MLB Off-Topic

[kehlis]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Eh, if the sword you want to die on is the loss of the intentional walk you kind of lose me.

I hate the pace of play initiative in almost all facets. But that isn't really one of them.

[TheMatrix31]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

If anything, the intentional walk thing makes it harder to pay attention.

You look away for a second and Markakis is up instead of Freddie? What the **** happened to Fred--oh.

[kehlis]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

If anything, the intentional walk thing makes it harder to pay attention.

You look away for a second and Markakis is up instead of Freddie? What the **** happened to Fred--oh.

It doesn't make it harder to pay attention, it actually means that if you missed it, you weren't paying attention.

[Blzer]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Eh, if the sword you want to die on is the loss of the intentional walk you kind of lose me.

I hate the pace of play initiative in almost all facets. But that isn't really one of them.

I wouldn't say it's the sword I want to die on, but it is in fact the slippery slope that would allow them to say: "Hey, you know how we automated this? That means we can do so-and-so elsewhere too!" It's also the one I think I can retort with the most ammo on, so I'm just louder about it is all.

Plus, keep in mind that this does affect other leagues not named the MLB. In an e-mail addressed to me from the National Federation of High School Softball:





And no, the IBB in HS is not a moment of time that is dull or lifeless. You know how we mock the phrase "anything can happen" during an IBB in an MLB game? Yeah, well here, anything can happen. Not anymore, though. I'm glad the ASA has willed against including this.

[kehlis]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I'm sorry but I, in no way, shape, or form care about softball rule changes or the correlation you are trying to make....

[Blzer]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Regardless, rules I'm still in favor of changing (this dates back to 2010 when we started talking about it on here):

1) Maximum of thirty seconds between the end of one play and the "start" of the next batter during the same half-inning. Honestly, the batter should be in the box well before that, so I'm really talking about when the pitcher should be coming set or starting his windup. That is not to increase pace of play because our generation can't handle it, that's because outside of signs being delivered, literally nothing is going on during that time.

2) Increased major league roster size (I have many stances on this, ranging from "28 per roster" to "one inactive player per series").

3) For the ground rule double, we can keep the "double" aspect in, but if a runner on first is going to score and it's just that evident, the umpires use their discretion to send him home instead of holding him on third.

4) Base coaches are not required to wear helmets (you can bet everyone will still opt to do it though, which of course is fine and probably for the best).

5) Batter does not have to make an attempt to avoid a hit-by-pitch (however it's different if they lean into one). This is still stated as such in the rule book, and should be removed.

6) Minimum of three position players in fair territory on either side of the field pre-pitch (basically, my version of "eliminating the shift").

7) Not really an in-game rule, but as far as stadium restrictions go, bullpens should not be placed on the field in foul territory anymore (for newly built stadiums).

8) Replay challenges cannot be reviewed by team personnel beforehand. Also, losing a challenge results in three consecutive defensive outs without allowance of a conference.

And for statistical purposes...

9) "Team errors" should become an invented stat. Basically, a way of punishing the defense for collectively not putting out a player that should require ordinary effort without punishing just one player. This also removes credit from the batter. Such an instance would include miscommunication among three players on a popup.

10) On-base percentage should take speed a little more into account by considering fielding errors and fielder's choices as positives for the statistic. This one is arguable for many reasons including the two obvious ones that they should only earn theirs by reaching successfully as well as there being some discretion on which times they actually beat out something because of an error, but on-base percentage is exactly that... the percentage of the time they reach base (maybe even reaching on drop-third strikes should be considered).

[Master Live 013]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

3) I would not support a rule that introduces new a judgement call by umpires. Better to have an objective rule that's straightforward even if sometimes the result is "unfair".

4) I don't think I understand this, are you saying that helmets for base coaches currently aren't mandatory and you would make them mandatory? If so, then I agree. If the other way then I don't know what reason you could possibly have for that.

6) Why?

9) Errors are highly subjective and it is a flawed stat. This would only compound the problem.

10) See 9.

[TheMatrix31]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

It doesn't make it harder to pay attention, it actually means that if you missed it, you weren't paying attention.

Fair point but 100 percent attention is rare.

[Blzer]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

The biggest problem with the statistical ones is our inability to alter the past and retroactively reassign values. I see why those can be a hassle.

