LOCKOUT '22: When will we see baseball again?

[gehringer_2]

26 minutes ago, chasfh said:

It makes me chuckle every time I see someone suggest reducing the schedule to 154 games, specifically, as though that were the one and only magic number written on the tablet that was handed down to Baseball Moses from Baseball Yahweh. Other than history, what makes 154 such a magic number? Why not 156 or 152? I'm not actually pitching a bitch about this—I just find it genuinely amusing that this is the magic number everyone always brings up. To me, this makes sense only to people who actually attended games at Ebbets Field.

Personally, I like 162 games. I'd rather have more baseball than less. Hell, I'd be up for expanding the schedule to 168 games! How fun would that be? But I do agree with you that, perhaps after expansion, they will probably end up reducing the regular season schedule (although I wouldn't doubt if they brought it down to 144 or even 140 so they could clear the entire month of September plus October for an expanded playoffs of all best-of-seven series involving 16 teams). Given how revenue in the sport has moved from primarily gameday receipts in the east-of-the-Mississippi 16-team universe to multiple league-wide revenue streams split among all 30 teams, the business imperative for every team to host as many as 81 home games has been dramatically reduced.

I believe 154 was a more or less magic number at the time because the leagues were trying to play a balanced schedule. You had 8 team leagues, so you played each of 7 other teams 22 times. When expansion began, there were a couple of years where the two leagues had a different number of teams, but by 1962 they had 10 each so they when to 162 with a balanced schedule were you played each team 18 times. 

Subsequent expansions and divisional org have laid waste to any possibility of everyone playing everyone else the same number of times other than within divisions, so today the choice for the length of the season is completely arbitrary other than to quantitative junkies concerned about seasonal counting stats.

This history does point out one fact that we lose sight of comparing eras. When you faced a team 22 times in a season, you got to know all the pitchers really well. This had to be a huge advantage for hitters that is lost today and no doubt another influence in the rise of the all or nothing hitting approach.

 

[chasfh]

11 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I believe 154 was a more or less magic number at the time because the leagues were trying to play a balanced schedule. You had 8 team leagues, so you played each of 7 other teams 22 times. When expansion began, there were a couple of years where the two leagues had a different number of teams, but by 1962 they had 10 each so they when to 162 with a balanced schedule were you played each team 18 times. 

Subsequent expansions and divisional org have laid waste to any possibility of everyone playing everyone else the same number of times other than within divisions, so today the choice for the length of the season is completely arbitrary other than to quantitative junkies concerned about seasonal counting stats.

This history does point out one fact that we lose sight of comparing eras. When you faced a team 22 times in a season, you got to know all the pitchers really well. This had to be a huge advantage for hitters that is lost today and no doubt another influence in the rise of the all or nothing hitting approach.

 

That's exactly how the 154-game season came about: 22 games apiece against seven other teams. It was put in place in 1904; before that, seasons were 140 games, which was twenty games apiece against seven teams. Only World War I led to any change to that construct (1918: 126 games [18x7]; 1919: 140 games.)

They also managed to maintain 162-game balance, in a way, during the two-division 12-team leagues: 18 games against five teams in your own division (90 games total), 12 games against six teams in the other division (72).

Interleague play has completely blown up any hope of balancing a schedule, or of playing every team in baseball to achieve proper and true balance. BUT: if they ever were to go to 4x4 leagues with no interleague play (lol), they could hit 162 very logically by scheduling 18 games against three teams in your own division (54 games), and nine against the 12 teams in the other three divisions (36 times three = 108). Easy peasy math.

But again, they would never dream of abandoning The Abomination That Is Interleague Play. Would they?

[Longgone]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

So, you want socialism. Do we have that straight?

I'd like to think you are better than that.

[chasfh]

1 minute ago, Longgone said:

I'd like to think you are better than that.

Yeah, I figured you'd have no real answer to that. 😉

[gehringer_2]

7 minutes ago, chasfh said:

They also managed to maintain 162-game balance, in a way, during the two-division 12-team leagues: 18 games against five teams in your own division (90 games total), 12 games against six teams in the other division (72).

didn't the NL and AL have different divisional schedules in the early days of divisional play? I thought the NL had more intradivisional games than the AL for some period.....(?)

