Thread Rating:

Poll

26 votes (68.42%)
2 votes (5.26%)
1 vote (2.63%)
2 votes (5.26%)
5 votes (13.15%)
1 vote (2.63%)
1 vote (2.63%)

38 members have voted

TomG
TomG
Joined: Sep 26, 2010
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 2070
August 6th, 2020 at 6:23:51 AM permalink
Quote: kewlj

So last week, I commented about how I hate MLB's new extra inning rule (runner starting on 2nd base). I am a bit of a traditionalist and just don't like changing the game. I hate college football's overtime format and the NHL overtime as well.

So today, resting at home, I watched the Phillies/Yankees double header with the new double header 7 innings rule. Anyone want to guess my feelings on that? lol yep, I hate it.

In baseball you have your starting pitchers, your middle relief guys and your late inning set up and closers. With 7 innings you completely eliminate the middle relief guys. Teams can go right from starters to set up guys and closers. It takes a segment of the game, middle relief away. That may be a teams strength or weakness. I just don't like changing the game like this. Anyone else?



Interesting to see the "middle - setup - closer" bullpen roles describes as traditional, when it represents only about the most recent 20% of baseball history. At the very start of professional baseball, teams would have like two pitchers on the team. Then they went to rotations, but the starters would complete most all of their games. By the 1930s, most everyone was a swingman, starting and relieving (examples: Lefty Grove, Firpo Marberry). By the 40s and 50s, whenever the starter was knocked out, teams would bring in the best reliever that was rested enough to pitch and let them pitch as much as they could (Ellis Kinder). From the 50s through the 70s, teams developed relief aces who they would use in high-leverage situations (Wilhelm, Gossage). Then Sutter and Righetti type relievers were a bridge to Eckersley and Thigpen and the modern closer. Then it was only some time after that, when the other relief pitchers with their roles equally defined. Now with openers and 14 pitchers on a roster, things are changing again.

The new three batter rule does as much to move further away from modern relief strategy than seven-inning double headers, and that is here to stay.

Every team playing Sunday double-headers is (or was) a baseball tradition. I'm thinking they slowly reduced the number throughout the 50s and 60s. I'm also sure 14 innings in 2020 takes longer than 18 innings did in 1951.

I've always thought there was not a need for overtimes in sports. Ties should be ok. Americans seem to have this weird idea that a winner must be decided on the field after a few hours; but if the NFL plays a 17 week season and three teams are tied with 9-7 records it's ok to use some silly formula to decide which one goes to the playoffs.
lilredrooster
lilredrooster
Joined: May 8, 2015
  • Threads: 155
  • Posts: 2935
August 6th, 2020 at 7:52:06 AM permalink
Quote: TomG


I've always thought there was not a need for overtimes in sports. Ties should be ok.
three teams are tied with 9-7 records it's ok to use some silly formula to decide which one goes to the playoffs




I don't like the idea of a lot of ties - like soccer.
to me it's unsatisfying - like kissing your sister

but I don't like the NFL's coin toss for overtime giving a significant advantage to the team that wins it and takes possession first

my suggestion is this:

each team gets the ball on the 5 yard line - and gets just one down - one attempt - it doesn't really matter who goes first
the game is decided by who converts to the end zone when the other team fails to convert to the end zone

if they both convert or the both fail to convert a 2nd or 3rd or 4th try is taken
until one team converts when the other team doesn't convert - it shouldn't usually take long for that to happen

this way the skill factor is what will decide the game - no significant disadvantage to being unlucky

as far as deciding the playoffs by a silly formula when teams are tied at 9-7 -

there could be a better formula - such as margin of victory in points

if there's still a tie, which is unlikely, it could go to yards gained and given up






also, there's no guarantee there won't still be ties in the season's record if ties are allowed - probably fewer - but it still would happen
𝘈 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘣𝘺 𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴.... ᴴᵉʳᵐᵃⁿ ᴹᵉˡᵛⁱˡˡᵉ
billryan
billryan
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 171
  • Posts: 9478
August 6th, 2020 at 10:00:16 AM permalink
Baseball did away with doubleheaders when they were forced to pay players decent wages. In the 50s, almost every non-Yankee would have an off-season job. Yankees usually got the winning share of the world Series, which was a year's salary for most of them.
As late as the late 1970s, many ballplayers needed to work. Many would "barnstorm", putting together a team of fellow major leaguers and tour, taking on local teams or other barnstormers. It really wasn't until after the 1981 strike that the players gained the advantage salary wise.
smoothgrh
smoothgrh
Joined: Oct 26, 2011
  • Threads: 65
  • Posts: 627
August 6th, 2020 at 5:58:50 PM permalink
Quote: billryan


As late as the late 1970s, many ballplayers needed to work.



One of my baseball cards from 1979 says the player was a substitute teacher in the off-season!
TomG
TomG
Joined: Sep 26, 2010
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 2070
August 7th, 2020 at 11:10:18 AM permalink
Quote: lilredrooster

I don't like the idea of a lot of ties - like soccer.
to me it's unsatisfying - like kissing your sister



MLB and NBA, have fairly low overtime rates. About 6% in NBA and 9% in MLB, if basketball ended after five minutes of OT, and baseball ended after 10 innings, it would be only around 5% of games ending in ties.

The kissing my sister comparison is just really weird.

NFL overtime rate is about 10%. The problem is it's such a violent game, so they want to keep it short, which puts too much emphasis on the coin flip (NFL), or it turns into a different game (college). Just call it a half win in the regular season and it really helps the problem of a bunch of teams tied with the same record for the last playoff spot. (certainly won't be a complete fix, only a way to lessen the problem). In the playoffs, play a full 15 minutes, and if it's still tied, then it becomes sudden victory.

