Author Topic: Major Rule Changes being considered  (Read 3468 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 20042
Re: Major Rule Changes being considered
« Reply #125: February 08, 2019, 02:48:10 PM »
182 games doesn't help.

With 81 home games it’s a lot easier to find convienent times to take the family to a game or to go after work on the fly than with 8 home games. I’m sure it kill per game ratings, but it probably helps with new fans

Online mitlen

  • Posts: 61551
  • We had 'em all the way.
Re: Major Rule Changes being considered
« Reply #126: February 08, 2019, 02:53:33 PM »
I'm 75. Went to my first game in the 1951 season. I like all the proposed new rules except the extra innings change. On the DH, the Players Union is gonna get it in the NL. Just a question of when, so might as well be now.

Basically, I'm for anything that would speed things up and, most importantly, reduce Ks and get the ball in play. I don't wanna watch a parade of strikeouts.

Also hate how the starting pitcher has lost relevancy. Relievers, no matter how good, just aren't "marketable." No one goes to a game hoping to see Kimbrel, or Chapman, or whomever. Need more starters pitching late in games. If they can't, they are not worth the money they are getting.

Serious question.    Wondering if we're on a similar thought pattern.     When did you move to the opinion that games are too long/slow?     Though I don't think the games are normally too long, a lot of the BS outside the game has made them "longer", i.e.   TV (between inning stuff/pitching changes, etc. commercials), some game day experience novelties, etc.     Do you think the mound should be lowered/raised?     I'm not sure if it's a parade of strikeouts or simply a diluted pool of players who can't hit.

Thanks

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 26540
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Major Rule Changes being considered
« Reply #127: February 08, 2019, 03:14:23 PM »
Hotshot - I sort of disagree about no one going to see relievers.  With their entry music, and big strikeout arms, I think a lot of the good closers are popular and have followings.  Certainly Rivera was popular and his coming into a game to "Enter Sandman" got everyone up.  It's not just him and Hoffman either.  Even Papelbon when he was with the Sox and came in to "Shipping up to Boston" was huge.  I think we pretty much have dreaded our closers, at least between The Chief and Doo, but folks get up for the drama of the 9th. 

Offline blue911

  • Posts: 17802
Re: Major Rule Changes being considered
« Reply #128: February 08, 2019, 03:32:39 PM »
Billy Wagner the little bastard was fun to watch.

Online bluestreak

  • Posts: 7551
Re: Major Rule Changes being considered
« Reply #129: February 08, 2019, 03:33:46 PM »
I think there are a number of issues going on here. First off, I don’t think baseball is really in trouble. People are going to the park, and teams are making tons of money. And a lot of that is because baseball has one advantage that the other major sports don’t: You can be outside in good weather and when the kids are out of school. Football has good weather for a month, basketball and hockey are inside. So they need to take advantage of that. Shorten the season so that you’re not playing in March and November and make pricing easier to take families to games.
But if baseball becomes a widely successful regional sport, that’s ok.

As far as why baseball is decreasing in overall popularity compared to other leagues I think a lot of it has to do with personalities and social media presence. The NBA is genius in terms of social media and developing stars. There is still a lot of the unwritten rule stuff in baseball that stifles development of personalities that make stars. And MLB is very slow to get content up on twitter, etc, whereas the NBA is almost instantaneous. MLB is getting better and their streaming product is the unquestioned leader, so they have that to build on. But again, they shoot themselves in the foot even in their area of strength because of stupid rights and blackout rules.
But we live in a star based society. And Baseball is bad at making them. The biggest star in baseball is here and half of the people on this board can’t stand him.
People in Boston are not mixed on Tom Brady. People in Oakland are not mixed on Steph Curry.

I think that they definitely need to try to improve the game because baseball is most exciting when there are people on the bases. And pace of play could be better, but it’s not like football doesn’t have tons of stoppages and it’s popular as hell.

I think that overall it’s due to the factor above.

I could be wrong though. This is just a theory, because I imagine if they knew what it definitely was, would fix it.

Online UMDNats

  • Posts: 15804
Re: Major Rule Changes being considered
« Reply #130: February 08, 2019, 04:01:39 PM »
Baseball's entire culture is designed to limit player individualism and general happiness. I mean if you smile after hitting a home run you're going to get beaned by a pissed off middle reliever. That cloud of arrogance (play the game the right way) hovers over literally everything and no amount of Twitter campaigns or streaming services or milquetoast commercials can change that.

