This article is part of our The Z Files series.
I'll make you a promise. Once MLB announces the 2020 schedule, I'll be on the forefront of next-level analysis, offering insights others will overlook. Until then, I'm going to refrain from discussing which players may benefit or be hurt by the delay. Until the particulars are known, it's all speculation.
On the other hand, there are some obvious alterations to the usual plan that will be the consequence of whatever MLB decides to do, and no one is more equipped to review the effect on conventional valuation as yours truly. Not to mention, valuation and its inherent flaws have been the theme of the spring installments of this column, so this is a natural extension.
It's apparent the 2020 schedule will be both condensed and extended and likely shorter. That is, off days could be lost along with the inclusion of doubleheaders, making Ernie Banks smile. In addition, games are likely to extend past October, perhaps contested in neutral warm weather sites and domes. For the record, this isn't parroting a certain player agent's suggestion; it's been bandied about in a more league-wide sense.
Again, not focusing on specific players, there's a few global repercussions with respect to logical playing time expectations. Using 144 games as an arbitrary example and by no means a prediction, players accustomed to missing just a handful of games will probably be idle for a few more. Scaling down 156 games played in a normal season equates to 139 in a 144-game campaign. However, with