# Fix your favorite sport **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [February 10, 2014, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fix-your-favorite-sport/680970 "2014-02-10T14:11:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fix-your-favorite-sport/680970/101 "2014-02-25T16:31:27Z")
> [@Bellhorn](#): > > But that is a drastic change that would probably make all existing hitting and pitching stats incomparable. A. Why does database consistency matter? and B. Given that the strike zone, mound height, and other parameters have varied historically anyway, so what? > [@](#): > > The performance and value of certain, existing types of hitters and pitchers would change overnight. Some of it would be predictable, while other consequences might be surprising. Again, so what? The game has evolved continuously, sometimes in steps, over its entire life, and the skills required so succeed have evolved as well. > [@](#): > > A less drastic method might be to call it a K if a batter fouls off a strike 3, or maybe if he fouls off two pitches before it’s a K. That would discourage a batter from getting two strikes on him and encourage him to swing earlier in the count. (not taking a close pitch on a 3-1, for instance). Wouldn’t that rules change be even more drastic than the ones you’re opposed to? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fix-your-favorite-sport/680970/102 "2014-02-25T16:32:40Z")
> [@Bellhorn](#): > > If a place-kicker had to keep the ball down, to get it through the “rectangle,” the path of the ball would be lower (more of a line-drive) making it easier to block. You could even put the opposing coach on a seat over a dunk tank, and if the ball hits the target in the middle of the goalposts, splash he goes. Fun for the whole family. ---
**Author:** ![Bellhorn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@Bellhorn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bellhorn)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fix-your-favorite-sport/680970/103 "2014-02-25T17:28:52Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > A. Why does database consistency matter? and B. Given that the strike zone, mound height, and other parameters have varied historically anyway, so what? Statistical comparisons (from era to era) matter more in baseball than any other sport. We saw how upset fans got when they realized “hallowed” records like 61 and 715 were being broken by frauds. The mound-lowering change in 1969, is a good example, in your favor, but the game had become so pitching dominated (Yaz leading the league with .301 in '68 and Gibson’s ERA of 1.12) that something had to be done. (And it might just have been that pitchers were getting taller, so you had to compensate. Can you imagine Randy Johnson off the old mound height?) > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Wouldn’t that rules change be even more drastic than the ones you’re opposed to? I don’t _think_ so. Enlarging the strike zone, would change the dynamics of every pitch… it’s possible that BA’s could drop by 30-40 points, and that extra base hits could be cut by even a larger percentage, since it would be that much harder to square up… at least against pitchers with pinpoint control. My approach would only directly affect certain pitch counts (with the hope that it would indirectly affect earlier pitch counts – a hitter like Manny or Youkilis would stop taking the first pitch every time.) ---
**Author:** ![Bellhorn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@Bellhorn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bellhorn)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fix-your-favorite-sport/680970/104 "2014-02-25T17:30:59Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You could even put the opposing coach on a seat over a dunk tank, and if the ball hits the target in the middle of the goalposts, splash he goes. Fun for the whole family. Think sexier… put a cheerleader (braless under her sweater) over the dunk tank. Screw fun for the whole family… It’s Dad that’s paying for those seats, let him have all the fun. ---
**Author:** ![Laggard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de053/32.png) [@Laggard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Laggard)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fix-your-favorite-sport/680970/105 "2014-02-25T17:51:11Z")
> [@John\_DiFool](#): > > NFL OT most certainly _was_ broken. How? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fix-your-favorite-sport/680970/106 "2014-02-25T18:01:06Z")
> [@robardin](#): > > I’ve said this before, but what bothers me most about the DH isn’t that the pitcher doesn’t bat, but that the DH doesn’t field - specifically, that there are star players anchoring the offense like David Ortiz or Edgar Martinez who take the field maybe 25% of the time (mostly for Interleague games in NL ballparks). The purist in me can admit that it’s “kind of pointless” to see a .150 hitter in the 9th slot come up 3+ times a game, or annoying to see the bullpen get called just to get a PH in, but is far more bothered by the idea of a career all bat, no glove guy. > > I’d say: adopt the DH for both leagues, but effect a rule that no single player may log more than, say, 250 plate appearances in a DH role in a season, nor consecutive games as a DH in the post-season. Let it go back to being more like a rotating permanent pinch hitting slot, as it was conceived to be. I’d say a more elegant solution would be to take the pitching spot out of the MLB batting order altogether. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fix-your-favorite-sport/680970/107 "2014-02-25T18:13:49Z")
