Master Index of Archived Threads


Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Benjamin Grimm May 23 2016 12:56 PM

A new strike zone could be on baseball's horizon and the old-fashioned intentional walk could be a thing of the past after both were agreed to by the competition committee at Major League Baseball's owners meetings this week, sources said. Sources: Competition committee agrees to changes to strike zone, intentional walks

d'Kong76 May 23 2016 01:09 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

The strike zone is a joke anyways, varies from ump to ump and game to game. TV makes it a bigger joke with graphics that don't even line up with where the strike zone is and doesn't adjust for size of the player. I think the pitcher should have to throw all four pitches in an intentional walk. Stop tinkering with my game. What's next? Aluminum bats and a mercy rule?

Frayed Knot May 23 2016 03:03 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Not sure that I buy the reasoning behind tweaking the strike zone. "the change is a reaction to a trend by umpires to call strikes on an increasing number of pitches below the knees." says the article, but then several of the opinions offered after that were vague on whether they thought it would accomplish what they intend. And as big a proponent as I've been about getting rid of the dead time in the game, I've never seen the 'automatic' IW as the place to do it, or that the IW is even dead time to begin with.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 23 2016 03:06 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

As a fan of a heavily-pitching-predicated contender/a team which prominently employs Bartolo Colon, I have some worry.

Edgy MD May 23 2016 03:29 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Frayed Knot wrote: And as big a proponent as I've been about getting rid of the dead time in the game, I've never seen the 'automatic' IW as the place to do it, or that the IW is even dead time to begin with. I think this is where the issue is with me. I think MLB has taken aggressive measures to shorten games without having a serious philosophical discussion about what constitutes dead time. I tend to think of mound conferences as part of the drama of baseball, and adequately policed by umps. Now, the pitching coach has 30 seconds to confer, and the clock starts as he's exiting the dugout, and so half his time is gone by the time he arrives, and he's got to talk to a guy who doesn't necessarily speak the same language particularly well, and what can really happen during such an exchange. And all the time the clock is being displayed on the scoreboard, creating the wrong sort of artificial drama, I think, for the fan.

batmagadanleadoff May 23 2016 04:33 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Didn't MLB enact a rule recently about how much time the batter has to step into the batter's box? And is MLB they actually enforcing that rule? 'Cause that's how you shorten a game without having to remove elements that many fans would like kept in. Just watch an old game; the pitches come in one on the heels of the last one. Today, a pitch is made and then the batter steps out of the box and you could practically listen to In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida the whole long version before the batter steps in for the next pitch.

Frayed Knot May 23 2016 06:16 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

"Didn't MLB enact a rule recently about how much time the batter has to step into the batter's box?" -- Not a specific time, but a mandate that he not step out each time, etc. "And is MLB [crossout]they[/crossout] actually enforcing that rule?" -- Of course not, which is at least part of the reason that this season's games have given back four of the celebrated seven minutes they knocked off of games from 2014. I'm convinced that the biggest problem with the pace of game is more in attitude rather than rule changes. Maybe the actual time limits they've put into minor league games (complete with time clock enforcement techniques) will breed a generation of major leaguers who don't come up with the intricate step-out/glove-adjusting routines that the current crop takes as a divine right that, if forced to abandon, would screw up their entire career.

Centerfield May 23 2016 06:36 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Things that take too long that I would like to see MLB shorten: 1. The off-season 2. The day after Opening Day 3. Off-days in general. Can we say all off-days will only be 18 hours long? 4. The amount of time spent talking about reducing the time of games. Things that are just fine as is: 1. The length of baseball games. When I am home watching, there is nothing I'd rather watch. When I am at the game, there's no place I'd rather be. If I'm not watching, I don't care.

Ceetar May 23 2016 07:11 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Centerfield wrote: 1. The length of baseball games. When I am home watching, there is nothing I'd rather watch. When I am at the game, there's no place I'd rather be. If I'm not watching, I don't care. I'm surprised I haven't read a thinkpiece on why the added time will be good to bring millennials to the game because it's easier to multitask.

Nymr83 May 24 2016 01:33 AM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

I don't really care about the "intentional walk" change. I don't like the change in the strike zone, but until they actually start disciplining bad umpires or replacing them with a computerized strike zone i don't think it is going to matter much as they all do what they want anyway.

Edgy MD Feb 07 2017 02:27 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

This is either apparently still on the burner, or Ken Davidoff has received old information. It doesn't strike me as the sort of thing MLB and the MLBPA would be going back and forth on a week before spring training starts.

Frayed Knot Feb 07 2017 02:43 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

It's sort of just been moved up to the front burner. Now that the CBA is behind them the two sides time to talk about the kind of stuff that's not under a deadline the way the meat of CBA issues are. That said, I'm still in the same place that I was last May when this thread started: if they want to quicken the pace of play there are about 85 ways I'd get to before I'd hit on automating the IW, and if they want to tweak the strike-zone for some other reason I'm willing to listen to their logic but I have a hard time envisioning how it helps with this specific issue.

Edgy MD Feb 07 2017 02:52 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

I'm not sure about 85, but at least 60, yeah. It's just so uncreative. The intentional walk and the trip to the mound are not without baseball drama. A bunch of umpires walking to the area behind home plate so they can put on headsets when they could be doing their transaction through an ever present communications device that they wear, that's an easy fix. Not pausing to allow teams to do their own video investigation before calling for a review is another.

Frayed Knot Feb 07 2017 03:18 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Edgy MD wrote: I'm not sure about 85, but at least 60, yeah. It's just so uncreative. And I'd argue that automating it would detract from drama. It's not common but IWs don't always turn out the way they're designed as we've seen hits during them, wild pitches, and even a famous strikeout of a future Hall-of-Famer during a World Series game. Plus the savings are minuscule. There were 932 intentional walks in MLB last season, or less than one for every 2.5 games. And this'll save, what?, maybe 20 seconds per, even less if the IW isn't decided upon until after a particular count.

Ceetar Feb 07 2017 03:31 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

I don't care much about pace of game stuff because I think that arguments fraught with peril anyway, but I'd prefer they change this rule so that catchers cannot leave the box except to chase a pitch. This means IBB must happen within a catcher's reach and therefore within a batter's reach and also means more risk for wild pitches when attempting it. It was always a subversion of the rules anyway, in that there is no such thing as an intentional walk, they're just throwing pitches super far outside and the catcher is allowed to leave the box, and the crouch, once a pitch is thrown.

dinosaur jesus Feb 07 2017 05:08 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Ceetar wrote: I don't care much about pace of game stuff because I think that arguments fraught with peril anyway, but I'd prefer they change this rule so that catchers cannot leave the box except to chase a pitch. This means IBB must happen within a catcher's reach and therefore within a batter's reach and also means more risk for wild pitches when attempting it. It was always a subversion of the rules anyway, in that there is no such thing as an intentional walk, they're just throwing pitches super far outside and the catcher is allowed to leave the box, and the crouch, once a pitch is thrown. That's kind of what the NFL did with the extra point, isn't it? It had gotten too easy, so they made it a little harder. Makes sense to me. And you're right about there being no such thing as an intentional walk. That is, the pitcher's intention is obviously to walk the batter, but he should still have to carry out his intention. Those little formalities are important. There's no logical reason, for instance, that you have to keep going around the bases when a home run goes over the wall. But it would feel wrong if you didn't. They've been messing with the strike zone since the 1840s, so I'm not going to complain about that. Maybe one day they'll get it right.

Frayed Knot Feb 07 2017 05:18 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Ceetar wrote: I'd prefer they change this rule so that catchers cannot leave the box except to chase a pitch. But isn't that what the catcher is doing now during an IW, chasing a wide pitch?

Ceetar Feb 07 2017 05:24 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

dinosaur jesus wrote: There's no logical reason, for instance, that you have to keep going around the bases when a home run goes over the wall. But it would feel wrong if you didn't. Sure there is. The original concept of a home run was one of an 'inside the park' because there were no walls. Hell, Babe Ruth lost home runs because the ground rules were that if you hit the crowd of spectators in the outfield (450 feet or so) it was a ground rule double. Once walls went up it obviously became a different thing and they legislated the home run and said fielders can't leave the field of play, but that's basically just a league-wide ground rule codified into law. That's why the IBB thing needs to be discussed in a different vein, it's ADDING a new feature to the game. You can choose to face a batter or give him a base. Frayed Knot wrote: Ceetar wrote: I'd prefer they change this rule so that catchers cannot leave the box except to chase a pitch. But isn't that what the catcher is doing now during an IW, chasing a wide pitch? yeah, pretty much. I guess you'd have to legislate that he has to be in the crouch. I bet catchers leave early though. Maybe if umpires started calling the balk when a catcher leaves the box before the pitch has left the hand..

dinosaur jesus Feb 07 2017 05:34 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

When I say there's no logical reason to circle the bases when you hit a home run, I mean by the sort of logic that those who want to change the intentional walk rule are using: it's a home run, let's count it and move on. But it is logical by the logic of the game, which should be what matters. The same way having to throw those four balls is logical. You don't play or watch a game just for the result; the things you do to get to that result are important too.

Edgy MD Feb 07 2017 06:12 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

That's a pretty good analog. The play's the thing.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 07 2017 06:22 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Frayed Knot wrote: and even a famous strikeout of a future Hall-of-Famer during a World Series game. I don't think I know about this. When did it happen? Who was the Hall-of-Famer? I've always thought that if I was the hitter being walked, and there were ducks on the pond that I wanted to drive in, I'd consider swinging at the third and fourth pitch. Maybe with the 2-2 count they would reevaluate their plan and give me a pitch that I could hit. And if not, I'd at least (maybe) rattle the pitcher a little bit.