Also, baseball is 162 games a year so it's insanely easy for people to tune it out, and the "highlights" each night look exactly like the highlights the night before - you've seen a home run swing, you've seen 'em all (it's the drama of the moment that makes it special, but you can't capture that in a nightly clip of a game in April). It's a huge time sink to be an avid baseball fan because there's super-deep levels of knowledge out there to be informed. Hell, even on this site we've had big debates on analytics and newer statistical information.

Baseball overall has an image of stuffiness and combined with the long, slow slog of it (from a long game to a long season) you're just not going to capture national attention when the country finds the NFL (drama + one game a week means it builds to one big event a week) and NBA (drama + personalities (regular season, and in the postseason) + high-quality basketball (during the playoffs mostly)). Basketball and football also have some ridiculous physical specimens that perform amazing feats all the time. In baseball a ridiculous changeup doesn't move the needle like an alley-oop from the three point line does.

Also half of the best players in baseball don't speak english and the other half despise doing literally anything that involves showing personality. Max Scherzer is a HOF pitcher and we in DC know he's hilarious and intense and great but he is a total 0 nationally. Mike Trout I'm sure is funny but I'll be honest, I have no idea what his voice even sounds like. Hell, I even know guys like Aaron Judge personally and he is seriously the nicest human you can be but he's all about being humble and quiet and team-focused. Sometimes baseball needs jerks.

Offline Minty Fresh

  • Posts: 19663
  • Let’s Go Tech!
Re: Major Rule Changes being considered
« Reply #131: February 08, 2019, 04:12:15 PM »
Baseball's entire culture is designed to limit player individualism and general happiness. I mean if you smile after hitting a home run you're going to get beaned by a pissed off middle reliever. That cloud of arrogance (play the game the right way) hovers over literally everything and no amount of Twitter campaigns or streaming services or milquetoast commercials can change that.

Also, baseball is 162 games a year so it's insanely easy for people to tune it out, and the "highlights" each night look exactly like the highlights the night before - you've seen a home run swing, you've seen 'em all (it's the drama of the moment that makes it special, but you can't capture that in a nightly clip of a game in April). It's a huge time sink to be an avid baseball fan because there's super-deep levels of knowledge out there to be informed. Hell, even on this site we've had big debates on analytics and newer statistical information.

Baseball overall has an image of stuffiness and combined with the long, slow slog of it (from a long game to a long season) you're just not going to capture national attention when the country finds the NFL (drama + one game a week means it builds to one big event a week) and NBA (drama + personalities (regular season, and in the postseason) + high-quality basketball (during the playoffs mostly)). Basketball and football also have some ridiculous physical specimens that perform amazing feats all the time. In baseball a ridiculous changeup doesn't move the needle like an alley-oop from the three point line does.

Also half of the best players in baseball don't speak english and the other half despise doing literally anything that involves showing personality. Max Scherzer is a HOF pitcher and we in DC know he's hilarious and intense and great but he is a total 0 nationally. Mike Trout I'm sure is funny but I'll be honest, I have no idea what his voice even sounds like. Hell, I even know guys like Aaron Judge personally and he is seriously the nicest human you can be but he's all about being humble and quiet and team-focused. Sometimes baseball needs jerks.


:clap:

Online imref

  • Posts: 28648
  • 1B: The New Hot Corner

Offline Baseball is Life

  • Posts: 18440
  • Proud member of the Sunshine Squad.
Re: Major Rule Changes being considered
« Reply #133: February 08, 2019, 04:53:09 PM »
I'm 75. Went to my first game in the 1951 season. I like all the proposed new rules except the extra innings change. On the DH, the Players Union is gonna get it in the NL. Just a question of when, so might as well be now.

Basically, I'm for anything that would speed things up and, most importantly, reduce Ks and get the ball in play. I don't wanna watch a parade of strikeouts.

Also hate how the starting pitcher has lost relevancy. Relievers, no matter how good, just aren't "marketable." No one goes to a game hoping to see Kimbrel, or Chapman, or whomever. Need more starters pitching late in games. If they can't, they are not worth the money they are getting.

if you want to see more offense, lower the mound. It might even offset the effects of the shift.

Offline hotshot

  • Posts: 847
Re: Major Rule Changes being considered
« Reply #134: February 08, 2019, 06:24:15 PM »
Serious question.    Wondering if we're on a similar thought pattern.     When did you move to the opinion that games are too long/slow?     Though I don't think the games are normally too long, a lot of the BS outside the game has made them "longer", i.e.   TV (between inning stuff/pitching changes, etc. commercials), some game day experience novelties, etc.     Do you think the mound should be lowered/raised?     I'm not sure if it's a parade of strikeouts or simply a diluted pool of players who can't hit.

