Inscrit le: 25 Jan 2018
|Posté le: 31 Jan 2018 07:11 Sujet du message: Who should decide what's best for baseball
|By now, you've probably thought about whether you would like a pitch clock in baseball or limits on mound visits or other major league mandates to speed the pace of play. Your own tastes aside, the more important question is whether those mandates should happen, which is really a question of who owns the game.
Major League Baseball has three primary stakeholder groups: the players, who create the product; the owners, who finance and distribute it; and the fans, who consume it. The sport wouldn't exist as we know it without all three. This is technically true also of advertisers and guys hawking peanuts and turf companies, but those are secondary actors http://www.bearsnflofficialproshop.com/tarik-cohen-jersey-for-sale-c-79.html with only John Carlson Womens Jersey minor claims. The owners, the players and the fans are the core. All could plausibly claim to be the reason the league exists, and could plausibly claim to be whom the league exists for. Complicating matters, these three stakeholder groups often want different things.
Most of us were taught by our kindergarten teachers to believe in the compromise model of solving problems: If there's one last slice of pizza, we compromise (say, by splitting it). But compromise doesn't apply in all cases, such as when Marshall Faulk Jersey one party has a significantly stronger interest or when one party's sacrosanct http://www.ravensshopfootball.com/Authentic-Tavon-Young-Jersey rights are violated. If you want to punch my face and I want you to not punch me at all, we don't compromise by having you punch my chest.
Another way of solving these disputes, common in politics, markets or parent/child relationships, is to say that the party with more power (or the http://www.chiefsofficialsauthentic.com/CHIEFS-TANOH-KPASSAGNON-JERSEY party more willing to wield its power) gets to decide. Two bidders on an auction item don't split the item. One bids more and gets it. This also breaks down in many cases, turning everything into a negotiation over power. You might be allergic to cheese and tomato sauce, but by withholding your consent on the slice of pizza, you force me into giving up something else. Everything gets weaponized, cynicism corrupts the system and half-slices of pizza sometimes end up going to people who barely want and don't need them.
Which brings us to a third tactic for settling disputes: Determining which distribution of http://www.authenticflyerstore.com/authentic-17-wayne-simmonds-jersey.html assets will create the most total satisfaction, and working toward that outcome. If one party values something much, much more than another party does, the system (and the parties within it) should work to somehow get that slice of pizza to the person who most values it. Otherwise, we've kind of failed.
This is a somewhat utopian vision for settling problems, but philosophers have argued it's a moral imperative and should be at the center of any "what's good for the game" resolution. All three stakeholder groups contribute to the sport, and all three get value out of it. But they contribute and get value from different parts of the sport. A just way of thinking about these hard decisions is to ask which party contributes the most, and draws the most value, from the area in question. Or, more concisely, who owns it?
Identifying where each group's ownership begins and ends helps answer the question of whether there should be a pitch clock, and any number of other questions: whether shifts should be banned; whether pitchers should be suspended for throwing at batters; which legal performance-enhancing supplements should be outlawed within the sport; whether players should be allowed to tweet midgame; whether Yankees should be allowed to grow beards; whether the ball should be juiced, etc.
The players probably have the strongest claim of ownership on the game. If the owners all disappeared today and the fans disappeared tomorrow, most of the players would keep playing, and they'd be just as emotional and obsessive about it as they are now. (Evidence: Murderball.) At the innermost core of the sport is a group of athletes who, independent of everything else, want to succeed. Their obsessive pursuit of that success is the product. That's what we, the fans, want to watch, and that's what the owners convert into advertisements. For the existence Womens Pavel Zacha Jersey of the sport, we need the players way more than they need us.
So the players own everything that affects their ability to pursue baseball success. They own the play. If they opt to play a style of baseball that is boring or ugly, or even (within reason) dangerous, we should defer to them. Optimistically, they won't want those things!The owners almost certainly think they own the game, just because they literally do. In the second way we discussed of solving disputes -- in which the most powerful party gets to decide -- they might be right, but in the utilitarian model that we should be using, they're wrong.
Early in the sport's history they had a better case for co-equal (or more) ownership with the players. Owners back then were entrepreneurs risking their money to develop a new industry. But today's owners mostly inherited an industry, and even the very worst of them end up with huge profits from it. I'd be shocked if teams couldn't be run successfully (probably more successfully) as nonprofits, perhaps even public utilities. Owners are overrated.
That said, they do have literal, legal ownership over the sport -- this is still America! -- and this (along with their putative experience as businesspersons) makes them the natural stewards of the sport's profitability, which benefits both players (for obvious reasons) and fans (for reasons of accessibility, production and constancy). So, owners Robin Lopez Jersey have standing over areas that are primarily about making the sport thrive as a business and don't intrude on the players' ownership over play.