The state of the NBA (and other major professional sports)

[rico]

1 hour ago, NCHoosier32 said:

eh, i'm a teacher and i'd venture to say more educated than many 18-22 year old athletes.  of course there are plenty more educated than me as well.  that said, i am not allowed to voice my opinion.  i'm not allowed to have a voice.  i love watching sports.  i don't love politics.  i think they are 100% entitled to their beliefs.  i just don't care what they are or need them thrown in my face when i just want to watch a game for fun.  

In this day and age entertainers(yes, that includes sports personalities) use their status to further their platforms/beliefs.  It has steadily gotten worse over the years and has blown up here in 2020.

[13th&Jackson]

Sounds like the NBA may have gotten the message. Listen to Adam Silver starting at the 2:25 mark

 

[FritzIam4IU]

I was never a big a NBA fan as college hoops, but I don't even watch the NBA anymore...and haven't since the Reggie Miller era Pacers. Honestly, I really only watch IU in college hoops, along with a few sporadic games throughout the season and the tourney. I just don't have the time or passion I used to.

Football: I watch IU when I can and a handful of NCAA games during the season (none so far this season), and a few of the better bowl matchups/or IU bowl games. I still make an effort to watch the Bears every week in the NFL...and I do watch some of the other games, especially the Colts or Sunday Night/Monday Night games if they are decent matchups. I try to catch the playoffs as well. I will be honest...I don't like the current NFL as much as I did in the 80s-early 2000s...but I still watch.

Baseball: I used to be an avid baseball fan and watch tons of Cubs games on WGN (back in the day)...now, I watch about a dozen games during the season and some of the postseason. I did watch about 5-6 Cubs games this season, but missed their playoff games. I just don't have the time and honestly, the games drag on too long, and as others have already stated, I miss some of the nuances of the game and tire of the long ball/strikeouts.

Bottom line for me...I watch a fraction of the games I used to and I don't have the passion I used to have. I root for my teams to win, but if they don't...there are more important things in life. It is a game. I won't lie and pretend it doesn't drive me a little crazy that the Bears can't ever seem to draft a franchise QB since I started watching them in the 80s as a kid, but hey, at least Jim McMahon was entertaining and I got to watch them win a superbowl.

[TheWatShot]

Gotta love the breakneck pace of playoff baseball games. Checked the Rays-Yankees score in the top of the 7th...checked again a half hour later and it was the top of the 8th. 

[dgambill]

10 hours ago, TheWatShot said:

Gotta love the breakneck pace of playoff baseball games. Checked the Rays-Yankees score in the top of the 7th...checked again a half hour later and it was the top of the 8th. 

Yes. I know baseball fans hate change but they really need to adopt some changes. I think some good changes would be 1 pitching change an inning instead of a batter (injury protected). Or if you want to remove him the opponent gets to choose the pitcher (from your staff) to face. Limit throws to first base to 3 per batter, limit batter backing out of the box to once an at bat, I know they limited meetings at the mound but I think 1 from catcher per inning and if a manager comes out a player has to be substituted. Lots of little things like that.

 

oh and not necessarily to speed up the game but just my own preference eliminate the shift. Infield must consist of minimum two players on each side of 2nd or some such thing. If you want to put 3 you will have to move an outfielder. Oh and tie games past 10th inning goes to home run contest between the two selected sluggers!(not including playoffs lol)

[IUFLA]

55 minutes ago, dgambill said:

 Limit throws to first base to 3 per batter

If you did that, what would keep the runner from taking a lead 3/4 of the way to 2nd after he'd coaxed 3 throws over? 

 

[dgambill]

1 hour ago, IUFLA said:

If you did that, what would keep the runner from taking a lead 3/4 of the way to 2nd after he'd coaxed 3 throws over? 

