing and horse racing. Check out the numbers on that fight last month and the ratings on the Preakness coming up.
 

Comfortably Lomb

Koko the Monkey
SoSH Member
Feb 22, 2004
12,959
The Paris of the 80s
SoxJox said:
I think that's the point.  Once current fans are gone - which seems an inevitably slow and painful result, who replaces them?  Can the game survive as currently structured, even with what really amount to modest rule changes?
 
If we were to replace the game and truly make it more exciting, what could it look like?
Well, if it's that three inning mini-game thing... you've replaced it with something that is not baseball. You fear the chance that the game will not survive and yet your proposal is to kill the game and replace it with another one.
 
M

MentalDisabldLst

Guest
Lose Remerswaal said:
Just like bowling is still on TV on Saturday afternoons, baseball will never totally go away under its current format.

Or, if you prefer, dead sports like boxing and horse racing. Check out the numbers on that fight last month and the ratings on the Preakness coming up.
 
Hey, let me know if you'd consider loaning out your time machine.
 

the1andonly3003

New Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,373
Chicago
Comfortably Lomb said:
Well, if it's that three inning mini-game thing... you've replaced it with something that is not baseball. You fear the chance that the game will not survive and yet your proposal is to kill the game and replace it with another one.
isn't this a similar change cricket went through to appeal to modern sporting?
 

SoxJox

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2003
7,082
Rock > SoxJox < Hard Place
Comfortably Lomb said:
Well, if it's that three inning mini-game thing... you've replaced it with something that is not baseball. You fear the chance that the game will not survive and yet your proposal is to kill the game and replace it with another one.
I'm not advocating anything...I just threw out a wild idea to generate discussion.  I am concerned for baseball.  While it may not go so far as to become a competitor for bowling on Saturday afternoons, as Lose suggests, there are early signs of future decay.  Sure attendance is up...for now, but I believe that is based a great deal on what the original article pointed to: today's interest and attendance is a byproduct for love of the game generated 25-50 years ago.  The current and up-and-coming generation?  Not so much.  But that's what's being discussed over in the other thread.
 
So I'll turn it around: save for these minor rule "tweaks" MLB is pursuing, are there any dramatic changes that can be made to make the game more attractive - not necessarily for the fans, but for the youngest generation who are fleeing the game for soccer and lacrosse.
 
If nothing creative is out there, then there's no discussion.  No harm, no foul.
 
M

MentalDisabldLst

Guest
SoxJox said:
So I'll turn it around: save for these minor rule "tweaks" MLB is pursuing, are there any dramatic changes that can be made to make the game more attractive - not necessarily for the fans, but for the youngest generation who are fleeing the game for soccer and lacrosse.
 
If nothing creative is out there, then there's no discussion.  No harm, no foul.
 
So, first off, as has been discussed in other threads, there have been complaints about the decline and impending death of baseball as the national pastime since the 19th century.  By cherry-picking statistics, you can come up with all sorts of evidence that the game is somehow recessing from the common appetite.  It has, needless to say, always been proven incorrect.  But I'm sure this time, the WSJ is really on to something, rather than just pandering!  It makes me think of this, and its alt-text: "but THIS guy, he might be for real!"
 
Nevertheless, there is always room to improve something, as Manfred is already demonstrating, so I'll give this a shot.  
 
Firstly, I assume you're asking about the rules of the game itself, rather than the way MLB is governed and manages its schedule, league rules and so on.  My personal favorite suggestion to improve baseball, though, falls in the latter category.  It comes via, who else, Joe Posnanski, who argues that we should "free the minor leagues" and let them sign and keep actual talent that's theirs until they sell or release it, and compete for regional titles where local fans can fall in love with a team and watch it rise to glory without being robbed of its best talent by a parent club that uses it like a parasite uses a host.  Baseball is a very successful regional sport, but it's never really been a national sport at the highest levels, and the best way to fix that is to allow other, minor leagues to actually operate as real leagues with meaningful, non-farcical competition.  Think of how many people support all the various competitive levels of European football - how many levels does the English FA oversee?  Eight or something? - with teams ranging from the global superpowers down to what amounts to a local village beer-league squad.  I'm not saying we should have promotion and relegation of teams here, but the sport would be better off if the minor leagues were able to foster their own local support, rather than just proxy support for a major-league team that might be a thousand miles away.  To quote Posnanski:
 


The sole purpose of the minor leagues is to develop players for the major leagues. That’s all. It’s not to build interest for baseball. It’s not to develop fan bases. It’s not to give fans exciting and competitive baseball to watch. Charlotte doesn’t have a competitive baseball team. Charlotte has a training facility, and people are allowed to come watch.
 
