Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I think you are confused. Their job is to entertain us.
Their job is to entertain us, and their job is baseball. They use the tools they have to play baseball. The fan watches the game, transaction over. Our part as fans is over. Their part is not. Their part to do their job requires team organization, practice, analysis, trades, etc. In order to do their job, and convince us to pay $20 for a ticket and outrageous food prices, they need tools.

Whether they all use tablets or not have no bearing on the entertainment value of the game - as long as all teams are in the same boat and none of them have an unfair competitive advantage.

It's how you use the tools that you're given, mixed to your abilities that makes the game more interesting. Two players will use the bat in slightly different ways. One of them will hit and go to the WS, one of them will not hit and won't go to the WS. No one is saying that iPads will make the game of baseball a new game. It might make it more efficient for those on the field, and maybe better as a consequence for the fans.

There are so many other things that could be used to help them do their jobs: bigger bats, headphones/radios and scooters for each player and on and on.But we do not do that.

First because they can't due to league regulations.
However, if you study the history of baseball you will see that it evolved, from no gloves and knickerbockers with sand bags to most sophisticated tools. Can we play baseball the same way it was played in the XIX century? Yes, but the game, as everything else, evolves and slowly becomes more interesting. You could play baseball the very same way it was played between 1900 and 1920. That era is called Deadball for a reason: it was boring; no runs, no HR, just a slow game. A change in tools (the ball, and I believe also the bat) made the game different, and saw the emergence of Babe Ruth.
From a theoretical point of view we might see the emergence of the first "cyber-era" Babe Ruth, someone that can revolutionize the game not because of the change in how the ball is made but due to the approach he has to real life real-time situations.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Robin4
Likewise. I've been going to games at an iBeacon-equipped ballpark ever since they were supposedly rolled out, but have seen no signs of the tech. I believe we are supposed to be looking at the MLB app to see this magic, but when I open the app I am prompted to log in or create an account, which I have no interest in doing.

Anyhow, live video might be the most important feature of the teams using iPads in the dugouts, especially since the advent of the instant replay challenge. Currently someone has to retreat to the clubhouse to watch the replays on TV before they decide whether to issue the challenge. Really slows down the game, even when no challenge results. Presumably this will make the process faster, so it's all good from a fan perspective.
I would watch a lot more baseball if the games went faster. I think they should also cut the number of games during a season. I'm a big football fan, so I'm used to things moving faster. When I was a kid I was more of a baseball fan, but between not having as much free time as when I was a kid, and the fact that the Royals sucked for most of my life, I didn't watch as much. I'd usually watch a few games per season, and then watch the playoffs. Now I've been watching more over the past couple years since the Royals are finally good (I'm a big homer and literally don't care about any teams outside of Kansas City or area universities), but having to sit through so many long games is a huge time suck. Many of my friends and coworkers who are bigger baseball fans say that they just leave it on in the background, but I have difficulty concentrating on and enjoying a game when I do that. I'd love an 80 game season, with each game having fewer innings or some other way to speed things up. I'm more ok with the length of the playoffs, as I wish football had some way of drawing them out more as things can more drastically shift one way or another just depending on the weather.
 
I would watch a lot more baseball if the games went faster. I think they should also cut the number of games during a season. I'm a big football fan, so I'm used to things moving faster. When I was a kid I was more of a baseball fan, but between not having as much free time as when I was a kid, and the fact that the Royals sucked for most of my life, I didn't watch as much. I'd usually watch a few games per season, and then watch the playoffs. Now I've been watching more over the past couple years since the Royals are finally good (I'm a big homer and literally don't care about any teams outside of Kansas City or area universities), but having to sit through so many long games is a huge time suck. Many of my friends and coworkers who are bigger baseball fans say that they just leave it on in the background, but I have difficulty concentrating on and enjoying a game when I do that. I'd love an 80 game season, with each game having fewer innings or some other way to speed things up. I'm more ok with the length of the playoffs, as I wish football had some way of drawing them out more as things can more drastically shift one way or another just depending on the weather.