The worst "sport" for ties is, by far, chess. Someone needs to do a tournament where every game is armageddon,

Quote: lilredrooster

as far as deciding the playoffs by a silly formula when teams are tied at 9-7 -

there could be a better formula - such as margin of victory in points

if there's still a tie, which is unlikely, it could go to yards gained and given up



This represents the problem I see with people being so resistant to ties. Being against ties in the standings means you see the game more as it's own distinct unit, not a piece used to build a season. In that case, it would be nonsensical to use the totality of points, rather than game results. If a team starts the fourth quarter leading 31-0, should it really matter in the standings if the final score is 31-8 or 45-0 (nearly doubling the margin of victory). If you do say yes, that means you think the game result (win or loss) is not the only measurement we should be using, in which case a ties should be acceptable.
lilredrooster
lilredrooster
Joined: May 8, 2015
  • Threads: 155
  • Posts: 2935
August 7th, 2020 at 1:16:52 PM permalink
Quote: TomG



In that case, it would be nonsensical to use the totality of points, rather than game results. If a team starts the fourth quarter leading 31-0, should it really matter in the standings if the final score is 31-8 or 45-0 (nearly doubling the margin of victory). If you do say yes, that means you think the game result (win or loss) is not the only measurement we should be using, in which case a ties should be acceptable.




they've used margin of victory for a long time in college football - as one factor in determining who is invited to bowls - although they may not be making an exact calculation and there are other factors - I don't see any problem with it - using it to just break seasonal record ties to determine who gets into the playoffs

I think the game results, and the team's overall record should be the main measurement to determine who gets into the playoffs
the margin of victory should only be a secondary measurement to be used when necessary

and again, 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐠𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐧'𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 - it just means there would be fewer - there still would be some - and it will still be necessary to use some formula (the one used now you called silly) to determine who gets into the playoffs

so, since you think that the formula now being used is silly - what formula would you recommend if there is a season record tie to determine who gets into the playoffs?
Last edited by: lilredrooster on Aug 7, 2020
𝘈 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘣𝘺 𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴.... ᴴᵉʳᵐᵃⁿ ᴹᵉˡᵛⁱˡˡᵉ
lilredrooster
lilredrooster
Joined: May 8, 2015
  • Threads: 155
  • Posts: 2935
August 8th, 2020 at 1:47:56 AM permalink
pretty shocking story
an ex L.A. Angels exec is alleged to have sold drugs - that included fentanyl - to pitcher Tyler Skaggs and that it caused his death by overdose

the ex exec is charged with criminal conspiracy to distribute fentanyl

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/07/sports/baseball/la-angels-fentanyl-tyler-skaggs.html?action=click&module=Latest&pgtype=Homepage
𝘈 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘣𝘺 𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴.... ᴴᵉʳᵐᵃⁿ ᴹᵉˡᵛⁱˡˡᵉ
TomG
TomG
Joined: Sep 26, 2010
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 2070
August 8th, 2020 at 9:25:37 AM permalink
Quote: lilredrooster

they've used margin of victory for a long time in college football - as one factor in determining who is invited to bowls - although they may not be making an exact calculation and there are other factors - I don't see any problem with it - using it to just break seasonal record ties to determine who gets into the playoffs



BCS was a combination of committee, polls, strength of schedule, computer rankings. Only the computer formulas had points scored and points allowed as an actual input. But it was actually more like strength of victory, not margin of victory. A 21 point win was much better than a 1 point win; but a 41 point win was only marginally better than a 21 point win; and a 61 point win was virtually the same as winning by 41.

Ties in NFL games absolutely would reduce the amount of ties in the standings. Tie counts as half win and half loss, then total wins is the first tie breaker, ie 8-4-4 is better than 9-7-0, but worse than 10-6-0. Only then start using whatever tie-breaker system they have in place now that they decided was best. You can go back and change the standings based on overtime games and see it working a lot better. And of course the other benefit is no longer giving an advantage to a team based on a coin flip, or having to change the way the game is played in overtime.
lilredrooster
lilredrooster
Joined: May 8, 2015
  • Threads: 155
  • Posts: 2935
August 8th, 2020 at 1:34:29 PM permalink
more basketball memories:

I saw Earl The Pearl Monroe's first home game in Baltimore
what a sensation he created
whenever the Bullets had the ball the fans screamed - "give it to Pearl - we wanna see Pearl" - and wow - he did deliver
his rookie year they played the Lakers and Jerry West guarded him - he got 44 on West
the NBA executives were so astonished they reviewed the tapes to see if he was getting away with palming the ball or traveling - he wasn't
because he came from a very small college there was a lot of skepticism about him
when he went over to the Knicks he played much more conservatively
he was unique in that he juked the defender with his back to the basket
there's never been another player like him - Maravich was the closest - and I do have to admit Pistol Pete was his equal or better in terms of being sensational

Last edited by: lilredrooster on Aug 8, 2020
𝘈 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘣𝘺 𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴.... ᴴᵉʳᵐᵃⁿ ᴹᵉˡᵛⁱˡˡᵉ
billryan
billryan
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 171
  • Posts: 9478
August 8th, 2020 at 9:54:32 PM permalink
Back then, I was a huge Knicks fan and was estatic when the Knicks traded for him, even though Mike Riordan was one of my favorite Knick and went to Baltimore.
Earl and Walt Frazier formed one of the best backcourts of all time but he just wasn't the same player. While everyone knows his "Pearl" nickname, he also was known as Black Jesus and that offended a large portion of the season ticketholders. I think that had a bit to do with him moderating his game, in order to appease the powers that be. Playing on a team that had seven future Hall of Famers certainly helped. The funny thing was many people thought NY would never embrace Monroes flash, but out in nearby Long Island, Julius Erving was about to revolutionize the game.

  • Jump to: