PDA

View Full Version : Thanks for nothing FOX and Bud


Fenway
05-14-2007, 09:17 AM
MLB will announce the 2007 World Series schedule today and it is being pushed BACK. Game 7 is scheduled for NOVEMBER 1 :angry:


Major League Baseball and Fox will make it official Monday: the World Series on Fox this fall will start on a Wednesday — not the usual Saturday.

For the first time, a potential Series game will be scheduled for November.

And if you thought the Detroit Tigers' week-long layoff before last year's Series seemed long, get this: The potential wait for the National League champion this fall could be as long as a record nine days.


http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/hiestand-tv/2007-05-13-hiestand-weekend_N.htm?csp=34

sox1970
05-14-2007, 09:32 AM
I thought they had decided to start on Tuesday, October 23, with it going to October 31 at the latest?

Either way, it's time to shorten the season to 156 games, finish a week earlier, eliminate divisions, and go back to the balanced schedule.

Fenway
05-14-2007, 09:34 AM
I thought they had decided to start on Tuesday, October 23, with it going to October 31 at the latest?

Either way, it's time to shorten the season to 156 games, finish a week earlier, eliminate divisions, and go back to the balanced schedule.

FOX did not want a game played on a Friday

MLB considered starting the Series on Tuesday, rather than Wednesday. But a Tuesday Series start would have meant a Friday game — and avoiding Friday was a key priority.

MarySwiss
05-14-2007, 09:44 AM
MLB will announce the 2007 World Series schedule today and it is being pushed BACK. Game 7 is scheduled for NOVEMBER 1 :angry:



http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/hiestand-tv/2007-05-13-hiestand-weekend_N.htm?csp=34


Well, then I guess it's a good thing we're going to win it in four! :D:

Kogs35
05-14-2007, 10:26 AM
MLB will announce the 2007 World Series schedule today and it is being pushed BACK. Game 7 is scheduled for NOVEMBER 1 :angry:



http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/hiestand-tv/2007-05-13-hiestand-weekend_N.htm?csp=34

and watch there will be 4 rain out and 3 snow outs if theres a game 7 on november 1

Luke
05-14-2007, 10:30 AM
Game one should always be on a weekday afternoon, and the day should be made a national holiday so that people can stay home and watch it.

cws05champ
05-14-2007, 10:55 AM
I thought they had decided to start on Tuesday, October 23, with it going to October 31 at the latest?

Either way, it's time to shorten the season to 156 games, finish a week earlier, eliminate divisions, and go back to the balanced schedule.

I just don't see why they can't play more double headers during the season and shorten the season that way. They would only need to play 4-6 scheduled DH during the season to knock a week off the schedule. Of course I believe this has to be approved by the players association and Fehr would block it. DH used to be common place...now there are no scheduled DH all year and they only play when there is inclement weather.

FedEx227
05-14-2007, 11:30 AM
I just don't see why they can't play more double headers during the season and shorten the season that way. They would only need to play 4-6 scheduled DH during the season to knock a week off the schedule. Of course I believe this has to be approved by the players association and Fehr would block it. DH used to be common place...now there are no scheduled DH all year and they only play when there is inclement weather.

And it's usually day-night which is lame.

Fenway
05-14-2007, 11:34 AM
No way in the world the Red Sox would allow less than 81 openings a year

When the World Series was here 3 years ago it was bitterly cold.....

This is just asking for trouble

sox1970
05-14-2007, 11:38 AM
They should just eliminate the two Florida teams, return the Brewers to the AL, and play a balanced schedule--12 games against the 13 league opponents for 156 games. Send the top four teams in each league to the playoffs. Shorten the season by a week, and end the World Series before the last weekend in October.

Luke
05-14-2007, 11:54 AM
I just don't see why they can't play more double headers during the season and shorten the season that way. They would only need to play 4-6 scheduled DH during the season to knock a week off the schedule. Of course I believe this has to be approved by the players association and Fehr would block it. DH used to be common place...now there are no scheduled DH all year and they only play when there is inclement weather.

Because a true DH means only one take at the gate. All about the $$$. I don't know what say the MLB PA has over that.

Luke
05-14-2007, 11:57 AM
They should just eliminate the two Florida teams, return the Brewers to the AL, and play a balanced schedule--12 games against the 13 league opponents for 156 games. Send the top four teams in each league to the playoffs. Shorten the season by a week, and end the World Series before the last weekend in October.

