Sometime in Summer of 2013, I took my best friend to his very first MLB game. It wound up being a very close game between the Toronto Blue Jays and my Tampa Bay Rays. Omar got to see it all: great plays, clutch hitting, tense moments, and a game-winning home run from Jose Lobaton (Miss you by the way). So he decided to give baseball a chance for 2014.
Late April 2014, I visited his place and he pointed out that the Rays were losing a lot. I told him that its baseball, it’s 162 games and expect even the great teams to lose at least 60 games. He hits me with a statement that as a diehard baseball fan stung, but still had a good point:
“Oh, so the first couple of months is pointless then, right?”
I wanted to refute this point. I wanted to argue it. I wanted to debate it. But what on earth could I say? Every game is important? All 162 games? Is it humanely possible for a person to keep track of so many games while still trying to learn the deep beauty of the sport itself? And this is where baseball’s potentially biggest problem lies: it is a tough sport to randomly recruit fans into its crazy world simply because of its rather intimidating schedule. 162 games, and they play all over the place in the calendar. Instead of NFL’s usual Sunday schedule (Even though they are slowly screwing that up with the Thursday games), baseball teams generally play 25-30 games a month to reach the number that has existed for a couple generations now.
But should it be time for a change? Isn’t it time to start a new era of baseball and an era that is more accessible to a technology-driven world that is a heck of a lot faster when compared to the 1920s, the 1950s, and even the 1990s? Isn’t it time to shorten a season so we can add value to each ballgame, add value to each moment of the baseball season?
What makes the NFL work is that each of the 16 games are extremely important, since you have much fewer chances to win throughout the season. Lose 3 or 4 in a row and your season already looks disastrous. The desperation doesn’t go away unless you are in a terrible division. With baseball however, you can absolutely blow it the first three months but still have a shot at winning the entire thing. The magical run of the 2003 Florida Marlins started out horrifically slow, 16-22 record and winding up dead last in their division around May. At the end of the day however they shocked the Yankees and won the World Series.
So can you imagine a baseball season in which instead of catching the details of 162 games, we reduce the season to a mere 100 games? Just 20 games per month from late March through August, with the playoffs starting in August and the World Series starting in early September? Can you imagine guaranteeing baseball on 5 specific days of the week to better keep track? Can you imagine a double-header each week so that everyone has a legitimate shot of going to the game on a Saturday or a Sunday?
This is how I would fix the scheduling of baseball: 100 games, period. It may not be 16 games, but in baseball anybody can beat anybody on any given day so you still need a good number of games to separate the good teams from the bad. 100 games is definitely a good-enough sample size.
The way it shall work: Each team plays their division rivals a total of 40 times—10 games per team in the 5-team division. And for the remaining 10 teams in your league (American or National)? Just 6 games, 3 at home and 3 away. That makes it 60. Add the 40 and the 60 and you have exactly 100 games, excluding interleague---which should be eliminated because its luster is diminishing and it would add more value to the All-Star Game.
This is the point of the schedule change, increasing value. Removing interleague allows for the All-Star Game matchups to be more entertaining, as opposed to a been-there-done-that since the AL plays the NL throughout the season. With the 100 game schedule it makes room for many more breaks, many more days off, and removes the pressure of having to do interleague games since each league has an odd number of teams.
Making it 100 games makes it a nice wholesome number that’s easier to follow for the new fans, the developing fans, and even fans that have trouble devoting time to their team and the league. 100 games gives it a resounding countdown (“Game 75, 25 games until playoffs”). Each game is far more important, especially the interdivisional ones. Instead of the Yankees playing the Red Sox 19 or 20 times a year, you reduce it to a mere 10, giving the rivalry added oomph per game.
100 games allow for the playoffs to hit in August, right as the NFL is starting. In terms of rivalry amongst the sports, it’s an excellent way to remove some of the excitement from football as baseball playoffs provide more unpredictable moments and memorable games than any other professional sport, bar none. September would belong to the World Series, which would arrive right around the time the NFL is just starting, and the NHL and NBA have yet to truly begin. It would also decrease the chances of bad late fall/early winter weather hampering with the Fall Classic.
100 games will reduce the amount of injuries amongst the battered and bruised players, increasing the quality of each game. We will see stronger, more stable pitching rotations; we will see healthier players as they can take advantage of the extra rest the reduced schedule can deliver. And some will argue why make it easier for the millionaires, and my response is simple: if I am paying $100+ for cable a month to watch sports, and paying at least $100 per ballgame I personally attend, I better get the full complete package of talented players—as opposed to incomplete lineups because some of the stars have to take time off to heal. Reducing the amount of games enhances my chances of getting my money's worth.
I know baseball does not like change, I know baseball likes to remain consistent because of its love for the numbers and the records attached to them (61, .400, 56, *73, 262) but let’s be honest: the career numbers are where it’s at and we’ve reached a point in which single-season records may never ever be beaten. Is anyone really going to challenge the single-season records for wins (59), shutouts (16), RBIs (191), runs scored (198) or even stolen bases (138)? Just not going to happen in today’s MLB. The competition is too strong, too tight. So why not begin a new era and just focus on improving the quality of the game?
Even though I can handle 162 games, there is truth to having too much of a good thing.
100 games is just right.
No comments:
Post a Comment