Around Baseball 2014

[bronson44]

Was this only to speed up the game? Because there are about a hundred other things they could do to accomplish that before eliminating shifts. lol

 

It's to boost offence. Games are too boring for casuals.

[burlingtonbandit]

It's to boost offence. Games are too boring for casuals.

 

strike zone. that is the problem.

[Angrioter]

Jays end negotiations for Orioles’ Duquette

 

http://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/mlb/toronto-blue-jays-baltimore-orioles-dan-duquette-paul-beeston-jeff-hoffman/

[KingKat]

Jays end negotiations for Orioles’ Duquette

 

http://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/mlb/toronto-blue-jays-baltimore-orioles-dan-duquette-paul-beeston-jeff-hoffman/

 

Well good. Glad that's over.

[KingKat]

Manfred open to eliminating shifts.

 

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=12221038

 

He seems like a really boring, unimaginative person and not especially well informed either, like one of those politicians who looks the part but constantly has to have someone whispering in their ears.

[intentional wok]

Banning shifts and enforcing certain RP usage would be a f***ing debacle, to put it charitably.

[Orgfiller]

What would that look like? If you disallowed 'obvious' intentional walks (catcher stands up), pitchers would still do it but be discrete.

 

Plus, pitchouts are basically intentional balls anyways, would you remove them as well if intentional walks were to be taken out?

[Abomination]

Apparently was thinking about making relief pitchers have to throw to more than one batter. Such crap. Have a pitch clock, make batters not step out after pitches and tell umpires to call the actual strikezone. Problem solved.

 

I really like the idea of relief pitchers having to throw to more than one batter (I've suggested it before here). There's nothing worse than seeing innings where you get like 4 pitching changes in a row. Completely kills any kind of momentum in the game. I'd say each pitcher should have to complete 3 full at-bats, or have the inning come to an end. You can make the rule only for the regular season if you really want to. As for the shifts, definitely NOT in favor of that. I'm okay with a pitch clock, as long as it's only designed to speed up a few of the "human rain delay" guys.

 

I think it would be interesting to experiment with added visibility on the balls, to allow batters to pick up the ball and spin a little easier. Not sure what the results would be, but it could be played with in the AFL, etc.

[Orgfiller]

I really like the idea of relief pitchers having to throw to more than one batter (I've suggested it before here). There's nothing worse than seeing innings where you get like 4 pitching changes in a row. Completely kills any kind of momentum in the game. I'd say each pitcher should have to complete 3 full at-bats, or have the inning come to an end. You can make the rule only for the regular season if you really want to. As for the shifts, definitely NOT in favor of that. I'm okay with a pitch clock, as long as it's only designed to speed up a few of the "human rain delay" guys.

 

I think it would be interesting to experiment with added visibility on the balls, to allow batters to pick up the ball and spin a little easier. Not sure what the results would be, but it could be played with in the AFL, etc.

 

Making relief pitchers be forced to pitch a minimum of 3 batters would remove a lot of the strategy of the late innings, and it would leave the defense at a huge disadvantage. Say this rule was enforced, and then 3 LHH were to come up, you would think: "This is the perfect time to use the LOOGY!" However, that wouldn't work because the manager can change all 3 batters for RHH, while the opposing manager can't do anything about it.

 

Personally, I don't mind having multiple pitching changes in an inning, it's a part of the game.

[KingKat]

Making relief pitchers be forced to pitch a minimum of 3 batters would remove a lot of the strategy of the late innings, and it would leave the defense at a huge disadvantage. Say this rule was enforced, and then 3 LHH were to come up, you would think: "This is the perfect time to use the LOOGY!" However, that wouldn't work because the manager can change all 3 batters for RHH, while the opposing manager can't do anything about it.

 

Personally, I don't mind having multiple pitching changes in an inning, it's a part of the game.

 

What if the guy can't find the strike zone? He has to pitch to three batters no matter what? Way to tie the manager's hands.

[Orgfiller]

What if the guy can't find the strike zone? He has to pitch to three batters no matter what? Way to tie the manager's hands.

Another good point.

[TwistedLogic]

Making relief pitchers be forced to pitch a minimum of 3 batters would remove a lot of the strategy of the late innings, and it would leave the defense at a huge disadvantage. Say this rule was enforced, and then 3 LHH were to come up, you would think: "This is the perfect time to use the LOOGY!" However, that wouldn't work because the manager can change all 3 batters for RHH, while the opposing manager can't do anything about it.

 

Personally, I don't mind having multiple pitching changes in an inning, it's a part of the game.

 

I don't mind this either way though. I mean sure it creates a disadvantage, but it creates it for everybody. Not a big deal. In the bigger picture, they probably realize that the game really is way too slow right now. In the era of dying attention spans, they need to make the game as concise as possible.

 

This'll also force people to have stronger bullpens than usual. Creates a new strategical element.

[burlingtonbandit]

Plus, pitchouts are basically intentional balls anyways, would you remove them as well if intentional walks were to be taken out?

 

I assume the getting rid of intentional walks meant the batter just goes to 1st base without actually having to throw 4 pitches..

[Abomination]

"This is the perfect time to use the LOOGY!" However, that wouldn't work because the manager can change all 3 batters for RHH, while the opposing manager can't do anything about it.

 

That's one of the big benefits imo. Anyway, as much as it eliminates some of the strategy, it would also add some strategy as well. Also, it's very rare that the opposing manager would be able or willing to replace that many bats. It's not something that would be happening every game or anything.

 

As JFaS suggested, you could reduce the warmup pitches, but many pitchers talk about BP mounds being different feel than the game mounds at times. Not sure how viable that would be in practice.

