The Long, Long, Long, Long Journey to October

I love baseball as much as the next person. But as I'm getting older, there's a difference between endurance and overkill.

Here it is, lovely people. As of this posting, we are about 24 hours away from Opening Day for the 2019 MLB season. Blockbuster signings have happened in the offseason, knees have literally exploded, and foolish attempts to shorten the length of the game have run rampant once again.

Regardless of whether you're looking forward to the season or not, you're willing to wonder how long it takes before people begin to lose interest and start thinking about other sports again. After all, the NFL draft is coming up in a few weeks, and we're on the heels of the playoffs for both the NBA and NHL. It isn't that the game has become boring, per se, but in my older age, I will admit that the season has become quite long. As I mentioned in my previous post, there's always a guarantee that I'll have something to watch on TV when I'm not working, and I'm perfectly down with that.

But after a while, you tend to ask yourself, "Why?"

Even in the early days of baseball, up until the increase of teams in the 1960's, there were still upwards of 150 games played, as each team played their divisional opponents 22 times per season. [1] It sounds crazy, but the game was also much different back then. In those days, it was rather common to see pitchers tossing the entire game, and the quality of the equipment definitely made a difference, especially in the offensive department. Today, it's all about stats, performance, and the pace of the game.

One thing we've forgotten though, is that while those final points above are important, the human body, while it can do incredible things, is still a vessel that needs care, as the quality of it can decline as time progresses. Not every player on the 25-man roster can play all 162 games in a season. In fact, it's very rare. There are cases in which a player is placed on the disabled list from anywhere between 7 days (usually for concussions) or up to 60 for muscle strains or broken bones. You could be conditioned and be in the best physical shape possible, but freak accidents can still happen, and longevity can be placed at risk in a game like this. Plus, a mini-paternity leave has also been implemented in the league within the past few years, which honestly, that's pretty cool, and I'm a huge fan of that.

From a mentality standpoint not only from the players, but from the fans, eight months of being on the road and having to keep focus in a strategy-centric sport can be rather taxing. Is it really that important to play so much? Sure, there are players that go south of the US and play in the winter leagues to keep in form, but those games usually aren't as demanding and as crucial to the business in which they ultimately pledge allegiance to. While it may be a lifestyle, it has gotten to the point where we're losing interest because there's too much stimulation.

Hear me out.

You stand in front of a free cookie vending machine, and when you press the big blue button, a cookie comes popping out. Woohoo! Free cookie! Whenever you want more, you keep pressing the button. More cookies! Then, from pressing it so hard and so often, the button breaks, and cookies just keep coming out. You're going to get awfully tired of seeing all of the cookies flying out, and there is no way on this green earth that you're going to eat all of them without making yourself sick or near death.

This is Major League Baseball.
The button is broken.
There's too much of the game for consumption, and most fans are just tired of it.

Instead of shortening the length of the game itself, the marketing of the game and its players needs to change for sure. You can read my previous post about that below [but finish reading this one first]. Most of all, it should start being considered by Mr. Manfred and company that we just might not need as many games in the season anymore. We can find other ways to shorten the game. They're not going to be the easiest to pull off, but it might end up being more profitable in the end.

--

Here are a couple of suggestions to how this whole "shortening" business can be implemented in a much simpler way:

1) Eliminating multiple series with non-divisional opponents.

You'll notice that in the NFL, you don't play every single team in the league. Not only that, if they're not in your division, you won't play a given team more than once. For example, if you're the New Orleans Saints and you're playing the LA Rams--wait, I think I just rehashed some semi-healed wounds there, Who Dat Nation, my bad--you're either going to play them at the Superdome in the Bayou, or you're going out west to the LA Coliseum. You don't need anything more than that. If you're the St. Louis Cardinals, there's no reason you need to play the Miami Marlins both at home and in Florida. If you take away a lot of those extra series, and decide whether a non-divisional team plays home or away in a particular series, that easily shaves off about 50 games right off the bat (no pun intended).

2) Doing away with two-game and four-game series.

The two-game series are a fairly new thing in Major League Baseball, but four-game series have been a thing in the majors for a long while. If the first reason is enforced, there is less of a chance to split hairs in series records, and there is less travel involved when there is a two-game series.

This can probably be done without having to shorten the season at all. Rescheduling is all that really needs to be done here.

3) Reduce Spring Training.

I'm willing to bet that there are a number of people that are in agreement over this. Considering how long Spring Training is, it's a lot more endurance required by players at the Major League level to stay at top form. Sure, this will reduce the chance of minor league players making the 40-man roster, or it will add a little more strain to the decision-making process of the coaching staff, but how many games do you really need to know that you have the team that you need to play healthy and consistently for the next six months?

--


With all of those points noted, there is a serious backup that could definitely prevent this idea of a shorter season ever happening, and when it hit me after filling out all of those points above, my jaw did this kind of existential drop where everything went into slow motion and I saw these nuclear explosions all around me. This song was also playing, too.


PER MY LAST POST:
Remember how massive those player contracts were?

It doesn't stop there.

