Strike 3 Baseball

Our American Pastime is on life support and I fear it's time to finally pull the plug.  Baseball is one of the few sports, possibly the only one, that has not been able to adapt to new times and what a new generation of fans want to see.  The games are too long.  The pace is too slow.  The action is too sparse.  And the players are less accessible than other sports.  Moreover, Baseball has always been steeped in tradition, which is part of what made the game great, but it dramatically hampers the ability of MLB to adapt to changing times. 

Stats, the foundation on which baseball was built, are now the boat anchor tied around baseball's need to change.  Baseball cherishes and protects its statistics more than any other sport.  For a long time, this is part of what made baseball great as there were fairly reliable ways to measure modern players to the greats of the past.  A statistical record actually meant something, and was the for the most part, relatively as difficult to achieve in 2000 as it was in 1960.  But the desire to maintain the sanctity of stats and records is having an adverse impact on baseball's ability to change in ways that benefit fans and increase viewership.  Ironically, the changes that have occurred organically in baseball (all bad I would argue) have also had a negative effect on the records the MLB so vehemently tries to protect.  Cy Young won 511 games as a pitcher.  That record will never be broken...ever.  Why? Because in today's game a pitcher is on innings restrictions both in game and for a season.  There are 5 and sometimes 6 days rest in between starts.  Pitchers simply cannot get enough games in to ever challenge that record.  Likewise, Nolan Ryan's career strikeout mark of 5714 will almost certainly never be challenged.  Will we ever have another 30 game winner?  I doubt it given the increasing difficulty for a pitcher to even reach 20 wins.  Will we ever have another .400 hitter with defensive shifts and specialist pitchers?  Seemingly the only record baseball doesn't care to protect are those associated with homeruns...the single offensive achievement that causes the biggest delay in a game.  So I have to wonder, is the MLB really interested in protecting the sanctity of stats and the ability to compare generations of players based on them?  

Baseball has also failed to attract the next generation of fans.  I suspect that's almost entirely due to the pace and length of games.  The average length of an MLB game in 2019 was 3 hours and 5 minutes...a record.  By way of comparison, the length first exceeded 2 hours in 1934.  By 1954 a game now lasted 2 hours and 30 minutes.  2014 marked the first time the average game exceeded 3 hours.  Why so long?  It boils down to 2 main culprits: Pitching and extended time between innings (likely for increased TV commercials).  Pitching has changed more than any other aspect of baseball.  Throughout much of the first half of the 20th century, pitchers regularly completed games.  The second half of the 20th century saw relief pitchers begin to emerge, most notably specialist closers.  I don't know the exact date, but somewhere around the turn of the century we entered the phase of speciality pitchers.  Now instead of seeing 2 or 3 pitching changes in a game, you might see 2 or 3 in an a half of an inning.  Every pitching change causes delays in the action and potentially loses viewers.  Pitch count per game is also up (thus increasing game length) as well as the increased amount of time to simply call a pitch and execute it.  Think about how much of a game is actually being played versus preparing to be played.  It's the only sport in existence where well more than 75% of the game has no one playing it at all.  Why would anyone want to watch that?  Why would anyone want to spend 3 hours of their day to see 4 pitching changes in the 7th inning of game 63/162 of a season?

Additionally, there has been virtually no modernization of baseball to make games more exciting.  While time delays caused by pitching, defensive shifts, time to analyze data for specific in game scenarios, etc. are losing viewers every day there is nothing being implemented to counter-balance and attract fans.  A 162 game season is too long.  I once heard someone say, "Every team wins at least 60 games and loses at least 60 games so the season is really about the other 42."  And it's true.  No one cares about game 92 in the middle of July.  Other sports have adapted.  For example, the NFL brilliantly used fantasy sports and gambling to retain and even attract a brand new set of viewers.  The NBA has been at the forefront of in-arena changes to improve fan experience while also implementing changes such as the slam dunk and the 3-point line.  Why can't baseball figure out some way to make a meaningless regular season game more exciting to watch?  Why does every change for baseball seem to inadvertently make things worse?  How about a higher fence in center field that's worth 2 runs if you hit it over the fence?  Or what about a time clock, like in chess, where that's all the time you have in a game to pitch the ball?  How about model positional changes after soccer and only allow 3 in total per game?  There are lots of ways baseball could change, but they refuse.

