PDA

View Full Version : It's time to shorten the season


SoxxoS
04-07-2003, 12:58 PM
With the current weather in the country, it is obvious that starting the first week of April just doesn't cut it. The winter March leftovers are still prevelent in early April.
All these postponments, and especially the lack of attendance for home openers, are not worth the headaches for everybody involved with baseball.
162 games is A LOT of games, as we all know. What would be the harm of shortening the season to 150 games, thereby starting the season about april 14th? The weather really changes for the midwest and northeast about halfway through the month.
Case and point-Chicago's weather for the next 10 days be weather.com-

37
39
47
55
60
59
63
63
63-April 15th.

Hey, I get itching to see the White Sox in March too, but I think shortening the schedule to 150 games would be better all around.

thecell
04-07-2003, 01:06 PM
That'll never happen. The owners would lose out on too much money. Anyway, that's why a lot of the northern teams open in the south on the road. I was kind of surprised to see the Sox open this early at home. They don't usually get back to Chicago until around the 12th. And if they cut it down to 150 games, Shammy's home run total would be impacted. :o:

czalgosz
04-07-2003, 01:21 PM
I personally would like to see them either eliminate a playoff round, reintroduce the scheduled doubleheader, or both, but neither will happen.

Shortening the season would screw up single-season records too much. Baseball is too oriented on single-season leaders to screw around with season length. Could you imagine if the season was 150 games long and Edgar Martinez hit .398? Or if Sosa hit 72 homers? There would be an outcry.

There's a reason there's so many scheduled days off in the early part of the season - they plan on bad weather happening. There's no need to change things around.

SoxxoS
04-07-2003, 01:23 PM
I never thought about it from a records perspective...

jortafan
04-07-2003, 01:43 PM
If they were going to lose a few games off the season, it would make more sense to take them from the end. I have more of a problem with playing the World Series around Halloween than I do with playing ball in the temperatures typical of the northern U.S. this time of year.

Foulke You
04-07-2003, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
I personally would like to see them either eliminate a playoff round, reintroduce the scheduled doubleheader, or both, but neither will happen.

Does anyone know what reason that MLB has given for not having scheduled double headers anymore?

czalgosz
04-07-2003, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by Foulke You
Does anyone know what reason that MLB has given for not having scheduled double headers anymore?

It got bargained away in a CBA years ago. The MLBPA doesn't like doubleheaders.

LuvSox
04-07-2003, 01:54 PM
I'd like to see MORE games. Play the first couple of weeks in the South and West Coast as well as the domed and roofed stadiums.

Tavarin
04-07-2003, 02:17 PM
Just put back in scheduled doubleheaders, those ruled

PaleHoseGeorge
04-07-2003, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
It got bargained away in a CBA years ago. The MLBPA doesn't like doubleheaders.

I'm pretty sure the rank and file would gladly accept doubleheaders if it meant a few extra days off during the season. However modern baseball is managed by the dictates of the dollar. Doubleheaders mean one less gate receipt = less $ for owners = less $ for player salaries. Neither MLB or MLBPA are too interested in scheduling them.

Boston is notorious for day/night doubleheaders that capture two games' receipts in a single day. Those are the doubleheaders the ballplayers REALLY hate. They're at the ballpark by 9 and they don't get home till way past midnight. What, it's almost like a real job! :o:

I remember when every Sunday was a doubleheader for virtually every team in the league. Of course back in those days the games only lasted 2 hours. Hell, some of the marathons baseball stages today last as long as those doubleheaders ever did.

czalgosz
04-07-2003, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge

I remember when every Sunday was a doubleheader for virtually every team in the league. Of course back in those days the games only lasted 2 hours. Hell, some of the marathons baseball stages today last as long as those doubleheaders ever did.

You can thank TV for the longer game times. The extra time they've slotted for commercials is what's dragging things out.

But longer game times don't bother me - I like more baseball. I've noticed that the only people who complain about longer game times are people who are paid to be there, like sportswriters and broadcasters. I really don't see what the big deal is.

MHOUSE
04-07-2003, 03:38 PM
I think that the records would be the most important reason. I mean that would skew all the single-season records and really set new benchmarks. Has baseball always been 162 games?

czalgosz
04-07-2003, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by MHOUSE
I think that the records would be the most important reason. I mean that would skew all the single-season records and really set new benchmarks. Has baseball always been 162 games?

Nope. The 162-game season was introduced in 1961. It was 154 games before that. It was still fresh in everyone's mind when Maris broke Ruth's home run record.

jortafan
04-07-2003, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
You can thank TV for the longer game times. The extra time they've slotted for commercials is what's dragging things out.

But longer game times don't bother me - I like more baseball. I've noticed that the only people who complain about longer game times are people who are paid to be there, like sportswriters and broadcasters. I really don't see what the big deal is.

In all fairness to the writers and broadcasters, what the big deal is is that all the factors that are stretching out the game (more time between innings for more commercials, time wasted while players insist on adjusting themselves before every pitch, while changing pitchers, etc.) have NOTHING to do with actual game playing for baseball. They are moments of inactivity that add up to stretch out a game into a marathon.

