Master Index of Archived Threads


Runner on Second

G-Fafif Feb 13 2023 12:34 PM

The extra-inning rule in which a runner magically appears on second to start each half-inning has been made permanent. Maybe Keith Hernandez was waiting for this veritable guarantee that he wouldn't have to deal with extra, extra long games before agreeing to come back.

TransMonk Feb 13 2023 12:35 PM Re: Runner on Second

[TWEET]https://twitter.com/JesseRogersESPN/status/1625191805909360640[/TWEET] I was searching for this thread as Greg was creating it!

Benjamin Grimm Feb 13 2023 12:47 PM Re: Runner on Second

I'm not surprised, but... Yuck.

Edgy MD Feb 13 2023 01:15 PM Re: Runner on Second

Unanimously. Just insane.

metirish Feb 13 2023 01:19 PM Re: Runner on Second

Wow I was really hoping ( expecting )this post would say it was going away

Frayed Knot Feb 13 2023 01:22 PM Re: Runner on Second

Fuck 'em with a pine-tarred bat!

kcmets Feb 13 2023 01:33 PM Re: Runner on Second

https://www.kcmets.com/Pictures/assclown.jpg>https://www.kcmets.com/Pictures/assclown.jpg>https://www.kcmets.com/Pictures/assclown.jpg> https://www.kcmets.com/Pictures/assclown.jpg>https://www.kcmets.com/Pictures/assclown.jpg>https://www.kcmets.com/Pictures/assclown.jpg> https://www.kcmets.com/Pictures/assclown.jpg>https://www.kcmets.com/Pictures/assclown.jpg>https://www.kcmets.com/Pictures/assclown.jpg>

metsmarathon Feb 13 2023 01:57 PM Re: Runner on Second

fuck!

MFS62 Feb 13 2023 02:18 PM Re: Runner on Second

(Paraphrasing Vito Corleone) "Look what they've done to my game". Later

nymr83 Feb 13 2023 06:01 PM Re: Runner on Second

This was the dumbest rule change of all.

Edgy MD Feb 13 2023 08:07 PM Re: Runner on Second

In another sense, it was smart. They did something they wanted to do for their own benefit, sold it as a pandemic mitigation scheme, and therefore used the pandemic as a Trojan horse to sneak in what they perhaps wouldn't have gotten through the front door. Lest it not be mentioned, the universal DH was also a fake pandemic-related change that was perpetuated.

Fman99 Feb 14 2023 04:24 AM Re: Runner on Second

Fuck that committee then. What a big bag of hot wet shit this rule is

Edgy MD Feb 14 2023 06:21 AM Re: Runner on Second

It's somehow worse today than it was yesterday.

kcmets Feb 14 2023 06:45 AM Re: Runner on Second

Defund The Commish!

metirish Feb 14 2023 06:58 AM Re: Runner on Second

The booth likes this rule IIRC ? The didn't like the 7 inning double header , or maybe it's the other way around

Edgy MD Feb 14 2023 07:55 AM Re: Runner on Second

Well, shrinkflation is designed to benefit the marketer over the consumer, and that's kind of what this is.

G-Fafif Feb 14 2023 08:06 AM Re: Runner on Second

Ed Sudol called and said MLB is now run by a bunch of words he'd eject a batter who struck out looking in any of the 23+ inning Mets games he umpired for calling him because Ed Sudol knows you conduct yourself professionally until legitimate resolution is achieved.

MFS62 Feb 14 2023 08:25 AM Re: Runner on Second

Who will the runner be for the Mets? I don't think of any of the non-starters as being particularly fast. And does Buck want to risk a pitcher getting inured doing something they don't regularly do? This might have been Khalil Lee, but I don't think he'll be back with the big club (or at least until his legal difficulties have been resolved). I will be interesting to see how this is resolved. Later

Benjamin Grimm Feb 14 2023 08:55 AM Re: Runner on Second

The runner is whoever is due to bat ninth in the inning.

