Anthony Rizzo: 'We Play Too Much Baseball'; Open to Pay Cut for Fewer Games

[pacopete4]

Link

 

Sounds like a guy that might not love the game all that much or maybe it is a reasoned approach to having a 162 game schedule. I'm not sure... Thoughts?

[JohnBriggs12]

Link

 

Sounds like a guy that might not love the game all that much or maybe it is a reasoned approach to having a 162 game schedule. I'm not sure... Thoughts?

 

Overreaction to extremely unusual April. Rizzo's a gamer, but the shooting at his alma mater has gotten to him. Solution is blowing up Wrigley and building dome stadium, but that would be heresy.

[FVBrewerFan]

He's probably right, but there's no going back now. Players getting paid less is one thing, but the Owners and ESPN aren't going to take in less revenue.

 

Ideally, if they went with a 154 game schedule and one DH each month, that would open up 14 more off days- 2 per month.

[DuWayne Steurer]

It's a knee jerk reaction to having a really terrible spring, weather wise. We've been playing 162 games since the 70's. I could see scaling back to MAYBE the old 154 game schedule, but I doubt even that is going to happen.

 

I mean, we're seeing record snowfalls and low temps for April. That's not a reason to say "we shouldn't play ball in April". This doesn't happen every year, so changing a yearly schedule for something that almost never happens is dumb, and Rizzo is dumb.

 

Could they schedule 3-4 double headers after off days? Yep. I like that idea. Schedule a few less off days in the playoffs? Yep. Also like that idea. Playoffs don't need to stretch almost into November. Expand rosters to 26 or 27 guys, schedule a few less off days, throw some double headers in there, whatever you gotta do. They're not going to shorten the schedule though.

[Fear The Chorizo]

I think it's more just him overreacting to the weird April weather across baseball and realizing how crazy their schedule will be as the season progresses, which has impacted the Cubs more than most any other team - the exception possibly being the Twins. Heck, even the initial 4 games they played the Brewers in Milwaukee only happened without a cancellation because Miller Park had a roof. Plus, he's had a balky back issue already this season.

 

I will say that I like his thoughts on going back to more scheduled doubleheaders - that used to be the norm across MLB, and it would open up alot more off-days for team travel and give MLB the opportunity to condense 162 games on the calendar substantially. They already have the 26th man rule for scheduled doubleheaders, where teams can add an extra player to their active roster on those game days.

[Mr Southpaw]

He could also quit and do something else.

[pacopete4]

He could also quit and do something else.

 

I get it. Rich pro sports player whines but who at their job doesn't have something they would like to see changed?

[JohnBriggs12]

Just make the teams without roofs where weather is an issue play their first half dozen home games at their spring training base. Cubs drew about 15,000 a game in Arizona. That's more than actually showed up for their frigid games in Wrigley. Now that's an overreaction too, but more realistic than clubs giving up money.

[Mr Southpaw]

I am tired of people trying to change tradition because they think it. Some times it is like it or leave.

[istanbultaye]

Hmm... traditionally, there were less than 162 games per year. If we go by the AL which has been most consistent, they started off with 140 games a year.

[PlayerHader]

Would anyone really miss 8 games if they cut back to 154?

[homer]

Would anyone really miss 8 games if they cut back to 154?

 

The owners

[Baldkin]

I am tired of people trying to change tradition because they think it. Some times it is like it or leave.

 

I'm tired of "That's the way it's always been" being justification for anything.

[pacopete4]

People speak about tradition in baseball as if this is the only way it has ever been. Time to touch up on some history of the game.

[PlayerHader]

Would anyone really miss 8 games if they cut back to 154?

 

The owners

 

How much really? I'd be curious how this would actually affect total attendance. Some of those who lose opportunities early in the year would likely end up picking up a game later in the year. How many paying fans do owners need through doors to make a game profitable? I wouldn't think cutting some games, particularly some mid-week games early in the season, would have a significant financial impact.

[Fear The Chorizo]

8 games is basically 5% of the season - 4 fewer home games if they split that reduction evenly. For a team like Milwaukee that draws ~30k in attendance on average that's ~120K fewer tickets sold. Also 8 fewer game broadcasts where advertising/marketing revenue vanishes across the league.

 

Based on operating costs and organization business models, loss of 5% of a season's revenues due to fewer games is a huge deal. It'd be like asking NFL owners to reduce their schedule to 15 games - meanwhile they've been trying to get the season to be 18 games long.

[PlayerHader]

8 games is basically 5% of the season - 4 fewer home games if they split that reduction evenly. For a team like Milwaukee that draws ~30k in attendance on average that's ~120K fewer tickets sold. Also 8 fewer game broadcasts where advertising/marketing revenue vanishes across the league.

 

Based on operating costs and organization business models, loss of 5% of a season's revenues due to fewer games is a huge deal. It'd be like asking NFL owners to reduce their schedule to 15 games - meanwhile they've been trying to get the season to be 18 games long.

 

Except you wouldn't be eliminating high attendance games. You're not losing opening day draws. You wouldn't have to lose weekend gates. You wouldn't even have to lose many broadcasts, as FSN doesn't carry every game the way it is.

 

What is average attendance league-wide for a Tuesday night in April?

[PlayerHader]

I don't pretend to be a financial wizard of any sort. I just don't think losing 5% of games would equal a 5% drop in revenue necessarily.

[jerichoholicninja]

Taking away 1 week of games will make no difference what so ever in cancellations, player health, and all the other reasons brought up for reducing the schedule. If you're going to make a cut that will make a difference, you're going to have to cut almost a month, 25 games or so. Neither the owners nor the players are going to approve a 15% cut of money though.

[superfly]

Half the year is baseball. Teams play around snow/rain in the spring and pray that we don't get snowed out in October. Sorry for the so-called purists out there but there IS too many baseball games. It's too late to go back now though i'd assume with near certainty.

[FVBrewerFan]

I am tired of people trying to change tradition because they think it. Some times it is like it or leave.

 

 

I'm a traditionalist as well, but that doesn't apply here. There used to be more scheduled Double-headers and less than 162 games.

[owbc]

I am tired of people trying to change tradition because they think it. Some times it is like it or leave.

 

 

I'm a traditionalist as well, but that doesn't apply here. There used to be more scheduled Double-headers and less than 162 games.

 

Traditionalists should be arguing for 154 games

[JohnBriggs12]

I am tired of people trying to change tradition because they think it. Some times it is like it or leave.

 

 

I'm a traditionalist as well, but that doesn't apply here. There used to be more scheduled Double-headers and less than 162 games.

 

Traditionalists should be arguing for 154 games

 

It's been 56 years since they played 154. 162 is hardly novel. I do miss Sunday doubleheaders and they still had them through the 70's. As a kid I felt cheated when family went to single games. Free agency killed doubleheaders.

[pacopete4]

I wish that each team had like 5-6 Sundays of doubleheaders each year. This would give them more off days anyway. Allow the teams to have a 26-man roster on Sunday with no rules about having to stay down 10 days when you are sent down and what not.

[Mr Southpaw]

I am tired of people trying to change tradition because they think it. Some times it is like it or leave.

 

I'm tired of "That's the way it's always been" being justification for anything.

 

I like records being able to be judged against each other in a fair way. And because of that I like some things to stay the same. Changing from 162 ruins the way we can judge one era against another. Please don't use the argument that it was changed from 154 to 162. They should have not done that either.

 

Is that better? I hope you can get some rest.