PDA

View Full Version : If you could change ONE thing in baseball, what would it be?


WhiteSoxFan84
11-09-2008, 07:18 PM
Before I start, I'll ask you guys to please avoid the DH or no DH debate. It is what it is, as dumb as it is to see 2 leagues in the same sport using 2 different sets of rules, it's not going to change anytime soon, if ever.

That being said, what would you change about the game? You can talk about anything from scheduling to how to determine home field advantages and from expanding rosters to setting a time limit inbetween pitches.


What would I change about the sport? Using the NFL's idea about assigning locations for the World Series years in advance. I know some will argue and say "well that's not fair because..." whatever, and that arguement gets shot down by my counter: how is it fair that an All-Star game determines home-field advantage? And our favorite team is in the AL so we won't complain, but for those in the NL, they haven't won not one of the last 12 All-Star Games!

Here is how I would set it; have it in warm weather cities because baseball is meant to be played in the summer, in beautiful weather. Also, rotate the locations from NL to AL stadiums each year. For example...
2009 - Angels Stadium
2010 - Pro Player Stadium
2011 - Oakland Coliseum
2012 - Chase Field
2013 - Tampa's new stadium by then
2014 - Miller Park
2015 - AT&T Park (use AL rules)
2015 - Rogers Centre
2016 - PetCo Park
and so on...

This will cost less money for MLB as there will be less traveling. The two opposing teams will fly into the city where the series will be held in and stay for a week or two until we crown a champion. Owners may complain as they'll want the ticket revenue for the World Series, but I'm sure they can work something out where each competing organization receives bigger bonuses or split the gate.

What do you guys think of this? And what are some ideas you guys have had?

WhiteSox5187
11-09-2008, 07:31 PM
I wish that TV didn't dictate how the pace of the game would be played. Really there is no reason for a game to go much beyond 2 and a half hours, but in the playoffs every game is AT LEAST three hours...I guess my complaint is two things: TV (specifically Fox's) power over the game and the ball is still too lively.

Lip Man 1
11-09-2008, 07:48 PM
Get a real honest to God baseball commissioner...not a stupid stooge.

Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

Lip

Whitesox029
11-09-2008, 07:54 PM
Before I start, I'll ask you guys to please avoid the DH or no DH debate. It is what it is, as dumb as it is to see 2 leagues in the same sport using 2 different sets of rules, it's not going to change anytime soon, if ever.

That being said, what would you change about the game? You can talk about anything from scheduling to how to determine home field advantages and from expanding rosters to setting a time limit inbetween pitches.


What would I change about the sport? Using the NFL's idea about assigning locations for the World Series years in advance. I know some will argue and say "well that's not fair because..." whatever, and that arguement gets shot down by my counter: how is it fair that an All-Star game determines home-field advantage? And our favorite team is in the AL so we won't complain, but for those in the NL, they haven't won not one of the last 12 All-Star Games!

Here is how I would set it; have it in warm weather cities because baseball is meant to be played in the summer, in beautiful weather. Also, rotate the locations from NL to AL stadiums each year. For example...
2009 - Angels Stadium
2010 - Pro Player Stadium
2011 - Oakland Coliseum
2012 - Chase Field
2013 - Tampa's new stadium by then
2014 - Miller Park
2015 - AT&T Park (use AL rules)
2015 - Rogers Centre
2016 - PetCo Park
and so on...

This will cost less money for MLB as there will be less traveling. The two opposing teams will fly into the city where the series will be held in and stay for a week or two until we crown a champion. Owners may complain as they'll want the ticket revenue for the World Series, but I'm sure they can work something out where each competing organization receives bigger bonuses or split the gate.

What do you guys think of this? And what are some ideas you guys have had?
In a word, no. Having not grown up as a fan of the NFL, I despise the idea of a neutral-site championship. Home field advantage is 10% getting the last at-bat and 90% crowd factor. Just look at the way the Sox, Rays and Red Sox played this season. The privilege of attending a World Series game should be reserved for fans of the teams playing, because those are the fans that got the teams there. If it were up to me, the NFL would operate the same way, but that will never happen, because the Super Bowl has been overtaken by TV and advertisers.
And let's be honest...if you're a Mariners fan, are you going to go see the Rays and Phillies play up to 7 World Series games in Seattle? I don't think so. They have enough trouble getting TV ratings in cities whose teams aren't participating, let alone actually trying to sell tickets there.

I wish that TV didn't dictate how the pace of the game would be played. Really there is no reason for a game to go much beyond 2 and a half hours, but in the playoffs every game is AT LEAST three hours...I guess my complaint is two things: TV (specifically Fox's) power over the game and the ball is still too lively.
This I agree with. The influence of TV and ads in sports is too much when it begins to affect the outcome of the game. As an example, after the lockout, one of the new rules in the NHL was that when a team iced the puck, it wouldn't be allowed to change lines on the ensuing play stoppage. However, half the time, TV timeouts ended up giving the players a 60-90 second rest anyway, thus negating the effect of the rule. The NHL has taken control of that situation this season with a new rule barring TV timeouts after icing calls. The MLB needs to place similar sanctions on the influence of TV.

getonbckthr
11-09-2008, 07:59 PM
Before I start, I'll ask you guys to please avoid the DH or no DH debate. It is what it is, as dumb as it is to see 2 leagues in the same sport using 2 different sets of rules, it's not going to change anytime soon, if ever.

That being said, what would you change about the game? You can talk about anything from scheduling to how to determine home field advantages and from expanding rosters to setting a time limit inbetween pitches.


What would I change about the sport? Using the NFL's idea about assigning locations for the World Series years in advance. I know some will argue and say "well that's not fair because..." whatever, and that arguement gets shot down by my counter: how is it fair that an All-Star game determines home-field advantage? And our favorite team is in the AL so we won't complain, but for those in the NL, they haven't won not one of the last 12 All-Star Games!

Here is how I would set it; have it in warm weather cities because baseball is meant to be played in the summer, in beautiful weather. Also, rotate the locations from NL to AL stadiums each year. For example...
2009 - Angels Stadium
2010 - Pro Player Stadium
2011 - Oakland Coliseum
2012 - Chase Field
2013 - Tampa's new stadium by then
2014 - Miller Park
2015 - AT&T Park (use AL rules)
2015 - Rogers Centre
2016 - PetCo Park
and so on...

This will cost less money for MLB as there will be less traveling. The two opposing teams will fly into the city where the series will be held in and stay for a week or two until we crown a champion. Owners may complain as they'll want the ticket revenue for the World Series, but I'm sure they can work something out where each competing organization receives bigger bonuses or split the gate.

What do you guys think of this? And what are some ideas you guys have had?
So if the ANgels win the AL nest season they get 7 home games in the World Series?
What I would change is 2 things kind of linked together. Expand rosters to 30 with minimum requirements of 14 pitchers and 14 non-pitchers then the other 2 can be whatever. I would shorten schedule length by inclusion of double headers. They only be scheduled the day before an off day.

WhiteSoxFan84
11-09-2008, 08:04 PM
In a word, no. Having not grown up as a fan of the NFL, I despise the idea of a neutral-site championship. Home field advantage is 10% getting the last at-bat and 90% crowd factor. Just look at the way the Sox, Rays and Red Sox played this season. The privilege of attending a World Series game should be reserved for fans of the teams playing, because those are the fans that got the teams there. If it were up to me, the NFL would operate the same way, but that will never happen, because the Super Bowl has been overtaken by TV and advertisers.
And let's be honest...if you're a Mariners fan, are you going to go see the Rays and Phillies play up to 7 World Series games in Seattle? I don't think so. They have enough trouble getting TV ratings in cities whose teams aren't participating, let alone actually trying to sell tickets there.

Wow... a lot of things in here that made me ask the question "are you kidding me??"

1) If the MLB used regular season records to determine who gets home-field advantage, ok, that works. If the MLB used a rotating system like they did before where the NL has home-field on year and the AL gets it the next year, ok, that works. But when they're using the All-Star Game as a way to determine home-field, NO, that's not fair at all when the AL is clearly the dominant league (11-0-1 in last 12 ASGs).