MFS62 Feb 14 2023 09:19 AM Re: Runner on Second

Benjamin Grimm wrote: The runner is whoever is due to bat ninth in the inning. MLB.com only says: As has been the case for the past three seasons, teams will begin each inning after the ninth with an automatic runner on second base. https://www.mlb.com/news/automatic-runner-permanent-new-mlb-rules-for-position-players-pitching Other reports I've read (including USA Today, CBS Sports) only say "A runner will be placed at second base.." None of the reports I've seen have specified whether that is the next batter due up. Later

Benjamin Grimm Feb 14 2023 09:20 AM Re: Runner on Second

We've seen this in place for three seasons now. We know what the rules are.

Frayed Knot Feb 14 2023 10:33 AM Re: Runner on Second

The only way to combat this is for an internet campaign to organize a mass walk-out of all fans in all parks the moment the ghost runner appears in the top of the 10th. I have zero belief that such a thing is possible.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 14 2023 10:46 AM Re: Runner on Second

Frayed Knot wrote: The only way to combat this is for an internet campaign to organize a mass walk-out of all fans in all parks the moment the ghost runner appears in the top of the 10th. I have zero belief that such a thing is possible. I used to, occasionally, fantasize about unionizing, or a union for baseball fans. But eventually, you get tired of dreaming about impossibilities. It'd be incredibly powerful though, if it could be made to happen.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 14 2023 10:51 AM Re: Runner on Second

Frayed Knot wrote: The only way to combat this is for an internet campaign to organize a mass walk-out of all fans in all parks the moment the ghost runner appears in the top of the 10th. I have zero belief that such a thing is possible. I used to, occasionally, fantasize about unionizing, or a union for baseball fans. But eventually, you get tired of dreaming about impossibilities. It'd be incredibly powerful though, if it could be made to happen. It'd wield so much power that fans wouldn't have to walk out. Just the threat of a walk-out would cause the owners to discuss this rule with the union. As that union's powers peaked, it wouldn't even have to threaten a walk-out. Owners wouldn't even think of implementing that rule without first running it by the fans' union.

Edgy MD Feb 14 2023 10:55 AM Re: Runner on Second

Get Vic Sage on board and watch sparks fly.

MFS62 Feb 14 2023 11:00 AM Re: Runner on Second

Edgy MD wrote: Get Vic Sage on board and watch sparks fly. Blast from the past. How is he doing lately? Anybody heard rom him? Later

Frayed Knot Feb 14 2023 01:00 PM Re: Runner on Second

I've been hearing threats of fan boycotts since Ralph Nadar was threatening one (it might have been over the Seaver trade). The problem, of course, is that you'd need a large pct of fans going along and, as much as we don't want to admit it, some fans LOVE the DH, ghost runners, games decided by HR derbies (or maybe relay races), increased inter-league play, and little propellers on top of the players' caps.

kcmets Feb 14 2023 04:45 PM Re: Runner on Second

Sooner or later You're gonna listen to Ralpn Nader I don't wanna cause a fuss But Runners on Second are so dangerous [YOUTUBE]cpareF9xy-U[/YOUTUBE]

Centerfield Feb 14 2023 04:55 PM Re: Runner on Second

Maybe if they didn't start immediately with the runner it would be ok. First two extra innings are played normally. Then two with a runner on 2nd. Then two with runners on 2nd and 3rd but start with one out.

kcmets Feb 14 2023 05:04 PM Re: Runner on Second

No. When you attend a baseball game you know going in that you may be there for a couple of hours or for six or seven.

Frayed Knot Feb 14 2023 06:40 PM Re: Runner on Second

=Centerfield post_id=118308 time=1676418922 user_id=65] Maybe if they didn't start immediately with the runner it would be ok.

This is the way I'd thought they'd go if they were to continue it at all.

Some 90% of extra inning games are over by the 12th, so if it were only instituted once a game reached inning #13 then it would be a rare occurrence rather than one

occurring almost every day during the season and a complete replacement of extra innings as we [CROSSOUT]know[/CROSSOUT] knew them. I wonder if it even

occurred to whatever committee supposedly did this that maybe, just maybe mind you, baseball fans actually like extra inning baseball?



