FiddySicks

MLB 2016 Changes

Recommended Posts

Ok, so baseball fans stopped showing up everywhere... but eventually they came back in 27 other cities except for Montreal?

 

If that's the case, screw the Montreal fans, they brought this upon themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for rebranding as the Nationals in terms of creating a brand and the business side of it from the teams perspective, I don't fault Nationals ownership for wanting to shy away from the Expos in several aspects. I'm a Marlins fan so I've dealt with a recent rebranding and it's very important to push your new brand, its logos, its colors, its new name, etc. When I go to Marlins Park and see fans in the Florida Marlins merchandise, it actually irks me to a degree. I loved the old stuff and most would agree its better than the new stuff but you've got to support the current team as well. I can't stand when I see a fan in his 1993 teal cap all faded and full of sweat stains... why? That tells me he's not much of a fan. Go buy a Miami cap and wear it. How does wearing your Gary Sheffield jersey show support for Jose Fernandez, Dee Gordon, Christian Yelich, and Giancarlo Stanton? I have my teal Florida gear too but when I go to Marlins Park I wear my Miami jerseys, caps, shirts, whatever... not my stuff from ten years ago. So the Nationals, they're trying to build the NATIONALS in DC, not the Expos. Honor them elsewhere but I can see the problem with the Expos stuff filtering through what they're trying to create.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't realize the Camden Yards board was so small compared to everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, LEWJ said:

Awesome article/graphic depicting size comparisons of baseball video boards.

 

Check out @WFNYScott's Tweet:

 

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/ct-baseball-video-boards-htmlstory.html

Neat. 

 

The Reds also added a second video board above the right field bleachers which is great. Used to be if you were sitting in the left field bleachers you were a second class citizen who couldn't see what was going on the big screen. (even the good seats down the third base line had bad views of the jumbotron). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

As for rebranding as the Nationals in terms of creating a brand and the business side of it from the teams perspective, I don't fault Nationals ownership for wanting to shy away from the Expos in several aspects. I'm a Marlins fan so I've dealt with a recent rebranding and it's very important to push your new brand, its logos, its colors, its new name, etc. When I go to Marlins Park and see fans in the Florida Marlins merchandise, it actually irks me to a degree. I loved the old stuff and most would agree its better than the new stuff but you've got to support the current team as well. I can't stand when I see a fan in his 1993 teal cap all faded and full of sweat stains... why? That tells me he's not much of a fan. Go buy a Miami cap and wear it. How does wearing your Gary Sheffield jersey show support for Jose Fernandez, Dee Gordon, Christian Yelich, and Giancarlo Stanton? I have my teal Florida gear too but when I go to Marlins Park I wear my Miami jerseys, caps, shirts, whatever... not my stuff from ten years ago. So the Nationals, they're trying to build the NATIONALS in DC, not the Expos. Honor them elsewhere but I can see the problem with the Expos stuff filtering through what they're trying to create.

Yes, exactly... when the Nationals moved to DC they knew it might take some work to really develop a Nationals fanbase, considering the failures of DC baseball in the past and the fact that a lot of baseball fans in DC are/were Orioles fans.  In hindsight, I would say they've done a great job of attracting and maintaining a strong fanbase - walk around DC in the summer and you'll see people wearing red Nats caps everywhere, even people dressed in formal business attire.  

 

Holding on to the Expos would be silly and pointless, and would only dilute their product/message.  Not to mention nobody in DC cares that their team came from Montreal or that they used to be the Expos.  Why would they cherish a history of a team like the Expos, that really nothing meaningful to cherish strictly in terms of baseball?  The answer is that they wouldn't, so they don't

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, leopard88 said:

I didn't realize the Camden Yards board was so small compared to everyone else.

 

Yeah, I knew it was small but compared to the rest of the league? I was a bit surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SilverBullet1929 said:

Ok, so baseball fans stopped showing up everywhere... but eventually they came back in 27 other cities except for Montreal?

 

If that's the case, screw the Montreal fans, they brought this upon themselves.

