Major league innovations

[moonslav59]

I'm not super against it. I have half wondered if any game that got past 9 innings gave out a loser's point, but it doesn't feel right.

 

I'm also fine with 7 inning double headers.

 

I hate 15 inning games. Period.

 

The 7 inning doubleheader seems to cheapen history, but hey, 18 innings in one day is just too much.

[jad]

You forgot: end "instant" 15-minute replays of safe slides into bases not home where runners maybe disconnect with the bags for a millimeter and a millisecond...

 

They could fix that EASILY, if they just changed the rule (to accord w/ the way the play has been called for 150 years). If the runner makes contact w/ the base and is OVER the base completing the slide, he is considered safe. That's how umpires see it; that's how players make that play; and that's how it should continue to be called. Replay was invented to correct errors, not to manufacture them by micromanaging plays like this.

[Elktonnick]

They could fix that EASILY, if they just changed the rule (to accord w/ the way the play has been called for 150 years). If the runner makes contact w/ the base and is OVER the base completing the slide, he is considered safe. That's how umpires see it; that's how players make that play; and that's how it should continue to be called. Replay was invented to correct errors, not to manufacture them by micromanaging plays like this.

 

Makes sense to me.

[Maxbialystock]

Makes sense to me.

 

And me. Call it the old way.

[Kimmi]

It seems like it might be more aimed at the use of an 'opener' and 'bullpen games'.

 

I can't imagine many managers would let this rule dictate when it's the right time to remove their starter.

 

As much as I dislike opener and bullpen games, and even though there is a level of intrigue to this idea, it's a big fat NO for me.

 

I think the intent is to try to bring back the importance/relevance of the starting pitcher, and I agree with the intent. But what about games is which the starting pitcher legitimately does not have anything, and has to be removed in the first or second inning? Penalizing a team's offense in that situation doesn't make any sense.

[Elktonnick]

As much as I dislike opener and bullpen games, and even though there is a level of intrigue to this idea, it's a big fat NO for me.

 

I think the intent is to try to bring back the importance/relevance of the starting pitcher, and I agree with the intent. But what about games is which the starting pitcher legitimately does not have anything, and has to be removed in the first or second inning? Penalizing a team's offense in that situation doesn't make any sense.

 

Sound argument

[Kimmi]

No comment on other measures like increased base size and limiting pickoff attempts at 1b?

 

No and no.

 

Also, no to moving the mound back a foot.

 

In fact, I'd be more inclined to raising the mound back to where it was back in the day (60s?) than I would be to lowering it or moving it back.

[Kimmi]

1. 100%. Having pitchers hit is a waste of time. Pitching is a full time job and the guys just don't PRACTICE hitting at any level.

 

2. I don't love the clock - hurrying pitchers is a potential path to injury. Besides the reason games are slow are TV commercials, and MLB ain't getting rid of those. Now, I think the league should look more into "scorebug adverstising" or other means to eliminate the commercial breaks between pitching changes.

 

3. The extra inning thing is so silly. I do get the concern for wanting the regular season games to end in a shorter manner. But the only way to do really do that is have ties.

 

4. 100%

 

5. Baseball has the minor league calendar exactly backwards. It makes much more sense to have expanded rosters in April than in September. And yes, the team should have to freeze an active 26 man roster every game.

 

No more blackouts for sure.

 

I'd also go to 32 teams and 4 divisions and get rid of the vast majority of interleague games.

 

1. I am one of the few who kind of likes watching pitchers come to bat. That said, I do think that MLB needs to go with the universal DH. Or as a lesser-liked option, eliminate the DH altogether. Just make it consistent for both leagues.

 

2. I don't love the pitch clock either. While I would love for the Red Sox pitchers to get the ball and pitch, I like the cat and mouse that goes on between pitcher and batter. I like the throw overs to 1B. I like the mental aspect of the game.

 

I 100% agree that the problem with the length of the game is with the commercials.

 

5. The 3 batter rule is one of the few recent changes that I like. Maybe because it eliminates all those commercials that go along with each pitching change.

 

7. Blackout rules must go. I think everyone agree with that.

[Kimmi]

I hate 15 inning games. Period.

 

The 7 inning doubleheader seems to cheapen history, but hey, 18 innings in one day is just too much.

 

I wouldn't want to play 15 inning games every night, but I like those epic 15+ extra inning games. The Red Sox / Dodgers World Series Game 3? Good stuff. Of course, that game would have been much better had we won, but knowing the ultimate outcome makes that loss easier to take.

[Bellhorn04]

I 100% agree that the problem with the length of the game is with the commercials.

 

5. The 3 batter rule is one of the few recent changes that I like. Maybe because it eliminates all those commercials that go along with each pitching change.

