Official *MLB Season Delayed* Thread

[cavebird]

It's ridiculous. Of course, the middle ground between 50 games (proposed by MLB) and 114 (proposed by the MLBPA) is.....82 games.

That is the one hopeful thing---it is almost like someone is begging to meet in the middle, add in some salary deferral, and bingo. Of course, these parties aren't stupid (although they can be foolish often enough) so if that's where they are trying to get to, it should happen very quickly.

[Sour Masher]

Can't we make it 81 games to make it easy to math?

As someone with mild odd math OCD tenancies (stopping the gas pump as round numbers and the like), I'm a fan of this proposal. As a baseball fan, I'll take every extra game over 81 I can get, but I wouldn't be mad at the simplicity of playing exactly half a season.

[cavebird]

As someone with mild odd math OCD tenancies (stopping the gas pump as round numbers and the like), I'm a fan of this proposal. As a baseball fan, I'll take every extra game over 81 I can get, but I wouldn't be mad at the simplicity of playing exactly half a season.

Assuming that home (but empty) stadiums will be used, they need an even number for fairness so each team can have 41 home games. This is as close to half a season as they can get.

[Sour Masher]

Assuming that home (but empty) stadiums will be used, they need an even number for fairness so each team can have 41 home games. This is as close to half a season as they can get.

Makes sense. Even more would be better, but 82 seems best case at this point.

[revo]

Thinking about it more, the owners really are using the leverage of the calendar to their advantage.

The longer they hold out, and the more they waste time coming up with ideas the players will never accept, then they can always point to the clock and say there’s just no time now for a longer season, whether it’s because of bad weather or (heh heh) using a potential second wave of the coronavirus to their advantage.

The players must agree to a deal in the next week, be forced to accept a shorter season, or walk away.

And if both parties blow this season up over money — a godforsaken labor dispute right in the middle of a pandemic!! — then they deserve all the scorn they will get.

[Judge Jude]

it has been pointed out that initially players - Mike Trout and others - were concerned about risking their health so they were reluctant to play.

which is fine as far as it goes. but then when fewer games are suggested - lowering risk - the players then ask for a lot more.

I mean, there's a narrow window of "well, back then we thought safety was impossible but now we know better...." - but realistically, I think that ship has sailed.

am cautiously optimistic, for the moment, that this is really just posturing. but still they are the most likely league to set each other's houses on fire.

[cavebird]

it has been pointed out that initially players - Mike Trout and others - were concerned about risking their health so they were reluctant to play.

which is fine as far as it goes. but then when fewer games are suggested - lowering risk - the players then ask for a lot more.

I mean, there's a narrow window of "well, back then we thought safety was impossible but now we know better...." - but realistically, I think that ship has sailed.

am cautiously optimistic, for the moment, that this is really just posturing. but still they are the most likely league to set each other's houses on fire.

I doubt fewer games really raises safety. Once you're in the bubble, you're in the bubble.

[Judge Jude]

all experts I know of say risk = time plus distancing. being protected but too much time, or not so much time but little distance, those are the bigger dangers. less time is less risk.

but what do they know?

or me, in by far the No. 2 state for deaths (and now often outpacing leader NY on a daily basis). I'm not even 20 miles from the epicenter circle, and the aftershocks are real. I kind of need to know a little about risk here. life or death, and all that.

[TranaGreg]

all experts I know of say risk = time plus distancing. being protected but too much time, or not so much time but little distance, those are the bigger dangers. less time is less risk.

but what do they know?

or me, in by far the No. 2 state for deaths (and now often outpacing leader NY on a daily basis). I'm not even 20 miles from the epicenter circle, and the aftershocks are real. I kind of need to know a little about risk here. life or death, and all that.

I've read similar studies but they were comparing a few seconds of exposure to an hour of exposure. That's quite different from comparing 4 months of exposure to 6 months of exposure. If you have any sources for those kinds of studies I've love to see those.

[Judge Jude]

if we're debating whether less time in close proximity is better than more time in close proximity, then I don't know what to say.

[chancellor]

if we're debating whether less time in close proximity is better than more time in close proximity, then I don't know what to say.

I think you're missing TranaGreg's point. Mathematically, I see exposure as something resembling an asymptotic function - very low slope at the beginning, with a rapid ramp up, and at some point being so near 100% that added time is essentially meaningless. TG's point - I think - is that at four months the players will already be so far up the curve that another two additional months is mathematically insignificant.

[Judge Jude]

interesting, but is there actual evidence for that?

we know that less time beats more time, but now we're just speculating on how much better 'less time' is.

[Ken]

interesting, but is there actual evidence for that?

we know that less time beats more time, but now we're just speculating on how much better 'less time' is.

Look at the super spreader events early on in the Covid spread. In a 2.5 hour choir practice, 53 out of 61 attendees ended up testing positive. https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/...242712201.html

4 months vs 6 months is not going to be relevant.

[TranaGreg]

interesting, but is there actual evidence for that?

we know that less time beats more time, but now we're just speculating on how much better 'less time' is.

chance got my point, yes I don't think there's a significant difference between 4 months & 6 months ... and yes, we're all speculating, the studies / expert opinions are all preliminary at this point so it's all presumptive.

But I do feel pretty comfortable with the position that based on the time studies so far, at least the ones I've seen, are context-specific and don't apply to month-long scenarios.

[revo]

2 players in the Japanese League test positive....so let's see how they handle it