MLB At Bat Premium has a great feature called "Condensed Games". A few hours after games are over they publish a cut that is action plays only (hits, strikeouts, defensive plays, etc). You can watch an entire game in 15-20 minutes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: artfossil
MLB At Bat Premium has a great feature called "Condensed Games". A few hours after games are over they publish a cut that is action plays only (hits, strikeouts, defensive plays, etc). You can watch an entire game in 15-20 minutes.
I've thought about actually paying for that service this season. This seems like a good reason to. I like to keep up but don't want to watch all the games live. Hmmm…
 
It's not needed in baseball. You'll find the teams don't even want to use the iPad. They are only going to be using them for commercial purposes. Apple didn't pay all that money for nothing. The teams will need to be seen to be using them.

I remember reading that players were using iPods with clickwheels to watch videos of pitchers years ago, whenever that first ipod that could play video came out. They will most definitely use this, and you don't think so you're nuts. The current crop of players can probably barely remember a time before handheld devices could play video.

Plus, no more bullpen phone malfunction problems. Now they can just send Messages!
 
They will need to get more powerful (and certainly with more than 2GB of RAM) before I'll be convinced they deserve the "Pro" label and a price increase.

Do you know how Microsoft has problems convincing people to move off Windows XP? A lot of those old XP machines are being used in professional environments. Computers hit a point about a decade ago where they didn't need to get any more powerful to handle most business applications, and people stopped upgrading. The current iPads are quite powerful enough, hardware wise, to meet business needs. The software needs lots of improvement, but hardware, not really.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yaxomoxay
I would watch a lot more baseball if the games went faster. I think they should also cut the number of games during a season. I'm a big football fan, so I'm used to things moving faster. When I was a kid I was more of a baseball fan, but between not having as much free time as when I was a kid, and the fact that the Royals sucked for most of my life, I didn't watch as much. I'd usually watch a few games per season, and then watch the playoffs. Now I've been watching more over the past couple years since the Royals are finally good (I'm a big homer and literally don't care about any teams outside of Kansas City or area universities), but having to sit through so many long games is a huge time suck. Many of my friends and coworkers who are bigger baseball fans say that they just leave it on in the background, but I have difficulty concentrating on and enjoying a game when I do that. I'd love an 80 game season, with each game having fewer innings or some other way to speed things up. I'm more ok with the length of the playoffs, as I wish football had some way of drawing them out more as things can more drastically shift one way or another just depending on the weather.

I don't see any need for shorter seasons but this debate has gone on forever (see my sig line) and will never be put entirely to rest. As for speeding up the games, most of the recent "innovations" in baseball have only slowed the game down, the most recent being the instant replay challenge. They can take several minutes each during which nothing is happening except you are watching the replays over and over on the big video screens if you are at the stadium or on TV if you are watching at home. They need to figure out how to make that happen faster. Maybe iPads in the dugouts will help. One change they made for the better is the time between innings is shorter and batters have to keep at least one foot in the batters box between pitches. These are improvements that do not change anything fundamental about the game play (which IMO should be left alone as much as possible).
[doublepost=1459362814][/doublepost]
I've thought about actually paying for that service this season. This seems like a good reason to. I like to keep up but don't want to watch all the games live. Hmmm…

Out of market games only, unfortunately, unless you want to set it up through a proxy server.
 
Ok... iPad 5

So you are going to call it iPad5 and sell it for $599 and the large iPad5 for $799?

So there isn't going to be a regular sized iPad in the $499 range? And if you are doing a lower model iPad what are you going to call it?

You tell me.

If we call the ipad Pro the iPad5 then what are we going to call the new iPadAir3 this fall?
 
Do you know how Microsoft has problems convincing people to move off Windows XP? A lot of those old XP machines are being used in professional environments. Computers hit a point about a decade ago where they didn't need to get any more powerful to handle most business applications, and people stopped upgrading. The current iPads are quite powerful enough, hardware wise, to meet business needs. The software needs lots of improvement, but hardware, not really.