They came back. Initially. Then when the team sucked and the owners were their usual selves again, the fans left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would make me kind of bitter if the players stopped playing during the one season they had a legit chance to win a championship. Not sure if forgive them for it, even if I sided with their cause. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and it certainly didn't help them get their new stadium. The political climate already wasn't good in the province for subsidizing sports stadiums and then you add the strike and all the baggage that came with it and it became an even tougher sell. Olympic Stadium was never really suitable as a full time ballpark. 

 

If they'd been able to build a new stadium before the strike they'd probably still be in Montreal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ehh...  With all the craziness in my life the last month, I missed a lot, and continuing the name argument like I planned to seems passe.  I'll just wait another twenty-or-so pages for it to pop up a third time.  XD

 

On 3/21/2016 at 1:50 PM, Bouj said:

 

Hmm...  Seems like all that mattered was the on-field look of the team.  While I'm disappointed the regular fan will have this stupid feature hanging from their backs, I'm glad the team is that committed to not looking like idiots.  Then again, I don't wear authentic uniforms to games or otherwise, so my viewpoint is a bit different.

 

On 3/22/2016 at 2:47 PM, Bucfan56 said:

I'm really glad that Cuba isn't wearing the adjustable mesh trucker hats this time around like they were in 1999. That bugged me so much as a kid. 

 

37400FCD-FFA4-4281-BDBD-098411D09109_mw1

 

Would YOU want to wear an enclosed heavy cap while playing in the Caribbean?  I can barely take it on a summer day in New York.

 

On 3/25/2016 at 2:51 PM, BJ Sands said:

Good move by the Cubs. 

 

 

SWEET SASSY MOLASSY!!!  I'm overjoyed to see this, a beautiful set dropping the millstone/albatross around it's neck.

 

On 3/26/2016 at 0:16 PM, Thomas said:

Well, i don't need my games to be so detailed, now you'll excuse me, i am going back to my game of double dribble for NES

 

Well, I'm going to go play MLB Power Pros 2008 and Backyard Baseball 2001... and cry in the corner about what Konami and Humongous Entertainment have become.  Maybe I'll get a great new installment eventually... right?  T_T

 

On 3/28/2016 at 2:24 PM, Gold Pinstripes said:

It's still weird, and a waste of space to see a large Warren Spahn statute outside Turner Field, Spahn never pitched for the Atlanta Braves. It's better to use that space for the likes of a Chipper Jones, for example. I think the smartest way to handle this situation is with perspective, but teams like the ego boost from trying to grab something which isn't 

connected to their fan base. Don't abandon the history, but don't go overboard with nostalgia about something almost no one cares about in your area. Several years ago, I saw someone with a SF Giants hat claiming the NY Giant WS titles, it was a sad sight.   

 

Would you rather the statue sit in Fenway or Miller Park?  Would you rather the Mets claim the extra championships?  This seems insane to me.

 

On 3/30/2016 at 1:44 AM, SFGiants58 said:

My rule of thumb with relocations centers on the team name/colors. Did the name and/or colors stay the same? They should actively acknowledge the franchises' past. If the name and/or colors changed? They are free to do what they want with their past. Honor it, downplay it, ignore it, etc. As long as the record books don't change, things should be good.

 

I think this is the best way of looking at these things.  The New York Giants and the Brooklyn Dodgers moved to California, and they took their name, their look, their identity, and their legends with them.  Willie Mays, the face of the franchise, made "The Catch" in the Polo Grounds and then played 14 years in San Francisco.  I don't think you can argue with this being one continuous franchise.  The Giants are the Giants, one of the Classic Eight.  I've seen five championships in my day, but that doesn't mean I don't love and appreciate the things that came before, the theatrics of Reggie, the importance of Thurman, and the strength of Gehrig.  I appreciate my franchise's history.  Do those who argue as Gold Pinstripes does feel that the Dodgers should forsake Jackie Robinson?  Is he of no importance to the team because they skipped off to LA?

 

The Giants, Dodgers, and Athletics all fall under this category.  Now then we look at other situation.  The Pilots became the Brewers, but both the team and the city seem to hold that history in their hearts.  That's nice.  The Pilots were important.  They were the first Major League team in Seattle.  These one-to-three-year teams who don't matter much in the long run often are viewed like this.  Others are forgotten to time.  I can tell you right now that in all the years I've followed my team (which claimed a 100-year anniversary in 2003) I've never heard anything about their 1901-1902 time as the Baltimore Orioles except on the Wikipedia article.  They've abandoned that time, changed everything, and there's a team in Baltimore with that name who are welcome to honor that history.