That aside, I realize you're talking about rules of the game, so let's get back to that.
 
Look, the basic idea of baseball is that it's pretty awesome to hit something really hard with a bat.  It's a visceral thing - you swing this big stick, feel a shock wave in your arms, and watch something fly really hard while a big cracking noise fills your ears.  On the other side, you can make someone think he's going to hit something really hard, but then hit nothing but air and make him look like a moron.  Or fear for his life.  There's fun to be had on both sides, and if you start tinkering with that, you're far more likely to screw it up than to actually improve it.
 
The biggest complaint you hear about baseball is that it's boring.  Too much dead time, not enough action.  Sure, in NFL games, there's 30-40 seconds between plays, just like there's 20 seconds between pitches in baseball.  But every NFL play has something exciting happening; only 20-25% of pitches result in a ball in play, a strikeout, or something interesting to watch.  So the first thing Manfred is doing is trying to cut down on the dead time between pitches - batters stepping out, pitchers stepping off, etc.  All to the good.  But here are some other ideas from the other thread Lose linked to, all aimed at trying to make the game more exciting:
  1. One pitching change per inning, max, barring injury.  No more playing matchups.
  2. Reduce or eliminate coaching mound visits and/or catcher mound visits
  3. Eliminate defensive shifts.*
  4. Shrink the strike zone
  5. Allow players to re-enter a game once substituted-for
  6. Add the DH to the NL (pardon me while I dodge these flying rotten tomatoes...)
  7. Any HBP after the 1st one in the game by your team results in the batter taking 2nd (advancing any runners thereby displaced), to eliminate beanball wars.
  8. Moving fences in, and/or:
  9. Switch to aluminum bats rather than wood
  10. Allow batters to decline an intentional walk (or any 4-pitch walk), which resets the count, but a subsequent walk results in the batter getting 2nd.  Eliminates tactical IBBs by raising the stakes.
  11. Move the mound back a couple of feet.  More time for batters to see the ball, and for pitchers to react to a ball hit straight at them.
(I've left out the mechanics that posters detailed for how these could be implemented, but you get the drift).  All of these would tend to favor the offense, and some of them might make the game less "boring" - particularly #s 1, 2, 6, 7, 9 and 10.  But none of them would change the fundamental way the game is played - 4 bases, 3 outs, 90 feet, 4 balls, 3 strikes, 9 innings, etc.  If that's your definition of tinkering around the edges, then fine, but if your real goal is to inspire love of and interest in the game, I think the major differences are in Posnanski's article above, which I really encourage everyone to read (or re-read).  To let baseball to expand its ability to inspire lifetime devotion in this country, I think you need to look at Minnesota's townball leagues as a model, and focus on where we can create competitive teams that towns, cities and regions can root for, and easily afford to attend.
 
 
* Note that cricket has done this in the ODI format, where for a defined period of time (~2 innings in baseball-speak), you can only have 2 outfielders rather than the usual 4, and for another period (~1 baseball inning) at the discretion of the offense, you can only have 3 outfielders.  These are called "powerplays" and are a somewhat-gimmicky, recent innovation to spur offensive production.
 

Hagios

New Member
Dec 15, 2007
672
Get much more aggressive about speeding up the game. Two and a half hours, with the TV timeouts. 
 
Pitching. Limit pitching changes within innings (free base? two free bases?). Basically you only want to allow a within-inning change if the pitcher is totally melting down
.
Hitting. Change the incentives of an at-bat to favor free swinging over drawing walks. That will result in shorter at bats, and more offense, and make the game more exciting to casual fans who are getting into the game. I can think of two ways to do this. (A) Juice the ball. Not like the college game, but perhaps like the 90's ball. or (B) less manicured infields so there are more errors. 
 

keninten

New Member
Nov 24, 2005
588
Tennessee
MentalDisabldLst said:
 
Move the mound back a couple of feet.  More time for batters to see the ball, and for pitchers to react to a ball hit straight at them.
 I`ve always wondered if the mound was moved would a pitcher`s movement on his pitched ball break say 2 feet before the plate if the mound was moved back 2 feet. To move the mound back would have to be in small increments. Also it could add alot of stress to a pitchers elbow and/or shoulder over a season I would think.
 
