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

[istanbultaye]

I guess they shouldn't have changed from 140 to 154 back in the day either then, eh? I don't really think they need to reduce (and definitely don't need to increase) the number of games, but change is a fact of life. If somehow, the calculations of the powers that be within baseball decided that reducing the number of games back to 154 was a wise move, it wouldn't bother me a bit.

[FVBrewerFan]

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 way we can judge one era against another.

 

I see that point somewhat, but we already can't compare one era to another- even with the same amount of games. Safe to say the numbers were a little different during the juiced ball/player era of Bonds, Sosa, Mac, etc. compared to today. Just one example.

[Fear The Chorizo]

free agency didn't kill doubleheaders - air travel and league expansion did. and there's no way bringing back scheduled doubleheaders would ever include weekend dates - owners wouldn't want the revenue hit that would likely occur by playing two games on a prime date (unless they'd be able to sell tickets for a weekend doubleheader that are good for both games at an increased price). I think they'd be better off scheduling the double headers for the series ending midweek. Instead of wrapping up a series on a thursday afternoon before hitting the road or hosting a Friday night game, schedule a day/night doubleheader on a wednesday and have thursday as an offday/travel day.

 

I doubt they'd ever reduce games from 162 back to 154 - however I think if more off days and/or a shorter calendar to get the season in are ever truly prioritized, getting doubleheaders back on the schedule would seem to make the most sense.

[ReverendBrewmeister]

Interesting idea, but I doubt that it would happen.

 

It's totally subjective, but the full-season Minor League schedule of 140 games seems to be just about perfect. The regular season runs from mid-April through the Labor Day weekend. Postseason is finished in mid-September, which is still a "Fall Classic" of sorts.

 

I wouldn't mind moving back to a 154 game schedule. However, I'd imagine that even a shortened season would still run within the same current timeframe in order to add more days off. So weather would remain an issue and World Series games would still run up to Halloween.

[Mr Southpaw]

I guess they shouldn't have changed from 140 to 154 back in the day either then, eh? I don't really think they need to reduce (and definitely don't need to increase) the number of games, but change is a fact of life. If somehow, the calculations of the powers that be within baseball decided that reducing the number of games back to 154 was a wise move, it wouldn't bother me a bit.

 

Anthony Rizzo would like that. Me that was way before I was born.

[jerichoholicninja]

If you're adding a Sunday doubleheader, you're likely removing a lightly attended, midweek afternoon game. Raise ticket prices 50% for admission to both games or play a day/night doubleheader and get two gates. That's almost certainly going to be more profitable than playing at noon on a Wednesday. A rainout would be a schedule (and money) killer though.

[istanbultaye]

If they only did sunday double headers from June - August the risk of rainouts wiping out both games would be pretty minimal I would think. If you do 2 per month, 1 home, 1 away, that would be 6 games and could get opening day back into April and still have the off days they added this year.

[istanbultaye]

Oh, additional point, if you do those double headers only with divisional matchups as well, that makes things a little easier to make up if disaster struck and both were cancelled, would also give a bonus to the marketing of the double headers.

[CrewFanBrewMan69]

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

 

The owners

They could expand the playoffs by making the WC best of 3 or 5 and division series best of 7 to add games to help make up revenue for the league that’s shared.

[adambr2]

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

 

So why does this logic apply for you now, but not in the 1960s when prior "tradition" was 154 games?

[3and2Fastball]

"We play too much Baseball" = No more World Series rings for you

[Oxy]

I think they should cut back to 140ish scheduled games, then have a quasi-playoff season where the last 20 games or so are still considered part of the regular season but they are actually a seeded, rescheduled League playoff/tournament as well. All teams will end up playing 162 games. The League Champion will be determined during this time, then play a 9 game World Series against the other League champion.

[Mr Southpaw]

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

 

So why does this logic apply for you now, but not in the 1960s when prior "tradition" was 154 games?

 

Check Response #25

[502 to Right]

I think they should adopt the NFL schedule to make sure players are rested. 4 preseason games and 16 regular season games. One game per week. I'd be OK if they included a bye week as well to ensure good health.

[ThisIsMyCrew]

I think they should adopt the NFL schedule to make sure players are rested. 4 preseason games and 16 regular season games. One game per week. I'd be OK if they included a bye week as well to ensure good health.

 

I’m assuming this should be in blue as I got a good chuckle off this one! Atletes in all sports are babied with the large salaries.

[adambr2]

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

 

So why does this logic apply for you now, but not in the 1960s when prior "tradition" was 154 games?

