On the front page, the latest Rant Corner has Cyd taking up the cause of shortening the MLB season. While I agree in theory, going from 162 games to 100 is a bit too extreme. I say cut to 140 games AND schedule doubleheaders more frequently. Maybe every team plays 6 doubleheaders a year.

The way it is now, the focus on divisional games has devalued some of the great rivalries because they play too many times. And we could certainly do without Orioles-Devil Rays or Royals-Tigers 19 times a year. Trim some of this fat.

I am a baseball traditionalist by nature and believe cutting the number of games to anything below 154 would be excessive. That is the number of games that used to be played before expansion in 1961. Can you imagine what would happen if a player were to hit .400 in 100 games? Such an achievement would be minimized because it cannot be compared to those players who did it with at least 154 games under their belt. And the slugging records in HR's and RBI's would NEVER be broken.

I do like the idea of scheduling more doubleheaders as one method to shorten the time it takes to complete a full season. I remember growing up that there seemed to be more double headers scheduled. The greed of MLB can be attributed to this type of scheduling to become almost extict (unless for makeup games).

They played 144 games in 1995 after the "scab" season was aborted and the regular players returned, and they tacked on some extra spring training in April. I thought that was an excellent number. Somewhere in the 140's works fine for me. No more than 154, though.

I believe I too would fall in among the baseball traditionalists, and I'll admit that I'm not troubled in the least by a 162-game season. I admire these unique aspects of baseball, and I would not wish to lobby for changes that would give this game a nearer resemblance to other sports. I actually LIKE the fact that baseball is a game with its cleats still standing on 19th century ground and, one defining aspect of this particular sport is its measured pace: a test of endurance and skill lasting over the long haul. (It's practically Homeric: Odysseus, by resourcefulness through many trials, arrives "Safe at Home.") Yes, I agree that there are a few steps that could be taken to enliven the pace somewhat; simply requiring the batter to stay in the box to face his pitches --rather than stepping out at every moment possible to adjust every article of clothing, equipment, body part and oral contents-- could do wonders for envigorating the game with a healthy, renewed intensity, but (to mix metaphors here) I am also troubled by the cynical feeling that tweaking individual details of the game amounts to "re-arranging deck chairs on a ship that's going down." Baseball is foundering under an enormity of greed, in my opinion, and these monetary injustices need to be addressed rather than the specifics of play itself. To make matters worse, we have BeelzeBud (such a pathetic puppet I almost feel sorry for the guy) twisting statistics and squeaking incessantly about an utterly unnecessary "contraction." Geez! I can't remember when I've been more furious about the inability of the "powers that be" merely to Do The Right Thing, or at least give it an honest try. My one hope is that these business abuses will be seen as the egregious spectacle they are and lead to real reform. After that miracle, I'll be happy to welcome ideas for improving this exquisite Victorian-era game. Blessings, my brethren...

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: fielderschoice ]

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: fielderschoice ]

For me, one of the great attractions of baseball is the length of the season. The first sign of spring is pitchers and catchers reporting to Florida and Arizona, then they play through the dog days of summer in July and August, culminating in the Fall Classic in October. There is much that can be done to make baseball even greater than it already is, ie. standardizing the two leagues either with or without the DH, enforcing rles that keep game time manageable, bringing back doubleheaders and playing a few more day games. I could even accept a season restored to 154 games, but anything less than that would be blasphemous, IMO.

Agreed, Munson Man... the length of schedule has to be 154 to 162. I like 8-hour Hungarian movies too. (Scheduled doubleheaders to shorten the calendar length, THAT I approve of... and it shan't happen.)

Cyd, as for "getting out of the way of the NFL"... what's that stand for agin?

154 would shorten the season by all of 10 days (calculating in some off days). And if you could toss in a few extra double headers, then you might be able to lop off another week.

And the point for that would be what?

I'm sure when all you folks were young, doubleheaders were a great thing to attend as a kid. Memorial Day, the Fourth of July, Labor Day, and a few days were scheduled doubleheaders.

Don't expect them back for a loooooooong time, if ever, guys. First of all, the Players Association is vehemently opposed to them. Second, MLB Owners aren't big fans of them for one big reason: Less revenue. Give a fan two for the price of one? Never! Why do you think that the owners tend to make any rescheduled doubleheaders one of those day-night jobs--where they get to clean out the stadiums of the first crowd and get new, paying customers in for the later one?

As much as I love my Sox, I must confess that I don't know much about the early history of the game. Is it true that pitchers actually used to pitch both games of a doubleheader??? How many pitchers nowadays routinely pitch a complete game? Curt Schilling and ... well, uh, that's all the names I could come up with. Are there a bunch of one-armed old-timers out there? Because God knows if I ever pitched two complete games, my arm would literally fall off.