Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You keep saying this but you don't really explain how longer games equate to "money grubbing." The MLB isn't exactly getting paid by the minute.
Hmmm. Ad rates are indeed paid by the minute. Consider as well that the time between innings used to be 60 seconds back in the day. Now, it's 2:30 -- 2:45 for network games. As there are 16 or more between-innings breaks per game, that's better than 20 minutes worth of clock time that have been added to every game, not because of some "pace of play" issue, but simply to be able to sell more commercials. Ergo, "money-grubbing."
I don't think that there are too many commercials. The freight has to be paid, after all. I do think that it's dishonest first to claim that roughly three hours for an average 9-inning game is "too long", and second to claim that imaginary "pace-of-play" issues are to blame for this.
Well, I do (and so do many others). You're in the minority.
There is no such thing as the "correct" amount of commercials, it is dictated by the economics involved. The number of commercials are determined by how many they can jam in there and still have enough people watching the games. If people stopped watching the games because there were too many, then they would be motivated to have fewer.
If you are still watching the games despite your distaste for the number of commercials, then in practical terms, you have not reached the point where you truly believe that there are too many.
I know it's not something the Commisioner and Presidents can mandate, but the best way to speed up the game would be to condition/train starting pitchers to once again work deep into games every four days and - gasp - maybe even pitch complete games.
I'm not holding out hope, though.
There is no such thing as the "correct" amount of commercials, it is dictated by the economics involved. The number of commercials are determined by how many they can jam in there and still have enough people watching the games. If people stopped watching the games because there were too many, then they would be motivated to have fewer.
If you are still watching the games despite your distaste for the number of commercials, then in practical terms, you have not reached the point where you truly believe that there are too many.
That's it though, I stop watching games on TV because of this and only see games I go to. I doubt I'm alone. No way I'd watch a 3hr baseball game on TV, ever.
That's it though, I stop watching games on TV because of this and only see games I go to. I doubt I'm alone. No way I'd watch a 3hr baseball game on TV, ever.
Unless it's an interesting game, I rarely sit and watch all three hours.
But, I do watch the league's highlights just about every night and in the a.m. I scan the boxscores, leaders and standings.
I consider striking out well over a hundred times a behavioral problem.
Then I guess you don't understand the fundamentals of baseball.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pub-911
Hmmm. Ad rates are indeed paid by the minute. Consider as well that the time between innings used to be 60 seconds back in the day. Now, it's 2:30 -- 2:45 for network games. As there are 16 or more between-innings breaks per game, that's better than 20 minutes worth of clock time that have been added to every game, not because of some "pace of play" issue, but simply to be able to sell more commercials. Ergo, "money-grubbing."
When is "back in the day" when the time between innings was allegedly 60 seconds?
I fail to see how doing away with intentional walks has anything to do with "money-grubbing" in any way. Do you think they're going to break to a commercial while the runner trots to first or something? If anything an intentional walk would give them MORE opportunity to shove in a commercial while everyone goes through the motions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
"No, hang on a second - I want to see this intentional walk first," said no one ever.
Maybe not, but there are people who like to see this, or this, or maybe even this. If failure to execute can change the outcome, then players should be required to execute.
Then I guess you don't understand the fundamentals of baseball.
I was joking. Sorry the angry face caused you confusion. I'm just sick of all the strikeouts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm just sick of all the strikeouts.
