The future of baseball

[notin]

1. pitching clock

2. robot umps

 

Games would speed right up.

 

 

How about robot pitchers? Then you could program them when to pitch...

[Slasher9]

1. pitching clock

2. robot umps

 

Games would speed right up.

 

in my original post i had robot umps as the one change that would speed up the game the most.

[Kimmi]

Two of the issues being discussed seem contradictory to me. If MLB is going to require a pitcher to face 3 hitters, do we need an expanded roster of 26?

 

Expanding rosters will lead to more specialization, but by requiring pitchers to face 3 hitters, MLB is reducing the opportunities for that specialization...

 

I read that the the proposal was for 26 man rosters with a 12 pitcher maximum, so the extra roster spot would go to a position player.

 

Also, I kind of like the idea of a pitcher facing a minimum of 3 hitters. I haven't really thought the ramifications through that thoroughly, but on the surface, I like the idea.

 

Another proposal to speed up the game is to shorten the commercial breaks at 1/2 innings. BINGO!

[Kimmi]

Other proposed changes:

 

1. A single trade deadline before the All Star Break - I don't think I like this idea.

 

2. Draft advantages for winning teams and draft penalties for losing teams - Sign me up.

 

3. Lowering the pitcher's mound - Please, no.

[Youk Of The Nation]

 

2. Draft advantages for winning teams and draft penalties for losing teams - Sign me up.

 

 

Wait, wouldn't that just perpetuate the success of a few teams? Isn't the process set up now so that bad teams can draft the best players and keep things competitive? I mean, without getting high draft picks, would the Rays have made it to the WS in 2008 or the Royals and Astros have won in the last few years? Or even the Cubs for that matter.

[jacksonianmarch]

Wait, wouldn't that just perpetuate the success of a few teams? Isn't the process set up now so that bad teams can draft the best players and keep things competitive? I mean, without getting high draft picks, would the Rays have made it to the WS in 2008 or the Royals and Astros have won in the last few years? Or even the Cubs for that matter.

 

They would have to graduate it to punish perennial losers or teams who rebuild. It is smart. It forces rebuilding clubs to at least feign relativity

[jacksonianmarch]

I just read the article on their proposal. Mostly general for now, but penalizing teams who lose 90 games in back to back seasons, cutting picks and draft funds. I’ve got a better idea.

 

MLB has 30 teams. 20 do not make the playoffs. Institute a draft lottery. Team with the 11th best record in baseball gets one ball in the lottery. Team with the 12th gets 2, etc. the team with the worst record gets 20 balls. If you’ve lost 90 for consecutive seasons, then the worst team gets their balls cut in half. If you lose 90 for a third straight year, it’s quartered and so on. I’d lottery picks 1-10, not just 1-3 so the possibility of falling out of the top 10 is pretty real for a tanking team on a 3-4 year 90 loss bender. The difference in draft pool is pretty high when you consider dropping from #1 all the way down to #11.

 

For INTL funds, I’d just cut the funds in half if you lose 90 or more in consecutive years. For a third year, it’s quartered.

 

And BTW, I’m entirely with the players here. The last two seasons where we basically knew who the top 4 teams in the AL were from nearly the beginning isn’t good for the game. The NL is a bit more wide open, but you still have multiple teams with no prayer of competing. This year, the following squads are already eliminated

 

Toronto

Baltimore

KC

Detroit

CWS

Seattle

Texas

Miami

SF

ARI

 

San Diego is to be added to the list if they don’t add Machado or Harper. You’ve got 10 teams with no prayer, likely 11. And I could easily throw Cincy, Minn, and the Angels in there too as teams with nearly no shot of competing. At least Cincy is trying. That takes the number of non compete or incredibly unlikely to compete to 14. That means we have 16 teams vying for 10 spots. And the only reason for that is due to the terrible NL East that has flawed Philly, Met and Nat teams trying to make ground on a top young for prime time Braves team. If one team in that division pulls away, we can remove 3 teams from the “likely to contend” category, bringing our total down to 13 teams for 10 spots or more appropriately, 12 teams for 9 spots and a mishmash in the NL East. That’s bad for baseball

Edited February 7, 2019 by jacksonianmarch

[moonslav59]

I just read the article on their proposal. Mostly general for now, but penalizing teams who lose 90 games in back to back seasons, cutting picks and draft funds. I’ve got a better idea.

 

MLB has 30 teams. 20 do not make the playoffs. Institute a draft lottery. Team with the 11th best record in baseball gets one ball in the lottery. Team with the 12th gets 2, etc. the team with the worst record gets 20 balls. If you’ve lost 90 for consecutive seasons, then the worst team gets their balls cut in half. If you lose 90 for a third straight year, it’s quartered and so on. I’d lottery picks 1-10, not just 1-3 so the possibility of falling out of the top 10 is pretty real for a tanking team on a 3-4 year 90 loss bender. The difference in draft pool is pretty high when you consider dropping from #1 all the way down to #11.

