|
February 27, 2007
Baseball rules c. 1907
The Feb. 27, 1907 NYT reports the final schedule for the National and American League baseball teams I hesitate to say that hope was in the air the same as today because there had only been three World Series and therefore an utter lack of ~100 year droughts that make people avid fans of teams like the Cubs, White Sox, and Red Sox. The article also reports on several rule changes - some of which are still with us today. Rule changes in most sports are generally intended to increase the social welfare of the league members - teams and players - by making the game safer for the players, safer for the fans, and/or more entertaining for fans (which implies that fans will be willing to spend more to attend the events and increasing the returns to players, managers, and owners). Many times rule changes aim to improve offensive efficiency, and hence scoring, as it is believed that fans like to see scoring. Other rule changes are intended to bolster the defense and improve the parity of the league, as it is believed fans like more evenly matched contests. And still other times rule changes might address off-the-field behavior, as it is believed that bad behavior of a few players might reduce the overall appeal (demand) of the sport. The rules changes in 1907 were as follows (with my opinion as to where the advantage lies in parentheses):
An interesting aspect of baseball rule changes is that they often aim to close a loophole that one or more teams had found and exploited in the previous rules. This is one reason I find the rules of baseball so interesting. Unlike the rules in football, which are mainly designed to keep the players from causing serious bodily harm to each other, the rules of baseball are set to limit the strategy space of managers, players, and umpires. Posted by Craig Depken at 11:24 AM in Sports
|
The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it. -Adam Smith
Our Bloggers
Joshua HallRobert Lawson E. Frank Stephenson Michael C. Munger Lawrence H. White Craig Depken Tim Shaughnessy Edward J. Lopez Brad Smith Mike DeBow Wilson Mixon Art Carden
Blogroll
Search
Archives
By Author:
Joshua HallRobert Lawson E. Frank Stephenson Michael C. Munger Lawrence H. White Edward Bierhanzl Craig Depken Ralph R. Frasca Tim Shaughnessy Edward J. Lopez Brad Smith Mike DeBow Wilson Mixon Art Carden
By Month:
December 2008November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004
Powered by
Site design by |