Good post, but I don’t think this is right: “ Baseball has yet to do anything that will really increase the number of balls in play”
As well as the pitch clock, they’ve also restricted the shift (the practice of moving fielders to one side of the park) and enlarged the bases, both of which makes getting on base (conditional on contact) more likely. Given this, at the margin we’re likely to see a shift back towards hitting for contact rather than power
I’m glad MLB was highlighted as a positive example because of the pitch clock, but that’s far from the only example of significant rule changes the sport has embraced in just the last five years. Here are some more:
- Bringing the designated hitter to the NL
- Starting extra innings with a runner on second base
- Three batter minimum for relief pitchers
- More balanced scheduling
There are purist fans who hate the ghost runner or miss the strategy around pinch-hitting for pitchers, but for the most part, all of these changes have been in the direction of making fans happier.
I also disagree that expanded playoffs make the sport less watchable. They mean more teams remain in the running for longer, which keeps fans of those teams engaged. Yes, there’s a limit there, but MLB going from 8 to 10 to 12 playoff teams was an improvement.
I certainly agree that the same innovative spirit should carry over to other sports!
Sorry for the late in the day comment but I just got back from a long hike. If I wasn’t out of town on vacation I’d be playing pickleball tonight and softball tomorrow night. If nothing else was going on I’d be shooting baskets in my driveway. Not saying that I’m never just a spectator, but joining the nation of obese couch potatoes watching ESPN is my lowest priority.
Joel, thanks for an insightful and provocative column!
I'm especially intrigued by the idea of the Elam ending. I occasionally watch basketball, but the way the 4th quarter drags due to intentional fouls / free throws is really off-putting. The idea of racing to a fixed total score is great: it's intuitive, incentivizes more exciting play, and is already how the game is played in pick-up.
I'm curious if more serious basketball fans can spot any flaws with this proposal that I'm not seeing.
This was a perfect subject for a SB guest article!
One thing to note though, "Baseball has yet to do anything that will really increase the number of balls in play" is being addressed with rules on the infield shift. Shift restrictions are being rolled out this year alongside pitch clock (and a few other big changes too!) so 2023 is a pretty radical year for change in baseball.
Basically sports management should learn from the designers of card and video games. Magic: The Gathering is constantly bringing out cards with new mechanics that break previous strategies, in order to keep players engaged with the game. Games like League of Legends, similarly, introduce new playable characters, new mechanics, and new battlefields, that force people to come up with new strategies.
You'll see a variant this in the NFL regularly over the years, though. It usually goes through a recurring cycle of four, like the seasons:
--A seldom used offense is effectively (re)used that exploits the predominant league defenses.
--Other teams switch to that offense, causing it to become the predominant league offense.
--A seldom used defense is effectively (re)used that exploits the predominant league offenses.
--Other teams switch to that defense, causing it to become the predominant league defense.
What has made Bill Belichick arguably the greatest coach of all time aside from having Tom Brady as his QB for most of his HC career is that he's able to break this cycle and build teams that exploit weaknesses no matter what offenses and defenses they run.
Within the world of e-sports, the "metagame" is part of what makes it so interesting - basically representing the current understanding of strategy given the current ruleset. But because buffs and nerfs happen a lot, the metagame is constantly evolving, which makes it fun to watch!
> Baseball has yet to do anything that will really increase the number of balls in play...
Part of the increase in HR, walks, and strikeouts can be attributed to the preference of shifting, extra fielder shifted from one side of infield to the other, which is now banned. Hitters responded by trying to hit it over the shift instead of through it.
I also hope that the changes to bases and pickoffs might see the return of the hit and run play.
The NBA has never had more talent than it does today - even horrific teams like the Houston Rockets have a plethora of talent. Yet, the culture of the NBA is rotten to the core. I'm all for players having more power, but the "Player Empowerment ERA" has resulted in stars demanding trades on a whim and sitting out >25% of the games, which has completely eroded the fan experience. Why would I spend hundreds of dollars on a tickets to see the Lakers when Lebron might sit at the last second because he has a tummy ache? The league not only has to shorten the season to make the regular season more valuable, it also needs to incentivize stars to stay put longer. This means the league needs to restructure contracts and penalize teams/players who are traded early on in their contracts. I hope the NBA gets it together because they are currently squandering a renaissance in elite talent, especially given how much of that talent is international which could really propel the league forward and make basketball a truly global sport.
Both the teams and players engage in load management. Either way, both sides need to be incentivized to have the best players play the most amount of games, which probably means teams and players need to be penalized for load management and the season needs to be shortened.