Of course they lied to us about this by saying it was only for the Covid seasons and then again for the work stoppage shortened ST year of '22 and by now it's pretty

obvious that they were lying all along, that by citing the exceptions as the reason was really just a way to establish it as the new normal making its permanent existence

seem list a seamless transition.



And since the odds of any kind of fan walk-outs are effectively nil, that leaves a backlash from the sports media as the only other avenue to fight back. With that in mind

it also can't be seen as a coincidence that this panel just happened to 'vote' on this during Super Bowl weekend when they know no one with a press credential will even

be paying attention. Even now, two days later, I still have yet to hear it even mentioned by audio or print much less criticized. Maybe some talking heads on MLBN have

discussed it but it's questionable how hard they're going to go after the ones paying their meal ticket.

vtmet7 Feb 15 2023 02:50 AM Re: Runner on Second

I understand their desire to shorten games but...how about a compromise, have 1 real rules extra inning first before doing baby rules starting with the 11th?

metsmarathon Feb 15 2023 04:34 AM Re: Runner on Second

=vtmet7 post_id=118319 time=1676454624 user_id=80] I understand their desire to shorten games but...how about a compromise, have 1 real rules extra inning first before doing baby rules starting with the 11th?

It's funny how in other sports everybody goes crazy over a game going into say triple overtime. But in baseball they're all “save the drama for yo mama”



But yeah. Play some regular extra innings first and then switch to the zombie runner.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 15 2023 06:46 AM Re: Runner on Second

It's always about the money. Just follow the money. It's probably incredibly inefficient to the owners for games to go into prolonged extra innings. Overtime and extra pay for the stadium workers. They hafta deal with local liquor laws that might prevent the sale of booze by a certain time. Fans are buying way less goods anyways because they're running out of money by then or have exceeded their spending budgets for the game. And even if they can still spend more, how many fucking hot dogs can a fan eat? Just because the game's continuing, doesn't mean a fan's hunger isn't sated by then. Or they're not even there because they've left the stadium and gone home because they hafta wake up early the next day for work and/or school. Owners have probably been griping internally to themselves about extra inning games forever. It's all about the money. Owners could give a flying fuck about the purity of the game.

MFS62 Feb 15 2023 07:37 AM Re: Runner on Second

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=118328 time=1676468786 user_id=68] It's all about the money. Owners could give a flying fuck about the purity of the game.

Sadly, a brief, but accurate, statement.

Well said.

Later

Edgy MD Feb 15 2023 07:51 AM Re: Runner on Second

All that is certainly true and I think understood by all, but it still represents the owners and their representatives taking a shallow approach. Their other recent rules — universal DH and the 26th (and sometimes a 27th) player on the roster — all have been game lengtheners, so maybe they might want to look in the mirror. If you want good baseball, switch to 16-player rosters. Bezball would be as fast and action-paced as ice hockey on cocaine. They'd have change the name to "bezball," because it would be so fucking good it would need a rebrand.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 15 2023 08:14 AM Re: Runner on Second

Edgy MD wrote: Their other recent rules — universal DH and the 26th (and sometimes a 27th) player on the roster — all have been game lengtheners, so maybe they might want to look in the mirror. Just follow the money. There's probably a universal DH because to the owners way of thinking, a DH leads to more offense and fans would rather see run scoring instead of run prevention.

Edgy MD Feb 15 2023 08:43 AM Re: Runner on Second

I think that's rooted in untested assumptions and unintended consequences.

vtmet7 Feb 21 2023 06:35 PM Re: Runner on Second

It's always about the money. Just follow the money. It's probably incredibly inefficient to the owners for games to go into prolonged extra innings. Overtime and extra pay for the stadium workers. They hafta deal with local liquor laws that might prevent the sale of booze by a certain time. Fans are buying way less goods anyways because they're running out of money by then or have exceeded their spending budgets for the game. And even if they can still spend more, how many fucking hot dogs can a fan eat? Just because the game's continuing, doesn't mean a fan's hunger isn't sated by then. Or they're not even there because they've left the stadium and gone home because they hafta wake up early the next day for work and/or school. Owners have probably been griping internally to themselves about extra inning games forever. It's all about the money. Owners could give a flying fuck about the purity of the game. makes you wonder about that game that the Mets played in Atlanta in the 80's, rain delays, extra innings, fireworks started just before dawn...how much extra did that cost the stadium folks, I would imagine that the pyrotechnics guys weren't expected to be doing their jobs just before the Fulton County Stadium area was just about to wake up for work... https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-07-04-sp-544-story.html The Night Without End : An Unusual Baseball Game Was Played One Year Ago; It Seems Like Yesterday Today marks not only the observance of a national holiday but also the first anniversary of a very special baseball game. Special not because of the day it was played, but because of the distinct possibility that there may never be another one quite like it. You can call it: The night the lights didn't go out in Georgia. The game between the Atlanta Braves and the New York Mets at Atlanta, as you might remember, was a lengthy one. Now, length doesn't make a game special, but this one, as dramatic as it was long, dragged on for 6 hours 10 minutes. Add 2 hours 10 minutes of rain delays, and it totals up to quite an event. After finally getting under way at 9:04 p.m. EDT, the game ended at 3:55 a.m, the Mets wearily winning, 16-13, in 19 innings. Although few stuck around to see the end, it turned out to be quite a game. And after the game, there were the traditional fireworks. After all, it was the Fourth of July. Actually, 4:01 a.m. makes it July 5, but the promised show had to go on. “As long as there were people at the game, we were obligated to fire ‘em (the fireworks) off, I thought,” said Wayne Minshew, director of public relations and promotions for the Braves. There were an estimated 8,000 fans left from a crowd of 44,947 when the fireworks started shortly before dawn. Ernie Johnson, Braves radio-TV announcer, wasn't pleased, especially after he found out he was to emcee the fireworks. “They told me they wanted me to do a play-by-play on the fireworks show after the game,” he said. “I mean the game itself was so long. I said to myself, ‘What do they want me to do here, go ohh and ahh as they light each one off?' ” Johnson was also concerned with the neighbors around the stadium. Minshew didn't give it a second thought, and later found out the fireworks raised the ire of some of the stadium neighbors. “We got about 30 calls (complaints) here, and the police precinct told me they got several,” Minshew said. Jack Lang, a longtime baseball writer who works for the New York Daily News, figured the complaints weren't directly concerning the fireworks. “The neighbors thought they were being bombed,” he said. “They didn't call to stop the fireworks, they called because they were alarmed and didn't know what was going on.” The game, the latest finish ever in the majors, and probably anywhere else, left workers reeling in a state somewhere between frustration and delirium. Naturally, the players were tired. But since neither team was able to hold a lead, it was difficult to stir up a lot of sympathy for either. Consider, for example, the agony on the part of those who, for one reason or another, had to watch the entire game. “It was one of the more miserable experiences of my life,” said Gerry Fraley, who covers the Braves for the Atlanta Journal and Constitution. “It was a night in hell is what