 

So, let's talk about that part.  Should the Washington Nationals honor the history of Washington baseball and market themselves with it?  Yes.  Washington was one of the founding cities of the American League, and has a long baseball history.  People were very upset when their team was taken away from them.  There was a hole, which was filled somewhat by the Orioles, but there was still a hole there.  Now a team moves in.  They're smart to take a name, look, and logo that had been abandoned.  They're a part of a lineage of Washington baseball, a lineage which had been forsaken by two other teams.

 

The Expos don't have a new team taking their place, so they're still a part of the Nationals' history.  If Tampa moved there, though, I'd have no problem for them to take the Expos identity if Washington doesn't want it.  I'm totally okay with the Hornets switch because their beloved team was taken away from them.  Then, the franchise decided they didn't want to be the Hornets anymore.  They ditched their identity, and they were more than willing to give it away to the city of Charlotte.  What's wrong with that?

 

I've... been writing this post over about four hours with constant distraction.  It may not be the most coherent argument, at least not nearly as good as it might have been after I read all the backlog four hours ago, but I tried.  I'm going to sleep now.  We'll figure it out later.

 

12 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

They came back. Initially. Then when the team sucked and the owners were their usual selves again, the fans left.

 

Two words, the words that can completely devastate any fan base: Fire Sale.  Before the 1995 season started, Ken Hill, John Wetteland, Marquis Grissom, Larry Walker, Moises Alou, Pedro Martinez, and Mel Rojas were all GONE.  It's a sad situation, although a number of us benefited from those losses.  The owners sold the team out from under the fans, and that compounded the pain from the strike.  The Marlins have done it to their fans three times now.  The only reason the Marlins kept their team was because the owners have been putzes content to pay as little as possible while pocketing all the money they get and occasionally get lucky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MLB Power Pros 08 is a terrific game. I approve.

 

 

Also.... just gonna wait till the regular season starts to complain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, leopard88 said:

I didn't realize the Camden Yards board was so small compared to everyone else.

It was bad enough when the city decided to build the Hilton and completely eliminate the iconic Bromo Seltzer tower from the scenery.  I don't think they could install a Cleveland sized scoreboard even if they wanted to do so.   Next to the scoreboard, they have installed a CF rooftop bar which is very popular.  They couldn't expand in the opposite direction with the flag court and warehouse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bill81361 said:

It was bad enough when the city decided to build the Hilton and completely eliminate the iconic Bromo Seltzer tower from the scenery.  I don't think they could install a Cleveland sized scoreboard even if they wanted to do so.   Next to the scoreboard, they have installed a CF rooftop bar which is very popular.  They couldn't expand in the opposite direction with the flag court and warehouse.

 

I'm fine with it as is. It's plenty big enough to me.  I just didn't realize how big some of the newer ones are.

 

If the Orioles wanted to go bigger, they have two realistic options:

 

1.  Turn the entire CF score board into one larger board --

They already flipped the original video board, which was in the bottom center with the original light board.  They would just need to eliminate the permanent adds on the bottom right and left.

 

If memory serves me, the bottom center already has video capability.  However I don't think it can be integrated with the main video board because they are not the same width.

 

Before and After:

 

ghettoscoreboardcal.jpgfa855864e616ad56c7f49f2400265a92.JPG?ito

 

2.  Turn the out-of-town scoreboard in the RF wall into a video board --

A portion of this board already has video capability, but it isn't used much for that.  This would be the least attractive alternative because it wouldn't be visible from the CF seats, the flag court and some of the RF line seats.

 

outoftown_scoreboard_200x132.jpg

 

All that said, I don't think there is any need to shoehorn in a larger board just for the sake of doing so.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baseball scoreboards are kind of a waste because they don't show replays or even live action like NFL ones do.  It's always frustrated me that close plays can't be replayed on the big screen - I heard it's actually part of the umpires' contract, but not sure if that's true.