Possibly most frustrating is the current global stoppage in sports has provided the perfect excuse for baseball to adapt and try something new.  The MLB has every opportunity right now, with likely huge support from fans, to do whatever is necessary to resume play.  The NHL has come up with a brilliant World Cup style format to finish their season.  The NBA will take on a 22 game play-in style mini March Madness format.  But MLB, the sport that's played outside where most games have built in social distancing due to lack of fans, can't figure out how to get back to the field.  MLB, which already has locations in Florida and AZ (Spring Training sites) that would be perfectly suited for resuming play, has no plan to restart.  Instead, they want to battle between league and players over how many games they will play and how much of their salary they will make.  The NHL will attract new fans because they will be one of the first sports to resume.  If MLB could have figure it out first, they would have at least had a fighting chance to win over some fans who would literally watch anything sports-related right now.  Instead, they are going to be the last and maybe not have a season at all.  Baseball, already on life-support, has given up hope and we might as well pull the plug.  It sad really, but Baseball has no one to blame but themselves.  

Maybe, Just Maybe

First, let me state where I stand on everything related to COVID.  I think far too often folks love to shout their opinions without the proper context of what's driving their views.  Why is this important?  Personally I have a hard time accepting someone's views to continue the lockdown if they are gainfully employed with the new luxury of working from home full time.  Conversely, I have a harder time accepting someone's views to open up if the basis of their argument is solely to return to a normal life.  Life as we know it will not be "normal" again for a very long time.  We all just need to accept that as a fact at this point.  So back to where I stand.

• I agreed with the lockdown initially, especially given the lack of preparedness, data, and information we had at the time.
• I disagree strongly with the notion we must remain on some form of lockdown until there's a vaccine or successful treatment.
• I disagree strongly with the notion we must continue to lockdown almost entirely due to protecting the at-risk and elderly.  This does not mean I want them to die.  What it means is they should quarantine, and so should anyone who wants to see them, while the rest of us get back to rebuilding.  We don't quarantine the healthy...we quarantine the sick.
• I am not financially impacted by the lockdown in any way.  
• I think masks are stupid and ineffective, but if that's what it takes to start re-opening, then I'll play along with the game. 
• I believe this is not just another flu and that it's highly contagious.  I also believe the risk of death to the vast majority of the country is incredibly low. So when I say we should re-open, it's not that I think I won't get COVID, but rather I'm strongly confident it will be nothing worse than a terrible two week ordeal.  
• And finally, short of a vaccine,  I believe ultimately the number of deaths and cases was always going to be the same regardless of our measures.  The difference would be how long it took for the virus to run its course.

But this isn't a post specifically about the virus.  This is a post for why maybe it's not all bad we've gone through this the past two months.   This experiment, the likes of which we've never seen before, has served to expose a great deal about who we are, what we care about, what we've taken for granted, and what an extreme version of government control means to our lives.  

Let's be real about who we are.  We are not all in this together.  We are not a nation that comes together when there's an emergency.  We are not a nation that ultimately puts others before ourselves.  Certainly pockets of the nation and like-minded people are acting this way, but as a nation we are more divided than ever.  And those never-ending commercials where giant corporations are telling you how much they care and want to support you and your community?  Well they still just want your money.  That's it.  We've hoarded toilet paper and other grocery items.  We have a raging social media battle on how to deal with the virus where vitriol is spewed on a daily basis between family and friends.  We have some saying, "who cares, let em die", while others are saying "who cares about 36 million people now unemployed".  We don't really care about the people outside our circles and now at least we know it.  We know that if there's a true national emergency you won't be able to count on your fellow man to just take what they need and leave the rest for others.  You won't be able to rest assured our government will come together as one to do what's best for the nation.  And sadly, you likely won't be able to rely on the empathy and support of those on the other side of the debate from you...the idea of winning the debate is far too important for us to take a second to care for those we fight against. So now we know who we are and we can all stop pretending we are something different.  Or maybe, just maybe, we can all use this as a time of self-reflection to see who we are and start to change.  Trade anger for empathy.  Trade selfishness for selflessness.  Trade singularity for unity.  It's never too late.  