I work in a run of the mill office and none of our applications or databases run on XP. Additionally, my PC has been replaced 3 times in 7 years and I don't use it for especially taxing work--that's after it slowed to a crawl. No creative design function at all.

So, I don't buy this argument. The iPad is a fantastic entertainment device that can also be used for very casual work. However, the iPad doesn't run *any* of my databases or reporting tools and I can't imagine it will in the near future. It sounds great for creative work, but that is fraction of the workforce and even the creatives I know will complete major projects on a Mac or PC.

Again, the "Pro" label and the price increase is undeserved in my opinion. If this iPad reverses the accelerating decline in sales (unlikely) than it will be because people are replacing very old iPads that they use to play Clash of Clans and surf the web with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: derekamoss
I don't see any need for shorter seasons but this debate has gone on forever (see my sig line) and will never be put entirely to rest. As for speeding up the games, most of the recent "innovations" in baseball have only slowed the game down, the most recent being the instant replay challenge. They can take several minutes each during which nothing is happening except you are watching the replays over and over on the big video screens if you are at the stadium or on TV if you are watching at home. They need to figure out how to make that happen faster. Maybe iPads in the dugouts will help. One change they made for the better is the time between innings is shorter and batters have to keep at least one foot in the batters box between pitches. These are improvements that do not change anything fundamental about the game play (which IMO should be left alone as much as possible).
[doublepost=1459362814][/doublepost]

Out of market games only, unfortunately, unless you want to set it up through a proxy server.

The best way to speed up baseball is:

1. stop with all the ridiculous pre-pitch routine by the batter. It ridiculous. Once the ball is thrown back to the picture the batter should be ready to swing. That alone will shave off 20 minutes of crap time.

2. stop with the pitching coach visits to the mound. Basketball players and football players sub into games without taking 5 minutes. Give teams 4 timeouts per game. This stopping the game 10 times to 'discuss strategy' is stupid. That will shave off another 10 minutes.

3. Speed up instant replay.

Those steps will cut down about 30 minutes from games.

But to make baseball more appealing to the younger generation you need to do more:

1. 3 balls equals a walk. Crazy yes. But then a foul ball would be considered a 3rd strike. This means that the MAXIMUM amount of pitches an at bat can have is 6 pitches. That will cut off 15-30 minutes per game. This will mean that pictures will be forced to throw more strikes and batters will be forced to put balls into play.

2. Each team is given a maximum of 4 times outs. Any time you make a pitching change MID-INNING you need to cal a time out. This stop the madness of some coaches using FOUR PITCHERS in a single inning. Nothing is worse than waiting 10 minutes between each batter, UGH!

3. No more stealing bases. This put an end to the stupidity of 5 throws to first to pick off a battery. You runner must stay on the base until the pitch is thrown. PERIOD.

4. Put a pitch clock on the pitcher. If the pitcher does not pitch before 10 seconds after receiving the ball from the catcher its a BALL. The batter has 5 seconds to get ready to hit.

5. No more stupid 'unwritten' rules that make the game boring. Let players celebrate. Let players have FUN.

6. Harsh penalties for fights. Another time waster.

7. Don't let the pitcher hit. Who wants to see a crappy player hit? Enough.

8. Mega harsh rules for pitchers head hunting.

9. If a player is hit by a pitch they are awarded 2 bases. Want to get rid of that stupidity from the game. If a player makes no attempt to dodge a pitch it will be counted as a BALL only. Don't want to reward players who crowd the plate. If a player goes into the strike zone to get hit, then it will be called a strike.

10. Digital ball and strikes. Sick of Umps having their own 'strike zone'. Takes too long and leads to too many ejections and arguments. Another time waster.
[doublepost=1459364072][/doublepost]
I work in a run of the mill office and none of our applications or databases run on XP. Additionally, my PC has been replaced 3 times in 7 years and I don't use it for especially taxing work--that's after it slowed to a crawl. No creative design function at all.

So, I don't buy this argument. The iPad is a fantastic entertainment device that can also be used for very casual work. However, the iPad doesn't run *any* of my databases or reporting tools and I can't imagine it will in the near future. It sounds great for creative work, but that is fraction of the workforce and even the creatives I know will complete major projects on a Mac or PC.