I don't think the Player's Association would agree to eliminate 50 jobs without some major concession from the owners.

sox1970
05-14-2007, 12:02 PM
I don't think the Player's Association would agree to eliminate 50 jobs without some major concession from the owners.

Probably not. Fine, the NL can play a quasi-balanced schedule.

Chicken Dinner
05-14-2007, 12:11 PM
Bob DuPuy is an idiot.

johnr1note
05-14-2007, 01:42 PM
I don't think the Player's Association would agree to eliminate 50 jobs without some major concession from the owners.

I say we expand to 32 teams, go to 4 regional 8 team leagues/divisions, play a 154 game schedule with very limited interleague/divisional play (or none at all) and have the top 4 winners in each division go to the post season, or, if you must have a wildcard, have a balanced schedule within each league/division, with a little interleague for interest, and then have your best two second place teams get in via wildcard. Either way, you shorten the schedule, and have an exciting post season.

Scottiehaswheels
05-14-2007, 01:49 PM
I say we expand to 32 teams, go to 4 regional 8 team leagues/divisions, play a 154 game schedule with very limited interleague/divisional play (or none at all) and have the top 4 winners in each division go to the post season, or, if you must have a wildcard, have a balanced schedule within each league/division, with a little interleague for interest, and then have your best two second place teams get in via wildcard. Either way, you shorten the schedule, and have an exciting post season.I would hate to see how watered down the talent levels in MLB would be at that point. Right now there is a serious shortage of talented MLB pitching and to add 2 more teams only further dilutes the pool of quality arms. I say if anything, a contraction should be in order. But again, that will never happen. We're pretty much stuck with the way it is now, 'til the talent level/durability of pitching increases I'm sorry to say.

ewokpelts
05-14-2007, 01:52 PM
I just don't see why they can't play more double headers during the season and shorten the season that way. They would only need to play 4-6 scheduled DH during the season to knock a week off the schedule. Of course I believe this has to be approved by the players association and Fehr would block it. DH used to be common place...now there are no scheduled DH all year and they only play when there is inclement weather.
talk to don fehr

Oblong
05-14-2007, 02:04 PM
Don Fehr represents the wishes of his constituents, the major league players. He doesn't tell them what to do, it's the other way around. So bashing him really should mean bashing the players. Also, the owners are probably more against the double headers than the players because it's one less gate to take in.

Nothing is going to change. TV drives all the decisions since they pay so much $$ for hte right to do so. We have record attendance and record revenue and record profit. There's no business reason to change.

Luke
05-14-2007, 02:10 PM
I would hate to see how watered down the talent levels in MLB would be at that point. Right now there is a serious shortage of talented MLB pitching and to add 2 more teams only further dilutes the pool of quality arms. I say if anything, a contraction should be in order. But again, that will never happen. We're pretty much stuck with the way it is now, 'til the talent level/durability of pitching increases I'm sorry to say.

I used to think the talent level is watered down too. It wasn't a hard claim to make; There were more teams than ever, and that meant more players than ever, and they can't all be MLB quality, right? I would just ask you to think about this first; There are more people in the US than ever, presumably producing MLB quality ball players at the same rate as ever. In addition, MLB is drawing players from more foreign countries than ever; DR, Japan, Venezuela, PR, Canada, even Cuba.

Add to that how much more in-season and off-season work ball players put in, and it's not a big stretch to think that there's ample talent out there to supply MLB with quality players.

Just something to think about. I don't know if it could ever be proven one way or the other.

Scottiehaswheels
05-14-2007, 02:12 PM
I used to think the talent level is watered down too. It wasn't a hard claim to make; There were more teams than ever, and that meant more players than ever, and they can't all be MLB quality, right? I would just ask you to think about this first; There are more people in the US than ever, presumably producing MLB quality ball players at the same rate as ever. In addition, MLB is drawing players from more foreign countries than ever; DR, Japan, Venezuela, PR, Canada, even Cuba.

Add to that how much more in-season and off-season work ball players put in, and it's not a big stretch to think that there's ample talent out there to supply MLB with quality players.

Just something to think about. I don't know if it could ever be proven one way or the other.Sorry Luke, I have to disagree. If there was ample supply out there, FA contracts would not be so high and teams wouldn't be carrying guys with 7+ ERA's. Look to Zito's contract as a BIG example of this.

Oblong
05-14-2007, 02:27 PM
Sorry Luke, I have to disagree. If there was ample supply out there, FA contracts would not be so high and teams wouldn't be carrying guys with 7+ ERA's. Look to Zito's contract as a BIG example of this.

