Getty Images

Baseball Question of the Day: What is your least-popular baseball opinion?

68 Comments

Another day of no baseball news, another conversation-starter question by your descending-into-increasing-madness blogger-in-chief. No, really, I’m fine. Having my wife working six feet from me after a decade of workplace solitude, all while playing her playlist of 80s slow jams is totally fine. I mean, not gonna lie, I like a lot of the jams, but I feel like her loudly singing along to Basia’s “Time and Tide” is . . . a bit much.

Not that I’m some prize to be quarantined with. We’re all doing the best we can.

Anyway, the question: What’s your least-popular baseball opinion?

Before you answer, know that anything having to do with the DH doesn’t qualify. People feel very passionately about the DH and will tell you that you are the antichrist for thinking about it the way you do, but for each position you take on it, you have a few million people on your side. You all have quite popular ideas about the DH, in fact. It’s just that anyone who doesn’t share it hates it. That’s not what I’m after. I want something more singular.

Here’s mine: doubleheaders suck. I really dislike them.

Whenever I mention that people tell me that I’m an idiot because (a) baseball is good; (b) more baseball is better; and (c) doubleheaders are literally twice as much baseball. Q.E.D.

Except there’s such a thing as bad baseball, and most doubleheaders include at least one and sometimes two bad baseball games.

Players hate them. It’s a long day at the office. They pace themselves physically while buzzing through one of the games temporally. People say they want the games to be shorter, but there is nothing worse than a nightcap to a twin bill that lasts 2:17 because batters are hacking and no one is trying. It’s not cute.

So that’s mine. Doubleheaders suck. Fight me. But before you do, tell me your most unpopular baseball opinion.

Red Sox employees “livid” over team pay cut plan

Getty Images
14 Comments

Even Drellich of The Athletic reports that the Boston Red Sox are cutting the pay of team employees. Those cuts, which began to be communicated last night, apply to all employees making $50,000 or more. They are tiered cuts, with people making $50-99,000 seeing salary cut by 20%, those making $100k-$499,000 seeing $25% cuts and those making $500,000 or more getting 30% cuts.

Drellich reported that a Red Sox employee told him that “people are livid” over the fact that those making $100K are being treated the same way as those making $500K. And, yes, that does seem to be a pretty wide spread for similar pay cuts. One would think that a team with as many analytically-oriented people on staff could perhaps break things down a bit more granularly.

Notable in all of this that the same folks who own the Red Sox — Fenway Sports Group — own Liverpool FC of the English Premier League, and that just last month Liverpool’s pay cut/employee furlough policies proved so unpopular that they led to a backlash and a subsequent reversal by the club. That came after intense criticism from Liverpool fan groups and local politicians. Sox owner John Henry must be confident that no such backlash will happen in Boston.

As we noted yesterday, The Kansas City Royals, who are not as financially successful as the Boston Red Sox, have not furloughed employees or cut pay as a result of baseball’s shutdown in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Perhaps someone in Boston could call the Royals and ask them how they managed that.