M

MentalDisabldLst

Guest
Actually, in my view, moving the mound back would dramatically increase hitting because the ball slows down the farther away from home plate it's pitched.  Our pitch speeds are measured at the point of release by the pitcher, but by the time it gets to the plate it's usually 10mph slower.  Move that mound back and you've just dropped pitch speeds, and likely strikeout rates too.
 
edit: and I don't think you'd see greater injury.  Pitchers are already throwing as hard as they can.  Where they throw from doesn't change how hard they can throw.  The balls will still make it to home plate if they're aimed well.
 

SoxJox

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2003
7,082
Rock > SoxJox < Hard Place
MentalDisabldLst said:
 
So, first off, as has been discussed in other threads, there have been complaints about the decline and impending death of baseball as the national pastime since the 19th century.  By cherry-picking statistics, you can come up with all sorts of evidence that the game is somehow recessing from the common appetite.  It has, needless to say, always been proven incorrect.  But I'm sure this time, the WSJ is really on to something, rather than just pandering!  It makes me think of this, and its alt-text: "but THIS guy, he might be for real!"
 
Nevertheless, there is always room to improve something, as Manfred is already demonstrating, so I'll give this a shot.  
 
Firstly, I assume you're asking about the rules of the game itself, rather than the way MLB is governed and manages its schedule, league rules and so on.  My personal favorite suggestion to improve baseball, though, falls in the latter category.  It comes via, who else, Joe Posnanski, who argues that we should "free the minor leagues" and let them sign and keep actual talent that's theirs until they sell or release it, and compete for regional titles where local fans can fall in love with a team and watch it rise to glory without being robbed of its best talent by a parent club that uses it like a parasite uses a host.  Baseball is a very successful regional sport, but it's never really been a national sport at the highest levels, and the best way to fix that is to allow other, minor leagues to actually operate as real leagues with meaningful, non-farcical competition.  Think of how many people support all the various competitive levels of European football - how many levels does the English FA oversee?  Eight or something? - with teams ranging from the global superpowers down to what amounts to a local village beer-league squad.  I'm not saying we should have promotion and relegation of teams here, but the sport would be better off if the minor leagues were able to foster their own local support, rather than just proxy support for a major-league team that might be a thousand miles away.  To quote Posnanski:
 
 
 
 
That aside, I realize you're talking about rules of the game, so let's get back to that.
 
Look, the basic idea of baseball is that it's pretty awesome to hit something really hard with a bat.  It's a visceral thing - you swing this big stick, feel a shock wave in your arms, and watch something fly really hard while a big cracking noise fills your ears.  On the other side, you can make someone think he's going to hit something really hard, but then hit nothing but air and make him look like a moron.  Or fear for his life.  There's fun to be had on both sides, and if you start tinkering with that, you're far more likely to screw it up than to actually improve it.
 