Thanks

- When I'm at Nats Park, I really don't think the games are too long. Guess it's the overall ambience.

- Watching on TV, I'm much more impatient. I often DVR games (in all sports) to be able to fast forward over commercials, injury TO's, officials' reviews, bullpen changes, football and basketball halftimes, etc. I'll typically start watching from the beginning of a recording baseball game at least an hour after the game began. I usually "catch up" by the games' end.

- As I said, my big "want" is to see fewer strikeouts, and more balls in play throughout the game. The parity between strikeouts and hits in today's game is not a good thing. For now, I'm OK with keeping the mound as is. If pitch velocity continues to increase? What to do then?

- I don't know if the pool of hitters being "diluted" is the reason for the increased strikeout rates/lower batting averages; or whether it's that the long ball is so valued (in terms of strategy and/or as an attendance booster) that a team striking out 10x a game is now acceptable. I just wish non-power hitters reverted to being "contact" hitters, speed guys learned to drag bunt, etc.
   


Online mitlen

  • Posts: 61551
  • We had 'em all the way.
Re: Major Rule Changes being considered
« Reply #135: February 08, 2019, 06:50:24 PM »
- When I'm at Nats Park, I really don't think the games are too long. Guess it's the overall ambience.

- Watching on TV, I'm much more impatient. I often DVR games (in all sports) to be able to fast forward over commercials, injury TO's, officials' reviews, bullpen changes, football and basketball halftimes, etc. I'll typically start watching from the beginning of a recording baseball game at least an hour after the game began. I usually "catch up" by the games' end.

- As I said, my big "want" is to see fewer strikeouts, and more balls in play throughout the game. The parity between strikeouts and hits in today's game is not a good thing. For now, I'm OK with keeping the mound as is. If pitch velocity continues to increase? What to do then?

- I don't know if the pool of hitters being "diluted" is the reason for the increased strikeout rates/lower batting averages; or whether it's that the long ball is so valued (in terms of strategy and/or as an attendance booster) that a team striking out 10x a game is now acceptable. I just wish non-power hitters reverted to being "contact" hitters, speed guys learned to drag bunt, etc.
   



I appreciate the thoughtful response.    Especially agree with your last point.    Singles are good.

Online DCFan

  • Posts: 11676
  • What are you dense?
Re: Major Rule Changes being considered
« Reply #136: February 08, 2019, 07:11:08 PM »
Billy Wagner the little bastard was fun to watch.

Especially when Zim connected and we won the game.

Offline LoveAngelos

  • Posts: 1045
Re: Major Rule Changes being considered
« Reply #137: February 09, 2019, 08:26:21 AM »
I wonder if a three batter limit may result in a sudden increase of relives calling the trainer to the mound for some sudden injury.
Troutbattingitis, could become contagious

Offline NJ Ave

  • Posts: 3389
Re: Major Rule Changes being considered
« Reply #138: February 09, 2019, 08:31:57 AM »
I wonder if a three batter limit may result in a sudden increase of relives calling the trainer to the mound for some sudden injury.
Troutbattingitis, could become contagious

Seems easy enough. If you leave the game due to injury, you go on the 10-game disabled list. I mean, it's three batters. If you felt okay in the bullpen warming up, and you can't make it through 3 batters, you incurred an injury that warrants a DL trip.

Offline hotshot

  • Posts: 847
Re: Major Rule Changes being considered
« Reply #139: February 09, 2019, 09:38:39 AM »
Hotshot - I sort of disagree about no one going to see relievers.  With their entry music, and big strikeout arms, I think a lot of the good closers are popular and have followings.  Certainly Rivera was popular and his coming into a game to "Enter Sandman" got everyone up.  It's not just him and Hoffman either.  Even Papelbon when he was with the Sox and came in to "Shipping up to Boston" was huge.  I think we pretty much have dreaded our closers, at least between The Chief and Doo, but folks get up for the drama of the 9th.

As for relievers being "attractions," we're talking about the handful of closer elites. I was fine when CGs started to be a thing of the past and the game went to the 8th inning set up man and 9th inning closer. Now, though, it seems acceptable if most starters can give you a decent 5 innings, even your #2's and #3's.

