Pretty much, It's baseball. You're basically guaranteed to lose 50 and win 50 to mutilate the cliche.
The 2003 Detroit Tigers say hello
(They still managed to win 43 games )
Pretty much, It's baseball. You're basically guaranteed to lose 50 and win 50 to mutilate the cliche.
I would also propose that playing 162 games hurts attendance.
If you lose your first 10 games in the NFL your season is over.
If you lose your first 10 games in the NHL the fans will start talking about firing the coach, the trade deadline, and tanking.
Losing your first 10 MLB games has almost no impact on the season. Last year 86 wins put the Astros in the playoffs. By losing your first 10 you need to go 86-66 "down the stretch", which is only a 56% win rate.
Bottom line, the LONG season creates a lack of urgency and apathy among the fans.
P.S. The above commentary comes from someone who LOVES baseball.
How would you improve baseball? It's the same as it always has been.
You don't. It's always been boring as hell!
Plus the afternoon games. You'd better have a nice boss if you aren't retired.
I marvel at people who "haven't missed a home game in x years" for baseball. Who else but retirees would have that kind of time? probably 400-500 "manhours", if you will, over 6 months.
Zack Greinke has a ERA of over 9 after 2 starts. Maybe the Dodgers knew something that the D-backs didn't...
I will say that sitting among over 10,000 Cubs fans when they're winning is even more annoying than sitting with Blackhawks or Wings fans, and that's a pretty high bar to clear.