Say, for instance, that the season was reduced to 110 games, give or take a few. This would ultimately lead to higher ticket prices and higher prices in concessions since the ballparks have to make more business than usual (Note: I have a personal experience with the current insanity, as it was crazy enough that I drank a 16oz Miller Light can that cost $9 at Citizens' Bank Park last August, and a chicken sandwich by itself was $7.) Instead of "going to the ballpark on a whim" being a choice, it'll become more of a hard decision. If you're also eating on top of buying a ticket to the game--remember, you can't bring things in anymore--you're going to be shelling out more cash. This would be exponentially worse if the amount of home games are shortened for your team.

Granted, if you already incorporate the idea of the overall cost of a family of four going to a ballgame in some places, you figure:

• Average price of cheap seats in a Major League ballpark: ranging anywhere from $20-$40
• Average price of parking: anywhere from $10 to $30
• Average price of a full meal and drink: Meal could be upwards of $10 per person, plus $2-$5 extra for a drink

Now, multiply those prices by four.
Don't forget souvenirs, too!

(Note: Prices are ultimately going to vary on region. Prices in the California ballparks will obviously vary from ballparks in New York, and so on and so forth.) [2] 

The gift of American financial inflation doesn't exactly do us any good. Back in the 80's and 90's, you could make a day at the ballpark and not have to spend much. Today, you have to plan a day at the ballpark and budget the day as if it's a vacation. You can't have this as a luxury; it falls into the same track as NFL games, concerts, or other sporting events.
Think about it--there are about 80 home games every season, and the ticket and concessions rates run about the same as concerts and NFL games, and there are only eight or nine home NFL games every season.

Imagine how much more of an impact a shorter baseball season would come down upon the fans and the wallets. It would be massive.

What kind of monster have we created here?

Due to the business that is being run today, it's hard to reduce a season, and what we have right now is what we have to keep. It's like trying to take ingredients out of a mixture when they've already been mixed in. Is it detrimental to the players and teams as a whole? We haven't seen a lot of that, but you also have to wonder about the teams that haven't been contenders in the last couple of seasons, and what it's going to take for them to get their fanbase back. It's something that owners and the like have to consider, especially when it's a long season, and they need people to watch the games in order to keep their team running.

Well, nuts.

I hate it when I run into self-made roadblocks while trying to make a point of conversation.

I guess for me that this is going to be a very long journey to October.
I just hope you're well-hydrated and strapped in. It's time for 2,430 games in the next six months.


-- Stephanie

___________________
Other articles referenced:

[1] Why 162 Games? - The Sports Historian - https://www.thesportshistorian.com/why-162-games/#
[2] The 7 most and least expensive stadiums to watch a Major League Baseball game - CBS News - https://www.cbsnews.com/media/the-7-most-and-least-expensive-stadiums-to-watch-a-major-league-baseball-game/2/

Major League Baseball's Identity Crisis

Your eyes aren't deceiving you. It's been well over two years since I've written in this blog. Not too long after I wrote the last post, a short film happened. Then my faithful laptop of ten years died last summer. They aren't excuses. I had a good time, and some crises happened. But I feel like I need to write in here once more.

As I take a sip of ChocoVine and put my fingers to these keys, another baseball season is finally upon us, and my wardrobe changes to adjust to that. It's the time of year where I actually have something to either watch on television every single night, or listen to a broadcast on the radio. The football season has become that for me, and that isn't because the Eagles actually won a Super Bowl in the time I haven't written in here. I digress on that point.

Yesterday morning, we all witnessed a storybook retirement for one Ichiro Suzuki, as he gave his thank yous and waved his goodbyes in front of a Japanese crowd during the eighth inning against the Oakland A's during their Japan series. It was pretty amazing, and it felt like a piece of my childhood was ending. Although he didn't ever experience a World Series (the Mariners totally could have if the Yankees hadn't prevented that in 2001), he was still a master class in the batter's box, and was always a class act on and off the field.

I'm going to miss him, but not for the reason that you would think.

For the last five or six years, it hasn't come as any surprise that general interest in baseball hasn't been as strong as it has in years past. I can say that I fell into that category, and it wasn't because the Phillies started tanking and their dynasty died a fiery death. Mr. Manfred over in MLB's headquarters think that general loss of interest is because the average time of a game is too long. Funny, that was the exact thing I complained about in my last post two years ago. Here we are, still dealing with it after all of this time.

Even if you don't have a marketing or a public relations degree, it shouldn't be that hard to see that MLB's identity crisis goes way beyond keeping millennials seated in a folding chair for more than three hours.

It has everything to do with the marketing of the players. It has literally become a lost art, and it absolutely burns in every open wound and welt from a slide and hit-by-pitch.

When you watch a sport, you really should know the other teams involved, and know what kind of special players exist in the league to keep things fresh. My favorite thing to do in the last two years have been to ask people who aren't the absolute biggest baseball fans to name five big MLB players that aren't even on their own team. The two most common I had gotten were Mike Trout and Bryce Harper, and then I'd get names of guys that have long since retired.

General interest in ballplayers reached a head in mainstream news, not because they were good or because they were under the gavel of the law due to domestic abuse, but because they were receiving the biggest contracts ever administered in the history of sports. When Alex Rodriguez signed his ten-year, $275 million deal with the New York Yankees in 2007, that kind of contract was unheard of.

