Master Index of Archived Threads


Tick Tock Jeurys

Frayed Knot Jan 19 2018 03:01 AM

Not to pick on Familia who, at least as far as I know, isn't particularly slow in delivering pitches (at least for a reliever) ... but I just couldn't resist the pun. Anyway, with the talks between the player's union and the commissioner's office once again breaking down over the topic of pace of play changes -- the union has told MLB that their side can reach no consensus among its members over alterations -- Commissioner Manfred seems prepared to unilaterally impose a pitch clock starting in the 2018 season. No formal announcement is expected until the owners meetings which take place from Jan 30 thru Feb 1 (in Beverly Hills if you're in the neighborhood and want to drop by) but the league has the power to impose changes without the union's approval with one year's notice and that notice was given when the union basically gave the same answer last year.

Nymr83 Jan 19 2018 03:46 AM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

I guess if the union cant agree internally there isn't much to so but move forward without them. I like the idea of impriving pace of play. Lets start by cutting tv commercial breaks down, the players don't need that long to get back to the dugout. A pitch clock with nobody on base seems like a good starting point. The batter must have an equal obligation to get in the box and stay there.

Edgy MD Jan 19 2018 04:17 AM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

I'm telling you: Disallow teams from delaying the game in order to do their own video reviews before deciding whether to lodge a protest and you cut 90 minutes out right right there. Any other measures are just dribs and drabs. And those dribs and drabs will immediately be offset by more video review delays.

Nymr83 Jan 19 2018 05:05 AM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

Cutting the time between innings could legitimately save 9 minutes per game. The replay thing? Yeah, there needs to be a timer there too. In fact I'd say the review should be asked for almost immediately or else it wasn't obvious enough to warrant replay.

Frayed Knot Jan 19 2018 10:32 AM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

We can dream about cutting between inning breaks all we want but: a) those times are set into contracts with networks both local and national so it's not something Manfred would, or even could, simply alter by decree. And that's all before he'd need to get around to telling the lords of the realm that they'd be losing some 25% of their in-game ad revenues. b) those mandated commercial break times haven't increased in a number of years now and game times are still going up anyway so the real culprit of in-game dead-time lies elsewhere.

Ceetar Jan 19 2018 02:23 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

no, the only real place to cut significant time, barring literally legislating that the pitcher has to immediately throw the ball again when he gets it, is to eliminate warmup pitches. This would also technically eliminate some commercial breaks though, which is probably why it's not being discussed. It's really the only time of game something isn't happening. Even replays if you dislike them have everyone arguing/discussing/clamoring about whether the call was or wasn't right. There's some bitching when it's like a play at first with 2 outs and no one on, but the drama when it's say a trapped catch in the outfield that may or may not score 2 and tie the game isn't dead time. And it feeds that outside the game discussion/fan debate that is important to interest in the sport.

Edgy MD Jan 19 2018 02:32 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

Watching a manager stand on the field doing nothing while he waits for a second-hand signal from the dugout about what the video review team suggests doesn't add drama, it subtracts it.

Centerfield Jan 19 2018 02:37 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

Challenges should be done by the naked eye. If you want to challenge the judgement of the umpire you should have the same set of tools he has. This would limit challenges greatly.

Ceetar Jan 19 2018 02:49 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

if we upgraded the technology to call balls and strikes, fair/foul, maybe even safe/out, most replays wouldn't even need to happen.

dgwphotography Jan 19 2018 03:11 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

Call the high strike, and make batters stay in the box. Calling the high strike means fewer walks, fewer pitches thrown, pitchers going longer, fewer pitching changes...

41Forever Jan 19 2018 03:25 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

I think nothing destroys the pace of the game more than the endless changing of relievers in the late innings. Starter goes six innings, closer gets the ninth and the seventh and eighth are an endless parade of one-batter specialists — all with a manager walking to mound, player running in, warm-ups.... That said, I question the seriousness of the effort to shorten games. Every minute in the ballpark is another moment to sell a beer, shirt, hot dog...

Benjamin Grimm Jan 19 2018 03:27 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

Yes, but on the other hand, it's someone who goes to bed without seeing the commercials that air in the later innings. Making pitching changes quicker would help a lot, I think. Limit it to three warm-up pitches on the mound. (How many do they currently get?)