 

For INTL funds, I’d just cut the funds in half if you lose 90 or more in consecutive years. For a third year, it’s quartered.

 

And BTW, I’m entirely with the players here. The last two seasons where we basically knew who the top 4 teams in the AL were from nearly the beginning isn’t good for the game. The NL is a bit more wide open, but you still have multiple teams with no prayer of competing. This year, the following squads are already eliminated

 

Toronto

Baltimore

KC

Detroit

CWS

Seattle

Texas

Miami

SF

ARI

 

San Diego is to be added to the list if they don’t add Machado or Harper. You’ve got 10 teams with no prayer, likely 11. And I could easily throw Cincy, Minn, and the Angels in there too as teams with nearly no shot of competing. At least Cincy is trying. That takes the number of non compete or incredibly unlikely to compete to 14. That means we have 16 teams vying for 10 spots. And the only reason for that is due to the terrible NL East that has flawed Philly, Met and Nat teams trying to make ground on a top young for prime time Braves team. If one team in that division pulls away, we can remove 3 teams from the “likely to contend” category, bringing our total down to 13 teams for 10 spots or more appropriately, 12 teams for 9 spots and a mishmash in the NL East. That’s bad for baseball

 

Hasn't there always been about 10 teams out of it before the season ever starts? Even before free agency? Before comp picks? Before the luxury tax? Before the harsher penalties started?

 

It's hard to think of a way to force low budget teams to spend more- not that this would guarantee they become competitive, but over time, you'd think they'd have to be good at some point, if only briefly here and there.

 

Raising the minimum pay would help a lot of players.

Starting the arb process a year or two earlier would spread the wealth among players more, but teams may trade their arb guys to save money.

I think the players need to push for a minimum team spending budget that rises over the term of the agreement.

More revenue sharing might help smaller teams, but only if they are mandated to spend the money gained from the share on player salary. (Ex. Let's say the league minimum team budget is set at $65M and team A gets $10M in sharing, then they'd have to have a budget of $75M, or maybe half the $10M, so $70M total.

 

If teams can't make it under this structure, then they should move or fold.

 

Sharing all local TV money would be the great evener, but it won't happen.

[notin]

 

And BTW, I’m entirely with the players here. The last two seasons where we basically knew who the top 4 teams in the AL were from nearly the beginning isn’t good for the game. The NL is a bit more wide open, but you still have multiple teams with no prayer of competing. This year, the following squads are already eliminated

 

Toronto

Baltimore

KC

Detroit

CWS

Seattle

Texas

Miami

SF

ARI

 

San Diego is to be added to the list if they don’t add Machado or Harper. You’ve got 10 teams with no prayer, likely 11. And I could easily throw Cincy, Minn, and the Angels in there too as teams with nearly no shot of competing. At least Cincy is trying. That takes the number of non compete or incredibly unlikely to compete to 14. That means we have 16 teams vying for 10 spots. And the only reason for that is due to the terrible NL East that has flawed Philly, Met and Nat teams trying to make ground on a top young for prime time Braves team. If one team in that division pulls away, we can remove 3 teams from the “likely to contend” category, bringing our total down to 13 teams for 10 spots or more appropriately, 12 teams for 9 spots and a mishmash in the NL East. That’s bad for baseball

 

The thing is, last year most people would have told you Oakland was eliminated in March and same thing with Minnesota the year before.

 

In fact, despite acquiring Yelich, Did Milwaukee look like that great of a team one year ago? They came within one game of the World Series.

 

One of these teams you listed will surprise you this coming season...

[Kimmi]

Wait, wouldn't that just perpetuate the success of a few teams? Isn't the process set up now so that bad teams can draft the best players and keep things competitive? I mean, without getting high draft picks, would the Rays have made it to the WS in 2008 or the Royals and Astros have won in the last few years? Or even the Cubs for that matter.

 

I'm not sure of the specifics, but I think this is geared towards the teams who really aren't even trying, in other words, tanking with no intent to rebuild. A team really has to be losing a lot for a prolonged period to incur this penalty. I suggested to penalize teams who aren't spending a certain % of their revenue on payroll rather than penalizing teams that spend too much, but I think the purpose is the same.

[Kimmi]

The thing is, last year most people would have told you Oakland was eliminated in March and same thing with Minnesota the year before.

 

In fact, despite acquiring Yelich, Did Milwaukee look like that great of a team one year ago? They came within one game of the World Series.

 

One of these teams you listed will surprise you this coming season...

 

There might be a team that surprises us just by the sheer wacky nature of baseball. But Jacko's point stands. Having so few teams that have a legitimate chance at the playoffs while having so many teams that are basically out of it from day one isn't good for the game.

