Should there be fewer games in the season?

[dominik]

I think it would be enough if every team had only 80 games instead of 160 or so. Why must every team play so many times against each other. 2 to 4 times would be enough wouldn't it.

I will bring up some reasons for this:

1) Too much Baseball in TV so that a game is nothing special for the fans anymore. The fans are over-saturated with baseball. In football which is now so popular, there is only one game a week and every game is a huge happening. There's a tension building towards every gme when the fans are looking forward to it. If the Yankees play the red socks ten times a year, the single game looses some value compared to a once a year event. I think the not die hard fans are sometimes fed up with too much baseball.

2) Injuries: Players have no time to revover from small injuries because they have to play every day. This is very hard for them.

3) Doping
Those extreme conditions encourage doping because the stress is that extreme. This is like the tour de france. Extreme conditions and hard every day competitions ecourage steroids. No wonder there's so many steroids in the game. Doping is nt just about bonds. Many experts estimate that in Bonds era over 90% of the players where juiced. And nobody should think just because there is testing doping is gone. Today there are products that can mask the substances. One week after stopping taking them you can't detect them anymore. Since there are only after competition controls and no unannouced training controlls like in europe(controllers visit your at your at your home without calling before) in the offseason nobody will be caught. The athletes will only have smaller doses because they stop it at season start. The muscles remain.

I think one way to reduce doping is to reduce the stress on the players. Injured players will juice more to reach their old level faster.

4) It would be no extreme reduction. THis would still not be like football with one game a week. I know we don't need to copy anything from football, just because it's fashionable today. Playing often is a part of baseball. But 80 games(or even 40) would still mean that there is a baseball game nearly every every day so us hardcore fans would not starve baseball.

What do you guys think. Would it be good or bad for baseball to reduce the games?

[DodgerBlue8188]

Football players only playce once a week because if they played 3-4 times a week or even 2 they'd be dead. If you've ever played a game of baseball and football you know you're a lot more worn out after a football game. Baseball players (position players) can go some games when they aren't worn out at all.

[KevinWI]

Baseball is a unique pro sport because of the length and number of games played.

[gman5431]

Football and Baseball are two totally different spots. Football popularity is due in part because people see each game as so important, but also because people are able to take time out of their busy schedules on a weekend day, to commit 4 hours to following their team. Most Americans are too busy and have too short attention spans to commit more then these 4 hours. Also, they want the instant gratification of a football game, the percieved extra action that baseball doesnt have, and the tailgating atmosphere that goes along with it. Baseball is a commitment, fans like myself love it, but the general public percieves it as too long, too slow, etc. I'm okay with that, thats more for me then. Baseball should not be tinkered with to this degree. To do so is to radically change the structure of everything. The season, is supposed to be grueling and long. Thats part of the greatness of the game. If you want the season to be shorter, so you arent playing post season games in Nov and early season games in March, then play more DHs (this would be great to shorten the season and DHs rock).

G Man

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Definately too many games and I do love the game. Now with the playoffs before the WS, they play too late in the year, baseball is not a cold weather sport. Playing almost into November a joke. Harder on the players, more chance of injury and not fun for the fans at the game, football OK, cold weather sport it was always that way

It would be great if they even went back to 154 games...................which will never happen $$$$$$.

One answer, which also will never happen, a number of doubleheaders, same amount of games, season shorter in time.........never happen, two games for the price of one, are you kidding say the owners..............me, play two games in one day, never say the players. As late as the 1960s there was a number of Sunday DHs, it would not have to be Sunday and not as many as they did back then 20+ in some seasons.
Another problem, games take forever now, longer than ever, a DH at the park and your there 7 hours maybe, no.

Looks like it will never happen, shorter season and add tothat they are thinking of making the first set of playoffs 7 games.

[KCGHOST]

I would love for them to go back to 154 games. Add a few doubleheaders and we could start the season on a little more sensible date and still be done by October.

[Zagi-CRO]

My proposal:

AL - 15 teams
NL - 15 teams

a) Each AL or NL team have to play with another NL or AL team 3 times /Interleague/ --- ... 45 games

b) Each AL (NL) team have to play with the outside AL (NL) team 6 times...
---- ... 60 games

c) Each AL (NL) team have to play with the divisional AL (NL) team 9 times...
---- ... 36 games

Total - 141 games

ALDS /NLDS/ the best-of-7
ALCS /NLCS/ the best-of-7
WS the best-of-9

[bailiff]

Yes....Each team should play 136 games.