But that's not because of supply, it's because of stupidity.

There's a bigger talent pool today. In the 1940s you had a league limited to white guys mostly from the northeast and south. We're only talking about an extra couple of hundred players from a pool of potential players many many millions more than it used to be.

I have no doubt that the worst player on a team today would have been able to crack the regular lineup 40 years ago.

Chicken Dinner
05-14-2007, 02:30 PM
I say we expand to 32 teams, go to 4 regional 8 team leagues/divisions, play a 154 game schedule with very limited interleague/divisional play (or none at all) and have the top 4 winners in each division go to the post season, or, if you must have a wildcard, have a balanced schedule within each league/division, with a little interleague for interest, and then have your best two second place teams get in via wildcard. Either way, you shorten the schedule, and have an exciting post season.

Isn't that basketball and hockey?? :wink:

Luke
05-14-2007, 02:38 PM
Sorry Luke, I have to disagree. If there was ample supply out there, FA contracts would not be so high and teams wouldn't be carrying guys with 7+ ERA's. Look to Zito's contract as a BIG example of this.

Yes, both good points. I think high FA prices can (partially) be attributed to a bigger pie, and the fact that there is more money to spend.

I actually kind of agree on the pitching point. Here's what I think happens though; HRs and Ks are both up from a historical level, meaning a lot more pitches are thrown during a game. I think this leads to average pitchers (middle relievers typically, but also 4th and 5th starters) getting more innings than they used to. Overall, I think the ratio of what we would call good pitchers is the same as it's ever been, but the average pitchers are throwing more than they used to.

Again, just my guess though, I think you make a very strong point

spiffie
05-14-2007, 02:40 PM
Sorry Luke, I have to disagree. If there was ample supply out there, FA contracts would not be so high and teams wouldn't be carrying guys with 7+ ERA's. Look to Zito's contract as a BIG example of this.
FA contracts are high because:
A) The way free agency is set up right now limits the amount of players available at any given time. If only 1/10 or so of players are free agents every year, the top 5% of those players is not a very high number .
B) There is a ton of money in the game right now.

As for why teams carry guys with 7.00 ERA's that's simply a reflection of the game changing. The ERA's go up across the board, and the worst guys are going to have very high one ERA's.

In 1937 the Sox fifth starter, Johnny Rigney had a 4.03 ERA. His ERA+ (measure of how his ERA stacks up against the league average) was 84. A 100 means equal to league average, and over 100 means it was better than the average.

In 1977 the Sox fifth starters, Ken Brett and Wilbur Wood (18 and 13 starts) had a combined ERA of 5.00. Their ERA+ was 82.

In 2006 the Sox fifth starter, Javy Vasquez had an ERA of 4.84. That gave him an ERA+ of 96, just barely below the league average. To get an ERA+ of around 82 you would need an ERA of 5.42.

As always you have good pitchers, average pitchers, and bad pitchers. Nothing has changed except that hitters do more hitting these days.

Scottiehaswheels
05-14-2007, 02:41 PM
But that's not because of supply, it's because of stupidity.

There's a bigger talent pool today. In the 1940s you had a league limited to white guys mostly from the northeast and south. We're only talking about an extra couple of hundred players from a pool of potential players many many millions more than it used to be.

I have no doubt that the worst player on a team today would have been able to crack the regular lineup 40 years ago.Is it really? I mean I know this year is an anomaly but look at the injury rates to pitchers year in year out. Every team at some point deals with injuries to starting/relief pitchers every year. Also we have a previously unheard of amount of starting pitchers in their 40's. I haven't checked, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out the % of 40+ year old starters in the game at this point in time is approaching 8-9%. Now why would that be if there is this ample supply of good young quality pitching out there? Why would teams trot out a guy making 16+ million a year if they could get the same or close to the same performance from a guy making 300k? Also shouldn't younger guys be MORE adverse to injury? Which should make them doubly attractive to teams. The reason why is simply because the talent level simply isn't there in the quantities that you would like/hope to believe it is. And Oblong I don't disagree with you, as I'm sure a lot of current MLB pitchers would also benefit from a lowered mound too..

PKalltheway
05-14-2007, 02:46 PM
I would be in favor of shortening the season to 154 games, but there's no way in hell the owners would want that. The players wouldn't want 2 teams contracted either.