Now, twelve years later, we have:

• Nolan Arenado of the Rockies with an eight-year, $260 million deal
• Manny Machado of the Padres with a ten-year, $300 million contract
• Bryce Harper of the Phillies with a thirteen-year, $330 million deal
• Mike Trout of the Angels with a twelve-year, wait for it, $426.5 million contract

**It also worth mentioning that Giancarlo Stanton is also in the fourth year of his twelve-year, $325 deal with the Miami Marlins**

If you took a look at the highest-paid athletes in the world, SIXTEEN of the Top-20 paid athletes in the world are MLB players (three of the remaining four are NBA players, and the other is a boxer, which is really uncanny).

If you're pumping out this much money to have your talent, why on this green earth are they not getting marketed properly?!

I'd like to provide the largest example of how it isn't happening at all.

Remember this commercial?
LEBRON JAMES IS ON THE MOUND. HE IS A BASKETBALL PLAYER.
Why don't you have someone like Clayton Kershaw or Max Scherzer do it?

The lack of marketing and endorsement deals that baseball players have received have been slim to none, and when your biggest marketing effort is Little League, Nike, and New Balance, there's a serious problem. A 2016 article from the International Business Times attributes it to the idea that players are on the road for so many days of the year, and a 162-game schedule isn't ideal to promote a brand or ensure brand loyalty. [1] Now, when you throw this into the conversation, there's obviously one of two things wrong with this: (1) It's a lame excuse, because I remember seeing big-name players in advertising in the late-90's and early-2000's during the MLB season, and (2) It's becoming painfully evident that it isn't the length of a single game, but the length of the season as a whole has finally become too much for the average consumer.

(At some point, I'll write about how the 162-game season should go the way of the dinosaur. I think it'll be great writing therapy for a now-disgruntled sports fan like myself.)

When it comes to marketing the player, the main goal doesn't become brand loyalty to the product their endorsing, but becoming the face of the league in which they play. It has been stated year in and year out that guys like Mike Trout don't want that attention, and he's arguably one of the hottest names in baseball today. So, that being said, who is willing to grab that brass ring and keep the game alive? It goes beyond skill and longevity today. It's all about image and identity.

Okay, so the biggest argument I have going against me on this one is the fact that baseball 20-25 years prior was more than just table conversation and player marketing. The game was so much more different before the steroid scandals, because some of the feats achieved were superhero-like. The drama behind each game was like watching Attitude Era WWE wondering what was going to happen on this week's edition on "This Week In Baseball." It wasn't an overly proud time in baseball, but seeing what was going to happen in the home run wars was must-see TV.
This doesn't poo-poo the fact that watching impressive pitching performances in today's game isn't so at all, but the implementation of sabermetrics and the need for hard-hitting action in the game in a short amount of time is the figurative equivalent of steroids in the 1990's. Strength is good, but longevity and brandworthy moments are important to the growth of the game.

Give them a reason to keep returning to the stadium and the TV sets, not a reason to walk away from the stadium and the TVs faster.

I end this post with asking Kyler Murray this one question: How do you like waiting for the NFL draft knowing you missed out on a massive payday?

-- Stephanie

___________________
Other articles referenced:

[1] MLB Stars Get Massive Contracts But Few Endorsements. Here's Why. - International Business Times - https://www.ibtimes.com/mlb-stars-get-massive-contracts-few-endorsements-heres-why-2348181

Cutting to the (Literal) Chase

I understand that this is only my third post since the sixth anniversary of The Sports Nut Blogs, but much like any child or old friend, I must acknowledge the special day. Happy Seventh Birthday, dearest blog.

Last week, I heard a bit of stirring from the realm of baseball. After all, pitchers and catchers reported last week, with full squads working out as early as this weekend. Yeah, that's all well and good. We're used to that kind of stuff.

But that isn't what I'm writing about right now.

As most of us should know, this is the second full season with Rob Manfred as commissioner of Major League Baseball. Much like any leader before him, we tend to wonder what kind of ideas and suggestions he'll bring to the table. Considering how Bud Selig twisted the game a lot in 25-some-odd years, such as adding the Wild Card and helping birth the implementation of instant replay, he has had a lot expected of him. It's like we're asking the question: "What will the President of the United States do within his first 100 days?" Now that his feet are completely immersed--not just simply wet--in commish matters, we're starting to see a couple of "pitches," so to speak. [This pun was unplanned.]

This little number is causing a ton of commotion all over the sport and in baseball talks around town. If you've been living under a rock, it's a proposed regulation that will alter the rules of a game in extra innings. In my 26 years of life, I have experienced a ton of extra innings games. The longest one I can remember was 20 innings, and at least three position players had to pitch during the game. It was one of those games where I thanked baseball Twitter for helping me out and letting me know what was going on when my MLB feed cut out. While it's considered "free baseball" for all of the fans, it's oftentimes seen as the worst case scenario for any baseball team. It's where strategy really comes into play, especially when your bullpen is on the verge of total burnout. No team wants that, especially if they're smack-dab in the middle of a ten-game road trip, and their next day off isn't for another three days or so. But you have to get that W, right? You have to get it in any way possible.

In the chess-like structure of baseball, there are very few ways that you can curb the course of the game. However, this is what the rule would be:

In an extra inning game, both teams will begin their half of the inning with a runner on second base. This practice continues until there is a definitive winner at the bottom half of the inning.

