MLB looking at runner on 2nd in extra innings rule(to be implemented in lower minors)

[BTS]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/lets-pick-up-the-pace/

 

Interesting article. Some interesting comments to such as a "millennial" suggesting his generation don't own TV's and thus blackouts for live streaming are killing interest amongst younger fans.

 

I can say that this is the case for me. I live in Ottawa, go to 5-10 sens games a year, and would follow the team if they weren't blacked out on NHL Game Center. If the jays were blacked out for me on MLB.tv I just wouldn't watch their games, and would end up watching less baseball. I think making it difficult for young fans (with no tv) to fall in love with the local team is very bad for business.

[Bobthe4th]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/lets-pick-up-the-pace/

 

Interesting article. Some interesting comments to such as a "millennial" suggesting his generation don't own TV's and thus blackouts for live streaming are killing interest amongst younger fans.

 

This seems unlikely - if you're tech savvy enough to replace a TV with a laptop, you'd expect those people to be able to find a free stream.

 

Living in Britain obviously there is zero MLB tv coverage, and MLB.com has an added tax of 20% on top of the normal subscription fee, which is also not available in £ so you also get screwed on the exchange rate. Therefore, every Jays game I watch live (which because of the time zone difference is normally just the early games) is a free stream, and I've never had an issue finding one, most of the time in HD.

 

Is there any baseball equivalent of a highlights and debate show like Inside the NBA (which is freely available on YouTube) that airs in either Canada or the USA? That kind of show can help spread popularity of a sport, as part of a wider marketing campaign.

[Governator]

This feels a lot like the shootout in the NHL: nonsensical idea that actual hockey fans hate, but that the league incorporated in an ill-advised attempt to increase their appeal to a broader audience and attract new fans.

 

Nobody is being turned off of baseball because of the odd marathon game.

 

 

Yea and they can't say it's to save players from exhaustion the next day either. If that's a concern they could just consider giving an extra roster spot for teams that just played 14+ inning games for their next game. But this is just to try and appeal to a new fan base. Every team's bench will be 3 dalton pompey types with a catcher.

[fatcowxlive]

It's about the brand and how to max profit. If different rules for reg and playoffs achieve this, that's what we will see.

 

It's also why we will likely never see robo-umps, going that route will turn off many fans.

 

What? I think the older generations are MUCH more accepting umpire mistakes in favour of keeping ref technology out.

[fatcowxlive]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/lets-pick-up-the-pace/

 

Interesting article. Some interesting comments to such as a "millennial" suggesting his generation don't own TV's and thus blackouts for live streaming are killing interest amongst younger fans.

 

I agree 1000%. My parents have TV mostly with international channels, I have a bunch of streaming services and will continue to do so when I get my own place. If MLB.tv still had blackouts it would be very hard for me to watch jays games and I don't think I'll be able to justify $30/month (minimum) across 2 years for 90% of Jays games (the other 10% are on the more expensive SN1). Thankfully my dad's business has Rogers so I can access Sportsnet NOW for Leafs (really the reason why I started watching them this season) and some EPL games, although I'm still waiting for some version of legal soccer streaming with all English games and Champions League games

 

Anyways I see how hard it is for people in the states with the blackouts, if you're in the same state but far away from the city you get blacked out. I know you can use VPN but that's still ******** how you have to go through that

[Jimcanuck]

Is there any baseball equivalent of a highlights and debate show like Inside the NBA (which is freely available on YouTube) that airs in either Canada or the USA?

 

This Week in Baseball

[Grant77]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/lets-pick-up-the-pace/

 

Interesting article. Some interesting comments to such as a "millennial" suggesting his generation don't own TV's and thus blackouts for live streaming are killing interest amongst younger fans.

 

I'd recommend reading the part about enforcing existing rules to those in favour of gimmicks that change the way the game is played.

 

I'm strongly in favour of enforcing the one foot in the box rule, reducing mound visits, and fixing the replay system.

 

If those don't work, I'm somewhat open to strike zone changes (though I don't think the proposed changes will help or be enforced consistently) and some sort of way to make pitchers speed up (no leaving the mound, automatic walks, fewer warm-up pitches).

 

I'm strongly against gimmicks like this 2B rule. It's like the shootout in hockey, as BTS mentioned earlier. We can make the game faster without stupid things like this.

[Brownie19]

The strike zone change is as much about getting more balls in play (and increasing action) as it is about improving the pace. I think there's real concern that K% and BB% are spiking the way they are.

[Grant77]

The strike zone change is as much about getting more balls in play (and increasing action) as it is about improving the pace. I think there's real concern that K% and BB% are spiking the way they are.

