What matters to you: More games or fewer changes?

I feel like I've already said this countless times over the last three weeks, but let's state it again for the record: As much as we all want to project when the baseball season (or any other sport's season) will begin, it's pointless right now. There's simply no way to know with any certainty when the world will be safe enough for sporting events and the mass gatherings they draw.

That hasn't stopped a lot of folks from trying to figure this out. Some insist it can happen by June. Some say it won't be until late summer or early fall. A few are starting to warn us it may not happen until 2021.

Again, how could you possibly know the answer today, long before the true impact of social distancing can be measured? It's a fruitless exercise.

But I did want to raise one topic that tangentially ties into the bigger, unanswerable question. And that is to ask all of you what really matters to you about the manner in which baseball returns.

More and more, we've heard representatives of both Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association suggest they are willing to take some unprecedented steps in order to try to play as many games as possible in 2020.

Would could those steps be? Among the dramatic options now being contemplated are:

Turner-Celebrates-Grand-Slam-Blue-Sidebar.jpg* Regularly scheduled doubleheaders, perhaps even every Sunday, perhaps with each game reduced to seven innings to speed things up.

* An extension of the regular season well into October (or even November).

* A neutral-site postseason in November (or even December), with all games played in warm-weather cities or domed ballparks.

* Games without fans to begin the season, perhaps all played in Arizona or Florida in spring training facilities.

The implementation of any or all of those changes - provided they are deemed safe by public health officials - certainly would help make the 2020 season last as long as possible, with the fewest number of games canceled. But at what cost?

Is a 120-game schedule worth it if it requires games played in empty ballparks? Is a longer regular season worth it if it forces the postseason into late fall and requires those games to be played at a neutral site instead of the participating teams' own towns? Are seven-inning games on doubleheader days worth it to make sure more games are added to the season?

Basically, this all boils down to the following question: Is it more important to you that the season have as many games as possible, or that whatever games are played are done so in the traditional manner we have always experienced?

My personal opinion: I would rather see a shorter season with traditional-looking games, fans in the stands and postseason games played in the participants' home ballparks. (All of this contingent, of course, on the green light from the health experts whose opinion matters far more than anyone else.)

What do you think? Would you rather watch a lot of baseball from your couch from June through November, or would you rather watch fewer games in person from July through October?

Home confinement re-watch: 2019 World Series Game ...
Union creates fund for non-roster players in big l...

By accepting you will be accessing a service provided by a third-party external to https://www.masnsports.com/