(wrinkled face)

This honestly sounds like a rule you'd implement in a men's over-50 recreational softball league.

Could you imagine if they had this type of rule during Game 7 of the [Hell Has Frozen Over Because The Cubs Or Indians Could Win The] World Series? It wouldn't have been as fun. Sure, there would be a bit more tension, but it almost feels like you're cheating and rushing everybody out the door (you know what I mean). You may as well say: "Forget it! The game ends in a tie! You had your nine-inning fix!" I'm getting vibes similar to how NHL games would just end in a tie after a short overtime period before the shootout came after the 2004-2005 lockout. It feels exactly like that--forcing a winner.

During the game, it's as if you're putting on training wheels or a completely one-sided handicap on a team if they're not pushing hard enough to win decisively. Plus, this would also leave teams to decide if they want to place their fastest player in scoring position, thus affecting the lineup and fielding in either the bottom half of the inning or the possible next. It's like the flex player rule in softball, but used on a Major League scale in the event that "everybody has to have a role, but they're not going to bat or field."

The main reason for the proposal is that, according to a USA Today article, there is a need to attract the game to a younger audience, as the supposed average age to watch a TV broadcast is over 50. [SOURCE] Where that statistic came from, I'd really like to know. Does that make me 50 in spirit? 

Anyway.

There have been moves over the past few years to pick up the pace of each game, going so far as to giving the pitcher a time limit to set up, communicate with the catcher, and make his stretch. Of course, it's one step forward and two steps back, considering the almighty instant replay rule happens--sometimes more than once in a game--and the communication from New York and the final ruling itself can take anywhere from three to five minutes. You know who else encounters that same problem? The NFL, and with the clock-running tactics and everything else, there is only really 15 minutes of real gameplay within a three-hour broadcast of the game. Okay, there are only three days out of the week when there are games in the NFL as opposed to just about every day for baseball, but still, who's really losing out here?

You can't place the entire blame of pacing on extra innings, either. Sure, there were "record setting numbers" of the amount of extra innings games played during the regular season in 2013, but according to a Chicago Tribune article originally from the Washington Post, out of the 2,428 combined games played during the 2016 season, only 185 of those games went to extras, and 122 of those 185 games went to either ten or eleven innings. [SOURCE] In 2013, that number was 239.

From a CBS Sports article:

"There have been 239 extra-inning games in Major League Baseball so far this season. In 2011, there were 237, which was the previous record-holder. Prior to that, the most games to head to extras in history in a season was 220, which was done in 1986, 1991, 2007 and 2010.So four of the top six extra-inning seasons in history have come in the last seven seasons" (Snyder, 2013).

Okay. I get that. However, there are also thirty teams in the league. Each team plays 180 games. That number is going to climb. However, the numbers have gone down considerably since then, and there shouldn't be any room for worry. To be honest, it sounds like we're chopping off our big toe to save our ailing eyesight.

I got to thinking about this small point, but there probably won't be any significance about this particular matter. While the MLBPA isn't a fan of this proposal, there's a possible chance that the stadium staffs are going to be perfectly fine with this. Granted, I'm not 100% certain if they are granted overtime hours during extra inning games, but I know for a fact that working at the stadium isn't their only gig, and they may have to get up early the next day for their actual job. I don't know--they may not even be granted a say on this matter, because it looks like it will be full steam ahead on this rule.

There really isn't a way to test this outside of the regular season, either. Spring Training games will end in a tie after the ninth inning for obvious reasons, being that it's too early for that crap, and you don't want to tire out the promising new guys. As far as I've researched, I haven't been able to find an exhibition game (the games right before Opening Day at the main ballparks) that has gone beyond nine innings. If this proposal goes through and the extra innings rule is enforced come April, there is going to be some very loud and very obvious backlash from the crowds and maybe even the broadcast crews based on the discretion of their front offices.

As for me, I am heavily against this proposal. This isn't even me speaking from a purist perspective; I'm the type of person that enjoys the designated hitter rule in the American League only and not in both. Putting a runner on second base starting in the tenth inning is an obvious sign that the league wants to rush the game to its end. I can understand why with the pacing, but you can't change your ways and immediately expect your target demographic to come rushing to you. This isn't Grease, where both Danny and Sandy have to completely change who they are to try and be liked by one another and their groups. Stop. Just be who you are and market your younger players and long-standing iron men that are bound to be legends. Geez, how did my generation get sucked into the game? Not the steroid scandal--I mean, of course, the whole Mark McGwire/Sammy Sosa thing was awesome, but I'm talking about Ken Griffey, Jr., Tony Gwynn, and Cal Ripken, Jr. Today, you've got guys like Mike Trout, Bryce Harper, and Noah Syndergaard that are bound to be in the Hall Of Fame someday if they stay healthy. Focus on the franchise guys. That will get the younger boys going.

At least...at least I think so.

