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
redsox04071318champs
Veteran
Always hoping to make my handle even longer...
Posts: 15,642
Member is Online
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Feb 8, 2019 22:09:58 GMT -5
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. That's fine for senior league softball games and I can live with it during spring training or the All-Star game but I'd hate for any real baseball game to be decided that way.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Feb 8, 2019 23:04:32 GMT -5
So apparently the NL owners are being stubborn again with the DH rule all over again. Ugh. Booo the NL. BOOOOOO. The only reason why owners of the NL don't want DH's is because they don't want to pay more players to hit professionally. It's like the owners are trying avoid paying every which way to pay in every facet. Are they spending too much on their personal lives or something? This is starting to get ridiculous. First free agency and now they don't want to add a position to their league that makes the game better.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Feb 9, 2019 7:07:45 GMT -5
The only reason why owners of the NL don't want DH's is because they don't want to pay more players to hit professionally. It's like the owners are trying avoid paying every which way to pay in every facet. Are they spending too much on their personal lives or something? This is starting to get ridiculous. First free agency and now they don't want to add a position to their league that makes the game better. See I don’t see the DH as increasing the total money spent salaries. Every team has an optimal amount of money to spend and a budget. I just see it changing allocation. NL teams with one less starter, can allocate that money to the other 8 position players, the starting rotation and the bullpen. Therefore they have an advantage versus AL teams in team building.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Feb 9, 2019 7:31:54 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. 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. I am pretty sure MLB knows how the ball core reacts. My suggestion for lowering the mound is to descrease strikeouts (ie more balls in play). My suggestion for deadening the ball is to decrease home runs (ie more balls in play). If one is done with the other it will favor offense or defense too drastically. MLB has already paid for at least one study exploring mound height. www.ksdk.com/mobile/article/sports/mlb/will-mlb-lower-the-pitchers-mound/448854491the height of the mound in 1966 was set without really much scientific basis, in an era were velocities don’t match today’s game. The distance from home to the mound was set in the 19th century. I believe that MLB should explore combining these two changes to reach an optimal result. If we know what velocity and spin rate will be on a lowered mound, and we know what exit velocity will be on a deadened ball, we should be able to get an idea of the amount of balls in play. Balls in play mean more
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 9, 2019 7:44:28 GMT -5
I have not heard anything from MLB stating they want to reduce HR and strikeouts. Why is anyone even talking about that? All I hear is them wanting to make the game more arcade-like because the ADHD crowd can't pay attention to anything other than home runs they can look up at while reading twitter and instagram.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Feb 9, 2019 7:58:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 9, 2019 8:48:50 GMT -5
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. [/b]I am pretty sure MLB knows how the ball core reacts. My suggestion for lowering the mound is to descrease strikeouts (ie more balls in play). My suggestion for deadening the ball is to decrease home runs (ie more balls in play). If one is done with the other it will favor offense or defense too drastically.[/b] I have seen no evidence of core temperature consistency in MLB balls. Teams have been known to freeze game balls prior to the first pitch. This has a drastic effect on bat velocities. MLB has already paid for at least one study exploring mound height. www.ksdk.com/mobile/article/sports/mlb/will-mlb-lower-the-pitchers-mound/448854491While this studying appears interesting, my take is that it fails to take several bio mechanical issues into account. Specifically any measurement of the individual pitchers physical maturity/ability to reliably or safely utilize his given ability. I make the assumption that a pitcher is best suited to subject his elbow/wrist/shoulder stresses only after his physical growth has reached it's peak (23.9 years is the accepted average). I could be wrong in that