Nevius: MLB's plan to restart season creates plenty of questions

I don’t have a good answer to those who are criticizing Major League Baseball’s hey-kids-let’s-put-on-a-show plan to jump-start the season.

You’ve seen the proposal. The first thought was for games to be played around the Phoenix area at one of the available stadiums (10 minor league sites and the Diamondbacks’ domed Chase Field ballpark.) Entire teams would move down there for as long as four months and play a simulated season, with double-headers (some have even said triple-headers) to get as many games in as possible.

The newest iteration has teams also playing in Florida. That would add more spring training sites and give access to two more major league stadiums with domes - Tampa and Miami - for climate-controlled multiple-game days.

Naysayers make several points. First, you may say you are social distancing, but what happens when there’s a sliding base runner to tag? And if the virus lives on surfaces, isn’t throwing a ball around like playing catch with the coronavirus?

And finally, in the summer it is 100 degrees in Arizona. Florida is crazy humid and not much cooler. You’re really going to play games in those conditions?

All true. Again, if you’re looking for someone to shoot those arguments down, you’ve come to the wrong booth. They’re right. All of those are problems.

But at least it would be something.

The obvious, dream solution would be a quick, reliable test for COVID-19 that everyone could take repeatedly. You could clear an entire roster of players before every game and send them out against another team of virus-free players.

News stories have accounts of several firms creating virus tests that could give a reading in as little as 15 minutes. (Full disclosure - some of the promising tests, like the one in the United Kingdom, haven’t been reliable.) But if it worked, everyone could be tested constantly.

If you could do that, almost any sport, even football, could be played. NBA games could resume and the 49ers could run onto the field to the cheers of ... almost no one.

Because one part of the MLB plan is almost certain to be adopted. There will be no spectators. Until this virus is significantly contained, it would be foolhardy to put 60,000 people together in a confined space.

Empty stadiums and arenas sounded weird at first - back in March LeBron James said he wouldn’t play without fans - but aren’t you kind of warming to the idea?

It would just speed up the transition that is already underway - professional sports are becoming more of a video experience than an in-person one. With endless replays and camera angles, the view is better than a box seat. There’s even talk of piping in crowd noise to empty stadiums, like a laugh track for a sitcom.

But it all depends on the rapid testing model. Otherwise, until there’s a huge improvement in new cases and deadly outcomes, there’s no way sports like football, basketball or soccer can be safely played. Not unless you can get Nick Bosa to agree to stay six feet away from every other player.

There might be a couple of sports that could pull it off. Golf is an obvious choice. With no spectators, it would just be a couple of hundred golfers and caddies out there in acres of open space.

Tennis might work. The players are far enough apart, but you still have to factor in the potential that the ball is carrying the virus. There’s NASCAR and even the Tour de France, assuming you could keep fans off the roadside.

But the sheer scale of the baseball proposal - moving everyone to locations for four months, creating a season out of thin air - shows how badly the sports hierarchy wants this to work. Surely, they are saying, there must be a way to start this up again, even in a limited way.

It may not be possible. There’s no telling when this will be over - or even manageable. Anyone who predicts a date is guessing. We may end up continuing to get our only sports fix from replays on sports channels.

I’m assuming people are tuning in to games from the past, but they reveal something about watching sports.

For the most part, media outlets have been cherry-picking big, memorable games. Or they do “On this date in history ...” There’s no flow or logic. You might be offered a Celtics-Lakers game from 2010, followed by the Warriors-Cavaliers in 2015.

That’s misunderstanding why we are watching. Take the guy who wrote the description of a college basketball replay with something like, “Ohio State’s last-second upset of Michigan was a tournament highlight.”

Duh. Why should I watch now? It’s not to relive a game I remember. It is to pretend it is live and see how it comes out.

In fact, if this year’s NBA playoffs have to be canceled, I have a suggestion. Run the entire playoff bracket, start to finish, from last year. Or two years ago.

There’s no way we remember all of those games. We could follow teams, and even if you know who wins the title, you’d still re-experience the journey.

Because, it turns out, it isn’t the result that matters in sports. It’s the story.

And that’s what we’re missing.

Contact C.W. Nevius at cw.nevius@pressdemocrat.com. Twitter: @cwnevius