Cool Hand Lucroy

I agree with this nearly 100 percent as things stand right now. The caveat is that how things are on April 10th is not how things will be on May10th. Things could be worse. But it's more likely they are better, especially assuming social distancing remains in place for another 3 weeks at least. The difficult part of this is that it cannot be a binary. You cannot have total social distancing or no social distancing as a paradigm here. At some point, we will need to do SOME social distancing. The question is whether or not baseball can be part of the some. That is what makes this proposal worthwhile from my perspective. It isn't even about wanting baseball as much as it is about asking the question: what happens after the peak but before the availability of a viable treatment/vaccine? Baseball and other sports are, in my view, helping when they talk about that question. As I see it, we should all be talking about it a lot more.

Likely that testing still has to get better too. There are 70+ cases in my Iowa county. That's double what it was just a week ago. Yet, my county is also reporting 47 "recovered" patients that are included as part of that 70+ number. Basically, at least some of those 47 are finding out about positive tests very near the time they have already recovered. That is anecdotal, but it mirrors reports I have seen elsewhere. Two week processing times have not been uncommon. That cannot happen if this MLB plan is going to be at all feasible. You need good, fast testing basically universally available. Otherwise, you either won't be quick enough, or you'll be giving MLB players access to testing others, including more vulnerable groups don't have, and that seems ethically untenable.

It may also be worth remembering, in terms of the long-term, that most folks who study viruses agree that viral mutation tends to lead toward less lethal strains. Deadly viruses reduce their chances of spreading. A dead host can't shed virus. I also have to keep reminding myself that this isn't about the risk posed to a single individual. I'm not staying inside to reduce my own chances of getting the virus. I'm staying inside to reduce the possibility that massive, unchecked spreading swamps the health care system and leads to unnecessary death. This is less of an issue if you're dealing with a group of folks who won't really interact with the broader community. I think that's what this MLB proposal is about. Obviously, it should be done with full, informed consent of the players (and, even then, I'm personally leery of it, but there are benefits to having baseball, and those are worth thinking about). But if you figure out a way to isolate what is a fairly low-risk population (though the fact that they're men does increase the risk, and managers maybe would need to be EXTRA careful), then that MIGHT be doable as a kind of in-between stage. We're not there yet. But there is going to be a time when you have to open up SOME things just to reduce fear, panic, pressure on the supply chain, etc., and you might as well start thinking about what that might look like now. I would be shocked if this proposal happened. But it's good to start considering the middle game here, given that it appears we are at or will soon be at the peak of this in the coming weeks. We're going to be in a weird limbo barring either a vaccine or, to a lesser extent, relatively effective antiviral therapy for a while. We need to figure out Social Distancing Lite, and, to the extent that this proposal starts that conversation, I'm glad it's out there.

The big problem with this virus is that there is NOTHING we can treat it with. Obviously, the real end of this is a vaccine, but an effective antiviral can greatly reduce the biggest risk--swamping the health care system. Will that happen by June? I don't know. No one does. But, bad as this looks, we are one medical breakthrough away from things looking a lot differently.

Very hard to speculate given the sheer amount of uncertainty and the continental nature of the US. One possibility (among so, so many) is that cases ease off significantly (as seems to have begun in Washington) in larger, early-hit areas (New York, CA, maybe Louisiana, Chicago, Milwaukee, etc.) fairly quickly (perhaps even by the end of April or early-May), only to bounce up around other parts of the country. I think that's the hardest variable to figure. How do more remote and mid-sized places see their numbers going, and which of those places were most aggressive about social distancing early on? If you can contain the spread in big, dense urban areas, that will make things look better, maybe a lot better, than they actually could be (or it could even actually work, hampering spread everywhere). How that impacts baseball (or should impact baseball) is anyone's guess. If things look clear in big-city markets, does that skew our national interpretation of what's happening? Does it make owners and authorities more likely to play games? The urban/rural divide is something I'm watching across all lines, and in terms of sports too.

Yes! Turn all day games into double headers. Start every currently scheduled day game 1 hour earlier, shorten it to 7 innings, then immediately play another 7 inning game right after it. I'm not a huge fan of 7-inning games generally, though having them as part of DHers is interesting. I think they do that quite a bit in small college baseball? And since you're playing back-to-back and doing it regularly, you might not be increasing innings pitched by lights out relievers (and thus decreasing balls in play) by that much. I think my take is this: If double-headers (say one a week) get you to 130 games, I'm okay with just normal baseball rules. 130 games is close enough where I don't think you need to be messing around too much. Fewer than that, and I think it starts to get to a point where you either just play it straight (120 games under normal scheduling procedures) or try to get closer to the number of innings than the number of games. We talk a lot about rest, but maybe the idea I'm most interested in is the one about like two DHers a week. Expand rosters and let's just gorge on baseball. Forget guys sitting around all day. Let's play two! If the union is up for it (and the increased injury risk it almost certainly creates), then I'm all for it. Would be fun, and baseball is supposed to be fun.

Yes! Turn all day games into double headers. Start every currently scheduled day game 1 hour earlier, shorten it to 7 innings, then immediately play another 7 inning game right after it. I'm not a huge fan of 7-inning games generally, though having them as part of DHers is interesting. I think they do that quite a bit in small college baseball? And since you're playing back-to-back and doing it regularly, you might not be increasing innings pitched by lights out relievers (and thus decreasing balls in play) by that much. I think my take is this: If double-headers (say one a week) get you to 130 games, I'm okay with just normal baseball rules. 130 games is close enough where I don't think you need to be messing around too much. Fewer than that, and I think it starts to get to a point where you either just play it straight (120 games under normal scheduling procedures) or try to get closer to the number of innings than the number of games. We talk a lot about rest, but maybe the idea I'm most interested in is the one about like two DHers a week. Expand rosters and let's just gorge on baseball. Forget guys sitting around all day. Let's play two! If the union is up for it (and the increased injury risk it almost certainly creates), then I'm all for it. Would be fun, and baseball is supposed to be fun.

Just to distract from the seriousness of all this with a hypothetical, I think a shortened season would help the Brewers. Makes it easier to win with depth, especially on the pitching side. Plus, we have a manager who understands win probability. A delayed start maybe means Knebel is closer to ready too, and bullpen matters a lot over 60 games. Given what a contained mess the NL Central is, more randomness is probably better overall for each individual team. Honestly, I still think the league can play 90-120 games. As is, a June 1st start date allows you to get about 100 games without adding too much on the back end. If you're willing to play until, say, November 15th, you can probably squeeze in another 15 games. July 1st start puts you closer to 85-90 if you're willing to play into November. EDIT: Just to link to a Fangraphs piece about ZiPS projections: https://blogs.fangraphs.com/how-much-do-the-playoff-odds-change-in-a-shorter-season/ Basically, a shortened season helps everyone in the NL Central slightly, except the Cubs. The Pirates are the biggest beneficiaries, as one might figure.

I am on the other side of this. If MLB can salvage 60 games, won't they? That's a third of your revenue...

Not easy at all. Right now is the time for drastic intervention. After 2-4 weeks, though, we're going to have to find a middle ground that reduces risk without also increasing suspicion and fear and economic fallout. I'm not sure we are, culturally, very good at "middle ground" stuff, so that's going to be a major test.

Two thoughts: 1) I think prolonged societal shutdowns are going to be difficult to maintain for more than about 4 weeks. The steps we are taking now should slow the rate of transmission. That slow down may not show up for another 2 weeks, but the math says all this should work. Then the question is whether or not we can maintain some less restrictive form of social distancing for the next 6-8 weeks. 2) The question then becomes about the end game. How much virus are we willing to live with? Are we only trying to flatten the curve, or are we waiting until the virus is nearly gone? Is MLB willing to play w/o spectators? Basically, I just think the return of baseball depends on how much unknown spread we have already seen and how willing MLB is to play under weird circumstances. If MLB only wants to do full go, we are probably talking July. If it is okay with no fans at games, then earlier is possible.

