Those hockey uniforms would make it very difficult for me to watch a game. At least in NASCAR, we really don't see the uniforms during the race and the ads on the cars really don't bother me.
As for the Nike swoosh on the MLB unis this season, they don't really stand out in my mind since we have become accustomed to seeing such logos on everything from football uniforms to many items in my personal wardrobe.
The next step for sponsorship is really something closer to European Soccer. I am guessing we'll just get patches now, but there is probably a next step they will consider.
For many of us, the BIMBO brand name is not well known, but we all know many of their product brands.
For me, I think the line would be crossed if and when the sponsor name becomes the dominant thing we see on the uniform and clearly overshadows the team name.
The brand is well known to fans of Mexican soccer (and Mexican-American soccer fans) which I think is why they do it. Otherwise I would think they'd use one of the retail brands. (Yeah, Sara Lee on a jersey would seem a weird fit but the Seattle Sounders are Zulily).
So basically the union either has to take the 60 games and agree to the expanded playoffs/no grievance, or Manfred will presumably institute a shorter schedule.
The owners might be a bit less scared of the grievance after today's positive tests. But that also gives them more reason to just let the season die.
(Brookover doesn't even consider that context here, but columns like this give MLB cover to claim all they care about is safety now.)
The two sides agreed in their proposal this week, obtained by USA TODAY Sports, that they will adopt the minor-league rule in 2020 that every inning after the ninth will start with a runner on second base. In the postseason, games will revert back to traditional rules.
The union also wants to discuss with MLB the possibility of changing the substitution rules in extra innings, allowing players to re-enter the game among other possibilities.
I think I might actually be done with baseball... it's no longer the game I fell in love with at 6 years old.
I think we knew this was coming anyway. Seems dubious to me that it's happening for "safety" reasons but I guess I'd also agree there shouldn't be 12-inning games when players lack access to clubhouse and showers and so forth.
Also in that article.
Also in the proposal, the union is asking that players who cohabitate with âhigh-riskââ individuals, including a spouse whoâs pregnant, would also have the right to opt out of the 2020 season and still receive their prorated salary and full service time. MLB has already agreed to allow âhigh-riskââ players to COVID-19 to opt out and still be paid. Other players who arenât considered âhigh riskââ can still opt out, but wonât be paid or receive service time. Two of the gameâs biggest stars, Los Angeles Angels outfielder Mike Trout and New York Yankees pitcher Gerrit Cole, each have wives who are pregnant and due this summer.
I think the $ aspect of this can be worked out but if this already-diminished season isn't going to have those two players (among others, including our own #2 starter) it's diminished further. I think most of these babies are due before the season is over though (and in some cases, at this point, before it even begins).
Tie games aren't a new thing in MLB. Official games that ended tied due to darkness used to be called tie games and replayed, with all statistics counted. It's even happened in the World Series.
More recently, suspended official games that ended tied due to weather, curfew, etc., were replayed with all stat counting.
In 1964, nine of the 20 teams played more than 162 games due to ties..Three teams played 164, and three players, including AL MVP Brooks Robinson, played 163 games.
I know they aren't planning to replay the tied games, but allowing games to end in ties isn't new. It's kind of retro.
Im upset about the starting the inning with a runner on 2nd thing. A game shouldnt end because a pitcher gives up a single to the first batter
And it definitely shouldnt be considered an earned run
Yeah it's not about the tie games, it's about the runner on second. Ideally doing that will put an end to games quickly, but if not, the next step would be a tie. In which case, why not just skip the run-producing gimmick and just say it's a tie after 11 or 12 innings of normal ball?
I don't think it's an earned run.
I actually think the NHL and college football would be better off going back to tie games (and especially this year!).
Yeah, the runner at second is not retro by any means. But I'm not really bothered by it. It's just different and it could make for interesting strategy decisions. I was at a minor league game a couple of years ago where the leadoff batter in the top of the 10th squared around to sacrifice, and I was befuddled until I noticed the runner at second base and remembered the rule.
It's not retro, it's just different. Football and hockey have messed with their overtime rules in past years, and there is no problem. If they play ball this year, so many things are going to be different, that it makes sense to try this kind of thing now.
I'll admit I didn't particularly like the idea when it first came up a few years ago, but that was because they weren't really addressing the root cause of the long games, which is all the dead time between pitches, hitters, and innings. I don't mind long games, but it can be frustrating when nothing is going on.
I basically agree that it's not a huge deal. All games change. Granted it's been almost a century but there was a time when hockey and football didn't allow forward passes.
But, not having a clock and having extra innings is what makes baseball baseball, just as overtime playoff hockey remains the best thing about hockey. And I'm not a big fan of what hockey and college football do for overtime. But having one set of rules for the regular season and one for the postseason probably does make sense, especially this year wen it's hardly a real season anyway.
So long as they don't start settling it with a home run derby.
I donât necessarily mind if they use the extra inning rule this year, but donât want to see that rule staying in the future. I hate it every time I see it in the minors. If I have time, I will sit through every single inning. The older I get, the less likely this becomes...
I think once they start doing it they won't stop. The owners and TV networks will want it because they don't sell advertising for extra innings (and have other things to air), the managers will want it because it doesn't burn their bench and bullpen (or force them to pitch position players which MLB seems to also be against), and the players will want it because they don't have to work overtime (for free, essentially).
Of course there will be people in all three camps who hate losing the tradition, but they didn't start doing it in the minors without this being the endgame next CBA.
The single thing I hate most in all the changes coming is the runner starting on second in extra innings.
But I'm a product of the last century.
I just don't get the nostalgia for the unchanging game of baseball. It's a myth generated by baseball's endless comparison of stats across eras. Stupid, raw stats, totally unadjusted for changes in the game. In just the time I've followed baseball: the balls have changed, the bats have changed, the gloves have changed, the height of the mound has changed, the strike zone has changed, the time between innings has changed, the rule regarding blocking home plate has changed, the enforcement of balks has changed, the game has added a draft, arbitration years, free agency, compensatory picks for unsigned top picks were added to draft, then the comp picks were changed to only one pick below the one you lost, bonus picks for 'poor' teams like the Cardinals were added, amphetamines then steroids entered the game as did exotics like human growth hormone, the number of teams making the playoffs expanded drastically, the game added the unfair unbalanced schedule, rules for handling the injury list and moving players up-and-down-and up from the minors, even the length of the season -- all have changed. The DH and how to handle tie games are minor compared to the cumulative effect of all the other changes. I'm sure I've missed a number of other significant changes. Yet 'purists' talk about who is the all-time leader in HRs, RBIs, wins, strikeouts, even batting average. You can't compare raw stats across eras, precisely because the game has changed so drastically. But, by continuing to make those unadjusted changes, this myth of unchanging baseball tradition is reinforced.
Roger Maris didn't deserve an asterisk for breaking Babe Ruth's HR record because of a different season length, he deserved it because he was playing a very different game in which it was easier to hit a HR.
