I'm not against change. I support robots calling balls and strikes. I'm in favor of the 3 batter rule for relievers. I'm a fan of instant replay (but it needs to be quicker).
But the runner on second rule just stinks imo. Everything in the game should have to be earned. A game shouldnt end on one bloop single up the middle.
As much as I hate the complicated hockey standings, I also hate that in college football (and the NFL as well to a lesser extent) you get full credit or blame for a game you didn't really win or lose. The man-on-second thing almost calls for a hockey-like approach - give each team half a win after 9 innings, and then the team that plates its (literally) unearned run gets another half. That would obviously make the whole thing feel even more radical not less, but I would think they'd have to do something similiar if games are also going end in ties (though for the current shortened season, everything could just be decided by winning percentage).
That would certainly work as an alternative to man on 2nd. The problem which needs solving is that marathon games destroy pitching staffs and ultimately the bodies of some relievers. The negative carry-over from a 17-inning game lasts for at least several days, maybe a week. Get two (or three) long games in a ten-day stretch and, win or lose them, the team is harmed. significantly. Back-up IFs as emergency relievers isn't a good look.
I think that if, IF, they play in 2020 it would be a good time to test some of the wackier ideas out - I mean, whole season will feel sort of weird anyway. Honestly, if they actually play I think I'd even be ok with a one month March-Madness type of tournament. Bracket them up and each team plays a best of 3 against someone else in the first 2 rounds, best of 5 after that, and championship is a best of 7.
I have said repeatedly, give me a tournament. 24 games for eliminating a certain number of teams, 24 games for further eliminaton and seeding, semi-normal playoffs.
The funny thing about the man on 2nd rule is this is the one season where a team could burn pitchers without much consequence. Your extra starters and relievers are going to be in the same city and if they wanted to they could have stuck with the 28-30-man roster all season (but they don't want to pay that many major league salaries).
Position players pitching can be fun, and a lot of managers (including Kapler obviously) were doing it in nine-inning games too, if they were blowouts.
Moving this back here as we might actually have a (certain to fail) plan to play baseball now. The way I understand it is that we go back to the March agreement for pro-rated salaries and service time and luxury tax calculations (no adding salary because the competitive tax threshold is also pro-rated). What is not in this agreement is expanded playoffs, any forgiveness of the $170 million advance, ads on uniforms, or even a DH I think. Maybe the DH becomes a separate agreement but it is not there now as I understand it. I think there was language on expanded rosters starting at 30 and eventually getting to 26.
Clearly as Rosenthal said, there are no winners here. And it all might fall apart with more positive tests. But it might be refreshing to start talking about baseball as if it were Spring Training again.
Edit - it does look like both sides want the DH even if it was not formally in the agreement.
A wild read if you subscribe
Also interesting to note that the Giants set the NL record for most players used last season with 64 (Aaron Altherr is mentioned).
Why do so many Republican office holders think the way to advance their political careers is to out-Trump the worst of President Trump. Supports murdering unarmed black men and dissing common-sense protections against Covid in one breath. It's the proud staking out of the political position "no one will out-stupid or out-bigot me, so vote for the racist arse"
You don't have to look very hard to find people like that in office. You do have to look hard to find a high-level professional sports executive laying it on the line like that. (Of course you also have to look hard to find a high-level professional sports executive who isn't white.)
Guess this could have also gone in the Corona thread or the ex-Phillies thread.
#Twins manager Rocco Baldelli said it was heartbreaking to tell veteran coaches Bob McClure, 68, and Bill Evers, 66, that they will not be on the coaching staff this year because of health and safety concerns with COVID-19. "I can't imagine how it feels.''
— Bob Nightengale ( @BNightengale ) June 29, 2020
I can't imagine being 68 or 66 is enough of a risk factor to limit one to not being able to do a job because of health and safety concerns with COVID-19 if the person wanted to take the risk. They may have other underlying health issues that I'm not aware of but if they do not,and they are not being paid to not be at work, the Twins may be opening themselves up to an age discrimination lawsuit.
They get paid. They are under contract.
Over 65 is considered high-risk, period. Just like being immunocompromised at any age. In those cases right now you also shouldn't be eating at indoor restaurants, doing non-essential errands, or seeing family members without distancing. The reopening does not really apply to you.
Sure, to some extent it's an individual choice, but the team has liability to consider, and if one of them ends up on a ventilator that could end the Twins' whole season.
A little easier to make that call for minor members of the coaching staff though. I don't imagine Dusty Baker and Joe Maddon are taking the year off.
As someone in that age group, it should be my choice as to whether or not I'm returning to work. I am not a higher risk to spread COVID, I'm just a higher risk to suffer serious complications. We need to set up a system where those who are risk averse (and not crazy about it) can protect themselves, but those who are risk tolerant can also make decisions that make sense for them and their families. Don't patronize me; let me decide. Using liability as an excuse is irrational. If I return to work I waive any right to hold my employer liable.
Agreed, but I bet none of that applies to MLB. The Uniform Employee Contract probably gives the teams and league all the leeway. As it is, Manfred already suspended all contracts for the year so teams and leagues already have the right to fire, furlough or layoff anyone they want. To whatever extent they have not done so has mostly been due to PR blowback.
It would be an interesting test case. If your employer at a regular job required you to work from home - which is the case here, they are going to be "advisors" - and was still paying you full salary and benefits - would a court consider that a form of discrimination, or even worthy of the court's time?
Good hypothetical question.
I am planning to return to work in person in early September (as of right now--conditions may change). My employer has not indicated any preference for me to work solely from home; in fact, I think my employer would object to me doing that (although, in my job, it is a feasible option). We are all blazing new trails through the COVID wilderness..
We're likely to have a lot more lawsuits for the exact opposite situation, older or immuno-compromised-adjacent employees who want to continue working from home but aren't being given the option.
Another issue that's going to come up - employers who decide to make WFH permanent or semi-permanent without compensating their employees for the space and resources used on company time.
