SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Possible 2019/2020 rule changes
|
Post by voiceofreason on Mar 14, 2019 12:13:42 GMT -5
Lots of good thoughts and ideas here. I like much of what they are doing and especially the dialogue on a new CBA, this is going to be hard so getting a head start is wise.
As I have said many times before I think the way in which pitching is managed is going to continue to change towards pitchers who go thru the lineup once or twice. The 26 man roster will lend itself to that obviously. Pretty sure most of the analytics points to pitchers being more effective before hitters see them for the third time. Wouldn't be surprised to see very few 200+ inning guys 5 years from now just like the 5 man rotation became the norm during the 70's and the pith count in the 90's it will be the new norm.
MLB also needs to look at having a minimum salary floor, they get enough revenue from TV and other revenue streams to help eliminate teams that aren't trying to win. That along with changes of draft rules as mentioned should rid the league of the tanking. Which in turn helps the over 30 players that are being ignored currently.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 14, 2019 12:27:48 GMT -5
Baseball “purists” need so stop resisting rule changes. The other major sports adjust their games with the times. Football has a rules committee every freaking year where they discuss and sometimes implement changes. The NBA made big changes to their game the last couple years to greatly improve the flow of the game. Baseball should too, glad they are finally taking it serious
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Mar 14, 2019 13:01:02 GMT -5
True but the constant changing of the catch rule has been a disaster for the NFL. The NfL gets it right most of the time though.
Times change, pitching with 4 in relief, fielding shifts, 3 outcome ab's, the game needs to be open to change and it seems like they are headed in the right direction. Right down to partnering with the Indy league on automated pitch calls, although I don't know how the heck you back up the mound. Not happening unless they start it at the high school level.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 14, 2019 13:49:57 GMT -5
With the exception of the stupid All-star game extra inning second base rule, I like the changes although, going from 2:05 to 2:00 only saves half a minute a game. Bring it to 1:30 already. I do like the three batters rule for pitchers and pretty happy that it's going to cause problems for the National League when the pitcher is due up the next inning. Bring on the DH universally already. So the three batter rule is only within an inning--you can switch out a pitcher who has faced less than three batters if the inning ends. As long as we're going full nanny-state on pitching staffs, they should mandate the use of an actual starter. Baseball just makes more sense with a starter, and while there's a certain novelty to the opener, it's ultimately just kind of silly trick that, if anything, makes the game less watchable. Like if you take all the bullpenning stuff to it's logical conclusion, probably the optimal strategy is to just have it be pure chaos, where everyone is using decoy starters and no middle of the order hitter faces any opposing pitcher twice, etc. That doesn't seem like a superior game from a spectator perspective, or even a player perspective really.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 14, 2019 13:57:07 GMT -5
So the three batter rule is only within an inning--you can switch out a pitcher who has faced less than three batters if the inning ends. As long as we're going full nanny-state on pitching staffs, they should mandate the use of an actual starter. Baseball just makes more sense with a starter, and while there's a certain novelty to the opener, it's ultimately just kind of silly trick that, if anything, makes the game less watchable. Like if you take all the bullpenning stuff to it's logical conclusion, probably the optimal strategy is to just have it be pure chaos, where everyone is using decoy starters and no middle of the order hitter faces any opposing pitcher twice, etc. That doesn't seem like a superior game from a spectator perspective, or even a player perspective really. Agreed. And the cynical side of me can't help but note the other big reason MLB is probably going to make a change here: Maybe an outfit like the Arizona Diamondbacks don't have enough pull with Manfred if they have a gripe with the Brewers faking them out in a high-profile game. But you know who does? Vegas. If MLB is going to be all gambling friendly, then the bookies are going to want to know who the starting pitchers are.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 14, 2019 14:01:24 GMT -5