The biggest complaint you hear about baseball is that it's boring.  Too much dead time, not enough action.  Sure, in NFL games, there's 30-40 seconds between plays, just like there's 20 seconds between pitches in baseball.  But every NFL play has something exciting happening; only 20-25% of pitches result in a ball in play, a strikeout, or something interesting to watch.  So the first thing Manfred is doing is trying to cut down on the dead time between pitches - batters stepping out, pitchers stepping off, etc.  All to the good.  But here are some other ideas from the other thread Lose linked to, all aimed at trying to make the game more exciting:
  1. One pitching change per inning, max, barring injury.  No more playing matchups.  I could buy this.
  2. Reduce or eliminate coaching mound visits and/or catcher mound visits I could buy this.
  3. Eliminate defensive shifts.*​ The difficulty here would be defining a "shift", but I believe the general rule could be to prohibit any infield player from positioning themselves on the opposite side of second base relative to their normal position.
  4. Shrink the strike zone Not sure there would be much ROI here as it would simply shift the objections of what is or is not a strike.  And, candidly, the marginal decrease would be measured in inches, if not fraction of inches.
  5. Allow players to re-enter a game once substituted-for  This one I really like.  I think baseball is the only sport that eliminates an otherwise capable player from re-entering a game after they have been removed (although football/soccer has restrictions, but not outright prohibition)
  6. Add the DH to the NL (pardon me while I dodge these flying rotten tomatoes...) Yes
  7. Any HBP after the 1st one in the game by your team results in the batter taking 2nd (advancing any runners thereby displaced), to eliminate beanball wars.  Now this is very thought provoking, and my initial reaction is that I like it - a lot.
  8. Moving fences in, and/or: Given your other suggestions, this would be low on the list.
  9. Switch to aluminum bats rather than wood Not sure this would be wise given the safety factors involved.  Watching 3rd and 1st basemen being consumed by hard hit balls off a wooden bat (see Brock Holt a few days ago ago Texas), not to mention pitchers' vulnerability
  10. Allow batters to decline an intentional walk (or any 4-pitch walk), which resets the count, but a subsequent walk results in the batter getting 2nd.  Eliminates tactical IBBs by raising the stakes. Again, thought provoking.  An alternative would be to allow another pitch (or pitches in the event of an addition subsequent ball) instead of re-setting the count.  That might produce an unintended and dramatic increase in pitch count.
  11. Move the mound back a couple of feet.  More time for batters to see the ball, and for pitchers to react to a ball hit straight at them.  Similar to my response on aluminum bats, this might not be necessary, given your other suggestions.  On the other hand, if aluminum bats ARE adopted, then this might become a necessity.
(I've left out the mechanics that posters detailed for how these could be implemented, but you get the drift).  All of these would tend to favor the offense, and some of them might make the game less "boring" - particularly #s 1, 2, 6, 7, 9 and 10.  But none of them would change the fundamental way the game is played - 4 bases, 3 outs, 90 feet, 4 balls, 3 strikes, 9 innings, etc.  If that's your definition of tinkering around the edges, then fine, but if your real goal is to inspire love of and interest in the game, I think the major differences are in Posnanski's article above, which I really encourage everyone to read (or re-read).  To let baseball to expand its ability to inspire lifetime devotion in this country, I think you need to look at Minnesota's townball leagues as a model, and focus on where we can create competitive teams that towns, cities and regions can root for, and easily afford to attend.
 
 
* Note that cricket has done this in the ODI format, where for a defined period of time (~2 innings in baseball-speak), you can only have 2 outfielders rather than the usual 4, and for another period (~1 baseball inning) at the discretion of the offense, you can only have 3 outfielders.  These are called "powerplays" and are a somewhat-gimmicky, recent innovation to spur offensive production.
MDL, as usual, you put thought into the process.
 
There are some gems in here.  Reflections in red.
 
M

MentalDisabldLst

Guest
Bear in mind, none of those ideas were my own, they're all paraphrased from the thread Lose linked.  But I stand by my picks, particularly 7 and 10, which are the closest to a major rule change on the list (other than #11, which is pretty radical).
 
I think if you want to make the game less "boring", you'll want to focus on the following tactical goals, in priority order:
  1. Eliminate useless time-wasting, by batters, pitchers, catchers, and managers (#s 1, 2, and arguably 7)
  2. Less time between pitches (already being focused on, we'll see how implementation goes)
  3. Fewer pitches per at-bat - could happen with rules that increase penalty for walks (as with #10), or increase batter reaction time (as with #11)
  4. Increasing batted-ball speeds, and thus BABIP (#s 3, 6, 8, and especially 9)
By those standards, the odd ones out are #4 and #5 because they while they would add offense, they might also make things take longer without making them more interesting.
 

threecy

Cosbologist
SoSH Member
Sep 1, 2006
1,587
Tamworth, NH
I think it'd be interesting to roll back most of the rules and regulations imposed over the last quarter century.  Simplify, rather than further complicate.
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,633
Springfield, VA
Lose Remerswaal said:
Just like bowling is still on TV on Saturday afternoons, baseball will never totally go away under its current format.

 
 
I agree with this.  I don't get all the sky-is-falling stuff in the OP.  Every sport has its ups and downs -- a slight downswing in popularity doesn't mean that it's "dying".  
 
I mean, sure, tweak the rules here and there to make the game better, but dramatic restructuring?  Why?
 

dynomite

Member
SoSH Member
AB in DC said:
 
I agree with this.  I don't get all the sky-is-falling stuff in the OP.  Every sport has its ups and downs -- a slight downswing in popularity doesn't mean that it's "dying".  
 
I mean, sure, tweak the rules here and there to make the game better, but dramatic restructuring?  Why?
1) Because TV ratings for everything (but the NFL) are down.

2) Because youth participation in all sports is down.

3) Because things were different "back in my day," and my own hazy memories from childhood can be directly contrasted with my view of childhood in the entire country now.

I hope that doesn't come across as snarky, I simply mean those are my impressions of why people think baseball is dying.

In reality, I think one could make a strong argument that MLB might be the healthiest of the 4 major sports at the moment, with a bright future ahead domestically and internationally.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
After last night's game, I have the following suggestion:
 
A broken bat is an automatic out. Any bat that leaves a player's grasp is an automatic out.
 
Bear with me. Players use "dangerous" bats because they improve performance (why else would they?) Let players opt for more robust bats or take the risk of more unproductive outs.
 
In order to balance this detriment to hitters, I'd enact what a lot of people are suggesting already: No Pitching Changes mid-inning. Increase strategy and add to offense. Multiple pitching changes (and specialists) are not part of baseball tradition and history.
 
At one time I even considered a rule limiting a game to 3 pitchers. If a starter stinks, you bring in the long guy and hope he gets you to the 8th. Good starter? Go with setup man and closer. I think this would reduce pitching staffs to about 10 (5 starters, 2 long men, 2 setup, 1 ace) and provide more opportunity for offensive positions, including pinch-running and defensive substitutions. It would certainly make strategy a mind-fuck. It would speed up games and increase scoring. It would mean fewer shitty pitchers (but I guess a lot more money for the good ones).
 

Darnell's Son

He's a machine.
Moderator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
9,532
Providence, RI
They don't improve performance, if they did they would probably be illegal or everyone would use them. Maple feels harder so some players feel that it makes them hit better. Ash bats don't last as long and splinter when they break, while, as we have seen, maple bats break pretty violently. Maple bats are also more expensive, so players may just assume the more expensive bats are better.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
Thanks, had no idea.
 
I wonder if there's such a thing as a splinter-proof wooden bat that works adequately for MLB hitters.
 

Fred not Lynn

Dick Button Jr.
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
5,253
Alberta
Darnell's Son said:
They don't improve performance, if they did they would probably be illegal or everyone would use them. Maple feels harder so some players feel that it makes them hit better. Ash bats don't last as long and splinter when they break, while, as we have seen, maple bats break pretty violently. Maple bats are also more expensive, so players may just assume the more expensive bats are better.
Bats with thinner handles have bigger sweet spots...
 

atisha

New Member
Jul 18, 2007
67
Romania
If this is the outlandish rules suggestions thread, how about this:
 
Let homeruns count double.
(a Grand Slam would be then worth 8 runs).
 
Encourages swinging for the fences, makes for interesting tactical options late in the game.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Real "shortstop hole", if he falls in to the hole he has to leave the game.  Makes a hitter who can really place the ball more valuable
Require "utility infielders" to actually be licensed electricians.  Gives more folks a chance to play, and can enhance the idea that Brock Holt is a "sparkplug"
 
I've got a thousand of these
 

Hagios

New Member
Dec 15, 2007
672
dynomite said:
1) Because TV ratings for everything (but the NFL) are down.

2) Because youth participation in all sports is down.

3) Because things were different "back in my day," and my own hazy memories from childhood can be directly contrasted with my view of childhood in the entire country now.
 
#2 is not correct. Hockey and Lacrosse are way up. I suspect that other niche sports are way up as well. We're seeing real change in participation patterns at the youth level. Does that mean that professional viewership will change along with it? Maybe not, but I wouldn't dismiss the worry.
 
#3 Once upon a time, the most popular pro sports were baseball, auto racing, horse racing, and boxing. Three of the four are now irrelevant. This doesn't mean that baseball will be next, but it does mean that those who worry are not just a bunch of old fogeys yelling "get off my lawn!'
 

dynomite

Member
SoSH Member
Hagios said:
 
#2 is not correct. Hockey and Lacrosse are way up. I suspect that other niche sports are way up as well. We're seeing real change in participation patterns at the youth level. Does that mean that professional viewership will change along with it? Maybe not, but I wouldn't dismiss the worry.
 
#3 Once upon a time, the most popular pro sports were baseball, auto racing, horse racing, and boxing. Three of the four are now irrelevant. This doesn't mean that baseball will be next, but it does mean that those who worry are not just a bunch of old fogeys yelling "get off my lawn!'
#2 -- that's true, although I was really thinking about the major sports.