I'm mainly a football guy and a big problem I see with the modern game is how central the quarterback is and how the position has grown in importance. I think the league really needs to make some changes to make that position less critical to a team's success.
Would love to get some real coverage of promotion/relegation (the European / "open" system) vs local monopolies (the US / "closed") system. Our system in the US has real consequences - teams regularly threaten to leave cities, blackmailing local governments into building or subsidizing expensive stadiums. These threats only work because the leagues grant teams local monopolies, so generally there is one team per sport maximum in each metro area, even when the area could support half a dozen.
I think this is the most important problem with "closed" leagues in the US, but tanking is a close 2nd.
Does anyone have a good sense for which court cases, if overturned, would naturally lead to an opening of leagues in the US? I would love to read something like that! I have a vague sense that the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 was very important, but that's about it.
As for the legal aspects, as I understand it pro sports leagues are able to avoid antitrust action from their players because they all are in collective bargaining agreements with the players' unions. But the lack of CBAs and unions in college sports could soon be a huge deal, given NCAA v. Alston [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-512_gfbh.pdf] and in particular Kavanaugh's concurrence in that case.
The Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 gives the NFL a narrow antitrust exemption explicitly legislated that allows its teams to collude for TV contracts. One notable concession they had to give up, though, is that they cannot broadcast games nationally on Friday nights or on Saturday, to "protect" high school football and college football.
I agree that this should get an entire article, and I think it would be good for Matt to revisit this piece from a decade ago [https://slate.com/business/2013/12/nba-draft-is-absurd-end-tanking-by-ending-drafting.html], because it makes me think that he thinks the European system is better, but 10 years is a long time and I'd be curious as to what he thinks now.
Biggest innovation in sports history in the last 50 years = UFC
Not only was it a completely new sport but it has changed rules multiple times to gain legal acceptance and to improve the viewing experience.
Change my mind :)
Good post, but I don’t think this is right: “ Baseball has yet to do anything that will really increase the number of balls in play”
As well as the pitch clock, they’ve also restricted the shift (the practice of moving fielders to one side of the park) and enlarged the bases, both of which makes getting on base (conditional on contact) more likely. Given this, at the margin we’re likely to see a shift back towards hitting for contact rather than power
I’m glad MLB was highlighted as a positive example because of the pitch clock, but that’s far from the only example of significant rule changes the sport has embraced in just the last five years. Here are some more:
- Bringing the designated hitter to the NL
- Starting extra innings with a runner on second base
- Three batter minimum for relief pitchers
- More balanced scheduling
There are purist fans who hate the ghost runner or miss the strategy around pinch-hitting for pitchers, but for the most part, all of these changes have been in the direction of making fans happier.
I also disagree that expanded playoffs make the sport less watchable. They mean more teams remain in the running for longer, which keeps fans of those teams engaged. Yes, there’s a limit there, but MLB going from 8 to 10 to 12 playoff teams was an improvement.
I certainly agree that the same innovative spirit should carry over to other sports!
Sorry for the late in the day comment but I just got back from a long hike. If I wasn’t out of town on vacation I’d be playing pickleball tonight and softball tomorrow night. If nothing else was going on I’d be shooting baskets in my driveway. Not saying that I’m never just a spectator, but joining the nation of obese couch potatoes watching ESPN is my lowest priority.
Joel, thanks for an insightful and provocative column!
I'm especially intrigued by the idea of the Elam ending. I occasionally watch basketball, but the way the 4th quarter drags due to intentional fouls / free throws is really off-putting. The idea of racing to a fixed total score is great: it's intuitive, incentivizes more exciting play, and is already how the game is played in pick-up.
I'm curious if more serious basketball fans can spot any flaws with this proposal that I'm not seeing.
This was a perfect subject for a SB guest article!
One thing to note though, "Baseball has yet to do anything that will really increase the number of balls in play" is being addressed with rules on the infield shift. Shift restrictions are being rolled out this year alongside pitch clock (and a few other big changes too!) so 2023 is a pretty radical year for change in baseball.
Basically sports management should learn from the designers of card and video games. Magic: The Gathering is constantly bringing out cards with new mechanics that break previous strategies, in order to keep players engaged with the game. Games like League of Legends, similarly, introduce new playable characters, new mechanics, and new battlefields, that force people to come up with new strategies.