2) Why would you ask me if M's fans would watch the game if it were in Seattle? Who cares? You're telling me there were only Arizona Cardinals fans at last year's Super Bowl in Phoenix? People (either die hard baseall fans and/or fans of the two competing teams) would go to the site of the World Series on a vacation for a week, for the weekend, for a couple of days during the week, etc., to catch a game, or 2, or 7.

3) The MLB would figure out a way for fans of the two competing teams to get a better chance of buying tickets. Like they can hold a special sale to fans for a limited number of tickets at the box office of each team's stadium.

WhiteSoxFan84
11-09-2008, 08:09 PM
So if the ANgels win the AL nest season they get 7 home games in the World Series?
What I would change is 2 things kind of linked together. Expand rosters to 30 with minimum requirements of 14 pitchers and 14 non-pitchers then the other 2 can be whatever. I would shorten schedule length by inclusion of double headers. They only be scheduled the day before an off day.

I'll do the probability figure on that happening...
1/4 (chances of Angels winning division during any given season)
1/4 (chances of Angels, after winning their division, winning the AL pennant)
1/10 (chances of the World Series being in Angels Stadium on any given year - assuming the MLB uses 10 different cities to rotate between which would be the 9 I listed earlier + Seattle)
(1/4) x (1/4) x (1/10) = .00625 or 0.625% or less than 1%.

And your idea about scheduling doubleheaders, that'd be pretty rough for teams that run into rainouts.

Madscout
11-09-2008, 08:21 PM
I would change the payroll rules to be more like the NFL, to make more teams competative for more players, so the Yanks and Sawks wouldn't just have whatever FA they want.

Madscout
11-09-2008, 08:27 PM
I'll do the probability figure on that happening...
1/4 (chances of Angels winning division during any given season)
1/4 (chances of Angels, after winning their division, winning the AL pennant)
1/10 (chances of the World Series being in Angels Stadium on any given year - assuming the MLB uses 10 different cities to rotate between which would be the 9 I listed earlier + Seattle)
(1/4) x (1/4) x (1/10) = .00625 or 0.625% or less than 1%.

And your idea about scheduling doubleheaders, that'd be pretty rough for teams that run into rainouts.
There is an energy that doesn't exist at the Superbowl that exists in the MLB playoffs. Seeing a crowd that is so into there team, vs seeing a semi neutral crowd is offset in the NFL in that...
1. There's one game
2. Everyone is watching that game on TV
3. It is at a time that everyone can watch it

The world series doesn't have what the superbowl has simply because there are 7 games (min 4) and they don't put it at a time where everyone can watch it.

Lip Man 1
11-09-2008, 08:27 PM
If you can afford to own a MLB team, you can afford to pay the going rate for players.

Owners choose not to spend money.

I always laugh when I hear owners "poor mouth" things....it's like owning a Corvette. If you buy it, don't complain about what the insurance costs.

Lip

Madscout
11-09-2008, 08:30 PM
If you can afford to own a MLB team, you can afford to pay the going rate for players.

Owners choose not to spend money.

I always laugh when I hear owners "poor mouth" things....it's like owning a Corvette. If you buy it, don't complain about what the insurance costs.

Lip
So owning the Yankees and getting the revenue that they do vs. owning the Marlins, there's no discrepancy there?

I'd want to bring the bottom up and the top down, so that everyone is more or less spending the same amount of resources.

turners56
11-09-2008, 08:31 PM
Before I start, I'll ask you guys to please avoid the DH or no DH debate. It is what it is, as dumb as it is to see 2 leagues in the same sport using 2 different sets of rules, it's not going to change anytime soon, if ever.

That being said, what would you change about the game? You can talk about anything from scheduling to how to determine home field advantages and from expanding rosters to setting a time limit inbetween pitches.


What would I change about the sport? Using the NFL's idea about assigning locations for the World Series years in advance. I know some will argue and say "well that's not fair because..." whatever, and that arguement gets shot down by my counter: how is it fair that an All-Star game determines home-field advantage? And our favorite team is in the AL so we won't complain, but for those in the NL, they haven't won not one of the last 12 All-Star Games!

Here is how I would set it; have it in warm weather cities because baseball is meant to be played in the summer, in beautiful weather. Also, rotate the locations from NL to AL stadiums each year. For example...
2009 - Angels Stadium
2010 - Pro Player Stadium
2011 - Oakland Coliseum
2012 - Chase Field
2013 - Tampa's new stadium by then
2014 - Miller Park
2015 - AT&T Park (use AL rules)
2015 - Rogers Centre
2016 - PetCo Park
and so on...

This will cost less money for MLB as there will be less traveling. The two opposing teams will fly into the city where the series will be held in and stay for a week or two until we crown a champion. Owners may complain as they'll want the ticket revenue for the World Series, but I'm sure they can work something out where each competing organization receives bigger bonuses or split the gate.

What do you guys think of this? And what are some ideas you guys have had?

Those aren't the best facilities to play baseball in.

Since the World Series is a series, it will be very hard to do that. I can understand it the WS was only one game, but having 7 games in only one location and having it as a neutral location all the time is bothersome. I say keep it the way it is except use the HH-AA-H-A-H format in the 7 game series instead of the way it is right now.

Whitesox029
11-09-2008, 08:37 PM
Wow... a lot of things in here that made me ask the question "are you kidding me??"

1) If the MLB used regular season records to determine who gets home-field advantage, ok, that works. If the MLB used a rotating system like they did before where the NL has home-field on year and the AL gets it the next year, ok, that works. But when they're using the All-Star Game as a way to determine home-field, NO, that's not fair at all when the AL is clearly the dominant league (11-0-1 in last 12 ASGs).

2) Why would you ask me if M's fans would watch the game if it were in Seattle? Who cares? You're telling me there were only Arizona Cardinals fans at last year's Super Bowl in Phoenix? People (either die hard baseall fans and/or fans of the two competing teams) would go to the site of the World Series on a vacation for a week, for the weekend, for a couple of days during the week, etc., to catch a game, or 2, or 7.

3) The MLB would figure out a way for fans of the two competing teams to get a better chance of buying tickets. Like they can hold a special sale to fans for a limited number of tickets at the box office of each team's stadium.
1) I didn't say anything about which league gets home field. I agree that it should alternate like it used to, rather than the sham of trying to make the all-star game "mean something." That doesn't mean it would have to be a neutral site.
2/3) a. Here is a better question. The World Series is White Sox vs. Giants. It's scheduled to be played in Oakland. Do you think the White Sox will have a home field advantage for any of these games?
b. Think about what you're saying. Who is going to buy nonrefundable plane tickets to Oakland for a game 7 that might not even be played?

Whitesox029
11-09-2008, 08:49 PM
I'll do the probability figure on that happening...
1/4 (chances of Angels winning division during any given season)
1/4 (chances of Angels, after winning their division, winning the AL pennant)
1/10 (chances of the World Series being in Angels Stadium on any given year - assuming the MLB uses 10 different cities to rotate between which would be the 9 I listed earlier + Seattle)
(1/4) x (1/4) x (1/10) = .00625 or 0.625% or less than 1%.

And your idea about scheduling doubleheaders, that'd be pretty rough for teams that run into rainouts.
Except that the chances of the Angels winning their division are greater than 1/4. You can say "oh, the chances are slim," but then when it happens, MLB has a total travesty on their hands, and absolutely no safety net. The vegas odds against the Rays winning the AL in '08 were a lot worse than .625%.

BadBobbyJenks
11-09-2008, 08:53 PM
One storm in a World Series and now there is a campaign to have neutral stadiums in the future. It is a horrible idea.

I would like to see the season shortened so the season ends in mid October, not November like next season.