 

Only throw twice. After that you better start pitching out. That’s the point. That 3rd throw better catch him otherwise you better not do it.  It limits you to only throwing over for really big leads and basically would make the decision to even start throwing over for a pitcher to really be thought about. You’d have to pair it with stepping off the rubber or something too but that is the point. Game needs to be proactive and step outside it’s box because it’s losing fans. 
Plus it brings base stealing back into the game and incentivized guys that base hits are valuable because the running game comes back. A base runner should have some advantages. Do runners try to draw throws? Do catchers throw behind runners. If you get on base it should be dangerous. You should be rewarded for getting on. Drawing a walk, getting a base hit, etc. The game is losing its marketability. Tv viewing etc is done in shorter and shorter intervals. Less and less are willing to sit for 4 hours for a game unless it’s a playoff game. Add some excitement and also hopefully speed up the game in the process. 
Same thing with fewer pitching changes. It adds more strategy not less.

[13th&Jackson]

13 hours ago, TheWatShot said:

Gotta love the breakneck pace of playoff baseball games. Checked the Rays-Yankees score in the top of the 7th...checked again a half hour later and it was the top of the 8th. 

I watched the game. In the late innings, batters on both sides were forcing a lot of pitches. At bats were going 7-10 pitches at the batters battled excellent pitching. That led to longer innings. I believe Brousseu's winning HR came on the 10th pitch of his at bat.

[IUFLA]

9 minutes ago, dgambill said:

Only throw twice. After that you better start pitching out. That’s the point. That 3rd throw better catch him otherwise you better not do it.  It limits you to only throwing over for really big leads and basically would make the decision to even start throwing over for a pitcher to really be thought about. You’d have to pair it with stepping off the rubber or something too but that is the point. Game needs to be proactive and step outside it’s box because it’s losing fans. 
Plus it brings base stealing back into the game and incentivized guys that base hits are valuable because the running game comes back.

There was a discussion about these kinds of things over in the All Baseball Forum under 2020 MLB Discussion thread. 

I think to get where you (and I) would like to see the game (judging by your last sentence which I'm in 100% agreement with) I've suggested simply moving all outfield fences back 20 feet, and moving the pitcher's mound back 5 feet. It's an all or nothing game right now for the most part. Pitchers throwing 95+ and batters swing for the fences. I think the two things I proposed would bring it more back to what you and I would like.

I think the price of attending a game is what keeps a lot of fans away. According to this article between 2010 and 2018, the cost for a family of four to attend a game rose by 23 percent. I stated over in the thread on the baseball side that my wife and I went to a Cubs Astros game down here in Houston last year and dropped $400. Some teams (Marlins and Rays, notably) will never draw well for various reasons (too many older fans of other teams, for one) no matter what the product is on the field. Other, like the Royals and Pirates, will do well when they're competitive and winning.

As I said in the other thread, I'm not too much worried about speeding up the game. and to be honest, for all of the steps they've tried to take in speeding it up, it's actually gotten worse. 3:05 in 2019 as opposed to 2:46 in 2005.

[IU Scott]

6 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

There was a discussion about these kinds of things over in the All Baseball Forum under 2020 MLB Discussion thread. 

I think to get where you (and I) would like to see the game (judging by your last sentence which I'm in 100% agreement with) I've suggested simply moving all outfield fences back 20 feet, and moving the pitcher's mound back 5 feet. It's an all or nothing game right now for the most part. Pitchers throwing 95+ and batters swing for the fences. I think the two things I proposed would bring it more back to what you and I would like.

I think the price of attending a game is what keeps a lot of fans away. According to this article between 2010 and 2018, the cost for a family of four to attend a game rose by 23 percent. I stated over in the thread on the baseball side that my wife and I went to a Cubs Astros game down here in Houston last year and dropped $400. Some teams (Marlins and Rays, notably) will never draw well for various reasons (too many older fans of other teams, for one) no matter what the product is on the field. Other, like the Royals and Pirates, will do well when they're competitive and winning.

As I said in the other thread, I'm not too much worried about speeding up the game. and to be honest, for all of the steps they've tried to take in speeding it up, it's actually gotten worse. 3:05 in 2019 as opposed to 2:46 in 2005.

