LOCKOUT '22: When will we see baseball again?

[oblong]

Where did this wider bases thing come from?  That's new to me.

 

[chasfh]

10 minutes ago, oblong said:

Where did this wider bases thing come from?  That's new to me.

 

Theyhad it in AAA last year, I believe. They widened it a couple inches to incentivize more stealing, since second base would now be an three inches closer to first, and thus more excitement. That's the story I thought I heard, anyway.

[4hzglory]

8 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Theyhad it in AAA last year, I believe. They widened it a couple inches to incentivize more stealing, since second base would now be an three inches closer to first, and thus more excitement. That's the story I thought I heard, anyway.

It's also to help with the "slick bases" issue and hopefully prevent some injuries.

[chasfh]

3 minutes ago, 4hzglory said:

It's also to help with the "slick bases" issue and hopefully prevent some injuries.

Is "slick base" related to base size, or material composition? I'm trying to imagine how a larger base, everything else held equal, reduces base slickness.

[4hzglory]

2 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Is "slick base" related to base size, or material composition? I'm trying to imagine how a larger base, everything else held equal, reduces base slickness.

I'm not 100% sure.  I just have heard them say that is the biggest part of the reason.  Maybe the larger bases will be softer and more tapered?

[buddha]

3 hours ago, chasfh said:

Maybe Isaac Paraedes could float Schoop a loan, since he earned more money in 42 days than most american families make in 2 years.

maybe you should start a gofundme page for poor schoop, considering he's only made more money in one year than 99% of the people on earth will earn in a lifetime?

how does one live on $31 million in career earnings?  i just dont understand the heartlessness of the american public in their disdain for the troubles of the working man.

[buddha]

1 hour ago, Sports_Freak said:

How about a one and half minute break between innings? Cut into their commercials. That's where the real delay is happening.

they already cut that from 2 45 to 2 15.

and that's not the real delay.  the real delay is the delay in between pitches.

[gehringer_2]

14 minutes ago, buddha said:

they already cut that from 2 45 to 2 15.

and that's not the real delay.  the real delay is the delay in between pitches.

right. Inning breaks are now actually way shorter than the timeouts in any other sport. They take 5+ minute commercial  breaks at football games. I DVR'd a lot of Tiger games last season, and I have a 15sec advance button. If I hit that as the call goes up on the previous pitch, I NEVER, miss the next pitch - I don't even miss the wind-up for it. And the pitch clock is supposed to be 15 sec. So the base condition is bad enough, but then you have relievers who absolutely come to a standstill with men on base. I understand you would have to waive the 15 sec rule with men on base because of holding the runner, etc, but you have relievers out there now who are waiting for longer grass to grow for a ground ball between pitches, so there needs to be some kind of secondary timer even with guys on base.

Edited March 4, 2022 by gehringer_2

[buddha]

58 minutes ago, oblong said:

Where did this wider bases thing come from?  That's new to me.

 

the goal was to get more action back in the game and to incentivize teams to do more running and less station to station three true outcome baseball.

the theory being if they make the bases just a little bit bigger, it will incentivize teams to steal bases as well as putting the ball in play more becsuse it will be easier to get things like infield singles, etc (because the bases will be a little closer to each other).

[Tiger337]

11 minutes ago, buddha said:

the goal was to get more action back in the game and to incentivize teams to do more running and less station to station three true outcome baseball.

the theory being if they make the bases just a little bit bigger, it will incentivize teams to steal bases as well as putting the ball in play more becsuse it will be easier to get things like infield singles, etc (because the bases will be a little closer to each other).

I am skeptical as to whether this will work, but the game does need more action.  

[Longgone]

4 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

doesn't actually address the question - but the other thing is that why assume that the target of mid market teams that oppose a CBT increase is punishing the players and not the fear it leaves them further behind the opportunity to compete, which has been a point made by Manfred that i think is a fair one even if it's pretty much completely ignored? It goes back to the point that the real effect of changing the CBT upwards is just to allow the Dodgers, BoSOX and Yankees to accumulate more star players at everyone else's expense. It provides no way for mid-market teams to achieve the ability to  pay aggregate salaries up to CBT level.