Even though this idea is from WAY out in left field, and has nothing much to do with the topic at hand, here goes:
Since the D-Rays have no chance to compete in the AL East, move them to the NL and move the Rockies to the AL, since they would thrive on having an extra bat added into their lineup. D-Rays become part of a 6 team NL East, and the Rockies become the fifth team in the AL West. Make the divison series a best of 3 as well.

russ99
05-14-2007, 02:49 PM
Game one should always be on a weekday afternoon, and the day should be made a national holiday so that people can stay home and watch it.


Amen, Bro!! :D:

I feel for the kids of today who don't get to watch a day World Series (or playoff game after the Division Playoffs) game. For weekends, there's absolutely no excuse at all, other than Fox's greed.

Baseball has record attendance and record receipts, they should tell Fox where to shove their contract, and team with multiple networks to do their broadcasting, like the NFL is doing. If day games are good enough for the NHL/NFL/NBA playoffs, MLB should be too.

Luke
05-14-2007, 02:49 PM
Is it really? I mean I know this year is an anomaly but look at the injury rates to pitchers year in year out. Every team at some point deals with injuries to starting/relief pitchers every year. Also we have a previously unheard of amount of starting pitchers in their 40's. I haven't checked, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out the % of 40+ year old starters in the game at this point in time is approaching 8-9%. Now why would that be if there is this ample supply of good young quality pitching out there? Why would teams trot out a guy making 16+ million a year if they could get the same or close to the same performance from a guy making 300k? Also shouldn't younger guys be MORE adverse to injury? Which should make them doubly attractive to teams. The reason why is simply because the talent level simply isn't there in the quantities that you would like/hope to believe it is. And Oblong I don't disagree with you, as I'm sure a lot of current MLB pitchers would also benefit from a lowered mound too..

I think the amount of older starters can be attributed to players taking better care of themselves than they did historically...Or in Clemems case, a strict vitamin regimen.

I saw a special on HBO the other week about young pitchers (I mean really young) hurting their armsmore frequently, having Tommie John at really early points in their lives. Some people are blaming it on the fact that they play almost year-round in fall leagues and winter leagues.

I wonder if maybe the increased injuries are due to better diagnostics, and maybe we're just better at catching injuries now?

Scottiehaswheels
05-14-2007, 03:06 PM
Here's the list I have of the 40+ year old starting pitchers out of the 150 or so in MLB....

Braves- Smoltz
Dbacks- Johnson
Mets- Glavine
Padres- Maddux, Wells
Phillies- Moyer
Red Sox- Schilling, Wakefield
Tigers- Rogers
Yankees- Clemens

Can anyone think of others I missed? Also as an impact monetarily at, lets say an average replacement cost of 350k a year for a rookie, compared to say an average of 16 million per year for these vets... Teams pay $160,000,000 vs. $3,500,000. Where is this quality young pitching of which people speak because it just doesn't seem to prove out.

spiffie
05-14-2007, 03:08 PM
Here's the list I have of the 40+ year old starting pitchers out of the 150 or so in MLB....

Braves- Smoltz
Dbacks- Johnson
Mets- Glavine
Padres- Maddux, Wells
Phillies- Moyer
Red Sox- Schilling, Wakefield
Tigers- Rogers
Yankees- Clemens

Can anyone think of others I missed?
I think you just explained for us why these guys are hung on to and coveted by their teams. Half of that list is going into the Hall of Fame. Smoltz, Johnson, Glavine, Madduz, Clemens, and possibly Schilling will all be in Cooperstown one day. If you're a GM, and you're choosing between one of these guys, or an untested prospect from AAA, it is mighty tough to justify making a choice for the latter.

Scottiehaswheels
05-14-2007, 03:17 PM
I think you just explained for us why these guys are hung on to and coveted by their teams. Half of that list is going into the Hall of Fame. Smoltz, Johnson, Glavine, Madduz, Clemens, and possibly Schilling will all be in Cooperstown one day. If you're a GM, and you're choosing between one of these guys, or an untested prospect from AAA, it is mighty tough to justify making a choice for the latter.That wasn't the point I was trying to make but I agree with you... My point is that a couple of these guys are probably still around simply because there is a lack of talent in the minor leagues, and if 2 more teams were added this would simply dilute the talent even further...

Flight #24
05-14-2007, 03:24 PM
That wasn't the point I was trying to make but I agree with you... My point is that a couple of these guys are probably still around simply because there is a lack of talent in the minor leagues, and if 2 more teams were added this would simply dilute the talent even further...

I disagree. The list you post is full of guys who are above average or better than that. Were they pitching like they are right now 30 years ago, they'd be in the bigs.

