Game of Thrones: MLB Edition

Game of Thrones

If you are looking at the MLB in 2021 it has been a polarizing season to many. People are not liking how the game is going. People are not liking the rule changes. People are divided way on how the game should be played. And we have many different camps on how the game should be played, run, dealt, etc. and no one wants to concede or meet in the middle on issues that has affected this game for some to say unwatchable. Me? I'm still watching it because I love baseball. But I am not naïve to think there aren't problems with the game. But in the end it all gets figured out. But I think people are so quick to get it figure out that more issues get created and then it gets worse. And lately, it's getting worse and worse. And the vast majority of it would be due in part to this guy:

 

Yep, the entire House Lannister himself (well, not Tyrion because he was cool), Robert Manfred. The commissioner of baseball. The man who oversees everything what goes on. And to say he has groups of people to wish him fail, falter, and just go away and the numbers of people wishing for it increase by the day is an understatement. But, before we just throw all the weapons of mass destruction on him, there are groups who quarrel with one another about the state of the game that has NOTHING to do with Manfred. We will get into all of that. But baseball has issues, and honestly, it may not even be exactly about baseball entirely. So let's start.

MANFRED VS. THE PLAYERS

 

Well duh. Commissioners are often known as the #1 enemy towards players, in any sport, whether that is MLB, NFL, or NHL especially. The NBA has had somewhat of a reasonable respect level between first David Stern and then Adam Silver with the players. But obviously, the key reason of the quarrels among players and commissioners is that the commissioner is pretty much selected by the owners to run things out of their own interests. Hence why players have issues with the commissioner. That and the commissioner is the one that often deals out punishments for players behaving badly.

However, the issue has greatly spiked in the past month with Manfred cracking down on the use of substances on baseballs from the pitchers creating players such as Tyler Glasnow and Max Scherzer to call out Manfred for this mess to even some hitters have defended pitchers using substances as the argument is players have more control over pitchers and that won't bean the hitter in the head. While the dramatics are that today's baseball is no different than a pool cue ball is a bit of hyperbole, it is a far different feel than a baseball had 30 years ago.

Manfred's banning and crackdown on the substances is in response to the 6 no-hitters being thrown in two months, strikeout rates being at an alarming pace, and the spin rates of pitchers being "off the charts." Pitchers feel like they are already at a disadvantage even with it and the game is more favored for the hitters but it isn't just the pitchers who have disdain for him but the hitters.

Last year's baseball season in terms of just getting it going was a complete disaster as negotiations were horrid of how much to pay the players, what kind of rules were locked in, etc. and pretty much Manfred pulled the trigger on a season without any agreement from the players. It infuriated the players on how it went and he became complete the top enemy of players. It also has a vibe of Manfred also does not like players calling him out over poor decisions. So what the players have done is get creative, notably Reds outfielder Nick Castellanos getting a fan to explain that every time he is up, Castellanos imagines the baseball as Manfred's head, according to the fan. Actually it was sheer genius on Castellanos's part.

Lastly, one of Manfred's jobs is to advertise the face of the top players in the game. His statements back in 2018 about how Trout needs to advertise himself was a bit of an asinine statement. One thing Selig had going was he advertised a lot of the players under his watch (Griffey, Ripken, Chipper, McGwire, Johnson, Ortiz, Jeter, etc.). Manfred until recently really threw out Bryce Harper as the prime player of baseball. Thankfully this has been changing with Shohei Ohtani, Ronald Acuna, Fernando Tatis Jr. Vlad Jr. Judge, etc.

To add on, the MLB collective bargaining agreement is expiring in December of this year and many feel it will be an intense and acrimonious negotiation of where things are in baseball. And of course, we know Manfred will be at the front and center of it.

 

MANFRED VS THE DIE-HARD BASEBALL FANS (OLD SCHOOL AND NEW AGE FANS)

 

Here's where it gets very intense. If you want to know where fans stand, look no further than at the last two Hall of Fame induction ceremonies in Cooperstown. Manfred was booed in 2018 and 2019 by baseball fans alike and his predecessor, Bud Selig (who many fans view Selig as a crook who turned a blind eye to the steroid scandal in the late 90's through the mid-2000's before throwing the players under the bus) was CHEERED.