 

I can't imagine the need for such a big board in a baseball stadium.  The new CBP board is huge - but based on that graphic it is dwarfed by plenty of other boards.  I really can't see the benefit in something any bigger, other than to make it easier for people with visual impairments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Baseball scoreboards are kind of a waste because they don't show replays or even live action like NFL ones do.  It's always frustrated me that close plays can't be replayed on the big screen - I heard it's actually part of the umpires' contract, but not sure if that's true.

 

I can't imagine the need for such a big board in a baseball stadium.  The new CBP board is huge - but based on that graphic it is dwarfed by plenty of other boards.  I really can't see the benefit in something any bigger, other than to make it easier for people with visual impairments.

 

Aren't challenged calls shown on the scoreboard?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Silent Wind of Doom said:

I can tell you right now that in all the years I've followed my team (which claimed a 100-year anniversary in 2003) I've never heard anything about their 1901-1902 time as the Baltimore Orioles except on the Wikipedia article.  

 

Major League Baseball's official historian John Thorn has declared that the team that played in Baltimore in 1901 and 1902 belongs to a different franchise from the team that began playing in New York in 1903.  While I hate to disagree with a man who has as impressive a mustache as Thorn, his reasoning is quite sloppy; his decision is a matter of expediency rather than of historical rigour.

 

There is no doubt that Ban Johnson, the founder of the American League, considered the two entities to be one and the same.  He had intended to put a team in New York from the league's beginning; but, when that proved impossible, he planned to move the Baltimore team. John McGraw, Baltimore's player/manager, participated in the planning for this move.  However, McGraw eventually realised that Johnson had no intention of keeping him with the club, so he jumped in mid-season 1902 to the N.L.'s New York Giants.  (This was before the two leagues made peace in 1903 and began honouring each other's contracts.)  

So chaotic was the relationship between the two leagues at the time that the Giants' owners were actually able to buy the Orioles; and, under McGraw's direction, they raided the Baltimore roster and wrecked the club.  The Baltimore club went bankrupt and was taken over by the league (which is to say: by Johnson), and was run by the league for the remainder of the 1902 season.  Before the 1903 season, Johnson found a couple of Tammany Hall crooks in New York to sell the team to.

While Thorn cites this period of league ownership as a basis for declaring that these are two separate franchises, another part of Thorn's reasoning is that the players were largely different between the 1902 Baltimore team and the 1903 New York team.  This latter point is extremely weak, as the makeup of the roster is entirely beside the point. Furthermore, the players were different because all the good Baltimore players were taken by the Giants after McGraw jumped there; so the 1903 New York Highlanders signed a bevy of new guys to replace the scrubinis who had finished out the season in Baltimore in 1902.

 

Here are two very informative blog posts from William Juliano at The Captain's Blog, one from 2010 (before Thorn's ruling), and one from 2014 (after Thorn's ruling). 

While Major League Baseball has made this ruling about the 1901-02 Baltimore team and the 1903-present New York team, it has made no such ruling in the Montreal/Washington matter (despite there being a period of league ownership there, as well), nor, indeed, in any other case of team relocation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't even know that the Oriole-Highlander-Yankee lineage was in question until a few months ago. I get where Thorn is coming from, but I don't agree. Since the team did not officially fold, and no expansion team was officially granted to New York in 1903, it stands to reason that the 1902 Orioles and the 1903-present Highlanders/Yankees are the same team.

 

The only similar case to this would be the St. Louis Browns trading away 17 players when moving to Baltimore, but that didn't warrant claims of a "new franchise."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WSU151 said:

 

Aren't challenged calls shown on the scoreboard?  

 

I haven't attended a game that had a challenge so I'm not sure.  I just know that when there's close plays people always have to watch one of the monitors that's showing the TV broadcast rather than watch the reply on the scoreboard like they do in NFL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Baseball scoreboards are kind of a waste because they don't show replays or even live action like NFL ones do.  It's always frustrated me that close plays can't be replayed on the big screen - I heard it's actually part of the umpires' contract, but not sure if that's true.

 

I can't imagine the need for such a big board in a baseball stadium.  The new CBP board is huge - but based on that graphic it is dwarfed by plenty of other boards.  I really can't see the benefit in something any bigger, other than to make it easier for people with visual impairments.