I can't remember all of my suggestions on the baseball thread but they need to do something about the pace of the game.  If I am attending the game in person I dn't really care how long the game last but it is how much of a downtime there are in baseball.  So here are a few suggestions I have.

1) Have pitch clock of 20 seconds between pitches

2) Don't let batters step out to adjust gloves after every pitch.

3) Limit pitching changes to 5 a game- I know in the Padres first 4 playoff games they used 8 pitchers in each game.

4) Eliminate the shift- have to have 2 defenders on each side of 2nd base.

 

[dgambill]

29 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

There was a discussion about these kinds of things over in the All Baseball Forum under 2020 MLB Discussion thread. 

I think to get where you (and I) would like to see the game (judging by your last sentence which I'm in 100% agreement with) I've suggested simply moving all outfield fences back 20 feet, and moving the pitcher's mound back 5 feet. It's an all or nothing game right now for the most part. Pitchers throwing 95+ and batters swing for the fences. I think the two things I proposed would bring it more back to what you and I would like.

I think the price of attending a game is what keeps a lot of fans away. According to this article between 2010 and 2018, the cost for a family of four to attend a game rose by 23 percent. I stated over in the thread on the baseball side that my wife and I went to a Cubs Astros game down here in Houston last year and dropped $400. Some teams (Marlins and Rays, notably) will never draw well for various reasons (too many older fans of other teams, for one) no matter what the product is on the field. Other, like the Royals and Pirates, will do well when they're competitive and winning.

As I said in the other thread, I'm not too much worried about speeding up the game. and to be honest, for all of the steps they've tried to take in speeding it up, it's actually gotten worse. 3:05 in 2019 as opposed to 2:46 in 2005.

Still lots of older fans but not as many younger ones. I don’t want to change the dimensions of the game. Pitchers mound distance, ball parks would be expensive to change dimensions would never pass. I think fans and baseball alike are fine with home runs but if you incentivize ground balls and running the bases by eliminating the shift and throwing over stuff like that it’s small things. I’m big on pitching changes. Outside the starting pitcher I don’t think you should be able to remove the pitcher from the game for an inning. Again if you do it should be a punishment! So the other team gets to pick which pitcher they will face. We got to do some radical things but yet leave the core game pitching, fielding, batting the same for purists and for comparing statistics. It’s the ancillary things you should make changes to. Like you said games may stay the same time but it’s about less down time and more action!  Otherwise you can just go to 7 innings and that will shorten it....and nobody wants that.

 

And I like my idea of 10 inning game cap with a 10 out HR round to win it! How fun is that!

[dgambill]

20 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I can't remember all of my suggestions on the baseball thread but they need to do something about the pace of the game.  If I am attending the game in person I dn't really care how long the game last but it is how much of a downtime there are in baseball.  So here are a few suggestions I have.

1) Have pitch clock of 20 seconds between pitches

2) Don't let batters step out to adjust gloves after every pitch.

3) Limit pitching changes to 5 a game- I know in the Padres first 4 playoff games they used 8 pitchers in each game.

4) Eliminate the shift- have to have 2 defenders on each side of 2nd base.

 

Interesting...I’ll have to visit the thread.

[IUFLA]

1 hour ago, dgambill said:

I think fans and baseball alike are fine with home runs but if you incentivize ground balls and running the bases by eliminating the shift and throwing over stuff like that it’s small things.

I'm not exactly sure what you're proposing would "incentivize ground balls and running the bases." It might to an extent. But I believe de-incentivizing home runs and strikeouts are the keys to it. In 2019 MLB hitters struck out 42,823 times, 34,306 in 2010 and 31,356 in 2000. That's a startling stat to me. De-incentivizing strikeouts in and of itself would make for shorter games.