assumption, but it does coincide with the preponderance of sub 24 year old reconstructive surgeries in pitchers. Speculating with respect to "norms" also fails to take into account the genetic anomaly outside the bell curve. Walter Johnson, Bob Feller, Bob Gibson, Nolan Ryan and perhaps even Justin Verlander come to mind.If optimum performance from pitchers accepts the miracle of modern medicine (spin rate at all costs), then let it be so. Standardize the mound height according to your study, but for the sake of the games integrity keep the mound distance to home plate, otherwise based on your premise of "more action" change the 19th century rule of 90 feet between bases. (The 19th Century "Boston" distance was 75 feet and quickly gave way to the New Jersey/New York rule of 90 feet, circa 1884. the height of the mound in 1966 was set without really much scientific basis, in an era were velocities don’t match today’s game. The distance from home to the mound was set in the 19th century. This was an arbitrary decision to remove home field advantage. There are legions of stories that account for this. The one that was sold to the fans was offensive production. The real story is that this eliminated the advantage that many home teams exploited to give advantage to their pitchers (perceived or otherwise). Sandy Koufax quit the game, Bob Gibson kept on truckin'. I believe that MLB should explore combining these two changes to reach an optimal result. If we know what velocity and spin rate will be on a lowered mound, and we know what exit velocity will be on a deadened ball, we should be able to get an idea of the amount of balls in play. I'm not sure what "optimal result" entails. My take is that the game is best understood (by players and fans alike) if they focus on adjustments and match ups. Some component to this is psychological for the players (I'm not sure the fan(atic) possess that faculty, but again I could be wrong.) Balls in play mean more
If your metric is balls in play, then we are at loggerheads. I can get as much enjoyment out of the routine play by observing the minute shifts in defensive alignment and the body language of the batter and pitcher (mostly the batter) from pitch to pitch.Of course you have to be there in person to pick up these subtleties because you just don't get them from s screen. But hey that's just one man's opinion. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by costpet on Feb 9, 2019 11:58:56 GMT -5
The distance between the pitcher's mound and home plate is 60'6". I always wondered why the 6 inches. Who thought that up and when did it happen? Does the extra 6" make a big difference? If so, should that add another 6" to help the batter and lessen the strikeouts?
I just thought the extra 6" was weird.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 9, 2019 12:45:09 GMT -5
The distance between the pitcher's mound and home plate is 60'6". I always wondered why the 6 inches. Who thought that up and when did it happen? Does the extra 6" make a big difference? If so, should that add another 6" to help the batter and lessen the strikeouts? I just thought the extra 6" was weird. You can look it up easily enough but the short version is that the six inches was a mistake the stuck.
|
|
|
Post by maxwellsdemon on Feb 9, 2019 12:47:37 GMT -5
THe midpoint between Home and Second is a smidge over 63 feet 7 and a half inches away. If the moved the mound back closer to there, say to 63 feet 6 inches what effect would that have? I save any discussion of impact on pitchers' arms etc for those who might know something about it and stick with numbers.
Average MLB fastball is now @ 92 mph. At 60'6" that gives the batter about 0.4484 seconds to react, at 63'6" that becomes 0.4706 seconds However the average release point occurs nearer to 55 feet, a distance which would become approximately 58 feet. Here the timing is 0.4076 versus 0.4298, an increase of nearly 5.5%.
Maybe you slightly deaden the ball to prevent a homer outbreak, maybe not. More offense means longer games so other pace of play things could compensate: e.g. minimum batters faced, limited visits to mound or throws to first, pitch clock.
THey made an even more radical change (in percentage terms, same 3 feet) in women's fast pitch softball when the game became too one sided, almost TWO true outcomes .
|
|
|
Post by costpet on Feb 9, 2019 13:28:20 GMT -5
Okay. Looked it up as suggested. In 1893 it was changed from the original 50ft. It was supposed to be 60ft, but when the guy wrote it down, he had sloppy hand writing. The "ft" sort of looked like a 6, so it was interpreted as a 6" and remained there even though people realized it was wrong. Baseball has a thing with tradition. Just ask the NL with regard to the DH.
The other rule change that's being suggested is keeping a pitcher in for a minimum of 3 batters. Imagine a manager pulling out his hair as his pitcher is getting drilled and can't take him out. That will never happen. Unless you like bald managers.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 9, 2019 15:47:51 GMT -5
Move the pitching rubber back 3 feet and you open up the bunting game, and we all know how this board eschews the bunt.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 9, 2019 16:16:07 GMT -5
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. You'll want to reconsider your statement, here. There is no free market during what is more often than not the most valuable part of a player's career. So the backend correction needs a frontend correction to address what is really at the heart of the problem: a market inefficiency that allows ownership to take 90% and more of a players value when they are at their best with no competition at all for those services. The free market jargon is meaningless unless you're willing to address that inefficiency.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 9, 2019 19:23:27 GMT -5
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. You'll want to reconsider your statement, here. There is no free market during what is more often than not the most valuable part of a player's career. So the backend correction needs a frontend correction to address what is really at the heart of the problem: a market inefficiency that allows ownership to take 90% and more of a players value when they are at their best with no competition at all for those services.Okay, I'll bite where is the mention of free market in this thread. The market correction taking place is to a market regulated, mostly by the current CBA. The "frontend" correction is the revenue infusion courtesy of big media complete with advertising revenues. These contracts are negotiated by MLB and individual teams. Congress has given team owners rights (priveleges?) with respect to negotiating with labor (players). The resolution that you seem to be hinting at would be through a new CBA with the players union making revenue sharing demands. I can just envision Aaron Judge in uniform doing a 10 second clip for viagra during a TV time out and just before Chris Sale K's him a-la Manny Machado. Must see TV. The free market jargon is meaningless unless you're willing to address that inefficiency. The only free markets are one's that are unregulated. Drug dealing is the best example.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 9, 2019 19:34:51 GMT -5
You'll want to reconsider your statement, here. There is no free market during what is more often than not the most valuable part of a player's career. So the backend correction needs a frontend correction to address what is really at the heart of the problem: a market inefficiency that allows ownership to take 90% and more of a players value when they are at their best with no competition at all for those services.Okay, I'll bite where is the mention of free market in this thread. The market correction taking place is to a market regulated, mostly by the current CBA. The "frontend" correction is the revenue infusion courtesy of big media complete with advertising revenues. These contracts are negotiated by MLB and individual teams. Congress has given team owners rights (priveleges?) with respect to negotiating with labor (players). The resolution that you seem to be hinting at would be through a new CBA with the players union making revenue sharing demands. I can just envision Aaron Judge in uniform doing a 10 second clip for viagra during a TV time out and just before Chris Sale K's him a-la Manny Machado. Must see TV. The free market jargon is meaningless unless you're willing to address that inefficiency. The only free markets are one's that are unregulated. Drug dealing is the best example. Drug dealing is pretty regulated - as in it’s illegal. That’s a black market - hardly a free one.
|
|
|
Post by maxwellsdemon on Feb 9, 2019 20:47:13 GMT -5
Move the pitching rubber back 3 feet and you open up the bunting game, and we all know how this board eschews the bunt. Actually it would more likely put a bit more emphasis on athleticism of pitchers,catchers and corner infielders. And I think the board eschews the sacrifice bunt, not bunting for a hit so there's that also.
|
|
|
Post by libertine on Feb 10, 2019 1:11:05 GMT -5
Ok I just need to clear up some stuff about the mound height. The mound prior to 1969 was 15". In 1963 MLB increased the top of the strike zone to the top of the shoulders in response to what Maris and Mantle did in 1961. With a 15" high mound and an increased strike zone pitchers ran riot. The 60's was the decade of the pitcher. 1963 coincided with the beginning of Koufax's insane 4 year run to end his career. In 1968 Bob Gibson was 22-9 with a 1.12 ERA. The same year in the AL Denny McLain became the last pitcher to win 30 games, 31-6 with a 1.97 ERA. Yaz was the only AL hitter to break .300 that season. The Year of the Pitcher.
MLB responded, realizing they had gone too far in helping the pitchers, in 1969 (not 1966) by lowering the mound to 10" and moving the top of the strike zone back down to the midpoint between the shoulders and the belt. It was not about, somehow, negating home field advantage. It was completely about injecting more offense back in the game that the pitchers had dominated for the previous 6 years. It worked.
As I was typing this I was thinking what Pedro in his prime would have done throwing off a 15" high mound with a strike zone that extended to the top of the shoulders. LOL, he probably would have had and ERA below 1.00 and likely would have struck out 400+ batters for at least a couple of the years.
The point being I think history shows that lowering the mound helps the hitters. And I think a conclusion can be assumed that higher scoring games lead to longer games. So I think lowering the mound will not help MLB reduce the length of the games and will actually increase it.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 10, 2019 8:56:23 GMT -5
Move the pitching rubber back 3 feet and you open up the bunting game, and we all know how this board eschews the bunt. [/quote ]Actually it would more likely put a bit more emphasis on athleticism of pitchers,catchers and corner infielders. And I think the board eschews the sacrifice bunt, not bunting for a hit so there's that also. Well that would take care of about 1/5 of today's starting rotations, C.C. Sabbath comes to mind. Kansas City would be an overnight contender. Omar Vizquell would come out of retirement. Blake Swihart would have a starting job.Raphael Devers would be a DH. The ramifications would go on and on. But the real reason it won't happen is due to the radical change in pitching statistics. SABR would implode.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 10, 2019 9:14:38 GMT -5
The only free markets are one's that are unregulated. Drug dealing is the best example. Drug dealing is pretty regulated - as in it’s illegal. That’s a black market - hardly a free one. I'm not referencing big pharma. Black markets are not free markets, they infringe on copyrights like rolex The products themselves are not illegal. Free markets have no price controls, no quality assurance, cartels thrive and they don't pay taxes. There are no barriers to entry. Read some Adam Smith.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 10, 2019 9:55:01 GMT -5
Drug dealing is pretty regulated - as in it’s illegal. That’s a black market - hardly a free one. I'm not referencing big pharma. Black markets are not free markets, they infringe on copyrights like rolex The products themselves are not illegal. Free markets have no price controls, no quality assurance, cartels thrive and they don't pay taxes. There are no barriers to entry. Read some Adam Smith. Huh? Who said anything about big Pharma? Cartels and the illicit drug trade don’t operate in a free market. They operate in a seedy underworld where everything they do is illegal. Getting arrested or killed is a pretty big barrier to entry.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Feb 10, 2019 10:28:20 GMT -5
Ok I just need to clear up some stuff about the mound height. The mound prior to 1969 was 15". In 1963 MLB increased the top of the strike zone to the top of the shoulders in response to what Maris and Mantle did in 1961. With a 15" high mound and an increased strike zone pitchers ran riot. The 60's was the decade of the pitcher. 1963 coincided with the beginning of Koufax's insane 4 year run to end his career. In 1968 Bob Gibson was 22-9 with a 1.12 ERA. The same year in the AL Denny McLain became the last pitcher to win 30 games, 31-6 with a 1.97 ERA. Yaz was the only AL hitter to break .300 that season. The Year of the Pitcher. MLB responded, realizing they had gone too far in helping the pitchers, in 1969 (not 1966) by lowering the mound to 10" and moving the top of the strike zone back down to the midpoint between the shoulders and the belt. It was not about, somehow, negating home field advantage. It was completely about injecting more offense back in the game that the pitchers had dominated for the previous 6 years. It worked. As I was typing this I was thinking what Pedro in his prime would have done throwing off a 15" high mound with a strike zone that extended to the top of the shoulders. LOL, he probably would have had and ERA below 1.00 and likely would have struck out 400+ batters for at least a couple of the years. The point being I think history shows that lowering the mound helps the hitters. And I think a conclusion can be assumed that higher scoring games lead to longer games. So I think lowering the mound will not help MLB reduce the length of the games and will actually increase it. Koufax, once in Los Angeles, had mounds as high as 22" when he started (not so Drysdale). Sandy's ERA was close to one run less per nine when pitching in Chavez ravine. He took full advantage of his home field grounds crew. This possibly also contributed to his premature arm problems, but we will never know because he quit prior to the mound lowering rules taking affect. Bob Gibson, OTOH, was less concerned about where he towed the rubber. His career splits were within .25 runs per nine home or away. There is no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise to suggest that Gibson had the ground crews tailor the mound to suit his wishes. Pedro probably would have blown out his arm by age 30, a-la Koufax had he had the grounds crew give him an extra 5 inches or so to his mound. Keep in mind that the dimensions of ballparks evolved also. Ebbets field was replaced by Chavez ravine, as an example. There was no DH and there was more emphasis on defense. When serious hitters like Ernie Banks showed up they were moved to positions like 1B almost automatically. (Joe Torre is another example). Pitchers like Ryne Duren suffered from the new strike zone. Walks went up which contributed to offensive production, but not necessarily to the entertainment value for the fan. I have no issues with the length of games, but I do believe if that is a concern that the chief reason has to do with mound visits and pitching changes. Part of me likes this, part of me find it interminable. Since I'm not fond of watching baseball on a screen, I could care less. Once confined to a screen I usually find something else to do when this situation reaches my attention threshold.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 10, 2019 23:16:37 GMT -5
I mean, we can all agree that none of this is happening and that someone planted it with Passan to try and drum up interest in the season besides the fact that some of the best players in the game are still free agents with pitchers and catchers about to report?
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Feb 10, 2019 23:23:59 GMT -5
I mean, we can all agree that none of this is happening and that someone planted it with Passan to try and drum up interest in the season besides the fact that some of the best players in the game are still free agents with pitchers and catchers about to report? Won't happen this year, but could happen in the future. 2020 or at the very least in the next CBA. The mound visit rule could be changed this year from 6 to 4. Maybe the pitch clock too if Manfred enforces it.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Feb 18, 2019 21:52:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Feb 20, 2019 5:21:58 GMT -5
|
|
|