Ceetar Jan 19 2018 03:33 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Yes, but on the other hand, it's someone who goes to bed without seeing the commercials that air in the later innings. Making pitching changes quicker would help a lot, I think. Limit it to three warm-up pitches on the mound. (How many do they currently get?) 8. one commercial, for the time to get the reliever to the mound. as many warmup pitches as he can fit in before 45 seconds are up. go. no one truly cares about pace of play though. The biggest complainers are the media, so it just sounds louder.

Edgy MD Jan 19 2018 03:36 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

I care.

Ceetar Jan 19 2018 03:39 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

I'm generalizing. Reducing a game from 3:05 to 2:55 or whatever literally isn't going to make a single person say "hey, now i'll watch!"

Benjamin Grimm Jan 19 2018 03:47 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

Yeah, I do too.

Frayed Knot Jan 19 2018 08:34 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

Buck Showalter makes that argument all the time, except that he says no one cares about game times except the writers and umpires - and I think part of the reason the players haven't gotten on board with this (aside from pitchers and hitters coming at things from an opposite viewpoint) is that they don't perceive a problem either; they're getting paid so things must be great! But the players, and Buck, are wrong; it matters. It matters to those who have to get up early in the morning and so have trouble staying awake for the end of east coast games, and then totally punt on ones in the C/M/P time zones It matters to parents who have kids with 2-1/2 hours worth of patience but not 3-1/2 It matters in those cities (many of them) where public transportation doesn't run 24/7 - ask Nats fans about that whenever a game runs long or just about every post-season game in their short history And it matters to the casual fan who's not going to attend or tune into a game if he doesn't have a vested rooting interest because he doesn't want to invest three to four hours. We're all geeks here. But just because we (some of us anyway) stay up until 2 in the morning doesn't mean everyone does and you can't run a business that increasingly caters just to the geeks. In 2007, when I believe the same between inning break times as now were in place, 1/3 of all MLB game were done in under 2:40 -- this past season it was less than one game in eight (11.9%) Less than 9% (8.9%) of 2007 games ran over 3:20; in 2017 nearly 1/4 of them did (22.7%) Name any cut-off you want and the difference is huge and that's just in the last decade, I'm not going back to when the games were played only in black and white (except there was no black) and the home gate accounted for most of a team's income. I'd like to back things up to maybe where the games were in the late 80's -- the '86 Mets for instance played Six games that year which ran over 3:20, this past year we witnessed 30 -- but at the moment I'd settle for 2007 And these numbers, btw, only include 9 inning games as are the 'averages' that MLB releases. Throw in extra inning games plus post-season and things really blow up.

Ceetar Jan 19 2018 08:44 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

Baseball is not in any danger. They should absolutely try to curb dead time, as they always should. But they're not exactly desperate to make drastic changes. Put the pitch clock in and hurry things along I guess, but baseball is not on some slow march to obscurity.

Centerfield Jan 19 2018 08:54 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

Buck Showalter makes that argument all the time, except that he says no one cares about game times except the writers and umpires - and I think part of the reason the players haven't gotten on board with this (aside from pitchers and hitters coming at things from an opposite viewpoint) is that they don't perceive a problem either; they're getting paid so things must be great! But the players, and Buck, are wrong; it matters. It matters to those who have to get up early in the morning and so have trouble staying awake for the end of east coast games, and then totally punt on ones in the C/M/P time zones It matters to parents who have kids with 2-1/2 hours worth of patience but not 3-1/2 It matters in those cities (many of them) where public transportation doesn't run 24/7 - ask Nats fans about that whenever a game runs long or just about every post-season game in their short history And it matters to the casual fan who's not going to attend or tune into a game if he doesn't have a vested rooting interest because he doesn't want to invest three to four hours. We're all geeks here. But just because we (some of us anyway) stay up until 2 in the morning doesn't mean everyone does and you can't run a business that increasingly caters just to the geeks. In 2007, when I believe the same between inning break times as now were in place, 1/3 of all MLB game were done in under 2:40 -- this past season it was less than one game in eight (11.9%) Less than 9% (8.9%) of 2007 games ran over 3:20; in 2017 nearly 1/4 of them did (22.7%) Name any cut-off you want and the difference is huge and that's just in the last decade, I'm not going back to when the games were played only in black and white (except there was no black) and the home gate accounted for most of a team's income. I'd like to back things up to maybe where the games were in the late 80's -- the '86 Mets for instance played Six games that year which ran over 3:20, this past year we witnessed 30 -- but at the moment I'd settle for 2007 And these numbers, btw, only include 9 inning games as are the 'averages' that MLB releases. Throw in extra inning games plus post-season and things really blow up. Yup. I'm one of those that don't care about game time at all. If there were measures in place to shorten the work day, I'd be out picketing in support of it. But baseball games? Let's play forever. But that doesn't mean I don't realize that game times matter. Big difference between 2:40 and 3:20.

Frayed Knot Jan 19 2018 10:05 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

Centerfield wrote: Yup. I'm one of those that don't care about game time at all. If there were measures in place to shorten the work day, I'd be out picketing in support of it. But baseball games? Let's play forever. Except that we're not getting anything extra for all the extra time we're being forced to invest. 1987 had averaged slightly more runs/game (0.16) and saw more plate appearances/game (0.7) as compared to 2017, yet games averaged nearly half an hour shorter (24 min). Even *I* have enough of a life to where I could be doing things with that time.

Ceetar Jan 19 2018 10:09 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

Frayed Knot wrote: Even *I* have enough of a life to where I could be doing things with that time. Are you not doing other things with that time? I mean, pitching changes are the perfect time to bitch about the manager on twitter and check other games.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 19 2018 08:36 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

Looks like we have an announcement: MLB pace-of-play rule changes: Mound visit limits, no pitch clock, shorter commercials After weeks of negotiations with the MLB Players' Association, Major League Baseball and commissioner Rob Manfred announced a series of pace-of-play rule changes Monday. There will be no pitch clock in 2018, but there will be a limit on mound visits. In an effort to cut down on downtime within games, each team will now be limited to six mounds visits per game, plus one additional mound visit for every extra-inning played. Here is the league's official description of a mound visit: A manager or coach trip to the mound to meet with the pitcher shall constitute a visit. A player leaving his position to confer with the pitcher, including a pitcher leaving the mound to confer with another player, shall also constitute a mound visit, regardless of where the visit occurs or the length of the visit. That means going forward, a mound visit will include visits by coaches and managers, as well as visits by other players. If the catcher goes to the mound, it counts as a visit. If an infielder goes to the mound, it counts as a visit. Also, the second mound visit of an inning requires a pitching change. That remains the same.

Frayed Knot Feb 19 2018 08:45 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

It's a start anyway. I would have liked to see even quicker in-inning pitching changes -- as in ZERO additional warmups on top of your bullpen warmups -- but that didn't even seem to be in the discussion rumors so I didn't have high hopes for that one. From the linked article: There are, of course, exemptions to the mound visit rule. The following does not count against each team's mount visit total: A pitcher-catcher conference between batters. An infielder goes to the mound to clean his spikes during rainy conditions. Any visit involving a potential injury. Any visit after a pinch-hitter is announced. Also, if a team has exhausted their six mound visits, the umpire has the discretion to allow the catcher to visit the pitcher following a cross-up. The MLBPA had concerns about potential injuries resulting from the battery getting their signs mixed up. The pinch-hitter exemption bothers me. It's not like the other team is bringing in someone who you weren't aware was on the roster!! There's plenty of time before games and between innings for strategy. Have the rules favor the prepared team!

Edgy MD Feb 19 2018 08:48 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

Mound visits ain't the problem. Go after the time un-necessarily wasted on replay reviews, ye Lords of the Game.

Frayed Knot Feb 19 2018 09:39 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

The biggest problem with replays is the 'dry-runs' which wind up eating up as much as 30 seconds at a time but aren't actually considered replays if the manager ultimately opts not to challenge. I'd be all for a 10-second decision cut-off which would eliminate waiting for word from the video guy in the sky but that apparently was never part of the proposal either. And while I've been as critical of the replay system as anyone, aside from the dry runs, replay reviews themselves average under 2/game for both teams combined. Mound visits are the bigger problem IMO because they're much more frequent and often at least as time consuming. That they're going to try to cut back to a six per game per team (not including the exceptions of course) is a sign of how out of hand they've become. Hell, in Yanqui games I think the average is about six per/inning when the pinstripers are on the field and it's only that low because Jorge Posada retired. He alone was often good for 2 or 3 mound visits per batter.

Benjamin Grimm Feb 19 2018 09:57 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

They've also shortened the commercial breaks between innings by 20 seconds. That will automatically shorten each game by at least five minutes. And... As part of the shortened commercial breaks, pitchers can throw as many warm-up pitches as they want before the timer runs out, though they are no longer guaranteed eight warm-up pitches.

Edgy MD Feb 19 2018 10:03 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

Frayed Knot wrote: The biggest problem with replays is the 'dry-runs' which wind up eating up as much as 30 seconds at a time but aren't actually considered replays if the manager ultimately opts not to challenge. Often eats up more than 30 seconds.

Zvon Feb 19 2018 10:31 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

Centerfield wrote: Yup. I'm one of those that don't care about game time at all. If there were measures in place to shorten the work day, I'd be out picketing in support of it. But baseball games? Let's play forever. But that doesn't mean I don't realize that game times matter. Big difference between 2:40 and 3:20. Totally this for me. I think a pitcher entering a game, even after warm-ups in the pen, should be able to throw a few from the mound before facing a batter. Because mounds can be in different shape day to day, even in the same park. Especially mid game, after much use. I really wish they'd just leave the game alone.

Zvon Feb 19 2018 10:40 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

Benjamin Grimm wrote: They've also shortened the commercial breaks between innings by 20 seconds. That will automatically shorten each game by at least five minutes. And... As part of the shortened commercial breaks, pitchers can throw as many warm-up pitches as they want before the timer runs out, though they are no longer guaranteed eight warm-up pitches. I'm surprised about this. To compensate for shortening the commercial time will they raise the cost of the commercials for the advertiser? It always seems to be just about the money.

Frayed Knot Feb 19 2018 11:31 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

Zvon wrote: I really wish they'd just leave the game alone. So do I. If the game was left alone it wouldn't be taking 20% longer than the version most of us grew up on.

duan Feb 21 2018 03:08 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

The video challenge thing drives me bonkers, the 'hover' while we all wait for a replay is very irritating. In cricket they have 15 seconds to decide. It's never a manager in the stands but the men on the field. They get pretty good at judging themselves when it's worth a crack. They know really bad ones. You might allow a first/third base coach to signal as well, only because there can often only be one batter (in cricket there's always two).

Centerfield Feb 21 2018 03:11 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

Frayed Knot wrote: Not to pick on Familia who, at least as far as I know, isn't particularly slow in delivering pitches (at least for a reliever) ... but I just couldn't resist the pun. Been meaning to ask. I don't get the pun.

Edgy MD Feb 21 2018 03:29 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

Yup. Whoosh. Right over my head. Every morning, I'm "OHHH, now I ... still don't get it."

Benjamin Grimm Feb 21 2018 03:33 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

I thought I was the only one! Maybe we can start a support group or something.

Frayed Knot Feb 21 2018 05:07 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

[fimg=300:2xomheni]https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--Rx5BrPBp--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/1482712341109124933.jpg[/fimg:2xomheni]

Ceetar Feb 21 2018 05:09 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

feels like a stretch

dgwphotography Feb 21 2018 05:11 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

Am I glad I wasn't the only one who didn't get it. That's just brilliant

Edgy MD Feb 21 2018 05:13 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

Confession: Never seen The Silence of the Lambs, and never really had any particular interest.

Frayed Knot Feb 21 2018 05:15 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

Ceetar wrote: feels like a stretch Aw c'mon, it sort of rhymes!

Edgy MD Feb 21 2018 05:21 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

Depending on which of the four commonly used pronunciations for "Jeurys" you are working with.

Edgy MD Feb 21 2018 05:27 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

By the way, the more I think of these rule changes, the more I think they're attacking the wrong part of the game. A runner on second: no quick trip to the mound to change the signs? A bunt situation: no meetings at the mound to discuss defensive alignment?

Frayed Knot Feb 21 2018 05:35 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

Edgy MD wrote: By the way, the more I think of these rule changes, the more I think they're attacking the wrong part of the game. A runner on second: no quick trip to the mound to change the signs? A bunt situation: no meetings at the mound to discuss defensive alignment? Those types of delays should count against the maximum of six, meaning that they'd be disallowed late in the game if a catcher -- maybe one whose name rhymes with Mary Manchez -- felt it necessary to make four separate 1st inning visits in order to 'get on the same page' with his pitcher. Like I said earlier: Favor the prepared! Just say no to increased committee meetings.

Vic Sage Feb 21 2018 08:57 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

i don't mind the change; i just think that, with all the exceptions to it, and without any enforcement mechanism, it's pointless. Nor does it get to the heart of the issue. If you want to increase the pace of play, the single difference from previous eras isn't stepping out of the box, or mound visits for strategy, or pitchers going for a stroll between pitches, or even long commercial breaks. Nor is it desensitization to increased violence in the media or a breakdown of moral authority. It's the consequence of player specialization. It's the unintended consequence of managing a game with more information at your disposal. Its the "3 reliever" innings and "6 pitcher" games, the "pinch-hitter for the pinch-hitter" ABs. Its also about the increased offense from smaller parks, bigger players and juiced balls. The more offense, the longer the game. The more personnel changes, the longer the game. They won't be able to get the genie back in the bottle without some structural changes, but there are things they could do without changing the rules of the game at all. It would involve raising the mound, pushing back the fences, and/or deadening the balls to get offense back in balance, and it would require the reduction of the "active" roster size (e.g., 20 players selected to "dress" for each game [including no more than 5 relievers], while still carrying 25+ on the ML roster). Either that, or require any reliever to face at least 3 batters and any PHer must actually get an AB. This way, the roster would have to carry fewer specialists and more generalists. LOOGYies and ROOGYies would go bye-bye, requiring relievers to face RHBs and LHBs, and starters would have to pitch deeper into games. Then, if you want to throw in limits on mound visits and shorter commercial breaks, that's gravy. You wouldn't even need a pitch clock, just umpires willing to keep the game moving by handing out strikes and balls to pitchers and hitters if they're causing undo delay. Games would be 2 hours (2.5 hours, max). You know, make it baseball again. But offense sells tickets and i think the roster size flexibility would be expensive to negotiate with the MLBPA, so none of that will happen. But the pace of play is not really going to get dealt with in any meaningful way until they do.

Frayed Knot Feb 21 2018 09:51 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

... Its also about the increased offense from smaller parks, bigger players and juiced balls. The more offense, the longer the game ... [and] offense sells tickets As I mentioned earlier in the thread, 30 years ago (1987) games had slightly higher (0.7) plate appearances per game and again slightly more offense (0.16 R/G) yet were 24 minutes shorter on average, so it's tough to blame juiced balls and shorter fences. Part of the difference is certainly between inning commercial time (it hasn't changed recently but it is longer now than during the Reagan era) and part is likely pitches/AB (not sure accurate data exists for that but I'm betting it's higher now). But the remainder can be mostly blamed on the increase in mid-inning pitches changes, endless 'time-outs' for strategy/replay/etc, and just plain dawdling around, aka: Dead Time. * I'd prefer NOT to see rules or roster changes limiting when/how often you can switch pitchers, although I am disappointed that a no-additional-warmups for in-inning changes was included here. To me that's the easiest and most meaningful change they could make and it would knock at least a full minute off for each and that's nothing but dead time right there. The relievers union seems to be dead-set against it still claiming that bullpen mounds aren't the same as the real one. Well y'know what then? Bring them up to par! It can't be that difficult. And if it's still too frightening for relievers to come in "cold" well then that's one more factor a manager has to consider when he wants to make multiple changes during an inning. * Replay I've certainly harped on enough. No one who was for it envisioned it being employed for when the runner's spikes come off the base by a 1/4 inch for a 1/4 second but they were stupid not to realize that "limited' replay is like trying to stay only slightly pregnant and that it's virtually impossible NOT to include EVERY case where there's so called 'clear visual evidence'. Did they not observe that last four decades of the NFL?!? The shorter (10/15 second) decision limit that would eliminate most if not all of those 'minor' challenges has been mentioned here often and I agree. I think though that MLB is afraid of two things: 1) that the home team would rig up some sort of information system (lights/smoke signals) that would give them the advantage over the visiting squad in decision making 2) that the public is still going to see the bang-bang play which went unchallenged due to uncertainty was called incorrectly which will in turn lead to a backlash of fans and media calling baseball a bunch of dinosaurs for sticking their heads in the sand like the 19th century do-do birds they are (and, let's face it, most talking heads don't need much provocation to go that route anyway). * And finally the general dead time just needs better enforcement. The bottom line needs to be: Get in the box - Stay in the box; Get on the rubber - throw the fucking pitch! Here I suspect MLB is either wary of handing over too much power to the umps ("Hey Blue, no one came here to watch you, you fat shit!!") or the umps themselves are reluctant to play the heavy. Hopefully the clock rules that have now been in place in the minors for the last three(?) seasons are breeding players who now won't come up to the big leagues with nine different tics, four superstitions, plus a yoga routine before they feel comfortable enough to hit/pitch. It'll take a few years but maybe that will eliminate the need for a clock.