The men we have playing today are bigger and stronger, both hitters and pitchers than they've ever been before (sans the jucing years). It's evolved into a total power game (for what it's worth, I think the NBA has too, while the NFL has become more of a finesse game than it use to be...go figure). Having them play in stadiums with the current dimensions is like having them play on high school fields. 

[IU Scott]

What is bad is that I think I enjoy the off season better than I do the season when it comes to pro sports.  I seem to pay more attention when it comes to the draft and trades and fee agency.  I guess that is when everyone still had hope for their teams and see the changes they are making.  Once the season starts and your team is not a championship caliber team then it is harder to stay attached to the team.

[13th&Jackson]

29 minutes ago, IUFLA said:

I'm not exactly sure what you're proposing would "incentivize ground balls and running the bases." It might to an extent. But I believe de-incentivizing home runs and strikeouts are the keys to it. In 2019 MLB hitters struck out 42,823 times, 34,306 in 2010 and 31,356 in 2000. That's a startling stat to me. De-incentivizing strikeouts in and of itself would make for shorter games.

The men we have playing today are bigger and stronger, both hitters and pitchers than they've ever been before (sans the jucing years). It's evolved into a total power game (for what it's worth, I think the NBA has too, while the NFL has become more of a finesse game than it use to be...go figure). Having them play in stadiums with the current dimensions is like having them play on high school fields. 

Correct. Last night Aaron Judge for the Yankees (6'7", 270) was facing Nick Anderson who throws close to 100 mph. Judge reached on a pitch and didn't make full contact, but it carried into the seats along the RF line about 330 feet for a HR.

[TheWatShot]

2 hours ago, IU Scott said:

What is bad is that I think I enjoy the off season better than I do the season when it comes to pro sports.  I seem to pay more attention when it comes to the draft and trades and fee agency.  I guess that is when everyone still had hope for their teams and see the changes they are making.  Once the season starts and your team is not a championship caliber team then it is harder to stay attached to the team.

Sadly, this is kind of how I am anymore. I always hope my teams will somehow strike it rich or benefit from some blockbuster trade that makes them a contender for a long time, but they just go about their business and nothing changes. 

[dgambill]

2 hours ago, IUFLA said:

I'm not exactly sure what you're proposing would "incentivize ground balls and running the bases." It might to an extent. But I believe de-incentivizing home runs and strikeouts are the keys to it. In 2019 MLB hitters struck out 42,823 times, 34,306 in 2010 and 31,356 in 2000. That's a startling stat to me. De-incentivizing strikeouts in and of itself would make for shorter games.

The men we have playing today are bigger and stronger, both hitters and pitchers than they've ever been before (sans the jucing years). It's evolved into a total power game (for what it's worth, I think the NBA has too, while the NFL has become more of a finesse game than it use to be...go figure). Having them play in stadiums with the current dimensions is like having them play on high school fields. 

No what it does is make it possible for players that make good contact and run the bases become even more valuable. You wouldn’t have to be 6’7 to be successful or for a team to invest in you. 
I might agree we don’t need smaller diamonds for sure but MLB and it’s fans want home runs. If a guy 6’7 can cover the strike zone (which is huge for him) and do it against bigger and stronger pitchers then more power to him. There have always been huge guys. Frank Thomas, Mark McGuire, Jose Canseco, Cecil Feilder etc. I mean you have the smallest guy in the league Jose Altuve win mvp a couple years ago. So it’s not all guys are bigger and it’s too easy. The issue is the avg size guys...the guys that 10 years ago would be trying to hit it in the gaps are hit line drives who because of the shift I believe and the difficulty of getting on base now have changed their hitting style to hit more fly balls in attempt for HRs. Thus more strike outs and yes more HRs. Give these guys incentives to try to put the ball in play and that might change what is happening in the league. You will always have to true power hitters. You don’t change the league around 4-5 guys. You change it around a majority of the players.