 

I've always seen replays of plays unless the outcome is negative for the home team or it's a huge failure on the part of the umpires.  During challenged plays, though, the play is shown, which is why usually there will be a huge cheer about ten-twenty seconds after the challenge is declared as the crowd sees that the play went their way.  Of course, whether the umpires see the same thing or not is a different matter.

 

But I'm not really focused on the replays, unless it was a really good play or I somehow missed it.  The scoreboard is more for information and video.  I'm often confused at people who talk about needing to read names off people's backs to know who anyone is.  The lineup with positions are right on the board and if I need to know who someone is I just infer from that.

 

And then you've got your psych-up videos and fun games/funny videos in between the innings.  I like to be there for lineups, so I get to sit and watch a few documentaries about the team, some videos from around the Statdium, some trivia, and something that gets me ready for the game.  I loved last year's intro video.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Major League Baseball's official historian John Thorn has declared that the team that played in Baltimore in 1901 and 1902 belongs to a different franchise from the team that began playing in New York in 1903.  While I hate to disagree with a man who has as impressive a mustache as Thorn, his reasoning is quite sloppy; his decision is a matter of expediency rather than of historical rigour.

 

There is no doubt that Ban Johnson, the founder of the American League, considered the two entities to be one and the same.  He had intended to put a team in New York from the league's beginning; but, when that proved impossible, he planned to move the Baltimore team. John McGraw, Baltimore's player/manager, participated in the planning for this move.  However, McGraw eventually realised that Johnson had no intention of keeping him with the club, so he jumped in mid-season 1902 to the N.L.'s New York Giants.  (This was before the two leagues made peace in 1903 and began honouring each other's contracts.)  

So chaotic was the relationship between the two leagues at the time that the Giants' owners were actually able to buy the Orioles; and, under McGraw's direction, they raided the Baltimore roster and wrecked the club.  The Baltimore club went bankrupt and was taken over by the league (which is to say: by Johnson), and was run by the league for the remainder of the 1902 season.  Before the 1903 season, Johnson found a couple of Tammany Hall crooks in New York to sell the team to.

While Thorn cites this period of league ownership as a basis for declaring that these are two separate franchises, another part of Thorn's reasoning is that the players were largely different between the 1902 Baltimore team and the 1903 New York team.  This latter point is extremely weak, as the makeup of the roster is entirely beside the point. Furthermore, the players were different because all the good Baltimore players were taken by the Giants after McGraw jumped there; so the 1903 New York Highlanders signed a bevy of new guys to replace the scrubinis who had finished out the season in Baltimore in 1902.

 

Here are two very informative blog posts from William Juliano at The Captain's Blog, one from 2010 (before Thorn's ruling), and one from 2014 (after Thorn's ruling). 

While Major League Baseball has made this ruling about the 1901-02 Baltimore team and the 1903-present New York team, it has made no such ruling in the Montreal/Washington matter (despite there being a period of league ownership there, as well), nor, indeed, in any other case of team relocation.

 

1 hour ago, SFGiants58 said:

I didn't even know that the Oriole-Highlander-Yankee lineage was in question until a few months ago. I get where Thorn is coming from, but I don't agree. Since the team did not officially fold, and no expansion team was officially granted to New York in 1903, it stands to reason that the 1902 Orioles and the 1903-present Highlanders/Yankees are the same team.

 

The only similar case to this would be the St. Louis Browns trading away 17 players when moving to Baltimore, but that didn't warrant claims of a "new franchise."

 

Yeah.  In truth, the Baltimore franchise was just a placeholder while Ban Johnson tried to get into New York.  It's a similar situation as the Pilots.  They accomplished nothing and there's a new team there, even moreso in this scenario because they share a name.  While I'd be okay with the Yankees appreciating this history, I'd have no problem with the Orioles claiming this as their own as part of Baltimore history.  Heck, they can claim all three Orioles teams.

 

The Yankees honoring their heritage pre-Yankees is a bit tough because they will not wear historic throwbacks.  They did once as the Highlanders for Fenway's 100th anniversary.  Even the Highlanders heritage doesn't get much play officially from the franchise, although the period had nothing of interest except Hall of Famer Jack Chesbro and causing the lack of a 1904 World Series.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.