If your hypothesis were true, you'd see a lot of vets hanging around who were average or worse (implying that the available rookie talent would be far worse than merely below average or towards the bottom of the MLB ladder). I don't see that occurring.

spiffie
05-14-2007, 03:25 PM
That wasn't the point I was trying to make but I agree with you... My point is that a couple of these guys are probably still around simply because there is a lack of talent in the minor leagues, and if 2 more teams were added this would simply dilute the talent even further...
2006 ERA's/ERA+
Braves- Smoltz 3.49/126
Dbacks- Johnson 5.00/88
Mets- Glavine 3.82/118
Padres- Maddux 4.20/110 Wells 4.42/101
Phillies- Moyer 4.30/102
Red Sox- Schilling 3.97/116, Wakefield 4.63/100
Tigers- Rogers 3.46/130
Yankees- Clemens 2.30/197

Only one guy was below league average last year out of that entire group, and that was likely due to injury. Smoltz, Glavine, Maddux, Schilling, Rogers, and Clemens all were significantly below the league average in ERA.

Scottiehaswheels
05-14-2007, 03:32 PM
2006 ERA's/ERA+
Braves- Smoltz 3.49/126
Dbacks- Johnson 5.00/88
Mets- Glavine 3.82/118
Padres- Maddux 4.20/110 Wells 4.42/101
Phillies- Moyer 4.30/102
Red Sox- Schilling 3.97/116, Wakefield 4.63/100
Tigers- Rogers 3.46/130
Yankees- Clemens 2.30/197

Only one guy was below league average last year out of that entire group, and that was likely due to injury. Smoltz, Glavine, Maddux, Schilling, Rogers, and Clemens all were significantly below the league average in ERA. Ok I won't disagree with those #'s.. but we're talking (or at least I was) about the current talent available in the minor leagues to replace the older players.. at least thats what I'm trying to talk about since I've been talking about the potential of 2 additional teams and how that would dilute the talent pool... If teams had guys that could adequately replace these contracts at roughly 1/50th the cost they would have to be out of their minds to not do so, wouldn't you agree? Baseball is afterall a business first and foremost... The fact that they aren't doing so speaks volumes to me as to the depth of talent or at least the perceived talent in minor league systems and to the dilution of talent in MLB IF they were to add an additional 23-24 pitchers to the pool....

spiffie
05-14-2007, 03:36 PM
Ok I won't disagree with those #'s.. but we're talking (or at least I was) about the current talent available in the minor leagues to replace the older players.. at least thats what I'm trying to talk about since I've been talking about the potential of 2 additional teams and how that would dilute the talent pool... If teams had guys that could adequately replace these contracts at roughly 1/10th the cost they would have to be out of their minds to not do so, wouldn't you agree? Baseball is afterall a business first and foremost... The fact that they aren't doing so speaks volumes to me as to the depth of talent or at least the perceived talent in minor league systems and to the dilution of talent in MLB IF they were to add an additional 23-24 pitchers to the pool....
Baseball, like almost any medium, is all about risk/reward. Very few people are willing to risk their jobs on something unproven when there is something proven as an alternative. Or think of it this way, if the Sox lost a pitcher, and you had a choice, and the budget was there for either guy, who would you want them to put in the fifth spot, Gio Gonzalez or John Smoltz?

Also, as a business, some of these names are considerable as box office attractions. The D-Backs weren't blind to the draw of Randy Johnson coming back home. The Astros knew their stadium would be filled when Clemens pitched the last few years.

Luke
05-14-2007, 03:38 PM
Ok I won't disagree with those #'s.. but we're talking (or at least I was) about the current talent available in the minor leagues to replace the older players.. at least thats what I'm trying to talk about since I've been talking about the potential of 2 additional teams and how that would dilute the talent pool... If teams had guys that could adequately replace these contracts at roughly 1/10th the cost they would have to be out of their minds to not do so, wouldn't you agree? Baseball is afterall a business first and foremost... The fact that they aren't doing so speaks volumes to me as to the depth of talent or at least the perceived talent in minor league systems and to the dilution of talent in MLB IF they were to add an additional 23-24 pitchers to the pool....

I guess that depends what you consider talent. I know that sounds dumb, but I think players can be at talented as an all-star and still be bad at baseball. Take BA for example; Probably as gifted as the best players out there, but as of today, unable to translate it.