But it's not all bad news.  I think and hope many of us have a much greater appreciation for what we care about and what we've taken for granted for so long.  Yesterday I noticed the local Starbucks had re-opened.  Yes, there's loads of restrictions, but damnit it's open!!  It filled me with momentary joy and made me realize how spoiled we are in America.  There's coffee all over the place and for the past two months I've been annoyed the one I like isn't conveniently close to me?  Or how about our stores?  That slight pang of anxiety when you walk in and whether your favorite item is in stock.  Then the wave of relief and even excitement when it's on the shelf.  We've grown accustomed to never having to be without a single thing we desire.  And now that a tiny fraction of what we want is a little hard to get, we are outraged?  Millions of people around the world don't know where their next meal will come from and our biggest worry is whether we have to get canned tuna in vegetable oil instead of canned tuna in water.  We are spoiled and have been for decades.  Maybe, just maybe, we will have a little more appreciation for all we have instead of the little we are doing without.  My wife did a mission trip to Haiti where she met a local pastor.  When talking about being poor he said something to the effect of, "Poor?  Your poor have shoes."  We live in an amazing bubble of alternative reality called America, and while not perfect, it's so vastly better than what so many other people have to experience on a daily basis.  You are free to argue with your neighbor and government without being thrown in jail or killed.  You aren't waiting in line for the last loaf of bread, which will be your only meal for the day.  And virtually all the time we don't even need to leave the couch to buy the next thing we desire and have it show up on our doorstop, with Amazon Prime free shipping, two days later.  Yet, we feel the right to complain because we've been marginally inconvenienced for two months when other countries have been in civil wars for decades?  I'm not asking for people to stop pressing for a return to normalcy, but maybe we should check our outrage at the door for a bit.

And lastly, I think we've all seen a healthy dose of what over-reaching government control can bring.  Regardless of your political affiliation, you should be alarmed at how easily and swiftly federal and local governments were allowed to control how you live.  You should be alarmed at the unilateral power Governors have seized for such an extended period of time.  You should be scared about how easy it was to turn one of the best economies in history to rubble in a matter of a week.  You should have second thoughts about nationalized medicine when we can't even agree on how to handle one virus.  For the past two months our lives and livelihood have been at the mercy of our elected officials and the effects have been profound and drastic.  I simply don't understand why people continue to vote for officials who tell you how to live, how to think, and care more about the few than the many.  I don't know why people continue to put into office the candidates who are running their regions into the ground.  But maybe now those elected officials have also been exposed for who they are.  Maybe, just maybe, those who are still waiting for a stimulus check in California will be outraged by Nancy Pelosi's desire to protect marijuana over their jobs.  Yes, that's right, did you know in the Democrat's latest proposed stimulus bill the word cannabis is mentioned 68 times which was more than the words job and jobs combined?  I can only hope people treat their right to vote and their voting choices far more seriously going forward than they've done in the past.  

You see, the freedom and choice we've taken for granted for so long has never been free.  We are an entitled and spoiled society that has long forgotten the sacrifices of those who came before us.  We need to be kinder to each other, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with each other's views.  We need to be more thankful for what we have instead of focusing on the little which we lack.  We need to be more serious about our privilege to vote and elect those who allow us to live freely instead of telling us how to live.  And we need to understand that change starts with ourselves and not with our neighbors.  If you want a different and better world, it starts with you.  Do you make the lives around you better or worse with your actions?  In this time of crisis are you throwing gas or water on the fear, anger, and anxiety flames?  There's been a raging virus of antipathy and discord in our country for many years.  It's highly contagious and has been slowly killing the fabric of our nation, our mental well-being, and our relationships with others.  Are you part of the virus or part of the cure?

God Bless America and God Bless You All.

Blind Trust

Like many people around the world, I struggle daily with the new reality facing us due to COVID-19.  It's not hard to find arguments for and against the measures being taken to curb the virus and the vitriol is increasing daily on the battle lines.  While this post is not primarily about advocating for a side in that argument, I will take a few minutes to state very clearly my position.  I was 100% in favor of the initial lockdown measures, almost entirely due to the absence of data and too many critical unknowns.  I continued to be for the lockdown after preliminary data became available even though my natural desire was for the disease to just run it's course.  Too many people were dying and the epicenter was so close to where I live, making it all very real.  I turned against the lockdowns a couple of weeks ago when a few things became clear to me.  First, I am in very low risk and so is my family.  In saying this, I understand someone in a different circumstance would likely have the complete opposite view and I respect that.  Second, as the contagion rate increases with every new study, that also means the death rate is dropping.  By one measure the true mortality rate of COVID-19 is .5%.  Third, there is a way to keep the most at-risk out of harm's way while letting the vast majority of society go about their new normal.  This notion that we must all be locked away, now that we understand the facts of the virus, seems arbitrarily severe.  And finally, the consequences of the solution are beginning of showing signs to be just as detrimental (and possibly more) than the virus itself.