[chasfh]

7 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

didn't the NL and AL have different divisional schedules in the early days of divisional play? I thought the NL had more intradivisional games than the AL for some period.....(?)

A quick glance at b-ref suggests that leagues had a similar divisional schedule setup.

[Tiger337]

20 minutes ago, chasfh said:

They also managed to maintain 162-game balance, in a way, during the two-division 12-team leagues: 18 games against five teams in your own division (90 games total), 12 games against six teams in the other division (72).

 

Those were the days!

I was actually intrigued by interleague play when it first started, but the novelty wore out a long time ago and I don't like  it.  I prefer the mystique of separate leagues.  

 

[chasfh]

5 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Those were the days!

I was actually intrigued by interleague play when it first started, but the novelty wore out a long time ago and I don't like  it.  I prefer the mystique of separate leagues.  

 

I guess "intrigued" is the best I ever felt about it as well, but I knew I was never going to like it because not only do I enjoy the mystique of separate leagues, I also prefer as much competitive balance as possible.

I actually did not mind 1996 at all, just after both 14-team leagues broke into three divisions and before interleague play. Even though the divisions had an unequal number of teams (5-5-4), teams would play 13 games against their own division, and either 12 or 13 against the remaining nine or ten teams. It was the last gasp of the balanced schedule.

[Tiger337]

20 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I guess "intrigued" is the best I ever felt about it as well, but I knew I was never going to like it because not only do I enjoy the mystique of separate leagues, I also prefer as much competitive balance as possible.

I actually did not mind 1996 at all, just after both 14-team leagues broke into three divisions and before interleague play. Even though the divisions had an unequal number of teams (5-5-4), teams would play 13 games against their own division, and either 12 or 13 against the remaining nine or ten teams. It was the last gasp of the balanced schedule.

I didn't like divisions and a balanced schedule because it was illogical.  I thought the point of having divisions was to play more games against regional opponents.  If you aren't going to have that, then just have one big league and take the top four teams.  I know they created divisions for maketing the illusion that more teams had a shot, but I have little tolerance for setups based on marketing.   

[Longgone]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

Yeah, I figured you'd have no real answer to that. 😉

I fail to see where public ownership of the means of production is relevant. Go ahead, enlighten me.

[oblong]

The thing is success in baseball has two definitions.  There's business/dollars success and winning/losing.  Winning and Losing is artificial in a business sense.  It's just a defined metric.  I've used this analogy before but it's like having two Subway franchises "compete" against each other to see who can sell the most Buffalo Chicken salad bowls.  It's a competition but the goal isn't to drive the other one out of business.

The owners are using the goal of one definition to set the groundwork for the other definition.  They are different things.

Despite a team's record the franchises very rarely "lose".  Even the worst franchises in history have immense business growth.  

 

[gehringer_2]

12 minutes ago, Longgone said:

I fail to see where public ownership of the means of production is relevant. Go ahead, enlighten me.

I don't think capitalism vs socialism captures it was well as the idea of a league organized as independent teams vs franchises of a single league entity does. In the NFL the larger revenue source - i.e. the TV contract,  belongs to the league and the teams participate in that members like franchises of a single corporate ownership. In baseball every team is an independent economic entity and pretty much the only concession to that is those competitive balance dollars. 

College football is a curious hybrid because other than a very few schools like ND, NCAA TV contracts are generally with conferences, but in college FB the gate is still a big chunk of a team's revenue and it is no accident that there is a pretty strong correlation between average winning percentage and stadium size in NCAA football.

Edited February 25, 2022 by gehringer_2

[Longgone]

5 minutes ago, oblong said:

The thing is success in baseball has two definitions.  There's business/dollars success and winning/losing.  Winning and Losing is artificial in a business sense.  It's just a defined metric.  I've used this analogy before but it's like having two Subway franchises "compete" against each other to see who can sell the most Buffalo Chicken salad bowls.  It's a competition but the goal isn't to drive the other one out of business.

The owners are using the goal of one definition to set the groundwork for the other definition.  They are different things.

Despite a team's record the franchises very rarely "lose".  Even the worst franchises in history have immense business growth.  

 

They are two separate things, and it's illogical to assume because a team wants to be profitable, it is not also committed to winning. Each team represents a community, staff and players who desperately want to win. 