 

It's really hard to get a feel for what the change would mean until we see it in action for a few months. My instincts tell me that it would result in more walks and fewer balls in play. It's easy to see a guy like Bautista drastically increasing his walk rate considering how often he is burned on that low strike.

[Laika]

This feels a lot like the shootout in the NHL: nonsensical idea that actual hockey fans hate, but that the league incorporated in an ill-advised attempt to increase their appeal to a broader audience and attract new fans.

 

Nobody is being turned off of baseball because of the odd marathon game.

 

Contrarily, 3 on 3 overtime is also a gimmick but hockey fans (myself included) love it.

[Grant77]

You would need to demonstrate that the risk of being stuck in a marathon game is a legitimate impediment for new fans. I just can't see how that can be true. Fatcow is right about what the bigger issues are: accessibility and marketing. Young fans want to consume the game in different ways than older fans. Also, pace of play is a bigger issue than game length. There are many non-invasive things that can be done with pace of play without removing parts of the game that existing fans like.

 

 

If you have fewer strikeouts (smaller zone), you have more balls in play. That's a tautology.

 

If you have more walks, you have fewer balls in play. Like I said, we won't know exactly what this means until it is implemented. Anyone pretending to know is a fool.

[Grant77]

Contrarily, 3 on 3 overtime is also a gimmick but hockey fans (myself included) love it.

 

At least that's a real thing that happens in hockey. There's no situation where we automatically put a runner on 2nd in baseball.

[Laika]

At least that's a real thing that happens in hockey. There's no situation where we automatically put a runner on 2nd in baseball.

 

There's also no situation where we automatically play 3on3 hockey.

 

Runners get on second base with no outs all the time in baseball. Sometimes they don't even deserve it (four pitch walk + wild pitch!)

[Grant77]

There's also no situation where we automatically play 3on3 hockey.

 

Runners get on second base with no outs all the time in baseball. Sometimes they don't even deserve it (four pitch walk + wild pitch!)

 

To me, 3 on 3 hockey is more like tightening up the strike zone in extra innings. It's the same game, just a little more offense oriented.

 

This second base rule is more like the shootout. It's a gimmick to make the game end faster. Speed guys and bunters like Carrera would take on an extra role, much like shootout specialists.

 

That's just my take, no real logic to it.

[Brownie19]

At least that's a real thing that happens in hockey. There's no situation where we automatically put a runner on 2nd in baseball.

 

In the CFL - doesn't the team start with the ball on the 40 yard line or something? That's about the best equivalent to starting with a runner on 2nd base...

[Laika]

To me, 3 on 3 hockey is more like tightening up the strike zone in extra innings. It's the same game, just a little more offense oriented.

 

This second base rule is more like the shootout. It's a gimmick to make the game end faster. Speed guys and bunters like Carrera would take on an extra role, much like shootout specialists.

 

That's just my take, no real logic to it.

 

That's kind of why I prefer starting extra innings pitch counts with 1 or 2 balls, if they really need to change the rules. It would still kind of be the same game, but run expectancies would be much higher and marathon games would be much less likely.

[intentional wok]

This isn't the NFL...both teams are at the same disadvantage. I think people are seriously overthinking this. I'd say that the worst part of this rule will be the announcers talking about the strategies of it. Most teams will be trying for 2 or more runs. and really we are talking about less than 8% of the games most seasons. This isn't game changing for anything really except for the Baseball fan who traditionally can't handle change.

 

It's not like good teams are dominant in extra innings now. Wasn't the best team like 4 games over .500 in extras and I think the worst was the Jays are 5 games under.

 

I don't think "being at the same disadvantage" is as much of an equalizer in baseball as in other sports. Baseball isn't a head-to-head game, so each team will need to execute separately and we know how much baseball is subject to chance to begin with. Maybe citing no more 100-game winners is a bit much (since you could still win 100 games), but I'd argue making extra innings that much more precarious really removes more player skill than necessary. These are supposed to be world class ball players and now they're working with rules that are less designed to make things fair than they are to be marketable. I totally agree with fatcow when he says if the rule isn't good enough for "important games" then it probably doesn't bring much to the game anyway.

 

At least that's a real thing that happens in hockey. There's no situation where we automatically put a runner on 2nd in baseball.

 

I think this proposal is much closer to a baseball shootout too. It's almost a gimme scoring opportunity. Equally pulling personnel off the ice doesn't make the game any less of a game of hockey, but removing a player from the baseball field means you're opening up an exploitable gap.

 

But I actually think it's worse than a shootout since in hockey you can't score goals in bunches. Home runs will be particularly devastating since it'll just be gifting an extra run to teams. It's a lot harder to recover from a two-run deficit than a one-run deficit. If a team hits a lead off homer in the top of the inning, it'll be awarded an extra run because of the guy on second that they didn't earn. Suddenly the home team has to do a lot more than small ball their way into a tie, and the disadvantage starts looking more lopsided. Or what if the away team small balls the run in for a one-run lead and the home team hits a lead off home run the next inning, winning the game because of the free runner the MLB placed for them?

