Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 2 of 2 pages
If rosters expanded to 30 next year, teams would immediately start carrying 17 pitchers.
#96 I can't actually find any evidence of this. Colin Wyers thought he had, but there was a method error (and one which I was aware of since I'd previously made the same error)
Setting your gameday roster would then become kind of a cool strategic thing, that fans could chew over and that would give saberists something fun to grind the data and probabilities about.
But it's not rigid construction. You aren't being told you can only have 12 pitchers on the roster. You aren't being told who can play where (Baseball literally has no definition in the rules for any position other than first, catcher and pitcher and has no rules saying where you can position any player other than catcher and pitcher) In the NFL there are rules on the number of quarterbacks you can have, who can be on the line, who can be in motion etc. I do not think that is a necessary rules for baseball. Your manager has 25 man roster, he can fill it anyway he wants. He can position the players anywhere he wants, I like that freedom.
In baseball you have a bench, a bench is about specialization, it adds to the enjoyment for a team to put a specialist in, but unlike football and other sports, its a limited one use bullet. I personally like a larger roster because I want to see more offensive player options, the rise of the reliever has limited the bench, some can argue that it's still the managers choice how they make up the roster, but I just would like to return a little to the past where you have a little more flexibility on the bench, teams have lost roughly 2 roster spots with the rise of the relievers, let's get those back without losing the freedom of creating your own roster.
Football doesn't have rigid roster construction, either.
#112 Well the simplest way to look at the matter is that attendance did not decline league wide in 1988 or 1989.
There's a strong upward trend in revenue (and attendance). Any serious study has to take that into account The way Zimbalist did it (and his study started earlier than 1987) was to simply use the year in the multiple regress (actually year - 1984 iirc) and I've always followed Zimbalist.
Offensive levels are down from their peak. Revenue continues to rise.
Lowering the mound would be the best way to reduce strikeouts as it would be effective and has precedent. Changing any of the dimensions would be idiotic.
CFB what is your point?
#121 It also didn't decrease in 1990 or 1991, If scoring was what mattered you'd expect a downward trend line to matter.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (9 members)
Page rendered in 0.5197 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed