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 libertine on Feb 6, 2019 22:53:34 GMT -5
I hate the three batter minimum idea.
I don't like lowering the mound.
I am ambivalent about the universal DH but, what they hay, the rules should be the same for both leagues.
I am actually fine with a 20 second pitch clock. No pitcher should take longer than that between pitches.
I hate the idea of starting a runner at 2nd in extras.
To me much of this appears to be a solution in search of a problem. It is about pace of play. But some of the proposed new rules appear to counteract each other. The pitch clock and 3 batter minimum will speed it up but lowering the mound will lead to higher scoring, longer, games. The big difference between now and the pre-1980's game is the amount and length of the commercial breaks. Limit commercials to between innings and shorten the time of the breaks. Cut down on the warm-up time for relievers, when they come in from the pen they should be ready to go after a few tosses.
Adding 2 roster spots is a cookie for the union as is the proposed draft pick rule, imo, by forcing teams to spend more money to be competitive or suffer the consequences. But, imo again, the big market teams don't need an additional perk in a misguided effort to make MLB more competitive. The draft rules are just fine as they are. Look at what the Astros and the Braves have been able to do recently with all of their high picks. The draft system works fine...
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Feb 7, 2019 4:56:40 GMT -5
Most of the mentioned rule changes don't bother me all that much. Starting a batter at 2nd in extras bothers me.
|
|
|
Post by The Town Sports Cards on Feb 7, 2019 8:23:28 GMT -5
For everyone saying limit commercial breaks, just stop. 100% will never happen. The only way the breaks get shorter is if they show commercials during play or in the middle of plays. They aren't going to show less commercials unless viewers start paying networks more money to replace the lost revenue
|
|
|
Post by greenmonster on Feb 7, 2019 8:24:17 GMT -5
Hopefully these proposals will be as effective and exciting as the change to Intentional Walks
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 7, 2019 8:42:15 GMT -5
I know I've said this before but I think it can be helpful to remember: "pace of play" and "length of game" are two intertwined but ultimately different issues. The problem with baseball games isn't that 11-inning games are too long, or that 14-9 games are too long. It's that the seventh inning of a 4-2 game is interminable. Cutting down on offense in general or implementing extra-inning schemes don't fix the root problem. Yeah, we hear some complaints about four hour games, even when they're exciting, because sportswriters are on twitter about how long those games are. But ultimately I don't think those are the ones fans have issues with.
If you think too many strikeouts are a problem (I'm kind of agnostic but I can see why it's an issue for some), then a pitch clock is really a good idea. You limit the amount of time between pitches, yes--but you're also limiting the amount of rest pitchers get between pitches. One reason that strikeouts are so high is that pitchers just routinely take like 30 seconds to get full energy back for every delivery. A pitch clock would take some of the emphasis away from those whose success comes from delivering a max effort on every pitch.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 7, 2019 11:22:00 GMT -5
Could someone explain the argument against the 40-man roster in September? I've seen DD say he wants it changed, which never made sense to me from the perspective of a GM, who I would think would enjoy the flexibility. Is it a financial thing? Or just a rules/tradition thing? Cheap owners want to spend less money without being called out by fans.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 7, 2019 11:22:58 GMT -5
I think this thread is a red herring. If Machado, Harper, Kimbrel, et al had signed or were in deep negotiations this topic doesn't mentioned. The media pundits need fodder. 1. These would be most significant rule changes for baseball in decades. There's no scenario where they wouldn't be big news. 2. Why are people operating under the assumption that a Harper/Machado signing would somehow generate enough news to fill an entire offseason? We'd talk about it for a day or two and move on.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 7, 2019 11:23:13 GMT -5
For everyone saying limit commercial breaks, just stop. 100% will never happen. The only way the breaks get shorter is if they show commercials during play or in the middle of plays. They aren't going to show less commercials unless viewers start paying networks more money to replace the lost revenue Then they should stop talking about how the length of the game needs to be shorter. Obviously they don't need to be shorter at the expense of commercial breaks. I'm surprised they even suggested a 3 batter minimum because that would lower pitching changes and lower the number of commercial breaks.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 7, 2019 11:43:07 GMT -5
The problem with eliminating the one out RP is that it's really unlikely to speed the game up that much. They keep doing these small things, that still don't add up all that much. The way to actually make the game 10-15 minutes shorter is to shorten commercial breaks, which they're just not going to do. Yeah, but I think one-out guys disrupt the flow of the game in a particularly egregious way. It's a thing that encourages people to disengage from the game right at the moment that it should be most exciting. It's the eighth inning, down a run, your team's big lefty masher is coming in, this is your team's last best chance to win, and... oh, never mind, call to the bullpen, time to go get a beer. Time to look at the phone, flip back to that other game, etc. It's a way to disengage people right at the moment of maximum engagement. And, no one likes it. No one's favorite player is a situation reliever. No one likes seeing their star hitter facing a guy who's essentially a trick pitcher. No one gets pumped up for that moment in the game. It's all downside, get rid of it.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 7, 2019 11:55:54 GMT -5
The problem with eliminating the one out RP is that it's really unlikely to speed the game up that much. They keep doing these small things, that still don't add up all that much. The way to actually make the game 10-15 minutes shorter is to shorten commercial breaks, which they're just not going to do. Yeah, but I think one-out guys disrupt the flow of the game in a particularly egregious way. It's a thing that encourages people to disengage from the game right at the moment that it should be most exciting. It's the eighth inning, down a run, your team's big lefty masher is coming in, this is your team's last best chance to win, and... oh, never mind, call to the bullpen, time to go get a beer. Time to look at the phone, flip back to that other game, etc. It's a way to disengage people right at the moment of maximum engagement.And, no one likes it. No one's favorite player is a situation reliever. No one likes seeing their star hitter facing a guy who's essentially a trick pitcher. No one gets pumped up for that moment in the game. It's all downside, get rid of it. The way to handle that situation may be different, but that's the crux. And again, that's the difference between addressing "pace of play" and how long the game is - if Mike Trout doubles to tie the game, it's going to make the game longer, but nobody who isn't on a deadline is going to be annoyed by that. But if Mike Trout comes up with the bases loaded and the Angels are down 3-1 in the eighth inning and they just cut to three minutes of selling me a Volvo and bathroom tile, that's a problem. It's the most exciting point in a baseball game, and it has no momentum at all. ------ So one pet peeve of mine with the opener is that teams can't really set their lineup, the way the Brewers did in the playoffs. I understand it, I just don't really love it. One thing I'd like to see is that, if a team's starting pitcher doesn't come out to start the second inning or face at least five batters, a team can sub back in a player they took out. You shouldn't get to neutralize a team's platoon just by pitching-handedness chicanery. You want to fool the Red Sox by putting in a RHP after the lefty "starter" faced one guy? That's fine, but Steve Pearce can be taken out in the second inning and swapped back in in the seventh.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 7, 2019 12:56:55 GMT -5
So one pet peeve of mine with the opener is that teams can't really set their lineup, the way the Brewers did in the playoffs. I understand it, I just don't really love it. One thing I'd like to see is that, if a team's starting pitcher doesn't come out to start the second inning or face at least five batters, a team can sub back in a player they took out. You shouldn't get to neutralize a team's platoon just by pitching-handedness chicanery. You want to fool the Red Sox by putting in a RHP after the lefty "starter" faced one guy? That's fine, but Steve Pearce can be taken out in the second inning and swapped back in in the seventh. Yeah, I'm a little less sure of how I feel about this one, but I think I kind of lean towards banning all these weird opener schemes. Baseball is, again, just more watchable when you have a traditional starting pitcher, even if it's a 7% less optimal way of using your pitchers.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Feb 7, 2019 16:02:16 GMT -5
One rule change that I hate that HOF Jason Stark brought up is that MLB is looking to move the mound back 60.6 feet to 65 feet.
That's one rule change I do hate. It would help player safety with come back line drives back to the pitchers, but velocity won't matter as much. All of a sudden a less skilled hitter can catch up to 95 mph.
I know strikeouts and contact in the game are a problem at the moment, but let's not completely tip the schales to the hitters. Raise or lower the mound all you want. Leave the dimensions of baseball alone. It's been 60.6 feet since 1893. You shouldn't change that.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 7, 2019 16:07:29 GMT -5
Could someone explain the argument against the 40-man roster in September? I've seen DD say he wants it changed, which never made sense to me from the perspective of a GM, who I would think would enjoy the flexibility. Is it a financial thing? Or just a rules/tradition thing? Slows games way down when teams have like 18 pitchers they can use. They start matching up in the 5th
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 7, 2019 16:27:29 GMT -5
"Under the plan, the National League would adopt the DH for the 2019 season." There's no possible way that they can do this for this season. That's ridiculous. Every NL team would have done things differently this offseason if they had known this would be the new rule. Well, 140 freeagents still available, so...
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 7, 2019 17:00:54 GMT -5
One rule change that I hate that HOF Jason Stark brought up is that MLB is looking to move the mound back 60.6 feet to 65 feet. That's one rule change I do hate. It would help player safety with come back line drives back to the pitchers, but velocity won't matter as much. All of a sudden a less skilled hitter can catch up to 95 mph.
I know strikeouts and contact in the game are a problem at the moment, but let's not completely tip the schales to the hitters. Raise or lower the mound all you want. Leave the dimensions of baseball alone. It's been 60.6 feet since 1893. You shouldn't change that. It would change the (effective) average velocity of the league, which wouldn't change the value of velocity at all. A guy who throws 98 is still going to miss more bats than one who throws 92.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Feb 7, 2019 17:47:30 GMT -5
One rule change that I hate that HOF Jason Stark brought up is that MLB is looking to move the mound back 60.6 feet to 65 feet. That's one rule change I do hate. It would help player safety with come back line drives back to the pitchers, but velocity won't matter as much. All of a sudden a less skilled hitter can catch up to 95 mph.
I know strikeouts and contact in the game are a problem at the moment, but let's not completely tip the schales to the hitters. Raise or lower the mound all you want. Leave the dimensions of baseball alone. It's been 60.6 feet since 1893. You shouldn't change that. It would change the (effective) average velocity of the league, which wouldn't change the value of velocity at all. A guy who throws 98 is still going to miss more bats than one who throws 92. I don't know about that. Spin rate could become more of a factor when it comes to missing bats if you move the mound back.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 7, 2019 20:00:02 GMT -5
I think this thread is a red herring. If Machado, Harper, Kimbrel, et al had signed or were in deep negotiations this topic doesn't mentioned. The media pundits need fodder. 1. These would be most significant rule changes for baseball in decades. There's no scenario where they wouldn't be big news. The proposed rule changes are media driven, IF MLB wants to cure the pundits lament over "wasted time", eliminate the 3+ minute commercial breaks between innings. The other "lament" driving this thread is the "loss" of up coming generations to the game. This is where the social scientists play the guilt trip game. What is stupid is that they use media uses click or watch rates to draw these conclusions. Forget cognitive analysis or discussion, show me time stressed action. 2. Why are people operating under the assumption that a Harper/Machado signing would somehow generate enough news to fill an entire offseason? We'd talk about it for a day or two and move on. The free agent class of 2018 is undergoing market correction. Teams will sign players when it suits there needs. Once the players and their agents figure out that the days of AROD and Stanton are gone (with the possible exception of Trout) signings will occur. Until then I am more than content to spend the hot stove season discussing rosters, prospects, potential draftees and the like. In other words game related discussion and not big media driven agenda. Turns me off big time.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Feb 7, 2019 21:49:23 GMT -5
The last time they lowered the mounds batting averages shot up and runs came back. It was after the year of the pitcher. Then it went too much the other way by the 1990s. Now the ERAs are more reasonable but the offense consists of the three true outcomes a lot more.
I just think if they lower the mound further or worse move the pitching distance back, the runs/game could really boost and games could go a lot longer than they're going now.
I think sometimes you just have to let that kind of thing ebb and flow and not try to create rules to control it.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Feb 7, 2019 23:47:08 GMT -5
The last time they lowered the mounds batting averages shot up and runs came back. It was after the year of the pitcher. Then it went too much the other way by the 1990s. Now the ERAs are more reasonable but the offense consists of the three true outcomes a lot more. I just think if they lower the mound further or worse move the pitching distance back, the runs/game could really boost and games could go a lot longer than they're going now. I think sometimes you just have to let that kind of thing ebb and flow and not try to create rules to control it. Well, they could lower the mound and deaden the ball. If the goal is to have more hits, less strikeouts and less hone runs, wouldn’t the combination allow all three? MLB appears to want the game to be more of a 1930s style game. In that scenario, the ball stays in the ball park, but there are lots of doubles and hits such that there is more excitement than guys walking and occasionally homering.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Feb 8, 2019 9:55:58 GMT -5
The last time they lowered the mounds batting averages shot up and runs came back. It was after the year of the pitcher. Then it went too much the other way by the 1990s. Now the ERAs are more reasonable but the offense consists of the three true outcomes a lot more. I just think if they lower the mound further or worse move the pitching distance back, the runs/game could really boost and games could go a lot longer than they're going now. I think sometimes you just have to let that kind of thing ebb and flow and not try to create rules to control it. Well, they could lower the mound and deaden the ball. If the goal is to have more hits, less strikeouts and less hone runs, wouldn’t the combination allow all three? MLB appears to want the game to be more of a 1930s style game. In that scenario, the ball stays in the ball park, but there are lots of doubles and hits such that there is more excitement than guys walking and occasionally homering. That's kind of scary. In the 1930s there was a .400 hitter, ERAs were around 5 in the league and the leagues averages were about .280. In this day and age that would still lead to longer games, even if the ball was dejuiced. And it doesn't answer the shift question, which takes away hits if the hitters can't go the other way, away from the shift, but you think about - if you have a lefty hitter and you put everybody on the right side and pound him inside where else is the ball likely to go but into the shift? I think the 1970s and 1980s had the kind of offense/pitching balance the league is looking for. Only one guy reached the 50 homer mark (George Foster in 1977 with 52), batting averages were around .260, the league ERA was around 4 and stolen bases were a big thing - and it wasn't just Rickey Henderson. You had guys like Vince Coleman, Willie Wilson, Ron Leflore, and Tim Raines who could swipe bases at a prolific rate as well. Offenses had guys who could hit HRs (like the Crunch Bunch Red Sox of 1977 or Harvey's Wallbangers in Milwaukee 1982), but it was more of a balanced attack. Big HR teams were topping 200 homers, not threatening to become teams that could actually hit 275 - 300 homers in a season - the Yankees of last year certainly gave it a run for their money, and in that small ballpark, they should have a healthy Judge, Stanton capable of doing more, and those young kids like Torres and Andujar maturing, it's crazy. This moving the mound back could have unintended consequences, almost like moving 1b to 95 feet or 85 feet away - think of that type of impact. I think the last time the mound was moved back was in the mid 1890s and soon you had guys like Hugh Duffy batting .440. It took time to adjust, and the pitchers eventually did, and the deadball era happened where runs went from plentiful to scarce. I think we'd see some big adjustment period from the pitchers if they did lower the mound or more particularly move the mound back 5 feet.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Feb 8, 2019 11:15:18 GMT -5
Well, they could lower the mound and deaden the ball. If the goal is to have more hits, less strikeouts and less hone runs, wouldn’t the combination allow all three? MLB appears to want the game to be more of a 1930s style game. In that scenario, the ball stays in the ball park, but there are lots of doubles and hits such that there is more excitement than guys walking and occasionally homering. That's kind of scary. In the 1930s there was a .400 hitter, ERAs were around 5 in the league and the leagues averages were about .280. In this day and age that would still lead to longer games, even if the ball was dejuiced. And it doesn't answer the shift question, which takes away hits if the hitters can't go the other way, away from the shift, but you think about - if you have a lefty hitter and you put everybody on the right side and pound him inside where else is the ball likely to go but into the shift? I think the 1970s and 1980s had the kind of offense/pitching balance the league is looking for. Only one guy reached the 50 homer mark (George Foster in 1977 with 52), batting averages were around .260, the league ERA was around 4 and stolen bases were a big thing - and it wasn't just Rickey Henderson. You had guys like Vince Coleman, Willie Wilson, Ron Leflore, and Tim Raines who could swipe bases at a prolific rate as well. Offenses had guys who could hit HRs (like the Crunch Bunch Red Sox of 1977 or Harvey's Wallbangers in Milwaukee 1982), but it was more of a balanced attack. Big HR teams were topping 200 homers, not threatening to become teams that could actually hit 275 - 300 homers in a season - the Yankees of last year certainly gave it a run for their money, and in that small ballpark, they should have a healthy Judge, Stanton capable of doing more, and those young kids like Torres and Andujar maturing, it's crazy. This moving the mound back could have unintended consequences, almost like moving 1b to 95 feet or 85 feet away - think of that type of impact. I think the last time the mound was moved back was in the mid 1890s and soon you had guys like Hugh Duffy batting .440. It took time to adjust, and the pitchers eventually did, and the deadball era happened where runs went from plentiful to scarce. I think we'd see some big adjustment period from the pitchers if they did lower the mound or more particularly move the mound back 5 feet. The quality of the league is vastly different today than it was in 1930s. There is more depth today than there was back then. Even if they had Numbers similar to 1933 or 1934, would that be a bad thing? The ERA of the league was 4.28 in 1934 and 3.81 in 1933. Batting averages were .270 in 1933 and .279 in 1934. The difference was less power and less strikeouts. I am not saying the league should strive to go back 3.1 so9 and having the most homers hit by a team be 144. What I am saying is that strikeouts, deep counts, and no men onbase is boring. The league should strike to cut down on the three true outcome at bats. It can do that by lowering the mound, and changing the ball.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Feb 8, 2019 15:32:39 GMT -5
So apparently the NL owners are being stubborn again with the DH rule all over again. Ugh.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Feb 8, 2019 20:12:14 GMT -5
So apparently the NL owners are being stubborn again with the DH rule all over again. Ugh. Booo the NL. BOOOOOO.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 8, 2019 20:52:59 GMT -5
Can putting a runner on second base for extra innings be far behind? Please no to that. That's the equivalent of a hockey overtime shootout. No thank you. How about actually playing baseball when it's extra innings? Gimmicks need not apply. Most extra inning games are done within an inning or two. Doesn't make sense to play baseball differently just because something out of the ordinary, like an 18 inning World Series game happens. That's like the overreaction from the tie game in the All-Star game that prompted home field advantage in the World Series because of an exhibition game result. I am cool with the ideas of implementing a NL DH (it's about time) and making a pitcher have to face at least 3 batters and other things like adding an extra roster spot all season and knocking down the roster number in September. We've put a runner on 2B in Senior SB tournaments for years..... It's really helped our attendance and fan interest....(Yawn). Most of us still resist the DH and have the pitchers bat. Keeps the ringers from showing up.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 8, 2019 21:11:18 GMT -5
The last time they lowered the mounds batting averages shot up and runs came back. It was after the year of the pitcher. Then it went too much the other way by the 1990s. Now the ERAs are more reasonable but the offense consists of the three true outcomes a lot more. I just think if they lower the mound further or worse move the pitching distance back, the runs/game could really boost and games could go a lot longer than they're going now. I think sometimes you just have to let that kind of thing ebb and flow and not try to create rules to control it. Well, they could lower the mound and deaden the ball. If the goal is to have more hits, less strikeouts and less hone runs, wouldn’t the combination allow all three? MLB appears to want the game to be more of a 1930s style game. In that scenario, the ball stays in the ball park, but there are lots of doubles and hits such that there is more excitement than guys walking and occasionally homering. THE only time the mound was lowered was after the 1966 season. Prior to that ground crews would follow instructions from the home team (manager, pitching coach, pitcher) as to the height and slope of the mound. Once the mounds were all the same the home field advantage dissipated and the playing field was "leveled" so to speak.
What MLB should do is to have an independent 3rd party test and certify all the balls for bounce/rebound. Softball leagues (mens women and co-ed) have over a dozen standards for core compression and they use one setting with which to certify (ball velocity) bat legality. We do this for the integrated of the game as well as to reduce injuries. Heck, we even have two bags for first base, one for the defender and one for the runner. Revenues and attendance are at an all time high.
|
|
|