Ceetar Feb 21 2018 09:55 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

I have no problem with them figuring out if a guy came a 1/4" off the bag. rules are rules. Though I'd still rather they go to a tech solution.

Edgy MD Feb 21 2018 10:04 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

I think the single biggest difference is the manager pretending to be hustling out onto the field, but really trying to look like he's jogging when actually moving slower than walking, eventually reaching the ump and pretending to advocate for his team, but actually just stalling as he waits for his bench coach on the phone to give him a thumbs up or thumbs down. That's not only low-cal action, it detracts from the high-cal action of a close, exciting play, it's full of fraud, and is against the spirit of the whole replay thingie. If you don't think he blew the call based on your own eyes and your own instincts, then you implicitly accept it, and let's get on with the game. If you do think he blew it based on your own eyes and instincts, then great, you're making a protest while putting your reputation on the line, matching wits with the ump. Also, enough with making the tubby umps jog over to the well where Radar O'Reilly is waiting with a set of 1970s headsets. Put a bluetooth on the crew chief and let him chat Soho right where he is. Coaches can't visit the mound, but we're having dramatic moments ruined with umpire jogging exhibitions? Get out of here with that garbage. The tech solution will come, but it is not this day.

Nymr83 Feb 21 2018 10:25 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

I'm not sure how much time would really be saved by stopping the "fake reviews" but I'd take any, because I just don't like them. I dread the NFL-style 10 minute replays with 50 camera angles and talking heads analyzing them. you should have ten second from the completion of the play to challenge. otherwise, you are done. oh, and now that we have replay you can either challenge or shut up. leaving the dugout to argue the umpires' subjective call should be an automatic ejection. you can argue the [u:pmaw9cnt]rule[/u:pmaw9cnt] only (ie - "Hey umpire - the ground rules say a ball stick under that fence is a double, you gotta send that runner back to second")

Edgy MD Feb 21 2018 11:42 PM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

Arguing, while making me embarrassed that I've paid good money to watch a team run by a mental case, is a lot more fun than watching a guy standing around pretending to talk philosophy while waiting for his coach to signal him.

Frayed Knot Feb 22 2018 12:04 AM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

Ceetar wrote: I have no problem with them figuring out if a guy came a 1/4" off the bag. rules are rules. As Edgy says, if they see it with their own eyes to the point where they're convinced enough to risk one of their challenges, then, sure, go for it. But if it first requires stalling for the better part of a minute so some team bureaucrat can examine two different feeds and six different angles like it's the Zapruder film before they even commit to asking the umpires to then ask New York, then I'd prefer no replay rule at all.

dgwphotography Feb 22 2018 01:19 AM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: if you want to shorten games, call the full chest to knees strike zone.

Ceetar Feb 22 2018 02:04 AM Re: Tick Tock Jeurys

Frayed Knot wrote: Ceetar wrote: I have no problem with them figuring out if a guy came a 1/4" off the bag. rules are rules. As Edgy says, if they see it with their own eyes to the point where they're convinced enough to risk one of their challenges, then, sure, go for it. But if it first requires stalling for the better part of a minute so some team bureaucrat can examine two different feeds and six different angles like it's the Zapruder film before they even commit to asking the umpires to then ask New York, then I'd prefer no replay rule at all. well yes, don't stall the game. no delay to see if you want to challenge. just keep going. get the ball back to the pitcher and throw a pitch. Nymr83 wrote: oh, and now that we have replay you can either challenge or shut up. leaving the dugout to argue the umpires' subjective call should be an automatic ejection. you can argue the rule only (ie - "Hey umpire - the ground rules say a ball stick under that fence is a double, you gotta send that runner back to second") there shouldn't be subjective calls. This is why we need to clean up the check swing and balk rules, but that's a different argument.