It’s like when they keep lengthening golf courses. You are trying to offset 3-4 guys but all it does is hurt the majority of the field who have a harder and harder time because they have to hit longer and longer irons. The bombers are so big they still are hitting short irons you can’t stop it. You can make hitting in the rough a bigger penalty, more hazards for trying to bomb long drives but in the end you aren’t serving the game by changing it because of a few. Maybe you go to using different equipment in golf but I think they just hurt the game trying to constantly just make it longer.

As for NFL and NBA we don’t make the field bigger or goal taller because guys are faster and bigger. We manage the rules around the game. That is what I would call for...as long as there is a minimum dimension for your park then that is enough for me. That’s just my opinion. Some things need to stay equal. I do know they’ve changed the height of the pitchers mound several times but moving it back would likely cause arm injuries for most pitchers and then when it comes to records and stats it would have to come with an astrick. Baseball has also messed with the balls too so they could always mess with that again If HRs got out of hand. 

[dgambill]

The way you would do it certainly would cause a change for sure. I just think it would have more unintended consequences that could hurt the game. Rule changes could be tweeked until you get a happy medium. I just don’t think changing the game because a freak of nature like Aaron Judge comes along serves the rest of the players and the game.

[IowaHoosierFan]

The new trend is baseball at all levels is the how they are teaching swinging the bat.  It used to be, level elbow, lead with your hands and drive through the ball.  Now its being taught as an upward swing that get the ball in the air which leads to way more home runs and a lot less ground balls.

1.  Way to much time between innings.  Throwing the ball around, pitcher warming up again.

2.  Which leads to way more commercials which gives them even more time between innings

3.  Pitching changes take way to long.

4.  Batter walk up and step out, and everything they do between pitches

Maybe drop to 7 innings games with a max of 10 innings today.  You would get more complete games from pitchers with less middle relievers

Or you could put a time limit on regulation time.  2 hours running clock.  If tied, you get another 30 minutes where both sides have to bat, then its called a tie and you move on to the next game.  No reason baseball is the only sport that doesn't have a tie.

Just ramblings.  Polk holes as needed

 

[KoB2011]

58 minutes ago, IowaHoosierFan said:

The new trend is baseball at all levels is the how they are teaching swinging the bat.  It used to be, level elbow, lead with your hands and drive through the ball.  Now its being taught as an upward swing that get the ball in the air which leads to way more home runs and a lot less ground balls.

1.  Way to much time between innings.  Throwing the ball around, pitcher warming up again.

2.  Which leads to way more commercials which gives them even more time between innings

3.  Pitching changes take way to long.

4.  Batter walk up and step out, and everything they do between pitches

Maybe drop to 7 innings games with a max of 10 innings today.  You would get more complete games from pitchers with less middle relievers

Or you could put a time limit on regulation time.  2 hours running clock.  If tied, you get another 30 minutes where both sides have to bat, then its called a tie and you move on to the next game.  No reason baseball is the only sport that doesn't have a tie.

Just ramblings.  Polk holes as needed

 

1. I agree - they need to warm up but it doesn't need to take as long as it does. I want to say when I played in high school there were 8 pitches to warm up then the inning started, is that not true in pros?

2. The game should dictate commercials, not the other way around.

3. Perhaps for pitching changes they should put a timer so a pitcher can't make a slow walk from the bullpen?

4. I think they should limit stepping out of the box to once every five pitches. 

Not a big fan of the time limit, one of the beautiful parts of baseball is that there is no time-clock. The game would lose a lot with a time-clock. Baseball isn't the only sport that can't end in a tie; there are several others, notably, basketball. 

[IowaHoosierFan]

1 minute ago, KoB2011 said:

1. I agree - they need to warm up but it doesn't need to take as long as it does. I want to say when I played in high school there were 8 pitches to warm up then the inning started, is that not true in pros?

2. The game should dictate commercials, not the other way around.

3. Perhaps for pitching changes they should put a timer so a pitcher can't make a slow walk from the bullpen?

4. I think they should limit stepping out of the box to once every five pitches. 

Not a big fan of the time limit, one of the beautiful parts of baseball is that there is no time-clock. The game would lose a lot with a time-clock. Baseball isn't the only sport that can't end in a tie; there are several others, notably, basketball. 