WhiteSoxFan84
11-09-2008, 09:04 PM
Except that the chances of the Angels winning their division are greater than 1/4. You can say "oh, the chances are slim," but then when it happens, MLB has a total travesty on their hands, and absolutely no safety net. The vegas odds against the Rays winning the AL in '08 were a lot worse than .625%.

there are 4 teams in the AL West. I'm not talking about the current Angels squad or the one from 10 years ago. I'm talking about the Angels from the AL West which consists of 4 teams during any given season. Vegas odds are determined based on the teams constructed for the upcoming season.


One storm in a World Series and now there is a campaign to have neutral stadiums in the future. It is a horrible idea.

I would like to see the season shortened so the season ends in mid October, not November like next season.

Shortening the season will NEVER happen. The MLBPA and owners, hell anyone who's paycheck is signed by someone associated w/ the MLB will not allow that to happen. Less games = less revenue.


I like hearing all of you bash my idea, lol, but I'm not hearing many of your own ideas?

I'm surpised I haven't heard this one yet:
Make every round of the playoffs a best of 7.

Oblong
11-09-2008, 09:08 PM
Ideas I like so far:

A real commissioner.

Shorten the schedule to 154 games. That's a long shot, the only chance would be if you could get the playes to agree to a proportional pay cut but even then it doesn't have to be based on # of games. Revenue comesfrom TV, New Media, etc.

Switch up the rules in interleague play so that it's AL rules in NL parks and vice versa.

Get rid of all the off days in the postseason. Yes, all of them. Players fly into cities during the night and play that evening all season long. They can do it in the playoffs too. That could alleviate the need for shortening the schedule. Teams play virtually every day in the regular season and then when it's time to decide the champions they give off days. Pitching depth is important during the regular season but in the playoffs it's not as important if you have a couple of really great starters and/or relievers.

Tragg
11-09-2008, 09:10 PM
Selig had the right idea 5 years ago: contract the Twins.

LoveYourSuit
11-09-2008, 09:12 PM
One storm in a World Series and now there is a campaign to have neutral stadiums in the future. It is a horrible idea.

I would like to see the season shortened so the season ends in mid October, not November like next season.


1. No way on the set "destination" for the WS.

2. Start spring training in early February and the season in mid March and have cold weather teams play on the road for the first 3 weeks in warm weather cities (like those listed by the original poster). Also use the domes. Yes it will suck to start your season on a 15 game road trip but then you gain the advantage with a ton of warm home games down the stretch. Opposite for the March hosting teams.

3. Either do away with interleague or expand it for good like they have it in the NBA. This way a WS homefield advantage is determined by best record overall and not the joke we have today. Play each team in NL for 1 series each year and alternate the home/road every year. That's 48+ games of the schedule. The remaining 114 games will be al AL teams.

turners56
11-09-2008, 09:16 PM
Selig had the right idea 5 years ago: contract the Twins.

That would of been nice.

roylestillman
11-09-2008, 09:36 PM
NO NEUTRAL SITE EVER FOR THE WORLD SERIES!

If you were at either of the 2005 home games you'd understand why, even in the pouring rain and 39 degrees.

EuroSox35
11-09-2008, 09:46 PM
The schedule. Everyone plays each other (in your own league) twice at home and twice away. If my math is right you shorten the season a week that way (helps those people who whine about the playoffs ending too late, also doesn't make it as bad if you want to insert some WBC games or some World style champions league type games which I think would be cool). With that, I'd also get rid of divisions and just make the playoff teams the top 4, but that all counts in the umbrella of my one thing :p

guillen4life13
11-09-2008, 09:49 PM
I would never support neutral site hosting. If the Sox make the WS, I want at least a chance to see them play. The Super Bowl is different because the precedent is already set and the hype around it is so much more than the World Series. If there's bad weather, tough. At that time of year, pretty much anywhere you go in the country there's a chance of some huge storm or natural disaster taking place. Hurricanes still show up in November (ask the poor Cubans), earthquakes happen (so CA is not safe). The only places I can think of that you can really go are Texas and Arizona for failsafe weather.

I was also going to say that they should make the DS a best of 7. OR make the WS a best of 9 (HHH-AAAA-HH). Yeah I said it. They did it back in the day so there is a precedent. Revenues increase and I think it would be cool to have more World Series games.

I also think it would be cool to make interleague play more regular. Not a 50% ratio, but at least a 3 game series with every NL team, with there being another series for the "rivalry" game (so the Sox would play 3 games against all NL teams except the Cubs, with whom the Sox play 6 games).

I know this would get lots and lots of flak, but for every possible situation, computers or instant replay should be used. I don't buy the whole "sanctity of the game" argument about live umpires. Plays should be called the way they were and human error should not decide the outcome. At the very least, there should be a challenge opportunity for instant replay (similar to football) with a limit on the number of challenges afforded to each team.

WhiteSoxFan84
11-09-2008, 10:24 PM
I'll throw a few more out there...

1) Make the top 8 home run hitters at the All-Star Break be the eight that compete in the Home Run Derby. No BS excuses as to why those guys can't compete. The only way they would be excused is if they're on the DL when the HRD rolls around. I would say include family emergencies but then guys like Manny Ramirez would use that excuse every year when in reality he's hanging out with his buddies at some bar in New York.

2) Change the "save" rule. A closer coming in th 9th with his team up 7-4, then closing the game after giving up 2 runs, and being awarded a saveis a joke. Change it strictly to "if the tying run is on deck", so if the pitcher comes in and it's a 7-5 game, he can still give up 1 run and get credit for the save. That's more acceptable.

3) Expand instant replay. I know most of you, especially the old school guys, will hate this but it needs to be done. If you're going to review HRs, you need to start reviewing safe or out calls. I think it's very safe to say that safe or out mistakes occur a lot more frequently than home run or not mistakes.

chaerulez
11-09-2008, 10:51 PM
Wow... a lot of things in here that made me ask the question "are you kidding me??"

1) If the MLB used regular season records to determine who gets home-field advantage, ok, that works. If the MLB used a rotating system like they did before where the NL has home-field on year and the AL gets it the next year, ok, that works. But when they're using the All-Star Game as a way to determine home-field, NO, that's not fair at all when the AL is clearly the dominant league (11-0-1 in last 12 ASGs).

2) Why would you ask me if M's fans would watch the game if it were in Seattle? Who cares? You're telling me there were only Arizona Cardinals fans at last year's Super Bowl in Phoenix? People (either die hard baseall fans and/or fans of the two competing teams) would go to the site of the World Series on a vacation for a week, for the weekend, for a couple of days during the week, etc., to catch a game, or 2, or 7.

3) The MLB would figure out a way for fans of the two competing teams to get a better chance of buying tickets. Like they can hold a special sale to fans for a limited number of tickets at the box office of each team's stadium.

Well the Super Bowl is different. It's one event and a certain number of tickets are given to the participating teams to hand out to their fans. I think that's only half the attendance at most since a lot of tickets are picked up by the NFL and I believe the host stadium gets to allot a few thousand to their fans. But the main difference is that it's one game. The World Series can be anywhere from four to seven. Not many people are going to be able to travel out of state to attend the entire event. Logistically it wouldn't work. Not to mention teams build their club around their stadium. Fly ball pitchers are more likely to be sought after by teams in big pitcher friendly stadiums. The Padres probably won't want to invest in a pull hitting power lefty. The Twins have a big advantage playing in the Metrodome turf. A team with big gaps in the outfield might try to get good gap hitters. A neutral site World Series would be a really bad idea and I think it'd get received real negatively.

WhiteSoxFan84
11-09-2008, 11:00 PM
Well the Super Bowl is different. It's one event and a certain number of tickets are given to the participating teams to hand out to their fans. I think that's only half the attendance at most since a lot of tickets are picked up by the NFL and I believe the host stadium gets to allot a few thousand to their fans. But the main difference is that it's one game. The World Series can be anywhere from four to seven. Not many people are going to be able to travel out of state to attend the entire event. Logistically it wouldn't work. Not to mention teams build their club around their stadium. Fly ball pitchers are more likely to be sought after by teams in big pitcher friendly stadiums. The Padres probably won't want to invest in a pull hitting power lefty. The Twins have a big advantage playing in the Metrodome turf. A team with big gaps in the outfield might try to get good gap hitters. A neutral site World Series would be a really bad idea and I think it'd get received real negatively.

