MLB 2019 Changes

[Ray Lankford]

35 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Alas, in the era of YouTube, the lack of appropriate historical baseball programming on ESPN Classic and the MLB Network matters less, as a fan can find old games by the hundreds online. Still, I cannot understand why neither of these channels programs baseball in the winter, a strategy which would exploit the defining characteristic of baseball fans, attracting to these channels' advertisers viewers who have plenty of money to spend.

Presumably, if it was profitable, they'd do it.

 

It probably has a lot to do with how much the offseason has taken on a life of its own. There's probably a bigger market for watching guys like Rosenthal and Sherman talk about where free agents are going to sign than watching old games from the 80s.

[WSU151]

3 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

What has long distinguished baseball fans from fans of other sports is baseball fans' love of history.

 

That's not even close to being true. 

 

There are fans of every sport that love the history of the game. NFL Network, NBA TV, and NHL Network play classic games/films regularly.

[Ray Lankford]

15 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

 

That's not even close to being true. 

 

There are fans of every sport that love the history of the game. NFL Network, NBA TV, and NHL Network play classic games/films regularly.

To say nothing of the effect NFL Films has had on the legacy of the sport.

[Yac12]

I would love it if MLBTV along with old classic baseball games if they would show The Baseball Bunch or This Week In Baseball.  Even better would be to revive The Baseball Bunch to showcase it's current stars. 

[BBTV]

Show old TWIBs. That’s all I need. 

[SilverBullet1929]

I do enjoy the talking shows on MLB Network, sometimes they're the perfect thing to have on "in the background" as I do other things around the house... but yes having at least one classic game a day on the Network would be awesome. Maybe they could have a theme for the month, or the week, like every game is of one particular season or maybe features one particular player. The possibilities are endless. A daily classic TWIB in baseball would be awesome too. There's so many forgotten "little things" that we would rediscover with classic TWIB episodes.

[beachperroAZ]

1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Show old TWIBs. That’s all I need. 

amen!  I miss TWIBs.  

[Gothamite]

4 hours ago, Ray Lankford said:

To say nothing of the effect NFL Films has had on the legacy of the sport.

 

Which is probably why most football fans’ knowledge of the sport only goes back to the 1960s.  

 

Heck, even the teams are poor stewards of their legacy before that.  I’ve corrected the Packers on their own pre-1950s history. 

[The_Admiral]

Football isn't a good history sport, anyway, not like baseball. It's a TV show and the rules change so much every year that the records and historical comparisons don't mean anything. The 1940s NFL isn't worth much thought.

[Gothamite]

3 minutes ago, the admiral said:

Football isn't a good history sport, anyway, not like baseball. It's a TV show and the rules change so much every year that the records and historical comparisons don't mean anything. The 1940s NFL isn't worth much thought.

 

If anything, we need to go back to the 1940s rules.  Reduced "safety" equipment and better tackling (no more knockdown impacts) would do wonders for improving the sport.

[Around the Horn]

4 hours ago, Ray Lankford said:

To say nothing of the effect NFL Films has had on the legacy of the sport.

You just reminded me of how weird it will be to hear "The autumn wind is a raider..." and realize that team is in Las Vegas soon

[Gothamite]

3 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Show old TWIBs. That’s all I need. 

 

I’d buy a subscription just for that. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

12 hours ago, Ray Lankford said:

12 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Alas, in the era of YouTube, the lack of appropriate historical baseball programming on ESPN Classic and the MLB Network matters less, as a fan can find old games by the hundreds online. Still, I cannot understand why neither of these channels programs baseball in the winter, a strategy which would exploit the defining characteristic of baseball fans, attracting to these channels' advertisers viewers who have plenty of money to spend.

Presumably, if it was profitable, they'd do it.

 

It probably has a lot to do with how much the offseason has taken on a life of its own. There's probably a bigger market for watching guys like Rosenthal and Sherman talk about where free agents are going to sign than watching old games from the 80s.

 

OK, let's say that that accounts for the MLB Network.  (Though I categorically reject the reasoning "if it were profitable, they would do it", as that overlooks the fact that different executives make different decision, and sometimes a company winds up leaving money on the table by failing to take advantage of an opportunity.  But, for the sake of argument, let's go with it.)

What's ESPN Classic's excuse?  Couldn't they mix a few baseball games in there with the non-stop college football and college basketball games (and infomercials)?  Every once in a while we'll get a little baseball.  But it's the same small set of games over and over; and they come on only a couple of times a year.  