You'll see a variant this in the NFL regularly over the years, though. It usually goes through a recurring cycle of four, like the seasons:
--A seldom used offense is effectively (re)used that exploits the predominant league defenses.
--Other teams switch to that offense, causing it to become the predominant league offense.
--A seldom used defense is effectively (re)used that exploits the predominant league offenses.
--Other teams switch to that defense, causing it to become the predominant league defense.
What has made Bill Belichick arguably the greatest coach of all time aside from having Tom Brady as his QB for most of his HC career is that he's able to break this cycle and build teams that exploit weaknesses no matter what offenses and defenses they run.
Within the world of e-sports, the "metagame" is part of what makes it so interesting - basically representing the current understanding of strategy given the current ruleset. But because buffs and nerfs happen a lot, the metagame is constantly evolving, which makes it fun to watch!
https://liquipedia.net/starcraft2/Metagame
Really had to scroll a while to find a reference to eSports balance changes. I find the changing metagames so much more exciting
Totally agree; I think it's a great example of how changing the rules yields a much more interesting metagame.
One major rule change for soccer that has increased how proactive teams are is switching wins from 2 points to 3.
> Baseball has yet to do anything that will really increase the number of balls in play...
Part of the increase in HR, walks, and strikeouts can be attributed to the preference of shifting, extra fielder shifted from one side of infield to the other, which is now banned. Hitters responded by trying to hit it over the shift instead of through it.
I also hope that the changes to bases and pickoffs might see the return of the hit and run play.
Return to the days of yore and make pitchers bat.
There's an excellent article about the NBA's experiment with the Elam ending in the G-league: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/can-the-nbas-experimental-endgame-make-it-to-games-that-count/
Hockey has the ideal amount of scoring, IMO. I don't find hockey to be a great tv sport, alas. At least not on a tv as small as mine.
The NBA has never had more talent than it does today - even horrific teams like the Houston Rockets have a plethora of talent. Yet, the culture of the NBA is rotten to the core. I'm all for players having more power, but the "Player Empowerment ERA" has resulted in stars demanding trades on a whim and sitting out >25% of the games, which has completely eroded the fan experience. Why would I spend hundreds of dollars on a tickets to see the Lakers when Lebron might sit at the last second because he has a tummy ache? The league not only has to shorten the season to make the regular season more valuable, it also needs to incentivize stars to stay put longer. This means the league needs to restructure contracts and penalize teams/players who are traded early on in their contracts. I hope the NBA gets it together because they are currently squandering a renaissance in elite talent, especially given how much of that talent is international which could really propel the league forward and make basketball a truly global sport.
The players sitting out 25% of games is due to load management, which is imposed by the team, not the players. Usually the players want to play.
Both the teams and players engage in load management. Either way, both sides need to be incentivized to have the best players play the most amount of games, which probably means teams and players need to be penalized for load management and the season needs to be shortened.
Nice guest post!
I'm mainly a football guy and a big problem I see with the modern game is how central the quarterback is and how the position has grown in importance. I think the league really needs to make some changes to make that position less critical to a team's success.
Would love to get some real coverage of promotion/relegation (the European / "open" system) vs local monopolies (the US / "closed") system. Our system in the US has real consequences - teams regularly threaten to leave cities, blackmailing local governments into building or subsidizing expensive stadiums. These threats only work because the leagues grant teams local monopolies, so generally there is one team per sport maximum in each metro area, even when the area could support half a dozen.
I think this is the most important problem with "closed" leagues in the US, but tanking is a close 2nd.
Does anyone have a good sense for which court cases, if overturned, would naturally lead to an opening of leagues in the US? I would love to read something like that! I have a vague sense that the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 was very important, but that's about it.
As for the legal aspects, as I understand it pro sports leagues are able to avoid antitrust action from their players because they all are in collective bargaining agreements with the players' unions. But the lack of CBAs and unions in college sports could soon be a huge deal, given NCAA v. Alston [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-512_gfbh.pdf] and in particular Kavanaugh's concurrence in that case.
The Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 gives the NFL a narrow antitrust exemption explicitly legislated that allows its teams to collude for TV contracts. One notable concession they had to give up, though, is that they cannot broadcast games nationally on Friday nights or on Saturday, to "protect" high school football and college football.
I agree that this should get an entire article, and I think it would be good for Matt to revisit this piece from a decade ago [https://slate.com/business/2013/12/nba-draft-is-absurd-end-tanking-by-ending-drafting.html], because it makes me think that he thinks the European system is better, but 10 years is a long time and I'd be curious as to what he thinks now.