As long as we're going full nanny-state on pitching staffs, they should mandate the use of an actual starter. Baseball just makes more sense with a starter, and while there's a certain novelty to the opener, it's ultimately just kind of silly trick that, if anything, makes the game less watchable. Like if you take all the bullpenning stuff to it's logical conclusion, probably the optimal strategy is to just have it be pure chaos, where everyone is using decoy starters and no middle of the order hitter faces any opposing pitcher twice, etc. That doesn't seem like a superior game from a spectator perspective, or even a player perspective really. Agreed. And the cynical side of me can't help but note the other big reason MLB is probably going to make a change here: Maybe an outfit like the Arizona Diamondbacks don't have enough pull with Manfred if they have a gripe with the Brewers faking them out in a high-profile game. But you know who does? Vegas. If MLB is going to be all gambling friendly, then the bookies are going to want to know who the starting pitchers are. I think what convinced me was learning that the opener is frequently banned in Stratomatic (or similar) leagues. If it's too annoying for everyone to be doing it in your imaginary games, it's for sure too annoying for real baseball.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 14, 2019 14:52:44 GMT -5
Baseball “purists” need so stop resisting rule changes. The other major sports adjust their games with the times. Football has a rules committee every freaking year where they discuss and sometimes implement changes. The NBA made big changes to their game the last couple years to greatly improve the flow of the game. Baseball should too, glad they are finally taking it serious Yeah and I quit watching the NHL because of their rule changes. I'm getting close to doing the same with the NFL. So no, I don't need to stop resisting rule changes. They are always designed to attract new fans with ADD to make sports more like video games.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 14, 2019 14:58:55 GMT -5
Baseball “purists” need so stop resisting rule changes. The other major sports adjust their games with the times. Football has a rules committee every freaking year where they discuss and sometimes implement changes. The NBA made big changes to their game the last couple years to greatly improve the flow of the game. Baseball should too, glad they are finally taking it serious Yeah and I quit watching the NHL because of their rule changes. I'm getting close to doing the same with the NFL. So no, I don't need to stop resisting rule changes. They are always designed to attract new fans with ADD to make sports more like video games. The only crappy NHL rule change that I can think of is the challenge for offsides where you go back in time and erase part of the game that was played. And no they aren’t always for that reason. A lot of the NFL rule changes are with player safety in mind. The major one that created the video game scoring was implemented to stop the Patriots (didn’t work) and that was the illegal contact Ty Law rule... Also, why would a sport want to attract new younger fans? That doesn’t make sense. Screw adapting to the times... good call But you are right you don’t have to stop resisting rule changes that was silly of me to say; people can do what they want. (Last paragraph was not snark but the 3rd was - just for clarity sake)
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 14, 2019 14:59:12 GMT -5
Agreed. And the cynical side of me can't help but note the other big reason MLB is probably going to make a change here: Maybe an outfit like the Arizona Diamondbacks don't have enough pull with Manfred if they have a gripe with the Brewers faking them out in a high-profile game. But you know who does? Vegas. If MLB is going to be all gambling friendly, then the bookies are going to want to know who the starting pitchers are. I think what convinced me was learning that the opener is frequently banned in Stratomatic (or similar) leagues. If it's too annoying for everyone to be doing it in your imaginary games, it's for sure too annoying for real baseball. Out of the Park Baseball added strategy for openers for OOTP 20 and I'm really dreading it. It's so difficult to counter openers with strategy in real life, let alone trying to get AI to do it well. It'll lead to people figuring out how to exploit bad AI and then that's all anyone will do. The only counter to openers is to have all players without pronounced splits.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 14, 2019 15:02:33 GMT -5
