Thread hijack: Yankees, MLB and making everything better.

[retep]

whatever peter. Here is your exact quote:

Ever been to Spring Training?

Ken, I wasn't mearly talking about the baseball games: There's the morepersonal setting, the closeness to the players, the building of anticipation for the main year. What my overall point is that baseball for many is a life style: its not just about the entertainment value.

[Southpaw Slim]

Ken, thanks for bringing this Yankees conversation here. Also, I find it funny that the word hijack is in the title since this thread has become hijacked by yourself to profess your love for drama. You do realize mid-season games can be dramatic, don't you? Have you ever been to a 0-1 extra-innings game between division rivals? I'd call it the best game I've ever seen, and it was in April. I do believe a close game early in the season is more entertaining than a post-season rivalry blowout. A game can be a contest for first place at any point in the season, and that makes it entertaining as well.

I love the idea that there's a WBC to give us some competitive baseball in the Spring, because I actually like baseball. I want more games. 16 games is too small a sample size. And as was stated before, you have to wait 9 months for it to come back. Meanwhile, you only get one game per week. FUCK THAT! I think the season is fine the way it is. And as for the length of the post-season: Why make the post-season shorter if the point is to create more drama? That just doesn't make sense to me.

By the way, it was fun reading through the thread from start to finish and watching Ken back down and claim he proposed to only cut 2 games after starting the whole discussion with the brilliant idea of cutting the season in half (or at least two smaller seasons: Baseball Jr. and Baseball Lite). If you don't like watching 162 games per year, why not just start paying attention in June? Hell, wait until September even. Make the season as short as you want. All you have to do is not care until it gets dramatic. That can be done without removing a single cherished game which those of us who love baseball cannot do without.

[TheLegend]

I do believe a close game early in the season is more entertaining than a post-season rivalry blowout. A game can be a contest for first place at any point in the season, and that makes it entertaining as well.

Of course a close game is going to be more entertaining than a blowout, but with all other factors being equal, a game in September is inherantly more entertaining than a game in April, becuase in September, it actually matters who's winning games and who's in first place.

Sure, it'd be great to have pro baseball on all year round, but it doesn't make sense to play 162 games when who makes the playoffs ultimately comes down to the last week anyway. It makes what happens in the first half of the season almost irrelevent.

And as for the length of the post-season: Why make the post-season shorter if the point is to create more drama? That just doesn't make sense to me.

If this is responding to something I said, I think you must've misunderstood me, I commented that home field advantage should award you 5 home games, not that the post-season should be shortened.

By the way, it was fun reading through the thread from start to finish and watching Ken back down and claim he proposed to only cut 2 games after starting the whole discussion with the brilliant idea of cutting the season in half (or at least two smaller seasons: Baseball Jr. and Baseball Lite).

What? I haven't changed my stance at all...

If you don't like watching 162 games per year, why not just start paying attention in June? Hell, wait until September even. Make the season as short as you want. All you have to do is not care until it gets dramatic. That can be done without removing a single cherished game which those of us who love baseball cannot do without.

That is what I do actually. Hence the comparison with the MLB season and a NBA basketball game... I will ruitinely watch the last few minutes of a basketball game.

Keeping pace isn't very exciting. Of course you are more likely to name the right champion if you play 1000 games, but the more games you play the less the significance every game holds. This is why college football is so intense- when you're chasing the national champtionship every game is do or die... you leave your heart on the field every week because 1 loss can knock you out of the running. You don't see that in baseball (at least not for 80% of the season) because individual games before September just don't matter. Sure, you want to avoid going on a long losing streak, but as long as you're more or less keeping up, 2 or 3 losses here or there don't matter.

[onion]

it actually matters who's winning games and who's in first place.

the fun is that it all matters. while it may not matter who's in first place, every game still matters. how many times is a division decided by only a few games. those early spring games count just as much, it's just not as dramatic. hell, every damn at bat matters. while the level of drama changes, and hence the avarage fan's enthusiasm, baseball is very much about the long haul. records often come down to what someone did in the spring. how many batting titles are won by a few hits? you get the point.

[Baseball=Life]

I don't know. Sure, 162 is a lot of games, but I don't think that actually lowers the value of a win. Just those "few losses here or there" would've been the difference for the A's in Sept 2004. Being 1 Game Back is just that, one game. I don't know, it just seems to me that since you have to win the most games, every single win counts. I know what you mean about how if there's fewer games (like in other sports) each win "counts" proportionally higher than in baseball. But every win does really count in MLB as in there have been so many teams that missed the playoffs by two games or less.

[Southpaw Slim]

Sure, it'd be great to have pro baseball on all year round, but it doesn't make sense to play 162 games when who makes the playoffs ultimately comes down to the last week anyway. It makes what happens in the first half of the season almost irrelevent.

Tell that to the White Sox of last year, who had an incredible first half and were able to ride it all the way through their abysmal second half slide to the fucking World Series. Those early wins counted for them.

[onion]

same situation for oakland. if they could get through one spring without sucking they'd run away with the division. not that it would help them get out of the first round.

by the way, not to change the subject again, but i feel like if the first round was seven games, then oakland would have a lot better of a chance. they have a strong team, as opposed to a few guys who carry the team. it's that damn best of five that gets 'em.

[Southpaw Slim]

I think the Wild Card system works well, but I also wouldn't mind a 7-game Division Series. That's 8 more games of baseball per year!