Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted August 29, 2003 Everything that happened stayed the same. But someone who sells the game better, and is more media and fan friendly was running things. Would the postive things that have happened received more praise, and the commissioner more credit? I think yes. Selig has done some postive things. The problem is Selig himself. He's just not good in front of the cameras. Say someone like Rudy Guiliani was commissioner. He'd be praised for the wildcard, interleague play, averting a strike, and making more teams playoff contenders. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted August 29, 2003 He'd be praised for the wildcard, interleague play, averting a strike, and making more teams playoff contenders. First off, its really debateable whether the wild card and interleague play are good for baseball. The near-strike was partly Selig's fault. And the only reason more teams are playoff contenders is that there are more playoff spots. Good for individual teams, but debateable if it really helps baseball. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bored 0 Report post Posted August 29, 2003 Well of course if the man had some asemblance of a personality then yes people would like him more but it really wouldn't change much. The whole contraction debacle and the way he extorts cities into building new stadiums is enough to make any man holding the job a bad commisioner and bad for baseball whether they have a personality or not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vern Gagne 0 Report post Posted August 30, 2003 He'd be praised for the wildcard, interleague play, averting a strike, and making more teams playoff contenders. First off, its really debateable whether the wild card and interleague play are good for baseball. The near-strike was partly Selig's fault. And the only reason more teams are playoff contenders is that there are more playoff spots. Good for individual teams, but debateable if it really helps baseball. In the case of interleague play isn't the most important thing what the fans think of it? Attendance is better during interleague games. General interest in the game increases. Maybe the novelty will wear out. It may be doing so already. What i'm going by is the overall reaction to the fans, which I'd say is positive. Isn't it good for baseball if more teams are playoff contenders. You want to get has many fans to care going into the stretch run has possible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted August 30, 2003 Isn't it good for baseball if more teams are playoff contenders. You want to get has many fans to care going into the stretch run has possible. Having too many teams cheapens the playoffs, and the championship. It makes it easier for a mediocre team to win it all. Put too many teams in, and it becomes like the NBA, where the regular season means squat. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Choken One Report post Posted August 30, 2003 I don't buy that at all...Personally I find that it's better to have multiple contenders then to have cut and dry contenders... Some people like Dynastys...Some Don't... When it comes to baseball, Having a tight close playoff race is crucial to keep business afloat because if all the spots were locked...why would you care to watch that game between Chicago and Florida if your a Dback fan...you watch because it has a bearing on YOUR team's playoff hopes. It keeps the Leauge active...because If all the teams were locked by Mid August...The feeling of apathy sets in... No need to watch anymore, the playoff race is locked thus means lower ratings and revenue... The game gains more excitement with a closer race. Yes, Some will cry out "Parity" but personally, Never bothers me, keeps an element of surprise...If I know in august that the 8 spots are filled...why would I be motivated follow the game beyond the local team? Interleauge has been good for the game because it's the only thing that has a Leauge wide postive affect... A Boston/Atlanta series is much more intense and important than another Boston/Detroit series wouldn't it? The wild card is a good thing as if it were like the old days...The entire NL would be locked up by All Star Break. This way it goes from being a two team race to a 12 team race...Thus keeps your team alive and keeps the fans support around... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EVIL~! alkeiper 0 Report post Posted August 30, 2003 On interleague play, the flip side of the argument is how we might see an oh so exciting Brewers/Devil Rays game. Good and bad matchups exist no matter how you set it up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Choken One Report post Posted August 30, 2003 All right but at least it's different when they could be having Detroit/Tampa Bay again instead... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
teke184 0 Report post Posted August 30, 2003 (edited) I'd say the biggest problems with Selig's reign have been that he's an owner and, as such, it screws up the dynamic that's supposed to exist between the players, the owners, and the league. The 1994 strike can be laid at his doorstep because not even guys like Bowie Kunh or Fay Vincent would have let it wipe out the postseason. Hell, Kuhn had a strike in midseason and still put on the playoffs, although he did a screwy system in which the leaders from each half of the season met in a mini-playoff. Expansion and (threats of) contraction would surely have been handled differently as well. I think that a commissioner independant of the owners would have thought twice before introducing the Diamondbacks and the Devil Rays so soon after the Rockies and the Marlins. While the Diamondbacks tend to be a solid franchise because of good decisions, financial concerns aside, the Devil Rays have been a colossal disappointment. Edited August 30, 2003 by teke184 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