 

 

9 hours ago, WSU151 said:

12 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

What has long distinguished baseball fans from fans of other sports is baseball fans' love of history.

 

That's not even close to being true. 

 

There are fans of every sport that love the history of the game. NFL Network, NBA TV, and NHL Network play classic games/films regularly.

 

Well, I have to admit that all those networks play old games much more regularly than the MLB Network does.  I suppose that my perception dates from my childhood in the 1970s, when it was widely taken for granted that baseball fans had a special relationship to their sport's history that just didn't exist even amongst the passionate fans of the other sports.  The only fans who had an interest in history that rivalled that of baseball fans were fans of boxing.

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Gothamite said:

9 hours ago, Ray Lankford said:

To say nothing of the effect NFL Films has had on the legacy of the sport.

 

Which is probably why most football fans’ knowledge of the sport only goes back to the 1960s.  

 

Heck, even the teams are poor stewards of their legacy before that.  I’ve corrected the Packers on their own pre-1950s history. 

 

OK, now we're getting some anecdotal evidence that backs up what I was saying.  I mean, every baseball fan knows about Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb, who date back to the 1920s and earlier.  Joe D. and Ted Williams and Jackie Robinson might as well be active players, considering how present they are in the minds of fans.

But it seems to me that football fans' interest in history only rarely goes back even as far as the 1970s, barring a few specific exceptions such as Joe Namath and Jim Brown.

 

 

 

4 hours ago, the admiral said:

Football isn't a good history sport, anyway, not like baseball. It's a TV show and the rules change so much every year that the records and historical comparisons don't mean anything. The 1940s NFL isn't worth much thought.

 

Case in point.  By comparison, 1940s baseball, featuring several World Series encounters between the Yankees and Dodgers, is an everlasting part of baseball lore.

It's worth noting that one of the first things ever shown by the Classic Sports Nework when it debuted in 1995, before it was acquired by ESPN, was game 6 of the 1952 World Series.  My view is that we could use a lot more of that sort of programming, and that it would attract an audience.

 

 

8 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

Show old TWIBs. That’s all I need. 

 

I sure would go for that.  Also, for a while a few years ago ESPN Classic showed a show called Woody's World, which featured Heywood Hale Broun's delightful reports from the CBS Evening News in the 1960s and 1970s. While I appreciated the effort, I wouldn't expect too many shows that require that level of production.  But there is more than enough baseball-related content already in existence.
 

[msu]

30 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

If anything, we need to go back to the 1940s rules.  Reduced "safety" equipment and better tackling (no more knockdown impacts) would do wonders for improving the sport.

I'd like to go back to an era before most everyone wore gloves. Some of the amazing catches that happen in football are mostly just because of advancements in gloves and not necessarily skill. I don't think equipment like gloves should have the impact on the game like they have had.

[GriffinM6]

I really miss the show that MLBN had called Prime 9. Great countdown show that helped me learn a lot about the history of the game. Baseball Seasons was also another good one. 

[Ray Lankford]

59 minutes ago, msu said:

I'd like to go back to an era before most everyone wore gloves. Some of the amazing catches that happen in football are mostly just because of advancements in gloves and not necessarily skill. I don't think equipment like gloves should have the impact on the game like they have had.

You want less amazing catches?

[msu]

36 minutes ago, Ray Lankford said:

You want less amazing catches?

By this logic, MLB should make bats aluminum so we have more awesome hits or the NBA should lower the hoop to 9 feet so we can get more awesome dunks. If more entertaining is better then let's go for it!

 

But seriously, I'm just not that impressed that players are using these advanced gloves to make one-handed catches that probably wouldn't even be possible without the modern materials on gloves. The gloves have altered the game too much in my opinion. Stickum was giving an advantage and was banned, so i don't see why these modern gloves are allowed either.

[Sec19Row53]

34 minutes ago, msu said:

Stickum was giving an advantage and was banned, so i don't see why these modern gloves are allowed either.

Becau$e $tickum didn't have a $pon$or, while the glove$ that player$ wear today are $pon$ored.

[The_Admiral]

There are tons of full classic games on YouTube, guys. And not-so-classic. I watched some of the Braves and Expos from 1997 the other day for no reason.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

3 minutes ago, the admiral said:

There are tons of full classic games on YouTube, guys. And not-so-classic.

 

There sure are.  The best user to follow for televised games is ClassicMLB1.

For radio broadcasts it's Classic Baseball on the Radio. This user has games going back to the 1930s.