Edited February 9, 2017 by intentional wok

[Brownie19]

It is difficult to get out on a walk. Games with smaller strike zones feature better pitches for the batter to hit, fewer strikeouts, more balls being put into play, more walks, more base-runners, more action. That will be the result.

 

It is not difficult to connect changes to the strike zone to effects although the magnitudes can be difficult to estimate ahead of time.

 

Can you smart guys learn me on what the biggest change in the game today is vs. back in the late 80's and 90's? Back then you had guys like Glavine and Maddux utilizing monster strike zones - yet only striking out 5 or 6 per 9. There were a lot more balls in play back in those days, which I assume is what Manfred is looking to mimic.

 

A few things stand out to me:

 

1. Relievers are significantly better and pitchers throw much harder.

2. Hitters have made a conscious decision that cutting down their swing to put the ball in play isn't actually more productive....especially now that shifting is a massive part of the game.

 

I heard some turd on the Fan the other day suggesting it's because they don't teach hitters how to hit anymore. He said hitters used to be taught to take the ball the other way and that's why there never used to be shifts. I think it's obvious that swings are analyzed and worked on a considerable amount more than "back in the day". IMO, shifts weren't used "back in the day" mostly because teams didn't have access to the data and/or didn't use it to their advantage enough.

 

 

Side note - Greg Maddux 1994 - 1.56 ERA and 7.4 WAR in only 25 starts. What a beast.

[fatcowxlive]

Can you smart guys learn me on what the biggest change in the game today is vs. back in the late 80's and 90's? Back then you had guys like Glavine and Maddux utilizing monster strike zones - yet only striking out 5 or 6 per 9. There were a lot more balls in play back in those days, which I assume is what Manfred is looking to mimic.

 

A few things stand out to me:

 

1. Relievers are significantly better and pitchers throw much harder.

2. Hitters have made a conscious decision that cutting down their swing to put the ball in play isn't actually more productive....especially now that shifting is a massive part of the game.

 

I heard some turd on the Fan the other day suggesting it's because they don't teach hitters how to hit anymore. He said hitters used to be taught to take the ball the other way and that's why there never used to be shifts. I think it's obvious that swings are analyzed and worked on a considerable amount more than "back in the day". IMO, shifts weren't used "back in the day" mostly because teams didn't have access to the data and/or didn't use it to their advantage enough.

 

 

Side note - Greg Maddux 1994 - 1.56 ERA and 7.4 WAR in only 25 starts. What a beast.

 

I don't know the answer to this but I also keep reading/hearing that a big part of it is hitters now realize the best way to get paid in FA is to hit as many bombs as possible because home runs pay.... but Chris Carter who's not really old and lead the NL in homers got a 1 year/$3M deal

[LGBJ29]

How the hell is this gonna work for statistics? It'll just go down as an inherited runner for the pitcher and no run against if he scores? RBI's and runs scored stats will be affected. The advanced stats shouldnt see too much of an impact however.

[fatcowxlive]

That's kind of why I prefer starting extra innings pitch counts with 1 or 2 balls, if they really need to change the rules. It would still kind of be the same game, but run expectancies would be much higher and marathon games would be much less likely.

 

Yeah I was just going to say in response to Grant, baseball's equivalent to a 3-on-3 game is like 2 balls garners you a walk or something in extras. Increases urgency to throw strikes instead of throwing balls and getting the batter to chase. I feel like if you have a runner on 2nd then a bloop hit or an error will end the game essentially, it gets really boring really quickly, at least with 2 ball walk at bats pitchers with great deception and control can still trump a great offense, it's much easier to control than a runner on 2nd. The proposed rule change sounds more like a shootout

[King]

How the hell is this gonna work for statistics? It'll just go down as an inherited runner for the pitcher and no run against if he scores? RBI's and runs scored stats will be affected. The advanced stats shouldnt see too much of an impact however.

 

Inflated RBI totals! We must put a stop to this.

[TheHurl]

You would need to demonstrate that the risk of being stuck in a marathon game is a legitimate impediment for new fans. I just can't see how that can be true. Fatcow is right about what the bigger issues are: accessibility and marketing. Young fans want to consume the game in different ways than older fans. Also, pace of play is a bigger issue than game length. There are many non-invasive things that can be done with pace of play without removing parts of the game that existing fans like.

