MLB Off-Topic

[Sportsforever]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

but prior to the 3 batter rule the "unfairness" was placed on the offense.

Once a pinch hitter was announced the pitching team could make a pitching change without the offense being allowed to counter.

What? How so? The offense was always free to use a different pinch hitter (they would have burned a hitter, but that was their choice). At that point the defense was limited because they couldn't bring in another reliever until he had pitched to a batter.

[countryboy]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

What? How so? The offense was always free to use a different pinch hitter (they would have burned a hitter, but that was their choice). At that point the defense was limited because they couldn't bring in another reliever until he had pitched to a batter.

My bad, I didn't expand my thought to include that they couldn't make a change and keep the previous PH still available.

Yes the offense could pinch hit for an announced pinch hitter, but that original pinch hitter would be out of the game.

[Blzer]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

My bad, I didn't expand my thought to include that they couldn't make a change and keep the previous PH still available.

Yes the offense could pinch hit for an announced pinch hitter, but that original pinch hitter would be out of the game.

Think about the flip-side of that, where it's even worse (you don't even have to use this year as an example).

Say some lefty is coming up, and they make a call to the bullpen to bring in their lefty specialist. Then they pinch-hit a righty/switch hitter to counter them. What's worse about this is the pitcher has to pitch to this batter. They can't even burn this pitcher if they wanted to and bring in some other righty pitcher for the hitter. At least the offense still has that advantage.

Plus, I love that strategical aspect. This happens a lot more often in the pitcher's spot, including bluffing a certain on-deck hitter so the guy beforehand gets thrown around or something (or bluffing the pitcher on-deck so that batter gets thrown to, either way).

[countryboy]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

So how’s tge 3 batter minimum that much different then? I mean aside from offense being forced to burn a player’s eligibility for the game, how is this rule that much different than what we had previously?

Previously in your situation if a righty was up next, after the lefty pitcher pitched to one batter then he would be replaced with a righty and the offense could counter again but their choices would be limited because they are already down a player


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[Blzer]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

So how’s tge 3 batter minimum that much different then? I mean aside from offense being forced to burn a player’s eligibility for the game, how is this rule that much different than what we had previously?

Previously in your situation if a righty was up next, after the lefty pitcher pitched to one batter then he would be replaced with a righty and the offense could counter again but their choices would be limited because they are already down a player


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

The difference is the defense isn't allowed to change pitchers for two more batters. I'm confused on your question. (?)

However, personally I feel I'm allowed the opportunity to deflect here. Rules can't just be changed with people saying: "Why not?" My deflection is: why was this rule changed? And we all know the answer. It's the same answer to the automatic walk, between innings time, pitch clock, the extra inning rule... all of it is for the exact same reason: pace of play.

That is not a baseball-contingent decision. There was literally not another single thing in mind when it came to deciding upon this rule, no matter what anyone wants to believe. This was enacted by a wannabe commissioner who does not accept the purity of the sport.

[countryboy]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

The difference is the defense isn't allowed to change pitchers for two more batters. I'm confused on your question. (?)



However, personally I feel I'm allowed the opportunity to deflect here. Rules can't just be changed with people saying: "Why not?" My deflection is: why was this rule changed? And we all know the answer. It's the same answer to the automatic walk, between innings time, pitch clock, the extra inning rule... all of it is for the exact same reason: pace of play.



That is not a baseball-contingent decision. There was literally not another single thing in mind when it came to deciding upon this rule, no matter what anyone wants to believe. This was enacted by a wannabe commissioner who does not accept the purity of the sport.

The premise to which I originally responded was the offense being able to counter a pitching change with the 3 batter rule, but they’ve always had the ability.

The difference between now and previous is the offense doesn’t have to burn the eligibility of a player doing so.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[Blzer]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

The premise to which I originally responded was the offense being able to counter a pitching change with the 3 batter rule, but they’ve always had the ability.

Oh, I see what you're saying. No yeah, I was trying to ignore the rule altogether. I was just bringing about the fact that someone (maybe you?) had stated it's unfair the offense may choose to burn a player outright if the defense switches pitchers after a batter is announced, and I was simply saying the defense even has it worse where a batter can come in on a new pitcher, and they couldn't burn their pitcher for that batter even if they wanted to.

The difference between now and previous is the offense doesn’t have to burn the eligibility of a player doing so.

This is only if they put in a new pitcher already to begin with. But yes, this is something where the offense can just load up righties against a lefty that comes in if they want to, and the defense can't do anything about that lefty unless they finish the inning or he gets injured.