Sharing profitability with the players is also appropriate, and as I've said previously, it's been remarkably close to 50%. I think both sides would be happy to maintain that level, if they can trust that will be the result of any changes.

 

[gehringer_2]

Just now, Longgone said:

Sharing profitability with the players is also appropriate, and as I've said previously, it's been remarkably close to 50%. I think both sides would be happy to maintain that level, if they can trust that will be the result of any changes.

and this is exactly where the baseball owners are stuck in some kind of feudalist fantasy. You aren't Lord of some manor above being examined. Open the books, make a deal on the total revenue split, and have long term peace to work on improving the marketing of the game for the profit of all. But as long as the owners continue to carry on like mafia dons afraid to be audited, the players will never, ever trust them.

[oblong]

12 minutes ago, Longgone said:

They are two separate things, and it's illogical to assume because a team wants to be profitable, it is not also committed to winning. Each team represents a community, staff and players who desperately want to win. 

Sharing profitability with the players is also appropriate, and as I've said previously, it's been remarkably close to 50%. I think both sides would be happy to maintain that level, if they can trust that will be the result of any changes.

 

There's nothing wrong with being profitable but they are a lot more profitable than they let on and pretend like they need artificial help to maintain profitability. They are the drunk at the bar blaming the bartender for serving them.

 

[chasfh]

12 minutes ago, Longgone said:

I fail to see where public ownership of the means of production is relevant. Go ahead, enlighten me.

Sounds like you're daring me to enlighten you! Good thing we're not talking in a bar right now! 😉😂 Ah, jk, pal.

I don't mean socialism in the classical Marxist sense relative to the divisive Marxist language you used, obviously. But there are numerous socialist tendencies in the way Baseball, and all professional sports to similar degrees, are run: revenue redistribution from rich to poor teams; competitive aid for losing teams such as drafts and free agent compensation; strict controls governing the acquisition of playing talent; teams not allowed to fail out of the league through incompetence or mismanagement; and, of course, league-wide controls in place intended to prevent the best teams from breaking away from a desired competitive balance. Plus in Baseball, they are legally allowed to pick which owners can even participate in the league, and can bar others from starting their own teams to come in and compete with established teams, or at least earning the right to come in and participate through good performance.

Contrast this with European soccer, which is a truly free market enterprise: teams have free reign to spend as much as they want to acquire talent; teams earn promotion to and relegation from top leagues based strictly on on-pitch performance; no market size-based revenue sharing to ensure any kind of competitive balance on the pitch or among the boardrooms; and if a team is incompetent or terrible, they are simply allowed to fold their business, or "wind up" as they like to say in Jolly Old.

I do not prefer the European soccer model, necessarily, but American sports leagues are far more socialist in practice, and the things that you advocate to strictly limit the ability of teams to break away from the pack, in the service of protecting bad and incompetent teams' position on the field and within the league itself, are part and parcel of that.

[Longgone]

2 minutes ago, oblong said:

There's nothing wrong with being profitable but they are a lot more profitable than they let on and pretend like they need artificial help to maintain profitability. They are the drunk at the bar blaming the bartender for serving them.

 

It seems more like both sides have started with the extreme negotiating position, with neither side blinking. Logically, you'd move towards meeting in the middle, but no sign of that yet. It can happen fast, though.

[chasfh]

33 minutes ago, oblong said:

The thing is success in baseball has two definitions.  There's business/dollars success and winning/losing.  Winning and Losing is artificial in a business sense.  It's just a defined metric.  I've used this analogy before but it's like having two Subway franchises "compete" against each other to see who can sell the most Buffalo Chicken salad bowls.  It's a competition but the goal isn't to drive the other one out of business.

The owners are using the goal of one definition to set the groundwork for the other definition.  They are different things.

Despite a team's record the franchises very rarely "lose".  Even the worst franchises in history have immense business growth.  

 

Great point, this. Neither winning nor losing on the field make any direct contribution to revenues or the bottom line. There is some assumption that a winning team makes more money than a losing team, but the 2005 Chicago Cubs finished 79-83, good for fourth place in the league and drawing almost 3.1 million fans; the next season, 2006, they landed in last place with a 66-96 record, and their attendance went up over 3.1 million.

Winning and losing can contribute to more bottom line success, but not always.