Yes, the concept is that the lower the CBT ceiling and stiffer the tax penalties for going over, the more you lessen the gap between the haves and have nots. This could result in smaller markets having larger payrolls, and being more competitive. The main problem with MLB versus other leagues that more equally share revenues, is the extremely lopsided distribution of resources, and this is how they've chosen to deal with it.

The players want the large revenue teams to set the market, but also want smaller clubs to spend more and not rebuild (tank), and these may be conflicting objectives. The level of the ceiling will have an impact either objective, if it's high the large markets will maintain a competitive advantage, if it's low, the resource gap narrows, and perhaps creats greater parity and competition.

[gehringer_2]

8 minutes ago, Longgone said:

The players want the large revenue teams to set the market, but also want smaller clubs to spend more and not rebuild (tank), and these may be conflicting objectives

exactly - but players are in a fantasy world if they think that will happen. It's been decades and it hasn't yet, and the team payroll disparity only gets bigger. The mid/samll market teams are not going to lose money to compete, they will find a way to keep expenses low enough so that the fan base that accepts them as they are can keep them alive. That is what has been happening, and what will continue to happen, unless and until the team disparity on the *REVENUE* side is addressed.

The players appear to operating under the oldest canard about pro sports, which is that just because a small market team is owned by someone whose net worth is equal that of a large market team, that owner is going to be willing to spend out his non-team revenue to compete. These guys didn't get to be billionaires by being financially stupid. They do not and will not ever subsidize their teams with their other income. Mike Ilitch may have been the closest case ever and even there it lasted less than maybe 7 years out of 100+ of the team's history.

Edited March 4, 2022 by gehringer_2

[buddha]

1 minute ago, gehringer_2 said:

exactly - but players are in a fantasy world if they think that will happen. It's been decades and it hasn't yet, and the team payroll disparity only gets bigger. The mid/samll market teams are not going to lose money to compete, they will find a way to keep expenses low enough so that the fan base that accepts them as they are can keep them alive. That is what has been happening, and what will continue to happen, unless and until the team disparity on the *REVENUE* side is addressed.

i dont know how you address it in baseball because the revenues between teams are so different because of the media deals.  

the only way to really address it and make all teams pay salary money is to have a real cap and floor, but the players will never accept that.  then have more revenue sharing and a guaranteed amount of revenue going to the players every year, but the owners wont accept that.

[gehringer_2]

2 minutes ago, buddha said:

i dont know how you address it in baseball because the revenues between teams are so different because of the media deals.  

the only way to really address it and make all teams pay salary money is to have a real cap and floor, but the players will never accept that.  then have more revenue sharing and a guaranteed amount of revenue going to the players every year, but the owners wont accept that.

right, they are in a death spiral together because the owners are too greedy to share and the players are too dumb to realize *that* is the single biggest issue they should be pushing.

Edited March 4, 2022 by gehringer_2

[Longgone]

2 minutes ago, buddha said:

i dont know how you address it in baseball because the revenues between teams are so different because of the media deals.  

the only way to really address it and make all teams pay salary money is to have a real cap and floor, but the players will never accept that.  then have more revenue sharing and a guaranteed amount of revenue going to the players every year, but the owners wont accept that.

The owners, obviously, believe the CBT addresses this problem. The big budget teams are restrained somewhat, and the penalties shift revenues to the smaller markets. Not sure what a better, yet palatable, system might be.

[gehringer_2]

19 minutes ago, buddha said:

i dont know how you address it in baseball because the revenues between teams are so different because of the media deals.  

the media deals is where you would have to start. Something like a 50% league tax on teams' TV/Radio income, which would then be shared back to all the teams equally. At 50/50 every team will still be motivated to grow its own market and worry about the health of the league. That would also give you an objective verifiable number to start with for a team salary floor.