Scottiehaswheels
05-14-2007, 03:59 PM
I guess that depends what you consider talent. I know that sounds dumb, but I think players can be at talented as an all-star and still be bad at baseball. Take BA for example; Probably as gifted as the best players out there, but as of today, unable to translate it.ok good point.. now, would you like to see one of those guys as a starting pitcher on your team? because if you add 2 more teams to MLB that is what will potentially happen... we could have to go through entire seasons with a guy like Munoz on the roster.... as would just about every other team in MLB... Don't forget that when you add teams to the league they take bits and pieces of every other team to build a roster when they are first conceived as an MLB team... Some teams MLB pitching staffs would be left intact but would you want the risk of it not being yours? Don't forget they also pull people from current MLB teams minor league systems to build their own and its hard to protect all of your most MLB ready talent you have built the future around. If the talent in the minors was great league-wide I would be inclined to say sure... but that simply isn't the case at this point in time... wouldn't you agree?

Scottiehaswheels
05-14-2007, 04:11 PM
Just an aside... I'd really love to see baseball expand myself since I am hopefully moving to Indy soon and that could be a great expansion city... I just don't want to do it to the overall detriment to the game.

Luke
05-14-2007, 04:15 PM
ok good point.. now, would you like to see one of those guys as a starting pitcher on your team? because if you add 2 more teams to MLB that is what will potentially happen... we could have to go through entire seasons with a guy like Munoz on the roster.... as would just about every other team in MLB... Don't forget that when you add teams to the league they take bits and pieces of every other team to build a roster when they are first conceived as an MLB team... Some teams MLB pitching staffs would be left intact but would you want the risk of it not being yours? Don't forget they also pull people from current MLB teams minor league systems to build their own and its hard to protect all of your most MLB ready talent you have built the future around. If the talent in the minors was great league-wide I would be inclined to say sure... but that simply isn't the case at this point in time... wouldn't you agree?

Despite my assertion that there's a lot of talent out there, I really don't want to see any additional teams right now. I'd rather see the Florida teams find a more suitable homes first. Be it new parks in the same cities, or new cities.

sox1970
05-14-2007, 04:16 PM
Just an aside... I'd really love to see baseball expand myself since I am hopefully moving to Indy soon and that could be a great expansion city... I just don't want to do it to the overall detriment to the game.

Cubs + White Sox + Cardinals + Reds = No major league baseball in Indianapolis.

Scottiehaswheels
05-14-2007, 04:16 PM
Despite my assertion that there's a lot of talent out there, I really don't want to see any additional teams right now. I'd rather see the Florida teams find a more suitable homes first. Be it new parks in the same cities, or new cities.Agreed... That alone may spark renewed interest in other cities that could increase the future talent pool.

oeo
05-14-2007, 04:16 PM
No way in the world the Red Sox would allow less than 81 openings a year

When the World Series was here 3 years ago it was bitterly cold.....

This is just asking for trouble

A couple days difference isn't going to make that big of a deal.

Besides, we don't know what it's going to be like on November 1. It could be cold, it could be warmer. We had a late start to winter this past year (which carried now into summer)...so we may have another late start, or it could be cold at the beginning of October. There's no way to get around Mother Nature.

Scottiehaswheels
05-14-2007, 04:24 PM
Cubs + White Sox + Cardinals + Reds = No major league baseball in Indianapolis.I don't see why not? As a geographical circumference they are as spread out as DC, Baltimore, Philly, Boston, NY teams... And if I'm not mistaken I believe the Indy area is now the 11th largest in the U.S. population wise.

Luke
05-14-2007, 04:30 PM
I don't see why not? As a geographical circumference they are as spread out as DC, Baltimore, Philly, NY teams... And if I'm not mistaken I believe the Indy area is now the 11th largest in the U.S. population wise.

I think what he meant was that the owners of those teams wouldn't agree to adding a team in Indy. I think they feel that it draw away from them.

Scottiehaswheels
05-14-2007, 04:35 PM
I think what he meant was that the owners of those teams wouldn't agree to adding a team in Indy. I think they feel that it draw away from them.True, but I think greed would overcome that... Sure they protested the team being added to DC but that passed... With closer proximity you would see increased gate attendence vs. Tampa Bay or Florida would you not? And due to profit sharing it would have to do better than either of those... Locate an NL team between Chicago and Cincy and you'd draw well, not only the new teams fans but the other 2 teams... Or an AL team between Chicago/Cleveland/KC(when they improve in a few years), you would definately see increased gate compared to TB.... And a town like Indy would be crazy not to go for it... Just for the people that roadtrip alone you'd have increased revenue in hotels/restaurants/etc... Not to mention the jock tax, etc.