-- Stephanie

That Large Game on Sunday: Go Big or Go Home

FADE IN
EXT. SOMEWHERE IN THE STICKS OF NEW JERSEY - MIDDAY
A rustic-colored Toyota comes into view. It pulls off the road slowly to a shoulder and turns off. The Hamsa Hand still swings in the rear-view mirror after a couple of seconds. The figure seated to the left does not move.
Suddenly, the driver-side door opens. Out steps a hooded FIGURE in a bright red winter coat with fur outlining the hood. The Figure pushes the door shut and looks around at the desolate land. Leaning against the vehicle, the Figure reaches into the coat pocket and pulls out a small piece of paper, which reads: "FEBRUARY 21, 2010 -- I CREATED A BLOG SO I COULD GET A JOB AS A SPORTS WRITER SOMEDAY."
The Figure lowers the coat hood, revealing a 26-year-old woman, who is staring deeply at a vacant lot with papers flying all around it. She narrows her eyes.

"I must rebuild."


I'm going to say the dreaded words and pray that I don't get slammed with a royalty fee for using it. I literally can't afford that.

(ahem) The Super Bowl.

It's the one day where everyone tries out their best attempts at indoor grilling, making elaborate dips, drinking as much cheap beer as possible, and most importantly, critiquing the types of advertisements that show up during this Game of Games. Channeling our inner Joel, Crow, and Tom Servo of Mystery Science Theater 3000 has become the norm, and to be honest, it's not a bad thing. It's become a way to bond.

Year in and year out, bathroom breaks are hard to come by, as the masses have been fed with either the catchphrases of the era...



...the most terrifying of...things...



...or super exciting previews for a show (suddenly getting canceled--lol The Good Wife) or a highly-anticipated movie coming out soon.

Over the years, it has become public knowledge about how disgustingly expensive it is to purchase thirty seconds of space for advertisement. Last year, it was reported that it will cost you $5 MILLION for a thirty second advertisement. Yes. Five million. In comes the joke where: "I will probably never see five million dollars in my lifetime, let alone thirty seconds." The only way that Super Bowl coordinators and producers have gotten away with doing this is for two main reasons: One, this is the one championship out of the Big Four that non-sports fans are more likely to watch--aka, "checking out the season finale of 'Sports'"--and two, this is the only sport of the Big Four that has a one-and-done championship final. C'mon, the latter is pure logic, but the one thing that fires up overall ratings are the advertisements that catch the attention of the viewers who don't even follow football. It's a marriage of agendas. Some will walk in, saying, "I want to see the new trailer for (insert movie here--probably Star Wars), so I have to sit and wait," or, "I need a reason to laugh and tweet," or, "OMG LUKE BRYAN'S BUTT IN JEANS. YAAAAS GAGA." Forgive me for typing that last one, but that's pure truth right there. Facebook and Twitter have become existent proof that everyone gets involved to some capacity in Super Bowl shenanigans.

That said... this is a Super Bowl itself for advertisement agencies and companies. Every year, they have to pull out all the stops and literally "go big or go home." We've seen some of the silliest advertisements coming from companies like Doritos, and we've also seen some extreme tearjerkers from companies like Budweiser. Depending on where you live, you'll also get some regional advertisements. In various regions last year, The Church Of Scientology shelled out some pennies to advertise for thirty seconds. Personally, I didn't see it, but according to Twitter at the time, it happened, and of course, I searched it out and found it. You'll also run into instances where companies bought out a bunch of ad space, but they only have one or two commercials to compensate for that. Oh, you know what I mean about the repeat commercials, and how they might not have even been any good to begin with, and how you'll have to either sit through them again or run to the bathroom and do your business in record time in order to not miss anything decent. Good times.

You'll also get the naysayers who claim: "You have all of this money to sponsor and advertise and product-place, and you can't place the money where it matters most?" To be fair, you're going to get those people everywhere, where they say the money should go toward more efficient means such as the education system. Okay, that's true. That's very, very true. The job market is not that great, and people aren't getting paid enough in full-time jobs to survive properly and be loan-free. I get that. But just like a game show, companies are firing their shots to win the biggest impact on the masses. It literally is an escape for viewers, and it's their job to be the more memorable brand. We're watching them do their job. Does that make us lazy? No. That's like saying we're horrible for celebrating Thanksgiving because of tortured turkeys and advertisements mentioning the holiday. Everybody acknowledges Super Bowl Sunday to some capacity, even though they may not particularly partake in it. That's just how today's culture and society is. You know it's there--it's all dependent on how much you ultimately consume. You could be on the outer circle, for all we know, but if you're a Lady Gaga fan, or you just happen to have plans with someone who's throwing a party, into the bullseye of the circle you go!

Advertising during any sporting event is a sport in itself. Sponsors are tacked onto just about any televised event or radio broadcast. It's the necessary evil that we must acknowledge. Oh, Pepsi is the sponsor? Bottles of 3/4 filled Pepsi have to be on the broadcast tables, because they have to be prominent, and it has to look like they've been consumed! The most obvious one for NFL broadcasts are Microsoft Surface Pro tablets being placed on the desks during the halftime and post-game reports and on the field by players to go over previous and future plays. You may be annoyed by it, or you may just blow it off and ignore the fact that the brand is everywhere. You're not a bad person for possibly having either thought toward it, but it isn't hard to ignore the fact that advertising has a pure death grip on the game itself--not just the athletes off of the field.

Seeing it from both ends, it's rather annoying. I'm still a sports fan, and I enjoy watching the game. But it is also irritating to see practices from the field I studied in college. It's white-collar warfare, while you get these pictures on your news feed:

I seriously had to make this myself because every search engine and social media outlet failed me.
Oh well.