 

Nobody likes commercials. But they are a big source of revenue, so they're a necessary evil.

[Kimmi]

Nobody likes commercials. But they are a big source of revenue, so they're a necessary evil.

 

I get that. My point with the commercials is that, IMO, there is nothing wrong with the game itself in terms of the length. Leave it the way it is.

[notin]

They could fix that EASILY, if they just changed the rule (to accord w/ the way the play has been called for 150 years). If the runner makes contact w/ the base and is OVER the base completing the slide, he is considered safe. That's how umpires see it; that's how players make that play; and that's how it should continue to be called. Replay was invented to correct errors, not to manufacture them by micromanaging plays like this.

 

I could not agree more with this post without cloning technology...

[Bellhorn04]

I get that. My point with the commercials is that, IMO, there is nothing wrong with the game itself in terms of the length. Leave it the way it is.

 

I agree.

[Maxbialystock]

They could fix that EASILY, if they just changed the rule (to accord w/ the way the play has been called for 150 years). If the runner makes contact w/ the base and is OVER the base completing the slide, he is considered safe. That's how umpires see it; that's how players make that play; and that's how it should continue to be called. Replay was invented to correct errors, not to manufacture them by micromanaging plays like this.

 

Relatedly, we fans get to see that superimposed rectangle of the strike zone which gives us a huge advantage over what the human eye can see, even over what Ted Williams reputedly was able to see. That's why I don't like robots calling balls and strikes; it dehumanizes the game.

 

I would object to the replays except that I think they end up saving more time because they prevent game delays when miffed players/coaches/managers go storming onto the field to complain about a call.

[Bellhorn04]

Relatedly, we fans get to see that superimposed rectangle of the strike zone which gives us a huge advantage over what the human eye can see, even over what Ted Williams reputedly was able to see. That's why I don't like robots calling balls and strikes; it dehumanizes the game.

 

Unfortunately, those boxes highlight some horrible balls and strikes calls by the human umps.

[oldtimer]

Unfortunately, those boxes highlight some horrible balls and strikes calls by the human umps.

 

And some of those may win or lose games. Use technology to assist the umpire where it is easy to do, like ball and strike calls!

[notin]

Unfortunately, those boxes highlight some horrible balls and strikes calls by the human umps.

 

And those boxes also show us how accurate many umpires are, Mr. Glass Half-Empty.

 

I know I have said it before, but the job of a home plate umpire has always been to determine if a ball thrown anywhere from 80 to 100 mph touched any part of an imaginary box. It's not easy. Heck, it's not even easy to see a ball traveling at 100 mph. I am shocked at how often they get the borderline calls right (assuming the K Zone is right, of course).

 

None of this excuses Angel Hernandez or Joe West, however. And nothing ever willl ...

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

(assuming the K Zone is right, of course).

 

 

I despise those outlined boxes on TV. They cause me a lot of unnecessary agita, constantly worrying about batters or pitchers getting hosed... especially, since we know the angle of the imaginary box can't possibly be perfect over the pitcher's shoulder. If cameras were exactly centered behind the mound, we'd just see a lot of pitchers' backs (except for guys who stand at the side of the rubber).

 

Games are enjoyable without being deceived by something that doesn't even exist on the field. This is one of the reasons I can relax listening to games on the radio (secretly hoping announcers are calling what they're seeing, and not reporting replays of fake boxes).

[Bellhorn04]

And those boxes also show us how accurate many umpires are, Mr. Glass Half-Empty.

 

I know I have said it before, but the job of a home plate umpire has always been to determine if a ball thrown anywhere from 80 to 100 mph touched any part of an imaginary box. It's not easy. Heck, it's not even easy to see a ball traveling at 100 mph. I am shocked at how often they get the borderline calls right (assuming the K Zone is right, of course).

 

None of this excuses Angel Hernandez or Joe West, however. And nothing ever willl ...

 

Yeah, I said the calls were horrible, but I fully agree that it's a tough job.

[Bellhorn04]

I despise those outlined boxes on TV.

 

Truth be told I follow most games on Gameday now as I'm multi-tasking.

 

Seeing bad calls on Gameday can be ever more unsettling than seeing them live. You receive two pieces of blatantly contradictory information.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Truth be told I follow most games on Gameday now as I'm multi-tasking.

 

Seeing bad calls on Gameday can be ever more unsettling than seeing them live. You receive two pieces of blatantly contradictory information.

 

We look at Gameday sometimes, too. I assume their box is more precise in location, since it's directly behind the batter (that would certainly account for a different zone, if it doesn't line up with views over a pitcher's shoulder).