But this post isn't about my opinion, although I'm guessing any response to this post will be solely about that.  This post is about why suddenly as a society we decided to blindly trust the severity of this virus when our entire history is riddled with examples of ignoring critical health warnings.  What has changed in the way we think, the risks we are willing to take, and our responsibility for others?  Let's walk through two counter-examples.

Smoking has long been part of our society despite longstanding and clear negative health impacts to both ourselves and those around us.  As early as 1929, German Scientist Fritz Lickint discovered a link between smoking and lung cancer.  And yet people continued to smoke.  By 1964 the US Surgeon General issued a definitive report linking cigarettes with lung cancer.  And yet we continued to smoke.  In 1986 the US Surgeon General concluded second hand smoke was harmful and potentially deadly.  And while Cigarettes were on the decline, we continued to smoke and did so in public.  While smoking in public has gotten more and more restrictive, smoking cigarettes is still common with roughly 14% of the US population declared as regular smokers.  To make matters worse, as the rate of smokers continually decreased from the mid-1960's, we introduced Vaping in roughly 2005.  Today an estimated 9 million citizens say they are regular vapers.  Even worse, our youth are using e-Cigarettes at alarming numbers.  In one survey 26% of high school juniors said they vaped in the past 30 days and 11% of 8th graders had as well.  Over the past 2 years we've begun to see Vapers develop chronic and deadly lung issues as a result of their e-cigarette use. And yet people continue to Vape.  Years of evidence on the link between Cigarettes and lung disease.  Years of evidence linking second hand smoke and lung disease.  Years of evidence linking e-cigarettes and lung disease.  And yet we continue to smoke/vape, it continues to be legal, and you can still do it in public.  So why is this version of an activity which impacts our lungs, causing sickness and death, ignored by so many of those same people who blindly believe in the risks of COVID-19?



Unprotected sex, outside of marriage, is a common practice in our society.  And while I couldn't easily find when health risks became clear, I think it's safe to say we've known for at least the past 100 years.  In a 2017 survey, 46% of High School Seniors who'd had sex in the past month did so without protection.  It's estimated that as high as 65% of those having sex, do so regularly without using a condom.  Yet we know unprotected sex leads to sexually transmitted disease, some of which cause lifelong health issues and death.  According to WHO, unprotected sex ranks second amongst the top ten risk factors to health in terms of the burden of disease they cause.  The most extreme example is AIDS, where tens of millions of people have died from the disease since the 1980's.  WHO also estimates that 350 million people annually contract some form of treatable sexually transmitted disease.  A 2016 survey showed unprotected sex as the fastest growing health risk for teens.  And while I don't care to entertain a debate on abortion, unprotected sex results in an estimated 600,000+ abortions per year (deaths of unborn humans).  So with all of this clear and abundant data on the health risks and associated deaths, why are so many people still having unprotected sex?  In fact right now, during lockdown, I'm guessing many unmarried couples are regularly having unprotected sex since buying condoms would require them to leave their house and risk the COVID virus.  Think about that, some of our youth are more willing to engage in an activity that has high risk to their health than one that would translate to a lower risk to their health.

Back to my original question.  What is it about COVID that's created this level of fear and paranoia, when other and more severe health risks are dismissed daily as commonplace?  Why are so many in our society willing to blindly trust health officials, with far less scientific data, about COVID?  Why is our government willing to go to this level of extreme to contain this disease when they gladly accept the tax revenue associated with cigarettes which causes the same type of lung disease?  Time will tell if this is just a short-term, knee-jerk reaction or whether we're now entering a permanent new norm.  But if this many in our society are this concerned about public and personal health risks, maybe we should pay a little more attention (and get a lot more strict) about some of the health risks we choose to ignore and profit off every day.