 

Check Response #25

 

So your entire basis for not wanting to reduce the schedule is just to preserve consistency so historical records can be compared?

 

Sorry, I disagree with that...a lot. That's just really unrealistic to expect total consistency in a 150 year old sport just so we don't have to debate whether 60 from Ruth or 61 from Maris was better. So should we have remained always in the deadball era too? The sport changed drastically from 1920 compared to the 50 years before that.

 

Other things besides a schedule length influence record comparison. Changing ballpark dimensions (imagine the Polo grounds for today's game.), PED use.

 

What about expansion? The game had half the teams a century ago, you don't think that's affected comparison?

 

Things change over time in sports, just the way it is. You can't fight change every time just on the basis of record comparison. Imagine comparing today's game to baseball in 1918 -- they would not be comparable even if both played the same schedule.

[JosephC]

Scott Boras still receiving CPR after having heard that "pay cut" part.

[Tbadder]

Rizzo is right. Too many games, too much travel. I’d like to reduce it to a number below 154, depending on what it takes to run a balanced schedule. Then I’d like to increase rosters by 1 or 2, one being an extra catcher.

[owbc]

I think the most likely scenario is a reduced spring training...the season will start earlier but there will be more open dates to make up games in the event of bad weather.

 

TV is ultimately what drives MLB revenue now. The Oakland A's had a game Tuesday with 100% free tickets. They drew their largest crowd since 2004. I think you will see more of that in the future. Some teams might stop charging admission for the upper level on weeknights. Ticket revenue is a smaller and smaller % of the budget every year.

 

The Cubs should consider renting Miller Park for some "home" games in early April. They would have no problem drawing large crowds...probably outdrawing the Brewers.

[Mr Southpaw]

Check Response #25

 

 

 

So your entire basis for not wanting to reduce the schedule is just to preserve consistency so historical records can be compared?

 

Sorry, I disagree with that...a lot. That's just really unrealistic to expect total consistency in a 150 year old sport just so we don't have to debate whether 60 from Ruth or 61 from Maris was better. So should we have remained always in the deadball era too? The sport changed drastically from 1920 compared to the 50 years before that.

 

Other things besides a schedule length influence record comparison. Changing ballpark dimensions (imagine the Polo grounds for today's game.), PED use.

 

What about expansion? The game had half the teams a century ago, you don't think that's affected comparison?

 

Things change over time in sports, just the way it is. You can't fight change every time just on the basis of record comparison. Imagine comparing today's game to baseball in 1918 -- they would not be comparable even if both played the same schedule.

 

 

 

 

Thank you for disagreeing....a lot. Your opinion is yours.

[torts]

today/tomorrow/this weekend would be game 154, which would be the end of the season.

[stoutdude04]

One thing these guys should/could be advocating for is the DH in the NL. At least that way some of these guys would get a day where they are off their feet and possibly feel less wear on their body.

[JohnBriggs12]

Check Response #25

 

 

 

So your entire basis for not wanting to reduce the schedule is just to preserve consistency so historical records can be compared?

 

Sorry, I disagree with that...a lot. That's just really unrealistic to expect total consistency in a 150 year old sport just so we don't have to debate whether 60 from Ruth or 61 from Maris was better. So should we have remained always in the deadball era too? The sport changed drastically from 1920 compared to the 50 years before that.

 

Other things besides a schedule length influence record comparison. Changing ballpark dimensions (imagine the Polo grounds for today's game.), PED use.

 

What about expansion? The game had half the teams a century ago, you don't think that's affected comparison?

 

Things change over time in sports, just the way it is. You can't fight change every time just on the basis of record comparison. Imagine comparing today's game to baseball in 1918 -- they would not be comparable even if both played the same schedule.

 

 

 

 

Thank you for disagreeing....a lot. Your opinion is yours.

 

Expansion is a straw man argument. A century ago, the country's population was about a third of what it is today and today's game has players from all over the world, particularly Latin America. Not to mention that until 70 years ago, African Americans were excluded.

 

Players are better conditioned than ever and more highly paid. Shut up and play.

[bjkrautk]

If Anthony Rizzo wants to play fewer games, I'm all for it.

 

...at least, as long as he's wearing his Cubs' uniform while sitting on the bench.

[jjfanec]

I know it is frowned upon by the purists but I would be all for shortening the season. Also you could have the first wild card be three games instead of one. Baseball is a really long season. I know a lot of people who say they wish it was shorter. This board is a very skewed sample because it is the people who love baseball enough to go to a message board to talk about it. I would assume this board to be against shortening the season