Master Index of Archived Threads


Bye

iramets Dec 27 2006 08:39 AM

Not to hijack my [url=http://cybermessageboard.ehost.com/getalife/viewtopic.php?t=5425]realignment thread[/url], I'll bring up one of the issues I raise there in this thread, that of BYEs in baseball. In football, teams work hard for the privilege of getting a week off while lesser teams must win a game to play the BYE-blessed team the next week. The BYE team gets to rest, practice, review films and generally prepare as needed for the upcoming game, and every team wants one. But in baseball, you often hear it said that BYEs would be bad, mainly because it throws the pitchers out of whack, gives them too much rest, takes them off their routine, etc. Do you buy this? If the Mets could earn a BYE, and skip a round of playoffs, do you think this could be a bad thing? Me, I think it's total bullshit, retrospective excuse-making for getting your doors blown out. The "rustiness" factor is physical, which could be offset by a carefully planned throwing session (of unlimited or limited duration or vigor, as needed) on a date seleted in advance. Some batters will want extra BP, and they could get it in these throwing sessions, keeping their batting eyes as sharp as they need to be. Batters and pitchers who want rest can get that, as needed. You could even use these sessions to "game" some specific situations in the upcoming series. If a righty batter is concerned about facing a particular righthanded pitcher who throws inside sliders a lot, he might request that the righthanded pitcher having a session that day throw him some tight sliders to practice on. It's all good. Disagree?

KC Dec 27 2006 08:58 AM

I think they've tinkered around enough with the way things are. Next thing you know we'll have four fouls is an out, ten run mercy rule, mandatory two women per team, and everyone has to get an AB.

iramets Dec 27 2006 09:07 AM

I think you mean to rail in the realignment thread, whch is chockful of nutty ideas and rich chocolatey goodness. This idea of a BYE has certainly been proposed (and shouted down) vigorously on the grounds that I suggest, mainly to make "winning the division" much more worthwhile than winning the WC. It's been suggested that you could enhance revenue by having two WC winners, who would play each other for the privilege of playing the division winners who would each have a week, or part of one, to rest and plan. I'm asking if you buy into the reasoning that the BYE is an alloyed virtue, or even a largely negative outcome for a team? I think it would be almost totally positive.

Johnny Dickshot Dec 27 2006 09:15 AM

I'd prefer to make the going for the WC team more difficult (fewer home games, or an extra 1-game play-in thing as been discussed, giving the D-winner at least one extra day) rather than extending off-time for the div. winner as a reward in itself. Teams can still earn "rest" under the current plan by winning their division or their series comfortably, that's probably motivation enough.

metsmarathon Dec 27 2006 09:19 AM

given that our postseason was derailed in part due to an injury incurred in practice, i think that there should be no byes, and no off days either. actually, no. i like the idea of a bye, as it would imply a play-in game or short series for the wild card team. its prolly more change than people are willing to accept in baseball, of course. and more to the point, the benefit of resting your players to heal up all the bumps and bruises, nicks and scrapes, of the regular season would far outweigh any rustiness factor, since you'd have the team practicing still, right?

iramets Dec 27 2006 09:20 AM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: I'd prefer to make the going for the WC team more difficult (fewer home games, or an extra 1-game play-in thing as been discussed, giving the D-winner at least one extra day) rather than extending off-time for the div. winner as a reward in itself. Teams can still earn "rest" under the current plan by winning their division or their series comfortably, that's probably motivation enough. That's certainly conservative enough an approach. But if the Mets were granted a week off, do you think that would hurt their chances in the upcoming series or help them? That's what I'm asking.

Frayed Knot Dec 27 2006 09:24 AM

Given the choice of advancing to the next round automatically or having to fight for it teams would choose the guaranteed option every time, it would be stupid to opt for anything else. Not that that alone makes the concept of inserting more playoff rounds with built-in 'Byes' a good idea. This concept - plus those in the radical realignment thread - are predicated on the idea that fans & the league (and the TV networks) are demanding more playoff rounds - even to the point where lopping off approx 1/4 of the reg season in order to make some kind of 2-month long ultra-playoff system involving everyone from actual division winners, to multiple wild-cards, to hand-picked ringers, to the Bingo Long Travelling Road Show, is going to be some kind of wild money maker. It isn't.

iramets Dec 27 2006 09:27 AM

Frayed Knot wrote: Given the choice of advancing to the next round automatically or having to fight for it teams would choose the guaranteed option every time, it would be stupid to opt for anything else. Not that that alone makes the concept of inserting more playoff rounds with built-in 'Byes' a good idea. This concept - plus those in the radical realignment thread - are predicated on the idea that fans & the league (and the TV networks) are demanding more playoff rounds - even to the point where lopping off approx 1/4 of the reg season in order to make some kind of 2-month long ultra-playoff system involving everyone from actual division winners, to multiple wild-cards, to hand-picked ringers, to the Bingo Long Travelling Road Show, is going to be some kind of wild money maker. It isn't. Wait.

