Master Index of Archived Threads


Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

Benjamin Grimm Mar 11 2021 05:45 PM

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/31046691/major-league-baseball-deploy-several-experimental-rules-minor-leagues-season Larger bases. Pitch clocks. Limits on pickoff attempts. There are going be a ridiculous number of stolen bases if they limit pickoff attempts.

Frayed Knot Mar 11 2021 06:21 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

I'd rather they experiment in the minors as opposed to deciding they've got the next great idea and simply implement it in the majors. Not that I'm going to like all the experiments but I'm willing to consider just about anything.

kcmets Mar 11 2021 06:25 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

Larger bases?? Who sits around and dreams this crap up? (I didn't read link)

Benjamin Grimm Mar 11 2021 06:35 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

Larger bases will make it easier to steal a base, to bunt for a single and to get infield hits.

Fman99 Mar 11 2021 06:49 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

Ugh. Banning certain defensive shifts also being tested. Just stop. Please. I beg of you. You want to fix baseball? Cheaper beer. Tastier hot dogs. Less Covid. Less scoreboard noise.

Johnny Lunchbucket Mar 11 2021 07:06 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

The big base I think are about cutting down on guys getting spiked or collided with, like the double first-base they use in little league.

dinosaur jesus Mar 11 2021 07:21 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

I hate all this so goddamn much. How did we get a commissioner of baseball who doesn't like baseball?

batmagadanleadoff Mar 11 2021 07:41 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 11 2021 07:45 PM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Larger bases will make it easier to steal a base, to bunt for a single and to get infield hits. I assumed that larger bases were proposed to reduce injuries by allowing the fielder to step on one portion of the base while still leaving more base for the runner. I remember larger, rectangular shaped painted first bases on some of the asphalt or concrete softball fields I played on, growing up.

batmagadanleadoff Mar 11 2021 07:41 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 11 2021 07:45 PM

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Larger bases will make it easier to steal a base, to bunt for a single and to get infield hits. I assumed that larger bases were proposed to reduce injuries by allowing the fielder to step on one portion of the base while still leaving more base for the runner. I remember larger, rectangular shaped painted first bases on some of the asphalt or concrete softball fields I played on, growing up. What JCL said.

batmagadanleadoff Mar 11 2021 07:44 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

Benjamin Grimm wrote: There are going be a ridiculous number of stolen bases if they limit pickoff attempts. Maybe that's what baseball wants. More offense without more HR's. And also, shorter games. /rollseyes

kcmets Mar 11 2021 07:57 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

=Fman99 post_id=57766 time=1615513771 user_id=86]Cheaper beer. Tastier hot dogs. Less Covid. Less scoreboard noise.

More organ!

Edgy MD Mar 11 2021 08:45 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

The whole "shorter games" has somehow managed to take aim at all the wrong targets every single time.

Fman99 Mar 12 2021 06:27 AM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

=kcmets post_id=57775 time=1615517855 user_id=53] =Fman99 post_id=57766 time=1615513771 user_id=86]Cheaper beer. Tastier hot dogs. Less Covid. Less scoreboard noise.

More organ!

Benjamin Grimm Mar 12 2021 06:52 AM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

In Double A... "Four infielders will be mandated to have both feet on the infield dirt, preventing the extreme shifts that often see players from the left side of the infield shifted to short right field. Depending on the results, the league said, the second half of the season could see a more extreme version of the rule: two infielders on each side of the second-base bag." Does "both feet on the infield dirt" also mean that they can't play in for a bunt? Or does it just mean that they're prohibited from positioning themselves on the outfield grass? The electronic strike zone in the former Florida State League: "Instead of using a three-dimensional zone that covers the entire plate, it will call balls and strikes based on a two-dimensional plane at the front of the plate." In "High A" (Brooklyn, I guess): "Pitchers must step off the rubber before throwing to first base, eliminating a go-to move for many left-handed pitchers that weaponized the pickoff. MLB implemented the rule in the Atlantic League in the second half of 2019 and saw stolen-base attempts jump 70% with a leap in success rate as well. While the stolen base has been disincentivized by teams deeming it not worth the risk, the new rules likely will change that." In Triple A: "Bases will be 3 inches longer on each side. Currently, the front edge of first base sits 88 feet, 9 inches from home plate. It will move to 88 feet, 6 inches; the distance between first and second, and second and third, will likewise decrease. The result, MLB said: "a modest impact on the success rate of stolen base attempts and the frequency with which a batter-runner reaches base on ground balls and bunt attempts." MLB also hopes larger bases will allow for fewer injuries on collisions at the bag."

