Interesting stuff, thanks. But why do I hear an overlying message of: "you're old".
Baseball has been working small changes at the boundaries to increase the game's watchability, with little success, at least as measured by market share. Some of these things in the article are more fundamental than any of those, so maybe they are more serious.
We can probably agree though: almost all the changes that have been made over the past 50 years have not had a positive impact on the game.
I think purists who resist further changes are on shaky ground when one considers today's game compared to its origins. Too many tweaks to note. But suffice to say, from DHs to between half-inning commercial pauses to strike zone rules, the game has changed and most of the changes have created two primary outcomes:
1. Games are long with many long pauses. They are long because of the increased offense--many hits errors and runs--a mistaken experiment where baseball thought more offense means more fans.They are also long because of the delays--in the batter's box, on the mound, between innings...in what other game can the two primary players (P-C) control the pace of the game to this degree? And ironically, trying to increase revenue via between inning commercials has backfired and has diminishing returns. Would rather be flashed with an ad. And if I am at the ballpark, why do I have to sit there and watch endless long toss while the tv plays commercials and I listen to inane announcements?
2. More offense has been more destructive to the purity of the game than anything. Mindlessly, it has become an effort in watching for the next homerun or strikeout. What about hit and run? Steal? Tag? Bunt? Nah--just wait for the homerun. Tight games? Nah. 13-7. Takes away so much strategy when it's a game of big swings every night. I am a purist--and I'm bored with today's game. It is borderline unwatchable to this fan of 50 years of baseball.
Great article but raises many questions and curiosities.
Mon Aug 19, 2019 9:36 pm