[chasfh]

8 minutes ago, Longgone said:

It seems more like both sides have started with the extreme negotiating position, with neither side blinking. Logically, you'd move towards meeting in the middle, but no sign of that yet. It can happen fast, though.

This I agree with, and was talking with some friends about it last night. It seems as though, as of today, there is no hope for a full season starting on time, but sometimes all it takes is for one issue to get untracked and solved, then all the remaining dominoes fall quickly, and all of a sudden, within hours, they announce a deal. We've all seen movies like that before.

[Longgone]

2 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Sounds like you're daring me to enlighten you! Good thing we're not talking in a bar right now! 😉😂 Ah, jk, pal.

I don't mean socialism in the classical Marxist sense relative to the divisive Marxist language you used, obviously. But there are numerous socialist tendencies in the way Baseball, and all professional sports to similar degrees, are run: revenue redistribution from rich to poor teams; competitive aid for losing teams such as drafts and free agent compensation; strict controls governing the acquisition of playing talent; teams not allowed to fail out of the league through incompetence or mismanagement; and, of course, league-wide controls in place intended to prevent the best teams from breaking away from a desired competitive balance. Plus in Baseball, they are legally allowed to pick which owners can even participate in the league, and can bar others from starting their own teams to come in and compete with established teams, or at least earning the right to come in and participate through good performance.

Contrast this with European soccer, which is a truly free market enterprise: teams have free reign to spend as much as they want to acquire talent; teams earn promotion to and relegation from top leagues based strictly on on-pitch performance; no market size-based revenue sharing to ensure any kind of competitive balance on the pitch or among the boardrooms; and if a team is incompetent or terrible, they are simply allowed to fold their business, or "wind up" as they like to say in Jolly Old.

I do not prefer the European soccer model, necessarily, but American sports leagues are far more socialist in practice, and the things that you advocate to strictly limit the ability of teams to break away from the pack, in the service of protecting bad and incompetent teams' position on the field and within the league itself, are part and parcel of that.

I think you'd agree that pure Capitalism is not feasible. There needs to boundaries and checks against excesses: fraud, unsafe practices, monopolies, inequity, market collapse, etc. 

None of those adjustments to Capitalism are Socialism. Welfare programs, as well, are not socialism. Both American and European leagues are capitalistic. Parameters that create parity, do not in any way mean they are practicing socialism, no matter how much you want to stretch to term to suit your biases.

[chasfh]

1 minute ago, Longgone said:

I think you'd agree that pure Capitalism is not feasible. There needs to boundaries and checks against excesses: fraud, unsafe practices, monopolies, inequity, market collapse, etc. 

None of those adjustments to Capitalism are Socialism. Welfare programs, as well, are not socialism. Both American and European leagues are capitalistic. Parameters that create parity, do not in any way mean they are practicing socialism, no matter how much you want to stretch to term to suit your biases.

I think the practices American sports leagues implement to ensure a parity both on the field and in the ledger books do smack of socialism.

[Longgone]

2 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I think the practices American sports leagues implement to ensure a parity both on the field and in the ledger books do smack of socialism.

Then you have a different definition of Socialism. As I said, parameters and regulations that prevent the excesses, and cover the inadequacies of Capitalism, are simply inherent and necessary in the actual practice of capitalism, and in no way change the fundamental economic system from capitalism to socialism.

[oblong]

17 minutes ago, chasfh said:

This I agree with, and was talking with some friends about it last night. It seems as though, as of today, there is no hope for a full season starting on time, but sometimes all it takes is for one issue to get untracked and solved, then all the remaining dominoes fall quickly, and all of a sudden, within hours, they announce a deal. We've all seen movies like that before.

I think that too.... at least I hope that.  Not sure I believe it anymore.  Deadlines produce creativity as anyone who's written a term paper knows.

 

[chasfh]

Just now, Longgone said:

Then you have a different definition of Socialism. As I said, parameters and regulations that prevent the excesses, and cover the inadequacies of Capitalism, are simply inherent and necessary in the actual practice of capitalism, and in no way change the fundamental economic system from capitalism to socialism.

And you have very narrow scope of thinking on the topic of socialism, without any apparent flexibility to apply concepts related to it beyond the way macroeconomies operate.

I'm willing to agree to disagree at this point.

[bobrob2004]

Is the lockout over yet?  Someone ask Rob Manfred if Miggy can come out and play.