Edgy MD Mar 12 2021 07:23 AM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

Looking forward to them switching from live pitching to a tee in extra innings.

kcmets Mar 12 2021 07:38 AM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

Right, and defensive indifference is mandatory after nine innings.

seawolf17 Mar 12 2021 09:40 AM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

STOP. CHANGING. THE FUCKING. GAME.

MFS62 Mar 12 2021 09:52 AM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

=seawolf17 post_id=57793 time=1615567250 user_id=91] STOP. CHANGING. THE FUCKING. GAME.

Well put.

Later

Willets Point Mar 12 2021 10:29 AM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

REVERT TO THE KNICKERBOCKER RULES!!! (I kid)

Ceetar Mar 12 2021 12:01 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

fucking Manfred.

nymr83 Mar 12 2021 12:43 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

STOP. CHANGING. THE FUCKING. GAME. I don't agree. By all means, try things out in the minors and lets see if a consensus can be found after seeing some of these changes in motion. If a base that is 18"-18" and is reportedly lower to the ground actually does help prevent injuries, how many people are really going to be against it? Electronic strike zone? YES PLEASE - although I don't like the report i read that they are adjusting it to mimic what umpires have been calling rather than the rulebook strikezone. if the rulebook strikezone isn't working, agree to changes in the rulebook. I'm not a fan of all the proposed rules about defensive positioning - but sure, lets see how it goes in Low-A.

batmagadanleadoff Mar 12 2021 12:49 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

=nymr83 post_id=57811 time=1615578220 user_id=54] I'm not a fan of all the proposed rules about defensive positioning - but sure, lets see how it goes in Low-A.

It's going to result in more offense. And nobody needs to see the experiment to know that. The farther away from where the ball's gonna go you force players to position themselves, the more likely those balls are gonna result in hits instead of outs. There's not a shred of doubt about that.



I guess the question does remain, though, how much of an offensive increase?

Benjamin Grimm Mar 12 2021 12:52 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

You can still circumvent the rule by playing your leftfielder in short right field against a left-handed pull hitter.

dinosaur jesus Mar 12 2021 12:55 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

The problem with these ideas isn't that you shouldn't be messing with the game. There's been messing all along, often much more radical than anything that's being proposed here. Changing the number of balls and strikes, letting the pitchers throw overhand, moving the pitching distance back, counting a foul ball as a strike--I probably would have hated all of those at the time, but I guess I'm okay with them now. The problem here is, first, that they're coming all at once. It's too much. And second, that they don't really have anything to do with baseball. Every sport has a basic logic, determined by the rules and by an evolving understanding of how to play the game. And the rules and the understanding tend to move together. Allowing overhand pitching, for instance, came about because pitchers were already throwing overhand, and a decision had to be made whether to enforce the rule or to recognize that the game had changed. The foul strike came about because hitters were abusing the spirit of the rule by repeatedly fouling pitches off without penalty. But these ideas come from outside that logic. They feel like they've been brought in from a completely different sport. They're like drunk poker rules—jacks beat queens on Maundy Thursday, and so on. And they don't address the one serious problem with baseball today, which is that the games take too damn long to play. The pitch clock seems to, but it's mostly just a gimmick brought in from football or basketball to make the game seem more efficient. It's not efficient; it's baseball, which doesn't run on clock logic. If the pitchers are dawdling, then instruct the umpires not to call them on it. If the batters are stepping out of the box and calling time too much, then instruct the umpires not let them. And the one proposal that seems to stand up for baseball tradition, banning extreme shifts, is the dumbest of all. Shifts are completely within the logic of the game; they exploit something that's been there all along but rarely utilized. They're fun as hell to watch. And they work, which turns out to be the real problem with them. What's wrong with these people? Screed over.

batmagadanleadoff Mar 12 2021 01:09 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

dinosaur jesus wrote: The problem with these ideas isn't that you shouldn't be messing with the game. There's been messing all along, often much more radical than anything that's being proposed here.... And the one proposal that seems to stand up for baseball tradition, banning extreme shifts, is the dumbest of all. Shifts are completely within the logic of the game; they exploit something that's been there all along but rarely utilized. They're fun as hell to watch. And they work, which turns out to be the real problem with them. What's wrong with these people? Screed over. I've highlighed the beginning and end of your post. On the one hand, I tend to agree with both excerpted points, very much so. But then I wonder if those points contradict each other. Why are shifts completely within the logic of the game? And why does shift equal baseball tradition? Isn't that mainly arbitrary? What if defenders were barred ever since the beginning of baseball - by official rule - from straying from their designated fielding areas? What if defensive shifts were prohibited ever since the beginning of baseball? Wouldn't we now be attacking new proposed rules permitting defensive shifts as some radical and uncalled for tinkering -- a gimmick?

Frayed Knot Mar 12 2021 01:25 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

My objection to the shift-ban is that for every part of extra ground the defense is covering by using a shift (extreme or otherwise) they are, by definition, leaving other parts of the field Less covered and it's up to the offense to exploit That. But hitters have decided to hit with one form of offense [pull, launch angle] and don't want to be bothered with another, and mgmt doesn't seem to want to find or use all-field/contact type of players. The hitters and the teams that do that won't find themselves facing extreme shifts.

dinosaur jesus Mar 12 2021 01:48 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

dinosaur jesus wrote: The problem with these ideas isn't that you shouldn't be messing with the game. There's been messing all along, often much more radical than anything that's being proposed here.... And the one proposal that seems to stand up for baseball tradition, banning extreme shifts, is the dumbest of all. Shifts are completely within the logic of the game; they exploit something that's been there all along but rarely utilized. They're fun as hell to watch. And they work, which turns out to be the real problem with them. What's wrong with these people? Screed over. I've highlighed the beginning and end of your post. On the one hand, I tend to agree with both excerpted points, very much so. But then I wonder if those points contradict each other. Why are shifts completely within the logic of the game? And why does shift equal baseball tradition? Isn't that mainly arbitrary? What if defenders were barred ever since the beginning of baseball - by official rule - from straying from their designated fielding areas? What if defensive shifts were prohibited ever since the beginning of baseball? Wouldn't we now be attacking new proposed rules permitting defensive shifts as some radical and uncalled for tinkering -- a gimmick? Yeah, I'm probably not being completely logical here. If they'd banned shifts from the beginning, I'm sure I wouldn't think twice about it. But I don't think they would have; I doubt it would have occurred to anyone to do that. And there is a sort of precedent in baseball history. When second basemen started playing halfway to first, and shortstops halfway to third, it's possible there was some grumbling from the traditionalists. But I imagine most people thought it was just a smart way to deploy your fielders, placing them where the ball was most likely to be hit. And that's all a shift does. That's what I mean by the logic of the game--the hitter tries to hit 'em where they ain't, the fielders try to be where the ball is most likely to go. The thought that shifts are unfair comes from the idea that there's such a thing as a third baseman or a second baseman. There isn't. Those are only conventional names. I just don't see the logic of saying that because someone usually plays near third base, and you call him a third basemen, he can't be allowed to move to the other side of second once in a while.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 12 2021 02:03 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

Frayed Knot wrote: My objection to the shift-ban is that for every part of extra ground the defense is covering by using a shift (extreme or otherwise) they are, by definition, leaving other parts of the field Less covered and it's up to the offense to exploit That. But hitters have decided to hit with one form of offense [pull, launch angle] and don't want to be bothered with another, and mgmt doesn't seem to want to find or use all-field/contact type of players. The hitters and the teams that do that won't find themselves facing extreme shifts. Yeah, that's where I'm at too. The shift is frustrating to me, as a fan. (When did it start, by the way? I know that some teams shifted against Ted Williams, but the earliest Met I recall being "victimized" by the shift is Carlos Delgado. Does that sound right?) I'd rather see the shift go away because of players exploiting the open part of the field. I recall Lucas Duda doing it sometimes. I wish Michael Conforto, for example, would just go the opposite way once or twice a game and take an easy double or two. That would certainly stop the shift.

Willets Point Mar 12 2021 02:26 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

The minor leagues would be a good place for batters to experiment with hitting against the shift.

Ceetar Mar 12 2021 04:15 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

banning shifts is inane and one of those things that actively turns me off. Baseball doesn't even _really_ have defensive players. The guy designated as 'RF' can play between third and the pitcher if he wants, on one pitch, and then hang out with his buddy in LF the next one. It's a group of 9 guys defending, with some rules focused around the battery, because without them you'd literally break the game. It's why double switches are (still, for another season or so) a thing. The batting order is immutable, but because you can always have the RFer pitch, it works. I know we've mostly ignored that for a while, and officially designated fielders, which is why double switches don't violate the "must pitch to one batter" rule and that rule about designated players as "hitters or pitchers" doesn't break it either. But it breaks the fluidity of baseball. You've got 9 guys out there, put them wherever. You've got 12 pitchers, use 'em whenever. Hit it where they ain't and stand where they hit it. That's just logical baseball stuff and I don't know why you'd try to change it. Might as well ban 70mph squibs through the infield because it wasn't fair that you didn't hit it at a guy.

Edgy MD Mar 12 2021 04:36 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

If defensive shifts prohibited since the beginning of baseball, but players were doing their best to shift anyhow — perhaps by straddling one foot in the zone and one out — or by breaking from their position as soon as the pitcher began the windup, then the rulemakers would be challenged to see whether their rule was within the spirit of the game, or making a farce of it. I agree with just about every one of Dino J.'s points. People who seemingly don't like baseball are trying to solve problems they haven't actually put much thought toward identifying.

batmagadanleadoff Mar 12 2021 05:23 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

=Ceetar post_id=57831 time=1615590910 user_id=102] Baseball doesn't even _really_ have defensive players. The guy designated as 'RF' can play between third and the pitcher if he wants, on one pitch, and then hang out with his buddy in LF the next one. It's a group of 9 guys defending....

That's only because the current rules don't prohibit the non-battery fielders from roaming or positioning themselves wherever they want to.



I don't want to be misinterpreted. I think non-battery defenders should be allowed to position themselves wherever they want to --- in other words, the way the rules are currently written and have been written throughout my entire lifetime of watching baseball games. I think banning shifts is the wrong thing to do and as they say in politics to the scumbag voter suppressionists, a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist. I agree with all of the points made in this thread in support of shifts.



I'm simply saying that I don't buy this idea of free-form defenses as something written in stone like the Ten Commandments. It's the rule today. But the rule can change. The powers that be can do whatever they wanna do and whatever they wanna do is the rule. What I'm saying is that the argument for defensive shifts shouldn't be that that's the rule so that's what it should be.





I've always had this pet peeve about baseball poets waxing poetic about how perfect baseball is, and what foresight the founders of the game had to eventually settle on the bases being 90 feet apart, thus creating the perfect game.

I disagree. If the bases were a foot off all along, either 89 feet apart or 91 feet apart, we'd have a vastly different baseball game than the one that now exists. But the poets would then wax poetic about how perfect that imaginary version of baseball is because that'd be the only version we know.

MFS62 Mar 12 2021 06:05 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

=Ceetar post_id=57831 time=1615590910 user_id=102] Might as well ban 70mph squibs through the infield because it wasn't fair that you didn't hit it at a guy.

Taking away that kind of hit would have kept Jeter out of the Hall of Fame.



Later

Fman99 Mar 12 2021 06:16 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

I blame Walter Matthau and "The Cool Carl Paranski Shift." [youtube]YrjJFNDQJbM[/youtube]

whippoorwill Mar 12 2021 06:43 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

=seawolf17 post_id=57793 time=1615567250 user_id=91] STOP. CHANGING. THE FUCKING. GAME.

Yes. It's Okay the way it is

Ceetar Mar 13 2021 06:43 AM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=57834 time=1615595027 user_id=68] I've always had this pet peeve about baseball poets waxing poetic about how perfect baseball is

There are a zillion things I'd change, or accept as change, to baseball. change is good, but I like change that opens things up, that let's players do MORE things, not restrictive change that locks things down. There are obviously cases for that at times, that fix things, like the infield fly rule, but broadly, stop locking down the game.



specifically, if the 'problem' here is that we want to open up baseball to being more beneficial to a less three true outcomes athlete so that they can strive too, the shift isn't going to solve that. Move the mound back, work on actually knowing what the ball is going to do, etc.

MFS62 Mar 13 2021 06:55 AM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

Here's a writer from the Tampa Bay Times (Tribune Publishing) via Yahoo chiming in on the changes. https://www.yahoo.com/news/want-fix-baseball-let-start-215700806.html The question is whether these changes will address what really ails baseball. While runs, hits, walks, stolen bases, errors and other stats have remained relatively static over the years, there are three ways that the game has changed dramatically. No. 1, home runs are double what they were in 1950. No. 2, strikeouts have basically tripled since 1930. No. 3, and by far the most important, baseball has somehow evolved from a two-hour game to a three-hour-plus game. And I don't see how defensive shifts, pickoffs, larger bases or robot umpires fix any of those problems. Later

Ceetar Mar 13 2021 12:26 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

well for one, those aren't problems. they're just things. Though quicker moving games are certainly nicer, and better for fans, fans are no longer the customer, TV Networks are. Literally every 'problem' with baseball is because of TV Networks.

Marshmallowmilkshake Mar 13 2021 06:03 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

Well, the networks aren't making managers use four pitchers in the seventh inning every game, or make pitchers throw eight half-hearted pickoff tosses to first everytime a semi-fast guy gets on base, or batters to step out of the box after every pitch to adjust their batting gloves. Karl Ravitch was talking about extreme steps, like making all games seven innings. That's terrible. I don't mind long games. I do mind games that grind to a halt for for stupid reasons. I'm OK with a pitch clock, and enforcing the rule about getting out of the box.

whippoorwill Mar 13 2021 07:39 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

Here's a rule I propose: Starting pitchers must pitch 8 innings, no matter how much they are sucking, Unless there is a visible injury Visible injuries would involve blood, compound fractures and/or vomit

Edgy MD Mar 13 2021 08:16 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

=Marshmallowmilkshake post_id=57870 time=1615683810 user_id=119]I don't mind long games. I do mind games that grind to a halt for for stupid reasons. I'm OK with a pitch clock, and enforcing the rule about getting out of the box.

I agree with you that they grossly confuse the issues of pace-of-play and length-of-game, and these two concepts shouldn't be that hard to distinguish.



But also among things that shouldn't be too hard is getting an ump to tell somebody to stop adjusting his uniform and throw the ball. Adding a clock is just providing cover for an ump not doing his job, and it changes the very fabric of the game.



I just please ask somebody to acknowledge the obvious — allowing a manager to hold up a game while his associates in the clubhouse review a play to determine whether or not to appeal is terrible. It adds countless minutes to a game, and sucks all the drama out of any close and/or meaningful play.

Marshmallowmilkshake Mar 13 2021 09:03 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

Edgy MD wrote: =Marshmallowmilkshake post_id=57870 time=1615683810 user_id=119]I don't mind long games. I do mind games that grind to a halt for for stupid reasons. I'm OK with a pitch clock, and enforcing the rule about getting out of the box. I agree with you that they grossly confuse the issues of pace-of-play and length-of-game, and these two concepts shouldn't be that hard to distinguish. But also among things that shouldn't be too hard is getting an ump to tell somebody to stop adjusting his uniform and throw the ball. Adding a clock is just providing cover for an ump not doing his job, and it changes the very fabric of the game. I just please ask somebody to acknowledge the obvious — allowing a manager to hold up a game while his associates in the clubhouse review a play to determine whether or not to appeal is terrible. It adds countless minutes to a game, and sucks all the drama out of any close and/or meaningful play.

Good calls! The replays take forever, too.

Ceetar Mar 14 2021 12:01 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

=Marshmallowmilkshake post_id=57870 time=1615683810 user_id=119] Well, the networks aren't making managers use four pitchers in the seventh inning every game, or make pitchers throw eight half-hearted pickoff tosses to first everytime a semi-fast guy gets on base, or batters to step out of the box after every pitch to adjust their batting gloves.

Sure but they're contributing to making each of those pitching changes take 3 minutes+. Those second two are pretty rare for the most part, as far as day to day game watching goes. at least lately. And with the fast guy on base/pickoff thing, there's strategy there, that a broadcast that cares could dig into. It's maybe not as compelling as pitching, but the broadcast treating it as something to focus on rather than a distraction helps.



Some of those slogs where there are pitching changes every batter in the 7th of like a 4-1 game aren't particularly fun, but I do think if they commited to hurrying the guy in, having him through 8 pitches, and going, instead of demanding teh full commercial break every time. ESPECIALLY if you don't cut away.

Frayed Knot Mar 14 2021 12:18 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

=Ceetar post_id=57890 time=1615744888 user_id=102] Sure but they're contributing to making each of those pitching changes take 3 minutes+... but I do think if they commited to hurrying the guy in, having him through 8 pitches, and going, instead of demanding teh full commercial break every time. ESPECIALLY if you don't cut away.

Or, as I've advocated many times here, eliminating the eight on-mound warm-up pitches entirely. That would be the single easiest way to eliminate dead time and it confounds me that it never seems to be in the discussion while all sorts of whacky rules are advanced even though most have nothing to do with the supposed problem they're trying to address.

Edgy MD Mar 14 2021 01:25 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

I don't think it's really true that managers are using 4+ pitchers every seventh inning, although that might have been truer 10 or 15 years ago. Now that they've outlawed the LOOGy, it's going to be hard to blame game length on over-booking the seventh-inning anymore.

Frayed Knot Mar 14 2021 01:40 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

Well, the number of pitchers used per game has measurably increased over the years and every one that occurs mid-inning adds a break in the action at least as long as the two-plus minute gap in between innings.

Ceetar Mar 14 2021 01:56 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

Frayed Knot wrote: Or, as I've advocated many times here, eliminating the eight on-mound warm-up pitches entirely. That would be the single easiest way to eliminate dead time and it confounds me that it never seems to be in the discussion while all sorts of whacky rules are advanced even though most have nothing to do with the supposed problem they're trying to address. The argument I've heard is that pitcher's won't stand for it because of minute differences to the mound, etc. But you could probably negotiate to like ..4 pitches. But the real time sink here I guess is that the play has to reset, and the next batter announced, as that's part of the strategy. And you have to give the team at least a moment to choose a pinch hitter as a result of a play, and theoretically then the other a moment to choose a pitcher as the result of the pinch hitter. But still, after that if you ran a 30 sec commercial, one that's split screen or sort of "in broadcast" still, while the pitcher runs in, and then talk about the pitcher, his record, what/why he's in that situation, he's probably then ready to pitch and you're done. You got a commercial in, the pitcher is ready, you never broke away from the broadcast so it doesn't really feel like a break.

Edgy MD Mar 14 2021 01:59 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

I thought the rule was six pitches anyhow.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 14 2021 02:16 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

Instead of going to a commercial, just call it the "Geico Pitching Change" and have the announcers read a promo.

Frayed Knot Mar 14 2021 03:24 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

They can do it however they want, but if each change is going to take 2 to 2-1/2 minutes it hardly matters whether they cut away or not and nobody, not within the game or even the writers who are suggesting all kinds of stuff, are mentioning this huge area of dead time.

Benjamin Grimm Mar 14 2021 03:55 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

I'm thinking it might take less time if they don't cut to a commercial, but maybe not.

Edgy MD Mar 15 2021 02:59 PM Re: Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

If copious and profligate pitching changes are really seen as a major cause of the pace-of-play issue, then why are we expanding the roster to 26 players? Why are we softening on the DH? Why are we giving a team still one more roster spot for double headers, as rare as they are? Each of these leads to more pitchers on the roster, and more pitchers on the roster leads to more pitching changes.