It's the world that we live in, but morality, business, and pleasure are becoming way too heavily integrated into our society. We can't enjoy a game without getting flooded with ads. They say that children are exposed to at least 25,000 advertisements per year. Per. Year. [source for statistic] It's a business that has to squeeze in their products, all while shaping it to be pleasurable for adults and create a buzz for them to talk about it with others. I hate to sound like a social justice warrior here, but while advertising for a brand is all well and good, I'm pretty sure that the financial values are a bit ridiculous and that they're definitely not going into the right things. I digress on the matter.

This Sunday, it's going to be big. Not just for the athletes and fans, but for the big businesses and conglomerates. Which side will you be on? Where will you go big?

-- Stephanie

Saying "Nope" to the "Dope"

The past three months have been pretty crazy. I've written stuff, I was in a short film, and I've networked a ton. I am back with a bunch of knowledge, and a hinkerin' for some sports commentary. Let's have some fun.

You know what's really dope? Being an Olympian.

You know what isn't dope? Doping. Clearly.

The Summer Olympics in Rio are less than three months away, meaning that we will be gifted with two weeks worth of sporting insanity before we know it. (Cue up those tympani, kids.) As a safety precaution by the World Anti-Doping Agency, they have conducted tests on medal winners from the 2008 Beijing and 2012 London Games. While many of them passed through without much issue over the course of multiple testing practices, the run of tests conducted on the samples of medalists after the London Games have evidence that could possibly change the face of Rio and future Games to come.

While the names of the athletes and the countries that they represent haven't been released as of yet, a number of reports are pointing to athletes from Russia, as their drug testing and submission practices have been deemed sketchy, allegedly doing somewhat of a "bait-and-switch" technique to ensure passing drug tests. (It's seriously dirty--the fourth link at the end of the post will take you to the source.) Due to the amount of failed drug tests not only from the alleged Russian athletes in question but from other athletes worldwide, investigations have been opened with aid from the IOC, and a whole new can of worms in the world of doping has been opened and dished.

The thing that needs to be noted before I move further with any other opinions and statements is this: There is actually a chance that, by this time next month, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) will make the decision on whether Russia will be allowed to compete in the 2016 Olympics in Rio. This is a big deal. We've seen countries barred from the Games before, but when it's a powerhouse country like Russia (which, well, had it's thing with being a superpower, especially when it was referred to as the USSR, but that's another story) possibly being shut out of the Games, you're going to see a lot more surveillance and a lot more crackdowns. In fact, you might be seeing a heck of a lot more lawsuits stemming from the IAAF's decision.

You tend to wonder what is in the thought processes of these doctors and trainers that administer these supplements to athletes. I'm pretty sure they know what is appropriate and what is, and I'm more than certain that they know the consequences if the athlete fails a drug test. Plus, I don't believe that any sane athlete would want to jeopardize their careers with a big hairy blip such as a failed drug test. Now, note: the list of banned substances for athletes is actually very large. Of course, you have the standard PEDs and steroids, but you also have to remember that marijuana and adderall--even if you've been prescribed this and use it medically--also fall into the category. You have to be straight-up clean of anything that will affect your performance to the point where it enhances your physical ability or even reaction time.
[Which, if I'm understanding this correctly, you won't see someone like USMNT goalkeeper Tim Howard failing any drug tests for competitions, since any medication that he takes actually treats and curbs symptoms of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and Tourette's, and not exponentially enhancing his performance otherwise.]

Whether the PED drug use is intentional in these athletes or not, it has become a ridiculous, widespread issue.  For instance, in an even smaller scale, there have been a number of MLB players who have been slammed with 80-game suspensions this year due to testing positive for a form of anabolic steroid. Are they fully aware of what's going into their system at a given time? Heck, is it even in what they eat? It very well could be that, too, but sometimes it's just rotten luck if you're a meat-eater that consumes products with other "things" being injected into them. Like, there's no filter based on those factors, and the drug-testing policies in professional sports aren't meant to be flimsy. When it comes to something like the Olympics, there are going to be a metric ton of flaming hoops and spike pits and shark tanks abound in order to make sure that every athlete coming through is all-natural and truly the best in what they do.

The sad part about this is, is that this problem can't entirely be curbed. What it boils down to is that sports is a business, and athletes are employees that want to get the best results and get the paycheck they believe they deserve. This also applies to athletic trainers, agents, and the organizations in which they are a part of. This isn't to say that every single athlete, agent, trainer, etc is dishonest or a shyster; but you'll have to admit that there are a lot of apples that spoil the bunch and ruin it for others. There will always be some blip on the radar, whether the doping is intentional or accidental. When I mean accidental, I mean unknowingly eating the substance like steroids in meats or the case of American judoka Nicholas Delpopolo, who stated after his ban from the 2012 Games that he didn't know there was pot baked in what he was eating. I wish I were making that story up. But anyway, there is always a dishonest downside to the honest athletes that train for this four-year event.

There are people that enjoy the athleticism and passion of sports such as myself. But sometimes, we are subjected to the dirty side of it all, because the passion of others may stem from something else that isn't so pure, and suddenly, the athleticism doesn't seem so real. It may not even be dreamlike, either. But still, we push on, and hope to not rely on the fake stuff to be the athlete that kids look up to.