The time limit things comes from watching soccer.  They get a game done in roughly 2 hours.  Pretty similar to Hockey.  There has got to be a way to get under 3hours for a game.  Its just a big time commitment to watch a whole baseball game.  Would be nice to know that i could squeeze a game in a couple hours.  Might get more woman and younger people to watch also.

[KoB2011]

1 minute ago, IowaHoosierFan said:

The time limit things comes from watching soccer.  They get a game done in roughly 2 hours.  Pretty similar to Hockey.  There has got to be a way to get under 3hours for a game.  Its just a big time commitment to watch a whole baseball game.  Would be nice to know that i could squeeze a game in a couple hours.  Might get more woman and younger people to watch also.

I get that, but you're changing the core of the game by putting a time limit on it. I love soccer, too, but it is a completely different sport. 

Baseball is more akin to cricket, which can go on for days until a winner is determined. 

[IowaHoosierFan]

1 minute ago, KoB2011 said:

I get that, but you're changing the core of the game by putting a time limit on it. I love soccer, too, but it is a completely different sport. 

Baseball is more akin to cricket, which can go on for days until a winner is determined. 

don't disagree but if they don't change with the times, they are going to slowly die off.  They need to get it under 3 hours.  No ifs ands or buts about it.  3-4 hour games are killing their viewership.  So much wasted time.  The younger generation just don't have the patience to put that much time in watching a game for that long.  I even have a hard time getting through a whole game anymore.   And don't get me started on the playoffs starting after 7pm during the week.  I sure the hell usually don't stay up for the whole game.  Even football which is arguably the most popular sport is suffering with the length of their games.  With all the commercials, replays and reviews.

[KoB2011]

3 minutes ago, IowaHoosierFan said:

don't disagree but if they don't change with the times, they are going to slowly die off.  They need to get it under 3 hours.  No ifs ands or buts about it.  3-4 hour games are killing their viewership.  So much wasted time.  The younger generation just don't have the patience to put that much time in watching a game for that long.  I even have a hard time getting through a whole game anymore.   And don't get me started on the playoffs starting after 7pm during the week.  I sure the hell usually don't stay up for the whole game.  Even football which is arguably the most popular sport is suffering with the length of their games.  With all the commercials, replays and reviews.

Oh I don't disagree with you at all, they have a real problem, I'm just not convinced a clock is the way to fix it. 

We see more pitching changes than we have ever before and more pitches per at bat. I think your point about limited the amount of warm up time and time between pitching changes has a lot of merit without changing the core of the game. If baseball can cut off 1-minute per half inning by making tweaks like that, as well as the amount they can step out of the box as you mentioned, they go from 3:07 per 9 inning game back to game times you saw in the 90s and early 2000s. 

[Steubenhoosier]

31 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

Oh I don't disagree with you at all, they have a real problem, I'm just not convinced a clock is the way to fix it. 

We see more pitching changes than we have ever before and more pitches per at bat. I think your point about limited the amount of warm up time and time between pitching changes has a lot of merit without changing the core of the game. If baseball can cut off 1-minute per half inning by making tweaks like that, as well as the amount they can step out of the box as you mentioned, they go from 3:07 per 9 inning game back to game times you saw in the 90s and early 2000s. 

I agree with the slowness of the games, but in imo, what is killing all professional sports in regards to next generations is the decision by major networks to cater to the Pacific time zone by starting games so late. 

When a playoff game or national championship game doesn't start until 8;30-9;00 EST, with the prospect that it ends after midnight, how can kids get connected? Even adults who have to get up for work the next day have to make a decision to either sacrifice sleep and be less productive, or watch the game.

The Pacific time zone represents 16.6% of the US population. The Eastern, almost 48% and the Central 29%. Starting the games an hour earlier makes a lot of sense to me.