So the three batter rule is only within an inning--you can switch out a pitcher who has faced less than three batters if the inning ends. As long as we're going full nanny-state on pitching staffs, they should mandate the use of an actual starter. Baseball just makes more sense with a starter, and while there's a certain novelty to the opener, it's ultimately just kind of silly trick that, if anything, makes the game less watchable. Like if you take all the bullpenning stuff to it's logical conclusion, probably the optimal strategy is to just have it be pure chaos, where everyone is using decoy starters and no middle of the order hitter faces any opposing pitcher twice, etc. That doesn't seem like a superior game from a spectator perspective, or even a player perspective really. Agreed but what Milwaukee did to LA in the playoffs was awesome.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 14, 2019 15:13:18 GMT -5
Yeah and I quit watching the NHL because of their rule changes. I'm getting close to doing the same with the NFL. So no, I don't need to stop resisting rule changes. They are always designed to attract new fans with ADD to make sports more like video games. The only crappy NHL rule change that I can think of is the challenge for offsides where you go back in time and erase part of the game that was played. And no they aren’t always for that reason. A lot of the NFL rule changes are with player safety in mind. The major one that created the video game scoring was implemented to stop the Patriots (didn’t work) and that was the illegal contact Ty Law rule... Also, why would a sport want to attract new younger fans? That doesn’t make sense. Screw adapting to the times... good call But you are right you don’t have to stop resisting rule changes that was silly of me to say; people can do what they want. (Last paragraph was not snark but the 3rd was - just for clarity sake) I'll never resist safety changes. But altering the baseball to create more home runs added to smaller and smaller ball parks is not something I enjoy. Moving the pitching mound back further would be a disaster and probably add an hour to games. If MLB got rid of extra innings and had a home run derby to decide the winner like they do in the NHL, I'm done with it. If they continue adding rules about retaliation without punishing the event that caused the so-called need for retaliation even when no injury occurs, I'll be done with it. That's how they ruined the NHL. It's a bunch of cheap shot artists who never get punished and a bunch of tiny whining punks diving all over the ice to draw penalties so they can have power play competitions. MLB is getting to that point. Machado can try to hurt anyone he wants. The league does nothing about it and the players can do nothing about it. We just have to live with watching Machado trying to hurt people over and over again. Fun times.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 14, 2019 15:47:44 GMT -5
The changes are good ones that make sense and if they do lead to smoother negotiations going forward that will be helpful. But the issue that really needs to be dealt with is the most difficult. That's the evolution of the business model teams use now that there's a lot of data. That model underpays players when they're at their best.
Blake Snell was payed less than 1% of what he was worth to the Rays last year. Despite winning the Cy Young he's going to get a raise of less than $20K for this season. His arb years start in 2020 and he should be able to start cashing in, but he won't be a free agent till 2023 when he turns 30. With good health there's likely to be a decent contract waiting for him then, but that's not a given. There's always the possibility of serious injury with pitchers.
Now that ownership is valuing later years in light of aging curves, there should be a willingness to value those early years in the same way. That's the real moneymaker for teams so that is likely to be uniformly resisted. It's time for baseball to really jump into the modern age and use actual data - not averages, wins/losses, or even ERA, but data that surfaces the real worth of a player. Agents and FOs can argue, as we do, about which stats are strong, which are weak, which ones are better than others, and more. But it's long past time for the game to understand and value players during their careers. If MLB owners are willing to predicate latter-year contracts on a performance basis, they should be able to do the same for a players early years. After a few seasons and often less, most baseball stats stabilize. There's no reason those can't be part of a reworked wage scale. No reason except that after 150+ years the game is hidebound with rotting tradition.
Paying Snell less than $600K when he was worth 100 times that much makes no sense. The chatterboxes on the MLB network, trying to explain this to themselves and the rest of us, are inane with their commentary. Just yesterday one of them had decided that it was the job of the agent to let the player know how it works, to prepare them by explaining that it's just a business. That's not the agents job and it shouldn't be.
After 30 years, it's time to change the terms of the agreement. This is all the result of statistics, the enormous volume of stuff the game has always had but which had never been fully organized and analyzed. Now it has. Ownership is making decisions about their course of action based on those statistics. The players need to do the same instead of giving away the gold mine for a few trinkets.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 14, 2019 16:17:43 GMT -5
The changes are good ones that make sense and if they do lead to smoother negotiations going forward that will be helpful. But the issue that really needs to be dealt with is the most difficult. That's the evolution of the business model teams use now that there's a lot of data. That model underpays players when they're at their best. Blake Snell was payed less than 1% of what he was worth to the Rays last year. Despite winning the Cy Young he's going to get a raise of less than $20K for this season. His arb years start in 2020 and he should be able to start cashing in, but he won't be a free agent till 2023 when he turns 30. With good health there's likely to be a decent contract waiting for him then, but that's not a given. There's always the possibility of serious injury with pitchers. Now that ownership is valuing later years in light of aging curves, there should be a willingness to value those early years in the same way. That's the real moneymaker for teams so that is likely to be uniformly resisted. It's time for baseball to really jump into the modern age and use actual data - not averages, wins/losses, or even ERA, but data that surfaces the real worth of a player. Agents and FOs can argue, as we do, about which stats are strong, which are weak, which ones are better than others, and more. But it's long past time for the game to understand and value players during their careers. If MLB owners are willing to predicate latter-year contracts on a performance basis, they should be able to do the same for a players early years. After a few seasons and often less, most baseball stats stabilize. There's no reason those can't be part of a reworked wage scale. No reason except that after 150+ years the game is hidebound with rotting tradition. Paying Snell less than $600K when he was worth 100 times that much makes no sense. The chatterboxes on the MLB network, trying to explain this to themselves and the rest of us, are inane with their commentary. Just yesterday one of them had decided that it was the job of the agent to let the player know how it works, to prepare them by explaining that it's just a business. That's not the agents job and it shouldn't be. After 30 years, it's time to change the terms of the agreement. This is all the result of statistics, the enormous volume of stuff the game has always had but which had never been fully organized and analyzed. Now it has. Ownership is making decisions about their course of action based on those statistics. The players need to do the same instead of giving away the gold mine for a few trinkets. I'm totally on board with you on all of this. But just think about how much the Rays and every team like them are going to fight against it.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Mar 14, 2019 16:23:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 14, 2019 16:35:36 GMT -5
If I am getting this right, DL stints will be 15 days for pitchers in 2020, but remain 10 days for position players? Weird.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 14, 2019 17:54:45 GMT -5
If I am getting this right, DL stints will be 15 days for pitchers in 2020, but remain 10 days for position players? Weird. The ten day DL was largely used to treat Dodgeritis, and hitters don't seem to catch that.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Mar 15, 2019 6:37:25 GMT -5
Pitchers who get optioned also have to stay down for 15 days now (presumably unless there's an injury).
|
|
wcp3
Veteran
Posts: 3,809
|
Post by wcp3 on Mar 15, 2019 6:56:05 GMT -5
The changes are fine, but the impact will be negligible until the MLB decides to implement meaningful rule changes.
I don’t understand the logic behind waiting until 2022 to implement the pitcher shot clock. They’re not going to improve the pace of play (which is the real issue, not the length of games) until they finally do that.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 15, 2019 8:23:14 GMT -5
The changes are fine, but the impact will be negligible until the MLB decides to implement meaningful rule changes. I don’t understand the logic behind waiting until 2022 to implement the pitcher shot clock. They’re not going to improve the pace of play (which is the real issue, not the length of games) until they finally do that. I half-agree. Pitchers working too slowly is part of the issue, especially the ones who are like molasses even in early innings with nobody on base. But I honestly think the mid-inning pitching changes have a bigger negative effect on game flow. Think of it this way: suppose a lefty reliever comes in to get Kole Calhoun out. He doesn't, and now Mike Trout is up with a dude on base. A reliever holding the ball a little bit longer contemplating whether it's a better idea to throw a pitch or commit ritual seppuku still has tension. Switching pitchers so FS1 can spend a couple minutes trying to sell me a Volvo and a reverse mortgage does not. The players seem to be pushing back harder on the pitch clock, so I feel like implementing that is going to require a more substantial concession in the next CBA.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 15, 2019 10:47:17 GMT -5
The changes are fine, but the impact will be negligible until the MLB decides to implement meaningful rule changes. I don’t understand the logic behind waiting until 2022 to implement the pitcher shot clock. They’re not going to improve the pace of play (which is the real issue, not the length of games) until they finally do that. I half-agree. Pitchers working too slowly is part of the issue, especially the ones who are like molasses even in early innings with nobody on base. But I honestly think the mid-inning pitching changes have a bigger negative effect on game flow. Think of it this way: suppose a lefty reliever comes in to get Kole Calhoun out. He doesn't, and now Mike Trout is up with a dude on base. A reliever holding the ball a little bit longer contemplating whether it's a better idea to throw a pitch or commit ritual seppuku still has tension. Switching pitchers so FS1 can spend a couple minutes trying to sell me a Volvo and a reverse mortgage does not. Getting rid of one-out relievers is a straight up win for the game in and of itself. If it helps with pace of play or the overall duration of games, cool, but that's just the cherry on top.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 15, 2019 11:10:49 GMT -5
The changes are good ones that make sense and if they do lead to smoother negotiations going forward that will be helpful. But the issue that really needs to be dealt with is the most difficult. That's the evolution of the business model teams use now that there's a lot of data. That model underpays players when they're at their best. Blake Snell was payed less than 1% of what he was worth to the Rays last year. Despite winning the Cy Young he's going to get a raise of less than $20K for this season. His arb years start in 2020 and he should be able to start cashing in, but he won't be a free agent till 2023 when he turns 30. With good health there's likely to be a decent contract waiting for him then, but that's not a given. There's always the possibility of serious injury with pitchers. Now that ownership is valuing later years in light of aging curves, there should be a willingness to value those early years in the same way. That's the real moneymaker for teams so that is likely to be uniformly resisted. It's time for baseball to really jump into the modern age and use actual data - not averages, wins/losses, or even ERA, but data that surfaces the real worth of a player. Agents and FOs can argue, as we do, about which stats are strong, which are weak, which ones are better than others, and more. But it's long past time for the game to understand and value players during their careers. If MLB owners are willing to predicate latter-year contracts on a performance basis, they should be able to do the same for a players early years. After a few seasons and often less, most baseball stats stabilize. There's no reason those can't be part of a reworked wage scale. No reason except that after 150+ years the game is hidebound with rotting tradition. Paying Snell less than $600K when he was worth 100 times that much makes no sense. The chatterboxes on the MLB network, trying to explain this to themselves and the rest of us, are inane with their commentary. Just yesterday one of them had decided that it was the job of the agent to let the player know how it works, to prepare them by explaining that it's just a business. That's not the agents job and it shouldn't be. After 30 years, it's time to change the terms of the agreement. This is all the result of statistics, the enormous volume of stuff the game has always had but which had never been fully organized and analyzed. Now it has. Ownership is making decisions about their course of action based on those statistics. The players need to do the same instead of giving away the gold mine for a few trinkets. No offense but I’ve heard this kind of talk a millions times and never once have I seen a proposed solution. Add: If Snell wanted to, he could probably sign a deal right now that would set him up for life but people would say he didn’t get market value. There are always going to be young players who greatly out perform their salary.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 15, 2019 11:51:23 GMT -5
You miss my point. Data has shown the owners how f****d up their business model was. They've responded accordingly. The players need to respond accordingly or there will be more than a few who will not ever get fair market value for their services. Data mining has done this to so many businesses it's almost impossible to keep track of, and we're just getting started. And no offense to you, but that kind of talk dates to the introduction of networked computing power. So you can toss the first million or so of those things you've heard out the window.
The solution is in what I wrote. Use actual statistical evaluations of players as they start to produce to value them properly. As is always the case, this is not about technology. That's been in place since Bill James, Pete Palmer, Nate Silver and their predecessors and descendants took us down this road and digital technology put it into overdrive. The owners are cutting back on their contracts to players past their prime because they're using those very evaluations. They've even said so. It's time for a countermove that is data-driven.
|
|
wcp3
Veteran
Posts: 3,809
|
Post by wcp3 on Mar 15, 2019 16:05:08 GMT -5
I half-agree. Pitchers working too slowly is part of the issue, especially the ones who are like molasses even in early innings with nobody on base. But I honestly think the mid-inning pitching changes have a bigger negative effect on game flow. Think of it this way: suppose a lefty reliever comes in to get Kole Calhoun out. He doesn't, and now Mike Trout is up with a dude on base. A reliever holding the ball a little bit longer contemplating whether it's a better idea to throw a pitch or commit ritual seppuku still has tension. Switching pitchers so FS1 can spend a couple minutes trying to sell me a Volvo and a reverse mortgage does not. Getting rid of one-out relievers is a straight up win for the game in and of itself. If it helps with pace of play or the overall duration of games, cool, but that's just the cherry on top. I completely agree with both of your points. I just wish they would implement both changes.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 16, 2019 12:35:35 GMT -5
You miss my point. Data has shown the owners how f****d up their business model was. They've responded accordingly. The players need to respond accordingly or there will be more than a few who will not ever get fair market value for their services. Data mining has done this to so many businesses it's almost impossible to keep track of, and we're just getting started. And no offense to you, but that kind of talk dates to the introduction of networked computing power. So you can toss the first million or so of those things you've heard out the window. The solution is in what I wrote. Use actual statistical evaluations of players as they start to produce to value them properly. As is always the case, this is not about technology. That's been in place since Bill James, Pete Palmer, Nate Silver and their predecessors and descendants took us down this road and digital technology put it into overdrive. The owners are cutting back on their contracts to players past their prime because they're using those very evaluations. They've even said so. It's time for a countermove that is data-driven. I didn’t miss your point; I fully get it but I have still yet to hear a solution. “Use actual statistical evaluations of players as they start to produce to value them properly” isn’t really a solution. How do you practically do that? Do players give up long term fixed contracts and trade them in for year to year variable rate contracts that are based on what they did that year? What happens with an injury? How’s a team supposed to budget? How do you come up with a players value thru a statistical model? Fangraphs says Mookie was worth 83m last year that’s obviously insane. Whatever the solution is it can’t have huge cost uncertainty for the teams from year to year. That would kill teams especially the smaller market ones.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 16, 2019 13:13:26 GMT -5
You miss my point. Data has shown the owners how f****d up their business model was. They've responded accordingly. The players need to respond accordingly or there will be more than a few who will not ever get fair market value for their services. Data mining has done this to so many businesses it's almost impossible to keep track of, and we're just getting started. And no offense to you, but that kind of talk dates to the introduction of networked computing power. So you can toss the first million or so of those things you've heard out the window. The solution is in what I wrote. Use actual statistical evaluations of players as they start to produce to value them properly. As is always the case, this is not about technology. That's been in place since Bill James, Pete Palmer, Nate Silver and their predecessors and descendants took us down this road and digital technology put it into overdrive. The owners are cutting back on their contracts to players past their prime because they're using those very evaluations. They've even said so. It's time for a countermove that is data-driven. I didn’t miss your point; I fully get it but I have still yet to hear a solution. “Use actual statistical evaluations of players as they start to produce to value them properly” isn’t really a solution. How do you practically do that? Do players give up long term fixed contracts and trade them in for year to year variable rate contracts that are based on what they did that year? What happens with an injury? How’s a team supposed to budget? How do you come up with a players value thru a statistical model? Fangraphs says Mookie was worth 83m last year that’s obviously insane. Whatever the solution is it can’t have huge cost uncertainty for the teams from year to year. That would kill teams especially the smaller market ones. I hate to go down this road again but the Fangraphs value numbers are not in any way suggested player salaries. What it's telling you is that you would expect to pay $80m on average free agents to return value equal to what Mookie produced last year. The reason the number is insane is because it reflects an insane system.
|
|
|