#3 -- Fair, but wasn't that the 1950s and pre modern TV era? Baseball clearly survived that transition better than those sports, and remains a titan of the American (and increasingly foreign) sports landscape.

P.S. Sort of an aside, but are any of those 3 really irrelevant? NASCAR (nationally) and Formula One (globally) are still very popular among certain segments, the Kentucky Derby had it's highest rating in 20 years, and while boxing has basically become a pale imitation of itself last month's fight broke every record in the book, with 5 million PPV purchases and half a billion in revenue.

Sports and sports viewership has certainly changed from the pre-internet, 5 TV channel era, but I think baseball can survive just fine for many, many years to come.
 

SoxJox

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2003
7,082
Rock > SoxJox < Hard Place
dynomite said:
#2 -- that's true, although I was really thinking about the major sports.

#3 -- Fair, but wasn't that the 1950s and pre modern TV era? Baseball clearly survived that transition better than those sports, and remains a titan of the American (and increasingly foreign) sports landscape.

P.S. Sort of an aside, but are any of those 3 really irrelevant? NASCAR (nationally) and Formula One (globally) are still very popular among certain segments, the Kentucky Derby had it's highest rating in 20 years, and while boxing has basically become a pale imitation of itself last month's fight broke every record in the book, with 5 million PPV purchases and half a billion in revenue.

Sports and sports viewership has certainly changed from the pre-internet, 5 TV channel era, but I think baseball can survive just fine for many, many years to come.
And the viewership issue brings us back to one of the main projections for the future of baseball cited in the article linked in the OP.  It's the declining interest by today's youth that serves as the genesis of [potential] future decline on viewership.  And despite AB in DC's characterization of the OP as a falling sky (even though I framed baseball's future not as a assertion but rather in the form of a question...because I simply don't know, but was and am interested in others' views), I think MLB has at least a little bit of worry in its mind.  If not, why even tinker with these ideas of speeding up the game?  There must be some form of concern. 
 
Pure conjecture here: I think the record breaking attendance numbers in the past decade will begin dropping by some measureable amount.  Assuming these metrics do in fact decline, an altogether different question emerges: how great a decline can be withstood - and over how long a period?
 
Note on NASCAR: NASCAR stopped releasing track attendance numbers after the 2012 season.  But on viewership: In September 2014, near the conclusion of the NASCAR season, 18 of the 21 Sprint Cup races had declined in ratings. The 2014 Daytona 500 fell to an all-time record low 9.3 million viewers. During NASCAR’s heyday in the mid-2000’s, coverage regularly drew Nielsen ratings in the mid-to-high 4-range. In 2005, for example, TNT coverage topped out at a 4.7, and that number has steadily declined in the decade since.
 

threecy

Cosbologist
SoSH Member
Sep 1, 2006
1,587
Tamworth, NH
SoxJox said:
It's the declining interest by today's youth that serves as the genesis of [potential] future decline on viewership.
I find it amazing that, when I was a kid, I could listen to a game live on a walkman, yet today on the walkman on steroids (smartphone), one can't listen to a game without buying a subscription.
 

Infield Infidel

teaching korea american
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,463
Meeting Place, Canada
A couple years back I listened to Sox games with the FM radio app on my smartphone in RI. Can't do that now? I also listened to the 2013 playoffs and World Series on the free ESPN Radio app.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
threecy said:
I find it amazing that, when I was a kid, I could listen to a game live on a walkman, yet today on the walkman on steroids (smartphone), one can't listen to a game without buying a subscription.
 
When you were a kid you were listening to the game on an AM or FM radio.  You can still do that . . . if you have a radio.  You chose not to carry a radio but something that is many things other than a radio.
 

dynomite

Member
SoSH Member
SoxJox said:
And the viewership issue brings us back to one of the main projections for the future of baseball cited in the article linked in the OP.  It's the declining interest by today's youth that serves as the genesis of [potential] future decline on viewership.  And despite AB in DC's characterization of the OP as a falling sky (even though I framed baseball's future not as a assertion but rather in the form of a question...because I simply don't know, but was and am interested in others' views), I think MLB has at least a little bit of worry in its mind.  If not, why even tinker with these ideas of speeding up the game?  There must be some form of concern.
Fair points of view. And interesting NASCAR data.