 

I think everyone is looking at these things in too much of a bubble. These are things which will never change anyone's enjoyment of the game (sure you'll reminisce about those old 18 inning games you'll never see again) and they spark the conversation that baseball has a length of play problem (something Selig liked to ignore that Manfred has an agenda. They table this one and ensure that super long games shouldn't happen anymore (still could be less likely) and owners and TV rightsholders are going to love it as marathon games only mean lost revenue (not to mention increasing player injuries). Using length of games might be just an excuse but then next you can tackle another issue. It's really tough to put a rule to "pace of play".

 

Any baseball fan which says this is going to stop them from watching is blowing smoke. The "it's ruining the integrity of the game crowd" is equally full of s***. This is a non-factor rule change, which fans will likely end up enjoying in the end.

[Jimcanuck]

Can you smart guys learn me on what the biggest change in the game today is vs. back in the late 80's and 90's? Back then you had guys like Glavine and Maddux utilizing monster strike zones - yet only striking out 5 or 6 per 9. There were a lot more balls in play back in those days, which I assume is what Manfred is looking to mimic.

 

A few things stand out to me:

 

1. Relievers are significantly better and pitchers throw much harder.

2. Hitters have made a conscious decision that cutting down their swing to put the ball in play isn't actually more productive....especially now that shifting is a massive part of the game.

 

I heard some turd on the Fan the other day suggesting it's because they don't teach hitters how to hit anymore. He said hitters used to be taught to take the ball the other way and that's why there never used to be shifts. I think it's obvious that swings are analyzed and worked on a considerable amount more than "back in the day". IMO, shifts weren't used "back in the day" mostly because teams didn't have access to the data and/or didn't use it to their advantage enough.

 

 

Side note - Greg Maddux 1994 - 1.56 ERA and 7.4 WAR in only 25 starts. What a beast.

 

Just a wild guess - focus on OBP = more walks and more K's, fewer balls in play. Same reason for fewer complete games and longer games, hitters are more patient. Anyone know where to get numbers on # of pitches per game today vs 20-30 yrs ago?

 

Guys like Joe Carter with HR and RBI, who was a big deal in the 80's/90's, wouldn't be one today.

[fatcowxlive]

How the hell is this gonna work for statistics? It'll just go down as an inherited runner for the pitcher and no run against if he scores? RBI's and runs scored stats will be affected. The advanced stats shouldnt see too much of an impact however.

 

You can have RBIs on unearned runs. You can get a pitcher's loss if an unearned run is the game winner, and if your the home team up by one and give up that inherited runner you can get blown saves on unearned runs as well. So traditional stats shouldn't be effected, the only decision the MLB will have to make is if the runner on 2nd is an earned run or not

[TheHurl]

That's kind of why I prefer starting extra innings pitch counts with 1 or 2 balls, if they really need to change the rules. It would still kind of be the same game, but run expectancies would be much higher and marathon games would be much less likely.

 

That works as well. It's still going to draw the same reaction from fans when they hear it though.

[BTS]

How the hell is this gonna work for statistics? It'll just go down as an inherited runner for the pitcher and no run against if he scores? RBI's and runs scored stats will be affected. The advanced stats shouldnt see too much of an impact however.

 

Most teams will probably issue an IBB if the score is tied in the bottom of an extra inning to set up the force and DP.

[TheHurl]

Can you smart guys learn me on what the biggest change in the game today is vs. back in the late 80's and 90's? Back then you had guys like Glavine and Maddux utilizing monster strike zones - yet only striking out 5 or 6 per 9. There were a lot more balls in play back in those days, which I assume is what Manfred is looking to mimic.

 

A few things stand out to me:

 

1. Relievers are significantly better and pitchers throw much harder.

2. Hitters have made a conscious decision that cutting down their swing to put the ball in play isn't actually more productive....especially now that shifting is a massive part of the game.

 

I heard some turd on the Fan the other day suggesting it's because they don't teach hitters how to hit anymore. He said hitters used to be taught to take the ball the other way and that's why there never used to be shifts. I think it's obvious that swings are analyzed and worked on a considerable amount more than "back in the day". IMO, shifts weren't used "back in the day" mostly because teams didn't have access to the data and/or didn't use it to their advantage enough.

 

 

Side note - Greg Maddux 1994 - 1.56 ERA and 7.4 WAR in only 25 starts. What a beast.

 

Pitches per game chart I found from a 2010 article. It is only getting higher since then.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/pitches_per_game.jpg

[Maahfaace]

Someone should just punch the gap out of Manfred's teeth, maybe that will straighten out this nonsense.

[Terminator]

Most teams will probably issue an IBB if the score is tied in the bottom of an extra inning to set up the force and DP.

 

But see Manfred is already thinking two steps ahead because the pitcher can now just point to first base instead of having to throw 4 intentional balls, thus improving pace of play.