it was. It was like slow torture. It's bad enough to cover a team that loses 96 games, but to have to watch them lose for six hours in one sitting is ridiculous.” Atlanta finished 66-96 last year. “I didn't leave the stadium til' 6:30 in the morning, and my neighbors must have thought I was some sort of derelict or something for coming home at 7 in the morning,” Fraley said. “Oh God, it was a bad night.” Lang, looking back, was one reporter who was glad to be there. “Anytime you get involved in something historical, you can't feel too bad,” he said. “Yeah, I was glad to be there. It was something different.” Actually, the game shouldn't have gone as long as it did. It probably should have been over long before dawn instead of just before sunrise. But it simply wouldn't end. Going into the bottom of the eighth, the Mets had a 7-4 lead. Reliever Jesse Orosco walked three batters and proceeded to give up four runs. The Mets' Len Dykstra, however, drove in a run with an infield single off Bruce Sutter to send the game into extra innings. Sutter wasn't the only one to lose a lead. Both teams kept coming back. With two outs in the 13th, Howard Johnson hit a two-run home run off now-Angel Terry Forster to give the Mets a 10-8 lead. It looked as though they would win the game. But Terry Harper wasn't to be outdone by Johnson. He also hit a two-out, two-run shot off Tom Gorman in the bottom of the 13th, which tied the game again at 10-10. In the 18th inning, Dykstra drove in Johnson with a sacrifice fly off Rick Camp, the seventh and final Atlanta pitcher, making it 11-10 Mets. But Camp, with a .060 batting average, produced the strangest twist of the night. Batting because there was no one left to do so, he hit his first and only major league home run to tie the score again at 11-11. “That was the most bizarre thing about the whole night,” Fraley said. Finally in the 19th inning, the Mets, who out-hit the Braves 28-18, were finally able to put the game out of reach, scoring five runs off Camp. However, the Braves scored twice in the bottom of the 19th and Camp had another chance to tie the game with runners on first and third. But this time he struck out and took the loss. Gorman, who had given up two two-out home runs, got the win. “They had a lead in the ninth inning, and Sutter lost it,” Fraley said. “They always seemed to find a way to lose. It was just a horrible evening.” Gorman said he could have ended the game much earlier. He had the chance. “We should have won the game twice,” Gorman told the New York Times. “I could have easily picked up the save. I could have lost the game. Instead I won it. It was the weirdest thing I've ever seen.” But, as Fraley said: “It just showed how bad the Braves were, it took ‘em 19 innings to lose. In a sense it kind of typified their whole season. It was all kind of ridiculous. I just try to blot it out of my memory as much as possible.” At the end of the evening, there had been 155 official at-bats, 23 strikeouts and 22 walks. The Mets' Keith Hernandez said he “saw things I've never seen before.” Ron Darling, who pitched the last inning (he was used as a reliever for the first time since a freshman at Yale), said, “It was a game everyone on this team will remember.” The Mets set a club-record 28 hits; Hernandez had hit for the cycle (single, double, triple home run) by the 12th inning; Gary Carter caught the entire game, while going 5-for-9 at the plate and driving in two runs; Ray Knight, though providing a key run-scoring double in the 19th inning, left 11 runners on base, three times making an out with the bases loaded. The Braves' Terry Harper went 5-for-10 with 4 RBIs, and Camp hit the not-so-memorable home run, at least as far as he was concerned. “I couldn't care less about the home run,” Camp told the New York Times. “If they have to rely on me to hit home runs, we're in a lot of trouble.” He was right. Forty-three of a possible 50 players participated in the marathon, each team used seven pitchers (the starter for the Mets was Dwight Gooden, who pitched 2 innings, walking four batters and allowing two runs to score), and the teams combined to leave 37 men on base. It was was surely a memorable evening, night and morning. By the way, the Braves play host to the Montreal Expos tonight. This time, the forecast is for clear skies.