Edgy MD Feb 07 2017 06:26 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Keep in mind, without intentional walks, the dramatic and profound ending to The Bad News Bears doesn't go down that way at all. Plays where the batter swung at an intentional ball: http://sabr.org/research/surprise-swing ... onal-balls Kelly Leak not included.

dinosaur jesus Feb 07 2017 06:51 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

and even a famous strikeout of a future Hall-of-Famer during a World Series game. I don't think I know about this. When did it happen? Who was the Hall-of-Famer? Rollie Fingers (on orders from Dick Williams) faked out Johnny Bench in the '72 Series. On a 3-2 count, Gene Tenace set up for an intentional ball 4, then jumped back behind the plate as Fingers painted the outside corner. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TPCNP4_qXo

Ashie62 Feb 07 2017 07:41 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Miguel Cabrera singled on a free pass in 2013. Arod has also. [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6YzVvtxoaY

Frayed Knot Feb 07 2017 07:43 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

and even a famous strikeout of a future Hall-of-Famer during a World Series game. I don't think I know about this. When did it happen? Who was the Hall-of-Famer? Rollie Fingers (on orders from Dick Williams) faked out Johnny Bench in the '72 Series. On a 3-2 count, Gene Tenace set up for an intentional ball 4, then jumped back behind the plate as Fingers painted the outside corner. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TPCNP4_qXo Game Five of the '72 WS. Oakland was up 3 games to 1 but Catfish Hunter had just given up his 4th run of the game on a 2-out walk and a hit in the 5th so Williams brought in Fingers to pitch to Bench (on no, the closer coming in in the 5th inning ... the Humanity!!!!!) and try to close out the inning. But once Bobby Tolan stole 2nd and took 3rd on a wild pitch during Bench's AB the A's "decided" to issue the intentional walk. The key here is that there was a full count on Bench by this point - obviously that ploy isn't going to work if there aren't already two strikes (well, you might steal A strike but it isn't going to work two or three times in a row). Bench always maintained that he wasn't fooled by the ruse, merely that Fingers had thrown him a "bastard pitch" which made him look as though he was. Cincy won that game anyway with Fingers pitching 3-2/3 innings. In all he threw 10-1/3 while appearing in every game of that series except for Game 6 which was the only one of the seven that was not a one-run game.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 07 2017 07:43 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

For reducing game time, I'd rather they just reduced the number of commercials between innings. But of course, that will never happen!

Frayed Knot Feb 07 2017 07:46 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Ashie62 wrote: Miguel Cabrera singled on a free pass in 2013. Arod has also. [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6YzVvtxoaY Jeter has 4 home-runs, 6 doubles, 1 triple, and once saved a baby in the stands from choking on a piece of Cracker-Jack, all during intentional walks.

Frayed Knot Feb 07 2017 08:12 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

For reducing game time, I'd rather they just reduced the number of commercials between innings. But of course, that will never happen! You're right and you're right, but yet you're not totally right. You're right about the commercial time being a big factor and about the fact that that's not changing. But I remember noting during the 2013 post-season two very similar post-season games that were played forty years (and one day) apart. Oct 6, 1973: Red 2 - Mets 1 3 combined runs, 9 hits, 4 walks, 19 Ks, 4 pitchers, 65 total batters Playing time = 2:00 Oct 5, 2013: A's 1 - Tigers 0 1 combined run, 12 hits, 5 walks, 22 Ks, 6 pitchers, 67 total batters Playing time = 3:23 Both games ended in bottom 9th 'walk-off' wins (the '73 game with 1 out, the other with none) and the more recent game had 2 extra batters come to the plate plus two in-innning pitching changes as opposed to only one in the '73 game. Other than that they're essentially identical games as far as the amount of "action" involved. But even if the commercial time between innings were as little as 60 seconds back in '73 -- I don't know what it was but I can't imagine it was any less than that -- the increased commercial time could only explain maybe 1/3 of that 83 minute time gap. The game today is simply being played at a slower pace at that comes at the cost of later nights, fewer viewers (particularly for those whose team isn't involved) and no reward for the fan except for more dead time.

Ashie62 Feb 08 2017 03:00 AM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Events other than intentional walks seem happen more than I thought during the process of issuing an IBB. I would not trade that to save 20 seconds of time.

Edgy MD Feb 09 2017 04:10 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Jeff Passan reporting that baseball is looking into experimenting with starting extra innings with a runner on second base. So now we have baseball run by people who hate baseball, and the country run by people who hate the country. Where am I anymore?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 09 2017 04:14 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

You know how you could increase the action when you've got a "record low rate" of balls-in-play? How about, um, finding ways to put more balls in play?

Benjamin Grimm Feb 09 2017 04:27 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Edgy MD wrote: Jeff Passan reporting that baseball is looking into experimenting with starting extra innings with a runner on second base. TERRIBLE idea! Worse even than the DH!

d'Kong76 Feb 09 2017 04:45 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

I was going to start a thread when this 'news' hit and decided the idea is so stupid it's not thread worthy.

Frayed Knot Feb 09 2017 04:53 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: You know how you could increase the action when you've got a "record low rate" of balls-in-play? How about, um, finding ways to put more balls in play? Hence their proposed strike-zone shrinking idea. Not sure it'll work out how they intend, but that's the idea behind it anyway. As far as this runner-on-second in extra innings thing, there's no indication that it's ever going to advance beyond the rookie and Arizona Fall leagues, but the disappointing part about all this is that they seem to be attacking this pace of play issue in all the wrong ways. Stay in the box!; Throw the damn pitch!; Make quicker pitching changes!; and Cut back on the plague of committee meetings on the mound!.

Edgy MD Feb 09 2017 04:57 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Know what would make for fast pitching changes? A subterranean bullpen below the mound! Then, when you decide to make a change, the mound lowers into the ground, taking the failed pitcher with it, and then quickly raises back into place with a new guy.

Ceetar Feb 09 2017 05:17 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Edgy MD wrote: Know what would make for fast pitching changes? A subterranean bullpen below the mound! Then, when you decide to make a change, the mound lowers into the ground, taking the failed pitcher with it, and then quickly raises back into place with a new guy. to signal a pitching change, the manager tossed a smoke bomb onto the mound and poof, a few seconds later, new pitcher is standing there.

Frayed Knot Feb 09 2017 06:03 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

In all seriousness (not that subterranean mounds and smoke bombs don't merit consideration) but the idea that a warmed-up pitcher then needs to throw an additional eight warm-up pitches after being summoned from the pen dates from a time when bullpen mounds (particularly for the visiting team) were either substandard or nonexistent, but that's hardly the case these days. And if they do claim to to need additional pitches so as to get used to the "real" mound, do they really need as many as eight? I'm sure the reliever's chapter of the union is going to swear that this is a non-negotiable perk they can't do without but that would be the first place I'd start. Well that and teleporting them in from the bullpen. I mean, sure you'd run the risk of rearranging some of their DNA, but that's a small price to be paid for the 20 seconds or so you'd save by not having them walk. Plus, if Todd Coffey ever makes it back to a ML roster it would save us all the sight of watching a fat man sprinting. btw, making the IW automatic would shave something like 10-12 seconds off the time of an average game. Cutting out, or at least down, the warmups following the warmups would be more like several minutes per.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 09 2017 06:13 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

And anyway, who's the guy who starts the 10th inning standing on second base? Is it someone that the manager designates? Or is it whoever would be scheduled to bat ninth that inning? And if that runner scores, what pitcher is charged with the run? And if that's the winning run, does the pitcher who started the inning get the loss? Of course, these things are minor considerations compared to the abomination that this rule is. Hopefully it never gets past the talking stage. Is the issue that the games are too long? Or is it really that they end too late in the evening? If it's the latter, just start each game a half hour earlier. Problem solved!

Frayed Knot Feb 09 2017 06:21 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

My guess would be that the designated runner is the last out of the previous inning. I mean if we're going to go all sunday morning softball rules here we might as well go all the way. Keg on the side of the field is optional if for no other reason that most of the guys playing at that level are still under 21. The thing with the Rookie League and AFL games is that the "fans" in the stands are essentially the friends and family set; no one else really goes to those games (aside from the ones Tim Tebow is in) other than scouts. So, even if implemented, I don't think it's in any danger of moving higher than those games whose attendance is usually measured in the dozens.

Edgy MD Feb 09 2017 06:51 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

I thought it was pretty clear that this was an experiment with consideration of moving the rule up to higher levels. The odd part is that, while Rookie League and AFL games are games that, possibly more than most, give front offices night terrors of pitchers exceeding their pitch counts, they are also games with 35-man rosters. Sometimes more. And hey, Joe Torre, you know what we call it when backup infielders are called on to pitch? FUN! You ought to look into it.

dinosaur jesus Feb 09 2017 09:25 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Could we try to get people to go to those Arizona and Gulf Coast League games just to boo when they stick that runner at second? Probably not; you'd have to attend an awful lot of games before you got one that went to extra innings. But there ought to be some way to let these people know what a dumb idea it is. Also, I'm to lazy to check on this thoroughly, but my impression is that there aren't nearly as many really long games, or extra-inning games in general, as there used to be. I did take a look at four teams in 2016 and in 1976: the Mets, Yankees, Cubs, and White Sox. (These totals include a little bit of double counting, a few of the games were between those teams.) In 2016, the four teams combined played fifty extra-inning games, of which two went over thirteen innings and none over fifteen. In 1976, they played seventy-three extra-inning games, of which twelve went over thirteen innings; that includes a nineteen-inning, seventeen-inning, and three sixteen-inning games. The kind of game that Torre complains about--the eighteen-inning job where the utility infielder pitches--has always been extremely rare, and is probably more uncommon now than it's ever been. What he and the other execs are really trying to address is the fact that when games do go to extra-innings, they take forever to finish, even if it only takes ten or eleven innings. But the strategies that are among the real culprits in extending games--using three pitchers to get three outs, using the same pitchers in the same roles every night, whether they're really needed or not, etc.--have also accomplished what this idiotic rule is intended to do: they've shortened ballgames.

Frayed Knot Feb 09 2017 09:36 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Yeah, there's nothing like selling an idea by exaggerating the symptom it's meant to cure. 18-inning games average right around two per year, or 0.08% of all games. [fimg=500]http://www.baseballprospectus.com/u/images/extradragon1.png[/fimg] And, yes, the number of extra-inning games in general is at a low point recently although that could be mere random variation rather than trend. From Baseball Prospectus (as is the above graph): Since 1998, an average of 8.5 percent of all games have gone into extra innings. In 2016, only 7.6 percent did [approx 1 game in 13] tying it with 2005 for the lowest in the 30-team era. And since 1998, there have been an average of 446 total extra innings played per season. In 2016, there were 426. Since 1998, there have been only four seasons with fewer than 425. All told, baseball is coming off a season with the fewest extra-inning games and fewest extra innings in general in years.

Frayed Knot Feb 10 2017 04:30 AM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Good Lord, John Harper is on board with this nonsense I mean he does say that this runner-on-2nd ploy shouldn't be MLB's priority #1, but also adds that he at least isn't opposed to it on a limited basis (only after reaching the 12th inning and not in post-season) and sees merit in the potential "instant drama" it would create even while admitting that it's both "gimmicky" and "artificial". Gee, ya think?!? I'm starting to smell that maybe some of these scribes (and there have been several in addition to Harper) are rallying behind any idea won't lengthen their working day. But what I really wish is that those cozying up to this idea while citing emptying stands during extra innings games as part of their ammo would point out the fact that these games frequently being past the three hour mark before ever getting to extras just might be the bigger problem. 20 years ago ('96 season) the Mets played 1/4 of their games (40) in under 2:30 By 2006 that figure was just about halved to 21. This past year there were six! (< 4.0%) Yeah, not enough contrived "drama" in extras, that's the problem!

Edgy MD Feb 10 2017 02:31 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

I tells you, it's not unrelated to Trump. Crazy ideas get people talkin', and get folks tak'n' sides and get page clicks and point-counterpoint screaming matches on television, so sure, get behind some crazy shit. It's good for television. Nobody tunes in for discussions of the same-old-same-old! Make sure you quote that stupid chestnut about how insanity is doing the same way. Next thing you know, you wake up in the morning, Trump is president, players are starting innings on second base, Vin Diesel is running your local energy concern, Steve Harvey is on the Supreme Court, and we're all trying to talk Russian.' What happened to the grownups?

Benjamin Grimm Feb 10 2017 02:50 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Edgy MD wrote: What happened to the grownups? Scorned as "elitists".

Frayed Knot Feb 10 2017 03:12 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

The world started to go to hell when the ice cream companies, seemingly all at once as if in collusion, started repacking their products in 48 oz containers while slyly keeping the carton in the same shape and proportion as their old 64 oz standard hoping that we wouldn't notice. It's been all downhill since then. More stats on extra-inning games: - in 2016, 43% of all XI games ended in the 10th inning, and less than 1 in 6 (16%) went longer than 12

Benjamin Grimm Feb 10 2017 03:19 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

I'd be okay with the man-on-second thing if it only applied after the 99th inning. Actually, no, I still wouldn't be okay with that. I'd hate to see the game get all stupid after watching for 99 innings.

dinosaur jesus Feb 10 2017 03:23 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

This runner on second thing is no more ridiculous than what football, hockey, and soccer do to end tie games. It's only a terrible idea if you think that baseball should be better than that. Which it should, but that's kind of a hard position to argue. And baseball executives certainly can't afford to think that way, since they have to compete with those sports. I do miss half gallon half gallons of ice cream.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 10 2017 03:31 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Does anyone know how frequently a runner scores when he's on second base with nobody out? It's entirely possible that this would only increase the number of runs that score in extra innings without really shortening the games by much, because the "free" runner scoring in the top of the inning may often be offset by that runner also scoring in the bottom of the inning. And if the runner doesn't score in the top of the inning, I can envision a lot of intentional walks leading off the bottoms of innings.

Ceetar Feb 10 2017 04:07 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Does anyone know how frequently a runner scores when he's on second base with nobody out? the average team scores 1.0932 runs with runner on second in 2016, no outs. Of course, that's skewed slightly be that runner actually GETTING there, if you think a pitcher that has given up a double is MORE likely to give up a run than an average pitcher in any moment.

d'Kong76 Feb 10 2017 04:15 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Edgy MD wrote: What happened to the grownups? The zombie infiltration is more real than previously thought?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 10 2017 04:26 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Ending in ties would be more preferable than this proposal, not that I'd support that solution either.

TransMonk Feb 10 2017 04:26 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

I feel like the MLB is just fine without slow-pitch softball rules.

Frayed Knot Feb 10 2017 04:29 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Does anyone know how frequently a runner scores when he's on second base with nobody out? the average team scores 1.0932 runs with runner on second in 2016, no outs. Of course, that's skewed slightly be that runner actually GETTING there, if you think a pitcher that has given up a double is MORE likely to give up a run than an average pitcher in any moment. Yeah, you're basically looking at an average of 1.1 runs scored when starting from a runner-on-2nd/none-out vs 0.5 runs when starting from the standard none-on/none-out situation. But those are averages which combine a bunch of zeros plus that occasional 8 run inning and everything in between. The more telling numbers here are the odds of a team scoring at least one run in their half-inning which will jump to around 63% from the 27% of the time when starting with bases empty. And Grimm is right about this all not necessarily shortening the game, especially when you consider that the go-to move for a lot of managers will often be to play for exactly one run by immediately bunting the runner over to 3rd then hoping for a Sac Fly/infielder grounder that would get him in, only to see that strategy matched in the bottom half of the inning*. Bunting the runner over slightly increases the chances of scoring a minimum of one run (63% to 67%) but decreases the overall average of runs a team is likely to score that inning (1.13 to 0.96) based on the time honored axiom known in scientific circles as 'BiFL'. I heard an argument yesterday that this will be good training for teaching both hitters and pitchers situational ball at the lower levels to which I reply: Fine, just keep it there. * that the home manager gets to match still makes this better than the NFL method where we just saw a Super Bowl end even though one team never got a chance to touch the ball in overtime, but that's a whole 'nother subject

seawolf17 Feb 10 2017 04:50 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Stupid idea. Just play the fricking game.

Fman99 Feb 10 2017 05:04 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Starting any inning with runners on base is fucktarded. Like, DH level stupid.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 10 2017 05:05 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

I actually think it's significantly worse than the DH, and I hate the DH.

dinosaur jesus Feb 10 2017 05:19 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Frayed Knot wrote: Yeah, you're basically looking at an average of 1.1 runs scored when starting from a runner-on-2nd/none-out vs 0.5 runs when starting from the standard none-on/none-out situation. But those are averages which combine a bunch of zeros plus that occasional 8 run inning and everything in between. The more telling numbers here are the odds of a team scoring at least one run in their half-inning which will jump to around 63% from the 27% of the time when starting with bases empty. Okay. So if we had a breakdown of how likely a team was to score 1 run, 2 runs, etc., we could calculate the chances of one team scoring more than the other, ending the game. Those chances would certainly be higher if you started with a runner on second, but not that much higher. Maybe a 10% difference? That would mean 1 game in 10 was one inning shorter--which amounts to about 1 game a year. Another factor is that if you start with runners on base, the inning will probably take a little longer to play. More stepping off the rubber, more conferences on the mound, more intentional walks, more pitching changes. The net gain in game time might be pretty close to 0.

Chad Ochoseis Feb 10 2017 07:52 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Even if it does shorten the game, the complaint that the game is now taking too long is a catchall complaint for various actions that extend the length of a game without adding excitement - time taken between pitches, time working the count, conferences on the mound, etc., etc., etc. It doesn't have anything to do with extra inning games, which most fans love. So this is addressing the wrong problem. Personally, I have no problem with game length at all. I could see cutting time between innings (which, as has been pointed out, will never be agreed to by the networks), but I like strategizing. I like hitters battling pitchers by going deep into the count. I like close plays being subject to review at a manager's request. I'm good with the game as it is. But I recognize that I'm in the minority of baseball fans in general, and I may even be in the minority of fans here in the CPF.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 10 2017 08:01 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

I don't mind the pace of the game. I just don't like how late the postseason games end. And it's a problem for MLB, too. People won't bother to watch a World Series game if they know they're going to go to bed before it ends. (Unless their favorite team is involved, of course.) The simple solution to that particular problem is to have the first pitch at around 7:15 Eastern Time.