Yancy Street Gang Dec 27 2006 09:51 AM

I don't see it happening, at least not in the next couple of decades. I think at most, we may see the Division Series going to a best of seven. If the season was cut down to 120 games, teams would be losing 21 home dates each. Yes, they'd be getting playoff games as a replacement, but eight teams would lose in the first round, maybe with only one or two home games. The new setup would probably make money for the few teams that make it into the later rounds, but many teams would end up losing a lot of home games, and a lot of money. If I was an owner I wouldn't want that level of uncertainty. I'd prefer the longer regular season schedule. That's why there's been resistance to going back to 154 games. If four home dates matter, then 21 would matter all the more.

iramets Dec 27 2006 10:27 AM

LIAR! I said 125 games. maybe I should switch to decaf The assumption you're making is that this would not produce more overall revenue. But for the sake of argument, assume it would. I think it probably would, since the games that are being dropped are those of teams (less than half the teams) that would otherwise be far behind in the races at that point anyhow and are unlikely to be drawing big crowds. Assume, too, that in addition to revenue sharing, the TV picture is far more lucrative too, since TV would have dozens and dozens more playoff games to broadcast nationally. If this isn't bringing more revenue, IOW, of course it wouldn't fly. But I think that, even if my ideas are loopy (and I don't think they are) there are some ways for enhancing revenue that would offend you to the bone, and I believe we'll see some of those. Certainly your grandkids will see some appalling things by the time their pants are hitched up around the nipples.

Yancy Street Gang Dec 27 2006 10:35 AM

Well, sure, I'll buy that. If the majority of owners thought that some hideous innovation would make them more money, and the players approved (if it was something that required their approval), then, yes, the hideous innovation would be implemented. And yes, I agree that the game will probably see some significant changes over the next 50 to 75 years. But I don't think there will be any dramatic overhauls any time soon. My prediction is that baseball in 2026 won't be much different than it is now. In the next twenty years, I think at most we'll see one or two of the following: DH rule either dropped from AL or added to NL Expansion to 32 teams, four divisions of four teams each A second wild card in each league Some shifting of teams from one league to another, like the Brewers did

Frayed Knot Dec 27 2006 10:42 AM

]Assume, too, that in addition to revenue sharing, the TV picture is far more lucrative too, since TV would have dozens and dozens more playoff games to broadcast nationally. But the more playoff games you concoct the less valuable each one becomes. The networks barely want the expanded playoffs that exist now - essentially taking the early rounds in order to get a shot at the big shebang at the end and wouldn't start spending mega-bucks for two solid months of step-by-step eliminations. Remember that this isn't football. The biggest source for a team's income is its local TV package which is what you're asking them to give up 25% of in order to gain 1/30th of whatever pittance the networks and near-networks (TBS) are going to cough up for a playoff system which makes the NBA/NHL ones look brief (and the ratings for many of those games draw infomercial numbers). There are 11 NFL playoff games while MLB has up to 41 as it is. No one is clamoring to turn that into 141 and they're certainly not lining up to buy into them.

iramets Dec 27 2006 11:01 AM

Frayed Knot wrote: No one is clamoring to turn that into 141 and they're certainly not lining up to buy into them. You have no marketing vision.

Yancy Street Gang Dec 27 2006 11:08 AM

="Frayed Knot"]But the more playoff games you concoct the less valuable each one becomes. "Marketing vision" is one thing, but FK is invoking the time-tested law of Supply and Demand. It doesn't make sense to increase the supply until there's a great demand. Right now there's NO demand for more playoff games. Remember how Tommy Lasorda had to beg Indian and Cub fans to watch the playoffs. I think that it's probably just as likely that MLB would dramatically reduce the number of playoff games as they would to increase it. Look at the NFL, or the NCAA finals. Maybe you should be arguing that the World Series should be the World Game, and the playoffs would be single-elimination.

Nymr83 Dec 27 2006 03:43 PM

you can earn a bye a baseball very easily. lockup your division with a week or two to go in the season and rest your starters. and the fans dont even have to wait an extra week, its brilliant really.