I mean, technically, if things look better in, say, 5 weeks, you could start ramping up and be ready for baseball mid-May. That is, of course, way optimistic and probably not adviseable. Here is the hard part. There probably is a simulation where the measures we have all begun to take work. Where people suddenly are so single-mindedly focused on reducing sickness that we succeed. That is probably the 5 percent best-case. But this is unique, so all we have is modeling. Who knows what to expect in reality. I feel like this is totally unpredictable, so day-by-day and hope for the best.

Would love to see a symbolic bracket. Also, just me, or does anyone else hope Turner reruns an old tourney (maybe that awesome 2016 opening weekend?) just for fun's sake? I mean, they really should turn this into an E-sports competition and let the actual players play televised e-hoops against each other. Or run computer simulations live. Narrated by Barkley. Come on, guys! Give us something!

Good to know. If finances were not any kind of factor, then I do wonder why a postponement wasn't the first option. The D3 tourney is run every year without knowing sites in advance, and I imagine you could have pulled off a tourney in May if things looked better. As a lot of coached said, you could have always cancelled later if, as many believe, this does indeed get lots worse. Of course, there is something to be said for finality, I suppose. Hard to say without knowing the details. I guess I am cynical in the sense that I don't think the NCAA would have chosen cancellation over postponement without some financial incentive, but that's a personal predisposition more than an actual argument.

Yeah, there's just a lot of wiggle room in an MLB season, so I'd be very surprised if the season didn't happen at all. Who knows at this point, but it just seems like, given the resources that are now being deployed, there may be a semi-reliable antiviral in a few months, and that does a lot to mitigate risk. Not to mention potential for the outbreak being curbed by proactive public health measures (school closures, etc.). Obviously, sports are no big deal at this point. It's all hands on deck to fight the virus. That said: I'd rather be MLB than just about any other pro sports league at this point. You just have more wiggle room given that we're two weeks from Opening Day, and the season was scheduled to start way early anyway. And you can lose two weeks and still play a feasible 150 game schedule. Semi-facetious question: When a computer runs this simulation millions of times, in how many scenarios does MLB lift blackout restrictions because of this? 0? 4? 100? I hope we live in that simulation.

Yeah. I think we figured that was coming, but sometimes the NCAA does things weirdly. Like, their cancellation tweet cites the "impracticability" of moving events, but it's not like you couldn't try for a few weeks. I mean, maybe they just didn't want to give folks hope. One would just think that any venue/TV station would be ALL FOR making up even a fraction of lost revenue at a later date, so I'm a little confused about the straight cancellation. On the other hand, at the end of the day, it's a basketball tournament. Can't really get too upset about that without losing all perspective. EDIT: Bilas makes a good point about contract clauses and insurance payouts. Perhaps the automatic cancellation has to do with collecting insurance, and COVID-19 fits whatever "act of God" clause is in those contracts. Certainly, that's logical.

Well, Duke has officially suspended all athletics per Gary Parrish. That should pretty much do it barring some sort of massive shift in the next 24 hours or so. Now the big question is whether the tournament will be suspended or outright cancelled. Probably depends somewhat on the exit clauses in the Turner and NCAA contract.

Yes. Would be surprised if the tourney proceeds as scheduled. Question is: Do you wait a month and reconvene? Logistical nightmare, but possible the situation is safer in 4-5 weeks. Probably not in any less time than that.

