Jump to content
Slateman

Opening Day to be Pushed 2 weeks RE: COVID-19

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, hrubes20 said:

I'm much less impressed by a junkballer throwing 15 IP because he was on the fortunate side of the BABIP gods.  And offense was still down back then.  Hell, that game went 18 innings and they ended up calling it a 0-0 tie.  

Wood faced literally the best offensive team in the entire league during the height of the steroid era and put up the highest game score for a 9 inning game in baseball history.  There were multiple HOFers in their primes in that lineup.  

That lineup was stacked

But why was Jack Howell hitting cleanup??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, hrubes20 said:

I'm much less impressed by a junkballer throwing 15 IP because he was on the fortunate side of the BABIP gods.  And offense was still down back then.  Hell, that game went 18 innings and they ended up calling it a 0-0 tie.  

Wood faced literally the best offensive team in the entire league during the height of the steroid era and put up the highest game score for a 9 inning game in baseball history.  There were multiple HOFers in their primes in that lineup.  

Ole’ Rob was a screwballer not a junkballer.  (I have no idea)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2020 at 7:35 AM, THE DUKE said:

Latest update I heard is that playing in empty stadiums is back on the table.  With the peak now not expected to be until mid May (the social distancing is pushing that back) i'll be surprised if they are playing before July even in empty stadiums.  They aren't going to roll out of bed and start the season up, they essentially will need at least 2-4 weeks of "spring" training before the season ramps up again.  So even if Quarantine is lifted nationally by June 1, it's still likely July before baseball is being played.  In that case i'd say cut the season in half, 81 games, and keep the playoff format exactly the same.

I think this is the cleanest proposal from a competition standpoint, but the owners aren't going to want to take that type of revenue decrease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

I think this is the cleanest proposal from a competition standpoint, but the owners aren't going to want to take that type of revenue decrease.

Specifically from the 81 games and TV, the lack of people in the stands, or both?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, MikeT14 said:

Specifically from the 81 games and TV, the lack of people in the stands, or both?

Eventually, both. But in the short term, the TV money presents less risk. I don't think any MLB owner wants to deal with a potential lawsuit from someone who went to a game, got COVID-19, and thinks they can prove they got it at the game. TV money carries a lot less potential liability.

So if I'm an owner, I want TV money from all 162 games to the point that I'd be willing to expand rosters to 40+ with some type of rotation system, then play doubleheaders like maniacs to get it. That adds, what, a few million in player earnings in exchange for half of my TV contact? Take that to the bank. And on the players end, I bet they'd like that deal because the extended rosters mean that all of the AAA guys who are hoping for September callups could get half the MLB minimum plus all of that service time. (And remember that for the players, 43 (IIRC) days of service time gets you into the MLB pension program, and just 1 day of service time gives you lifetime access to the MLBPA health insurance plan. Players have every incentive to take rosters to 150% or 200% capacity.)

 

Admittedly, as a fan, I think that would be a half-assed product rushed out to check a box on a TV contract. But I don't see how both sides turn down the option that says "more money".

Edited by ramssuperbowl99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Eventually, both. But in the short term, the TV money presents less risk. I don't think any MLB owner wants to deal with a potential lawsuit from someone who went to a game, got COVID-19, and thinks they can prove they got it at the game. TV money carries a lot less potential liability.

So if I'm an owner, I want TV money from all 162 games to the point that I'd be willing to expand rosters to 40+ with some type of rotation system, then play doubleheaders like maniacs to get it. That adds, what, a few million in player earnings in exchange for half of my TV contact? Take that to the bank. And on the players end, I bet they'd like that deal because the extended rosters mean that all of the AAA guys who are hoping for September callups could get half the MLB minimum plus all of that service time. (And remember that for the players, 43 (IIRC) days of service time gets you into the MLB pension program, and just 1 day of service time gives you lifetime access to the MLBPA health insurance plan. Players have every incentive to take rosters to 150% or 200% capacity.)

 

Admittedly, as a fan, I think that's a half-assed product that was rushed out to check a box on a TV contract. But I don't see how both sides turn down the option that says "more money".

I don't mind your double headers idea to get to more games, but within reason I suppose. A July 1st start date (just using a date), would be approx your 81 games I think. Teams could have double headers before off days (which is probably 9-11 times during those three months). That gets you to 90. Most double headers would need to be on Sat or Sun I would think to help viewership better. 90 games pretty much means no interleague play. You'd probably cancel the All-Star game. 90 games would mean something like 4 game series against every team not in your division and then 12 or 13 against the teams in your division if my math is okay.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, MikeT14 said:

I don't mind your double headers idea to get to more games, but within reason I suppose. A July 1st start date (just using a date), would be approx your 81 games I think. Teams could have double headers before off days (which is probably 9-11 times during those three months). That gets you to 90. Most double headers would need to be on Sat or Sun I would think to help viewership better. 90 games pretty much means no interleague play. You'd probably cancel the All-Star game. 90 games would mean something like 4 game series against every team not in your division and then 12 or 13 against the teams in your division if my math is okay.

 

This is one of those things where I have to realize that I'm not the MLB average viewer (and neither is anyone on this forum except during the annual playoff influx where we get a few casuals). But my stance on this is that for years I and the other hardcore baseball nerds like me have picked a team, followed the transactions and the roster building all with the idea to assemble the best 25 man team possible and that 25 man team was going to determine who won. Throwing in tons of doubleheaders with games that are AAAA in player quality would annoy me, because I don't care if the Cubs have a better roster from the 25th to the 40th man than the Brewers. Those weren't the rules we all agreed to when we were originally trying to settle who was going to win.

To me, it'd be like if you hyped up a game of Monopoly and then at the last second said the purple properties are just as valuable as the blue right before we started. It's a rule change that fundamentally alters how teams should be building.

Edited by ramssuperbowl99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Missing out on Trout's age 28 season due to a virus pandemic is pretty on brand for the Angels tbh. 

The 100 game season beginning July 1 would be absolutely ideal, but that feels overly optimistic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TLO said:

Missing out on Trout's age 28 season due to a virus pandemic is pretty on brand for the Angels tbh. 

The 100 game season beginning July 1 would be absolutely ideal, but that feels overly optimistic. 

Can he still be MVP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mission27 said:

Can he still be MVP

I don't see why not tbh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TLO said:

I don't see why not tbh.

Whose your most promising young pitcher?

I bet he'll die of Coronavirus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mission27 said:

Whose your most promising young pitcher?

I bet he'll die of Coronavirus

angels-spring-baseball-47781.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×