I won't ever fault Manfred for trying to attract baseball fans and I am NOT one of these people who thinks Manfred "hates baseball." BUT...what Manfred is doing is not even attracting the casual fan and at the same point losing these baseball diehard fans. Manfred's key idea why baseball is not attracting fans is because the game is too long (3 hours). So what he is trying to do is cut down on what he views as "wastes of time" in the game. So first thing he did was eliminate the 4-pitch intentional walk. Fans were incensed with that (I was originally but despite once in a blue moon situations of something going awry on it, I could tolerate it). But then it came to the "mound visits limit" and the "three hitters minimum" rule for relievers. Now this is where fans of both eras argued of "Manfred is ruining the game" mantra. Relief pitchers especially in the past 20 years have been a part of baseball's strategy. Call in a left-handed specialist to get out that power-hitting lefty like Ryan Howard, David Ortiz, Ken Griffey Jr. etc. that was strategy and sometimes a great match-up would be seen. That is primarily lost now. "But it eliminates that time of a pitcher coming in and warming up, etc." So what? Maybe between innings don't be so long for commercial breaks, but heaven forbid the sponsors we see every inning over and over not be displayed every commercial break. But hey, business is business.

Now we are seeing "experiments" by Manfred in the Minors of "banning the shift," "only throwing to first base on a pickoff attempt a limited amount of times, etc." where it de-values strategy. And rumors have been going how Manfred himself hates the shift and wants to end it. I'm not a fan of it either but the shift is just as much valuable for a defensive scheme as a zone in basketball or a Cover 2 defense in football. I mean it would be equivalent to the NFL banning the blitz. Baseball fans are up in arms because of it because it is part of strategy for the game. And Manfred's decisions that keep eliminating strategy from the game will only hurt the game, not help.

MANFRED VS. SMALL-TOWN BASEBALL FANS

 

Yes, another "Manfred vs." bit. But Manfred's decision to axe 40 Minor League Baseball teams before this season was bad. The reasoning behind and I know this will be a shocking statement: money. MLB owners (remember this is who Manfred really works for) came up with the idea and Manfred enforced it. Why is this the case? Owners were "losing money" because of paying too many players who won't have a snowball's chance of making it to the Show and the baseball facilities in some places were not up to snuff by MLB standards. However, MLB gave no list of what the standards were for the Minor League franchises so they were pretty much flying blind on how to upgrade their facilities. No input, no financial help, nothing. So places that weren't up to snuff got the axe. Rookie Leagues in the Appalachian Mountains and in the Big Sky country were out because of the small venues and venues borderline to collegiate ballparks/community parks. And places like Iowa, Colorado, Utah, Kentucky, and West Virginia lost a few parks in their own. Now technically a lot of these teams are still functioning, but in independent leagues and summer collegiate leagues sponsored by MLB, but it doesn't have the same feel knowing you are watching future MLB stars in action. The response by Manfred and MLB is "too bad. Come and make a day trip out of it to one of our legit MLB cities such as Cincinnati if you are in West Virginia, Eastern Kentucky, or Colorado if you are in Utah; Seattle if you live in Idaho!" Now there is more reason for fans NOT to come out to the MLB cities because of higher pricing and not having that intimacy of a Minor League park, especially those low level places. If anything, Manfred is losing MORE fans than gaining.

OLD SCHOOL DIEHARD BASEBALL FANS VS NEW AGE BASEBALL DIEHARD BASEBALL FANS

 

Hey our first non-Manfred one! I'm in a fantasy baseball league where I'm considered the old guy (40 years old) hence I have the "get off my lawn approach" according to some which I call bull. I really don't fit into the old school mentality (like I've always been cool with the DH in the AL as it is more fun than watching a pitcher not named Ohtani swing a bat) but really don't fit into the new age with ALL the analytics (wRC, OPS+, UZR, WAR, launch angles, exit velocity, etc) but I also appreciate a lot of the new way of thinking even if I don't necessarily agree with it. A lot of the vibe from new age thinking is that players who hit for average, steal bases, and not hitting many home runs are useless and guys who hit .210, strike out a whole lot of times, walk a few times and hit only home runs a fewer amount have higher value. To me it doesn't resonate as well. (funny note: one of my buddies in my league laughs and scoffs at me picking up Adam Frazier because he isn't a home run guy yet somehow he tried to trade for him). Any way, old school fans think all the new advanced analytic way of thinking has ruined the game in part of it while new age fans think one reason why the game has stalled is the old way of thinking and the stubbornness of it. It is a mix of both that hurts but also a mix of both that could move forward.

