Improving Major League Baseball

[ken419]

Last night's Pittsburgh/Atlanta game got me thinking about two things I've long thought about to improve baseball, as well as a few other changes it should make...

1.) Regular season games do not need to last 19 innings. I like the way the NHL does it with a shootout after a 5-minute OT period. Maybe let them play no more than 12 innings, and if the game still hasn't been decided, then do some sort of "Home Run Derby" to decide the winner.

2.) Instant Replay. Still a little on the fence about this one, but it's definitely something worth looking into for the future.

3.) Eliminate Interleague Play. Unlike the NFL, NBA, and NHL, baseball used to be unique in that the American and National Leagues were separate all year and only met twice; the All Star Game and the World Series. Interleague play has watered that down some in that it just isn't as exciting as it used to be seeing the two leagues play each other.

4.) Eliminate the Designated Hitter. Let the pitchers bat- it's good enough for the National League.

Any other ideas?

 

[easy_13]

3 & 4 are great ideas. I'd support 2. The first one, though, is terrible.

The biggest problem, IMO, is all the stalling -- by batters and pitchers -- in between pitches. There is no reason 9-inning games should last 3.5 or 4 hours. 2.5 hours is enough. Get in the box. Stay in the box. No need to adjust your gloves, helmet and yourself between every pitch.

 

[JB]

Salary Floor
Salary Cap
End of Discussion

 

[blugold]

DHs make too much money, so the MLBPA wont let them go anywhere. I would eliminate interleague play and keep the DH in the American League and the pitchers bat in the NL.

I would institute instant replay on any play at home plate and the last out of both the top or bottom of the 9th.

I would institute a salary cap or some sort of revenue sharing. I hate the Yankees, Red Sox, and Phillies. There is no way that those teams with that high of payroll shouldn't be the best teams. It is boring to hear about the same teams year in and year out.

 

[blugold]

Salary Floor
Salary Cap
End of Discussion

Your wisdom extends past football and Biggsy's workout routine.

 

[ken419]

Salary Floor
Salary Cap
End of Discussion

Those work too, but that's another debate in itself.
I'm looking at on-the-field ideas to improve the game itself.

 

[blugold]

Those work too, but that's another debate in itself.

Which is?

 

[easy_13]

Salary Floor
Salary Cap
End of Discussion

I disagree. Plenty of small-market teams win in baseball. The Cubs always have a big payroll, and haven't won squat in 105 years. In mlb, more than any other sport, it's how wisely you spend, not how much you spend.

 

[blugold]

I disagree. Plenty of small-market teams win in baseball. The Cubs always have a big payroll, and haven't won squat in 105 years. In mlb, more than any other sport, it's how wisely you spend, not how much you spend.

Bull.

The Cubs don't win because they spend their money on bad players. The Yankees, Phillies, and Red Sox have the top three payrolls. There is no reason why they shouldnt be the best teams in baseball. There could be more money made by the MLB if there was more parity.

 

[JB]

I disagree. Plenty of small-market teams win in baseball. The Cubs always have a big payroll, and haven't won squat in 105 years. In mlb, more than any other sport, it's how wisely you spend, not how much you spend.

Statistics say otherwise.
Sure once you hit a certain number, that money becomes obsolete and wise spending is always important.
The Marlins proved twice you can buy the world series.
And year after year money does influence wins.
Other teams become farm systems for larger markets.
Sports are supposed to be a level playing field. Not a playing field on who CAN spend the most.
Regardless of whether or not you spend it well or not, all teams in any sport should have to be on a level playing field.
I would love to hear more about how MLB "more than any other sport" as you said it is more about how wisely and not how much, when every other sport has gone salary cap to make a level playing field.
Certain teams spending more on one player because of TV revenue than an entire teams payroll is NEVER a good thing in sports. It eliminates parity completely.
I have always wondered what the argument is for not having a salary cap. ALl we hear is "because small market win too", but the truth is, what is the possible negative of having a salary cap? What bad things can happen by having teams all follow the same rules of both floor and ceiling. It has been shown that it works by every other league and that the best management still win with wise moves even with a salary cap (see Lakers, Patriots, etc)

 

[easy_13]

Bull.

The Cubs don't win because they spend their money on bad players. The Yankees, Phillies, and Red Sox have the top three payrolls. There is no reason why they shouldnt be the best teams in baseball. There could be more money made by the MLB if there was more parity.

That's my point. You spend money on good players = you win. You spend money on bad players = you do not win. You think NYY, Phi and Bos would be winning if they spent their money foolishly, like the Cubs and the Mets always do? Of course not.

--Tampa has won the AL East 2 of the last 3 years. Who did they beat? The Yanks and the Sawx.
--The Marlins have won 2 World Series by being the cheapest team this side of Pittsburgh.
--Speaking of Pittsburgh, they were in a virtual tie for first until the last few days.
--Oakland and Minnesota are small market teams that have been as successful as anyone else in baseball the last 20 years.

 

[blugold]

That's my point. You spend money on good players = you win. You spend money on bad players = you do not win. You think NYY, Phi and Bos would be winning if they spent their money foolishly, like the Cubs and the Mets always do? Of course not.

--Tampa has won the AL East 2 of the last 3 years. Who did they beat? The Yanks and the Sawx.
--The Marlins have won 2 World Series by being the cheapest team this side of Pittsburgh.
--Speaking of Pittsburgh, they were in a virtual tie for first until the last few days.
--Oakland and Minnesota are small market teams that have been as successful as anyone else in baseball the last 20 years.

What?!!!! Look what has happens to the Twins everytime they win their division. They get swept by the Yankees.
The Pirates will not win the World Series.
The Marlin bought their WS wins. You think Gary Sheffield and Pudge Rodriguez were cheap?

 

[JB]

That's my point. You spend money on good players = you win. You spend money on bad players = you do not win. You think NYY, Phi and Bos would be winning if they spent their money foolishly, like the Cubs and the Mets always do? Of course not.

--Tampa has won the AL East 2 of the last 3 years. Who did they beat? The Yanks and the Sawx.
--The Marlins have won 2 World Series by being the cheapest team this side of Pittsburgh.
--Speaking of Pittsburgh, they were in a virtual tie for first until the last few days.
--Oakland and Minnesota are small market teams that have been as successful as anyone else in baseball the last 20 years.

Couple of things.
What happened as soon as Tampa won the AL East?
They could not resign their players.

Marlins were not the cheapest team when they won their rings, they bought players.

The difference you are missing here is that if a small market team makes a mistake on a player now, they are crippled, a big market team misses, they wipe it off and buy more.
The top 3 spenders lead and its not a coincidence. You talk about Spend money on good players = winning. Very true, however not all teams in the league can spend the same amount, so the highest bidder wins if they want to. Absurd in the world of sports nowadays.
And You really think Oakland and Minn have been as successful as anybody else in baseball the last 20 years? REALLY?
Combined they have 1 world series win and that was exactly 20 years ago.

 

[easy_13]

It has been shown that it works by every other league and that the best management still win with wise moves even with a salary cap (see Lakers, Patriots, etc)

You nailed it with the last part of your sentence: Good management wins (regardless of payroll). I don't understand the first part of your sentence. How does it work in every other league if the teams with good management always win? Why reward bad management by giving them money that you take away from teams with good management?

 

[JB]

You nailed it with the last part of your sentence: Good management wins (regardless of payroll). I don't understand the first part of your sentence. How does it work in every other league if the teams with good management always win? Why reward bad management by giving them money that you take away from teams with good management?

Because every team is on a level playing field. No, you are incorrect, good management does not always win.
You just said that the two best teams (as good as anybody else were your exact words) in MLB over the last 20 years have been Oakland and Minnesota. While I still dont see how that is true in any capacity, it keeps getting shown that they cannot keep talent as soon as contracts come up. Your other example of the Tampa Bay Rays won 2 out of 3 years and what happened? You guessed it, they could not resign talent and guys like Crawford are playing elsewhere.
Again, I would still love to hear the argument that brings up what bad things happen when teams all have a floor and a ceiling?
Why is it better to not have a level playing field?
Money brings wins in MLB. It has been proven time and time again. Yes good decisions are the most important thing, but when only half the league can even make those decisions, it makes for a horrible league and that is what you have now.
If good decisions are all that matter like you say, there would be no problem with a floor and ceiling.

And your edit you added is completely incorrect and not how it works. They dont take from teams because of good management. They take from teams for having larger populations and their own TV channels.