I agree that many would disagree (and everyone has so far lol) with the idea, but the part I placed in bold is a joke. I see what you're saying but you can't tell me that's in the minds of GMs when they sign a player. It's like saying the Yankees are thinking, "We want to sign CC so he could pitch games 1, 4, and 7 of the World Series, hopefully 1 and 7 will be at home and he'll keep the ball in the park especally against lefties". Ok, say they get lucky and everything pans out until the World Series. Game 1 starts and the wind is blowing out to RF at 25-30MPH. Guess what? Every lefty will hit a HR as long as they get the ball in the air.

You can make that argument for how a team is put together for the season but not specifically for the World Series.

Man if I ever come up with an invention or idea for the real world I'll throw it at you guys and wait for every possible negative outlook lol. You guys are amazing at that.

manders_01
11-09-2008, 11:03 PM
Get rid of all the off days in the postseason. Yes, all of them. Players fly into cities during the night and play that evening all season long. They can do it in the playoffs too. That could alleviate the need for shortening the schedule. Teams play virtually every day in the regular season and then when it's time to decide the champions they give off days. Pitching depth is important during the regular season but in the playoffs it's not as important if you have a couple of really great starters and/or relievers.

I'd be in favor of getting rid of most, if not all of the off days in the postseason. It's hard to get into the postseason with days off when I'm so used to being able to watch the Sox almost every day during the season.

1) Make the top 8 home run hitters at the All-Star Break be the eight that compete in the Home Run Derby. No BS excuses as to why those guys can't compete. The only way they would be excused is if they're on the DL when the HRD rolls around. I would say include family emergencies but then guys like Manny Ramirez would use that excuse every year when in reality he's hanging out with his buddies at some bar in New York.

How 'bout just getting rid of it? I mean really, what's the purpose? It's cool seeing the guys hit HR's but I can watch that during games.

hellview
11-09-2008, 11:03 PM
Shorten the season down 12 games and have the dimensions to every ballpark be the same.

WhiteSoxFan84
11-09-2008, 11:06 PM
How 'bout just getting rid of it? I mean really, what's the purpose? It's cool seeing the guys hit HR's but I can watch that during games.

Because it's pretty fun to watch. I'm guessing you also want to get rid of the slam dunk contest during the NBA All-Star Game?

We need to think of more competitions during the ASB, not eliminating probably the most appealing part of it.

HRD Pools are starting to pick up steam.
You might ask, "How do HRD Pools work?" Simply place the names of the 8 competitors on 8 small pieces of paper, fold them up, insert them in a bag hat or whatever, and have each person that wants to play pick a piece of paper. Whatever name you get is who you have for the Derby. If he wins, you win the total prize pool. At work we did $10 per person last year. I think I had Evan Longoria if he was even in it? Needless to say, I lost.

areilly
11-09-2008, 11:15 PM
Either balance the schedule or impose the NFL's practice of making last year's better teams play each other more.

voodoochile
11-09-2008, 11:20 PM
NO NEUTRAL SITE EVER FOR THE WORLD SERIES!

If you were at either of the 2005 home games you'd understand why, even in the pouring rain and 39 degrees.

I completely agree. Neutral sites for long series suck.

oeo
11-09-2008, 11:22 PM
Shorten the season down 12 games and have the dimensions to every ballpark be the same.

I'll give a typical hellview response: that is the dumbest thing I've ever read.

Why? :?:

Lip Man 1
11-09-2008, 11:24 PM
Madscout:

If the current Marlins owners honestly feel they can't compete, then sell the team to someone who can.

There's a lot of Mark Cuban's in America you know.

Sure market size has a factor, not denying that, but "will" plays a big part too and some of these owners just throw up their hands and say "we can't compete..." (while socking that revenue sharing money away by the bushel)

Well if you can't pay the piper, what are you doing in the game eh?

Basically you want a salary cap, which as Daver correctly states time and time again, is simply a way to guarantee owners more profits then they are already making.

No thank you.

Either get out of the game or get smarter like some other "small market" teams have done.

Lip

WhiteSoxFan84
11-10-2008, 12:33 AM
1) I didn't say anything about which league gets home field. I agree that it should alternate like it used to, rather than the sham of trying to make the all-star game "mean something." That doesn't mean it would have to be a neutral site.
2/3) a. Here is a better question. The World Series is White Sox vs. Giants. It's scheduled to be played in Oakland. Do you think the White Sox will have a home field advantage for any of these games?
b. Think about what you're saying. Who is going to buy nonrefundable plane tickets to Oakland for a game 7 that might not even be played?

a) What if that World Series was scheduled to be played in Milwaukee, now who has the advantage? Or how about it was scheduled in the Trop (Tampa's) or Pro Player, now is there even an advantage? It's easy to come up with worst case scenarios. But if you mean to tell me the Sox are the better team but don't beat the Giants because the series was played a few miles from San Fran and not a few miles from Chicago then the Sox were not the better team. I'm not saying home-field doesn't play a role, believe me I know it does, but those kinds of scenarios would only matter once in a while. And all it would take is a team with a "favorable location" losing the World Series once to burst that theory.

b) If you're going to commit your time and money to this you're not going to go halfass about it. You think people who plan to go to the Super Bowl months in advance want a refund after their team gets knocked out? Maybe a very small percentage do, but even they will still want to go. Each fan base of every team can come up with 20,000 people (assuming an avg ballpark can hold 40,000 people and 2 teams competing in the World Series so 20,000 x 2 = 40,000) who would be able to commit a week or 2 of vacation time right when Winter is about to invade to go watch their team compete in the World Series. What would have to happen here is that the MLB would have to give fans a week or so of time between the LCS's and the WS for fans of the two competing teams to try and snag up tickets at the last second. And I'm sure the MLB would love to work out some deal with airlines to set up some sort of "airplane ticket exchange" and/or some sort of "last minute ticket deal for MLB fans". Like United could be "the official airline of the MLB" and as soon as the World Series matchup is set (say it's the White Sox vs. the Mets and the World Series is in Angels Stadium), United would post special rates from Chicago to LA and NY to LA just for that week leading to the WS. Wow, I have really gone in deep with this idea...

Maybe I am the only one that finds this exciting and I'm probably wrong but I like it lol. And as for those comparing the MLB to the NFL, please stop. The two have nothing in common other than fans. MLB teams play 162 games a year, NFL teams play 16. That's over a 10:1 ratio! I only used the NFL process of presetting/rotating Super Bowl sites as an example.

Sox4ever77
11-10-2008, 01:44 AM
I'll give a typical hellview response: that is the dumbest thing I've ever read.

Why? :?:


Umm maybe because everything has a standard distance. It's not 90ft to 1st in the AL and 75ft to 1st in the NL. It's 90ft everywhere. Why shouldn't HR distance be the same?

A ball at 325ft at RF is a HR, in Yankee Stadium but at another park it is a long out.

Nellie_Fox
11-10-2008, 02:02 AM
Umm maybe because everything has a standard distance. It's not 90ft to 1st in the AL and 75ft to 1st in the NL. It's 90ft everywhere. Why shouldn't HR distance be the same?

A ball at 325ft at RF is a HR in Yankee Stadium, but at another park it is a long out.And that is one of the wonderful, unique things about baseball. You could play the game anywhere, and the game adapted to the requirements of the field that was available. I'd love to see some 460' center fields again.

LITTLE NELL
11-10-2008, 05:09 AM
Go back to a 154 game schedule. Games in April and the World Series should not be played in football type weather.

goofymsfan
11-10-2008, 06:31 AM
I would change the payroll rules to be more like the NFL, to make more teams competative for more players, so the Yanks and Sawks wouldn't just have whatever FA they want.

I completely agree with this.

eastchicagosoxfan
11-10-2008, 07:06 AM
More double headers would allow the 162 game schedule to continue. Two a month would easily allow the playoffs to start a week earlier. The twinbills also test a teams depth.