I like more baseball too. Which is why I get disgusted with the length of time games can take these days. It's wasted time.

Daver
04-07-2003, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by jortafan
time wasted while players insist on adjusting themselves before every pitch, while changing pitchers, etc.) have NOTHING to do with actual game playing for baseball. They are moments of inactivity that add up to stretch out a game into a marathon.



You just described Steve Trachsel,among many others.

:)

czalgosz
04-07-2003, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by jortafan
In all fairness to the writers and broadcasters, what the big deal is is that all the factors that are stretching out the game (more time between innings for more commercials, time wasted while players insist on adjusting themselves before every pitch, while changing pitchers, etc.) have NOTHING to do with actual game playing for baseball. They are moments of inactivity that add up to stretch out a game into a marathon.

I like more baseball too. Which is why I get disgusted with the length of time games can take these days. It's wasted time.

I don't disagree, but they waste FAR more time in a football game than in a baseball game, and the parade of free-throw shooting that accompanies the last 5 minutes of every basketball game kills whatever enjoyment I get out of basketball. Yet people don't complain about that, for whatever reason.

hose
04-07-2003, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by LuvSox
I'd like to see MORE games. Play the first couple of weeks in the South and West Coast as well as the domed and roofed stadiums.

You got the answer.

MLB can still open the season on March 30th and not have snow outs if they scheduled the games with that in mind.

Why in the world did the Dodgers just play a 4 game series in San Diego and the Cubs get snowed out?
Seattle went down to Texas this weekend and the Sox are snowed out today.

A.L. teams that are home the first two weeks of the season:
Minnesota, Toronto, Tampa Bay, Oakland, Anaheim, Seattle and Texas.

A.L. teams that are on the road first two weeks of the season:
The beloved, Kansas City, Cleveland, Detroit, Yankees, Boston, Baltimore.

N.L. teams that are home first two weeks of the season:
Houston, Milwaukee, Florida, Atlanta, San Diego, L.A. ,Arizona and Montreal.

NL teams that are on the road first two weeks of the season:
Pittsburgh, Chicago, St. Louis, Cincinnati, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Colorado.

The owners wont sacrifice dates so MLB and Bud Selig has to start using their noggins to come with a plan.

Daver
04-07-2003, 06:21 PM
But is it fair for cold weather cities to have to start the season with an extended road trip?

I think you do them a diservice with that,the last thing I would want for the Sox is to play a two week road trip on the west coast to start the season,they could dig themselves a big hole in the standings before playing a single game to a freindly crowd.

A.T. Money
04-07-2003, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by daver
But is it fair for cold weather cities to have to start the season with an extended road trip?



Those teams make up for it down the stretch in September when they are at home. :)

Daver
04-07-2003, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by SoxDemon
Those teams make up for it down the stretch in September when they are at home. :)

Maybe so,but to use the White Sox as an example,how does it affect their walk up ticket sales if they are 8 games down in the standings before the home opener?It has been proven in the past that the Sox only sell tickets if they are fielding a winning team........

TheBigHurt
04-07-2003, 07:27 PM
WELL for reasons like you said i agree it would offset single seasons records which is why the MLB is a main reason why MLB is popular.......I would like to have the World Series in a warm stad like (tb or fla or atl), i know that wont happen unfortunately DAM

BE GOOD

Lip Man 1
04-07-2003, 08:58 PM
The "records" arguement doesn't concern me since that's already been sabotaged because of interleague play.

I'd love to see the season start around the 2nd or 3rd week of April. (Like it used to) and end around September 15th.

As long as you are going to have all those playoff games, you are running the risk that someday a major storm is going to hit Cleveland, New York, Detroit (I know better then to say Chicago) and wipe everything out for a week or more like the rain did in the 1962 World Series. Game #7 was postponed for three days because the field was unplayable. Multiply that by several inches of snow plus bitter conditions and you've got a major problem as well as embarassment to MLB.

It could well force the series someday, to be moved to a warm weather, neutral or domed location. How fair would that be?

The season needs to be cut back to about 135 games. That's plenty of time for legit seasonal "records," the weather's better and you'll see better baseball.

It'll never happen of course, owners like that money.

Lip

hose
04-07-2003, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by daver
But is it fair for cold weather cities to have to start the season with an extended road trip?

I think you do them a diservice with that,the last thing I would want for the Sox is to play a two week road trip on the west coast to start the season,they could dig themselves a big hole in the standings before playing a single game to a freindly crowd.


Is it fair...no. having your fans or "potential" fans watch baseball in 30 degree weather isn't fair or good business.

alohafri
04-08-2003, 12:39 PM
(from Mrs. Aloha)

The scheduling this year really sucks for the Sox...there are 15 (count 'em) home games in April , 13 in May, 14 in June, and then when we get into the "baseball" weather, just 12 home games in July and 13 in August! It's just ridiculous to schedule so many home games in the early season and so few in the middle in this climate. How dumb is that?