[Northern Star]

One change that has already happened, apparently. The disabled list is now the injured list.

 

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/25947020/major-league-baseball-rename-disabled-list-injured-list

[notin]

One change that has already happened, apparently. The disabled list is now the injured list.

 

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/25947020/major-league-baseball-rename-disabled-list-injured-list

 

That feels so PC.

 

But then again, having a ligament strain is by no means a disability...

[notin]

There might be a team that surprises us just by the sheer wacky nature of baseball. But Jacko's point stands. Having so few teams that have a legitimate chance at the playoffs while having so many teams that are basically out of it from day one isn't good for the game.

 

Does it make baseball any different from any other sport?

[Bellhorn04]

Does it make baseball any different from any other sport?

 

That's a fair question.

 

But baseball did seem to be striving for and achieving a certain level of parity for a while there...maybe we need Bud Selig back LOL

[notin]

That's a fair question.

 

But baseball did seem to be striving for and achieving a certain level of parity for a while there...maybe we need Bud Selig back LOL

 

Baseball has more parity than any other sport. How many other sports see all the teams win between 40% and 60% of their games nearly every year? And when teams fall outside that range, it usually isn't by much.

 

Ever seen a season in the NFL when every team was between 10-6 and 6-10? Or the NBA where every team was between 49-33 and 33-49?

[dgalehouse]

Before too long MLB will probably add a couple of more wild card teams . More chances for the also rans to make the playoffs. Fake parity .

[notin]

Before too long MLB will probably add a couple of more wild card teams . More chances for the also rans to make the playoffs. Fake parity .

 

It's not as likely, simply because the season already runs into November...

[Youk Of The Nation]

What about just dissolving a team that isn't really trying? Would anyone shed a tear if they dynamited the Marlin's stadium and sent all the players to school to be CPAs or nurses? Would there be crowds of thousands of angry fans rioting in the streets if they quietly replaced Tropicana field with something more in keeping with Florida's culture? (I'm imagining a combination retirement home-meth detox facility-gun store that caters exclusively to alligators and invasive Burmese Pythons).

 

Actually, now that I look at this all written out, maybe we should just get rid of Florida? Is Florida the real problem here?!

 

 

Seriously though, since the last back-to-back WS win (Yankees 99-00), every team in the league has had at least one season where they were a factor. I think (I could be wrong) every team has been to the postseason at least once in that time. A bunch of teams are out of it this year, but that's always how it's going to be. The only reason it wasn't like that back in the days before color TV was because there were half the number of teams. I don't see a pressing issue here.

[Bellhorn04]

Baseball has more parity than any other sport. How many other sports see all the teams win between 40% and 60% of their games nearly every year? And when teams fall outside that range, it usually isn't by much.

 

Ever seen a season in the NFL when every team was between 10-6 and 6-10? Or the NBA where every team was between 49-33 and 33-49?

 

2018 was a bad year for MLB parity though.

 

Teams with 95 losses or more:

 

2018 - 8

2017 - 4

2016 - 1

2015 - 3

2014 - 3

 

That's a very crude measure, but I think a deeper dig will support that there was a significantly larger than usual spread between top teams and bottom teams.

[notin]

What about just dissolving a team that isn't really trying? Would anyone shed a tear if they dynamited the Marlin's stadium and sent all the players to school to be CPAs or nurses? Would there be crowds of thousands of angry fans rioting in the streets if they quietly replaced Tropicana field with something more in keeping with Florida's culture? (I'm imagining a combination retirement home-meth detox facility-gun store that caters exclusively to alligators and invasive Burmese Pythons).

 

Actually, now that I look at this all written out, maybe we should just get rid of Florida? Is Florida the real problem here?!

 

 

Seriously though, since the last back-to-back WS win (Yankees 99-00), every team in the league has had at least one season where they were a factor. I think (I could be wrong) every team has been to the postseason at least once in that time. A bunch of teams are out of it this year, but that's always how it's going to be. The only reason it wasn't like that back in the days before color TV was because there were half the number of teams. I don't see a pressing issue here.

 

 

MLB tried to contract several years back, with the two franchises being the NExpos and the Twins. The Expos have since relocated and become very competitive in Washington and the Twins were the first franchise to draw 3 million fans , prior to that organization being ruined by notorious cheapskate Carl Pohlad.

 

The MLBPA vehemently opposed the contraction...

[Bellhorn04]

Ever seen a season in the NFL when every team was between 10-6 and 6-10?

 

The NFL doesn't need parity. There's only one game a week, and for many of the fans who attend the highlights are the pre-game tailgate party and the post-game tailgate party.

 

And really bad football teams somehow acquire an entertainment value all their own.

 

'What do you think of your team's execution, coach?' 'I'm in favor of it.'

 

Fans with paper bags over their heads.

 

The Aints.

 

The Jets.

