Around Baseball 2014

[baloojayz]

Well, that WOULD shorten the game. Soccer games would also probably feature more scoring than baseball games.

 

Not really, I watched a bunch of Bautista's homers and a good chunk were with less than two strikes or on two strikes exactly.

 

Less scoring, but not by much.

Could go one step further and limit foul balls at 2 strikes to maybe 1 or 2. Then they are strikes. Watching a guy foul off 5 straight pitches, you can literally see the point their objective went from getting a fair pitch to hit to exhausting the pitcher/ drawing a walk.

[L54]

Not really, I watched a bunch of Bautista's homers and a good chunk were with less than two strikes or on two strikes exactly.

 

Less scoring, but not by much.

Could go one step further and limit foul balls at 2 strikes to maybe 1 or 2. Then they are strikes. Watching a guy foul off 5 straight pitches, you can literally see the point their objective went from getting a fair pitch to hit to exhausting the pitcher/ drawing a walk.

 

Not really fair. One of my favorite parts of baseball is watching a good hitter foul off a good two strike pitch.

 

These guys are trained to spoil those pitches. No sense to penalize them.

[L54]

Not really, I watched a bunch of Bautista's homers and a good chunk were with less than two strikes or on two strikes exactly.

 

Less scoring, but not by much.

Could go one step further and limit foul balls at 2 strikes to maybe 1 or 2. Then they are strikes. Watching a guy foul off 5 straight pitches, you can literally see the point their objective went from getting a fair pitch to hit to exhausting the pitcher/ drawing a walk.

 

Was this a highlight video? Because if it was, you wouldn't be able to tell if he had fouled of prior pitches before the homerun without watching the entire at bat. Not only that, watching only Jose Bautista's homeruns leaves out a large percentage of not only home runs but two strike hits throughout the league.

[baloojayz]

Not really fair. One of my favorite parts of baseball is watching a good hitter foul off a good two strike pitch.

 

These guys are trained to spoil those pitches. No sense to penalize them.

 

Yeah it would change the game, but that has to be what slows the game down the most and keeps casual sports fans from becoming baseball fans

[Boxcar]

Not really, I watched a bunch of Bautista's homers and a good chunk were with less than two strikes or on two strikes exactly.

 

Less scoring, but not by much.

Could go one step further and limit foul balls at 2 strikes to maybe 1 or 2. Then they are strikes. Watching a guy foul off 5 straight pitches, you can literally see the point their objective went from getting a fair pitch to hit to exhausting the pitcher/ drawing a walk.

 

Is this guy a troll? If so, just wow. Very convincing.

[baloojayz]

Was this a highlight video? Because if it was, you wouldn't be able to tell if he had fouled of prior pitches before the homerun without watching the entire at bat. Not only that, watching only Jose Bautista's homeruns leaves out a large percentage of not only home runs but two strike hits throughout the league.

Bit of both highlights and at bats.

Give them 1 foul ball at 2 strikes then. So they can miss once/ still have some incentive for not bunting.

[baloojayz]

Is this guy a troll? If so, just wow. Very convincing.

 

What the hell man, who would I be trolling? I have no say on rule changes. You post some lazy bs response and I'm the troll? The only point of your post was to piss me off.

[Stangstag]

Bit of both highlights and at bats.

Give them 1 foul ball at 2 strikes then. So they can miss once/ still have some incentive for not bunting.

 

This is just a really bad idea. You can't make big changes to a HUGE part of the game.

[BTS]

Would miss some of the epic pitcher hitter duels, but feel like foul balls should be counted for strikes with 2 strikes just like if you were bunting. Would drammatically shorten the game.

The whole point of hitters being awarded balls is so that the pitchers are penalized for not thowing pitches in a reasonably "hit-able" region. If a hitter can and does foul a ball off, it means the pitch was close enough and enticed a swing regardless if there was contact or not. Feel like it is a very lazy part of the game and puts people to sleep. Same would go for a swinging strike 3 that the catcher doesn't catch. HE'S OUT, move on..no need for the throw to first. So stupid to reach base on a thowing error at that point.

 

lmao

[Spanky__99]

Is this guy a troll? If so, just wow. Very convincing.

 

He's on my ignore list, so there's that.

[baloojayz]

I like the creativity, but foul ball strikeouts would decimate offense. The whole point of the rules discussion is to increase interest in the game. People aren't going to attend games if most plate appearances end without the ball being put in play. It just wouldn't be a compelling product.

 

Thanks. I agree its a bad idea cuz it changes the game too much. I just felt like the other possible rule changes like RP limitations would not accomplish much overall.