As we all know, middle relief is a killer.  My view is if you supposedly have a staff with three quality starters (which the Nats now have), I'd be telling Stras and Corbin, "were looking for 7 from you, every start."

Whitey Ford, pitching with stuff that was not overpowering in an undiluted-by-expansion eight team league, threw 156 CGs. Jim Palmer threw 211. What's so hard about being able to regularly go 7? I mean, today's pitchers are bigger, stronger, have personal trainers, benefit from defensive shifts,  etc.


Offline hotshot

  • Posts: 847
Re: Major Rule Changes being considered
« Reply #140: February 09, 2019, 10:05:43 AM »
if you want to see more offense, lower the mound. It might even offset the effects of the shift.

I'd leave the mound alone for now.

What do people think about the strike zone? When I started watching baseball, it was basically from the shoulders to the bottom of the knee. If that were to return, would it help:

- Stop the excessive "nibbling" by pitchers leading to high pitch counts early in games?
- Get the bats off hitters' shoulders and have them swinging at pitches as the game was originally designed?
- Make a bad situation (too many Ks, not enough balls in play, low BAs) even worse?

I don't know. The "old" zone did seem to result in faster games, more .300 hitters than today, no loss of power hitters ... until it didn't (the watershed year of 1968). 

Anyone recall exactly when and why the strike zone started getting "compressed"?  Clearly, attempts to broaden the strike zone in recent years have failed. At least to my eyes.


Online bluestreak

  • Posts: 7551
Re: Major Rule Changes being considered
« Reply #141: February 09, 2019, 10:13:48 AM »
As for relievers being "attractions," we're talking about the handful of closer elites. I was fine when CGs started to be a thing of the past and the game went to the 8th inning set up man and 9th inning closer. Now, though, it seems acceptable if most starters can give you a decent 5 innings, even your #2's and #3's.

As we all know, middle relief is a killer.  My view is if you supposedly have a staff with three quality starters (which the Nats now have), I'd be telling Stras and Corbin, "were looking for 7 from you, every start."

Whitey Ford, pitching with stuff that was not overpowering in an undiluted-by-expansion eight team league, threw 156 CGs. Jim Palmer threw 211. What's so hard about being able to regularly go 7? I mean, today's pitchers are bigger, stronger, have personal trainers, benefit from defensive shifts,  etc.

But they throw a whole lot harder.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 26540
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Major Rule Changes being considered
« Reply #142: February 24, 2019, 06:13:04 PM »
Interesting analysis by Travis Sawchik in 538. 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/foul-balls-are-the-pace-of-play-problem-nobodys-talking-about/

Basically, he points out there has been a major increase in foul balls and a drop in foul outs.  Some of this has to do with stadiums having less foul territory.  Also, with pitchers pitching harder, there's more of a need for bail out, desperation swings where hitters just try to stay alive.  This leads to a lot more pitches.  It's independent of the pitcher's pace so the clock should not get rid of the problem.

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 26540
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Major Rule Changes being considered
« Reply #143: February 26, 2019, 08:20:45 AM »
Another nice idea from 538, this time Nate Silver himself.  He suggests pretty much capping teams to 10 man pitching staffs to reduce the number of strikeouts.  He points  out that Ks correlate with the increased number of pitchers being used in the game. He notes the rise of the one inning maxed out bullpen arms.  He picks up on how these guys, often failed starters, get massive velocity increases and can throw more sliders and fastballs that are tougher to hit.  A 10 pitcher max could still work with a 5 man rotation if starters go back to throwing an average of 6 innings, which is how it was in the 70s and 80s.  You would also be able to use the extra position slots for
<--------------
making me happy, as well as 3d catchers, pinch runners, etc...  He fingers the one inning, max effort guys (OMG) relievers as more of a problem in terms of pace and balls in play than mid-pitching specialist match ups like LOOGYs.

Worth a read.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/relievers-have-broken-baseball-we-have-a-plan-to-fix-it/

Online imref

  • Posts: 28648
  • 1B: The New Hot Corner
Re: Major Rule Changes being considered
« Reply #144: February 27, 2019, 08:48:54 AM »
Per rosenthal mlb offers to delay the pitch clock until 2022 on the hope that the players union will agree to:

*Three-batter minimum for pitchers.

*Maximum of 13 pitchers on 26-man roster.

*Fewer mound visits.

*Shorter innings breaks.

*28-man roster and 14-pitcher cap in Sept.

Online HalfSmokes

  • Posts: 20042
Re: Major Rule Changes being considered
« Reply #145: February 27, 2019, 09:09:49 AM »
This really screws relievers - I doubt the mlbpa says yes

Online imref

  • Posts: 28648
  • 1B: The New Hot Corner
Re: Major Rule Changes being considered
« Reply #146: February 27, 2019, 09:47:16 AM »
the one rule change I'd like to see is that all contract negotiations are conducted in public.

Online UMDNats

  • Posts: 15804
Re: Major Rule Changes being considered
« Reply #147: February 27, 2019, 10:31:35 AM »
the one rule change I'd like to see is that all contract negotiations are conducted in public.

how would you even enforce that? make every GM record every phone call with an agent? FOIA for text messages between Mark Lerner and Scott Boras?

Offline JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 26540
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Re: Major Rule Changes being considered
« Reply #148: February 27, 2019, 10:49:42 AM »
If there were fewer pitchers than 13, say 12 or 11, then I think the 3 batter minimum takes care of itself without an inflexible rule.  I think Silver has it right. It's not so much the mid-inning pitching changes that are dragging out innings, it is the prevalence of one-inning, max-effort guys ("OMG") types that increase the number of pitches (going for Ks), depresses scoring, and discourages pitching to contact. It even affects starting pitching, because guys go harder knowing they are coming out as soon as there's trouble in the 5th, turning it over to a succession of OMG from the 6th on. 

Offline Count Walewski

  • Posts: 1996
Re: Major Rule Changes being considered
« Reply #149: February 27, 2019, 12:21:25 PM »
Hotshot - I sort of disagree about no one going to see relievers.  With their entry music, and big strikeout arms, I think a lot of the good closers are popular and have followings.  Certainly Rivera was popular and his coming into a game to "Enter Sandman" got everyone up.  It's not just him and Hoffman either.  Even Papelbon when he was with the Sox and came in to "Shipping up to Boston" was huge.  I think we pretty much have dreaded our closers, at least between The Chief and Doo, but folks get up for the drama of the 9th. 

I consider myself a connoisseur of the relief pitcher. I think the closer entrance is the best spectacle in all of baseball that isn't an actual baseball play. The Nats have never done it particularly well (the most exciting thing about Sean Doolittle entering the field is seeing a little cart), but I am literally getting chills right now as I type this reminiscing about experiencing Papelbon entering Fenway Park while I lived in Boston, or experiencing Bobby Jenks entering US Cellular Field while BOD blasted over the speakers in Chicago. And I say experienced, not watched, because the closer actually entering the field of play was the least important thing going on, more impactful was the music, the stuff going on on the scoreboard, and of course the absolute craziness and energy in the stands. Even when I simply watch YouTube videos of closers entering the game in Japan, players I don't know anything about, it feels like I'm watching the most important thing to ever happen in human history.

Not to say that non-closers aren't a spectacle also. Some have good entrances too: who can forget Todd Coffey running onto the field while the scoreboard timed him, who can forget Ryan Mattheus coming out to Katy Perry, or knowing that Aaron Barret was about to enter the field because you heard the first few bars of a rock cover of The Bear Went Over the Mountain. There are massive Harper or Zimmerman home runs that have had less of an emotional impact on me than the act of these three obscure relief pitchers entering the field of play. But as a relief pitcher connoisseur, the real payoff of these middle relievers is their wacky deliveries. You see relievers doing all sorts of crazy things that would never fly in a 5-inning starter. Every submarine pitcher, every side-armer, every guy who does whatever weird timing thing Oliver Perez does, they are all treasures, jewels in a baseball tapestry.

You also never know exactly which relief pitchers are going to enter a game. You know probably several days in advance who the starters are, but with relief pitchers there is the additional draw of wondering who you are going to see.

I know, in the back of my head, that it's all a fraud. These guys are generally not as talented as the starters. They have short-term relationships with whatever team they're on and are among the more replaceable guys on the roster. Getting 2-3 outs, even in the 9th inning, isn't very hard by MLB standards. We blow them out of proportion, I know. To me, knowing that this is all blown out of proportion makes the spectacle all the more enjoyable. It is sanctioned excess.

Then again, I am not the marginal baseball fan that MLB is desperately trying to bring into the fold. I already follow baseball closely year to year. I already watch it on TV daily in the summer. I am already posting on an MLB fan forum during the offseason. But if you were to ask me to impress a non baseball fan with the sport, for sure I would take him to the top of the 9th inning in a stadium with good acoustics, where the home team is good at video editing and has a lead of 3 or fewer runs.