Irishsoxfan
11-10-2008, 07:40 AM
Only ONE thing... then I'd get rid of interleague play

aryzner
11-10-2008, 08:12 AM
I'm going for the aesthetically pleasing aspect here...

I'd make knee-high socks mandatory just because I love the way that looks and I feel that's the way a baseball uniform is supposed to look.

doublem23
11-10-2008, 08:20 AM
Get rid of all the off days in the postseason. Yes, all of them. Players fly into cities during the night and play that evening all season long. They can do it in the playoffs too. That could alleviate the need for shortening the schedule. Teams play virtually every day in the regular season and then when it's time to decide the champions they give off days. Pitching depth is important during the regular season but in the playoffs it's not as important if you have a couple of really great starters and/or relievers.

That's it... The baseball play-offs should take, at max, about 2 weeks. There's no need to draw it out for an entire month.

doublem23
11-10-2008, 08:24 AM
Shorten the season down 12 games and have the dimensions to every ballpark be the same.

Maybe while we're at it, we should lift all stadiums on giant swivels so that the wind blows the same way for every game of the season. :rolleyes:

Lundind1
11-10-2008, 08:29 AM
Maybe while we're at it, we should lift all stadiums on giant swivels so that the wind blows the same way for every game of the season. :rolleyes:

That would solve the problem of not being able to see the Downtown at the Cell that I see people talking about so much!!!

Red Barchetta
11-10-2008, 08:31 AM
I would like TWO things changed:

1.) Balance the divisions to five teams each and then have inter-league played throughout the season.

2.) Shorten the regular season perhaps down to 160 games and have the divisional series extended to 7 games.

Oblong
11-10-2008, 08:31 AM
If they ever went to a neutral site WS I bet you'd see a considerable drop off in season ticket holders. I know I'd consider cancelling. One of the big reasons why I do it now is if by chance the team makes it then I'll get to go. Without that perk then why bother? Just pick the 30 or so games you want. And I don't think I'm alone.

oeo
11-10-2008, 08:43 AM
And that is one of the wonderful, unique things about baseball. You could play the game anywhere, and the game adapted to the requirements of the field that was available. I'd love to see some 460' center fields again.

Exactly.

I'd like to see some of the nooks and crannies taken out of the new parks, but the different dimensions of ballparks is one thing that sets baseball apart from other sports. It's something that's always been there, and should never change.

hellview
11-10-2008, 08:44 AM
Maybe while we're at it, we should lift all stadiums on giant swivels so that the wind blows the same way for every game of the season. :rolleyes:

That's just a stupid idea, what kind of moron would want that.

MeteorsSox4367
11-10-2008, 09:47 AM
I don't know if it's been mentioned before in the thread, but I'd like any thoughts of moving the World Series to a neutral site quashed. There was some talk on ESPN Radio about making it "like a Super Bowl" and moving the Series to warm-weather sites.

I think that's crap. Teams work all season for home-field advantage and they and their fans should be rewarded with home games in the World Series.

goofymsfan
11-10-2008, 10:10 AM
I'm going for the aesthetically pleasing aspect here...

I'd make knee-high socks mandatory just because I love the way that looks and I feel that's the way a baseball uniform is supposed to look.

I like that Idea as well. It's a classic look.

No, to neutral site WS.

I like the idea as long (as interleague play continues) to have AL rules in the NL parks and NL rules in the AL parks. It would give people that generally one get to see one style of play and don't travel to other parks to see a little bit different game.

I wish there were more pitchers type parks. Make the homerun something you have to earn. It would force teams to build their teams different with more of an emphasis on speed and I think you would see more basestealing going on.

TV should not dictate the speed of the game. The game should dictate the TV schedule.

During a couple of minor leauge games the person sitting next to me and I came up with some fun ideas of ways to speed up the game.

1) If a pitcher throws to 1st base for a pick off move, it's counted as a ball to the batter.

2) The batter can only call time once during his at bat.

3) If a pop up is hit into the stands, if a fan catches it cleanly, it's an out.

4) There is a pitch clock so that the pitcher has to pitch the ball within a certain amount of time.

PKalltheway
11-10-2008, 10:14 AM
Two things:
Get rid of this team:
http://florida.marlins.mlb.com/fla/photo/community/billy_top.jpg

and get rid of one more team. Keep interleague, but have everybody play each other at least once during the season. Interleague isn't going away anytime soon, and the novelty has already worn off, so why not just make it play a bigger part in the schedule?

Oh yeah, and neutral site World Series= lame.

whitesox901
11-10-2008, 10:18 AM
I like the idea of getting rid of two teams, prob isnt going to happen though

Rockabilly
11-10-2008, 10:22 AM
I would put Sox and Cubs in the same division.. than these teams would also be in it

Stl Cards
Brewers
Twins
Tigers
Royals

every team with a DH

veeter
11-10-2008, 10:51 AM
Never allowing the cubs to play "road" games at Miller Park.

ChiSoxFan81
11-10-2008, 11:10 AM
For everyone complaining about the ASG deciding HFA for the WS:

You realize that the Sox would have been in Houston for games 1 and 2 if the every-other-year formula was still being used, right?

While I agree that the ASG deciding this is silly, I think the flip-flop method is ridiculous too. It should go to the team in either league that finished with a better record, just like how they seed the playoffs. A wild card team with a better record than a division winner still would not get HFA. If the records were identical, use head-to-head (if possible) or some other tiebreaker, maybe the higher seed in their league. At least this makes a little bit of sense, even if interleague is limited during the season. The NBA and NHL use this method, so why not MLB (again, I realize that all the teams don't play each other)? Selig says it's too much hassle to get everything together on short notice, yet the other leagues do it. And there's usually a week of down time before the WS starts anyways.

Sox4ever77
11-10-2008, 11:18 AM
And that is one of the wonderful, unique things about baseball. You could play the game anywhere, and the game adapted to the requirements of the field that was available. I'd love to see some 460' center fields again.


Then have a rule that bases can be set at any distance. So when the Sox have a fast team put the bases at 75ft, so the speedsters will beat out IF hits, steal bases, and run the other team to death.

doublem23
11-10-2008, 11:23 AM
Then have a rule that bases can be set at any distance. So when the Sox have a fast team put the bases at 75ft, so the speedsters will beat out IF hits, steal bases, and run the other team to death.

I can't believe there are actually people arguing over making every park a cookie-cutter.

One of the greatest things about baseball is that every park is wonderful and unique. That's why people want to go see other team's parks... I have no interest in going to a game at any other NBA stadium, NHL rink, and about 95% of NFL stadiums because they're all the same. But I would love to see every MLB park.

Why would you want them all to be the same? This is a case of sabermetrics running wild.

Moses_Scurry
11-10-2008, 11:28 AM
Landmines in the outfield. No flags to mark their whereabouts.

RockyMtnSoxFan
11-10-2008, 11:32 AM
I don't see the Marlins going away. You'd have to get rid of another team, most likely in the NL unless you want to move another team from the NL to the AL. What team would that be? The Nationals would have been a logical choice 5 years ago, but they just built a new stadium. The Pirates? They've been around since the beginning. San Diego? Houston? I can't see either of those teams disappearing. The best choice would be to take the team away from Loria and perhaps move it.

I think home field should be determined the same way for the World Series as it was for the earlier rounds: regular season record. A wild card team would be on the road, unless both teams had won the wild card, in which case record would again be the deciding factor. The regular season should count for something.

I like the idea of shortening the regular season, particular an earlier idea of expanding rosters to 30 and scheduling doubleheaders prior to off days. I think the fans would like this; my dad has told me about attending doubleheaders when he was a kid. That would help keep the World Series from occurring in late October. Also, screw Fox. Baseball shouldn't have to sacrifice quality to pander to their greedy desires. Condense the post season schedule, eliminate unnecessary off days. I still think the 9 day layoff had something to do with the Rockies getting swept last year.

Sox4ever77
11-10-2008, 12:01 PM
I can't believe there are actually people arguing over making every park a cookie-cutter.