> [@robardin](#): > > A lot of what has slowed down the game of baseball is the modern use of the bullpen, with lefty specialists and one inning closers and whatnot. Complete games from the starting pitcher was once the expected norm, now it’s a “quality start” of 6 IP with a pitcher who gives 220+ innings over a season considered a “workhorse”. In 2013, only 6 pitchers in all MLB threw at least 220 innings, while 20 years earlier in 1993, 27 did - and there were 2 fewer teams in 1993 than now! Go back 5 more years to 1988, and with only 26 MLB teams, and _32_ pitchers threw 220+ innings - with #32 being a 41 year old Nolan Ryan. Having a setup man and closer pitch the eighth and ninth doesn’t slow things down at all. Sure, it means that 225 innings is practically the maximum a starter can pitch, and most won’t even do that, but that’s apparently the best way to use pitchers. (It does seem to me that if starters are only going to pitch 6 innings, give or take, it makes even more sense to go back to a 4-man rotation, but I digress.) > [@](#): > > So you want to bring those days back? Barring injury, require any pitcher who comes in to throw one of: (a) to the end of the inning, (b) to three batters, or (c) at least 27 pitches Rather than have a bunch of arbitrary rules like that, I’d rather institute the penalty I mentioned, and let the managers do what they will. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fix-your-favorite-sport/680970/108 "2014-02-25T18:15:12Z")
> [@Bellhorn](#): > > Statistical comparisons (from era to era) matter more in baseball than any other sport. To whom do they matter, and why? > [@](#): > > the game had become so pitching dominated… that something had to be done. It did? Why? And how did a change come about that “something had to be done about”? All you’ve done is confirm that yes, there has been constant change in the game throughout its history. [The strike zone](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_zone), since it’s the immediate topic, has changed both with and without formal rules changes. Change is the _norm_, so why object to changing some more? If you’ve identified something as a problem, how do you fix it \*without \*making changes? > [@](#): > > Enlarging the strike zone, would change the dynamics of every pitch Isn’t that what we need to do? If we want to cut down on working the count, doesn’t \*any \*change we might make change the dynamics of every pitch? ---
**Author:** ![DCnDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dcndc/32/2842_2.png) [@DCnDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DCnDC)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fix-your-favorite-sport/680970/109 "2014-02-25T18:20:43Z")
> [@Bellhorn](#): > > If a place-kicker had to keep the ball down, to get it through the “rectangle,” the path of the ball would be lower (more of a line-drive) making it easier to block. Okay. But, again-- what problem is this solving? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fix-your-favorite-sport/680970/110 "2014-02-25T18:20:46Z")
The NCAA tournament: give the 32 highest-ranked teams a bye to the round of 64, and have an open tournament for the other 32 spots. Assuming there are are no more than 288 Division I teams, you’d have no more than 256 teams in the play-in tourney, and a 3-round tournament would take you down from 256 to 128 to 64 to 32 teams to fill in the non-bye slots. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fix-your-favorite-sport/680970/111 "2014-02-25T18:21:39Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > F1. Return of turbochargers and refueling. Turbochargers _are_ back. Can’t agree on the refueling, it seems to add an unnecessary safety risk while introducing an element of team _strategy_ that has very little to do with actually making for good _racing_. That said, I’d ban DRS in its current gimmicky incarnation and find a way to limit downforce. Adjustable aero would be allowed but overall downforce in max-downforce mode would be limited by some kind of a rolling-road wind-tunnel test. The goal would be max cornering Gs around 2, less than half of what they are now. I actually like the current engine restrictions so I wouldn’t mess with that, except I’d get rid of the fuel consumption rules and let the teams run as much fuel as they wanted within the weight limits. I’d allow blown diffusers back in but they’d be subject to the same downforce rule (testing would be done at WOT). We’d get a lot more variation in bodywork as teams would have free reign to balance drag and downforce under their max downforce cap. The goal would be to have cars that are harder to drive. There’d be less grip in the corners so speeds would be slower there, but with moveable aero, low drag, and the same power levels as the 2014 cars, top speeds would be high and the cars would be all kinds of squirrelly. We’d see more innovation in the body design and the cars wouldn’t all look the same with slightly different noses. ---