As for the ground rule double, I've seen balls bounce over when the runner is literally halfway between third and home (think full count, two outs and the runner is stealing on the pitch). That's not in the judgment of the umpire, that's blatantly going to happen. He still has to physically do it himself, though. So I'd say that as long as he's between third and home, then it should be a done deal.

Helmets on base coaches are mandatory. Before they were mandatory, they were "optional" in that base coaches just assumed they should be wearing hats. No reason it should be mandatory. That being said, changing the rule won't change the effect: you'll be hard-pressed to see a coach out there not wearing a helmet. Like the hit-by-pitch rule, I'm just changing the letter of the law, though you won't see any actual effect unless somebody wants to.

The shifting is just because. I believe that positions on the field are governed as such for a certain reason. Some rules in the book, such as the infield fly rule, dictate something about specific fielders (in that case, infielders being able to play a popup with ordinary effort), but when you remove regions of the field then you remove the essence of positions entirely. Besides, we want our youth to adore our pull-happy superstars, don't we? Why would we want to see them get out all the time?

Thanks for reading.

3) I would not support a rule that introduces new a judgement call by umpires. Better to have an objective rule that's straightforward even if sometimes the result is "unfair".

4) I don't think I understand this, are you saying that helmets for base coaches currently aren't mandatory and you would make them mandatory? If so, then I agree. If the other way then I don't know what reason you could possibly have for that.

6) Why?

9) Errors are highly subjective and it is a flawed stat. This would only compound the problem.

10) See 9.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Eh, if the sword you want to die on is the loss of the intentional walk you kind of lose me.

I hate the pace of play initiative in almost all facets. But that isn't really one of them.

I get that. But, the main problem I had with this was that they knew it wasn't really going to even make a dent in making games faster or more exciting. Now that Barry Bonds is retired and intentional walks are so rare, there's no prospect of automatic IBB's shortening games by more than fractions of minutes. Then, realizing that, it became about "pace of play" where any time anything less than a touchdown pass is in progress, some people are too bored to care. Frankly, I never thought an intentional walk was "dead time" because you're thinking about scenarios/who's up next and so forth while the 4 wide ones were taking place. To me, it was never about losing that .0001% chance of a game-changing wild pitch. It's continuing this slow creep of rule changes that don't solve any problems, but for some reason keep happening. And because these rules don't actually solve any problems whatsoever, these underlying "pace of play" concerns never go away. Which is even more annoying than the toothless rule changes themselves.

[Blzer]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

^ Thank you for putting that into words better than I could. My problem is I make multiple points in a post, and people pick apart the dumbest one whilst ignoring the better put ones.

And the worst part is... if nobody ever talked about pace of play, then pace of play wouldn't be a discussion point to begin with (yes, I realize how stupid that sentence sounds). There wasn't an issue before this.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

To comment on that comparison study between a 1984 game and a 2014 game...

A one game comparison does not prove a whole lot. Would I expect the results to be longer games in more recent times? Of course, but if the underlying reason is what's desired, then it needs to be studied in higher volume.

But, even if it were. And even if it shows that games are now 30 min longer only due to time taken between pitches....so what? For one, there is so much more information in the game now that there's no comparison. What if some of that time between pitches is "processing" what to do with this particular hitter, parsing scouting data, holding a baserunner, communicating with the catcher, getting signs from the dugout etc. Another thing is pitchers throw a lot harder now than in 1984. I wouldn't be surprised if it's 5-7 MPH faster on average. This requires more max effort deliveries, which presumably would be interfered with by making the pitcher potentially alter his business on the mound.

It also begs the question: why 20 seconds? Why not 10? Let's get these games movin' baby!

[Master Live 013]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

That's the thing, if anyone has the capacity and resources to study this is office of Commissioner. I know they created a committee to study pace of place, but have they actually commissioned a study to look into this? Have they release those findings? Even if it just confirms what you thought you already knew there is value in that.

Seems Manfred read my earlier post and has decided to step up his "I can be a hated commissioner too" game.

[countryboy]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I'm not a fan of the pitch clock, but honestly if its added to regular season games I really don't care. It's been in the minors for 2 seasons now and I attend quite a few Louisville Bats games (AAA) and honestly the pitch clock has no bearing on the game itself. It doesn't effect the chess match that is the sport. It doesn't effect the strategy. And honestly if I didn't see the clock counting down, I would never know it was in effect.

[CMH]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Let them make all the changes. I don't care.

It still won't suddenly make kids drop fortnite for baseball.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk