Jump to content

UTexasFight

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    13915
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by UTexasFight

  1. Cora can’t quit the Astros:


    After months of obsessing over his old team, Alex Cora returns to Houston to ‘close the chapter’

    For a couple of minutes on Thursday, Alex Cora seemed to let his guard down and enjoy his awkward reality.

    He hugged the opposing manager, tipped his cap to the opposing dugout, and along with bullpen coach Craig Bjornson, received his 2017 World Series ring from Astros general manager Jeff Luhnow.

    Cora did it all while wearing his Red Sox uniform, but for just a moment during that pregame ceremony, he was back with the team that he can’t quite shake, no matter how hard he tries.

    “I learned a lot from them and I appreciate that,” Cora said. “But as far as finishing the chapter, today is the day.”

    Had that chapter been open all these months? Insert sarcastic tone here: We hadn’t noticed.

    “I haven’t talked about the Astros until now,” Cora said on January 18.

    “I hate to bring up last year,” Cora said on February 22.

    “I hate to say it again,” Cora said, again, on March 31, before launching into another Houston-related story.

    As much as it might embarrass him to remember an anecdote from last season, as often as he’s nearly winced when making a Red Sox/Astros comparison, Cora’s rarely let more than a few days go by without making some sort of reference to his old team.

    “There’s only one Boston Red Sox,” Cora said on March 11. “Only one New York Yankees, (only one) Houston Astros, you know?”

    Yes, of course. Only one. And Cora was not in Houston to relive the past, even as he pointed beyond left field to show just how close to Minute Maid Park he lived last season.

    No, Cora was at Minute Maid Park as the manager of the team with the best record in baseball, and so after the ceremony he walked back onto the field to exchange lineup cards with his old boss, Astros manager A.J. Hinch.

    “I checked the lineup three or four times (last year) before I gave it to A.J. before he gave it to the umpire,” Cora said on May 9.

    Not this time. Thursday’s lineup card was Cora’s own. It had been vetted by his own coaching staff, and it was a batting order of his own choosing. If Mookie Betts had been deemed healthy enough to play, Betts would have been in the leadoff spot.

    “Kind of like our George Springer,” Cora said on December 9.

    And Xander Bogaerts would have been batting fifth.

    “(Yuli) Gurriel is the guy who came to mind,” Cora explained on March 31.

    But, alas, Betts was still dealing with tightness in his left side, and Dustin Pedroia was scratched because of soreness in his left knee, so Cora had utility players Brock Holt and Blake Swihart playing right field and second base in their stead.

    “The Marwin Gonzalezs of the world are good for the manager,” Cora said on March 18.

    They sure are, and Cora has prioritized utility players this season, using his bench regularly to keep his everyday players rested.

    “I learned that with the little guy (Jose Altuve) last year,” Cora said on February 24. “He hated off days.”

    Would it have been nice to have all the Red Sox regulars in there against the defending champs? Sure. But this series isn’t about the Astros. It’s about the Red Sox.

    “I remember asking A.J. questions about the opposition,” Cora said on March 31. “And he’s like, ‘One thing for sure, Alex, whenever you manage, make sure you manage the team you’re managing, not the other team.’”

    That’s exactly right. And Cora is most definitely managing the Red Sox. He’s so far, managed them to first place in the American League East. They just might be the World Series favorites at this point, especially if they can hold off the Yankees.

    “(Yankee Stadium) is alive,” Cora said on May 8. “I lived it last year during the playoffs.”

    But last year doesn’t matter anymore. It’s all about this year, and this team, and getting over that hump the Red Sox couldn’t quite get over the past two seasons.

    “Two years of having a great regular season and not making it,” Cora said on January 18. “I joked with them that I have banners and towels and pictures and all that. If that motivates them, so be it.”

    The Red Sox applauded from their own dugout as Cora and Bjornson got their rings on Thursday. Most everyone else in the ballpark hardly noticed the presentation, but surely the Red Sox hadn’t forgotten that they were the Astros’ first victims in last year’s division series, beginning with a Game 1 drubbing in this very stadium.

    “You go back, it was that 0-2 fastball that (Chris Sale) didn’t get up to Altuve,” Cora said on March 27.

    Yes, Sale seemed to lose some of his edge late last season, and that’s what spurred Cora to ease the Red Sox’ pitchers’ workload in spring training.

    “(David Price) asked me, ‘Where did you get that (spring training plan) from?’” Cora said on March 6. “Well, last year, I saw Dallas (Keuchel) and Lance (McCullers).”