 

[coolbreeze]

Salary Floor
Salary Cap
End of Discussion

This ^^^^^^ plus they need to play fewer games. 162 games is just too much in the world we live in today, why should I watch a game when it really means nothing? Baseball playoffs are fantastic because each game means something, a regular season game just does nothing for me. Oh, and after they shorten the season they need to more it back two weeks, so that they can avoid the start of football season.

 

[easy_13]

The Twins are not just a small market team -- they were once in danger of being contracted and more than once of being relocated because of payroll. They have won 6 of the last 9 AL Central Division titles. That would be the same as the Yankees, and more than Boston or Philadelphia.

The A's went to the playoffs 5 out of 7 years from 2000 to 2006.

That doesn't happen to very many teams. They didn't close it off with championships, but I would classify both of them as being in the upper handful of teams in baseball over that period.

 

[Helo]

Would love to see a salary cap. Instant replay on scoring runs would also be nice. 19 innings for one game in a season of 160 IS a little ridiculous. I know I'm going to get beat up here, but what about a 100 game season. I just wish each individual game counted for a little more.

 

[JB]

The Twins are not just a small market team -- they were once in danger of being contracted and more than once of being relocated because of payroll. They have won 6 of the last 9 AL Central Division titles. That would be the same as the Yankees, and more than Boston or Philadelphia.

The A's went to the playoffs 5 out of 7 years from 2000 to 2006.

That doesn't happen to very many teams. They didn't close it off with championships, but I would classify both of them as being in the upper handful of teams in baseball over that period.

And in the end, they lose their talent.
Just as the Marlins showed, The Rays showed, and every other small market team shows.
They have no choice to either deal for young or lose it.
I would still love to hear the answer to same question I keep asking.
Please tell me what the negative is for having teams on the same level playing field with a floor and a ceiling?
You said the only thing that matters is good decisions, well having a ceiling shows that better than anything because mistakes matter.
Right now they dont for some teams. See Carl Pavano!

 

[Smallville]

Salary Floor
Salary Cap
End of Discussion

I disagree. Plenty of small-market teams win in baseball. The Cubs always have a big payroll, and haven't won squat in 105 years. In mlb, more than any other sport, it's how wisely you spend, not how much you spend.

Look at Kansas City. Have had one winning team since 1994 and barely got that after starting out 16-3. As mentioned earlier, small market teams have to be right on their free agents. One mistake and they are screwed for several years. Big market teams just move on.

As far as the OP, changing #1 is ridiculous. The others, 2 and 4 are debateable. I hate instant replay in football. Not sure I'd like to see it in any sport. Let the refs do their job. #3, interleague play. Yep, get rid of it.

 

[blugold]

I know I'm going to get beat up here, but what about a 100 game season.

All of the records and numbers would be renendered meaningless. Do you think anybody would break the single season home run record in 100 games?

 

[Smallville]

All of the records and numbers would be renendered meaningless. Do you think anybody would break the single season home run record in 100 games?

They could let them go back on steroids! A lot of the records are meaningless now anyway.

 

[blugold]

And in the end, they lose their talent.
Just as the Marlins showed, The Rays showed, and every other small market team shows.
They have no choice to either deal for young or lose it.

Not just losing their talent, but they can't attract top level free agents either. The Pujols, Fielders, Cliff Lees of the world would never go to a small market team. It's stupid. The Yankees in one summer got CC and Mark Texiera for over $20mil a season. Who can complete with that? It's bad for baseball.

 

[_JL_]

Definitely agree a Salary Cap is needed.
I'm all for instant replay as well. Definitely not for every play, but maybe some sort of challenge system like the NFL uses. It's way too difficult to make a close call in an instant when it happens, I don't care how good of an ump you are.

 

[easy_13]

Not just losing their talent, but they can't attract top level free agents either. The Pujols, Fielders, Cliff Lees of the world would never go to a small market team. It's stupid. The Yankees in one summer got CC and Mark Texiera for over $20mil a season. Who can complete with that? It's bad for baseball.

The Yankees do something like that almost every year. They've had the highest payroll in baseball the last 10 years. Why don't they win it every year? They've won it twice. The Phillies once. The Red Sox once.

And, oh yeah, the Marlins had the 20th highest payroll in 2003 when they won it. http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20030722&content_id=439341&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=null