That's a dream we should be working toward.

-- Stephanie

(Here's the stuff I read up on before this post. Enjoy. 1, 2, 3, 4)

Far From A Pick-Six

The path has changed, but the starting point is still the same. In fact, I think they took the ground and turned it into some hipster joint. Oh well.

For the record, this isn't going to be a long, drawn-out post, most especially for the fact that I write one on this same day every year. Why? Because on this day, six years ago, I procrastinated and ended up making the most out of that time. Believe me, sometimes the best magic happens when you're putting something off that you don't care about, like homework for a college class that you end up acing anyway.

Writing has certainly gotten me places. It's gotten exposure from large groups, and it's also given me a bit of credibility in circles after I talk shop. Even though I don't write in here as often as I once did, I still practice what I've preached, and I still take out the time to appreciate something that I once wanted to make a career out of. I also take the time out to impress the living snot out of unsuspecting males in multiple environments. I'm the Sports Nut Ninja, I guess.

The past two years on this blog have been slower than usual, but The Sports Nut Blogs is like a childhood home to me. Whenever there is a topic or a piece that I want to discuss and there isn't a person around that cares to hear, this is where I come. Yes. It's like my own Field Of Dreams. I built it, and I will come here to explore and play the game. I've said it time and time again that I don't do this for the exposure or for the recognition, but if anyone cares to read it I won't mind. I've wrestled the idea in my head a bunch of times that I was going to monetize the blog and go into overdrive and write about everyday events like I originally planned to, but the idea never came to fruition. Why? Because this isn't the purpose. This is my child. I'm not going to sell the child for a couple of cows and a donkey. I'm going to take care of it and nurture it and hope that I can afford to send it to college (that is, if the Internet and world exist in the next twelve years, but whatever).

You get the point though.

If you've been around for a week, a year, five years, or the whole flipping time, thank you. I'm glad you've visited.

Here's to another year of a girl talking sports and impressing the snot out of you. ...Peasant.


-- Stephanie

Designated Arguments - Sweet and Sour

What does a normal person do in the middle of a blizzard? They write. Duh.

With about a month to go before pitchers and catchers report to Spring Training in Florida or Arizona, the talk of baseball is getting bigger and bigger, despite the fact that the Super Bowl hasn't even happened yet. Talks of rookies and veterans are taking shape around the bars and taverns, and the futures of team signings hang in the balance.

Most of these conversations are fun to chime in on. However, there is one argument that I (personally) hate to chime in on, and it's this:

The Designated Hitter Rule.

Thanks for the fitting picture, Edvard Munch.

I alluded to this topic in a post about interleague play nearly six years ago, long before the Astros jumped ship to the American League and began the trend of having at least one interleague series going on in the Majors at any point during the regular season; in fact, this piece was one of the first fifteen posts of this blog. After I made a quick trip to the bathroom to throw up upon reading this older piece, I came back to my chair, knowing that I can provide a way better argument this time around, and I can actually avenge my 19-year-old self from attempting to sound logical.
[Here--here's some digital ipecac syrup to get you going.]

I never wanted to touch the topic, to be quite honest, and that was because I knew it would be a total mess from the start. There are a lot of good reasons to adopt it league-wide, and there are not so good reasons to adopt it. Both sides have good points to the point that they practically cancel each other out. Seriously, it's like asking the question of whether you like Coke or Pepsi, or Playstation or XBox, or Democrats or Republicans. You can understand both sides of the story, but if you really had to choose, what would you choose?

This is the reason why I have never talked about this until now. It is that difficult for me to decide.

So this is why I'm going to pull you by the hair and you're going to experience it with me.
We're going to do something here called "Sweet and Sour," instead of plainly calling it "pros and cons." Why? Each argument for and against aren't all exactly bad nor good--they're mostly personal preferences. On that note, let's explore!

Point #1: Uniform rules across both leagues.

Sweet: What you see will be what you get. If you're a total outsider to the sport and watch three games featuring six different teams in a given time period, there's a chance that you're going to experience the designated hitter rule at least once. It won't completely throw you for a loop as to why one game will have the rule and the other won't. When a National League team plays against an American League team, the DH rule will only go into effect if both teams are playing at the ballpark of the American League team. So if the New York Mets played the New York Yankess at Citi Field, there would be no DH rule since the Mets are in the National League; but if they played at Yankee Stadium, the DH rule go into effect.

See, this would be confusing if you didn't know what team was in which league.

Sour: The best gimmick of the Big Four sports in the United States is this particular rule. It's as if there are two different sport countries with two different sports jurisdictions. Having the DH rule remain in the American League keeps a different dimension in the sport as a whole, so when full interleague play had rolled around (especially before the 2013 season--thanks, Houston), you had teams walk in having to adjust and show how well they can maneuver the transition. Of course, not all pitchers are happy with this idea, but that'll be explained in this next point.

Point #2: Pitchers [only] gonna pitch.

Sweet: Sure, pitchers have to have some pretty swift arms to craft a nasty pitch, but just because they have swift arms doesn't mean those same arms are crafty enough to swing at one of those pitches. Not only that, it makes the pitcher more susceptible to being a "victim" at the plate, so to speak, as they have the worry of getting hit by a pitch or getting injured while making a run to a base. When pitchers are as important of a commodity as they are today, you don't want to lose them to freak accidents.