My reaction to no fans at the games is pretty simple: Good. This is an economic and entertainment hit, and it probably makes the country at least marginally safer. Big gatherings are drivers of epidemics, and the downside is pretty minor when you consider the other side of the equation is public health. Look, basketball games get played in nearly empty arenas all the time. Maybe the men will finally see what most women's teams have to deal with on a nightly basis. It's still basketball. In fact, it's basketball before it got to be a main event instead of a fun distraction. I am going to put it bluntly: In my opinion, the best stuff of the NCAA tournament has nothing to do with spectator noise. If you need to hear other people getting excited to let you know to get excited when a 14 seed hits a game-winning three, then it isn't really about basketball at all.

Yeah, I'd forgotten about the committee being able to adjust seeding based on injuries. That is a really good thought. I wonder if the fact that Potter's ineligibility was an NCAA ruling matters to this, though. I imagine an injury would get the benefit of the doubt if the Badgers were on the 4/5 line. A transfer issue might be looked at more skeptically, though.

On seeding: I just don't see the committee making the Badgers a "protected seed." Maybe I am wrong. But November and December count, and there are going to be 18-20 teams with better metrics, predictive and otherwise. Do i think 16 teams are playing better than UW right now? No. Are there 16 teams with better resumes? I think yes. Again, maybe I'll be wrong, and we will see what happens in Indy. But I din't think it's crazy to have this team as a 5.

Lots of winning plays down the stretch. Looks like a pretty vintage Badger crew. Play close, defend, win tough games. This team is looking like a pretty clear 5 or 6 seed. That is basically one game where you'll be a decent favorite and one where you'll be a slight dog. Sweet 16 is very reasonable, though so is first round exit. Of course, none of that matters today. Hang a banner, get some swag, enjoy yourselves!

Jon Bryant really lifted that 2000 team in the tourney. Hot shooters change everything! Is Kirk Penney the first Oceania guy to start the trend? I know he's a Kiwi, but it feels like Randy Bennett saw him at UW and then was like, hmmmm wonder if I can get a bunch of these guys to Moraga to play West Coast Conference basketball.

I remember this game really well. Great finish. What a nice trip down memory lane...almost like it's March or something!

Bingo. That's 5 MORE points than a "relevant" margin according to NET...in a low scoring game.... This is one of my favorite Badger teams of all-time. No team will top the '03 team, but that's for personal reasons (I got my hand in Sports Illustrated after storming the court after beating Illinois for the conference championship...remember when magazines were a thing?). The '13 team is also a favorite, although that's because every other Wisconsin "fan" hates that team and they went 4-0 against the National runner-up Michigan and Offensive Efficiency #1 Indiana that year. The 3 Final 4 teams are pretty high on my list too. Also: Big Kudos to Rashard Griffith, Michael Finley and Howard Moore...3 college graduates who Scott Van Pelt recognized tonight for getting their degree. '03 has one of the most fun comebacks I've ever seen. Down what? 13? With 3 minutes to go? And then Freddie Owens from the corner! Sometimes, when I'm watching a game, I still think, well, as long as we're within 13 with 3 minutes to go, there's always the chance. And then they gave Kentucky everything they could handle. That '13 team was fun too. The Michigan game at the Kohl in particular. Brust hits a miracle shot to send it OT, and then they win it. Really the precursor to the great runs the next couple of years (especially because Gasser got the extra year while guys around him got PT), just didn't have the scoring to really make a go of it (Dekker not quite ready) and Marshall Henderson got it going in the tournament. Also, Kaminsky had that broken nose just as he was starting to find himself. I've never been surprised by a Wisconsin tournament loss like I was by Ole Miss that year. Really thought that team was solid enough to make a run, and losing to an SEC team with one main scorer was a big surprise. Those are the teams UW usually just gobbles up, and I figured they were AT LEAST going to be in a coin-flip game for the Sweet 16 just like a bunch of prior Badger teams. Maybe the Georgia State loss in 2001 is a close second. But that year was a mess with DB retiring and the team just never having the mojo in the same way. SW MO St. was the ugliest but not all that crazy given the style of play and a good team out of the Valley that ended up rolling Tennessee the very next game.