Ceetar Feb 10 2017 08:03 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Chad Ochoseis wrote: But I recognize that I'm in the minority of baseball fans in general, and I may even be in the minority of fans here in the CPF. I'm not sure I'd bet on that (the first one) I'm fine with length of games, if I had one complaint about length (Besides the bonus commercials in the playoffs, I think the break for normal games is just right) it'd be the 3+ pitcher innings in low-leverage spots. Walk a batter, pitcher change for matchup, pitches to two guys, then switch again for the lefty. bring in the relievers ready to go and that's a one commercial break.

seawolf17 Feb 10 2017 09:11 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Chad Ochoseis wrote: I could see cutting time between innings (which, as has been pointed out, will never be agreed to by the networks) Put ads on the uniforms, then, and cut a minute out of the breaks.

41Forever Feb 10 2017 09:30 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

The biggest time suck to me seems to be the endless pitching changes in the late innings. It's always seemed odd to me that managers think it's OK to use one pitcher -- regardless of whether he is a lefty or righty -- for the first six innings, and one pitcher for the ninth inning, the closer -- regardless of whether he is a lefty or righty -- but use four pitchers for the seventh and eight innings, suddenly deciding that the lefty-righty match-ups are mandatory for every batter, but only in those innings.

d'Kong76 Feb 10 2017 09:45 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

seawolf17 wrote: Put ads on the uniforms, then, and cut a minute out of the breaks. That would never fly; if ads on the uni's ever come (and that would suck imo) it will be an advertising add-on and not a trade off for a real beer commercial.

41Forever Feb 10 2017 09:57 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

d'Kong76 wrote: seawolf17 wrote: Put ads on the uniforms, then, and cut a minute out of the breaks. That would never fly; if ads on the uni's ever come (and that would suck imo) it will be an advertising add-on and not a trade off for a real beer commercial. Have you seen the size of the Under Armor logos that are soon coming, and noting that they will be on the chest, not the sleeve. I'm counting those as ads. They're huge.

Edgy MD Feb 10 2017 10:45 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Do you think I'm correctly assuming that any runs scored from the free baserunner would go down as unearned? And logo creep is another seriously sketchy issue.

Frayed Knot Feb 10 2017 11:49 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Mostly I think baseball needs an attitude adjustment rather than a whole new set of rules and gimmicks. Over the last several decades the game has slowly morphed from one where the ball was considered ‘Live’ unless stated otherwise to one where pretty much the opposite is true, where time is assumed to be ‘out’ as its default setting. Go back, for instance, to Murphy’s “steal” of 3rd base during a walk against the Dodgers in the 2015 playoffs. The reason he was able to pull that off is that when ball four was issued (to Duda?) the shifted Dodgers infield, and specifically 3B Justin Turner stationed temporarily out in short RF, simply began strolling back towards their positions with heads down as if thinking that the previous play is now over and nothing else can happen until the first pitch of the next batter. There was also that kerfuffle with Hansel Robles and the Phils batter (Rupp - or maybe Ruf, the two are pretty much interchangeable) where the Phils dugout erupted at Robles throwing the pitch when Rupp wasn’t ready even though he was in the box at the time! It’s like, ‘yeah, it might be Legal for him to throw the pitch now but we don't consider it kosher cuz you didn’t ask "Mother May I?" ahead of time’. There was also that incident the same week as the Murphy play when Toronto catcher Russell Martiin’s throw back to his pitcher hit the bat of the Ranger batter. In that one even the ump’s first reaction was to call back the play (a runner scored from 3rd on the deflection) because apparently now nothing is allowed to happen between pitches. After a discussion the call was reversed and the run allowed to score but the fact that it took a five minute conference to come to that conclusion suggest that the attitude of the game has changed to one where it's being treated as a series of disconnected events rather than one with ongoing action. And if the players and even umps feel this way it should be no surprise that fans — and maybe more importantly, potential fans — pick up on this attitude too. Baseball didn’t use to be considered a ‘slow’ game but now it seems like that’s one of the first labels stuck on it, and not just from those baseball haters who have been saying some version of that for half a century or more.

Zvon Feb 11 2017 02:28 AM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

I'm concerned that MLB is even just proposing this. Which Bozo came up with this one? Length of games don't bother me at all. Folks gotta slow down and smell the pine tar. Next thing you know we'll be seeing shit like this: [fimg=300:j6svpcue]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/UmFAqyt4QjyJTXDPKrBXRAJKWsbctWEOMqktJ8_YBHUDquKXUQHeHj4zodT1GhIblaXJZQdPVCnOm5ii7GOYYQ78-dU-TG3k1f5FaOe7Y1D06bcvUzDjgzc_G-wDdkAZaYhZIngmAxtFqeDsGfdIwARxN-Hz0qibhMpo-FJwR6Yx2sTf_tqOjEXT5iIv1mCIJuAutFfv-rRkOC0HwAJpTlwevX03tivl1jFMu4tfWTm0rpceLy48J8rFwu3ZbGL37G6044KNIBA2_YAeHZFT8BQlzteE0k6Lz7oOOEliPLCUnBtg8vCoOuR1_pITJ1GMYoA_0UlKuTpL6WkayQlWIafYaD_iapBwpKYcbjtc6FolOA-SFSn2Q36ssM12OVNmseATbeSzcspZ1feVqDQhFcUhrlKTifHS1-PKhvoFCJ-GM-4iIn8BtHwna0YYAgeiMvuGtx1H8bi0Go7R8hRrddGtvqnrWwRUs-0N3mHHvqactlLp1dtRfT2SindM6u8s_e_t2Ar9SS0VpO4vk4S0fEip-A-iJPX0-FldCrur_5lz0FBScwlGXVxUgM2MHEZ2He-sQjvimQLPEGU-I3HqDQHN6xAwAp8gst2LLyBxehSAo99EnKAEiA=w350-h261-no[/fimg:j6svpcue][fimg=300:j6svpcue]https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/RxfTQSwtrvzyKMUzDOMRdj_n4iwhpz3V1lbZfhBgC-fJbPwJTU5BMqT-yFOUpCeZt8KrZ-ZnE2dd18QlJh-XnLXvI0IT4qmkh44UPk6xYd7sUIM3ZcAPfoW7djfaU38OSARNbuF4lJz0UypJskyxeKxthLWwG63ZBOlpBbSytH2rqbQcL4f7I6dIbBUSl74stB3fg99aOHwizdvg40TcWQ_AXaCnPjXik6t4-InIYFpQWDTsg6xqHyXO8JgMKFcrJmpl33RVNpH40EmWMxbB7_qQaOI_-Tf1tTc9W7rY8c0P0UovHeGwTjg3SRY7gMBMl91eDKrXiGTqiXDZNWe9Hd21ZNiEIlnQeqWTv-Nh8SviU3MHBE1kfVDdoFGNWC7BBMP-f4aqvix7HzuDlIww29F32XOW-oQu3vE49lIOnGQWLLas6hgowsy9ZHR-6qfcbxVdwimFFc0Nrf6cPdtBEJLaY5R75EaIoS3mql4iBINGkJfZR8bg_Kom8MkyuV-ElOlnQ8ghqh4otLKSgeHjoYDCRCRTS6LNbZr7ecTDU_wEKiOZI9iDSDr3RJeydh4hqklKOPxWt2UzXB-zml3YDKJXFfY7I2eMhKfL-RqvdWSis00C_aC21A=w464-h340-no[/fimg:j6svpcue]

d'Kong76 Feb 11 2017 04:55 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

41Forever wrote: Have you seen the size of the Under Armor logos that are soon coming, and noting that they will be on the chest, not the sleeve. I'm counting those as ads. They're huge. Well, that's UA's thing, on the chest. Not sure why one would be counting on it like it's something desirable? I fine with little UA's or R's or Nswishes, but if MLB uni's become Venezuelan League-esque billboards I'm going to have a problem with that. Their not race cars, their uniforms. OE: oops, I read 'I'm counting on those ads' ... the eyes, they're going.

41Forever Feb 11 2017 06:28 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

d'Kong76 wrote: Have you seen the size of the Under Armor logos that are soon coming, and noting that they will be on the chest, not the sleeve. I'm counting those as ads. They're huge. Well, that's UA's thing, on the chest. Not sure why one would be counting on it like it's something desirable? I fine with little UA's or R's or Nswishes, but if MLB uni's become Venezuelan League-esque billboards I'm going to have a problem with that. Their not race cars, their uniforms. OE: oops, I read 'I'm counting on those ads' ... the eyes, they're going. I should have been more clear. The chest logos will look awful.

Lefty Specialist Feb 11 2017 07:19 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

One less commercial per half inning, and you've cut games by 9 minutes. (I know, unlikely.) Broadcasting companies don't really care when games end. They want to start their shows in prime time and they sell more commercials in the pre-game shows, so that leads to 8:37 start times. They've paid their bills on the commercials and relentless network promos they sell in the first four innings or so. After that it's gravy. They know as much as anybody that viewership falls off after 10 PM Eastern. And they're not selling Viagra to the 8-year-olds that are fast asleep by then (and which baseball needs to build a loyal fan base). The problem is that Bud Selig let these guys dictate terms to him in exchange for a huge pot of money. The most egregious example is the 'Let the home field advantage for the World Series be dictated by an exhibition game'. Fox ratings were slumping for the game so the tie was a convenient excuse to 'jazz it up' and 'make it count'. The players weren't any more motivated, and the managers were put in an impossible position trying to win a game that should be meaningless. Shortening the game in this way doesn't help things. It just makes sure that commercials are a larger percentage of the air time.

Ashie62 Feb 11 2017 11:17 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

I believe those commercials pay some of those large salaries. Baseball will allow an ad logo ala the NBA in time. Baseball like many things is all about the money.

Nymr83 Feb 20 2017 03:54 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Over at ESPN, Curtis Granderson gets mentioned as a potential beneficiary of strike zone change as he sucks at the bottom of the current zone that would move up [url]http://www.espn.com/mlb/insider/story/_/id/18708283/if-strike-zone-moves-which-mlb-players-win-lose

Frayed Knot Feb 22 2017 03:56 AM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

"Unfortunately, it now appears there really won't be any meaningful rule change for the 2017 season due to a lack of cooperation from the MLBPA," said Commish Manfred at Cactus League Media Day. "I'm disappointed that we could not even get the MLBPA to agree to modest rule changes like limits on trips to the mound that have little effect on the competitive character of the game ... Despite this disappointment, we will continue to work with the MLBPA to effectuate change." However he then goes on to say that although the rule change provision in the Basic Agreement dictates that MLB has to propose changes during an offseason and then, if unable to reach an agreement, the process can continue over the course of the next season and offseason, but he then adds the agreement culminates "with a unilateral right to make playing rule changes." IOW (at least the way I'm reading things) if the player's union continues to resist the changes for another full year, [u:10wk41zb]MLB can simply enact whatever changes they want without union agreement[/u:10wk41zb]. http://m.mlb.com/news/article/216635016 ... take-time/

seawolf17 Feb 22 2017 02:35 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Because the rule change is stupid. #savetheintentionalwalk #extrainningsforever

MFS62 Feb 22 2017 03:43 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

If I want to look at different rules, I'll watch slow pitch softball, thank you. Later

A Boy Named Seo Feb 22 2017 03:48 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

So much stupid shit being bandied by the League, good on Tony Clark and the players for #resisting hard. Balls in play are way down. Yes, all those super boring starts where Thor mows down 13 hitters. Sooo00000oooo boring. Last year's games were 4 and a half minutes longer than 2015. Lots of good ways to shave those off (and prob a few more) without going to pitch clocks, and all that other lame nonsense. But I think Manfred kind of wants gimmicky, lame shit to attract youngbloods who think baseball is hella boring. I don't think he 100% has the same concerns we do. Have you been to an NBA pre-game where fireworks explode out of the backboard like it's Wrestlemania? Something tells me Manfred would LOVE that. Cutting adverts between innings will never happen, but it's disingenuous for the League to pretend that there are never times where the ump is holding up action until the network comes back from break. MLB could shorten all in-game commercial spots by 5 seconds or even 3 seconds, and bam, there's your 4-6 minutes back. I know there was talk in previous years on shortening breaks between innings, but not sure if any #ExecutiveOrders were signed. Then make your batters stay in the box, cut down on warm-up pitches, and the other common sense stuff, and you probably get to 10 minutes. 10 minutes most fans probably don't even notice, btw. Oh, and Adam Silver paved the way for uni ads in American pro sports, I'm afraid. I hope baseball holds out til I'm dead, but I wouldn't place a hefty bet on that one.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 22 2017 03:55 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

I wouldn't mind if they started enforcing pitch-clock type moves. Would mean less Bastardo for everybody. But this IW bullshit is just bullshit.

Ceetar Feb 22 2017 04:01 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

again IBBs should me prevented, not codified. But maybe Manfred should talk to people that "only watch one or two games a month" and see what's up. But really it's pretty obvious. The best thing that baseball can do is stop the cease and desist nonsense and actively promote the spreading of gifs, memes, and video clips across social media and the internet at large. Remember that the world is different now and trying to find more fans that will devote 20 hours a week to watching the product is a fools game, and making it 18 will not change that. But fans that watch occasionally, but still "follow" and enjoy the interactions during the day and watching highlights and dingers and all that stuff that comes from it. Like a clip of every Blue jay home run set to Johnny Cash. Most of this type of stuff gets shut down. I don't even like music and this is great ([youtube:13y1rqm6]E9jaMJvYNq0[/youtube:13y1rqm6]) This is "Millennial" interaction with the sport. Just because baseball hasn't properly figured out how to monetize it, or how much it actually does lead to fan involvement, doesn't mean it's bad.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 22 2017 04:59 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

I'm seeing reports that the intentional walk change is in fact going to happen this year. Here's an article from the L.A. Times: http://www.latimes.com/sports/mlb/la-sp ... story.html

Frayed Knot Feb 22 2017 06:44 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Yeah, previously filed stories now seem to be getting tweaked to read that the one change that might get done this year is be the automatic IW - presumably that's the lone one to which the PA is willing to give their stamp of approval, although nothing appears to be official yet. As I said earlier in this thread, that's about the last place I'd start and is also the place where it'll make the least amount of difference (my math estimates it'll shave a maximum of 12 seconds off the time of the average game) but I suppose Manfred wants to be seen as doing something and so he'll take what he can get while continuing to work towards more substantial things.

d'Kong76 Feb 22 2017 06:58 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Well, if I'm called on to manage I'll simply instruct the battery to throw four pitches way outside as an F-U to Manfred et al.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 22 2017 07:02 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

No manager would take that risk, of course. Next maybe they'll address the unintentional intentional walk. The manager will have to find a way to give the IW signal but make it look like he did so accidentally.

A Boy Named Seo Feb 22 2017 07:05 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Maybe I missed it in this thread, but anyone know on average how many intentional walks there are per game? And I wonder what the average time of an IBB AB is? I would guess prob around 30-45 seconds or something. A minute tops?

d'Kong76 Feb 22 2017 07:21 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

They go DH in the NL and I'll never set foot in a MLB park again. Never.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 22 2017 07:24 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Well, looking at Mets games played over the last ten years (beginning with the 2007 season), I found the following numbers: 1,635 games, 950 intentional walks. (Mets batters were intentionally walked 501 times, opposing batters 449 times.) That comes to an average of 0.58 intentional walks per game.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 22 2017 07:32 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

I saw some estimates that this would save 14 seconds per IW.

Frayed Knot Feb 22 2017 07:52 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Maybe I missed it in this thread, but anyone know on average how many intentional walks there are per game? And I wonder what the average time of an IBB AB is? I would guess prob around 30-45 seconds or something. A minute tops? From Page 2 of this thread: There were 932 intentional walks in MLB last season, or less than one for every 2.5 games. So figure that: - On a night with a full slate of games (15) there'll be an average of 6 IWs - Estimating 30 seconds saved per automatic IW, that's three total minutes saved - Meaning that if those 15 games would normally take 2,700 combined minutes to complete [3 hours = 180 minutes x 15 games] we're now down to 2,697 minutes of game time, or 2:59:48 each [2,697 / 15] If JCL's number of 14 seconds per is more accurate then we're talking about less than 6 seconds/game of 'saved' time rather than 12

Edgy MD Feb 22 2017 07:54 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

This is so hamfisted. Is President Trump running MLB as well?

Lefty Specialist Feb 22 2017 08:08 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

I think they should jazz it up and instead of an electronic light you give the managers laser pointers that they aim at the batter. And then they play Nancy Sinatra's "These Boots are Made for Walking" on the PA system. Ah forget it, that'd just make things longer again.

Frayed Knot Feb 22 2017 08:09 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

btw, the IW is already an endangered species as the lowest five seasons for IW rates are the most recent five seasons. I'd like to think that's a result of increased sabermetric use and that we're past the days when fans and broadcasters would argue that walking Bonds EVERY time up was sound strategy. Only five players were IW'd as many as 15 times in 2016: Harper = 20 FFF (Freeman) = 18 Votto, Goldschmidt, Papi, & Miggy Cabrera 15 each. 10 years earlier there were 15 players IW'd at least 15 times led by Barry at 38 and Ryan Howard at 37. Two years before that Barry was issued 120

Edgy MD Feb 23 2017 03:13 AM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

245 Park Avenue New York, N.Y. 10167 United States of America (+1) 212-931-7500 http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/international/mlbi_contact.jsp

Frayed Knot Feb 23 2017 03:49 AM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

This back and forth between Manfred and the union is getting a bit testy over any proposed changes says Ken Rosenthal with the players side apparently wanting no part of any change and threatening retaliation if MLB implements changes. [Manfred] “doesn’t realize the fight he is picking. Four years from now, he will see absolute wrath if he makes the moves himself ... the union is listening to the players, and the players don’t want the changes.” He added that baseball is offering the players nothing in return. Another claimed that “If you try to control the game, you turn us into robots.” Union chief Tony Clark counters they baseball needs 'to educate the fans as to what goes on during the dead time and explain the nuances of the game'

Edgy MD Feb 23 2017 03:55 AM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

An executive order, done with no real vetting, and pretending that the public will is on your side because you know what's best. As if the world wasn't Trumptastic enough. If Manford tweets, "I'll see you in court," I'm pushing the plunger down.

Frayed Knot Feb 24 2017 04:25 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Edgy MD wrote: An executive order, done with no real vetting, and pretending that the public will is on your side because you know what's best. I think MLB would push back on the "no real vetting" part. Commish Manfred was on 'Mike & Mike' this morning where the pace of game stuff was the main topic. Among his claims were that many of these ideas are coming from the fans and that, for instance, most support the idea of the automatic IBB. Other stuff: - their evidence is that strike zone has crept downward by 1.7" over the last 8 years, so a rule change to raise it up 2 inches would be nothing more than a way to counteract the drift in recent years since the last time the zone was redefined. And if a side effect of it is that it helps get the ball in play more often during a time where nearly 30% of all ABs end in a K or BB (was fairly recently in the low-20s) so much the better. - they are always "looking at and reviewing" the amount of commercial time on the broadcasts - they'll continue to monitor the developments in robo-ump technology. Says it's not quite there yet but within a few years they'll have a major decision to make on it - the runner on 2nd in extra innings rule was never intended for major league play, only the lowest rungs of the minors where spectators are practically non-existant

Edgy MD Feb 24 2017 04:54 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Frayed Knot wrote: I think MLB would push back on the "no real vetting" part. I'd disagree with the commissioner. Have studies been commissioned? Can we see them? Have we experimented with the no-pitch walk rule in the AFL and other less competitive leagues? If this has been developed thoughtfully, why is he trying to ram it down the MLBPA's throat? Frayed Knot wrote: Commish Manfred was on 'Mike & Mike' this morning where the pace of game stuff was the main topic. Among his claims were that many of these ideas are coming from the fans and that, for instance, most support the idea of the automatic IBB. You can find sincere fans who'll support any good or bad idea. They're a chauvinistic bunch. If you're willing to pass anecdotes off as data, you can use fan feedback to justify anything. It was fan feedback that was used to back that dumb initiative to link home field advantage in the World Series to the All Star Game. I mean, he hasn't returned any of the letters I've sent him.

dinosaur jesus Feb 24 2017 08:59 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Manfred says that most fans support the automatic IBB? I say he's a liar. I don't have any surveys to support me, but I doubt that he does either. Show us the surveys, Rob.

Rockin' Doc Feb 26 2017 03:45 AM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Well, looking at Mets games played over the last ten years (beginning with the 2007 season), I found the following numbers: 1,635 games, 950 intentional walks. (Mets batters were intentionally walked 501 times, opposing batters 449 times.) That comes to an average of 0.58 intentional walks per game. John Cougar Lunchbucke wrote: I saw some estimates that this would save 14 seconds per IW. So, this pointless rule change will speed up Mets games by 6-8 seconds per game. Wow, what will I do with all this free time.

batmagadanleadoff Feb 26 2017 09:38 AM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

dinosaur jesus wrote: Manfred says that most fans support the automatic IBB? I say he's a liar. I don't have any surveys to support me, but I doubt that he does either. Show us the surveys, Rob. That's a page right out of the Bud Selig playbook where, I swear, it seems like Selig claimed he had a fan poll to support every single idiotic idea that ever came up during his reign. Radical realignment? Yeah, the fans want it. No radical realignment but instead, just the Brewers shift into the National League? The fans want that, too. We took a poll. (Yeah, sure you did.)

Fman99 Feb 26 2017 12:36 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Edgy MD wrote: This is so hamfisted.

Edgy MD Feb 26 2017 06:30 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Here's a thing: If you walk, jog to first. Don't stand there taking off your elbow pad, and then your shinguard. Go to first and get undressed when you get there.

Zvon Feb 26 2017 06:41 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Edgy MD wrote: Here's a thing: If you walk, jog to first. Don't stand there taking off your elbow pad, and then your shinguard. Go to first and get undressed when you get there. Maybe they should start to get undressed while the pitcher is tossing the 4 balls. This rule change is simply ridiculous. And I'm with Kong. If they bring the DH in, I'm out.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 27 2017 07:59 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

I'm not advocating this, and I realize that even by suggesting it here, I'm taking a very very slight risk that someone at MLB will see it and enact it. But to really speed up the pace of the game, they can enact the Little League rule about taking a lead off the base: Runners have to keep their foot on the base until the pitcher releases the ball. While that would virtually eliminate the stolen base (and the balk!), it would totally eliminate the need for pitchers to throw over to first base. I think that there are two things in the game that are tedious: A pitching change (and commercial break) after the previous pitcher has faced one batter and when a pitcher keeps throwing the ball to first base.

Ceetar Feb 27 2017 08:16 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

I put the odds at 22% that DH accompanies expansion in the next 5 or so years. too late for David Wright unfortunately.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 27 2017 08:18 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Ceetar wrote: I put the odds at 22% that DH accompanies expansion in the next 5 or so years. I hope that they wait until after I'm dead. (And I'm hoping that's a lot more than five years from now!)

Ceetar Feb 27 2017 09:19 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Someone tweeted recently about how no one complains about automatic icing anymore. Leaving aside that one prevents the skirting of rules and one codifies it, I suspect IBBs will be the same 3 years from now.

41Forever Feb 27 2017 10:02 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

I'm not advocating this, and I realize that even by suggesting it here, I'm taking a very very slight risk that someone at MLB will see it and enact it. But to really speed up the pace of the game, they can enact the Little League rule about taking a lead off the base: Runners have to keep their foot on the base until the pitcher releases the ball. While that would virtually eliminate the stolen base (and the balk!), it would totally eliminate the need for pitchers to throw over to first base. I think that there are two things in the game that are tedious: A pitching change (and commercial break) after the previous pitcher has faced one batter and when a pitcher keeps throwing the ball to first base. I'd love to see the percentage of pickoff throws to actual pickoffs. And how many times is that throw never even close to catching the batter, but just to let the batter know that the pitcher knows he's over there.

Ceetar Feb 27 2017 10:04 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

41Forever wrote: I'd love to see the percentage of pickoff throws to actual pickoffs. And how many times is that throw never even close to catching the batter, but just to let the batter know that the pitcher knows he's over there. so hard to quantify too. The runner taking a lead that's one step shorter could be the diff between going first to third or not.

Frayed Knot Feb 27 2017 10:23 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Ceetar wrote: Someone tweeted recently about how no one complains about automatic icing anymore. Leaving aside that one prevents the skirting of rules and one codifies it, I suspect IBBs will be the same 3 years from now. Banning the contested icing rule was mostly a player safety thing as the NHL decided it didn't want two flying players trying to beat each other into the corner simply to determine where the face-off would be. Automating the IBB serves no purpose other than the supposed time saved which is really no time at all. If we want to make cross-sport comparisons (which are usually pretty meaningless anyway) the better equivalent might be if the NFL had decided that since the PAT was near-automatic anyway they should instead make a touchdown into 7 points and save the time it takes to first change up nearly all 22 personnel on the field on then to officially tack-on the almost always predetermined point. In a rare display of inventiveness I think the NFL actually made the right call on that one as moving the try back both sliced a chunk off the near-guaranteed success rate at the same time it made the 2-point try more attractive (most coaches are still too chicken to go for two except when forced to but that's a whole separate problem). The auto-IBB just takes a strategy that the team almost never screws up and removes the almost part. But hey, it'll save 6 seconds/game.

MFS62 Feb 28 2017 02:31 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

If they want to speed up the game, why not just enforce a rule that is already on the books? According to this NYT article, there is a rule that limits the time between pitches to 20 seconds. IIRC Charlie Finley installed such a clock at Municipal Stadium in KC when his A's played there. MLB made him take it down. It was one of the ideas mentioned in the article, but at least he had ideas. http://www.nytimes.com/1986/05/20/sport ... lie-o.html I wonder if the rule is still on the books, but is ignored? Later

Frayed Knot Feb 28 2017 03:09 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

MFS62 wrote: I wonder if the rule is still on the books, but is ignored? Yes, and yes.

HahnSolo Feb 28 2017 04:04 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

I had one of my few little league coaching disagreements about the automatic intentional walk. Well, kinda. The real argument was about pitch counts. Anyhow it was late in the game, and the other coach wanted to walk one of my better hitters (come on man, it's little league) with a guy on base. Now generally I'd be OK with it...an intentional walk is not as easy for an 11-yo to execute on the mound as you'd think. But I told the ump if I agreed to that, then the pitcher would still have to get the "four balls" added to his pitch count. The other coach balked saying that since he wasn't actually throwing the pitches they shouldn't count. I said well if that's the case then I want him to throw the four "intentional" balls. Eventually he gave in, they walked our guy without throwing the pitches and the kid had four pitches added to his count. What pissed me off later was that his strategy worked, we didn't score and the game ended in a tie. I felt dirty arguing about it but I justified it by thinking the other coach was being the bigger dick.

d'Kong76 Mar 02 2017 06:09 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Well, the four-pitch IW is officially in the rear view mirror....

Edgy MD Mar 02 2017 06:22 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

This is about precedent. It is less about moving along the pace of play and more about pushing something unilaterally on the union that really the union has no big reason to object to, in order to establish primacy over the union with regard to playing rules, so they have the license to push further rules further on down the line. It stinks like hot steaming poo.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 02 2017 06:38 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

I didn't know if that meant that they had established the rule, or given up on it. Apparently, it's the former. I found this on CBS Sports' web site: On Thursday, MLB and the MLBPA announced a number of new rule changes for the 2017 season. Here are those seven changes: [list]The start of a no-pitch intentional walk, allowing the defensive team’s manager to signal a decision to the home plate umpire to intentionally walk the batter. Following the signal of the manager’s intention, the umpire will immediately award first base to the batter. A 30-second limit for a manager to decide whether to challenge a play and invoke replay review. When a manager has exhausted his challenges for the game, Crew Chiefs may now invoke replay review for non-home run calls beginning in the eighth inning instead of the seventh inning. A conditional two-minute guideline for Replay Officials to render a decision on a replay review, allowing various exceptions. A prohibition on the use of any markers on the field that could create a tangible reference system for fielders. An addition to Rule 5.07 formalizes an umpire interpretation by stipulating that a pitcher may not take a second step toward home plate with either foot or otherwise reset his pivot foot in his delivery of the pitch. If there is at least one runner on base, then such an action will be called as a balk under Rule 6.02(a). If the bases are unoccupied, then it will be considered an illegal pitch under Rule 6.02(b). An amendment to Rule 5.03 requires base coaches to position themselves behind the line of the coach’s box closest to home plate and the front line that runs parallel to the foul line prior to each pitch. Once a ball is put in play, a base coach is allowed to leave the coach’s box to signal a player so long as the coach does not interfere with play. [/list:u] The new intentional walk rule, which will allow free passes without any pitches being thrown, has been much discussed , and now it’s official. As well, the 30-second rule on manager challenges has been an anticipated step, as is the limit on how long replay officials can take. I'm not sure I understand this one: A prohibition on the use of any markers on the field that could create a tangible reference system for fielders. Are they saying that you can't put an X on the field to show your center fielder where to stand? Has anyone been putting tangible reference system markers on the field? Has anyone expressed a desire to do so? Where did this come from?

Ceetar Mar 02 2017 06:40 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

It came from the Mets probably [url]http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/los-angeles-dodgers-outfielder-new-york-mets-complaint-defense-laser-markers-ken-rosenthal-052816

Edgy MD Mar 02 2017 06:47 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

I bet there's a good story behind that one. There was a rule put in place back in my yoot stating the batter could only carry one extra pair of gloves, so he could presumably switch from batting gloves to sliding gloves if he wanted, once he reached base. It turned out there was one player (I forget who) in the league who thought it would be a cool way to troll the opposition by tucking half a dozen gloves in each back pocket, heels in, with the fingers hanging out, so he his ass could be symbolically waiving "bye-bye" to defenders as he rounded the bases after a homer. This guy was clearly working much harder on his showboating than his hitting, because he had, like, eight career homeruns, but he managed to get his own rule put on the books, and that's something.

Frayed Knot Mar 02 2017 08:26 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 02 2017 08:36 PM

On Thursday, MLB and the MLBPA announced a number of new rule changes for the 2017 season. Here are those seven changes: The start of a no-pitch intentional walk, allowing the defensive team’s manager to signal a decision to the home plate umpire to intentionally walk the batter. Following the signal of the manager’s intention, the umpire will immediately award first base to the batter. -- We've pretty well discussed this already. To me it serves no purpose other than to make it look like something is being done about pace of game by catering to those who were crying for this change since the days when games were 30 minutes shorter. A 30-second limit for a manager to decide whether to challenge a play and invoke replay review. -- The idea is to prevent the dance where the manager holds up the game while deciding whether to hold up the game further by asking for a review. But since the entire (stated) purpose of replay was to correct the egregiously incorrect calls, I don't see a problem in demanding a decision within 10 seconds. When a manager has exhausted his challenges for the game, Crew Chiefs may now invoke replay review for non-home run calls beginning in the eighth inning instead of the seventh inning. -- a manager out of challenges now has a slightly smaller safety net where the umps can bail him out. I call it the 'Mattingly Corollary'. A conditional two-minute guideline for Replay Officials to render a decision on a replay review, allowing various exceptions. -- Ahh yes, the old "conditional" limit. MLB hasn't publicized what those limits are but, as the NFL has shown us for going on four decades now, unless there's a strict cap on how long the reviews can take they're going to take until the umps/refs think they have the required proof. A prohibition on the use of any markers on the field that could create a tangible reference system for fielders. -- I didn't even know this was a thing, but I approve of it anyway. An addition to Rule 5.07 formalizes an umpire interpretation by stipulating that a pitcher may not take a second step toward home plate with either foot or otherwise reset his pivot foot in his delivery of the pitch. If there is at least one runner on base, then such an action will be called as a balk under Rule 6.02(a). If the bases are unoccupied, then it will be considered an illegal pitch under Rule 6.02(b). -- could be dubbed as the Carter Capps and/or Jordan Walden rule for those pitchers who combine their pitching motion with their triple jump workouts. Not sure exactly how it'll be determined what's legit and what isn't but at least they're acknowledging that it's an issue which needs addressing. An amendment to Rule 5.03 requires base coaches to position themselves behind the line of the coach’s box closest to home plate and the front line that runs parallel to the foul line prior to each pitch. Once a ball is put in play, a base coach is allowed to leave the coach’s box to signal a player so long as the coach does not interfere with play. -- Yeah, whatever. The late Doug 'The Lord' Harvey was a stickler for rules like these. Not sure anyone of today's 'Blue Crew' will bother.

Ceetar Mar 02 2017 08:31 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Frayed Knot wrote: An addition to Rule 5.07 formalizes an umpire interpretation by stipulating that a pitcher may not take a second step toward home plate with either foot or otherwise reset his pivot foot in his delivery of the pitch. If there is at least one runner on base, then such an action will be called as a balk under Rule 6.02(a). If the bases are unoccupied, then it will be considered an illegal pitch under Rule 6.02(b). -- could be dubbed as the Carter Capps and/or Jordan Whelan rule for those pitchers who combine their pitching motion with their triple jump workouts. Not sure exactly how it'll be determined what's legit and what isn't but at least they're acknowledging that it's an issue which needs addressing. post on Fangraphs with some quotes about how maybe it won't actually affect Capps, but I guess we'll see. [url]http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/mlb-has-clarified-its-carter-capps-position/

Frayed Knot Mar 02 2017 08:38 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Even that second video in the link of the more modified version of Capps's delivery doesn't look like it should be legal to me.

Ceetar Mar 02 2017 08:39 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Frayed Knot wrote: Even that second video in the link of the more modified version of Capps's delivery doesn't look like it should be legal to me. me neither, but then, I'm not sure it was ever legal.

Edgy MD Mar 02 2017 08:40 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Notable that they didn't touch the September roster expansion rules.

Frayed Knot Mar 02 2017 09:47 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Edgy MD wrote: Notable that they didn't touch the September roster expansion rules. Well these (relatively minor) changes are the ones MLB is apparently able to make without player union agreement. More far-reaching stuff such as roster expansion, pitch clocks and the like are they ones they tried to negotiate but either couldn't come up with a specific change -- for instance apparently everyone agrees that something needs to be done about Sept rosters but there are a dozen or more proposals of how to do so with none approaching a majority -- or it's something the union is flat-out rejecting. It's these tabled changes/proposals that Manfred is threatening to impose unilaterally in a year's time if the union, in his view, continues to simply stonewall any and all changes.

Diamond Dad Mar 03 2017 09:57 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Speed up the game? 1. Batter must keep one foot in the batter's box between pitches unless there has been a foul ball. He can step out with one foot to look for the sign, then get back in and hit. Ten second clock, then ump directs pitcher to pitch and if the batter is not back in the box then it's a strike regardless of the pitch location. 2. Pitcher must throw next pitch with nobody on base within 20 seconds of receiving the ball from catcher. (In other words, enforce the existing rule) 3. No more than one time out per half-inning for a conference -- one for each team. Doesn't matter if a coach/manager is involved or not. After first conference, any subsequent time out for a conference (not an injury) results in pitching change. 4. When there is a pitching change, start a 2 minute clock as soon as the manager makes the signal, or if it's the second mound visit, the ump makes the signal. Go to commercial, and as soon as you come out of commercial it's "play" and the batter steps into the box. If the reliever takes his sweet time strolling in from the bullpen, kicking dirt around the mound, and lobbing in warm-up pitches -- too bad. You have 2 minutes. Period. You were already warmed up in the bullpen, so you don't need to throw 8 pitches on the mound before you're ready. 5. Limit of two throws to first base per pitch. After the first throw to first, the next one could be a pitch or a pick-off, but after two, the pitcher is not allowed to throw to a base again until he has thrown to the plate. Yes, that allows the runner to go on first movement on the next pitch. It will, as a practical matter, limit the pitcher to one pick-off attempt per pitch to the plate, but every once-in-a-while a savvy pitcher will throw over a second time if he thinks the runner is going to get frisky. The strategy would be very interesting to watch, and steals would increase, which is fine. Pitcher can always pitch out. Would add extra layers of strategy while also speeding up play. (As commentators always say, nothing slows down the game more than speed.) And a fake throw to 2nd or 3rd counts as a "throw." Average game time - 2:30

Edgy MD Mar 03 2017 11:58 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

I have no problem with throws to first.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 04 2017 01:51 AM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

I think they're tedious but I wouldn't want to artificially limit them.

d'Kong76 Mar 04 2017 02:46 AM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

I have to re-read the thread over the weekend but really this speeding up the game thing (to me) is somewhat of a mirage created by the marketing people at MLB that think they need to make the game more attractive to people who don't like base- ball as much as they'd like. Stop fucking with the game. One of the beauties of baseball is you really never know what you're in for. Some of the best games are short pitchers duels, some are fourteen inning crazy- ass games with three costly errors and football scores. Ya wanna speed things up, don't let a team of off-the-field umps bunkered in a studio sipping lattes take three minutes to not be able to decide what their live colleague had to judge in 2/10's of a second. If it takes more than two looks, move on...