**Author:** ![DCnDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dcndc/32/2842_2.png) [@DCnDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DCnDC)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fix-your-favorite-sport/680970/112 "2014-02-25T18:22:41Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > The NCAA tournament: give the 32 highest-ranked teams a bye to the round of 64, and have an open tournament for the other 32 spots. Assuming there are are no more than 288 Division I teams, you’d have no more than 256 teams in the play-in tourney, and a 3-round tournament would take you down from 256 to 128 to 64 to 32 teams to fill in the non-bye slots. Isn’t that what the regular season is for? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fix-your-favorite-sport/680970/113 "2014-02-25T18:29:59Z")
> [@DCnDC](#): > > Okay. But, again-- what problem is this solving? Boredom? ---
**Author:** ![Bellhorn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@Bellhorn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bellhorn)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fix-your-favorite-sport/680970/114 "2014-02-25T19:14:21Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > To whom do they matter, and why? Present the numbers 61, 714 and 755 to a baseball fan of my era, and they’re instantly recognizable as Maris, Ruth and Aaron. 510 means something, as does .367 and ,406. Outside of Chamberlain’s fanastic 100, I can’t think of any record in Basketball, Hockey or Football that is nearly as recognizable. What’s the NHL goal record or Football rushing record? I dunno. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > It did? Why? And how did a change come about that “something had to be done about”? All you’ve done is confirm that yes, there has been constant change in the game throughout its history. > > [The strike zone](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_zone), since it’s the immediate topic, has changed both with and without formal rules changes. Change is the _norm_, so why object to changing some more? If you’ve identified something as a problem, how do you fix it \*without \*making changes? As I mentioned, changing the mound height, might have been simply adjusting to the fact that pitchers’ had gotten a few inches taller since the mound height had last been set. And unlike the 1960’s where pitching had totally dominated, today, we’re talking about speeding up the game, which is not as critical as having a league full of .240 hitters. We want to deter the most patient hitters in baseball, not drastically change the balance between pitching and hitting. And the ill-advised alteration of the zone after 1961 (from your link) also contributed to the decline of hitting, and they changed it back when they lowered the mound height. > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Isn’t that what we need to do? If we want to cut down on working the count, doesn’t \*any \*change we might make change the dynamics of every pitch? We’re trying to address two problems, speeding up the game, but making hitters more aggressive, and to have more at bats produce balls in play. Your solution of altering the K zone will lead to more K’s, less balls in play and less walks. My solution will produce more K’s, less walks, but a majority of those lost walks will result in balls in play - approximately 1/3rd will be hits, and the rest will be outs given a BABIP of around .300. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fix-your-favorite-sport/680970/115 "2014-02-25T19:20:47Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > The NCAA tournament: give the 32 highest-ranked teams a bye to the round of 64, and have an open tournament for the other 32 spots. Assuming there are are no more than 288 Division I teams, you’d have no more than 256 teams in the play-in tourney, and a 3-round tournament would take you down from 256 to 128 to 64 to 32 teams to fill in the non-bye slots. This is really creative, very Champions Leagueish. In fact, I’d give the byes only to conference champions (as determined however the conference wishes) and make runner-ups of all stripes survive the multi-round play-in. Doublechecked the numbers. There are indeed exactly 32 conferences in D1 but 351 total schools. So the math doesn’t work out perfectly but it should be easy to weed out the last 63 teams (hey, there’s your NIT!). I really dislike “selection committees.” ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fix-your-favorite-sport/680970/116 "2014-02-25T19:44:42Z")
> [@Red\_Wiggler](#): > > This is really creative, very Champions Leagueish. In fact, I’d give the byes only to conference champions (as determined however the conference wishes) and make runner-ups of all stripes survive the multi-round play-in. Thanks, and I’d be good with limiting the byes in a variety of manners, including the one you suggest. > [@](#): > > Doublechecked the numbers. There are indeed exactly 32 conferences in D1 but 351 total schools. So the math doesn’t work out perfectly but it should be easy to weed out the last 63 teams (hey, there’s your NIT!). > > I really dislike “selection committees.” Me too! And to get down from 351 to 288 or fewer, there could be a low-threshold cutoff, like 5 (adjust as needed) victories against other Division 1 teams during the regular season. Even a low cutoff like that would probably do the job, but nobody could complain that a viable NCAA tourney team had been arbitrarily excluded. (ETA: or just add another round to the pre-tourney tourney.) > [@DCnDC](#): > > Isn’t that what the regular season is for? And the regular season currently settles this, how? I mean, I’m really very big on a fairly long regular season (like baseball and basketball have) of actually _settling_ something. But NCAA basketball has gone most of the way down the opposite route, so why not go the rest of the way and let everyone have a chance? ---
**Author:** ![Bellhorn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@Bellhorn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bellhorn)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fix-your-favorite-sport/680970/117 "2014-02-25T19:48:34Z")
> [@Red\_Wiggler](#): > > This is really creative, very Champions Leagueish. In fact, I’d give the byes only to conference champions (as determined however the conference wishes) and make runner-ups of all stripes survive the multi-round play-in. > > Doublechecked the numbers. There are indeed exactly 32 conferences in D1 but 351 total schools. So the math doesn’t work out perfectly but it should be easy to weed out the last 63 teams (hey, there’s your NIT!). > > I really dislike “selection committees.” I don’t think this would work from a financial standpoint. Assuming the 351 were seeded somewhat correctly according to strength, you’d have a first round of 144 outrageous mismatches that would have no appeal to any televison network, and probably not to any live fanbase, either. It would just be a financial burden on a 10-17 Lafayette team to have pay to travel to, say, North Carolina to lose 110-34. It would also devalue the Conference Tournaments, which for many small conferences is a play-in tournament, anyway. If all teams still got into the NCAA tourney anyway (all except the bottom 63), why have the conference tourneys at all? ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fix-your-favorite-sport/680970/118 "2014-02-25T19:57:14Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > A rule for Basketball. In the last 2 minutes of a game, teams that are fouled may choose to take a technical (1 shot + possession) rather than 2 shots, regardless of the type of foul. I find the foul-centric end of game process to be completely unentertaining. I like it. I’d also like to see a limit on the number of time-outs a team can call in the last two minutes. The problem is this will never happen in the NBA. A foul-fest gives a losing team one last chance to create a close game at the end and the time-outs allow more advertising. It sucks. I’m not a big soccer fan but one thing I don’t understand is why not allow free substituting? It seems like having fresher legs would lead to a faster and more exciting game. ---
**Author:** ![DCnDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dcndc/32/2842_2.png) [@DCnDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DCnDC)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fix-your-favorite-sport/680970/119 "2014-02-25T21:01:00Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > I mean, I’m really very big on a fairly long regular season (like baseball and basketball have) of actually _settling_ something. But NCAA basketball has gone most of the way down the opposite route, so why not go the rest of the way and let everyone have a chance? Everyone does have an exactly equal chance. At the beginning of the season. Play well during the regular season, you get in. At the end of the season, they even get a _second_ chance to get in by winning their conference tournament. But then there’s the distasteful matter of “selecting” the remaining at-large bids, yes? A bunch of teams are going to get fucked, yes? Well, no matter where the cutoff is, unless you’re proposing they just let _all_ 351 schools into the tourney and let them play it out, there has to be a cutoff somewhere, and someone is going to get fucked, no matter where that cutoff is. So what’s the difference? ---
**Author:** ![Quimby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/22d042/32.png) [@Quimby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quimby)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2014, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fix-your-favorite-sport/680970/120 "2014-02-25T21:10:32Z")
> [@Laggard](#): > > How? I don’t remember the numbers but statistical analysis of OT games showed that the team that won the toss won the game overwhelmingly. It’s unfair that the game should be decided on a coin flip. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fix-your-favorite-sport/680970.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fix-your-favorite-sport/680970.md?page=7)