    OK, so maybe Cora borrowed that plan from the Astros, but it’s OK to cherry pick the best ideas. And it’s hardly the only thing the Astros gave Cora. They gave him a job coaching job, a World Series ring, and an early scouting report on Rick Porcello.

    “I remember Carlos Beltran,” Cora said on April 12. “He talked about (Porcello) last year and he said the stuff was still there.”

    Sure enough, Porcello’s had a bounce-back year. And Mitch Moreland is on track for a career year.

    “I always look to (last year’s) playoffs,” Cora said on May 1. “And (Moreland’s) at-bats in the playoffs were great too.”

    You have to notice things like that when you’re a manager (or a soon-to-be manager). You have to pay attention, live in the moment, not get distracted by frivolities, things like video games.

    “It seems like Fortnite now is the (video game) everybody is playing,” Cora said on May 9. “But last year, I saw a lot of (Astros) playing Fifa.”

    No time for video games for Cora. He’s got lineups to put together, bullpen decisions to make, and game plans to enact.

    “Even the hard throwers, they have to mix it up,” Cora said on March 20. “I learned that last year in the organization I was working for.”

    Which organization was that again?

    We kid, we kid.

    Truth is, Cora didn’t need the Astros to teach him everything. He had a long and varied career as a big league infielder. He won a World Series with the Red Sox, worked as a general manager in Puerto Rico, and did some broadcasting for ESPN.

    But Houston was a place of significance. Cora never managed in the minor leagues, and that one year as Astros bench coach was his only experience in the Majors after he quit playing.

    “I saw a lot of good things that happened on a daily basis with the Houston Astros,” Cora said on Thursday. “And obviously, like football, (it’s a) copycat league (or) whatever. That’s what they call it when you’re trying to do the same thing, and we’re trying to accomplish the same goal.”

    There’s no shame in that. There’s no shame in Cora comparing Bogaerts to Carlos Correa, or Betts to Altuve. Though, it was at least a little surprising when Cora was asked this month about Betts stealing more bases, and he responded: “I had a conversation with (Astros third baseman) Alex Bregman about that today,” but that’s why the Red Sox hired Cora in the first place. He’s a good fit in the clubhouse. He bonds with his players. He did it in Houston, and he’s doing it in Boston.

    It’s funny, of course, when Cora catches himself reliving the past — a question about Rafael Devers stirred a memory of the Astros bench heckling the Red Sox rookie last season – but there’s little doubt that Cora’s focus is on his current team.

    It’s just that his experience and his style were shaped by the team he was with last season. And, so, the Red Sox could applaud Thursday’s ring presentation without hesitation. The Astros were the final step in preparing Cora for the job at hand.

    “Before last year I always thought I was ready to be a big league manager,” Cora said on December 16. “Now that I went through the experience as bench coach, I feel now I’m ready. … Hopefully all that experience is going to help me throughout my career and we can be as successful as they were last year.”

    Now that he has his ring, Cora said he’s ready to turn the page and close that chapter. Funny thing about turning the page, though: there’s nothing to keep him from going back to it again, and again, and again.

    • Like 2
  2. Giles has given up 19 hits in 17 innings pitched. You can't be consistent with those numbers and certainly not a closer.

    While not ideal, that’s not Giles biggest problem.

    His biggest problem is 14 Ks in 17 IP (maybe it’s 16 Ks in 18 IP now)...And inability to be consistent on a hitter by hitter basis. Every pitcher on this staff save Keuchel and Sipp has a better K/9 than Giles. Let that sink in for a second: Harris, Smith, Rondon, Peacock, McHugh all have more Ks than IP... this in an age when Ks are at an all-time high and your closer can’t even average 1 K per inning?

     

     

    Go back and watch the 9th tonight.

    classic Giles as we’ve come to know him. Gets your hopes up that he’s starting to figure it out and then...

    Devers:

    98 up and away, fouled off

    98 up and in, swung through

    99 up and away, laid off

    88 wipeout slider swung through

     

    Holt:

    87 wipeout slider swung through

    88 slider weak foul

    99 down the middle, called strike 3

     

    Then george loses one in the lights, ump’s zone maybe tightens a little and it’s hold on to your butts as he can’t locate the slider or play his FB off of it.

     

     

  3. his whip is still like 1.12, which is pretty low for a dude who's "always getting into trouble".