Not something I love, personally. I'll hate to see if this goes down to lower levels of the sport(s), including high school (I include softball in this as well). Granted, you don't see rapid switches like this in high school, but I hate the trickle-down effect from the MLB level that puts these into play.

[KSUowls]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Yeah there are some issues with the 3 batter minimum, but that is the biggest one.

Previously if you had a RHP in the game and the next guy up was a RHB who was not having a good game, the the offense could sub in a LHB for a better matchup. At that point the defense could then decide to put the match up back in their favor with a LHP if they wanted to. On the flip side, the next guy up in the lineup could kill RHP, and so the defense decides to bring in someone for a better matchup. The offense could then decide to put the matchup back in their favor with a PH. There was the potential for action and reaction on both sides.

The new rules force the defense to make substitutions based on what they think will happen while the offense gets to make decisions based on real time information.

I do think that a pretty easy fix would be to just open back up pitching changes in the event one of the first 3 batters is a PH. That would get close to putting both sides back to the old strategy based format while still mostly containing the instances of relief pitcher roulette.

[TheMatrix31]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I think MLB has been wanting to experiment with these new rules for a while. Corona is just an excuse. Whats two more innings in a season shortened by 102 games?

It's extreme overkill. At one point these things would have been blasphemous. And now its become the norm.

Thats why people get so nervous about a little change because it starts a slippery slope and ends in madness.



Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Naw when has anyone been right about that. Get with the times bro stop exaggerating. There's no such thing as a slippery slope. You'll forget about it in a year!

Look at all these potential scenarios you guys are talking about in this thread. All this **** goes away with rules that make the game more cookie-cutter. This rule shouldn't exist because ultimately it limits game variance.

[Master Live 013]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Exactly. The slippery slope began a long time ago. We are now sliding down it.

I'm not sure how the shifting restriction conversation hasn't made it in yet, though. For those who are aware, I don't want it completely eradicated, I just want some minor sense of balance/normalcy within the extremeness that we see. If they ended up going to the extent firming positions way too much, that would be a bit of a problem as well.

So you like strategy except for one of the most significant strategy/tactical changes in the last 40 years, that came about "organically" or as organically as it can just because you want some "minor sense of balance/normalcy" whatever that means, but not completely eradicated, mind you.

[Blzer]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

So you like strategy except for one of the most significant strategy/tactical changes in the last 40 years, that came about "organically" or as organically as it can just because you want some "minor sense of balance/normalcy" whatever that means, but not completely eradicated, mind you.

"Strategy" is such a loose term that it's not even funny. No, I don't like something just because strategy is involved.

Tell me if any of the following sound like something the sport might want to consider using:

• Setting your lineup for the day, no position player substitutions can be made.
• Switch-hitters having to declare which side of the plate they will bat on the entire day.
• No call-ups or send-downs mid-week. They all have to be made on Sunday nights from the hours of 9:00-midnight PST.
• Mound visits reduced from FIVE to ZERO. They should have conversed before the inning started regarding what to do in any situation.
• Nonverbal signs are not allowed to be given anymore. Every indication of a sign must be done verbally. Now it's up to the other team to decide if "Fastball" and "Steal!" really are what we expect them to be.

There is a certain purity and established order that was already set in place. And I want to keep one thing in mind: if the rule was always three batters from the jump, perhaps I'd feel differently on the subject matter. I don't know for sure, but I probably would. However, the reason it is in play now is only to increase the game's pace of play. That's a wrong reason to implement a rule that is otherwise introducing other substantial unintended consequences (unlike something like one foot being in the batter's box).

Anyway, I don't like that shifts take away the essence of the nature of positions. I don't like that shifts feel like a mocking embarrassment of a hitter's inability to do certain things. I don't like how shifts are one-sided in an opponent's favor. I don't like how a player might offset a shift by bunting every plate appearance and potentially getting a 1.000 batting average.

Why can't we steal first base from second? There could be a strategical advantage for the offense if a runner is on third. Nope, we're not allowed to run the bases in reverse order as a way to confuse the defense or mock the integrity of the game. It's in the writing. Why aren't we allowed to stand behind third base and load up a dash toward home in a tag-up attempt? Why is our free will and exercise nuked in these offensive cases simply because?

Why does the NFL have to have at least seven players on the offensive line, with eligible receivers being the widest players out? Why can't an offensive player in basketball stand in the paint for three seconds, or why can't a defender do the same outside of arm's reach of an offensive player? Formations are there as to not overtly beat a system that needs some intention of fighting back.

If you saw my post on what my shifting rules would still allow, you'd see it wouldn't necessarily be a problem in most all cases. What I want to prevent are nine infielders, seven outfielders, a left side of a field completely vacant, the embarrassment of watching an unoccupied third base being easily taken by a runner because fielders forget where they are supposed to be once shifted... the reason this rule is put into place is extremely baseball-related, and is not related to pace of play whatsoever. Maybe it's because I loved Barry Bonds growing up and I hated to see the wishbone defense against him. Granted, I hated lefty specialists against him as well, but I'm still for one pitcher/one batter, so who knows where I stand on these things.

The governance of positions probably should also include the arrangement of the third baseman always remaining the leftmost player (if they position switch that's fine, but then he'll be declared another position), and infielders always being the closest individuals to the batter (same thing applies... if you're deeper than any one outfielder pre-pitch, then you're an outfielder).

I just don't know how you can keep a straight face though and say that, outside of this pandemic-based season, most every move by Manfred has been made so that his name will be remembered forever as the man who changed baseball. If the greatest justification for a decision made is to increase the pace of play, you're looking at the wrong sport here.

The only abusive tactic that no one will ever figure out a remedy for (because there isn't one) are the unlimited pickoffs problem. There is absolutely nothing that says a pitcher can't pickoff 100 times over to first base, even if the player is standing on the bag. I'm sure Joe Kelly was thinking about doing that as long as Bregman was standing on first base. I'm not sure why he stopped, really. Anyway, I just thought I'd throw out that little nugget.

[Master Live 013]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

"Strategy" is such a loose term that it's not even funny. No, I don't like something just because strategy is involved.

Tell me if any of the following sound like something the sport might want to consider using:

• Setting your lineup for the day, no position player substitutions can be made.
• Switch-hitters having to declare which side of the plate they will bat on the entire day.
• No call-ups or send-downs mid-week. They all have to be made on Sunday nights from the hours of 9:00-midnight PST.
• Mound visits reduced from FIVE to ZERO. They should have conversed before the inning started regarding what to do in any situation.
• Nonverbal signs are not allowed to be given anymore. Every indication of a sign must be done verbally. Now it's up to the other team to decide if "Fastball" and "Steal!" really are what we expect them to be.

There is a certain purity and established order that was already set in place. And I want to keep one thing in mind: if the rule was always three batters from the jump, perhaps I'd feel differently on the subject matter. I don't know for sure, but I probably would. However, the reason it is in play now is only to increase the game's pace of play. That's a wrong reason to implement a rule that is otherwise introducing other substantial unintended consequences (unlike something like one foot being in the batter's box).

Anyway, I don't like that shifts take away the essence of the nature of positions. I don't like that shifts feel like a mocking embarrassment of a hitter's inability to do certain things. I don't like how shifts are one-sided in an opponent's favor. I don't like how a player might offset a shift by bunting every plate appearance and potentially getting a 1.000 batting average.

Why can't we steal first base from second? There could be a strategical advantage for the offense if a runner is on third. Nope, we're not allowed to run the bases in reverse order as a way to confuse the defense or mock the integrity of the game. It's in the writing. Why aren't we allowed to stand behind third base and load up a dash toward home in a tag-up attempt? Why is our free will and exercise nuked in these offensive cases simply because?

Why does the NFL have to have at least seven players on the offensive line, with eligible receivers being the widest players out? Why can't an offensive player in basketball stand in the paint for three seconds, or why can't a defender do the same outside of arm's reach of an offensive player? Formations are there as to not overtly beat a system that needs some intention of fighting back.

If you saw my post on what my shifting rules would still allow, you'd see it wouldn't necessarily be a problem in most all cases. What I want to prevent are nine infielders, seven outfielders, a left side of a field completely vacant, the embarrassment of watching an unoccupied third base being easily taken by a runner because fielders forget where they are supposed to be once shifted... the reason this rule is put into place is extremely baseball-related, and is not related to pace of play whatsoever. Maybe it's because I loved Barry Bonds growing up and I hated to see the wishbone defense against him. Granted, I hated lefty specialists against him as well, but I'm still for one pitcher/one batter, so who knows where I stand on these things.

The governance of positions probably should also include the arrangement of the third baseman always remaining the leftmost player (if they position switch that's fine, but then he'll be declared another position), and infielders always being the closest individuals to the batter (same thing applies... if you're deeper than any one outfielder pre-pitch, then you're an outfielder).