[Boxcar]

What the hell man, who would I be trolling? I have no say on rule changes. You post some lazy bs response and I'm the troll? The only point of your post was to piss me off.

 

No, I was asking because your post was so dumb I needed to double check. Thanks for clearing it up though.

 

Specifically, your stated sample for why having a 3rd strike foul would be fine:

 

Not really, I watched a bunch of Bautista's homers and a good chunk were with less than two strikes or on two strikes exactly.

 

lmao

[baloojayz]

He's on my ignore list, so there's that.

 

Yeah just like everyone else with a different opinion than yours. Any way you can make life less troublesome I guess...

[BlueJayWay]

But look how many rules and arbitrary caveats you're putting into this. All for the purpose of cutting out commercial breaks. I could make the same argument for reducing a PA to two strikes and three balls or making a foul count as a third strike to speed things up.

Changing it two strikes and three balls and foul strikes is fundamentally changing the dynamics of the game. It tilts the game way toward three true outcomes. I don't want to change anything like that, and I don't think it's needed, I just want teams to stop screwing around and just play baseball.

 

The pitching change breaks can't be helped without turning the rulebook on its side. And any tension is still there after a commercial break anyway because baseball doesn't have a clock, which is what makes the game unique.

Having pitchers face some minimum number of hitters greater than one is turning the rulebook on its side? I don't see how that is. Every time there's another one of these mid inning changes is more time spent, you know, not playing baseball.

[Abomination]

Having pitchers face some minimum number of hitters greater than one is turning the rulebook on its side? I don't see how that is. Every time there's another one of these mid inning changes is more time spent, you know, not playing baseball.

 

Plus, for the vast majority of baseball history, pitchers basically NEVER faced just one batter.

[BlueJayWay]

My suggestions:

 

1. Automatic intentional walk...catcher just tells the ump and the batter goes to first.

2. Enforce the rules on stepping out of the box and on the time between pitches. Make it a priority.

3. Reduce the number of warm up pitches for RPs.

4. Limit the number of visits to the mound by the catcher, coaches and managers.

Number 1 wouldn't really make much difference, but the other three are good. Number 2 especially I just can't believe hasn't been addressed by MLB before now. To me, it's the dead obvious first thing you would do to help this issue.

[BTS]

Runners on 2nd and third in the 8th inning of a 1-1 game. Two out. Matt Joyce up. Manager pulls his righty starter to get his lefty specialist, who walks the hitter on 9 pitches. The game is now very much on the line and two right-handed hitters with big platoon splits are up. I'm sorry, but I don't want to watch a game where the manager can't use his 25-man roster in the best way possible and go get a right-handed reliever.

[Boxcar]

Runners on 2nd and third in the 8th inning of a 1-1 game. Two out. Matt Joyce up. Manager pulls his righty starter to get his lefty specialist, who walks the hitter on 9 pitches. The game is now very much on the line and two right-handed hitters with big platoon splits are up. I'm sorry, but I don't want to watch a game where the manager can't use his 25-man roster in the best way possible and go get a right-handed reliever.

 

Would probably put LOOGYs out of work. Doubt the union would agree on that change.

[BTS]

Would probably put LOOGYs out of work. Doubt the union would agree on that change.

 

It's just a very bad idea.

[intentional wok]

Changing it two strikes and three balls and foul strikes is fundamentally changing the dynamics of the game. It tilts the game way toward three true outcomes. I don't want to change anything like that, and I don't think it's needed, I just want teams to stop screwing around and just play baseball.

 

But no one is screwing around, though - it's the opposite. They're trying to win, and making a rule that ties the manager's hands just wrecks the strategic element currently in the game. Why shouldn't a manager be able to change his pitcher whenever he wants? Outside of a lack of patience from the audience, can you give me a good reason? Letting commercial breaks dictate MLB rules is tampering with what already works. Breaks in play are obnoxious, but I'm willing to bet the disaster of enforced batter limits will drive away more fans when bad bullpen matchups start coughing up leads.

 

Having pitchers face some minimum number of hitters greater than one is turning the rulebook on its side? I don't see how that is. Every time there's another one of these mid inning changes is more time spent, you know, not playing baseball.

 

How is it not turning the rulebook on its head? The rules are being altered on which personnel can be used and at what time. This proposition isn't trying to fix an element in the game - it's trying to change the pace of the game. If the pace needs to go up, there are a lot better ways to do it such as a pitch timer or batters being required to stay ready in the batter's box. Neither of those things change the rules of the game, and both would have a greater effect on the intended impact.

 

But not only do I have a fundamental problem with a rule change based entirely on commercialization - it just doesn't hold up to scrutiny either. If a relief pitcher comes in and needs to face a minimum of three hitters then the opposing manager can just pinch hit all his guys to his own advantage. The pitching team is at a huge disadvantage now, and suddenly instead of the game speeding up you're going to see lots of late-inning leads evaporate and small deficits becoming big ones. I'm willing to bet that forcing teams into taking sub-optimal strategies in every non-complete game will result in ridiculous, pointless losses-of-leads for a lot of teams.

[intentional wok]

My suggestions:

 

1. Automatic intentional walk...catcher just tells the ump and the batter goes to first.

2. Enforce the rules on stepping out of the box and on the time between pitches. Make it a priority.

3. Reduce the number of warm up pitches for RPs.

4. Limit the number of visits to the mound by the catcher, coaches and managers.

 

All theses things will help speed up the game without changing the roots and history go the game. Baseball is the game without a clock and we love that, but everyone enjoys a faster game and changes will be need to help offset the inevitable delays that video reviews will soon cause.

 

Don't ever restrict strategy in our game. Don't take away shifts, don't make Pitchers face more than one batter?...

 

2 and 4 are completely reasonable. 3 is so minor that it can't possibly take up more time if you've already implemented 2 and 4. Guy should be able to warm up on the mound. That shouldn't change.

 

But I have a serious problem with 1. Anything that involves "free moves" should be thrown out of the idea hat. The players need to play, and throwing four IBB pitches is part of the game. Things can happen during those pitches. The catcher could drop the ball. A runner could break for the next base. Maybe the pitcher hangs a IBB pitch and the batter just swats it. Anything. The best part about baseball is how fluid and unpredictable any given game can be - the rules allow for so many little tricks. Why remove that?

 

I don't even understand the complaint either. IBBs happen, what, once a game, if at all? It's hardly a time sink.

[intentional wok]

Hey, everybody. You know what game sucks? Chess. It's too slow and I have to work in the morning. Have you seen the traffic on the QEW leaving the city this late?

 

Okay, how about this? Once one player gets the other one down to less than six pieces, that player's pawns can go three squares per move and can kill in any direction. Speed this f***ing thing up, please. I've got places to--- Oh oh honey, my iPhone's out of juice. Can you check the Leaf game for me? What do you mean "why now"? It's probably the third period already. If they win they'll be two points out of the last playoff spot in the Easte-- oh...

[Spanky__99]

Plus, for the vast majority of baseball history, pitchers basically NEVER faced just one batter.

 

They were dumn...

[Spanky__99]

Would probably put LOOGYs out of work. Doubt the union would agree on that change.

 

Never.

[Spanky__99]

Hey, everybody. You know what game sucks? Chess. It's too slow and I have to work in the morning. Have you seen the traffic on the QEW leaving the city this late?

 

Okay, how about this? Once one player gets the other one down to less than six pieces, that player's pawns can go three squares per move and can kill in any direction. Speed this f***ing thing up, please. I've got places to--- Oh oh honey, my iPhone's out of juice. Can you check the Leaf game for me? What do you mean "why now"? It's probably the third period already. If they win they'll be two points out of the last playoff spot in the Easte-- oh...

 

lol

[Laika]

In defense of the new guy, some of what he said sounds really on the ball:

 

[KingKat]

In defense of the new guy, some of what he said sounds really on the ball:

 

 

I did notice that in the ESPN interview, he's not the one who introduces the concept of eliminating shifts, the interviewer does. Manfred doesn't exactly shoot it down but maybe he just didn't want to debate specifice measures so maybe there's hope for him although as I said earlier, I really wasn't impressed.

 

Manfred wants to both speed up the game AND increase offense which will be pretty hard to accomplish since more offense makes the game longer but I suppose if he doesn't care about total length of the game and only cares about the pace it can work. You can also assume that anything that increases pace at the cost of a significant decrease in offense (the third strike on fouls for instance) is right off the table without even having to go into the specifics.

[intentional wok]

In defense of the new guy, some of what he said sounds really on the ball:

 

 

Yeah, I totally agree with the need to cut out the chaff from the average game, despite my joke post above.

[KingKat]

So apparently the Yankees don't want to have anything to do with A-Rod even going so far as to denying him an opportunity to apologize to them. If they want nothing to do with him, why don't they just give him his release? At this point, he can't realistically be considered anything more than a sunk cost, can he?

 

http://www.thescore.com/mlb/news/687461

[intentional wok]

I'm not convinced he's got nothing to contribute.

 

Then again, what does a clean A-Rod even look like? And at ~40y.o. no less.