[jad]

Did you see Verducci's article in SI whining that the shift should be outlawed because it so hurt Jay Bruce's career (a .244 career hitter). I love the logic: he's slow, and can't hit to all fields, doesn't have too much power, so IT'S NOT FAIR!!!! I suppose by the same logic: there are a lot of AA players who cannot hit curve balls. THEREFORE, the curve ball needs to be banned.

 

Or was the whole damn article written tongue-in-cheek? (If so, just call me the usual names and move on.)

[notin]

Did you see Verducci's article in SI whining that the shift should be outlawed because it so hurt Jay Bruce's career (a .244 career hitter). I love the logic: he's slow, and can't hit to all fields, doesn't have too much power, so IT'S NOT FAIR!!!! I suppose by the same logic: there are a lot of AA players who cannot hit curve balls. THEREFORE, the curve ball needs to be banned.

 

Or was the whole damn article written tongue-in-cheek? (If so, just call me the usual names and move on.)

 

I hope he was being sardonic.

 

While the shift is not good for the offense of the overall game, what defensive strategy in any sport is? Teams and players have to learn to overcome defenses. That's the nature of all team sports...

[mvp 78]

Did you see Verducci's article in SI whining that the shift should be outlawed because it so hurt Jay Bruce's career (a .244 career hitter). I love the logic: he's slow, and can't hit to all fields, doesn't have too much power, so IT'S NOT FAIR!!!! I suppose by the same logic: there are a lot of AA players who cannot hit curve balls. THEREFORE, the curve ball needs to be banned.

 

Or was the whole damn article written tongue-in-cheek? (If so, just call me the usual names and move on.)

 

He's been on the ban the shift train for a long while now.

[notin]

He's been on the ban the shift train for a long while now.

 

Yeah but I would expect Verducci to come up with a better argument than it cut short the career of a 14 year MLB veteran...

[mvp 78]

From the article:

 

Meanwhile, evidence that the shift is harming careers and the entertainment value of the game continues to mount. Entering this week, the major league batting average was .233, the third-lowest April batting average in the 102 years of the live ball era (1943, 1968). Batting average on balls in play is down to .286, the lowest in 29 years. Hits are at an all-time low. Strikeouts are at an all-time high.

 

Strikeouts aren't at an all time high because of the shift. We're here because of the launch angle.

 

Honestly, I don't think the shift affects pace of play. If you want to beat the shift, learn to hit the other way.

 

The shift has been around since Ted Williams.

[mvp 78]

Yeah but I would expect Verducci to come up with a better argument than it cut short the career of a 14 year MLB veteran...

 

He didn't want to say "guy in his 30's could no longer hit a fastball."

[mvp 78]

The percentage of at bats in which the ball is not put in play (home runs, walks, strikeouts, hit batters) is up to 38%.

 

And yet he's still blaming the shift. WTF?

[Bellhorn04]

From the article:

 

Meanwhile, evidence that the shift is harming careers and the entertainment value of the game continues to mount. Entering this week, the major league batting average was .233, the third-lowest April batting average in the 102 years of the live ball era (1943, 1968). Batting average on balls in play is down to .286, the lowest in 29 years. Hits are at an all-time low. Strikeouts are at an all-time high.

 

Strikeouts aren't at an all time high because of the shift. We're here because of the launch angle.

 

Honestly, I don't think the shift affects pace of play. If you want to beat the shift, learn to hit the other way.

 

The shift has been around since Ted Williams.

 

The shift has been around since Ted Williams, sure, but the systematic, metrics-based use of the shift on virtually every at-bat most certainly hasn't.

[notin]

From the article:

 

Meanwhile, evidence that the shift is harming careers and the entertainment value of the game continues to mount. Entering this week, the major league batting average was .233, the third-lowest April batting average in the 102 years of the live ball era (1943, 1968). Batting average on balls in play is down to .286, the lowest in 29 years. Hits are at an all-time low. Strikeouts are at an all-time high.

 

Strikeouts aren't at an all time high because of the shift. We're here because of the launch angle.

 

Honestly, I don't think the shift affects pace of play. If you want to beat the shift, learn to hit the other way.

 

The shift has been around since Ted Williams.

 

The shift has been around since the 1920's. The famous "Williams Shift" actually predates the career of Ted Williams and is not named after him.

 

"The infield shift strategy is often associated with Ted Williams, but it was actually first employed against Cy Williams during the 1920s.[1][2] Cy Williams, a left-handed outfielder with the Chicago Cubs (1912–1917) and Philadelphia Phillies (1918–1930), was second only to Babe Ruth in major league career home runs from 1923 to 1928. Opposing defenses would shift 'practically to the entire right side' when he batted.[3]"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infield_shift