[burlingtonbandit]

That's one of the big benefits imo. Anyway, as much as it eliminates some of the strategy, it would also add some strategy as well. Also, it's very rare that the opposing manager would be able or willing to replace that many bats. It's not something that would be happening every game or anything.

 

As JFaS suggested, you could reduce the warmup pitches, but many pitchers talk about BP mounds being different feel than the game mounds at times. Not sure how viable that would be in practice.

 

Also taking away TV timeouts would just reduce the amount of advertising dollars and make the TV contracts not worth as much. Doubt that ever happens.

[intentional wok]

I don't mind this either way though. I mean sure it creates a disadvantage, but it creates it for everybody. Not a big deal. In the bigger picture, they probably realize that the game really is way too slow right now. In the era of dying attention spans, they need to make the game as concise as possible.

 

This'll also force people to have stronger bullpens than usual. Creates a new strategical element.

 

I disagree. This is, at best, rule changing for the sake of approachability, which in my view is straight up changing the game. Replays are improvements on enforcing rules, so I approve of those. But banning certain strategies is just watering down the game and tying the manager's hands. As much as the blocking-the-plate rule tries to create a safer game, it also limits what the players can do in that situation.

 

I wonder what execs are in favour of this. At worst, this is to keep a status quo of strategic thinking around the league. The GMs want that big lefty bat to boost their lineup, but they don't want the other team to adjust to the one dimensional strategy.

 

As for having "stronger" bullpens, I'd argue teams aren't exactly skimping on putting together strong bullpens now. And regardless of how strong a bullpen is, even the best guys struggle finding the strikezone sometimes. The manager should be able to yank them if they've thrown eight straight balls.

[TheHurl]

Forcing to pitch more than one batter is really pointless. If you want to discourage the change and speed things up then don't go to commercial break in-inning and allow two warmup pitches on the mound max.

 

that'll go over well with those that paid a billion dollars for the TV contracts.

[TheHurl]

I'd like to see them eliminate unneeded breaks without changing the actual mechanics of the game.

 

Do you consider a visit to the mound part of the game? From the catcher? Pitching coach? defense? That's probably the best way to save a few minutes.

[BigBounceyBlueBalls]

No warm up pitches period! Take the mound and pitch. Batters can not leave the box once set, unless to avoid a pitch!

[Boxcar]

Pretty much. Defense is about positioning eight players where the hitter is likely to hit the ball... not standing in set areas. Such positional areas exist only because there wasn't spray chart data in the 1880s. Strikeouts are the primary contributor to our lessened run-scoring environment anyway.

 

 

What would that look like? If you disallowed 'obvious' intentional walks (catcher stands up), pitchers would still do it but be discrete.

 

Posnanski had a great article on this...one solution he thought of was to award two bases for a four pitch walk.

[Stangstag]

Posnanski had a great article on this...one solution he thought of was to award two bases for a four pitch walk.

 

That is the dumbest thing I have heard all week.

[TheHurl]

Posnanski had a great article on this...one solution he thought of was to award two bases for a four pitch walk.

 

Liriano would be f***ed...he walked 22 on 4 pitches last year. Didn't the AFL go to not having to pitch for an intentional walk, just point to first.

[Boxcar]

Liriano would be f***ed...he walked 22 on 4 pitches last year. Didn't the AFL go to not having to pitch for an intentional walk, just point to first.

 

I agree with him though that intentional walks are anti competitive. I'd prefer to see the league adapt measures to discourage them, but seems they are going in the opposite direction on that front.

[Boxcar]

http://joeposnanski.com/joeblogs/how-to-end-the-intentional-walk/ for some reasoning. An idea I like is forcing the catcher to stay behind the plate within certain bounds (as to not eliminate outside put away pitches)

[Gorlak]

The one rule change I'm in favour of is taking out intentionally walking batters. Think its a great idea.

 

They cant get rid of pitchers intentionally hitting batters, It would be impossible to get rid of intentional walks.

[Spanky__99]

Liriano would be f***ed...he walked 22 on 4 pitches last year. Didn't the AFL go to not having to pitch for an intentional walk, just point to first.

 

Yeah, you just signal or relay 4 to the umpire and the batter takes his base. The pitch clock is off to side of the on deck circle closer to the plate, looks ridiculous, I saw it on the MLB network. I don't mind the intent walk rule, and the batter having to keep a foot in the box, but this other s*** can be enforced by an umpire (catcher visits, speed between pitches, etc)

[Gorlak]

Manfred open to eliminating shifts.

 

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=12221038

 

Wow, that is stupid.

[Spanky__99]

Taking strategy away from the game is dumb, let match-ups be, what's the hurry anyhow.

[intentional wok]

Posnanski had a great article on this...one solution he thought of was to award two bases for a four pitch walk.

 

I hate this idea. First off, any penalties involving the strike zone can't even be talked about until the strike zone becomes completely standardized (i.e., robo-umps, or whatever).

 

But imagine this: a guy on first, and the pitcher gets the s***-end of three straight borderline calls to the next batter. Not only does he have to throw a meatball to avoid a walk, he has to throw one to avoid suddenly having runners on second and third. This is an awful way to handle the intentional walk - which, as far as I'm concerned, is a legitimate strategy. It doesn't break any rules and does put the pitcher in a greater jam than he was before the IBB. It sucks to watch a slugger get pitched around, but the rules of the game allow it. Trying to govern the IBB causes so many more issues than it "solves".

[Ehjays]

Did they eliminate that stupid rule for catchers blocking the plate yet