[jacksonianmarch]

This past year saw 8 teams lose 95 or more games. Of those 8 teams, only one had tried to get better (Cincy). There are two teams just outside that cuff that are aging or rebuilding and seem poised to fall into the 95 loss range in Toronto and SF. Seattle is anyone’s guess as an 89 win team, but they’ve since jettisoned off their talent and are left with a roster made up mostly of beyond prime vets or green prospects with a couple useful parts sprinkled in. They could end up a 95 loss team. The players want better contracts. The players want more teams bidding. Not every team, even contending ones, can afford Machado and Harper, but other free agents are being slammed here that are affordable for all teams but being passed upon because the franchise isn’t looking to win.

[notin]

This past year saw 8 teams lose 95 or more games. Of those 8 teams, only one had tried to get better (Cincy). There are two teams just outside that cuff that are aging or rebuilding and seem poised to fall into the 95 loss range in Toronto and SF. Seattle is anyone’s guess as an 89 win team, but they’ve since jettisoned off their talent and are left with a roster made up mostly of beyond prime vets or green prospects with a couple useful parts sprinkled in. They could end up a 95 loss team. The players want better contracts. The players want more teams bidding. Not every team, even contending ones, can afford Machado and Harper, but other free agents are being slammed here that are affordable for all teams but being passed upon because the franchise isn’t looking to win.

 

What do you mean by tried to get better?

 

The White Sox and Padres have been connected to Machado and Harper, and so far the White Sox are the only team with a public offer to either. In fact, the White Sox entire off-season seems to be built around courting Machado, as they traded for his brother-in-law and signed his winter workout partner. Both these teams have been very public in their pursuit of big money free agents, that one or both might sign Keuchel or Kimbrel as a consolation prize.

 

The Rangers and Royals have both been active this off-season as well, just not in the pursuit of the bigger names. Don’t go writing off signings like Jesse Chavez, Lance Lynn, Billy Hamilton and Brad Boxberger as “not trying” and lumping them in with completely inert/legally dead franchises like Baltimore and Detroit, who could not have done less to improve their teams...

[jacksonianmarch]

The White Sox are a large market club. They’ve added two relievers to this point. If they land Machado or Harper then I rescind my comment.

 

The Rangers signing Lynn early does constitute an “effort” but they’re seeing a payroll drop and are still actively selling off parts. I’m mostly talking about good relievers who would have commanded $5-6 mil are signing for minor league deals with incentives. Second rate starting position players like Derek Dietrich still on the market likely looking at a non guaranteed deal when they’re likely to be a starter. Going back to last year, deals for Lynn, Walker and Morrison going into February screwing up their seasons (all three had abysmal first halves). Owners have tightened their wallets while reaping in big profits. Good players who should have good paydays are on the market. Elite talent is still on the market heading into pitchers and catchers. It’s a bad thing

[notin]

So I guess you don’t count the additions of Yonder Alonso, James McCann, and Ivan Nova fornthe White Sox?

 

They may not be adding the bigger names you like, but they have been active, which goes for a few teams on that list.

 

San Diego is somewhat hamstrung in their ability to trade for bigger names, since most teams won’t look past Tatis. This does happen, as you Yankee fans know - teams only focusing on a top prospect in a trade. Gerri Cole went to Houston because Pittsburgh was unable to pry Gleyber Torres from New York. San Diego has at least 10 prospects ranked higher than anyone in the Sox system, but if both teams inquired about the same player and they offered their #10 and the Sox offered Chavis or Hernandez, we get the player.

 

But bottom line - there are teams making zero effort to get better. But half of those 8 teams (at least) are making effort, just not with the results right now. If/when Harper and Machado actually sign somewhere, the fallout will become more attention to Keuchel and Kimbrel. Expect Chicago and San Diego to be involved in one of those waves.

 

But yes, Baltimore, Detroit, and Miami and maybe a couple others are a disgrace right now...

[BillyWilliams]

Baseball has more parity than any other sport. How many other sports see all the teams win between 40% and 60% of their games nearly every year? And when teams fall outside that range, it usually isn't by much.

 

Ever seen a season in the NFL when every team was between 10-6 and 6-10? Or the NBA where every team was between 49-33 and 33-49?

 

I believe MLB has had more different teams win the championship over the last 30 yrs than either the national felon league or the NBA.

[jacksonianmarch]

We aren’t talking the last 30 years. We are talking about the dozen FA market of the past two seasons

[BillyWilliams]

We aren’t talking the last 30 years. We are talking about the dozen FA market of the past two seasons

 

My reply had to do with parity, not with the free agent market.

[Slasher9]

My reply had to do with parity, not with the free agent market.

 

Boston Red Sox have won 21% of the World Series titles in the 21st century.

Boston Red Sox + San Francisco Giants have won 37% of the titles.

is that Parity????