kcmets Feb 21 2023 06:43 PM Re: Runner on Second

=vtmet7 post_id=118672 time=1677029719 user_id=80]makes you wonder about that game that the Mets played in Atlanta in the 80's, rain delays, extra innings, fireworks started just before dawn...how much extra did that cost the stadium folks, I would imagine that the pyrotechnics guys weren't expected to be doing their jobs just before the Fulton County Stadium area was just about to wake up for work...

I doubt anyone has wondered this. In the 80's or 90's or...

kcmets Feb 21 2023 06:44 PM Re: Runner on Second

The post changed four times. Whatever.

vtmet7 Feb 21 2023 06:47 PM Re: Runner on Second

=kcmets post_id=118674 time=1677030289 user_id=53] The post changed four times. Whatever.

sorry about that...I posted a quickie...then added to it as I scratched that archived memory

Edgy MD Feb 21 2023 09:01 PM Re: Runner on Second

Since it was 37 1/2 years ago, the costs have been absorbed. The residual effects of a cottage industry of recalling that game for nearly four decades has probably more than made up for it. This is why people openly wonder if the people in charge actively dislike the game. They only point to one side of the ledger.

Fman99 Feb 22 2023 05:31 AM Re: Runner on Second

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=118328 time=1676468786 user_id=68] It's always about the money. Just follow the money. It's probably incredibly inefficient to the owners for games to go into prolonged extra innings. Overtime and extra pay for the stadium workers. They hafta deal with local liquor laws that might prevent the sale of booze by a certain time. Fans are buying way less goods anyways because they're running out of money by then or have exceeded their spending budgets for the game. And even if they can still spend more, how many fucking hot dogs can a fan eat? Just because the game's continuing, doesn't mean a fan's hunger isn't sated by then. Or they're not even there because they've left the stadium and gone home because they hafta wake up early the next day for work and/or school. Owners have probably been griping internally to themselves about extra inning games forever. It's all about the money. Owners could give a flying fuck about the purity of the game.

The more I think about this the more accurate it seems. I think that whatever the guise is that they'd have you believe is their true motivation, that they're really just trying to get everyone to go home.

nymr83 Feb 22 2023 03:40 PM Re: Runner on Second

Definitely true. They cut off beer sales in the 8th inning (in most places i think?) they can't turn them back on for extra innings and there is probably a scheduled shutdown of all the other food stands by inning. they are only losing money after 9.

stevejrogers Feb 22 2023 04:29 PM Re: Runner on Second

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=118328 time=1676468786 user_id=68] It's always about the money. Just follow the money. It's probably incredibly inefficient to the owners for games to go into prolonged extra innings. Overtime and extra pay for the stadium workers.

Back in the 1970s-1980s WWF house shows at Madison Square Garden had to end at a certain time, and often the final match of the night was booked to end due to “curfew.”



I listened to a podcaster based in the UK whom was discussing watching one of these old shows wonder if the building's curfew had anything to do with the urban decay New York City was going through at the time!



His cohost, who grew up in the NYC/New Jersey area during that time laughed about it, and explained it was more on the building's owners not wanting to pay overtime wages to workers if the event went over a certain time.



Though it did provide WWF bookers at the time the perfect way to tailor a bullshit finish to a match, and entice attendees to come back the following month to see if the match can end quicker!

whippoorwill Feb 22 2023 05:05 PM Re: Runner on Second Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 22 2023 05:08 PM

.

whippoorwill Feb 22 2023 05:05 PM Re: Runner on Second

We went to a WWE or WWF or whatever it was in 1983 on February 28 1983, at Lock Haven University. I remember because it was my moms birthday, the last episode of MASH, and I was wearing a maternity top for the first time when pregnant with my daughter. Hoping not to get jostled by rowdy fans I guess. It ended at 9 pm on the dot although at 8:58 the Samoans were in a knock down- drag em out tag team fight with another team

MFS62 Feb 22 2023 05:38 PM Re: Runner on Second Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Feb 22 2023 06:03 PM

When the New York teams moved West, Les Keiter used to re-create the games on NY radio. He would sit in a studio, read the pitch-by-pitch play off the ticker and then, with background sounds*, act like he was broadcasting the game live. (Ronald Reagan did this for Cubs games or a while.) He had to be done by 6:00 PM ET because the news was scheduled on the station(WINS?). One game I listened to, the game was lopsided and Les was taking his time. But SF scored a ton of runs to tie it in the bottom of the ninth and the game went into extra innings. Memory dims, but IIRC Les compressed several innings with something like six runs and twelve hits into ten minutes so the game could end on schedule. Later * = crowd noises, bat hitting the ball

whippoorwill Feb 22 2023 05:59 PM Re: Runner on Second

Lol!

MFS62 Feb 22 2023 06:06 PM Re: Runner on Second

It was WINS. Keiter served as sports director at WINS–AM in New York from the mid-1950s to 1963 ...He was most remembered for his re-creations of San Francisco Giants games from 1958 to 1960, broadcast back to New York listeners in the first three seasons after the franchise's departure from the city.[5] His re-creations were so popular, many fans had no idea he was not covering the action live.[ https://archives.starbulletin.com/2008/03/03/features/flashback.html Later

Edgy MD Feb 22 2023 08:06 PM Re: Runner on Second

We're comparing MLB to pro wrestling now. Just wanted to step back and write that.

nymr83 Feb 22 2023 09:10 PM Re: Runner on Second

and whose fault is that? Manfred's maybe. not ours! :)