    The fact that the numerator in that stat before tonight consisted entirely of hits will blow the collective mind of this thread.
    Felt like he walked the bases loaded in the season opener in Arlington.
  4. Yes this week has sucked and this team definitely has some holes it will need to fill but we all need a big dose of perspective every now and then.

    Keuchel is fine. Not great, not poor. Just fine.
    And that’s fine on this 2018 team so far. His biggest “issue” may be that he’s part of a rotation that has three guys that could very well start the all star game right now if there were enough spots.

    So far this year he has a 3.65 ERA and a 1.23 WHIP. That is EXACTLY his career average for those two stats.
    The problem is he’s battling expectations of matching 2015 and/or the start he had last year in his walk year.
    Unfortunately, he’s backed up to his overall career average when other guys in the rotation we weren’t expecting to be as lights out are blowing past him.

    And all of that is fine...for now. Maybe not so much if Morton, Cole, JV come back to earth.

    But for a dose of perspective, it still blows me away that our starters the last six days in May 2017 were:
    Keuchel
    LMJ
    Musgrove
    Peacock
    Fiers
    Paulino

    Last year we rode some career offensive years by a few guys to a title (with some clutch pitching mixed in when it mattered). This year maybe we ride some career years on the mound by a few guys to a title (with some clutch offense when it matters). It don’t make a shit to me.
    That’s part of what I love about this game.

    • Like 1
  5. Really hard watching Hader pitch after last night. Just gave up his 9th HIT of the year. In 32 innings. As a lefty. I know it’s been beat to death. My bad. It’s out of my system now. 

    and JD FKN MARTENIES IS THE MOST Badd asss player everz
  6. LOTS of stuff in here. can’t decide what is most interesting/alarming.

    Sure seems like the shift may be going away sooner than later.

    First I’ve really heard much about expanding to 32 and 8 four team divisions.


    Rosenthal Q&A with Manfred:

    In an exclusive Q&A, Commissioner Rob Manfred discusses pace of play, expansion, betting (sorry, Pete) and more

    As traditional as baseball is, no sport can remain static. The game changes. Society changes. The expectations of fans and even laws change, too.

    Here at The Athletic, we’ve written a lot lately about the challenges baseball faces and ways to improve the sport. Some of the ideas were radical, such as Jim Kaat’s proposal to reduce games from nine innings to seven and David Samson’s series of head-scratching, jaw-dropping suggestions. But given the number of issues in play — from pace of play to pace of action, legalized gambling to expansion, the strike zone to the composition of baseball — we decided it was time to seek actual answers.

    Commissioner Rob Manfred operates with only so much power — he implements change only with the approval of his owners, and in many cases must also secure agreements with the players’ and umpires’ unions. But Manfred, as the most powerful man in the sport, certainly possesses the authority to outline positions, propose solutions and drive conversations.

    I sat down with Manfred on Tuesday at Major League Baseball’s offices in New York City for a wide-ranging discussion on the game’s present and future.

    Rosenthal: We’re roughly one-third of the way into the season. How would you assess the way the pace-of-play initiatives are going?

    Manfred: I’m positive about how they’ve gone for two reasons. No. 1, the threshold matter on any rule change is, “Has it been disruptive on the field?” I don’t think either the (changes in) innings breaks or the mound-visit rule has been disruptive on the field. People adjusted. We’ve had some other rules that had a longer period of adjustment. These did not. That’s a positive.

    And we reversed the trend (on time of game). We had been going up every year. We’re down right around three hours right now (the average time of a nine-inning game through Tuesday night was three hours, 25 seconds; at the same point last year it was 3:04:06 and at the end of the season it was 3:05:11). I see that as a positive. There is no silver bullet on this that is going to take you to 2:40, not that I’m suggesting that is my goal. This is ongoing maintenance, making sure it doesn’t go in the wrong direction and trying to move it back in the right direction.

    Rosenthal: Do you still believe a pitch clock is necessary?

    Manfred: I think the clock probably would be a positive on pace of game. I am thinking about what our strategy should be for the next off-season. I think some of the things we have seen this year suggest that maybe we should be thinking a little broader than just pace.

    Rosenthal: This is the next question — pace of action. This is an ongoing issue. The trend is clear that there are fewer balls in play, and it’s not just a one-year trend. How concerned are you that for some fans — maybe not all — the game is simply becoming too dull?

    Manfred: I don’t believe the game is dull. I just absolutely will not buy into the characterization of our game as dull. I do believe this: There is a growing recognition that analytics have produced certain trends in the game that we may need to be more pro-active about reversing.