[plask_stirlac]

Baseball is not a full-team sport. Only 9 out of 25 men need to play any given day.

In football all bodies are expected to report, especially offensive linemen. That means 22 starters, lots of subs, special teams... into the 40s for sure. In basketball and hockey most of the team plays. Even in the NBA a seven-man rotation (minimal) is of about 11 guys who can do anything.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Steroids are rampant amongst most sports. Cutting the schedule will not cut down on the doping. If they were being used similarly to greenies, then maybe. But that's only one reason to use.

90%? Outside of Canseco, really, many experts?

[deadball-era-rules]

I like 154. it's a good number. It would also give credit back to guys like Sisler and Ruth who had their records stolen unjustly.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I like 154. it's a good number. It would also give credit back to guys like Sisler and Ruth who had their records stolen unjustly.

Stolen unjustly? With the amount of teams increasing, to increase the schedule was a logical step. To accommodate actually having to go West of the Mississippi (and South of the Ohio) instead of criminally ignoring those areas like they did when guys like Ruth and Sisler were playing.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Stolen unjustly? With the amount of teams increasing, to increase the schedule was a logical step. To accommodate actually having to go West of the Mississippi (and South of the Ohio) instead of criminally ignoring those areas like they did when guys like Ruth and Sisler were playing.

Too strong of a word.

[Brian McKenna]

How are records stolen?

[Captain Cold Nose]

Too strong of a word.

No more than stolen unjustly.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

I think a 154 game schedule is unrealistic in today's game. It was perfect for two eight team leagues. But now we have a 16 team league and a 14 team league. Even a 162 game schedule doesn't allow for enough games against every team. Now, teams from other divisions only visit other division ballparks once a season. :o

[SHOELESSJOE3]

No more than stolen unjustly.

You may have something there Cap, I really don't know all that was involved with the placement of teams in the early 1900s, mostly in the east. I don't think MLB ignored or shut out the south by design.

Geography and numbers had to play a part. In 1900 three of the biggest cities were NY, Chicago and Philadelphia and there were 3 teams in NY, 2 in Philadelphia and 2 in Chicago. Then we find Boston with over half a million with 2 more teams. Getting down a bit on the map was St. Louis a bit more populated than Boston and they had 2 teams.. Cinci and Detroit well populated 2 more teams. Not many big cities in the south, some in the west but there was no travel by plane back then.

1920 some shifting in population but not that much. I think the owners would go where ever they thought they could make a buck. Were there other reasons, possible but the numbers played a part.

[Imgran]

There is still only 1 team in the cotton belt despite having a couple other cities like Charlotte, New Orleans, possibly Nashville, that could potentially sustain one. We're talking about some of the fastest-growing parts of the nation here, even if you set Florida aside.

I'd get rid of the unbalanced schedule before I shortened the season. More travel days, more doubleheaders. Give everyone a real chance to see every team. And no more of this "first time we see you is in August " or "last time I see you is June" BS that some teams had this year -- that's repulsive.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

There is still only 1 team in the cotton belt despite having a couple other cities like Charlotte, New Orleans, possibly Nashville, that could potentially sustain one. We're talking about some of the fastest-growing parts of the nation here, even if you set Florida aside.

I'd get rid of the unbalanced schedule before I shortened the season. More travel days, more doubleheaders. Give everyone a real chance to see every team. And no more of this "first time we see you is in August " or "last time I see you is June" BS that some teams had this year -- that's repulsive.
I hate that. Often a team only comes to my area once a season. If I want to see Albert Pujols, and if the Cards are in town the second week of the season, and I can't go, then I'm screwed. :banghead:

[SHOELESSJOE3]

There is still only 1 team in the cotton belt despite having a couple other cities like Charlotte, New Orleans, possibly Nashville, that could potentially sustain one. We're talking about some of the fastest-growing parts of the nation here, even if you set Florida aside.

I'd get rid of the unbalanced schedule before I shortened the season. More travel days, more doubleheaders. Give everyone a real chance to see every team. And no more of this "first time we see you is in August " or "last time I see you is June" BS that some teams had this year -- that's repulsive.

Thats true, this is years later, my post dealt with the early years in the game. I do think what you say could be, some big cities in that area might be able to support a team.