One of the greatest things about baseball is that every park is wonderful and unique. That's why people want to go see other team's parks... I have no interest in going to a game at any other NBA stadium, NHL rink, and about 95% of NFL stadiums because they're all the same. But I would love to see every MLB park.

Why would you want them all to be the same? This is a case of sabermetrics running wild.


You don't see the irony, in that there are some distances that are the same everywhere (between bases and mound to home) but others that are not? (OF distances)

khan
11-10-2008, 12:13 PM
Any ONE thing? Wow, that's tough. For me it would have to be any of the following:

1. Institute an International Draft, thereby eliminating the Sawx/yanquis' big advantage in signing foreign youngsters.

OR

2. Formalize a transfer agreement between other nations' professional leagues. [The posting system between MLB and Japan is insufficient, IMO.]

OR

3. Institute both a salary cap AND a salary minimum for clubs in MLB. [Eliminates both the pikers like Schittburg, who haven't bothered to try in ~20 years, as well as the salary-accelerating types like the sawx/yanquis.]

OR

4. Hire an ACTUAL commissioner, voted upon by BOTH the players' union AND the ownership.

OR

5. Enable teams to trade draft picks, so that crappy teams can improve their clubs, and not merely draft the most "signable" player every year.

OR

6. Institute a monthly Nickel Beer Night if your team sucks and is out of contention by July. This MLB-enforced promotion must be held separately from Thirsty Thursdays, wherin all booze is half price at the ballpark.

mrfourni
11-10-2008, 01:03 PM
Move the Marlins to Vegas. Have them play in the AL West. Move the Pirates to the NL east.

Balances the divisions and makes for a fun Sox road trip every year.

Madscout
11-10-2008, 01:10 PM
Move the Marlins to Vegas. Have them play in the AL West. Move the Pirates to the NL east.

Balances the divisions and makes for a fun Sox road trip every year.
Good one.

doublem23
11-10-2008, 01:15 PM
Move the Marlins to Vegas. Have them play in the AL West. Move the Pirates to the NL east.

Balances the divisions and makes for a fun Sox road trip every year.

And have interleague games all year long? No thank you.

doublem23
11-10-2008, 01:23 PM
You don't see the irony, in that there are some distances that are the same everywhere (between bases and mound to home) but others that are not? (OF distances)

No, that's one of the great things about the game. What little you gain in the greater standardization of statistics is greatly outweighed by the fact that you'd shatter one of the unique things about baseball, that every park is truly different than any other one. Why would you want to further sterilize the game?

I'll agree that there should be some ground rules and you should be forced to stick to them (the short LF wall in Houston, IIRC, was too short by league rules but Bud gave the Astros permission to build the park anyway), but turning every park into a bland, cookie cutter would be a terrible move, IMO.

areilly
11-10-2008, 01:33 PM
Landmines in the outfield. No flags to mark their whereabouts.

I'd like to add to this that a player on each team gets to use a taser exactly once during the game, but the players' identities aren't revealed beforehand.

SOXPHILE
11-10-2008, 01:37 PM
Contract the Cubs. Stricken all their records from the books. Outlaw any and all paraphanalia from them. Tear down the Urinal and build a MLB theme indoor/outdoor waterpark, (sans any Cubs references).

Jimmy Piersall
11-10-2008, 01:56 PM
Contract the Cubs. Stricken all their records from the books. Outlaw any and all paraphanalia from them. Tear down the Urinal and build a MLB theme indoor/outdoor waterpark, (sans any Cubs references).

:tiphat:

TDog
11-10-2008, 02:03 PM
In a word, no. Having not grown up as a fan of the NFL, I despise the idea of a neutral-site championship. ...

I concur. Were people who attended Game 2 of the 2005 World Series complaining that the game should have been played in Anaheim ... or Houston?

The NFL plays a neutral-site championship because the sport evolved from a different tradition. Baseball was a game that grew out of community clubs of young adults. Teams didn't meet on neutral grounds unless those grounds were shared. When two leagues faced in the first World Series more than a century ago, the teams went back and fourth. The Polo Grounds and Sportsman's Park in St. Louis have been neutral sites for the World Series in that they were parks both teams considered home. In the NFL, if the two New York teams were to face each other in the Super Bowl, they could be playing on the West Coast.

The NFL grew out of college football, which, as I understand it, was more popular than its professional counterpart into the 1050s. The NFL didn't have neutral sites championships before the Super Bowl. When I was a kid in Dallas, quite a bit was made about a championship played on a cold day in Green Bay. When the NFL and the AFL agreed to play a postseason championship (where records would mean little to determine home-field advantage anyway because they played entirely different schedules), they followed the college football tradition of a bowl game. The Rose Bowl was first played as a special event in 1902 and became an annual event in 1916. Other warm-weather locations followed. The NFL, picked up this tradition and kept it in place even after the AFL was absorbed by the NFL.

It's really kind of silly when you think about it for a professional sports team to play a neutral-field championship, but one game is one game. Hype it up. Even if the game doesn't live up to the hype, there is no tomorrow to hype. In football there is a myth of fairness. All of the stadiums have the same dimensions. The game begins -- even overtime begins -- with a coin flip. Et cetera.

Playing a World Series that could go anywhere from four to seven games at a neutral site that may have no connection to either team would be a ridiculous idea. And, as I nearly stated earlier, I'm happy the White Sox didn't have to play the entire 2005 World Series in Houston.

With teams alternating between home fields, I think it would be nearly as ridiculous to award home-field advantage to the team with the best record. They play in different leagues. Their schedules don't line up. I like having the All-Star Game decide where the World Series will begin because it is less arbitrary than a coin toss, which is less arbitrary than having the team with the best record have home-field advantage.

And the advantage means little in the World Series. The American League has had a lock on home-field advantage in recent years, it played little role in the White Sox and Red Sox sweeping when they got to the World Series, or the Phillies or Cardinals winning their World Series in five games.

If the NFL is a model for the way sports should be run, why isn't baseball playing its All-Star Game in Hawaii?

ChiSoxFan81
11-10-2008, 02:04 PM
Landmines in the outfield. No flags to mark their whereabouts.

Erect plexiglass walls and roofs over the crowd. No foul balls. All balls playable once rebounding off the glass. Also, trampolines in the outfield to make more balls catchable, and allow a team consisting entirely of robots.

I can't believe there are actually people arguing over making every park a cookie-cutter.


Seriously. This is part of the intrigue of baseball. What standard dimensions do people suggest? 330 down the lines, 400 to center? Or harken back to the old days, 250 down the lines, 500 to center? How about just go real old school and not have any fences at all? As a hitter or defender, you have to adjust to the field you're playing on. If dimensions were standardized, baseball would become predictable and boring.

manders_01
11-10-2008, 02:25 PM
Because it's pretty fun to watch. I'm guessing you also want to get rid of the slam dunk contest during the NBA All-Star Game?

We need to think of more competitions during the ASB, not eliminating probably the most appealing part of it.

HRD Pools are starting to pick up steam.
You might ask, "How do HRD Pools work?" Simply place the names of the 8 competitors on 8 small pieces of paper, fold them up, insert them in a bag hat or whatever, and have each person that wants to play pick a piece of paper. Whatever name you get is who you have for the Derby. If he wins, you win the total prize pool. At work we did $10 per person last year. I think I had Evan Longoria if he was even in it? Needless to say, I lost.

I don't really watch the NBA slam dunk contest but IMO, you're comparing apples to oranges. Unless the batters can starting running to the plate and spinning prior to hitting, fancy moves, etc., HR's look virtually the same in the contest as they do during the games. The slam dunk contest does not.

Oblong
11-10-2008, 02:38 PM
The only reason people in the media want a neutral site for the WS is so that they can party in a warm city for a week or 10 days.

WSox597
11-10-2008, 03:50 PM
I'll throw a few more out there...

SNIP

3) Expand instant replay. I know most of you, especially the old school guys, will hate this but it needs to be done. If you're going to review HRs, you need to start reviewing safe or out calls. I think it's very safe to say that safe or out mistakes occur a lot more frequently than home run or not mistakes.