    There are owners that feel that way. There are fans that feel that way. To me, those are really important indicators of what we ought to be thinking about.

    Rosenthal: Early in your tenure, you said you were open to banning shifts. There was immediate blowback. But, as you just mentioned, analytics have produced certain trends. Some people believe the increase in shifts led to the launch-angle revolution, which led to pitchers working more up in the zone, which led to more strikeouts. So, is it time to give more serious consideration to the banning of shifts?

    Manfred: I’m not prepared to get into individual rule changes at this point. This is as far as I will go: I do think there is sentiment in the game for the idea that we need to be more aggressive about managing the trends that have been introduced in the game, at least partly based on analytics. And when I say more aggressive, I mean beyond just pace issues.

    Rosenthal: What about mid-inning pitching changes? I don’t know if they fall into this category or not.

    Manfred: Same category. I’m just not ready to go there.

    Rosenthal: What other ideas are you considering to increase the rate of action?

    Manfred: I genuinely don’t mean to be uncooperative on this, but we’re at a point in the process where we’re kind of shifting our thinking.

    Let me go back. We thought focusing on pace was the low-hanging, least controversial set of changes. We’re in the process as a result of two things — No. 1, apparently we’re going to have resistance (from the players’ union) even on pace changes and No. 2, there is a growing recognition that maybe we need to go beyond pace changes. You put those two things together, and we’re just beginning the process of saying, ‘OK, if we’re going to get off pace and get into a little different vein, what are we thinking about?’ I’m just not ready to talk about that publicly.

    Rosenthal: Given that the reduction of balls in play has played out over several years, really almost a decade, at what point does the situation become urgent?

    Manfred: I would not use the word “urgent.” I think it’s at a point in time where we need to be a little more aggressive. It’s not like we didn’t see what was happening. The hope always is the game is going to self-correct. That’s the natural response to these sorts of changes.

    At the beginning, when the shifts started and started to pick up, people said, “They’re going to learn to hit the other way. They’re going to bunt.” We just haven’t seen those changes. It evolved a different way. Because we have not seen the natural correction, because the trends seem to be persistent, I think we’re at the point in time that we do need to think about and really analyze hard some potential changes.

    Rosenthal: Competitive balance is always a hot topic. Five teams are on pace to lose 100-games and a sixth is close to that pace. The record for a single season is four. How much does this concern you? I know it’s an early stage of the season. This can correct. But those teams also might get worse.

    Manfred: Focusing on a third of a season given what our record on competitive balance has been over the last decade and a half doesn’t seem wise to me. We’ve had 12 different winners in 17 years. Twenty-seven of 30 teams have made it to the playoffs over the last decade even though we have the most selective playoff system in professional sports.

    I think our record on competitive balance is pretty good. You look at the divisions right now. If you had read (in the) preseason, you would think we were going to have four or five teams that were knighted. It was all going to be over by May 1. That’s just not what we’re seeing.

    Do I like teams losing 100 games? We’ve never liked teams losing 100 games. Obviously that’s not great for the fans in those markets. It does concern us. But frankly, the increase from four to five (100-loss teams) is hardly seismic.

    Rosenthal: The strike zone is a never-ending source of discussion . . .

    Manfred: I will tell you something about the strike zone. The strike zone has to be in the set of issues you talk about whenever you talk about the game. The difficulty with the strike zone is that when you talk to really good baseball people, you get vastly different predictions as to what you’re going to get if you make a change. That always makes me nervous.

    If you get people we respect, people who have been around the game a long time, who played the game, and they at least directionally agree, “If you do X, you’re going to get Y,” can you turn out to be wrong? Yeah, you can. But what really makes you nervous is when people say, “We’re going to do X,” and some people say, “You’re going to get A,” and others say, “You’re going to get B,” and others say, “You’re going to get Z.” That really makes me nervous.

    Rosenthal: So it’s hard to change . . .

    Manfred: I wouldn’t say it that way. I think with the technology we have, we’ve shown that you can adjust the strike zone through our evaluation system. The umpires are in fact really skilled. When you motivate them to move in a particular direction, they do. What concerns me more is the unpredictability of the outcome of a particular change.

    Rosenthal: Given that, can you foresee a time when the zone is called by technology and not by umpires?

