Saving Baseball

[Ming]

Originally posted by walruskkkch
But the mindset does.

First request... NEW OWNERS... that should change the mindset

[Drake Tungsten]

The more I think about it, the more I believe that my Royals should move out of Kauffman Stadium. The stadium is obviously what is making them lose, not the complete lack of any talent...

[walruskkkch]

Maybe. Kind of doubtit though. They'll still build a time around the ballpark. And lose.

[Kepler]

There's no such thing as a "mindset." Everybody's trying to #1 make money and #2 win. The Red Sox and Cubs can make money without winning, so they do. It's rational behavior.

This is a case where having loyal fans (well, in the case of the Red Sox, whining, cry-baby, belligerant, ignorant, but loyal fans) actually hurts a team's chances for winning it all. The Cardinals would conceivably have the same situation, but because their ballpark is so awful, they have to win to get people to come to it. Wrigley and Fenway are so beautiful, people come anyway.

The obvious solution is to blow up the great ballparks and replace them with cookie cutter monstrosoties like Busch, Three Rivers, or the Vet (think about how many league titles and world championships there were among those parks for the relatively short length of their existence). Destroy the only thing the Sox and Cubs have going for them, and then they'll have to win to attract fans.

[walruskkkch]

How is that not a "mindset"?

Don't need a cookie cutter ballpark, only one that is less exaggerated in it's dimensions which will force them to field a balanced, baseball team for a change.

[Kepler]

Because the exaggerated dimensions of Yankee Stadium have always held that club back.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Kepler
Because the exaggerated dimensions of Yankee Stadium have always held that club back.

[walruskkkch]

We got a new ballpark in essence in 1976, and began winning again after that. You will note that assymetrical ballparks were the norm for all teams prior to the 1970's.

[walruskkkch]

Oh, and we have always been better at fielding well rounded, basic baseball playing, capable teams.

[chequita guevara]

They signed a contract, btw. No strike.

[walruskkkch]

If we limited baseball player's contracts to the average salary of teachers in the US I wonder how the quality of play would change. I won't even mention how much more wealthy that would make owners.

[Sceptor107]

Baseball is a steaming pile of poop. Its boring and its a bunch of rich boys complaining. I stopped watching last week. Instead I started watching the easts version of baseball called "Cricket".


Much better game.

[Arrian]

Yay, no strike.

The idea that Wrigley is holding the Cubs back is utter nonsense. Show me compelling evidence to support that, like data from the last several decades showing that the Cubs have a significantly better road winning percentage than at home. I'd be willing to bet that evidence isn't there.

IMO, the only team that really is hamstrung by their ballpark is the Rockies, and there isn't much to be done about that (notwithstanding the humidor experiment).

The Cubs suck because they are poorly run and typically haven't really tried to win. They are a cash cow, even when they're miserable. Management actually tried this year, I'll give 'em that, but their decisions weren't all that great (and to be fair, who knew every player they went out and signed would either be broken for most of the season or suddenly suck). Winning takes consistent investment and a sound plan. You can win once or twice with a free agent splurge ('97 Marlins, '01 Diamondbacks, late 70's Yankees, for instance) but building a team that will contend for a long stretch takes brains. The Braves, despite their post season problems, are a good example of that.

walruskkkch,

The Yankees started winning again because Steinbrenner bought them from CBS (in '74, I believe). CBS had run the team into the ground - they had NO idea how to run a baseball team. Steinbrenner came in, bought some free agents, and invested heavily in the team. The renovation helped, but I look at that as a manifestation of the real change: better ownership. For all of Steinbrenner's failings (and they are many), one thing you have to admit is that he is obsessed with winning. I love that.

-Arrian

[walruskkkch]

Proof for the Cubs? 1945 last WS.

Part of fielding a sound baseball team is remembering to construct one that plays sound fundamental baseball and not try to just tailor it to the strengths of your ballpark. The Yankees certainly have been most successful in that except that in the 80's that fell in love with the big money names and lost track of all the components that make a good team. They rediscovered that forumula in the 90's.

[Arrian]

Question:

Show me compelling evidence to support that, like data from the last several decades showing that the Cubs have a significantly better road winning percentage than at home. I'd be willing to bet that evidence isn't there.

Answer:

Proof for the Cubs? 1945 last WS.

I was merely arguing that Wrigley has nothing to do with the Cubs failures. That they fail was never in doubt.

-Arrian

[Kepler]

Does anyone have details of the new CBA? I get the impression that the owners caved on drug testing and the players caved on... pretty much everything else. If true, that would mean more aggressive luxury tax and revenue sharing, both of which will help baseball immensely IMHO.

It's a 4 year deal. I would have preferred more years, of course, but at least it's better than the godawful 3 or even 2(!) year deal they were talking about a year ago.

[walruskkkch]

Over the last 20 years what ballclub has won a World Series playing in a ball park built prior to 1920? There is one.

[Arrian]

The Tigers, when they played in Tiger Stadium.

-Arrian