Scottiehaswheels
05-14-2007, 04:48 PM
I think what he meant was that the owners of those teams wouldn't agree to adding a team in Indy. I think they feel that it draw away from them.I would be curious to know just how many people regularly drive from Indy to either Chicago/Cincy for ballgames too.. I know when I move I'm gonna keep my season tickets but I sincerely doubt I'm in the majority. I would imagine Indy area diehard baseball fans now only attend 3-4 games a year tops... Its almost 200 miles from Chicago to Indy (183 miles), and 114 miles from Indy to Cincy... So in the scheme of things how detrimental to overall baseball revenue would it be to make a % of those aforementioned people into new season ticket holders in the Indy area as well as drawing the casual baseball fan/roadtripping fan that neither Florida team can do?

dcb56
05-14-2007, 05:15 PM
I don't see why not? As a geographical circumference they are as spread out as DC, Baltimore, Philly, Boston, NY teams... And if I'm not mistaken I believe the Indy area is now the 11th largest in the U.S. population wise.

That's a bit misleading, Indy may be the 11th largest city in the country but its only the 33rd largest metro area because a lot of the suburbs were incorporated into the city in the 1960's when they consolidated the city and county governments. If Indianapolis were to become a MLB town, the only metropolitan area with a team smaller than Indy would be Milw., but the Brewers already have an established fanbase. Any team located in Indy would have to steal fans away from teams located in Chicago, Cincy, and St. Louis. Indianapolis is a great town for AAA, but I don't see it as an option for any relocation or expansion at the major league level.

Scottiehaswheels
05-14-2007, 05:31 PM
That's a bit misleading, Indy may be the 11th largest city in the country but its only the 33rd largest metro area because a lot of the suburbs were incorporated into the city in the 1960's when they consolidated the city and county governments. If Indianapolis were to become a MLB town, the only metropolitan area with a team smaller than Indy would be Milw., but the Brewers already have an established fanbase. Any team located in Indy would have to steal fans away from teams located in Chicago, Cincy, and St. Louis. Indianapolis is a great town for AAA, but I don't see it as an option for any relocation or expansion at the major league level.Interesting.. Didn't realize that... I did look to see who above Indy doesn't have a pro team or is already in Florida where baseball isn't working.... Portland, OR; Vegas; San Antonio are the only cities higher without a pro team... I'm not sure to the proximity of San Antonio to Dallas/Houston.. Also a detriment to that would be the high temps... Portland would be intriguing though...

I must admit I'm biased towards Indy because I go there a lot and see the growth explosion firsthand....

sox1970
05-14-2007, 08:42 PM
Upon further review of this playoff schedule, it is complete garbage.

They have one ALDS schedule starting on a Wednesday, and ending on a Wednesday. That's a five game series that will take 8 days after a two day layoff after the regular season ends.

Also, if the NLCS is a sweep, that team will have to wait NINE days to play the World Series.

This is ****ing insanity.

sox1970
05-14-2007, 08:56 PM
OK, here's what they should do under the sox1970 Plan:

#1- shorten the season by a week, which means the playoffs could start on Tuesday, September 25 this year.

#2- Make all rounds best of 7 with the 2-3-2 format

ALDS (both)- 9/25, 9/26, 9/28, 9/29, 9/30, 10/2, 10/3
NLDS (both)- 9/26, 9/27, 9/29, 9/30, 10/1, 10/3, 10/4

ALCS- 10/5, 10/6, 10/8, 10/9, 10/10, 10/12, 10/13
NLCS- 10/6, 10/7, 10/9, 10/10, 10/11, 10/13, 10/14

World Series- 10/16, 10/17, 10/19, 10/20, 10/21, 10/23, 10/24

World Series would start on a Tuesday and finish on a Wednesday.

PKalltheway
05-14-2007, 10:41 PM
A couple days difference isn't going to make that big of a deal.

Besides, we don't know what it's going to be like on November 1. It could be cold, it could be warmer. We had a late start to winter this past year (which carried now into summer)...so we may have another late start, or it could be cold at the beginning of October. There's no way to get around Mother Nature.
Exactly. For all we know at this point, it could be an all California World Series, and the weather won't matter as much.

thomas35forever
05-15-2007, 01:10 AM
Fast forward to 2015, when Game 7 is played on Veterans' Day.

IndianWhiteSox
05-15-2007, 05:52 AM
Is it really? I mean I know this year is an anomaly but look at the injury rates to pitchers year in year out. Every team at some point deals with injuries to starting/relief pitchers every year. Also we have a previously unheard of amount of starting pitchers in their 40's. I haven't checked, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out the % of 40+ year old starters in the game at this point in time is approaching 8-9%. Now why would that be if there is this ample supply of good young quality pitching out there? Why would teams trot out a guy making 16+ million a year if they could get the same or close to the same performance from a guy making 300k? Also shouldn't younger guys be MORE adverse to injury? Which should make them doubly attractive to teams. The reason why is simply because the talent level simply isn't there in the quantities that you would like/hope to believe it is. And Oblong I don't disagree with you, as I'm sure a lot of current MLB pitchers would also benefit from a lowered mound too..

That's because the pitching coaches aren't as good as they used to be and the mound isn't as high.

But, I think MLB could expand to 32 teams easily as long as they still have a four team playoff and they go back to two divisions per team.

harwar
05-15-2007, 07:59 AM
Fast forward to 2015, when Game 7 is played on Veterans' Day.

Yea,and the way that MLB is headed,that series could be Tokyo - Mexico City.

Fenway
05-15-2007, 09:55 AM
That's a bit misleading, Indy may be the 11th largest city in the country but its only the 33rd largest metro area because a lot of the suburbs were incorporated into the city in the 1960's when they consolidated the city and county governments. If Indianapolis were to become a MLB town, the only metropolitan area with a team smaller than Indy would be Milw., but the Brewers already have an established fanbase. Any team located in Indy would have to steal fans away from teams located in Chicago, Cincy, and St. Louis. Indianapolis is a great town for AAA, but I don't see it as an option for any relocation or expansion at the major league level.

Indianapolis is roughly the same size as Providence

Indianapolis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indianapolis%2C_Indiana)–Carmel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmel%2C_Indiana)IN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana)1,666,032
Providence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Providence%2C_Rhode_Island)–New Bedford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Bedford%2C_Massachusetts)–Fall River (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_River%2C_Massachusetts)RI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhode_Island)–MA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts)1,612,989

Now Providence is baseball mad and and support AAA Pawtucket well but it is also only 40 miles from Boston....pure Red Sox country. It also offers some insight on just how big the Boston market is with major metro areas so close by.
Boston–Cambridge–Quincy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Boston)MA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts)–NH (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire)4,455,217
Hartford–West Hartford–East Hartford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Hartford)CT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut)1,188,841

Springfield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield%2C_Massachusetts)MA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts)686,174
Worcester (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester%2C_Massachusetts)MA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts)784,992
Portland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland%2C_Maine)–South Portland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Portland%2C_Maine)–Biddeford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biddeford%2C_Maine)ME (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine)513,667
Manchester (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester%2C_New_Hampshire)–Nashua (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nashua%2C_New_Hampshire)NH (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire)402,789

There are an awful lot of people within 100 miles of Fenway

Flight #24
05-15-2007, 10:28 AM
Ok I won't disagree with those #'s.. but we're talking (or at least I was) about the current talent available in the minor leagues to replace the older players.. at least thats what I'm trying to talk about since I've been talking about the potential of 2 additional teams and how that would dilute the talent pool... If teams had guys that could adequately replace these contracts at roughly 1/50th the cost they would have to be out of their minds to not do so, wouldn't you agree? Baseball is afterall a business first and foremost... The fact that they aren't doing so speaks volumes to me as to the depth of talent or at least the perceived talent in minor league systems and to the dilution of talent in MLB IF they were to add an additional 23-24 pitchers to the pool....

Wins drive the business for the most part, so any contract is a cost/benefit tradeoff. If the players were decently comparable, then you'd expect to see teams gravitating to the cheaper/younger ones.

But in order for the players to be halfway comparable using the guys you've cited, you'd have to have rookies ready to step in and be above average pitchers (because that's who you're comparing them against). I don't think that's really ever been the case.

Again - if your hypothesis about the dilution/lack of young talent were true, the test would be the average age of #4 or #5 starters in the bigs, not the existence of some #1 or #2 starters who are older. Plus, what you really need to do is make some sort of ratio comparison (i.e. have there always been 5-10 fairly old pitchers in the bigs?).

Lastly, you're not accounting for advances in training and "biochemistry" that enable players to last a lot longer than before. So a 40-yr old now might be comparable performance-wise to a 35 year old 15 years ago, so again - they're not replaceable by a rookie.