    Manfred: Let me say it in two different pieces. I think we are much closer than we were a year ago to having the technological capability to actually call the strike zone. We have worked very hard on PITCHf/x (a pitch-tracking system). Hats off to (MLB Executive Vice-President of Strategy, Technology and Innovation) Chris Marinak and (Chief Technology Officer) Jason Gaedtke.

    The accuracy is way up — way better than what it was a year ago. The technology continues to move . . . and it actually moved a little faster than I might have thought.

    There remains a fundamental question the owners are going to have to address. When you take away the home plate umpire’s control over the strike zone, you take away a principal piece of his authority in terms of managing the whole game. You really need to think carefully about whether you want to make that change.

    Rosenthal: I imagine the umpires would be violently opposed…

    Manfred: It’s interesting. Fifteen years ago, the umpires were violently opposed to instant replay. They came around and actually wanted it. Who knows? We haven’t had a lot of conversations with them on this topic, but I do think there is a serious management-of-the-game issue you’d have to think about with respect to that change.

    Rosenthal: Let’s talk about the baseball itself, getting to the report from last week (a committee of 10 experts, assembled by Manfred, attributed the increase in home runs, at least in part, to “a change in the aerodynamic properties” of the ball, citing, a “reduced drag for given launch conditions.”)

    For years, baseball said there was no change in the ball. It turns out there was a change — inadvertently, it seems, and not in the way anyone suspected. Do you plan to address that in any way?

    Manfred: The report says something happened that reduced drag. Whatever it was, there was no purposeful or known alteration of the baseball. (People wanted to test) whether the specifications were too wide (in range) or not. The report says they’re within a much narrower range than the actual specifications.

    They don’t know what the drag change is. Maybe it’s global warming, who knows? (The committee determined weather is not a factor). We’re going to continue to test and hopefully we will get to the bottom of that.

    Rosenthal: Why is there even drag? It just seems to be an odd thing.

    Manfred: (The committee) did put forward two hypotheses. You can understand over time, with improved manufacturing capabilities, the centering of the pill (the round, cushioned cork center) might improve. No one would have noticed that. No one ever tested the centering of the pill. No one ever tested drag before we did, right?

    And we did have the mud change. We have a different person (harvesting) it. It’s coming from the same place (the New Jersey side of the Delaware River). One of the things they’ve noticed, we’ve noticed, is that baseballs look different. It is a human process by which a guy puts mud on a baseball.

    (The committee recommended a standardized application of mud on balls, which is used by clubhouse attendants to make balls less slippery; the texture of the surface affects drag).

    Rosenthal: What about the tackier (stickier) ball you’ve tested? (The goal of such a ball would be to end pitchers’ rule-bending use of pine tar, sunscreen, rosin and other foreign substances).

    Manfred: Over the long haul, I do think the idea of a baseball that is tackier and eliminates any human variation — whether it’s the way it’s mudded, the use of tar, whatever — would be a positive for the game. We haven’t gotten there in terms of the rest of the performance characteristics of the baseball.

    Rosenthal: Let’s talk about the schedule. There are people on all sides who suggest that maybe it would be better to shorten it from 162 games. And yet, because of the financial implications, it almost seems like a non-starter. But might there be ways for players to share the burden of this without reducing their pay?

    Manfred: There is always a deal to be made. So in the right package, do the financial issues get resolved? Yes and maybe no is how I would answer that question.

    Yes in the sense of the aggregate amount of dollars involved. It would be possible in some package to make that (shortfall) up. The thornier issue is that it cuts very unevenly across the clubs. You’re going to go to 154 probably, that would be the number that makes the most sense. Some clubs tell you it doesn’t matter that much. Other clubs tell you it’s a fortune. That unevenness is always a complicating factor.

    Rosenthal: How do you view legalized sports gambling for baseball. Is it an opportunity? Is it a threat? Is it both?

    Manfred: It’s a reality. I want to be really clear about this. I think there’s a misconception. We were not out there saying, “Let’s have legalized sports betting.” We watched the progress of the litigation that we brought (along with the three other major professional leagues and NCAA) to prevent sports betting and came to the realization there was an “L” out there.

    Once we came to the realization that there was a loss possible, we talked to people in other countries where sports betting had become legal. The advice we got consistently was, “If it’s coming, you need to protect yourself.” That answers the threat question.

    I do believe we will — of necessity — have to be more vigilant about monitoring integrity issues. That includes weighing in with regulators as to what kind of bets ought to happen, monitoring gambling activity. This can be a threat to our product. People say, “Well, it happens in Las Vegas.” A relatively small sports book in Las Vegas is something very different than sports betting nationwide, which is probably what you’re looking at, No. 1.

