MLB Off-Topic

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I think I read that IBB's were at an all time low last year (or at least lower than any point in recent history) at an average of one ever 2.6 games. So essentially shaving of an average of ~20 seconds a game.

I personally think this rule change was more about the fact it is not a competitive play, similar to what the NFL has been debating over for years with the extra point where it was converted successfully 99% of the time. There may be excitement on a passed ball once or twice a season, but it almost exclusively serves no point for a batter to stand there and watch four ceremonial lobs go by.

I have no problem with this change personally. I can just picture David Ortiz or some other hitter standing there with his bat on the ground undoing his shin guard while the pitcher lobs his final toss. To me, it literally is just a waste of time.

I'm not sure how I feel about some of the other ideas I've heard:

1) Increasing the number of batters a reliever has to face from 1 to maybe 2 or 3.

- I kind of like this one. Would change a coaches strategy on just matching up lefty vs. lefty as the next batter would have to be considered as well.

2) Limiting the number of catcher trips to the mound

- All for this one as well. No reason a catcher needs to come out and talk to the pitcher multiple times during an at bat. Every other sport limits the number of timeouts and this is essentially that. Teams have all spring to get their signals down with runners on second and most should have multiple systems/indicators that they can go to in order to switch it up on the fly.

3) Putting a timer on the amount of time between each pitch

- Again, OK with this one as well. Keep the hitters in the box and the pitchers on the rubber. The players will adjust as soon as the rules start being enforced. I'd be fore modifications of the rule for certain situations similar to how the NFL handles out of bounds differently in the last few minutes of the halves.

4) Quicken the pace in between innings. High School and Colleges play 9 innings and their average time of game has to be leaps and bounds shorter than that of the MLB. The players hustle on and off the field, the pitchers throw their 5 warmups, catcher throws it down and the batter should be on his way to the box. 1 minute max. 1.5 if a new pitcher.

I know advertisement revenue is huge in all sports, but I think that they can be creative in the way they advertise. Instead of showing a soundless meeting at the mound, run a 15 second spot during that time. Run shorter ads during specific windows during the game.

Also, I am all for replay, but I think this should be centralized and each game should have a designated umpire that travels with the crew in the booth that can review the calls instead of having all of the umpires gather around one guy watching the replay on the screen and then discussing and then coming to a decision. Most of these could be handled from a booth and the call can be announced on the screen in a matter of seconds.

I love baseball and never thought I'd be a fan of these types of changes, but the game has evolved over time in such a way that there is less action during a game and it happens less frequently. The days of a 2-1 ball game finishing in 2 hours is a thing of the past. That same game now is 2:30 for a multitude of reasons and some of them can be modified to make it a little more reasonable. I get they need to keep the sacredness of the game, but they also need to do it in a way that keeps fans interested and entertained...and 4+ hour games are tough for most.

I'm against all of the ones you've listed except the catcher visits one. We can do with fewer unofficial pitching coach visits. All of the others are non-starters that invite injury or a simple way to defeat the rule.

1) If a manager must use a pitcher for more than one batter, lots of LOOGYs and ROOGYs are going to become mysteriously injured after facing their one assigned batter...

2) Fine.

3) An easy way to defeat a pitch clock is to throw to the bases, at least with men on base (when pitchers tend to take the most time between pitches). Also, you may see some pitchers take more time than before because they have more time allowed than they thought. If the pitch clock is too short, then you invite more pitching injuries which would be extremely stupid.

4) MLB will shorten the game to 7 innings before cutting out advertising slots. I actually like decent-sized between innings breaks because: A) I have an attention span; and B) breaks are good for grabbing some food/going to the john whether at home or at the park. Forcing the players to change over quicker than they're accustomed, again, probably invites further injury especially for the pitchers.

And these rebuttals are without even considering most purists' main point--any of these things cheapen the strategy, the cat-and-mouse game, that most of us find so enthralling about the game to begin with. If we were talking about cutting from 3-4 hour games down to 1-2 hour games, this could probably be justified. But, when we're talking seconds to a few minutes per game, that's not going to change anyone's misguided perception of baseball being "too long and boring."

[Blzer]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

People probably already know this, but I'm unnerved by the IBB change mostly because it's a legal delivery. Just like touching all four bases on a home run, just like a QB kneeling to run out the clock, or a PG dribbling till the clock runs out in the NBA. Legally, you must still abide by it. Taking this out truly does open a can of worms. You literally could take out running the bases on a home run now that you're doing this with IBB's.

Sure, it takes out the rarity of anything happening on these plays as well (wild pitch, balk, stolen base, batter swings anyway, they change their mind later or want to trick the batter by thinking they'll do it, etc.), but that's still reason number two behind reason number one.