Again, the "Pro" label and the price increase is undeserved in my opinion. If this iPad reverses the accelerating decline in sales (unlikely) than it will be because people are replacing very old iPads that they use to play Clash of Clans and surf the web with.

So to be a "Pro" or do real work you have to be working with databases? Ok I get it now.

So in other words Doctors, Nurses, Lawyers, CEO's, Sales Executives, Art Directors, Account managers, ect are not Pro's and are not doing REAL WORK only casual work? I mean WTF
 
So you are going to call it iPad5 and sell it for $599 and the large iPad5 for $799?

So there isn't going to be a regular sized iPad in the $499 range? And if you are doing a lower model iPad what are you going to call it?

You tell me.

If we call the ipad Pro the iPad5 then what are we going to call the new iPadAir3 this fall?

Easy Ditch the air and pro moniker and just call them iPad 2016 or to their respective sizes. There were three sizes of MacBook pros and they didn't need a special naming scheme for each size.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Night Spring
Easy Ditch the air and pro moniker and just call them iPad 2016 or to their respective sizes. There were three sizes of MacBook pros and they didn't need a special naming scheme for each size.

But there are two tiers of 9.7 iPads.

Give me the name of the $499 ipad 9.7 and the $599 ipad 9.7.

lets hear the names.
 
I work in a run of the mill office and none of our applications or databases run on XP. Additionally, my PC has been replaced 3 times in 7 years and I don't use it for especially taxing work--that's after it slowed to a crawl. No creative design function at all.

So, I don't buy this argument. The iPad is a fantastic entertainment device that can also be used for very casual work. However, the iPad doesn't run *any* of my databases or reporting tools and I can't imagine it will in the near future. It sounds great for creative work, but that is fraction of the workforce and even the creatives I know will complete major projects on a Mac or PC.

Again, the "Pro" label and the price increase is undeserved in my opinion. If this iPad reverses the accelerating decline in sales (unlikely) than it will be because people are replacing very old iPads that they use to play Clash of Clans and surf the web with.

Agreed. Even if it is worthy of being a laptop replacement guess what... its just a laptop replacement. I could slightly understand the 12 inch iPad being called pro because it was distinctive size wise but to just through pro on what should have been iPad 5/iPad air 3 makes no sense.
[doublepost=1459364472][/doublepost]
But there are two tiers of 9.7 iPads.

Give me the name of the $499 ipad 9.7 and the $599 ipad 9.7.

lets hear the names.

They are named the same now so taking pro off would be non trivial.
 
The best way to speed up baseball is:
1. 3 balls equals a walk. Crazy yes. But then a foul ball would be considered a 3rd strike. This means that the MAXIMUM amount of pitches an at bat can have is 6 pitches.

You want to consider a foul ball a 3rd strike? That would give too much advantage to the pitcher. I would say if that count is 2-0 then 3-0 is a walk, shaving off at least one pitch.

2. Each team is given a maximum of 4 times outs. Any time you make a pitching change MID-INNING you need to cal a time out. This stop the madness of some coaches using FOUR PITCHERS in a single inning. Nothing is worse than waiting 10 minutes between each batter, UGH!

That would remove a lot of strategy as you combine a pitcher with a given hitter. What we can do is to force the fact that a pitcher can't be changed before at least one out, or one run whichever comes first.

3. No more stealing bases. This put an end to the stupidity of 5 throws to first to pick off a battery. You runner must stay on the base until the pitch is thrown. PERIOD.
Willie Mays would be disappointed! Stealing helps faster teams to prevent force out at 2B. IT would advantage the pitcher too much. Plus it's fun to watch Billy Hamilton.

6. Harsh penalties for fights. Another time waster.

Agreed

9. If a player is hit by a pitch they are awarded 2 bases. Want to get rid of that stupidity from the game.

Agreed.
 
You want to consider a foul ball a 3rd strike? That would give too much advantage to the pitcher. I would say if that count is 2-0 then 3-0 is a walk, shaving off at least one pitch.