PLAYERS VS. CASUAL FANS

 

If you are a die-hard fan (old or new) it isn't going to matter. For me, I'm going to do my darnedest to see the Braves going up against the Padres with Tatis Jr. coming to town. I want to watch him play as he's one of the most exciting players in the game. But if you listen to the casual fan, it's simple: "I'm not paying a large load of money for these millionaires who aren't grateful." There's also somewhat of a disconnect between players and fans that make things problematic as well. Honestly, I do not know what kind of solution could help but the casual fan, regardless if Manfred makes changes that makes the players and the diehards happy, the casual fan still probably won't come out because of the vibe that all players are greedy jerks which still probably resonates from the 1994 players strike. And it doesn't help when you see guys getting $300, 400, or 500 million a year. How to deal with that? No idea.

FORMER PLAYERS WHO ARE TV/RADIO ANALYSTS VS ANALYTICS (AND/OR THE HUMANISTIC QUALITY OF THE GAME VS. ANALYTICS)

 

When you listen to the former MLB players who played that now have jobs in the press boxes at ball games or behind the tv desks do not enjoy talking about analytics or think the game is flawed because teams adopting the analytic approach have too much tunnel vision in developing players and using strategy. For example, two months ago John Smoltz went off on Genesis Cabrera for having high heat but no control, which is somewhat of an example of how we are seeing a lot of live arms with zero control lately. He didn't go off necessarily on Cabrera as he did with the Cardinals organization believing that not just the Cardinals but other MLB teams do not do a great job of developing players anymore in part because of analytics say the faster these pitchers pitch, the more likely they will get strikeouts all over the place and be unhittable a la Randy Johnson/Roger Clemens or today the likes of Jacob deGrom. But Smoltz isn't the only one. Former players scoff at the ideas of analytics during games at times. For them, seeing teams hire scrawny just-out-of-college graduates who never played an inning of any baseball in their lives have no business should have input on how a team is run. To them it is somewhat like a "Revenge of the Nerds" bit. To me, it goes to show the whole "man vs. science" element of baseball but it is now taking on a different approach. I get it from the players. You often don't think of the numbers when you are on the field and you are making sure you are doing your job which I think these players are seeing it from their perspectives. But on the analytics side, is you are also trying to find what is the next big thing that will pull yourself ahead of the rest of the league like what Oakland did with Moneyball or what Tampa Bay is doing now. I get it on that end. But where I am thinking is going awry and probably why I side with the players on this is that albeit I do see the analytics, but if they are not developing these players like "who cares? as long as they throw heat it won't matter" then it becomes a problem.

FANS VS THE NATIONAL MEDIA

 

What I mean by this is the actual broadcast of games. Gone are the days of Vin Scully, Dick Enberg, Jack Buck, Jon Miller (unless you live in San Francisco and listen locally), or in my case the locales of Skip Caray and Pete Van Wieren in Atlanta or when I was a kid in the Detroit area, George Kell and Ernie Harwell on the radio. They were signatures with their own signature voice and showed emotion. Heck, as much as I loathed his homer stuff in Chicago, Ken Harrelson had his own voice and called the games with emotion. Now today's announcers are so stoic and vanilla, that it feels like you can put one announcer in there and take the other out and I couldn't tell the difference. From a national standpoint it feels that way and while I'm not looking at an entertainment factor from them I'm also wanting them to tell the story of the game. Friends of mine know my views on Joe Buck in person and I think I've put them on here, but one thing that has always been an issue with me in regards to him (and he's not the only one that does this mind you but he is front and center especially for him calling October games) is he often talks about other things OUTSIDE of the actual game. Fans lose interest of that game because you aren't talking about it.

The other thing fans have issues notably with national media (and especially Joe Buck) is that any time you have a nationally televised game they will believe that their team is hated by that broadcast team. Braves fans were especially front and center last year when the Braves were getting blown out by the Dodgers in the NLCS as it felt like Buck was gloating about what the Dodgers were doing. It got back to Buck to which he put up a stat on the screen and went "I'm going to say nothing here" because he was being destroyed on Twitter by Braves fans. Oddly enough Dodgers fans at the same time hated Joe Buck because they thought he hated the Dodgers and was sympathetic to the Braves.

And I've never had an issue with it. As much as I wouldn't mind Joe Buck not calling another sport in his life, it was somewhat of a unfair jab because....had it been any other team he would have done the same thing. And everyone else feels that way. Joe Buck and every national broadcaster "hates your team." In this case, fans just need to have thick skin.

However, what I think announcers, both the play-by-play announcers and color commentators need to do is show more emotion, at least the national level guys.