My one concern/question is how this will be statistically charged against a pitcher. I know I made mention of it before, but as upset as pitchers get throwing four wide ones, at least it's still in their control (like they are the ones doing it). Standing on the mound and then having your coach automatically send the guy to first base is ludicrous, especially if it goes against your walk count.

And lastly... I've already shown that a manager has literally taken longer to decide not to appeal a replay rule than it has taken to pitch an intentional walk. Talk about issues in pace of play! This is a bigger deal for me than others make it out to be, despite the frequency of it occurring.

[redsox4evur]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

The PA is against 95% of the meaningful rule changes like a pitch clock, and the aforementioned limiting mound visits. So this IBB change was obviously the only one the PA would approve.

The best rule change they could implement is a 15 and 20 second pitch clock. You get 15 seconds to pitch the ball if there is no one on base and 20 seconds if at least 1 runner is on base. From what I remember reading after last season it worked out pretty well in the minor leagues last year. And it would most of the problems that are wrong with baseball.

[Jr.]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

The PA is against 95% of the meaningful rule changes like a pitch clock, and the aforementioned limiting mound visits. So this IBB change was obviously the only one the PA would approve.

The best rule change they could implement is a 15 and 20 second pitch clock. You get 15 seconds to pitch the ball if there is no one on base and 20 seconds if at least 1 runner is on base. From what I remember reading after last season it worked out pretty well in the minor leagues last year. And it would most of the problems that are wrong with baseball.

There is already a rule that pitchers have :12 between pitches with no one on base. If umpires would just start enforcing it. Same with them not enforcing the rule of batters keeping one foot in the box if they didn't swing.

[Mabster]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

It's as if Manfred would take on the umps union, instead of the players union, we would see pace of play increase with the rules already in place. Instead of coming up with cockamamie ideas that impact the game play while minutely decreasing length.

[Majingir]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

There is already a rule that pitchers have :12 between pitches with no one on base. If umpires would just start enforcing it. Same with them not enforcing the rule of batters keeping one foot in the box if they didn't swing.

12 seconds is abit extreme even if it's an official rule. I think the MLB average is 21.5 seconds or something between pitches. If MLB can even shave off 1 second per pitch on average, that's 5 minutes saved right there. From 1 SECOND per pitch. Would take about 5 seconds per pitch in order to cut the games down to a NBA/NHL level game length which might be abit much for pitchers to adjust to. But no reason to think cutting off 1-2 seconds per pitch wouldn't help out drastically in game time while not impacting gameplay.

[redsox4evur]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

There is already a rule that pitchers have :12 between pitches with no one on base. If umpires would just start enforcing it. Same with them not enforcing the rule of batters keeping one foot in the box if they didn't swing.

Even better then. 12 seconds with no one on and 15 seconds with someone on.

[kehlis]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I love baseball the way it is, I don't want them to touch anything but oh well.

[dubcity]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Manfred's nightmare.



Sent from my HTCD200LVWPP using Tapatalk

So, am I right in assuming there are actually people mad about this rule change, not because it is inadequate at improving pace of play, but because it somehow is tampering with the purity and tradition of the game? Like, people think taking away those 4 pitchouts is messing with the soul of the sport? If that's the case, man, this is why baseball will never come close to being America's top sport ever again.

[DamnYanks2]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

So, am I right in assuming there are actually people mad about this rule change, not because it is inadequate at improving pace of play, but because it somehow is tampering with the purity and tradition of the game? Like, people think taking away those 4 pitchouts is messing with the soul of the sport? If that's the case, man, this is why baseball will never come close to being America's top sport ever again.

It's a pointless omission, there are so many better alternatives'out there. And this is the choice he made.

And, yes pitchers don't always throw a clean 4 pitch walk, especially if his confidence is completely shot, he might make a mistake.

Why get rid of that, I don't consider that being just a purist.

It's illogical this is the choice he made.

Sent from my HTCD200LVWPP using Tapatalk

[Speedy]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I don't see the big deal.

The percentage of "wild" pitches while issuing a IBB is substantially low, as it the % of this play being likely during a game (what, maybe 1 if that?).

The pitch clock and such, I'm not a fan of...but this doesn't really bother me.

[Trevytrev11]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I'm against all of the ones you've listed except the catcher visits one. We can do with fewer unofficial pitching coach visits. All of the others are non-starters that invite injury or a simple way to defeat the rule.

1) If a manager must use a pitcher for more than one batter, lots of LOOGYs and ROOGYs are going to become mysteriously injured after facing their one assigned batter...