Still, the decline of youth baseball foretelling a cratering of the sport has been bandied about for 100 years.

The 1920s produced a spate of stories saying kids had given up baseball, a development that would kill the sport at the roots. “Decline of Baseball As Major College Sport Foreseen,” read a 1925 headline in the Miami News reported. A year later, the Associated Press found baseball “showing signs of dying on the sandlots.” A decade after that, a former major leaguer told a Delaware paper, “Baseball as an interscholastic sport no longer exists in many of our larger cities.”
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-dead-ball-century-mlb-baseball-playoffs-john-thorn-mlb-historian-baseball-decline-articles/
 

threecy

Cosbologist
SoSH Member
Sep 1, 2006
1,587
Tamworth, NH
Infield Infidel said:
A couple years back I listened to Sox games with the FM radio app on my smartphone in RI. Can't do that now? I also listened to the 2013 playoffs and World Series on the free ESPN Radio app.
If you try to stream something like EEI, it's blacked out (something like 'we cannot bring you this play by play due to licensing').  TuneIn appears to basically have MLB talk and MiLB play by play options.
 
Lose Remerswaal said:
 
When you were a kid you were listening to the game on an AM or FM radio.  You can still do that . . . if you have a radio.  You chose not to carry a radio but something that is many things other than a radio.
My point is making it easy to allow a new generation to get interested in the sport.  Whereas my generation carried walkmen with us (as well as used them in our rooms, etc.), this generation has smartphones.  It baffles me that MLB won't allow terrestrial radio streams (ie with the same commercials that one would hear on AM/FM).  Just another barrier to entry.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,278
MLB Communications ‏@MLB_PR  1m1 minute ago
On US TV, the #Postseason has averaged 4.2M viewers, an increase of +22% vs. 2014 (3.4M) and the highest average U.S. audience since 2010.
 
 
MLB Communications ‏@MLB_PR  1m1 minute ago
The avg. North American TV audience for the #Postseason to date is 5.563 million, an increase of +38% versus last year (4.028 million).
 

hbk72777

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
1,945
soxhop411 said:
MLB Communications ‏@MLB_PR  1m1 minute ago
On US TV, the #Postseason has averaged 4.2M viewers, an increase of +22% vs. 2014 (3.4M) and the highest average U.S. audience since 2010.
 
 
MLB Communications ‏@MLB_PR  1m1 minute ago
The avg. North American TV audience for the #Postseason to date is 5.563 million, an increase of +38% versus last year (4.028 million).
 
 
Can't wait to see the number for the LCS'. Toronto is the NYC of Canada, plus Chicago and NY. 
 
And the Royals have the highest ratings of any team in the US.
 
http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/story/2015-07-14/royals-tv-ratings-kansas-city-mlb-al-central-tigers-indians-twins-white-sox
 
The WC has brought baseball back to life in so many cities
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
hbk72777 said:
 
 
Can't wait to see the number for the LCS'. Toronto is the NYC of Canada, plus Chicago and NY. 
 
And the Royals have the highest ratings of any team in the US.
 
http://www.sportingnews.com/mlb/story/2015-07-14/royals-tv-ratings-kansas-city-mlb-al-central-tigers-indians-twins-white-sox
 
The WC has brought baseball back to life in so many cities
I don't know that it's the WC as much as exciting, young, athletic (and really good) "new" teams like the Cubs, the Mets, the Pirates, the Astros, and the Royals.

Plus, you know, pimpin' the bat flips.
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,401
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
We have, of course heard this before .. Baseball is in a death spiral .. A 19th century game trying to survive in the 20th (now 21st) century .. Today's youth dropping baseball and playing basketball or football.

These were all the complaints heard in the late sixties and early seventies. And baseball came back .. with a magical postseason in 1975.

Compared to then baseball is massively more popular .. In the stadiums and on tv or Internet.

This stuff is cyclical .. The talent pool is huge (due to Latin America and Japan/Korea) .

I have no problem with small improvement on the margins .. but I don't think major, massive changes are needed .. Or wanted.
 

hbk72777

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
1,945
Buzzkill Pauley said:
I don't know that it's the WC as much as exciting, young, athletic (and really good) "new" teams like the Cubs, the Mets, the Pirates, the Astros, and the Royals.

Plus, you know, pimpin' the bat flips.
 
Trout, Harper along with the new gen of stud pitchers have helped immensely
 
I mean, it's sick how much coverage the young players can cover today. The Red Sox outfield is amazing.
 
But the WC especially the addition of the second one keeps so many teams in it for so much longer. Even fringe fans might watch a few more August-September games knowing there's a chance their team can make it.
 
 I also wonder how many good teams were blown up that might not have been had the WC been around in the 80s or 90s.
 
But no matter what the reason is, baseball is healthier than I've ever seen it,
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,743
hbk72777 said:
 
But the WC especially the addition of the second one keeps so many teams in it for so much longer. Even fringe fans might watch a few more August-September games knowing there's a chance their team can make it.
 
People keep saying this, but the NL couldn't have been decided much earlier this year, the five playoff teams were set with weeks to go. 
 

dynomite

Member
SoSH Member
Buzzkill Pauley said:
I don't know that it's the WC as much as exciting, young, athletic (and really good) "new" teams like the Cubs, the Mets, the Pirates, the Astros, and the Royals.

Plus, you know, pimpin' the bat flips.
Well... 3 of the 5 teams in your list were Wild Card teams, and 2 of them were 2nd Wild Card teams. I agree that the incredible group of young talent is certainly helping, but the Wild Card isn't irrelevant.

jon abbey said:
 
People keep saying this, but the NL couldn't have been decided much earlier this year, the five playoff teams were set with weeks to go. 
But one of the teams in the NLCS would have been golfing without the 2nd Wild Card, so doesn't that prove a different kind of point?
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,743
dynomite said:
But one of the teams in the NLCS would have been golfing without the 2nd Wild Card, so doesn't that prove a different kind of point?
 
And both World Series teams last year were #2 wild cards. I think it just proves that once you get in, pretty much anyone can win it. 
 
Also if there was only one wild card, all of those late season PIT/CHC games would have had decidedly more intensity, if they were fighting to get in the playoffs and not just for home field in the coin flip game, IMO anyway.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,510
Rogers Park
jon abbey said:
 
And both World Series teams last year were #2 wild cards. I think it just proves that once you get in, pretty much anyone can win it. 
 
Also if there was only one wild card, all of those late season PIT/CHC games would have had decidedly more intensity, if they were fighting to get in the playoffs and not just for home field in the coin flip game, IMO anyway.
They were pretty intense as it was.
 

OzSox

New Member
Dec 8, 2005
157
jon abbey said:
 
Also if there was only one wild card, all of those late season PIT/CHC games would have had decidedly more intensity, if they were fighting to get in the playoffs and not just for home field in the coin flip game, IMO anyway.
 
But you can play this game both ways, or any way you like. In any given season there are going to be situations where you can say that a certain race or certain series would be better (or worse) if the postseason format was different. The Blue Jays / Yankees race for the division this year was better than it would have been with only one wild card, in which both teams would have gone through to the LDS.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,743
I guess, to me the one game wild card games are an absolute joke and representative of nothing except who has the better single starting pitcher. This year's Yankees team didn't deserve a full postseason series, but Pittsburgh certainly did. 
 
All of this is off topic from the original post, though. The game itself doesn't need drastic changing, but the postseason system could certainly use quite a few tweaks IMO. 
 

Dehere

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2010
3,143
One of several things that bothers me about the one-game wildcard is that if we went back to having just one wildcard team from each league we could play a best-of-seven DS without adding any days to the postseason calendar.

What would you rather have, best of seven DS or the one game play-in? Personally I'd much rather play best of sevens.
 

Bigpupp

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 8, 2008
2,391
New Mexico
I'd like a day/night doubleheader for the wildcard games with a game the next night if needed. I understand the limitations as to why it can't happen, but damn would that be cool.
 

Dahabenzapple2

Mr. McGuire / Axl's Counter
SoSH Member
Jun 20, 2011
8,926
Wayne, NJ
jon abbey said:
I guess, to me the one game wild card games are an absolute joke and representative of nothing except who has the better single starting pitcher. This year's Yankees team didn't deserve a full postseason series, but Pittsburgh certainly did. 
 
All of this is off topic from the original post, though. The game itself doesn't need drastic changing, but the postseason system could certainly use quite a few tweaks IMO. 
THIS

I loved watching the one game playoffs but the premise is absurd. Needs to be best of three or another smart solution.