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
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,758
Member is Online
|
Post by mobaz on Feb 20, 2019 11:11:51 GMT -5
Very interesting. I honestly wonder if the Sox actually had a decent scheme last year or just got in everyone's heads. The analytics dept was obviously preparing folks well on pitcher trends, etc so that advantage will continue without stealing signs.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Andrews on Feb 20, 2019 11:36:38 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? Disagree, unless you mean nothing is happening in the short-term (which is definitely what you might mean). I think a few of these rules could be implemented, just maybe not until the next CBA. I think the 26-man roster and the universal DH could happen. I also think they do need to do something to speed up the game for the younger fans, even at the expense of slightly annoying the established fans. I also wouldn't be surprised if they come up with a rule to discourage the "Wade Miley pitches to 1 batter in Game 5 of the NLCS to screw with the Dodgers' lineup" opener approach. Some of the other stuff seems stupid.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 20, 2019 11:44:32 GMT -5
Yeah I meant in the short term. None of that was happening in 2019 and I think they let people think it would be by saying that some were only being discussed for future seasons.
|
|
|
Post by bluechip on Feb 20, 2019 16:36:13 GMT -5
Very interesting. I honestly wonder if the Sox actually had a decent scheme last year or just got in everyone's heads. The analytics dept was obviously preparing folks well on pitcher trends, etc so that advantage will continue without stealing signs. The Red Sox were super paranoid about sign stealing for what that’s worth.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 24, 2019 10:10:14 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? ... I also wouldn't be surprised if they come up with a rule to discourage the "Wade Miley pitches to 1 batter in Game 5 of the NLCS to screw with the Dodgers' lineup" opener approach. Some of the other stuff seems stupid. Honestly, I thought that was a great move by the Brewers. If you’re going to be that extreme, then you’re opening yourself up to a strategy like that.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Feb 24, 2019 10:56:18 GMT -5
Are there any studies on the human error of the Umps? Like as a group are the more likely to call bad strikes or bad balls during games?
Still think you make the calls using an electronic zone. So 100% a strike is a strike and a ball is a ball. No more having pitchers trying to figure out what that days certain ump zone is. It just sucks watching Baseball with their zone systems and umps blowing so many calls.
I 100% support pitcher having a 3 batter minimum unless it ends an inning. A ton of mid inning pitching changes aren't fun to watch. I love Joe Maddon but he is crazy with what he does with a bullpen.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 24, 2019 11:18:31 GMT -5
The dumb thing about pace of play discussions is that the most obvious ways to shorten games is to shorten breaks between innings and especially the warm up pitches for new relievers. But it will never even be discussed because baseball loves commercials more than it loves pace of play improvements.
Also, they absolutely cannot get rid of throwing the ball around the infield after a strikeout, especially with all of the strikeouts in today's game. It's the only thing that can keep the fielders "in the game". It's a physiological thing. You can't just stand around for 10 minutes and be expected to be ready to make a great defensive play.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Feb 24, 2019 12:11:15 GMT -5
The dumb thing about pace of play discussions is that the most obvious ways to shorten games is to shorten breaks between innings and especially the warm up pitches for new relievers. But it will never even be discussed because baseball loves commercials more than it loves pace of play improvements. Also, they absolutely cannot get rid of throwing the ball around the infield after a strikeout, especially with all of the strikeouts in today's game. It's the only thing that can keep the fielders "in the game". It's a physiological thing. You can't just stand around for 10 minutes and be expected to be ready to make a great defensive play. There’s two issues: 1) Game Length - yes they should shorten breaks.. make up revenue with soccer like game or inning sponsor. 2). Pace of play - can help this with pitch clocks, minimum amounts of batters for a reliever within an inning and possibly electronic strike zones, etc.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 25, 2019 9:17:55 GMT -5
I would trade intrusive advertising, even onto the uniforms, for shorter pitching change breaks. Obviously there would need to be a revenue tradeoff there. Traditionalists would hate it, but I'll take a faster-paced seventh-inning of a one-run game in exchange for a stupid "JetBlue" patch on the jersey and "Second base brought to you by Ameritrade."
Amongst other things, the original rules of baseball didn't plan for all of the mid-inning pitcher changes, because that wasn't a thing. So to fix it, you need to either make a rule to make it once again not a thing, or just make it happen faster. It seems harder to do the former. The latter requires a tradeoff with advertisers finding more space within the game itself, and I'm okay with that.
|
|
|
Post by geostorm on Feb 26, 2019 19:20:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Feb 26, 2019 21:46:42 GMT -5
BRING ON THE ROBOT UMPS! If you get in an argument with the robot, will they disintegrate you as retaliation?
|
|
|
Post by mredsox89 on Feb 26, 2019 22:04:14 GMT -5
I do think it's a pretty nifty move by MLB to test some new stuff by basically paying an independent league through either straight $ or gear/technology. It's a workaround from putting things in MILB ballparks, where at the lower levels, most stadiums don't have the capacity to test some of these things out. Also makes it so they don't have to deal with the union whatsoever when testing these things out.
And I'm sure many Indy teams are happy about it, because many operate at barely a net profit at best, and now they're getting paid by MLB
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 26, 2019 22:40:08 GMT -5
I do think it's a pretty nifty move by MLB to test some new stuff by basically paying an independent league through either straight $ or gear/technology. It's a workaround from putting things in MILB ballparks, where at the lower levels, most stadiums don't have the capacity to test some of these things out. Also makes it so they don't have to deal with the union whatsoever when testing these things out. And I'm sure many Indy teams are happy about it, because many operate at barely a net profit at best, and now they're getting paid by MLB For what it's worth, if lower level affiliated stadiums can't handle something, it's unlikely an Indy stadium will.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Feb 26, 2019 23:55:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 27, 2019 8:50:39 GMT -5
What problem are they trying to solve with this? And what are you booing about? It seems like a completely unnecessary rule that will have no affect on anything.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 27, 2019 8:53:38 GMT -5
Trying to scout those teams with the mound moved back would be incredibly difficult. I don't think you could determine anything about the pitchers or the batters other than how their motions or swings look.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 27, 2019 9:37:15 GMT -5
I have feeling there would be serious biomechanical issues with moving the mound back, at least initially. Hard to see how such a radical change requiring different muscle movements would be less than damaging to players who've trained at the existing distance for all of their pro careers.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 27, 2019 9:51:11 GMT -5
I have feeling there would be serious biomechanical issues with moving the mound back, at least initially. Hard to see how such a radical change requiring different muscle movements would be less than damaging to players who've trained at the existing distance for all of their pro careers. It's kind of bizarre to think about. This isn't a decision to be taken lightly. If they're going to move the mound back, they have to do it on every baseball field everywhere, starting with high school fields. They cannot have baseball using different rules everywhere. Players can adjust, but they cannot go back and forth depending on what league they're in. That's just not fair to anyone.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Feb 27, 2019 10:19:36 GMT -5
I have feeling there would be serious biomechanical issues with moving the mound back, at least initially. Hard to see how such a radical change requiring different muscle movements would be less than damaging to players who've trained at the existing distance for all of their pro careers. Maaaaaaybe, but I think it depends on how far you have to move it to get the desired effect. If it's six inches or a foot, I don't think it's that much of an adjustment for pitchers; probably just trying to hit a little bit of a tighter target with their breaking stuff. If it's five feet, yeah, I think that could really screw everyone up. Changing the mound hight on the other hand seems way scarier from that perspective, but then again they did it once before and I don't remember any stories about how it broke half the pitchers in the league. Of course, pitching was a much different game back then, guys weren't pitching at max effort nearly as often and probably weren't as locked in on their mechanics either. Long story short, I don't know how any of this stuff would really play out, but moving the mound back a small amount (say six inches) seems like a safe way to start experimenting with this stuff.
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Mar 14, 2019 8:45:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 14, 2019 9:21:49 GMT -5
Lots of interesting stuff in there and it's now official. The 26 man roster and the 3 batter minimum for relief pitchers comes in 2020. September rosters will be limited to 28. This year, there will be no waiver wire trade deadline. The 3 batter minimum effectively kills the LOOGY forever, which I'm not sad about. Also of note, super utility players will always remain useful, but I think their value has gone down with an extra roster spot. It'll be interesting to see how that spot is used by most teams. Maybe a dedicated pinch runner? 3rd catchers becoming the norm? It's hard getting playing time to the 25th man on the roster at times, so we'll see about #26. The number of pitchers will be limited as well so it's not just going to be 14 pitchers on every team. They mention 13 as the limit with 14 in September. What was missing from the article was any mention about the DH in the NL. Also of note, this is the first indication that both sides realize they have a lot of work to do on the next CBA so they're going to start now instead of waiting until the last minute. It seems a little more optimistic that something can eventually be worked out given that they actually agreed to the rule changes while also acknowledging all the work they need to do on the CBA.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 14, 2019 9:43:21 GMT -5
I could see more teams carrying a third catcher, and then being much more willing to pinch hit if they're playing their defense-first guy. And then, by extension, the pinch hitter on the roster seeing a little bit of an uptick in playing time as well. To put it in 2014 terms, Mike Carp is more useful if you'll pinch hit him for David Ross, and you're more willing to pinch hit for David Ross if you're carrying Dan Butler. Even moreso if you know Carp's going to have to face that RHP who just entered the game one batter previously.
Three-batter minimum wasn't my first choice, but I'm not sad about it. I also think it fits well with the extra roster spot - my worry was that teams would just carry a 14th pitcher, but that's not the same value if you can't just switch guys out. No reason for a team to think about carrying two LOOGY's anymore
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Mar 14, 2019 10:02:25 GMT -5
This is progress, but it’s baby steps. The DH in both leagues should be required with the roster expansion to 26 players. And if they want the All Star game to have value/cache, they should make it a $50M winner take all affair with $ split evenly amongst the players on the roster (i.e. the guys voted in who blow it off get nothing). I hate the All Star game and want my guys to rest, but if they must have the thing, at least put some skin in the game.
Also, they need a way to reduce the tanking by taking away its greatest reward - draft position. It may be radical, but I would suggest juggling the draft in a way that incentivizes winning - perhaps by putting all the teams that make the playoffs - so 10 teams total - in an NBA style draft lottery with each team having equal opportunity to get top 10 pick positions for ALL rounds. This would reward teams for investing in talent AND winning.
Less radical would be allowing all teams to trade draft picks in the first through fourth round with their accompanying money within a three year period. So, for example, if Team A has the #1 pick this year, they could trade it and it’s money to Team B for their #1 this year and #3 next uear and two years from now, etc., or Team C could trade All Star X plus a #2 next year for the #1 this year, et al. So, if a cellar team truly wants to get better now or soon and has high picks, they can trade them now for proven impact players (or more picks, which could, in theory, continue with the tanking but could also shorten it as they amass more talent more quickly).
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 14, 2019 11:50:21 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.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 14, 2019 11:55:16 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.
|
|
|