I can be considered old school, at 56, and I agree with you.

The umps are the worse part of MLB. Sometimes, like the old jokes, you wonder which game they're watching. They're flat out terrible sometimes. Some of the blown calls you see are unbelievably bad.

I'm all for instant replay. Maybe not for every play, but for close plays definitely.

Add to that the fact you can't argue with the idiots, and they have way too much influence on the game. If we know their names, they're making themselves into stars, and that shouldn't be.

The umpire as star pretty much started with Luciano's book, "The umpire strikes back". They're better suited to anonymity, just make the calls and go away quietly.

But make the calls accurately, thank you.

TDog
11-10-2008, 03:52 PM
Move the Marlins to Vegas. Have them play in the AL West. Move the Pirates to the NL east.

Balances the divisions and makes for a fun Sox road trip every year.

If Las Vegas had a major league baseball team, the one change I would make to baseball would be to contract the team in Las Vegas.

swish
11-10-2008, 03:57 PM
NFL teams only play 8 games at home, where as MLB teams play 81. They earn the right to host a world series in their stadium.

russ99
11-10-2008, 04:33 PM
I'll go with eliminating these god-awful blackout rules. If you pay to see a game online, you should be able to see any game anywhere. I'd even pay extra for the privilege.

Eddo144
11-10-2008, 04:44 PM
NFL teams only play 8 games at home, where as MLB teams play 81. They earn the right to host a world series in their stadium.
I suppose, but the main reason why the NFL plays its championship at a neutral site is that it's just one game. In a one-game series, home field advantage is magnified, and thus, unfair. Notice that college football has always done the same (neutral-field bowl sites).

And remember, the hype for the Super Bowl happened after the neutral site was decided upon. The first few Super Bowls were not major events, but rather afterthoughts to the respective conference championships.


Now, if I could change one thing it would be to make baseball less resistant to change. Strategies change every year in the NFL (look at the wildcat formation, or the West Coast Offense, or the cover-2 defense). Ditto for the NBA (the Pistons of the late 80s and Knicks of the mid-90s used a slow-down, physical style; the NBA has adapted its rules to prevent it). MLB has this attitude of "it's always been this way, so it must be right", ignoring the fact that the game 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago, was much different. Until about 1925, the game was played using substandard gloves, so slap hitting was much more effective, as fielders couldn't make plays. Until the 1980s, players didn't condition in the offseason as much, so players wouldn't hit for as much power (steroids undeniably played a role, as well, but baseball turned a blind eye). Yet most front offices refuse to acknowledge that baseball during Ty Cobb's era is not the same as baseball during Albert Pujols's era.

PalehosePlanet
11-10-2008, 05:33 PM
I'd like to get rid of inter-league play and go back to the balanced schedule. Also I'd like to ditch the divisions and go to strictly an AL and an NL format. Top 4 teams from each league make the playoffs (1 vs 4, 2 vs 3.)

I want Mags back
11-10-2008, 05:53 PM
3. Either do away with interleague or expand it for good like they have it in the NBA. This way a WS homefield advantage is determined by best record overall and not the joke we have today. Play each team in NL for 1 series each year and alternate the home/road every year. That's 48+ games of the schedule. The remaining 114 games will be al AL teams.

yes. I'd also like to see the leagues become more into conferences and have everyone play everyone. I might do home and home for the teams within the opposite division so the Cubs/Sox would always be on both sides of town (same for Yankees/Mets, Dodgers/angels, etc.)

cub killer
11-10-2008, 06:05 PM
NO to neutral site World Series. That idea shouldn't be brought up again.

YES to starting the season in mid-March at warm weather ballparks. I still can't believe the Indians' snow-outs occurred. Stupid MLB, just stupid. With a mid-March start, you can now have 7-game LDS.


Here's an idea never brought up before: shake up the All Star Game. Instead of NL vs AL next year, have it Midwest vs The Coasts. That is, all-stars from St. Louis (next year's host) and the 14 closest teams to Stl vs all-stars from the rest of the teams in MLB. I think it'd be a welcome change of pace. Central Division rivals from both leagues would be teammates. If it doesn't work, go back to NL vs AL the next year.

PKalltheway
11-10-2008, 06:16 PM
NO to neutral site World Series. That idea shouldn't be brought up again.

YES to starting the season in mid-March at warm weather ballparks. I still can't believe the Indians' snow-outs occurred. Stupid MLB, just stupid. With a mid-March start, you can now have 7-game LDS.

Weather in late March/early April is just as unpredictable as late October/early November weather. Besides, what happened in Cleveland is something that rarely, rarely, ever happens. In the midwest as most of us here already know, there can be a high of 42 degrees and windy on Opening Day just as easily as it can be 68 degrees and sunny. Also, it can still rain in warm weather cities at the beginning of the season anyway. You can't really schedule around Mother Nature.

WhiteSoxFan84
11-10-2008, 06:53 PM
I don't really watch the NBA slam dunk contest but IMO, you're comparing apples to oranges. Unless the batters can starting running to the plate and spinning prior to hitting, fancy moves, etc., HR's look virtually the same in the contest as they do during the games. The slam dunk contest does not.


Good point. I thought about the "creativity" factor afterwards. But I like what you suggested about coming up with creative ways to swing (running up to the plate, swinging with one hand, etc.). I doubt it would work in a HRD lol. Maybe a "Trick Hits/Directional Hitting Competition" where the players have to hit the ball to a certain direction like in the game MVP Baseball. Or crazy throwing competitions; make outfielders have to throw a ball from the deepest part of centerfield all the way into a bucket that awaits that at 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and then finally home, in order. The player to complete this task the fastest wins.

I guess the main reason I came up with this thread is although I love the game and will always love it, a little change would be nice. Maybe a new commissioner alone will suffice? lol

manders_01
11-10-2008, 10:39 PM
Good point. I thought about the "creativity" factor afterwards. But I like what you suggested about coming up with creative ways to swing (running up to the plate, swinging with one hand, etc.). I doubt it would work in a HRD lol. Maybe a "Trick Hits/Directional Hitting Competition" where the players have to hit the ball to a certain direction like in the game MVP Baseball. Or crazy throwing competitions; make outfielders have to throw a ball from the deepest part of centerfield all the way into a bucket that awaits that at 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and then finally home, in order. The player to complete this task the fastest wins.

I guess the main reason I came up with this thread is although I love the game and will always love it, a little change would be nice. Maybe a new commissioner alone will suffice? lol

Now that I could completely get behind, no questions asked! :D:

thomas35forever
11-11-2008, 12:24 AM
All teams must have the same national exposure. People aren't going to watch the World Series if all you do is hype the Red Sox, Yankees, and Cubs and none of those teams are in. If Bud Selig was smart, he'd be aware of this problem. Then again, he'll just pretend he can't hear you if you ever bring it up to him.:rolleyes:

doublem23
11-11-2008, 08:17 AM
NO to neutral site World Series. That idea shouldn't be brought up again.

YES to starting the season in mid-March at warm weather ballparks. I still can't believe the Indians' snow-outs occurred. Stupid MLB, just stupid. With a mid-March start, you can now have 7-game LDS.


Here's an idea never brought up before: shake up the All Star Game. Instead of NL vs AL next year, have it Midwest vs The Coasts. That is, all-stars from St. Louis (next year's host) and the 14 closest teams to Stl vs all-stars from the rest of the teams in MLB. I think it'd be a welcome change of pace. Central Division rivals from both leagues would be teammates. If it doesn't work, go back to NL vs AL the next year.

We've been over this time and time again, warm-weather/dome teams wouldn't be willing to give up primo mid-summer games in favor of the usually lackluster early season games, so no dice.

And, IMO, your All-Star game proposal sucks.

SOXSINCE'70
11-11-2008, 09:28 AM
I wish that TV didn't dictate how the pace of the game would be played. Really there is no reason for a game to go much beyond 2 and a half hours, but in the playoffs every game is AT LEAST three hours...I guess my complaint is two things: TV (specifically Fox's) power over the game and the ball is still too lively.

