In wake of the three-day Game Five, the idea of a neutral site World Series has been thrown around the baseball world. Reports indicate that it isn't likely, and this shouldn't be surprising. Baseball is as steeped in tradition as any sport, and the idea of doing away with the "home field" in a World Series seems ludicrous. True, it would alleviate weather concerns, but for the most part, the weather is rarely a factor.
I think this way in part, because I've dreamed of watching the Astros win the clinching game of the World Series in Boston or New York since I was a little guy. I don't know why I'd rather them win it on the road. Maybe because those are the "grandest" stages in all of baseball, in my humble opinion. It's probably just my way of sticking it to the powers that be, as well. Either way- I don't think I would like seeing all the games being played in LA or Phoenix, or wherever they'd decide the neutral site would be.
0 recs | 14 comments
Neutral sites only make sense in
sports where there is only 1 game to determine the outcome. Otherwise, I don’t see a point in it.
This was the 1st WS game EVER delayed like this… no reason to change any rules for something like this.
Stros Bro - October 30, 2008
I think the Boras idea
For the 9 game Series when which two middle games (no clinch-able) are played at a neutral site. I think it could be a cool experience for the citizens of Kanas City, Pittsburgh, Arlington, etc.
Stephen Higdon - October 30, 2008
I hate any idea Boras has
just because he’s a scum bag…
I also think 9 games it too many games. There’s nothing wrong with 7 games and the way they do it now.
Stros Bro - October 30, 2008
Is nine too many?
Because it would require the off days to be taken away, which would make the series way more legitimate. The series is a joke as is, because you only need four pitchers and you can max your bullpen out. Neither of which resembles the regular season in any way shape or form. So if you take away the off days and play nine games, the series gains some legitimacy. Travel would suck, but it sucks during the regular season too.
Further, it would be a huge money maker for MLB and it would great more national attention for the series.
Of course, I doubt that matters because if someone who’s reviled comes it with an idea it has to be bad. Which clearly undermines any of the logic that supports this claim.
Stephen Higdon - October 30, 2008
No
assholes still have good ideas every once in a while… I just don’t believe this is one of them.
9 games is too many. That’s my opinion. This blog is for opinions and I have stated mine. I think the way they do it now is fine. If you go to 9 games, then people will complain that that isn’t enough to really pick a winner.. why not go to 11 games. Hell, why not go to 19 games… where does it end?
Stros Bro - October 30, 2008
Well now there's something to discuss
You’re right, the argument of anything can happen in a short series will alway stand, but I think MLB needs to, at a minimum, ax all the rest days from all the post season series, because of the affect it has on how the games get pitched now. It’s not even close to realistic. I think that the 9 game series with the neutral site can accomplish all of these things and even add to the series, but it also has shortcomings, but it’s a novel idea at least.
Stephen Higdon - October 30, 2008
Selig's pick...
…for a neutral site will be Milwaukee :)
Joh - October 30, 2008
zing!
Evan Hochschild - October 30, 2008
Even
If the Brewers were in the series.
Stephen Higdon - October 30, 2008
Let's just play all of our games in Milwaukee
and we can contract to six teams – Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, Dodgers, Mets and Brewers. We’ll shorten games to three innings, but we’ll only play 24 games.
Seriously, what’s with all these sportswriters suggesting this crap? In the last two days, I’ve heard them suggest neutral sites, shortened seasons, and shortened games. Then they all complain that this world series was boring, because none of the big teams were in it. Bunch of blathering idiots, I tell you what.
Only_A_Lad - October 30, 2008
It could just be the
Red Sox vs. Yankees and the Cubs vs. the Dodgers/Mets (Who ever has more wins in the regular season) in the Pennants to set up the World Series.
Stephen Higdon - October 30, 2008
The only problem with that
is every year the Cubs would have 1/4 chance of breaking the curse…which is what makes that team so marketable.
Stephen Higdon - October 30, 2008
Not a problem
we’ll just start scripting games. It’ll be like professional wrestling.
Come to think of it, baseball would get better ratings if it were more like wrestling. We already have walk-up music, now all we need is smoke machines and laser-light shows. Pitchers and hitters will call each other out before plate appearances, and fights will be a nightly occurence.
In fact, fights will be scored. Kyle Farnsworth will finally make the all-star team.
I strongly feel that these changes will save the game of baseball.
Only_A_Lad - October 30, 2008
Screw the summer of '98
This sounds awesome.
Stephen Higdon - October 30, 2008
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of The Crawfish Boxes to post a comment.