MFS62 Mar 04 2017 03:26 AM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

d'Kong76 wrote: I have to re-read the thread over the weekend but really this speeding up the game thing (to me) is somewhat of a mirage created by the marketing people at MLB that think they need to make the game more attractive to people who don't like base- ball as much as they'd like. Stop fucking with the game. . Beautiful, man. You could have stopped right there, and we would have stood up and saluted. Later

Frayed Knot Mar 04 2017 04:53 AM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Stop fucking with the game. One of the beauties of baseball is you really never know what you're in for. Some of the best games are short pitchers duels, some are fourteen inning crazy-ass games with three costly errors and football scores. See here's the thing: I've been as vocal as anyone about wishing games were more often around 2-1/2 hours and less often 3+, but in no way do I want to go changing any basic rules involving strategy. There's nothing wrong with a long game it just shouldn't be the norm even for low-scoring pitcher's duels that used to be under 2 hours. So while I'd prefer not to see 14 man pitching staffs, teams that want to do that have made a risk/reward decision to weaken their bench by doing it and I'm willing to let them. Same with multiple changes and throws to 1st, etc. All I've ever been bitching about is getting rid of the dead time. It's not the length of the game it's what has caused it to get that way; it's what has caused us to go from 25% of games ending in under 2:30 to less than 4% just during the lifespan of of some of your teenage kids. And, yes, TV commercials are part of that but even they haven't increased in length any time recently so there are other culprits. - stay in the fucking box. I once heard Tim McCarver describe Hank Aaron's hitting routine which involved him never leaving the box once he got in. And I may have to check the books on this one but I think ol' Hank was kind of successful anyway. Now we've got .240 hitters who insist that without their "routine" they can't do their jobs. a) yes you can, and b) you may want to look into getting a new routine cuz your existing one ain't working so well. - pitch the fucking ball without going through a checklist of gyrations first. You only have four pitches and probably two of them suck anyway so you're choosing from a small menu here. I don't want to see pitch clocks installed, but if football teams can get up from the pile, have a huddle, re-line-up, go through a set of signals then call a play in under 35 seconds (or whatever it is) then you should be able to throw two to three pitches **NOT ONE** in that same amount of time. Go get some films of Jim Kaat and note that he won a few (hundred) games that way. - I'd be for limiting mound conferences (I'm flexible as to the details) and if you want to claim that that's a change affecting strategy then I'd counter by saying that they need to get their strategies straight before the game starts or between innings. There are too many damn time-outs in (ALL) American sports and I'd much prefer a game where the players who have been playing this game their entire lives can be trusted to make on-field decisions. George Will once said that football combines the two worst aspects of American culture: violence and committee meetings. Baseball used to have little of both, let's get back to that. - if you want to keep unlimited pitching changes then make them quicker. There's no reason for eight additional warm-up pitches once you get to the mound, those are a holdover from days when the bullpen mounds were either sub-standard or non-exsistent. Pitching change times can be cut in half and those breaks are NOT pre-paid ad time that would involve a make-good from the TV network. - if you're going to have replays then I want a challenge inside 10 seconds or we play on. That would mean only the real bad calls get overturned and we don't wind up pouring over the replay like it's the Zabruder film to determine whether the runner's toe came a 1/2 inch off the base for a 1/2 second during his pop-up slide and whether the fielder's glove was in contact with the runner's pant-leg at that exact moment. And once we eliminate the piddling shit then the review itself goes quicker too. - But as much as any rule or procedural change I think the sport just needs an attitude change that'll bring it back to the original intent where the ball is assumed to be live unless stated otherwise rather than the other way around. I'm not quite sure how to accomplish this as it didn't come about overnight and it won't go away quickly either, but hopefully the changes they've put in at the minor league level will produce a new generation of ballplayers who never develop the tics and routines that cause the next pitch or AB to happen "when I get around to it".

Edgy MD Mar 04 2017 05:02 AM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Don't scream into the tornado, man. Send that shit to MLB headquarters.

batmagadanleadoff Mar 04 2017 05:49 AM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

To me, the causes for longer games aren't very complicated. Now the powers that be might turn the fixes into a boondoggle, but that's another story. Anyway, all you have to do to see what happened over the years is to watch video of any game from the 70's or earlier. The pitcher pitches. And if the pitch isn't hit, the catcher throws the ball back to the pitcher. And then the next pitch usually comes in within no more than 15 seconds of the pitcher receiving the ball back from the catcher. And that's it in a nutshell. Now if you add just 10 seconds to that 15 seconds I mentioned, you're adding about another 45 minutes to an hour on average for each game.

Frayed Knot Mar 04 2017 01:28 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 05 2017 01:43 AM

Don't scream into the tornado, man. Send that shit to MLB headquarters. I sent Selig a laundry list like the above several years ago. Right now it seems to be more the player's assoc. who are dragging their feet so maybe they should be the target. Similar to their resistance and insistence twenty years ago that ANY steroid limitations were a violation of civil rights and would result in a travesty of the game, I think Tony Clark is battling (with or against is hard to tell) the forces within the union who are insisting that they MUST have their pre-pitch routines or their careers would be in jeopardy. Pitchers don't want a pitch clock because they think it'l give an edge to hitters, hitters think making them stay in the box is akin to capital punishment, and catchers don't want robo-ump technology because they all see themselves as above average pitch-framers whose "skill" would suddenly be negated. The pitcher pitches. And if the pitch isn't hit, the catcher throws the ball back to the pitcher. And then the next pitch usually comes in within no more than 15 seconds of the pitcher receiving the ball back from the catcher. And that's it in a nutshell. There are about 75 batters who come to the plate in an average game, so do the math as the kids like to say (do kids actually say that? ... I have no idea): for every four seconds shaved off per AB -- not per pitch mind you but merely off each AB as a whole -- the game becomes five minutes shorter at the expense of nothing but empty air. That's FOUR SECONDS!! folks, and I think they have the ability to do even better. Now combine that with quicker pitching changes, quicker replay, and a cap on mound visits and we'd be in business, I'd shut the fuck up, and not one thing fans currently like about the game would be altered. And that's the thing about this whole topic, that no one* is trying to change the game into something it isn't, nor are we pining for some version of the game as it was played during the McKinley administration. Hell, I'd settle for the game as it was during say the Reagan years just so I wouldn't have to bitch at my TV because I saw just nine pitches of baseball over the previous five minutes due various committee meetings breaking out on the field every few seconds. * no one aside from those either advocating the silly beer-league softball rules which aren't intended for anything but the lowest level of the minors anyway, or the 'make it a seven-inning game' crowd who are generally the ones who hate the game in the first place and wouldn't watch if you made it three innings.

Edgy MD Mar 04 2017 01:56 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

No, I think Tony Clark is battling on behalf of the union's right to have a say in any changes. Tony Clark specifically isn't battling pitch clocks. He's opposing the no-pitch walk. Some moves, like sending the Brewers to the AL, are just moves the league makes to demonstrate that they can, so they can establish a precedent for later. The union is right to draw the line here, as niggling as it seems. But this initiative belongs to the league, and it's to the league that opposition must be directed.

Frayed Knot Mar 04 2017 02:25 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

Tony Clark specifically isn't battling pitch clocks. He's opposing the no-pitch walk. No, the automatic IW is part of the changes going into effect this year because it was the one pace-of-play type proposal that the union DID agree to. Where Manfred is getting his back up is that he feels the union has nixed the idea of even discussing other changes. At least part of this has to do with there being disagreements within the union on whether or how to move on these issues just as there were in the steroid era. Manfred's stance is that prior agreements give the league power to implement future changes without the players consent if no joint agreement can be reached so the players would do better to voice their views now rather than simply declare any change to be a non-starter and have something forced on them later.

Diamond Dad Mar 08 2017 02:15 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

For those of us who love the game as it is, making changes to speed up the pace of play is not a huge issue. But the reason it is being discussed at MLB headquarters is that they have market research suggesting that as a business (and it is sure as hell a business) there is an issue with attracting and retaining customers who buy tickets, jerseys, and beer and who watch the games on TV -- all of which affects the bottom line for the owners. The owners and commish think (rightly or not) that speeding up the pace of games will help them with their audience numbers. there have been tweaks to the game over the years that now seem normal. The biggest were lowering the mound (to increase offense because the owners were worried that all the 1-0 games were too boring and that fans wanted to see more home runs) and the introduction of the DH (same reason). You could say that the introduction and tolerance of steriods was also a change to the game (same reason). It's all about keeping the fans happy and making sure that the next generation of fans get hooked on watching baseball, which does make sense. A few adjustments now that keep the games moving and that will become part of the "standard" after a few years would not bother me a bit.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 08 2017 02:38 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

I think the problem isn't actually with the pace of the game (although that's a factor) but the time that the games end, especially in the post season. I doubt that many people care what time a Wednesday night game in June ends. But in October, casual fans aren't watching the LCS and World Series games because they know that they'll have to go to bed before the game ends. The Super Bowl doesn't have this problem because it's a one-time event and it starts at 6 p.m. Eastern Time, 3 p.m. on the West Coast. I think much of this problem with baseball could be resolved by having post-season games start at 7 p.m. in the East. I know it would cause fans in the West to miss the beginning of some games, but I think viewers are more likely to watch a game where they see the last six innings than a game when they'll only see the first six.

Edgy MD Mar 27 2017 07:38 PM Re: Change to strike zone, intentional walks

It's official. The Dominican Summer League, the Gulf Coast League, and the Arizona Fall League will all use the gift runner on second base in extra innings. At least, so sez John Norris of Baseball America.