Get a real honest to God baseball commissioner...not a stupid stooge.

Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.




1. The playoff games I watch take almost FOUR FLIPPIN' HOURS!!
Fox really has to cut this down,but I know they won't.

2.Lip, I've been screaming about this to anyone who'd listen for the last 13 years. Allan Selig was a used car salesman at one time,and he has attempted (and succeeded) in turning the game of baseball into a joke,at least in the time category. Why does a 9 inning ,2-1 or 1-0 game have to take 3 freakin' hours?? Fox advertisements!!

the gooch
11-12-2008, 01:23 AM
Only one thing? Impossible. But first would be to wipe ESPN from the face of the Earth.

Then I would go with a 156 game balanced schedule that includes: ALL regular season series are 3 games. AL has Mondays off, NL has Thursdays off. Most teams (two AL teams get a 'bonus') get two interleague series per year - one against your 'rival', and one against another team.

WS home field would be determined by combined league record in interleague play (ASG is tiebreaker).

Strict slot money in the draft. International players are allowed in the draft, but service time in a MLB recognized league overseas counts toward service time. Example: 5 yrs in Japan = 3 yrs in MLB (players not Arb Eligible until after first yr.)

After introductions, the stadium gets a PA announcer and an organ and that's it. Deal with it.

NO additional time given for 7th inning stretch. Take Me Out to the Ballgame takes no longer to sing than the average commercial break.


Now for two crazies, but I do whole-heartedly endorse the robot team recommendation.

Pitchers have a 'shot clock' (penalty is a ball), but don't have to wait for batters to get back in the box between each pitch (batters get one timeout per at bat, but if it is called during the pitcher's windup he gets to chuck the ball at the batter's ear).

All teams would be forced to have only one TV announcer (sorry steve) who would get a maximum of 2 innings with a guest in the booth. Three announcers in the booth at any time, tv or radio, is punishable by death.

And, finally, **** the DH.

I want Mags back
11-12-2008, 07:15 AM
Here's an idea never brought up before: shake up the All Star Game. Instead of NL vs AL next year, have it Midwest vs The Coasts. That is, all-stars from St. Louis (next year's host) and the 14 closest teams to Stl vs all-stars from the rest of the teams in MLB. I think it'd be a welcome change of pace. Central Division rivals from both leagues would be teammates. If it doesn't work, go back to NL vs AL the next year.

my goodness is that an awful idea

kitekrazy
11-12-2008, 11:11 AM
I would change the payroll rules to be more like the NFL, to make more teams competative for more players, so the Yanks and Sawks wouldn't just have whatever FA they want.

Get rid of guaranteed contracts.

1. Real commissioner
2. No guaranteed contracts
3. No DH

chisox616
11-12-2008, 01:40 PM
I would never make the HRD mandatory. Doesn't that really mess with your timing? I mean...yeah, Hamilton knocked what, 30 or so big ones at the HRD... But didn't his performance drop off dramatically afterwards?

cub killer
11-12-2008, 10:08 PM
my goodness is that an awful idea

Why, what's the big deal? AL vs NL gets stale after a while

WhiteSoxFan84
11-12-2008, 10:32 PM
How about this one....

Expand the playoffs to 6 teams per league and give the best 2 records of division winners a bye in the first round of the playoffs. I think this eliminates one thing people hate about the current playoff system which is how one division in each league ends up being very weak and sending a team to the playoffs with 86 or less wins while teams with 86-92 wins stay home because their division was very strong.

Lundind1
11-12-2008, 11:52 PM
How about this one....

Expand the playoffs to 6 teams per league and give the best 2 records of division winners a bye in the first round of the playoffs. I think this eliminates one thing people hate about the current playoff system which is how one division in each league ends up being very weak and sending a team to the playoffs with 86 or less wins while teams with 86-92 wins stay home because their division was very strong.

In theory that is a good idea but then if that were the case then why not eliminate division play and just take the 4 or 6 best records from the NL and 4 or 6 from the AL and being the playoffs like that? That would be just like really getting the two best teams in the WS.

MrT27
11-13-2008, 12:06 AM
Here is one. Have a rule like hockey where people aren't allowed out to the concourse/back to their seats unless there is a stoppage in play. There are plenty through out the game from different innings to HR's, to changing pitchers.

goofymsfan
11-13-2008, 06:56 AM
Here is one. Have a rule like hockey where people aren't allowed out to the concourse/back to their seats unless there is a stoppage in play. There are plenty through out the game from different innings to HR's, to changing pitchers.

There are some stadiums that will not allow you to go down to your seat until there is a stoppage. Sadly, they still don't stop the people from leaving and going to the concourse while play is going on.

ChiSoxFan81
11-13-2008, 10:19 AM
Here is one. Have a rule like hockey where people aren't allowed out to the concourse/back to their seats unless there is a stoppage in play. There are plenty through out the game from different innings to HR's, to changing pitchers.

I concur. My cousin has season tix and gave me his seats for a game last year down the 1st base line, about 4 rows from the concourse. All damn game people were walking in front of our sight line. I'd rather sit in the upper deck than have to deal with that crap all year.

esbrechtel
11-13-2008, 11:17 AM
I would never make the HRD mandatory. Doesn't that really mess with your timing? I mean...yeah, Hamilton knocked what, 30 or so big ones at the HRD... But didn't his performance drop off dramatically afterwards?


IMO that is just an excuse....more often than not when you go watch batting practice what are the homerun hitters trying to do? Kill the ball hit it as far as they can.

I do think they should change the format. Like batting practice. See 5 pitches throw in the next guy. That guy sees 5 pitches go back to the first guy, etc....

Anyone who says the Homerun derby screws up their swing is just a guy looking for an excuse...

Oblong
11-13-2008, 02:50 PM
Here is one. Have a rule like hockey where people aren't allowed out to the concourse/back to their seats unless there is a stoppage in play. There are plenty through out the game from different innings to HR's, to changing pitchers.

The problem is the stoppages of play don't last very long. If someone's got seats 10 rows up or 10 rows down, by the time they get up to the fifth or sixth row, play resumes.

Lundind1
11-13-2008, 05:18 PM
Here is one. Have a rule like hockey where people aren't allowed out to the concourse/back to their seats unless there is a stoppage in play. There are plenty through out the game from different innings to HR's, to changing pitchers.

We had this discussion already on this board earlier this year. It involved stadium and courtesy. I did notice that I didn't have a much of a problem with it the 2nd half of the year as I did in the first.

Someone was talking about how they were 4 rows from the concourse on the lower level on this thread too. Earlier in the year, my girlfriend and I were moved down to the lower level as part of that "upgrade you real estate with Coldwell Banker thing". That was the worst and why I like being behind home in the upper deck for my season seats. People were moving constantly.

Railsplitter
11-14-2008, 09:29 AM
Alternate "home field advantage" in the Wiorld Series between the leagues. It worked well for 100 years. There are plenty of teams who have Swept the series or wrapped up a game 7 on the road.

ode to veeck
11-14-2008, 10:02 AM
Get a real honest to God baseball commissioner...not a stupid stooge.

Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

Lip

took the words outa my mouth

ode to veeck
11-14-2008, 10:03 AM
If you can afford to own a MLB team, you can afford to pay the going rate for players.

Owners choose not to spend money.

I always laugh when I hear owners "poor mouth" things....it's like owning a Corvette. If you buy it, don't complain about what the insurance costs.

Lip

my #1 pick is eliminate the anti-trust exemption and have baseball open their books for real

downstairs
11-14-2008, 10:07 AM
I've said it before... use the total interleague records for all teams combined to determine home field in the World Series.

This gives many benefits:

1. Its the most fair determination of the "best" team in the World Series I can think of. A team's record is irrelevant, they play 90% of their games in one league. All-star game is just a dumb idea. But total interleague does a good job of determining the best league. So the champ of that league can most likely be considered better than their world series opponent.

2. Adds excitement to every interleague game, and while all interleague games are being played for a week- we'd all be watching every one of them and tallying our league's record.