Will never happen of course....

Edited March 4, 2022 by gehringer_2

[oblong]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

the goal was to get more action back in the game and to incentivize teams to do more running and less station to station three true outcome baseball.

the theory being if they make the bases just a little bit bigger, it will incentivize teams to steal bases as well as putting the ball in play more becsuse it will be easier to get things like infield singles, etc (because the bases will be a little closer to each other).

I don't have an opinion on it and don't care what they do... my only comment is this seems a silly hill to die on if it's a contentious item in negotiations.  I saw something else, maybe it was here, about making 1B 88 feet?  That seems like a bigger deal but again, I don't care. That stuff is better than banning shifts or starting a guy on 2B in extra innings.

 

[4hzglory]

4 minutes ago, oblong said:

I don't have an opinion on it and don't care what they do... my only comment is this seems a silly hill to die on if it's a contentious item in negotiations.  I saw something else, maybe it was here, about making 1B 88 feet?  That seems like a bigger deal but again, I don't care. That stuff is better than banning shifts or starting a guy on 2B in extra innings.

 

The former players on MLB radio say the players are all for the larger bases, so it doesn't seem like a major issue.

[Longgone]

5 minutes ago, oblong said:

I don't have an opinion on it and don't care what they do... my only comment is this seems a silly hill to die on if it's a contentious item in negotiations.  I saw something else, maybe it was here, about making 1B 88 feet?  That seems like a bigger deal but again, I don't care. That stuff is better than banning shifts or starting a guy on 2B in extra innings.

 

I don't believe any of those were obstacles. The negotiated issue was how much lead time for rule changes. Owners wanted the current year reduced to 45 days.

[RedTeamGo!]

6 hours ago, Hongbit said:

 

 

I am sure that Chris wasn’t opposed to adding $10M to the luxury tax cap but just needed more time to figure out how to get the city of Detroit or the State fund to pay for it.   

Being a Reds fan sucks so hard. No idea why I am still hanging on. 

I was shocked to see the Tigers and Angels were 2 of the 4 teams. 

[buddha]

1 hour ago, Longgone said:

The owners, obviously, believe the CBT addresses this problem. The big budget teams are restrained somewhat, and the penalties shift revenues to the smaller markets. Not sure what a better, yet palatable, system might be.

they can "believe" it all they want, i dont think theyre correct.  and it doesnt do anything to create a floor where teams like the pirates or rays have to pay salaries.

look, this current system is a great deal for the owners now that they've finally figured out how to manipulate it properly.  the players seem to have this visceral reaction to a "salary cap" of any kind.  as long as it comes with a revenue split % and forces more revenue sharing with the owners they should take it.

and i hate salary caps in principal but it would solve a lot of this nonsense.

[buddha]

19 minutes ago, oblong said:

I don't have an opinion on it and don't care what they do... my only comment is this seems a silly hill to die on if it's a contentious item in negotiations.  I saw something else, maybe it was here, about making 1B 88 feet?  That seems like a bigger deal but again, I don't care. That stuff is better than banning shifts or starting a guy on 2B in extra innings.

 

honestly, i dont care either.

except the pitch clock.  i want to be able to watch a 2-230 hour game again.

[Tenacious D]

Brilliant…

 

[alex]

2 hours ago, 4hzglory said:

It's also to help with the "slick bases" issue and hopefully prevent some injuries.

That, in addition to the previous reasons, and I heard on MLB Network it may help allow just a bit more for the 1B to stretch and the runners lane allowing for more distance from the 1B- hence a bit lesser collision chance.

[oblong]

27 minutes ago, buddha said:

honestly, i dont care either.

except the pitch clock.  i want to be able to watch a 2-230 hour game again.

I don't mind that either but I'm not sure it would address the issue much.  I always understood its things like more foul balls, more strikeouts, walks, etc.  Did those things go up over the years?  

Here's a study I found:

https://sabr.org/journal/article/time-between-pitches-cause-of-long-games/