I just don't know how you can keep a straight face though and say that, outside of this pandemic-based season, most every move by Manfred has been made so that his name will be remembered forever as the man who changed baseball. If the greatest justification for a decision made is to increase the pace of play, you're looking at the wrong sport here.

The only abusive tactic that no one will ever figure out a remedy for (because there isn't one) are the unlimited pickoffs problem. There is absolutely nothing that says a pitcher can't pickoff 100 times over to first base, even if the player is standing on the bag. I'm sure Joe Kelly was thinking about doing that as long as Bregman was standing on first base. I'm not sure why he stopped, really. Anyway, I just thought I'd throw out that little nugget.

Your post seems to have a lot of rambling about the 3-batters rule and Manfred. I don't know if I need to clarify, I don't know why should I since I have been very clear, but I'm extremely against the 3 minimum batter rule.

I see a lot of words but a lot of your opposition seems to come down to you feeling "embarrassed" that "watching an unoccupied third base being easily taken by a runner because fielders forget where they are supposed to be once shifted" or "mocking embarrassment of a hitter's inability to do certain things". I don't see that as a good enough reason to ban shifts or modified how managers may set their defense.

What I want to prevent are nine infielders, seven outfielders, a left side of a field completely vacant,

I'm sorry (not sorry), I just don't agree with that.

I don't like how shifts are one-sided in an opponent's favor. I don't like how a player might offset a shift by bunting every plate appearance and potentially getting a 1.000 batting average.

But the shift aren't one-sided, you provided a solution for the batters: hitting the other way and this may come in the way of a bunt if the batter so chooses to. And we see this come over and over and over and over and over and over again everywhere: "why don't they just hit the ball the other way!". A hitters comes up and the announcer points right away, on every game, of every day, of every month, of every year: "look at the hole on the left side of the infield, if they bunted that way they have had a free hit". AND.THEY.NEVER.DO.IT.

Ok, every once in a while they do do it but never enough times and consistent enough for the shift to change. They don't do it, they are incapable, either because of inability to lay down a bunt or because of pride, but they seldom do it, they rather try to "beat the shift" than to go the other way. AND I'M FINE WITH THAT. Let batters do what they want, it is their choice, and let defenses do what they want, it is their choice too.

And it is only theoretical as you already know, they wouldn't hit a 1.000 because defenses WOULD ADJUST and shift back if a hitter ever consistently hit the other way enough for the value proposition of the shift to become a negative.

Frankly, I see the objection to defensive shift, in some ways, as childish. It is like, "nop, you aren't allowed to have that many people over there, that's cheating (it isn't)". "You have to let me have "a fair chance" of hitting over there so move back please".

Baseball is a game of ADJUSTMENTS. Years ago the defensive came up (within the confines of the rules) with a creative, innovative, and inspiring adjustment via way of the shift and many hitters never adjusted. That's too bad for them. How about you get better and hit the ball the other way. If you can't that's a deficiency on your game that separates you from hitters that can hit to all fields.

To finish, my general position on defensive shifts can be summed up by this passage on Keith Law's Smart Baseball (page 258):

Furthermore, Statcast data can help further refine positioning beyond simple shifts, such as moving a third infielder to play in short right field against left-handed pull hitters, that we've seen in baseball over the last five years. Now the most advanced teams...are modeling likely outcomes based on the hitter, the pitcher, and the capabilities of the fielders to determine where the ball is most likely to be put in play and to station defenders in those spots. It ruins the symmetry of the standard defensive alignment -Mejdal specifically cited the emotional satisfaction we get from a traditional setup that "looks right and feels right," but that the data say is wrong. It's better to get more outs, even if it looks ugly on paper, than to set up a pretty defense that lets more balls fall in for hits.

[TripleCrown9]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Personally I'd love to see a baseball team shift the defense into 7 infielders.

Because then I could say I've seen a baseball team do the stupidest possible thing they could do.

[Caulfield]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Personally I'd love to see a baseball team shift the defense into 7 infielders.

Because then I could say I've seen a baseball team do the stupidest possible thing they could do.

you haven't been paying attention to the Marlins and Cards then

[Majingir]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Personally I'd love to see a baseball team shift the defense into 7 infielders.



Because then I could say I've seen a baseball team do the stupidest possible thing they could do.

6 for the most is what's needed. Still gotta have 1 OF lol. If a groundball still gets through, then that just sucks. Although if it's a situation where any ball hit to the OF drives in a game winning run, why not?

I've seen Rays use a basically 5 man OF when defending Cavan Biggio a few weeks back. If only he knew how to bunt. Could get a double without the ball getting past 3B.