    No. 2, people who say you can leave it to state regulators — no thank you. Nice offer, but we will take care of our own integrity.

    Do we recognize that sports betting can be a source of fan engagement? Yes, we do. In that sense, it is an opportunity. Obviously, we want people engaged with our sport. So, it’s both.

    Rosenthal: I’ve always felt one of the reasons baseball is so popular is that people enjoy it in any number of ways — through fantasy, being a fan of a team, etc. Well, here’s another way.

    Manfred: I agree with that. I’m not going to deny there’s upside. That doesn’t mean, for example, we ought to allow whoever the oddsmaker is in a particular state to ride free on our intellectual property and impose on us the burden of additional integrity monitoring just because there might be some upside for us. We’re perfectly fine where we are.

    Rosenthal: Will legalized gambling change the outlook on baseball’s relationship with Pete Rose?

    Manfred: No matter what happens in terms of legalization, there will always be a rule that prohibits betting on baseball. That’s the bedrock of our integrity. That’s the rule Pete Rose violated. Whether (gambling) is legal or illegal, the rule is still going to be there. First of all, it was illegal when he did it. But more importantly, we’re always going to have that rule applicable to on-field personnel. It doesn’t change my thinking at all.

    Rosenthal: On expansion, you said recently you would like to get to 32 teams, that there are benefits to scheduling and the playoff format. Beyond eight four-team divisions, what do you have in mind in terms of structure?

    Manfred: The toughest thing for us in the playoffs is always Anaheim against Boston (in a hypothetical matchup) on those four-game days in the Division Series. You’re either playing too early for the people in Anaheim or too late for the people in Boston.

    Realignment has always been a difficult issue in baseball. You can make an argument that the demise of at least one commissioner (Fay Vincent in 1992) began with the issue of realignment. The reality of today’s media environment is that if you went to 32 teams and you could get to a more geographically-based alignment, you could help your playoff format, you could reduce your travel, you could more easily discuss things like a split season.

    I’m not saying I’m in favor of any of those. I just think it creates options that the current three-fives (three divisions of five teams in each league) essentially make unavailable to you as a result of the inflexibility of the schedule.

    Rosenthal: Where are you on a split season?

    Manfred: I’ve never been a huge split-season fan. I think there is something pure about the one, long, grind-it-out (aspect). I’m sort of a purist. I know someone will say, “Oh my God, he characterized himself as a purist for the first time ever.” But I’m sort of a one-season thinker.

    Rosenthal: Would a balanced schedule be more likely with expansion?

    Manfred: Yeah, I think you probably could (do that). Balanced, unbalanced, it’s one of those issues like the DH. People are always going to debate it. The argument now is, “Win within your division. Winning the division is a big deal. You’ve got to play more games in the division.” That’s a good argument. I think it makes sense. The question is, how much?

    Rosenthal: How would the playoffs work? Do you have an idea?

    Manfred: We’ve just begun talking about a lot of formats. I want to be clear about expansion. We’re fortunate. I would not have raised the issue of expansion. We’ve made clear we have two big issues — Tampa Bay and Oakland — that need to be resolved before we think about it. But the fact of the matter is, we’re blessed. We’ve got cities out there that want to have Major League Baseball. And I think Major League Baseball has to show some receptivity to that because down the road, we are interested in it.

    Rosenthal: That includes international cities?

    Manfred: Some, yes.

    Rosenthal: Last thing. In your mind, how healthy is the game right now, and how much healthier could it be if you did certain things?

    Manfred: I think the game is very healthy. We’ve had two great postseasons in a row. It has increased the buzz around our game dramatically. Our involvement in the technology space has really helped people’s perception of the game. Financially, we’ve been a tremendous success. Our revenues continue to grow. And putting aside our weather-related issues at the beginning of this season, (average major league attendance through 62 dates is down from 29,172 to 27,334, a decline of 6.7 percent, according to STATS LLC) 114 million people go to watch baseball live, between us and the minor leagues. That’s the sign of a really, really healthy sport.

    Having said that, no institution — no matter how great it is, and I do think our entertainment product is great — can sit still in today’s world. You have to think about ways to continue to grow the ties you have to our existing fans, which really matter to us, and how you make sure the game gets passed on to the next generation with the same kind of passion it has for yours and mine.

×
×
  • Create New...