That would remove a lot of strategy as you combine a pitcher with a given hitter. What we can do is to force the fact that a pitcher can't be changed before at least one out, or one run whichever comes first.


Willie Mays would be disappointed! Stealing helps faster teams to prevent force out at 2B. IT would advantage the pitcher too much. Plus it's fun to watch Billy Hamilton.



Agreed



Agreed.

Foul balls would be 3rd strike.
Three balls would equal a WALK.

I think a maximum of 2 pitching changes an inning would work also. So sick of seeing FOUR pitching changes an inning.

Stealing is fun. But the main reason I would get rid of stealing is because those pick off throws waste so much time. Plus it would be impossible for a pitcher to pitch within 10 seconds if they have to worry about a runner getting a good jump. There can be no 10 second rule (pitcher has 10 seconds to pitch) if runners can steal bases. Because the runner knows EXACTLY when the pitcher must throw the ball. Stolen bases have been such a small part of the modern game anyway. Too much injury risk and analytics show they are not worth the risk. Speed will still be a big part of the game. A fast runner will still be an advantage even if they can't steal bases.
[doublepost=1459365431][/doublepost]
That's only because the sport is about as interesting as examining your own excrement (IMO).

baseball is a great sport.

what makes it boring is all the traditions and over coaching that slows the game to a crawl.

If you ever played baseball in a park league or with friends it is much more fast paced and exciting.

But many feel like you do. Baseball has not adapted to the 21st century. In fact the game is EVEN SLOWER than it was in 1890.
 
Out of market games only, unfortunately, unless you want to set it up through a proxy server.
You can't even watch the recaps they cut together? Because that would be really absurd. Also I'm confused as to whether that is part of MLB TV premium or the At Bat app or both or sometimes in either one…the descriptions confuse me lol.
 
Regardless of the merits of such app/setup for everybody's sanity sake would not it be better if MLB simply banned all electronics in the dugout? No waste of money on hardware and software and everybody can simply enjoy the game. I am 100% sure that these apps will add nothing to the enjoyment of the fans so what's the purpose?
MLB is a business and being a player is a job. The fact that games are just games to fans doesn't make it just a game to those involved.
 
So to be a "Pro" or do real work you have to be working with databases? Ok I get it now.

So in other words Doctors, Nurses, Lawyers, CEO's, Sales Executives, Art Directors, Account managers, ect are not Pro's and are not doing REAL WORK only casual work? I mean WTF

I get it now. Since Apple markets a product in a certain way it *must* be true right? After all, these people appear in commercials with a funky soundtrack with lots of smiles.

I really doubt you have personal friends in all of these roles and have inquired about how they use iPads. I know a neurologist, a lawyer and one sales exec and they are all in their 30's. None of them use iPads for work. Why? Because they are inadequate for their work.

If Apple even added decent handwriting recognition into iOS then that would change a lot since people could take notes without retyping. The apps that do this currently all have limitations. Apple is so out of touch they don't see that yet I guess.

However, their progress in Clash of Clans has continued to impress me and I struggle to catch up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: derekamoss
I work in a run of the mill office and none of our applications or databases run on XP.

I suppose there will be exceptions, and your case would be one of those exceptions. But a huge number of XP machines were in use until Microsoft cut off support. That was possible only because all those XP machines were still adequate for the tasks they were handling.
 
How long is the contract with the NFL? I hate seeing those surface pads on the sidelines. What went wrong that Apple couldn't secure the NFL as well? Do people even use the Surface still? Their adverts are just plain silly, like I really don't care my MBPr is not touch screen.

You need to get out more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rjohnstone
MLB is a business and being a player is a job. The fact that games are just games to fans doesn't make it just a game to those involved.

Sure, it's a business. It's an entertainment business. Things that do not contribute to the goal of the business (i.e. entertainment) are just waste of resources. The players (and coaches) care about winning and doing best under the rules of the game. If the rules ban electronics in dugouts - they won't care. Do you think it was players who demanded the change? Or, maybe, it was Apple who suggested it?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.