If you could change ONE rule...

[Azamien]

Re: If you could change ONE rule...

3) Infielders must start each pitch on their respective sides of the field (where the line up the middle divides it into two).

I'm curious about your reasoning for this one. Exploiting a weakness or taking away an advantage is part of sports. If the players the shift is being used against can't take a ball the other way, the rules shouldn't protect them from themselves. It doesn't seem to me that it has any negative impact on the game.

Aside from that, you'd actually have to create rules regarding positioning to be able to enforce this rule since only the pitcher and catcher have mandated positions. If a team wants to play seven infielders and one outfielder they can. The positions (SS, 2B, etc) are just terms of tradition rather than rules-based.

[lonewolf371]

Re: If you could change ONE rule...

Lose the DH.

[Speedy]

Re: If you could change ONE rule...

Get rid of the unbalanced schedule with the insane amount of games to be played w/in the division.

[Blzer]

Re: If you could change ONE rule...

I'm curious about your reasoning for this one. Exploiting a weakness or taking away an advantage is part of sports. If the players the shift is being used against can't take a ball the other way, the rules shouldn't protect them from themselves. It doesn't seem to me that it has any negative impact on the game.

Aside from that, you'd actually have to create rules regarding positioning to be able to enforce this rule since only the pitcher and catcher have mandated positions. If a team wants to play seven infielders and one outfielder they can. The positions (SS, 2B, etc) are just terms of tradition rather than rules-based.

The only reasoning comes from not deeming it unfair for guys like Howard or Bonds back in the day that are facing a wishbone defense, but there should just need to be a balance as you're playing the position that is listed on the back of your card, not some other position. I understand there would have to be a bunch of ways to make sure this happens correctly and not violate anything else (as you said, you can play outfielders in as far as possible even to be infielders), but I think the balance just needs to stay there.

Again, this isn't to protect these tendency hitters... it's just embarrassing to watch is all. These are grown men performing child's play by bringing people over for whatever reason it may be. It's like legal formations in football in a way. Not that it wasn't illegal, but you saw that ridiculous Redskins play against the Giants before halftime where they all shifted to one side of the field. That was just... wrong in so many ways.

I just feel there should be some sort of order here. I actually hope that Ortiz and Howard start bunting down the third base line a bit more for easy hits so that they can start shifting back over again.


EDIT: Well, I'm going to lower its importance a bit, but I'm also adding another rule (or taking out one that's in there).

[Chizzypoof]

Re: If you could change ONE rule...

Best record gets home field advantage in the World Series.

The All-Star game shouldn't bear this weight.

[SPTO]

Re: If you could change ONE rule...

Get rid of the unbalanced schedule with the insane amount of games to be played w/in the division.

It also makes it a lot fairer barometer of how good a division winner is because you sometimes run into a situation where a division champ is just whaling on the crappy competition which inflates their record.

Best record gets home field advantage in the World Series.

The All-Star game shouldn't bear this weight.

I'd rather go by the old format and have home field alternate every year.

[Chizzypoof]

Re: If you could change ONE rule...

I'd rather go by the old format and have home field alternate every year.

I don't mind that either. Especially with the unbalanced scheduling. Just get it away from the All Star game.

[ryan36]

Re: If you could change ONE rule...

I'd go with the balanced schedule. As far as positioning the IF, hell no. Ryan Howard can learn to go the other way.

The DH...there is one league that does not use the DH. The NL. After you turn 15, you're playing baseball with a DH. That's life.

Yes, get helmets off the damn base coaches.

The rule I would change would be if the DH goes into the field, you lose the DH. I think DH should be just like any other position where you can switch whoever it is whenever.

[24]

Re: If you could change ONE rule...

the height of the mound. raise it again

[Blzer]

Re: If you could change ONE rule...

The rule I would change would be if the DH goes into the field, you lose the DH. I think DH should be just like any other position where you can switch whoever it is whenever.

I'm not too sure about this one. This would be a good excuse to get someone to sit for a little bit of time and then go back out there. One of the great things about baseball is how long these guys can stay out there for 162 games a year. Giving them "breaks" would kind of baby the sport in a way, even though there's already a pitcher and DH that don't play the other half of the game as is.

[duke776]

Re: If you could change ONE rule...

4) Batter does not have to make an attempt to avoid a hit-by-pitch (however it's different if they lean into one).

Do they have this rule in the mlb? I've never seen it enforced, so I'm just wondering.

Anyways, I always hated that rule. I always would stay in there and get hit, I didn't care, only time I moved was when it was close to my head. Until they started not awarding me my base, then I just faked like I was trying to get out of the way. This IMO is one of the dumbest rules ever.

[Dice]

Re: If you could change ONE rule...

Limit the amount of intentional walks. I think a team should only get 1(maybe 2) a game.

[Blzer]

Re: If you could change ONE rule...

Do they have this rule in the mlb? I've never seen it enforced, so I'm just wondering.

Anyways, I always hated that rule. I always would stay in there and get hit, I didn't care, only time I moved was when it was close to my head. Until they started not awarding me my base, then I just faked like I was trying to get out of the way. This IMO is one of the dumbest rules ever.

I don't like the rule either, but it's in there and I've seen it take effect during a game on television (happened last year in a Giants game, I believe):

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/batter_6.jsp

6.08
The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base) when --
(b) He is touched by a pitched ball which he is not attempting to hit unless (1) The ball is in the strike zone when it touches the batter, or (2) The batter makes no attempt to avoid being touched by the ball

It's stupid and discretionary, but I think this should be taken out altogether. I know that some batters "take one for the team," but believe me when I say that these guys are up there to hit, not be hit. The last thing they want to do is experience pain or endure an injury that may take them out for a series, put them on the DL, or hinder them from throwing correctly.

Again, dumb rule that should be omitted. Pitchers should have a bit more control than that.

[Blzer]

Re: If you could change ONE rule...

Limit the amount of intentional walks. I think a team should only get 1(maybe 2) a game.

This one is dicey (EDIT: no pun intended haha). An intentional walk can come in many forms, like the infamous "unintentional-intentional walk" that Bonds was treated with a lot during his four consecutive MVP years. It's even difficult to make it an official stat in some ways, because technically it's a walk like any other. The ball is still live and every pitch must be just as legal as any other pitch (come set, be on the rubber, catcher must be within his box, etc.).

The only difference is that he is letting the pitcher know to throw one wide and stands up to mobilize better and keep runners in check. So technically an intentional walk is no different than any other kind of walk, and if they took that away then the pitcher would still attempt to throw four wide ones while the catcher is squatting anyway.

I was trying to think of something with intentional walks as well, but I just don't think you can omit them since they are very legal forms of pitching, and something like that can't suddenly be taken out just "because". Besides, I always find it to be an opportunity for the offensive team. I mean hey, they just gave you a free baserunner.

[duke776]

Re: If you could change ONE rule...

I don't like the rule either, but it's in there and I've seen it take effect during a game on television (happened last year in a Giants game, I believe):

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/batter_6.jsp

It's stupid and discretionary, but I think this should be taken out altogether. I know that some batters "take one for the team," but believe me when I say that these guys are up there to hit, not be hit. The last thing they want to do is experience pain or endure an injury that may take them out for a series, put them on the DL, or hinder them from throwing correctly.

Again, dumb rule that should be omitted. Pitchers should have a bit more control than that.

Ah, okay. Didn't know it had happened recently. I agree with you completely though, if you get hit, you get hit. No matter if you try to get out of the way or not(which is discretionary like you said), I don't see how a pitcher should get to take back a mistake.