intentional wok

I don't know. That Red Sox lineup could really explode and be the difference maker. If I had more faith in the bullpen (and maybe if AA nabbed another quality starter) I'd put the Jays on top. Until then, I'm predicting a close second place.

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/27302033.jpg

This is the most disheartening thing I've read all day.

Fair enough. If you value the entertainment factor more than anything, and that factor involves watching an uninterrupted game regardless of outcome, there isn't much I can say to convince you. To each his own. But even if I grant that entertainment value is more important than the rules of the game, I still think your suggestions are problematic. It's actually not harder for the Jays to come back. It's easier for them than for other teams because of their potent lineup. It will, however, be harder for them to maintain the reclaimed lead once it's their turn to pitch. But even granting that the (dis)advantages are completely equalized, it doesn't follow that the rules are then good rules. The pitching staffs of both teams are being saddled with a disadvantage. It fundamentally changes the balance of the two sides of the game. Well... no. There are positioning rules that prevent that. There's nothing preventing the team from replacing their outfielders with pitchers if they choose to. I'm really not clear on the argument you're trying to make with this comment. Can you clarify it? The difference is that if the Jays lose a lead now, it's because the pitcher Gibbons wanted screwed it all up. Not because a rule said a guy suddenly needs to put in a certain amount of work. In no other aspect of the game is this kind of thing enforced. The problem is that the rule removes control for personnel decisions. Would you balance it out by banning pinch hitting during the three-batter stretch, or banning pinch hitting altogether? Again, this isn't the point. No - you can't always get the matchup you want, but there's a difference between setting a batting lineup before the game and being prevented from reacting to the game because bullpen usage comes with red tape that the other parts of the team don't. Gibbons is free to swap Goins for whoever else is on the bench. He's not stuck with using him if he's got resources available. This freedom is allowed by the rules, so it's not unfair. Strict, but not unfair. A minimum workload for a RP would be unfair in the current environment of the game. They do, but losing a player due to a replacement is a consequence of the manager's decision and it's only limited to that player. Putting a restriction on a relief pitcher means that the entire bullpen is unusable for three entire plate appearances. The offensive equivalent would be to force a pinch hitter to play the position of the guy he's replacing during the next inning and not permitting another PH in this spot for x amount of game time, which would be ridiculous. But your proposed rules will force franchises to build themselves a certain way. You can't create rules that greatly favour one style of play and then expect teams to try and win in a completely counter-intuitive way. And a superb pitching staff becomes less superb if it can't be used efficiently. There's nowhere to go but down when imposing the disadvantage you're suggesting. But this limitation is totally congruous with the rest of the ruleset of the game. There's no specific restriction being imposed on the lineup that isn't also being imposed on the opponent's pitching staff - that is, you can use a guy at any time and remove him just as quickly if you'd like. Or you can keep him in for 20 more innings if you want. Whatever. But you will lose his services for the rest of the game if you remove him, which is how the game functions for every body on the field. It's completely fair. Your example doesn't even work, though, because the same rule that says the same pinch hitter cannot be used over and over also does not permit the same relief pitcher to come in later on after he's been taken out. Yeah, they would, because the rule forced Cecil to pitch to Ramirez. If Cecil coughs one up without the RP rule, it's because it was Gibbons' decision to have him pitch to Ramirez. But if Cecil comes in to face Ortiz and then coughs one up to Ramirez, who he was forced to face because of a rule, the outcome is partially due to the fact that Gibbons wasn't able to use his personnel as effectively as he would have wanted to. Gibbons had no way to counter this, even though baseball completely hinges on pitch-by-pitch strategy. Look, I get that you value the speed and entertainment value of the game. But what you're suggesting is not congruous with the way the rest of the game works. It actually breaks the game a little bit by implementing restrictions into a play environment that is inherently based around adapting to the implications of every single pitch.

But this is what I'm saying - can you give me a good reason for tampering with the mechanics of baseball that isn't just entertainment value? You're suggesting that external issues should impact the actual rules of the game. Why is removing bullpen strategy a good thing, outside of impatience? Even going on your Argument for Entertainment (which I fundamentally disagree with), a zero-sum is probably not a good thing for fans either. Most fans, in Toronto for example, tune in to watch the Jays play. Allowing the other team to come back against the Jays and win is bad TV. You're preventing the team from utilizing its roster smartly, increasing the chance that the game will get blown. This is terrible TV. No one wants to watch Dustin McGowan get lit up by two straight lefties he's being forced to pitch to because of Entertainment Value. Yeah. The #1 thing that should be fixed. Totally agree. The problem is that they aren't getting the matchups they want. They aren't allowed to utilize their 25 men as efficiently as they can because Entertainment Value dictates against it. The way the game is planned out by the manager is objectively changed for the worse as a game. Also, advantages aren't always equal. Yes, the Jays might have an advantage whatwith their powerful lineup. But what about a team like the Royals? Or the Rays? Teams whose offensive output is not the strongest suit. Offensive advantage only helps in theory if all the clubs have an equal offensive output. If not, the advantage is hugely weighted in the favour of the team with the more potent bats. There is more than one way to win a baseball game, including having a superb pitching staff. Your suggestion threatens to limit the extent to which a pitching-centric team can compete. It's not about 4-3 becoming 11-9 - it's about teams being hamstrung in being able to maintain a lead or hold the other team to only a small lead. And how have you not heard anyone complain a game has too many lead changes? No one wants to see their home team lose a lead. No one in Toronto will be cheering if the Red Sox make a comeback against Brett Cecil in the 8th, man.

You're right, we definitely need a stat on the average game time. Maybe even a stat on time between pitches, too... All of our arguments are pretty much hinging on what we perceive the length of an average baseball game to be (specifically, a Blue Jays game). But I totally agree on the playoff games. They are absolutely ridiculous. The tension is obviously much higher for the pitcher before he throws, but ~4-hour games seem like the norm in the post-season, almost regardless of the score. Here's a suggestion I haven't seen mentioned: Shorten the game to 7 innings? Obviously we have 9 so that each batting slot gets at least 3 plate appearances, but how does everyone feel about a shorter game? The repercussions on bullpen construction would be huge too. Probably put a lot of guys out of work. And probably kill a lot of value for all-glove, little-bat players that hit in the bottom third of any order.

But most of the time there's no one on base, so a pitch has to be thrown. If there's a guy on base, throwing to first is a legit strategy anyway - so there's really nothing that can be done. I'm not saying there wouldn't be workarounds (there will always be workarounds), but I believe that in general a pitch timer and batter's box boundary will save time on a pitch-by-pitch basis. It's not really intended to change the dynamics of the rest of the game - just the unnecessary pauses. And if a team wants to risk their pitcher throwing the ball into foul territory every time he can't decide on a pitch, well it's their prerogative to be reckless.

Most games don't go past 3 hours, if that. And as far as I've seen managers and coaches spend most of the game in the dugout. Honestly, the pitching changes and mound meetings are small beans in the course of a season. Yes, they are an extended break in the action, but they're rare enough that I don't think they meaningfully slow the game down. It's just that they're so noticeable as a pause that they get heaped on as huge roadblocks to enjoyment - the problem, of course, is that they are necessary too. But I'm willing to bet that keeping the batters in the box and adding a pitch timer will save much more time than any mound meetings. Think of it - that's eliminating, what, about 5 or 6 seconds between each pitch? Watch a Mark Buehrle game and see how swiftly the game goes by on a by-pitch basis. Everyone should have to do that. There should be a timer behind the ump that the pitcher can look, like a playclock in the NFL. He should have to throw a pitch or makes a pick-off move before 0. That will speed up the game without any cost to changing the rules or tying a manager's hands because the audience is bored. I think most fans wouldn't have a problem with the mound meetings if the rest of the game wasn't being slowed to a f***ing crawl because a guy's batting gloves aren't tight enough or Jonny Gomes' helmet fell out of alignment. tl;dr: If 5 or 6 seconds are shaved off between each pitch, suddenly a game that started at 7:07 (with about 15-20 pitches per half inning) is at the top of the sixth inning anywhere from 12-20 minutes earlier than it is now. By the end of the game, a whole half hour could be shaved off. That's usually the rate of a pitchers' duel, I think.

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.

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

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...

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.

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. 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.

I somehow doubt this.

How is this not on the table, but nailing infielders' feet to the ground is?

Maybe the teams themselves could take offense into their own hands instead of the league legislating it. Idea #1: teach players to slap against the shift. All those automatic baserunners will lead to runs and straighten out the defenders, leading to more opportunities for conventional hitting.

The Raps are giving Detroit every opportunity to keep this close with a ton of clock remaining.

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. 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.

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".

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.

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

Promoting is one thing. Spamming fan-made memes is another.

Gomes to Braves official:

Okay is there a program or something that automatically re-tweets Blue Jay player tweets, or is there some poor intern just sitting around accepting and re-posting Stroman-in-Banff fan memes? I had to close the site because come the f*** on, guys. EDIT: Looks like it's the latter. Still, I'd like my feed to be actually readable. I've blocked friends' newsfeeds on Facebook for less than this.

Oh, okay. Well I guess the Nats are sitting pretty, then.