|
|
Post by grandsalami on Feb 8, 2017 20:24:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bigpupp on Feb 8, 2017 21:09:12 GMT -5
Hmmm. I think this is a pretty solid idea in developmental leagues, but not really sure what problem they're trying to fix by implementing it at the highest levels.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,700
|
Post by nomar on Feb 8, 2017 23:30:47 GMT -5
That would be a lot of unearned runs for closers.
|
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Feb 9, 2017 0:15:49 GMT -5
Such a stupid idea on many levels.
So does that mean the leadoff hitter of the 10th inning automatically gets sent to 2b? How do they score that? And they're going to charge the run to the pitcher if he scores? Even if it's an unearned run it makes no sense.
I don't think that you can never tinker with the rules, but this rule makes no sense. It takes 4 bases to score a run just like 3 outs ends an inning, 4 balls is a walk (as it's been since the late 19th century) and 3 strikes is an out. What's next? Just start batters with a 3-2 count to save time?
|
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Feb 9, 2017 3:12:02 GMT -5
It's used in international tournaments and here in the Dutch Major League. It's absolutely awful, hate it.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 9, 2017 8:55:06 GMT -5
Does anyone, anywhere, think the problem with pace of play starts in the 10th inning? If anything play gets faster in the 10th because teams have already burned through all of their relievers.
If you think the problem with baseball is a 5:00 hour, 18 inning game that ends 6-5 rather than, say, a 3:15 nine-inning game that ends 6-1 and 11 pitchers are used then I don't know what to tell you.
|
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 9, 2017 8:59:43 GMT -5
Just judging by the cross section that is my twitter, the idea doesn't seem popular, almost all negative comments with just a few positive ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 9, 2017 9:05:48 GMT -5
I could almost see defending this rule if it only kicked in after the 14th inning or something, just to prevent the truly marathon games that are kind of a bummer for everyone, but as soon as they go to extras? It's crazy. A game that's tied after nine is almost by definition a good game, and you're going to let them be decided by this little league BS? Just awful.
|
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 9, 2017 9:09:45 GMT -5
Does anyone, anywhere, think the problem with pace of play starts in the 10th inning? If anything play gets faster in the 10th because teams have already burned through all of their relievers. If you want the game to move faster, there's three things you can actually do. 1. Make the batters stay in the box between pitches 2. Make pitchers work faster 3. Make rules that limit pitching changes It's almost as if MLB is unwilling or unable to make those changes, so they're floating this kind of nonsense in an attempt to make everyone think they're working on the problem when they're actually punting. |
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 9, 2017 9:41:51 GMT -5
4. Shorten the between-inning breaks.
But yes, when the proposed change to help the pace of play doesn't even take place during regulation then it's hard to believe they are paying it more than lip service.
Why do sports leagues think people want to see a different game than the ones already being played during overtime? Like, the basics of the game are why we like the game in the first place! Why, in the most closely competitive games would you be like "okay, wouldn't it be awesome if we decided the winner by changing the rules entirely?!" I don't get it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 9, 2017 9:55:16 GMT -5
As I posited on Twitter, I think this is just MLB trying to look like they're trying. They've got the pitch clock in the minors that actually works pretty well - if you want to ACTUALLY speed up MLB play, "call up" that rule.
As for implementation, when I've seen it, it's typically the last batter of the prior inning who starts on second, or at least that spot in the order. One assumes this might put a premium on having a speedy bench guy to pinch run in that situation.
I don't actually think this would ever happen in MLB though. However, I would argue that it makes some sense in the lower minors, at least at the complexes and perhaps even as high as the Single-A leagues.
|
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 9, 2017 10:11:06 GMT -5
Thumbs down to hockey and soccer shootouts.
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Feb 9, 2017 10:17:13 GMT -5
As I posited on Twitter, I think this is just MLB trying to look like they're trying. They've got the pitch clock in the minors that actually works pretty well - if you want to ACTUALLY speed up MLB play, "call up" that rule. As for implementation, when I've seen it, it's typically the last batter of the prior inning who starts on second, or at least that spot in the order. One assumes this might put a premium on having a speedy bench guy to pinch run in that situation. I don't actually think this would ever happen in MLB though. However, I would argue that it makes some sense in the lower minors, at least at the complexes and perhaps even as high as the Single-A leagues. Ya the only way it makes sense is that the last batter who got out the inning prior would be put on second base. The way they would have to score the run would be really confusing, like mentioned before. The one thing that I don't get about this rule is that each team would have a chance to have a runner on second base. At the higher levels, it's a lot easier to execute getting a runner in with zero outs at second base. Both teams could literally make 2 productive outs each (bunting, sacrifice flies, squeezes, ground ball outs) and score both runs in both the top of the inning and bottom of the inning in extra innings. All you would be doing is creating more offense. The rule would make more sense if there was a runner put on first base to start each inning at the higher levels. At least then there's a much larger variable with what could happen in order to score that run from first base and you would need a little more than 2 productive outs to score the run. This would make at least a little more sense to me. Just to add- I know the one stat that would be counted against the pitcher is the loss stat (even if it's a unearned run that gets charged against the pitcher). I know it's one of the more meaningless stats but it's pretty tough to hammer a pitcher with a loss when he didn't even potentially give up a single hit. Think about that. You did exactly everything you needed to do as a pitcher and create outs and you lost anyways, all because they put a runner on second base and not first base instead. That's really harsh. |
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Feb 9, 2017 10:47:17 GMT -5
Yea, this doesn't feel like it's actually made for eventual use in the majors.
Pitch clock, ok, I get it, that makes sense, it doesn't really change much.
This, this is just stupid. Everyone that I've read that has seen tournaments etc. with this rule has said it's as stupid as it sounds, and not only is it stupid, but that it slows things down with IBB's and sac bunts, etc.
Definitely agree with Chris that this feels more like MLB is just attempting to show an attempt at trying to speed up the game. You're TV audience (which is far greater and likely more valuable than in-person attendance) isn't going to just turn off the TV after the 9th inning like so many fans at the park do at the 9th when they just get up and leave (I've never understood this, but it happens everywhere at every level).
This rule is stupid and I'd be STUNNED if it ever even made it's way into the upper minors, let alone the big leagues
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2017 10:58:36 GMT -5
Agree with the consensus here. I've always thought baseball had the best "overtime" in place because the game doesn't change in the slightest, it simply...continues until someone wins.
I agree also with an earlier post. The pace of play problem in baseball doesn't start in the 10th inning. No one has ever uttered the words, "You know, innings one through nine are fine, but can we speed up those extra innings?"
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Feb 9, 2017 11:01:00 GMT -5
Well Felger has suggested this idea on his dumb show multiple times saying "I literally can't watch a 4 hour extra inning game, there's just not enough time in the day to do this." Of course this is also coming from a guy who thinks "soccer is on the rise and baseball is a dying sport."
So he really has no clue about anything in sports really and he has a sports talk show. I find this to be really ironic.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 9, 2017 11:19:37 GMT -5
Why not a home run derby or a contest to see who can run around the bases the fastest? Maybe they can award a point to the loser of the game in extra innings with two points for the winner.
I stopped watching hockey because of shootouts already.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 9, 2017 12:44:48 GMT -5
Also... How the hell do I mark this on my scorecard? God if this ever gets to the NYPL that's probably going to drive me crazier than anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 9, 2017 20:11:33 GMT -5
I don't want it either but I'd rather end in a tie than change the game itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 9, 2017 20:47:29 GMT -5
And I thought 2016 was insane. If you don't like length of games and want to improve tempo and quality of the game, then install robo umps behind the plate, period. This is not tee-ball. This is the majors.
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Feb 10, 2017 15:46:54 GMT -5
Lol Felger and Mazz on the potential rule change being talked about right now-
Felger-
"I love it, love it, love it. I think baseball is already losing their existing fans. They are never going find new fans if they don't do something about pace of play."
Mazz-
"You're never going to leave a game because of a certain rule. I'm glad baseball is recognizing that there's a problem. You have to adapt."
What a bunch of trolls lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Feb 10, 2017 16:14:40 GMT -5
Felger-
"I think it's insane that they will play all night just to win a game. I don't care if they even put a runner on third with one out. I'll watch a game 7 of a world series with this rule. I think baseball needs a major change. Too slow, too much time, too many games."
Mazz-
"There's a strategic element to this that makes this really interesting."
Okay I'll stop dumbing down this message board with dumb trolls who could care less about baseball and don't have a real pulse on the sport.
Just to add one more idea from Felger-
7 inning games. 2 strikes and you're out and 3 balls and you walk. Two outs to end an inning too.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 10, 2017 18:40:42 GMT -5
One more idea- turn the volume down to 0.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 10, 2017 23:27:56 GMT -5
What a bunch of trolls lol. Yet, you continue to listen to them and post in here about what they say. |
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 10, 2017 23:51:12 GMT -5
Felger- "I think it's insane that they will play all night just to win a game. I don't care if they even put a runner on third with one out. I'll watch a game 7 of a world series with this rule. I think baseball needs a major change. Too slow, too much time, too many games." Mazz- "There's a strategic element to this that makes this really interesting." Okay I'll stop dumbing down this message board with dumb trolls who could care less about baseball and don't have a real pulse on the sport. Just to add one more idea from Felger- 7 inning games. 2 strikes and you're out and 3 balls and you walk. Two outs to end an inning too. Baseball would be great without all the baseball. |
|
