|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 3, 2014 16:31:28 GMT -5
Jmei, seriously? Eliminate ground ball double plays? Talk about butchering the game.
|
|
|
Post by pedroelgrande on Mar 3, 2014 16:51:07 GMT -5
All these fascists trying to change the game. Go away.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 3, 2014 17:11:36 GMT -5
Jmei, seriously? Eliminate ground ball double plays? Talk about butchering the game. Remember: my main point was nothing is wrong with the game and there's no reason to go fiddling with the rules. But, if the league is desperate to encourage more BIP for aesthetic reasons, I think it's a more targeted solution than deadening the ball (which would have the opposite effect, by the way-- it would encourage hitters to walk more, because putting the ball in play is more likely to result in negative results) or lowering the mound (which would piss off every single pitcher). Just an idea, nothing more.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 3, 2014 17:40:47 GMT -5
They could expand rosters and limit staff size to 13. They could also limit the number of pitching changes per inning without making things too restrictive by putting caveats in it. Something like two changes per first 9 batters then you get another every 4 or something. What we need is a rule limiting the number of guys who are removed mid-inning after retiring the only batter they face. There's nothing more boring than having the death-on-righty SP start the 7th by getting a righty hitter, then in comes a nasty LOOGY to get a lefty, then in comes a nasty righty to get a righty. Perhaps you can do this only once in the first 9 innings, and once in extra innings. That would add a lot of strategy to pitching changes.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 3, 2014 17:42:27 GMT -5
They could expand rosters and limit staff size to 13. They could also limit the number of pitching changes per inning without making things too restrictive by putting caveats in it. Something like two changes per first 9 batters then you get another every 4 or something. What we need is a rule limiting the number of guys who are removed mid-inning after retiring the only batter they face. There's nothing more boring than having the death-on-righty SP start the 7th by getting a righty hitter, then in comes a nasty LOOGY to get a lefty, then in comes a nasty righty to get a righty. Perhaps you can do this only once in the first 9 innings, and once in extra innings. That would add a lot of strategy to pitching changes. And they would get around it by faking injuries. I really think the only way around it is roster size/makeup.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 3, 2014 17:59:09 GMT -5
They could expand rosters and limit staff size to 13. They could also limit the number of pitching changes per inning without making things too restrictive by putting caveats in it. Something like two changes per first 9 batters then you get another every 4 or something. What we need is a rule limiting the number of guys who are removed mid-inning after retiring the only batter they face. There's nothing more boring than having the death-on-righty SP start the 7th by getting a righty hitter, then in comes a nasty LOOGY to get a lefty, then in comes a nasty righty to get a righty. Perhaps you can do this only once in the first 9 innings, and once in extra innings. That would add a lot of strategy to pitching changes. I agree that the constant pitching changes are by far the most boring part of baseball. Still, the best way to fix that is to hire smarter managers. Bullpen overuse is a short-term annoyance that causes long-term problems. Every team, it seems, has three key relievers injured by mid-July. Having reliever go two-to-three innings more often, and eliminating all of those one and two batter appearances will go a long way toward making both the game better and a team that employs that strategy healthier. And a positive consequence? That 7th reliever can turn into a much more useful bench spot. I'm not saying that is a good play for all teams - there are some legit LOOGY's out there, and some teams who don't need a lot of position flexibility because they have durable or multi-talented starters. But I think there is a really really huge advantage from some team simply managing the bullpen to its own team's strengths rather than the way the rest of the league manages.
|
|
|
Post by bentossaurus on Mar 3, 2014 23:58:12 GMT -5
I think Neyer has a point. Modern baseball is characterized by relatively low run-scoring and historically low rates of the ball being put in play. We've gone back to 80s levels of run scoring, but we're not playing 80s-style ball. It's 90s-style take-and-rake baseball, with a lot less rake. Leads tend to be safe (particularly in the late innings, where Ks are up the most) and fielding is de-emphasized. In other words, it's not a particularly entertaining brand of baseball. We may not have reached a point where Can you explain this further to me? I'm genuinely curious why you think a world in which there are fewer balls in play is less exciting. Neyer's article doesn't really explain it that well, either. I understand why people think walks are less exciting than hits, but why are strikeouts less exciting than the average out-on-ball-in-play? Sure, the overall run environment is down significantly, and there's a vague sense that high-scoring games are more exciting than low-scoring games. But I think as much of that is due to the increased use of defensive shifts and superior defensive positioning in general (the league-average BABIP is down from a high of .303 in 2007 to .297 today, for instance) and the clear improvement in pitcher quality (the league-average FB velocity is up to an all-time high of 91.7 MPH, up from 90.3 MPH just seven years ago) than because batters are striking out more (I remember reading pretty extensive research to this effect, but couldn't find it again after a cursory search-- if anyone remembers the source/link, I'd much appreciate it). Maybe if the run environment continues to deflate, we should consider rule changes to bring it back up, but I think blaming hitters for striking out too much is a bit of a red herring. Well, Jamie Moyer did retire.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 4, 2014 4:42:31 GMT -5
What we need is a rule limiting the number of guys who are removed mid-inning after retiring the only batter they face. There's nothing more boring than having the death-on-righty SP start the 7th by getting a righty hitter, then in comes a nasty LOOGY to get a lefty, then in comes a nasty righty to get a righty. Perhaps you can do this only once in the first 9 innings, and once in extra innings. That would add a lot of strategy to pitching changes. And they would get around it by faking injuries. I really think the only way around it is roster size/makeup. Yeah, the way they routinely fake an injury to circumvent the must-face-one-batter rule, when they bring in a LOOGY, and the other team then pinch-hits with a RHB.
|
|