Sour: Sports are all about how versatile you are. Most times, if you're a one-trick pony, you're gonna get figured out fast. In the NFL, linemen have to be able to shift in case of an injury, and rushers have to know the routes in a receiving play. In MLS, plays will make midfielders shift to defensive lines in case if there's an offensive threat. In an extra inning game in the National League and you're low on players, there's a chance you'll have to use your pitchers as hitters. It isn't as common to see a position player as a pitcher in the American League, but it has happened before, and you're putting those guys in danger of injury as well. So why not have the pitchers show more gusto? Plus, not all pitchers hate the idea of having to bat.

Point #3: Extended careers.

Sweet: Frank Thomas. Albert Pujols. David Ortiz. While one of these three mentioned are retired, the other two are in the late thirties into early forties with gas still left in the tank. The retired name mentioned (Thomas) played into his forties. This usually isn't heard of very often, considering that most older names make way for younger guys coming through the system, and that older players are more likely to suffer injury while on the field. However, they get a new lease on life in not having nearly as much high-impact since they are either platooned or given the designated hitter spot. Playing 162 games is usually unheard of, and for a good reason (unless you were Cal Ripken, Jr.). Once age settles in, long seasons tend to take a toll. It preserves the player and keeps him playing to his strengths.

Sour: There are younger guys simply itching to make it to the Majors and step out of the farm system. With a heavy dosage of high-impact play occurring in baseball, and the measures to condition the body for long-term play, it's slowly becoming a quick case of "out with the old, in with the new." Bigger contracts are keeping the older guns in there, but for what? To have promising young players sit in AAA for goodness knows how long? Sure, it's extending careers, but it's keeping younger guys in the minors for so long, only to have them brought up much later to have shorter Major League careers. It's backwards.

Point #4: The sport needs more of an offensive burst.

Sweet: Within the past ten years, we have seen more no-hitters and perfect games thrown than ever before. Is it because of the almost-free out provided by the pitcher in the batting order and the cut of the flow in the offensive lineup? It's possible. With an added utility bat, we could see a lot more strategy and keep games at an even keel and pace.

Sour: No. No it doesn't. The sport is just fine. The score is not supposed to resemble an NFL score, and pitchers also aren't supposed to look like wimps. The game would definitely be unbalanced if it was an all-offensive showdown. Sometimes, the best games are the pitcher's duels, and as I had mentioned in a previous post, the game of baseball is, statistically, a game of failure. There are going to be times when the balance gets thrown one way during a game. It can't be so one-sided all the time.

Point #5: Less lineup drainage.

Sweet: Ah, the infamous double-switch. Once the pitcher comes out, the pinch hitter who swung for him goes on the field and replaces another position player. When that's done, you take out a player who can still hold his own and deliver in the clutch, especially if the game goes much longer than expected. You practically eliminate that with the designated hitter. If there's a position player that needs to be benched in favor of another bat (usually if there's a pitcher that one has seen enough), you can take that chance without worrying that your pitcher needs to be replaced later on in the batting lineup due to pitch count.

Sour: Adding the DH takes away a great amount of the strategy that is needed to be a Major League manager. Sports are much like a game of chess, where you have to predict the other player's moves, all while crafting your own to adjust to possible situations in the future. If you put that giant fence of a DH rule in there, you don't really have much to do strategy for in a game unless if it's between a specific hitter and a pitcher.

__________

Okay, now that this is all out of the way, you're probably wondering what my stance is. With the arguments presented, my stance appears to be about as mysterious as Stephen Hawking's brain.

You see, growing up, I respected the pitchers that had batted, because it gave them a reason to help themselves in case if they gave up a lousy run or two. However, I also saw how the American League pitchers reacted to having to bat during interleague (especially guys like Tim Wakefield) and later watch how awkward they looked at the plate. Since then, I really haven't changed my stance. Having a one-rule difference in each league is what makes the game so unique. You see different forms of strategy in each league, and watching each league come together to do battle separates the men from the boys in the realm of management.

If that type of strategy gets taken away, you take away a specific dimension of the game. Then again, when just about anything changes in a sport, people will be apprehensive until you get immersed into it and finally accept it. That applies to when the DH rule was first implemented in 1973, or when the Wild Card came to be after 1994, or when the Wild Card was expanded to two teams in 2012, or when Instant Replay started its use in the tail-end of 2009. If they spread the DH rule to the National League, I would probably feel uncomfortable with it, because I didn't grow up and watch the Phillies in that format. But, of course, that doesn't mean that I wouldn't accept it after a while.

I would probably just be that one person in my old age going: "When I was your age, the pitcher actually batted!"

If the rule would be put into effect by Rob Manfred, which is looking more likely according to reports, it would definitely get backlash from old-school fans, but more accepting from new-age baseball enthusiasts.
(Proof of reports are here and here.)

As for now, we wait to see how this upcoming season progresses. Who knows? We could be seeing the last of awkward pitchers swinging and missing, and possibly missing Bartolo Colon and Madison Bumgarner swinging for the fences and actually getting it there.

-- Stephanie

(Some of the outline of this was based off of FOX Sports' article: "7 reasons why the NL finally should embrace the DH." Article Referenced is found by clicking here.)