Frayed Knot Feb 23 2023 04:54 AM Re: Runner on Second

btw, during a trip to MLB.com a day or two ago I was greeted by a headline, You Spoke, We Listened: Rule Changes for 2023 iow they're trying to sell this as something driven by popular demand rather than a top-down 'solution' to either unrelated or non-existent problems. Can you find fans who are going to like some or all of these changes? Sure! But, like the lazy practice of what passes for today's journalism where citing what 'Twitter' is saying as the basis for a story, it's a case of cherry-picking those who agree with your pre-determined outcome as justification and/or cover for that outcome. The section explaining the rule changes is still there. The headline is not.

whippoorwill Feb 23 2023 06:16 AM Re: Runner on Second

So they are suggesting that people were complaining about being up too late watching extra inning baseball? Here's an idea: go to bed if it's getting late, then check the score in the morning. But don't mess with perfection!

Edgy MD Feb 23 2023 07:47 AM Re: Runner on Second

=nymr83 post_id=118739 time=1677125414 user_id=54] and whose fault is that? Manfred's maybe. not ours! :)

Yeah, I just wanted to point out where we are.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 23 2023 08:48 AM Re: Runner on Second

Frayed Knot wrote: btw, during a trip to MLB.com a day or two ago I was greeted by a headline, You Spoke, We Listened: Rule Changes for 2023 iow they're trying to sell this as something driven by popular demand rather than a top-down 'solution' to either unrelated or non-existent problems. Can you find fans who are going to like some or all of these changes? Sure! But, like the lazy practice of what passes for today's journalism where citing what 'Twitter' is saying as the basis for a story, it's a case of cherry-picking those who agree with your pre-determined outcome as justification and/or cover for that outcome. The section explaining the rule changes is still there. The headline is not. MLB has been doing that since at least, the Bud Selig era. "We took a poll...", Selig would begin, to justify anything. Anything. Trump does it all the time - "People have been telling me everywhere I go...." Marjorie Taylor-Idiot did it yesterday- "Everyone I talk to tells me this ....." It's chapter one from the con artist's playbook.

nymr83 Feb 23 2023 10:52 AM Re: Runner on Second

Maybe they did take a poll. The rule changes sound exactly like what people responding to a random surveymonkey poll would think are good changes, as opposed to what people attending or watching games think.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 23 2023 10:55 AM Re: Runner on Second

=nymr83 post_id=118757 time=1677174732 user_id=54] Maybe they did take a poll. The rule changes sound exactly like what people responding to a random surveymonkey poll would think are good changes, as opposed to what people attending or watching games think.

Maybe they did. Doesn't mean they're giving out the accurate responses. Don't trust anything they say. They're gonna do what's right for them. And if it happens to be right for the fans, too, well more often than not, that's probably just a happy incidental coincidence.

bmfc1 Feb 23 2023 12:08 PM Re: Runner on Second Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Feb 23 2023 01:36 PM

"Do you want games to be longer or shorter?" "Define 'long' and 'short'." "Just answer the question." "Uh, shorter." "Great, then we'll make the Ghost Runner rule permanent because you want it!" "I don't want THAT!" "You should have said so." "You didn't ask." "Right, so we did what you wanted and made the games shorter... and we did it in a way that matches what the owners, players, managers, and the media want, too! What a coincidence."

kcmets Feb 23 2023 12:22 PM Re: Runner on Second

Hey Abbott!

Edgy MD Feb 23 2023 01:05 PM Re: Runner on Second

"Do you watch baseball?" 　　　　"No, I don't. Not really." 　　"Why not?" 　　　　"I don't like it. I guess it's not my game." 　　"What would make you watch more of it?" 　　　　"Nothing." 　　"Nothing?" 　　　　"I don't want to watch." 　　"OK. What would make you more likely to watch?" 　　　　"I dunno. Less baseball might make me more likely to watch baseball." 　　"You want baseball to have less baseball." 　　　　"Well, I don't like baseball, so I guess that's logically and epistemologically true. Yeah." 　　"This is going to be so easy. Thank you so much for your help! See you at the games!" 　　　　"Whatever."