CyYoung31
Shift Leader
These two statements seem contradictory.
Official CBA Negotiation Thread
- Thread starter bravesfanforlife88
- Start date
These two statements seem contradictory.
I was thinking the same thing.
DontStopTheChop
High School Draftee
2% increase may seem small but big-pocket teams will spend if it gives them an advantage. More spending = more money to players
Banning the shift, which I like.
No Robo umps. Also something I like.
Pitch clock (good, but I don't care about this one).
Larger bases (wut?)
Getting closer. Hope they figure it out soon. Supposed to be going to the Marlin series in Mid-April. At this point, that might be the opening home series, which would be cool.
No Robo umps. Also something I like.
Pitch clock (good, but I don't care about this one).
Larger bases (wut?)
Getting closer. Hope they figure it out soon. Supposed to be going to the Marlin series in Mid-April. At this point, that might be the opening home series, which would be cool.
I get the concept of more playoff teams making teams less likely to tank. But honestly, how many teams go into the season expecting to be bad? Maybe 5-6 teams total? Every other GM likely goes into the season expecting their team to be competing for a playoff spot. I don't think this is going to move the needle as much as they think it will. Mediocre teams will spend the same amount knowing it will be a lot easier to make the playoffs, and then they really don't care after that, because they are getting playoff money. And it doesn't really incentivize bad teams to spend anymore because they know they will still be bad.
If you added the new draft format where to this where teams that just miss the playoffs get the top picks, then I could see this total concept working. At that point, there is legitimately no advantage to tanking. If you are fighting for a playoff spot, you are rewarded.
If you added the new draft format where to this where teams that just miss the playoffs get the top picks, then I could see this total concept working. At that point, there is legitimately no advantage to tanking. If you are fighting for a playoff spot, you are rewarded.
msstate7
Well-known member
Banning the shifts is interesting. Who does this help/hurt the most on the braves? Is there a dead pull guy we might target now?
DirkPiggler
Well-known member
OK either way with banning the shift. I had grown to like it because it forced hitters to adapt, which only the better players could do. But I get the arguments against it.
We need robo umps. This whole concept of a human element with the strike zone is bulls**t. We have the technology to follow the rule book precisely. There is no reason not to use it. And there is no reason for the union to oppose it. You will still have to have an umpire behind home to relay the ball/strike call, and to handle judgment calls like fair/foul and tag plays at home. No one will lose their jobs...in fact, there will likely be many tech jobs created, some of which will undoubtedly go to members of the umpire's union. As long as Angel Hernandez and C.B. Bucknor are given the authority over the strike zone, it is going to be a problem for MLB.
I guess the larger bases are to combat the epidemic of reviews and tag plays overturned because of a guy barely coming off a base while a defender holds a tag on him. Fewer reviews would help pace of play. If that is the logic, sign me up.
msstate7
Well-known member
I'm gonna guess you have to have 2 guys on each side of 2b
Russ2dollas
10 yr, $185 million Extension
The other part is more money.
More TV money. More games that are likely to be full and selling extras.
But I agree expanded playoffs is going to be used to spend less. Sign 3-5 guys and fill out the roster with team control.
It may also kill the trade deadline.
I hate it.
Russ2dollas
10 yr, $185 million Extension
If I was in charge I'd say the players have already given up too much. Owners should accept the player's deal now.
But they won't. Staring to think 120 game schedule most likely and no baseball is now in play.
But they won't. Staring to think 120 game schedule most likely and no baseball is now in play.
DirkPiggler
Well-known member
That could be part of it as well.
Are they considering the double-wide first base like they use in softball? As strange as that looks, I'd be in favor of it versus having a pitcher covering first getting spiked or otherwise injured.
That's because I wrote them poorly, and my made up numbers didn't make sense.
Teams like the Dodgers and Yankees spending $50M for an extra 5% chance at the title (a huge improvement) is a very effective way to get more money into the pockets of players. If they can't spend $50M to gain 5% WS probability due to added randomness (if they can only buy a 1% increase, a very small improvement), that's $50M less funneled to players because they likely won't spend $50M for a 1% gain.
Last edited:
The thing is, the difference in ESPN revenue between 12 and 14 team playoffs is literally $15M, or $500k per team.
There's simply no way that money matters to the owners, so the only benefit they are getting is less incentive to spend on players.
If that's the case (I agree) then teams will still be able to place an IF up the middle or nearly so. It will limit the short outfielder. I suspect each IF will also have to have a foot on the dirt.
To me the up the middle ground ball and the short OF are the biggest benefits of the shift.
I suspect teams will find new ways to shift.
tululush
New member
Shift the entire outfield to one side and have the lf or rf play deep in the hole behind the infield dirt. If teams were ok with leaving first/third base wide open in the infield, I'm sure they'll be fine leaving the lf/rf line wide open now at the expense of plugging the hole between 3rd and ss or 2nd and 1st.
*edit* I guess this depends on what the league defines as a shift. Are they calling this a ban on infield shifts or a ban on all shifts?