2) Fine.

3) An easy way to defeat a pitch clock is to throw to the bases, at least with men on base (when pitchers tend to take the most time between pitches). Also, you may see some pitchers take more time than before because they have more time allowed than they thought. If the pitch clock is too short, then you invite more pitching injuries which would be extremely stupid.

4) MLB will shorten the game to 7 innings before cutting out advertising slots. I actually like decent-sized between innings breaks because: A) I have an attention span; and B) breaks are good for grabbing some food/going to the john whether at home or at the park. Forcing the players to change over quicker than they're accustomed, again, probably invites further injury especially for the pitchers.

And these rebuttals are without even considering most purists' main point--any of these things cheapen the strategy, the cat-and-mouse game, that most of us find so enthralling about the game to begin with. If we were talking about cutting from 3-4 hour games down to 1-2 hour games, this could probably be justified. But, when we're talking seconds to a few minutes per game, that's not going to change anyone's misguided perception of baseball being "too long and boring."

1) I thought about this as I was making my statement. It could happen, but I assume most coaches would just adapt their strategy. MLB could combat with a "spirit of the game" rule or a rule that prevents an injured pitcher who pitched only to a single batter from participating in his teams next game.

3) Not sure I follow the injury logic. The time allotted isn't a race by any means. I don't see how throwing a pitch every 15 seconds instead of 30 leads to injuries. Greg Maddux, who worked quickly was no more prone to injury than someone like Dice-K, who seemingly took forever. Do agree that throwing over to first could be a tactic, but slow pitchers are often slow to gather their thoughts, which I think the throw over would disrupt.

4) Even the NFL is aware that their ratings are dropping and this could be partially due to the length of the game and especially dead time. They are currently looking into ways to reduce time of breaks and come up with creative ways to advertise during the game.

I agree we're not cutting hours here, but 15-20 minutes would go quite a ways, I believe.

[TheMatrix31]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I don't care if "exciting things" "rarely" happen during an intentional walk.

This is precisely why I hate the change. The fact that it reduces game variance. Something COULD happen. But now there are less things that could happen.

Baseball's strength is in seeing things you rarely or haven't seen before, because there are so many ways things can turn out. Now there's less ways.

To add to this, one of the best things about baseball along with the game variance that makes it so much better than any other sport, is the tension that mounts. You know those tight spots in playoff games where the manager decides to walk someone. The boos come down and the pressure mounts on the pitcher to make each pitch, to actually throw four balls, not to mention seeing if the pitcher has suddenly lost the ability to hit the zone when facing the next batters. Nope, no more. Just point to first and take your base. Who needs all that?

One of the things I hate the most is being mocked when warning of a slippery slope. They call you a drama queen. They say you're exaggerating. Until one day there has been enough tinkering and changing that you wake up and see that the sport you loved is unrecognizable. See the NFL, which I sounded the siren on a long time ago. Now that league is a shell of itself. An incomprehensible mish-mash of whining, incoherence and overexposure. Slippery slopes do exist, not just in sports but in everything. That's why things are done in increments and trial balloons under the guise of "just a small thing don't blow it out of proportion!"

Absolutely **** Rob Manfred. Guy is a snake oil salesman.

[Blzer]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

So, am I right in assuming there are actually people mad about this rule change, not because it is inadequate at improving pace of play, but because it somehow is tampering with the purity and tradition of the game? Like, people think taking away those 4 pitchouts is messing with the soul of the sport? If that's the case, man, this is why baseball will never come close to being America's top sport ever again.

My devil's advocate position is always suggesting we take away batters running the bases after a home run.

Taking away the "excitement" of the play, it is a very, very close legal action that could be rendered useless the moment the ball sails over the fence.

I don't care if "exciting things" "rarely" happen during an intentional walk.

This is precisely why I hate the change. The fact that it reduces game variance. Something COULD happen. But now there are less things that could happen.

Baseball's strength is in seeing things you rarely or haven't seen before, because there are so many ways things can turn out. Now there's less ways.

Exactly.

[Trevytrev11]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

My one concern/question is how this will be statistically charged against a pitcher. I know I made mention of it before, but as upset as pitchers get throwing four wide ones, at least it's still in their control (like they are the ones doing it). Standing on the mound and then having your coach automatically send the guy to first base is ludicrous, especially if it goes against your walk count.

I don't recall any instances of a pitcher going against his coach and refusing to issue an IBB when called upon, so not sure I understand the issue here besides the fact that he's not actually throwing the ball. I would assume that pitcher at the time would get hit with walk just as he would had be lobbed four pitches over.

I do agree however that of all the ways to save time, this will by far be the least impactful.