774549495D6F4C45484D4245240 wrote: The more I think about it, the more I think the "three hitters per pitcher" thing is *almost* just as stupid as the DH. What if someone comes in and throws a ground ball double play? Is that not good enough? What about strategy? Again, pitching changes have been around as long as there has been baseball and it's not what is making games long (now that LaRussa is out)
I hate every one of these proposed "rule" changes. The NFL changes their rules every single year (usually to benefit the offense more and more). What sets baseball apart is that as a sport there are relatively few rule changes over time.
I can't stand the DH, and will only reluctantly watch an AL game anymore. In my mind, it takes all the strategy out of the game. Things like whether you leave a guy in in a 1-0 ball game, he's up in the bottom of the 7th with the tying run on first and two outs. Pinch hit? Let him stay in? Or, it's in the top of the 14th inning and the other team is out of bench players. Go ahead run gets on with two outs, but the pitcher's spot is two spots in the order away. Do you intentionally walk two guy, putting the go ahead run on third, but you get a relief pitcher up with two outs? These types of questions and scenarios are completely removed from the game when you add the DH.
Minimum three batters? That's crazy. That's messing with the integrity of the game. Lots of guys have jobs now because they are LOOGYs and ROOGYs. I don't necessarily like that their only job is to come in and get one guy out, but it is what it is. That's the game. Don't like it? Go watch curling or something. I don't know. But don't change the game!
Roster expansion...no. 25 players is plenty. Again, it adds a strategic element to the game. As for the suggestion of doing like what hockey does with their healthy scratches each game...I don't really like that idea either, because, as was said, you would just scratch yesterday's starter, and tomorrow's starter, who never would get into the game anyway (unless it went like 18 innings, and then usually only to pinch run or something). So, the net effect is really the same.
I'd be all in favor of widening the strike zone, or just enforcing it as the rule is currently written, especially the high strike. My understanding is that the strike zone is defined as the chest to the bottom of the knee. (It might be the top of the knee...I don't know...can't remember.) But my point is that most umpires won't call a pitch a strike that is above the belt. But, nobody comes to the ballpark to watch a 1-0, or 2-1 pitcher's duel. People want to see scoring. Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine said it a long time ago, "Chicks did the long ball." So, MLB tweaks around the edges, trying to "fix" something that isn't broken, while not actually fixing what truly IS broken.
Rule Changes
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
Rule Changes
One option about pitchers facing batters seems to have been skipped right over. I would like to see the requirement raised from one batter to two. It's a change in the right direction, but shouldn't take a pitching specialist's job away. There were over 1,000 instances where a reliever was brought in to face one batter. Upping that to two is a small, sensible change.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3642
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Rule Changes
537972427563636F000 wrote: One option about pitchers facing batters seems to have been skipped right over. I would like to see the requirement raised from one batter to two. It's a change in the right direction, but shouldn't take a pitching specialist's job away. There were over 1,000 instances where a reliever was brought in to face one batter. Upping that to two is a small, sensible change.
If they're going to do a change, I'd rather they limit the number of pitching changes per inning (which is what people don't like anyhow) over the number of batters any one pitcher faces.
How about double plays? Is that one batter or two? Is a pitcher that throws a GIDP "punished" by having to start the next inning?
My highest preference is that they don't mess with it.
If they're going to do a change, I'd rather they limit the number of pitching changes per inning (which is what people don't like anyhow) over the number of batters any one pitcher faces.
How about double plays? Is that one batter or two? Is a pitcher that throws a GIDP "punished" by having to start the next inning?
My highest preference is that they don't mess with it.
Rule Changes
I like the electronic strike zone, with anything touching the line we see on TV as being a strike. That alone would speed things up. On the free agent front, I would like to see an arbitration system where on Jan 20, if there is no deal, the offer the player prefers most, plus his counter to it, get submitted to binding baseball arbitration (that is, the arbitrator takes one number/term or the other). Anyone not signed by the 31st would be ineligible until May 15. For a number of reasons this couldn't be done, but it would fun to know what the offers really were.
Rule Changes
I actually wonder how seriously they are considering the three out rule (and a ban on shifts for that matter). I suspect they throw those truly radical ideas out there so people breathe a sigh of relief when they find out it's "only" going to be a pitch clock and universal DH.
(Overton Window for you poli sci nerds.)
(Overton Window for you poli sci nerds.)
Rule Changes
I still hate them all. Baseball is great just the way it is! Don't mess with it! But, baseball isn't exactly trying to appeal to me. I'm already hooked. As is pretty much everyone who posts on a team's message board or listens to MLB Radio, or watches MLB Network in the dead of winter. We're the diehards. We aren't going anywhere. It's the casual, fair weather fan that's driving these "changes." I loathe the DH coming to the NL. Utterly loathe it. The pitcher being an "automatic" out makes the NL game so much more interesting.
Let me sum up the AL game for you in a nutshell...stand around and wait for someone to hit a three run bomb. That's it. No strategy. No risk in not pinch hitting for your pitcher. No risk in taking him out...only thing to consider is if he's tired or not. Bench guys in the AL don't have to be as versatile.
Plus, the DH takes a major advantage away from a team that has a starting pitcher who can hit. Why the heck shouldn't the Giants be rewarded when Bumgarner pitches, or still more, the Angels when Ohtani pitches in an NL stadium? That'a a major advantage those teams enjoy when their guy who can rake is on the mound. The DH takes that advantage away.
I'll probably still reluctantly watch baseball if the DH comes to the NL, but I will find it a lot less interesting, and exciting. Not to mention that having one more regular to pay will further hamper the Bucs. I absolutely hate, hate, hate the DH.
Let me sum up the AL game for you in a nutshell...stand around and wait for someone to hit a three run bomb. That's it. No strategy. No risk in not pinch hitting for your pitcher. No risk in taking him out...only thing to consider is if he's tired or not. Bench guys in the AL don't have to be as versatile.
Plus, the DH takes a major advantage away from a team that has a starting pitcher who can hit. Why the heck shouldn't the Giants be rewarded when Bumgarner pitches, or still more, the Angels when Ohtani pitches in an NL stadium? That'a a major advantage those teams enjoy when their guy who can rake is on the mound. The DH takes that advantage away.
I'll probably still reluctantly watch baseball if the DH comes to the NL, but I will find it a lot less interesting, and exciting. Not to mention that having one more regular to pay will further hamper the Bucs. I absolutely hate, hate, hate the DH.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3642
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Rule Changes
I agree. Most of these changes are the equivalent of speeding up the game by making it 8 innings instead of 9.
I'll make an exception for the pitch clock. Sometimes the guy needs to stop screwing around and throw the stupid ball.
I'll make an exception for the pitch clock. Sometimes the guy needs to stop screwing around and throw the stupid ball.
Rule Changes
On requiring pitchers to pitch to two or three guys...again, it changes the structure of the game too much. Something comparable would be like the NHL saying that a guy has to play x number of minutes at even strength. He can't just be exclusively used on the penalty kill or power play. Why? What if that's where his strength is? If MLB teams want to employ a LOOGY and a ROOGY, who cares? If MLB is so concerned about cutting down on pitching changes, there's a simple solution to that...cut down on commercials. Most of the time, the guy is loose and ready in the bullpen anyway. The "time" is the never ending commercials that are airing on TV. But, clearly, MLB is willing to cut out those in-inning commercial breaks by requiring a pitcher pitch to two or three hitters. So, just cut out the commercials. Have the guy be loose and ready in the bullpen. He gets three warm-up tosses to get accustomed to the mound, and we're ready to go. No commercials. No wasted time.
This, along with the idiotic rule proposed for extra innings (start a guy on second base...what is that?) just mess with the game too much. Maybe next year, the PGA Tour can make a rule that you must use all 14 clubs in your bag at least once during every round you play. Frankly, I think this proposed rule is so absurd, it's laughable. Almost like Little League where they have an "everyone has to play" rule.
This, along with the idiotic rule proposed for extra innings (start a guy on second base...what is that?) just mess with the game too much. Maybe next year, the PGA Tour can make a rule that you must use all 14 clubs in your bag at least once during every round you play. Frankly, I think this proposed rule is so absurd, it's laughable. Almost like Little League where they have an "everyone has to play" rule.
-
Bobster21
Rule Changes
4D4546716742656A040 wrote: I still hate them all. Baseball is great just the way it is! Don't mess with it! But, baseball isn't exactly trying to appeal to me. I'm already hooked. As is pretty much everyone who posts on a team's message board or listens to MLB Radio, or watches MLB Network in the dead of winter. We're the diehards. We aren't going anywhere. It's the casual, fair weather fan that's driving these "changes." I loathe the DH coming to the NL. Utterly loathe it. The pitcher being an "automatic" out makes the NL game so much more interesting.
Let me sum up the AL game for you in a nutshell...stand around and wait for someone to hit a three run bomb. That's it. No strategy. No risk in not pinch hitting for your pitcher. No risk in taking him out...only thing to consider is if he's tired or not. Bench guys in the AL don't have to be as versatile.
Plus, the DH takes a major advantage away from a team that has a starting pitcher who can hit. Why the heck shouldn't be rewarded when Bumgarner pitches, or still more, the Angels when Ohtani pitches in an NL stadium? That'a a major advantage those teams enjoy when their guy who can rake is on the mound. The DH takes that advantage away.
I'll probably still reluctantly watch baseball if the DH comes to the NL, but I will find it a lot less interesting, and exciting. Not to mention that having one more regular to pay will further hamper the Bucs. I absolutely hate, hate, hate the DH.
I also detest the DH. The Orioles are my 2nd team so I see it in action every game. I love the strategy of pitching around someone to get to the pitcher, or the pitcher laying down a perfect sac bunt, or the decision of removing a pitcher for a PHer. And even though pitchers are usually easy outs, it's ok because that's part of the game and in those infrequent instances where a pitcher gets a hit, sometimes an RBI or even a HR, it is an exciting moment that's long remembered. The DH is just not baseball. It's a mutated version that makes no logical sense. Baseball players play both offense and defense. There have been middle infielders over the years who were weak hitters but were valuable because of their defense. It's no different with pitchers. They are not employed because of their ability to hit, but it's welcome if they can. AL pitchers don't even practice hitting until it becomes necessary for interleague play, so they are worse than they should be.
The excuse explanation for the DH when it was first implemented was that the fans wanted more hitting. However, there has never been and advantage in attendance for the AL. I think what will eventually bring this abomination to the NL is the owners' fear of having high paid pitchers get hurt batting or running. But the DH reduces the game of baseball to a lower standard, i.e., "Yeah, we know the guy doesn't field but we just want to watch him bat." But that's not how the game is supposed to be played. Funny how all those old sci-fi movies had everything in the future being so advanced. But all I see is standards being lowered for everything.
Let me sum up the AL game for you in a nutshell...stand around and wait for someone to hit a three run bomb. That's it. No strategy. No risk in not pinch hitting for your pitcher. No risk in taking him out...only thing to consider is if he's tired or not. Bench guys in the AL don't have to be as versatile.
Plus, the DH takes a major advantage away from a team that has a starting pitcher who can hit. Why the heck shouldn't be rewarded when Bumgarner pitches, or still more, the Angels when Ohtani pitches in an NL stadium? That'a a major advantage those teams enjoy when their guy who can rake is on the mound. The DH takes that advantage away.
I'll probably still reluctantly watch baseball if the DH comes to the NL, but I will find it a lot less interesting, and exciting. Not to mention that having one more regular to pay will further hamper the Bucs. I absolutely hate, hate, hate the DH.
I also detest the DH. The Orioles are my 2nd team so I see it in action every game. I love the strategy of pitching around someone to get to the pitcher, or the pitcher laying down a perfect sac bunt, or the decision of removing a pitcher for a PHer. And even though pitchers are usually easy outs, it's ok because that's part of the game and in those infrequent instances where a pitcher gets a hit, sometimes an RBI or even a HR, it is an exciting moment that's long remembered. The DH is just not baseball. It's a mutated version that makes no logical sense. Baseball players play both offense and defense. There have been middle infielders over the years who were weak hitters but were valuable because of their defense. It's no different with pitchers. They are not employed because of their ability to hit, but it's welcome if they can. AL pitchers don't even practice hitting until it becomes necessary for interleague play, so they are worse than they should be.
The excuse explanation for the DH when it was first implemented was that the fans wanted more hitting. However, there has never been and advantage in attendance for the AL. I think what will eventually bring this abomination to the NL is the owners' fear of having high paid pitchers get hurt batting or running. But the DH reduces the game of baseball to a lower standard, i.e., "Yeah, we know the guy doesn't field but we just want to watch him bat." But that's not how the game is supposed to be played. Funny how all those old sci-fi movies had everything in the future being so advanced. But all I see is standards being lowered for everything.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3642
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Rule Changes
634E43525544531310210 wrote: I still hate them all. Baseball is great just the way it is! Don't mess with it! But, baseball isn't exactly trying to appeal to me. I'm already hooked. As is pretty much everyone who posts on a team's message board or listens to MLB Radio, or watches MLB Network in the dead of winter. We're the diehards. We aren't going anywhere. It's the casual, fair weather fan that's driving these "changes." I loathe the DH coming to the NL. Utterly loathe it. The pitcher being an "automatic" out makes the NL game so much more interesting.
Let me sum up the AL game for you in a nutshell...stand around and wait for someone to hit a three run bomb. That's it. No strategy. No risk in not pinch hitting for your pitcher. No risk in taking him out...only thing to consider is if he's tired or not. Bench guys in the AL don't have to be as versatile.
Plus, the DH takes a major advantage away from a team that has a starting pitcher who can hit. Why the heck shouldn't be rewarded when Bumgarner pitches, or still more, the Angels when Ohtani pitches in an NL stadium? That'a a major advantage those teams enjoy when their guy who can rake is on the mound. The DH takes that advantage away.
I'll probably still reluctantly watch baseball if the DH comes to the NL, but I will find it a lot less interesting, and exciting. Not to mention that having one more regular to pay will further hamper the Bucs. I absolutely hate, hate, hate the DH.
I also detest the DH. The Orioles are my 2nd team so I see it in action every game. I love the strategy of pitching around someone to get to the pitcher, or the pitcher laying down a perfect sac bunt, or the decision of removing a pitcher for a PHer. And even though pitchers are usually easy outs, it's ok because that's part of the game and in those infrequent instances where a pitcher gets a hit, sometimes an RBI or even a HR, it is an exciting moment that's long remembered. The DH is just not baseball. It's a mutated version that makes no logical sense. Baseball players play both offense and defense. There have been middle infielders over the years who were weak hitters but were valuable because of their defense. It's no different with pitchers. They are not employed because of their ability to hit, but it's welcome if they can. AL pitchers don't even practice hitting until it becomes necessary for interleague play, so they are worse than they should be.
The excuse explanation for the DH when it was first implemented was that the fans wanted more hitting. However, there has never been and advantage in attendance for the AL. I think what will eventually bring this abomination to the NL is the owners' fear of having high paid pitchers get hurt batting or running. But the DH reduces the game of baseball to a lower standard, i.e., "Yeah, we know the guy doesn't field but we just want to watch him bat." But that's not how the game is supposed to be played. Funny how all those old sci-fi movies had everything in the future being so advanced. But all I see is standards being lowered for everything.
It'll be given up for some concession from the PA, like keeping the economic system terrible for example.
Let me sum up the AL game for you in a nutshell...stand around and wait for someone to hit a three run bomb. That's it. No strategy. No risk in not pinch hitting for your pitcher. No risk in taking him out...only thing to consider is if he's tired or not. Bench guys in the AL don't have to be as versatile.
Plus, the DH takes a major advantage away from a team that has a starting pitcher who can hit. Why the heck shouldn't be rewarded when Bumgarner pitches, or still more, the Angels when Ohtani pitches in an NL stadium? That'a a major advantage those teams enjoy when their guy who can rake is on the mound. The DH takes that advantage away.
I'll probably still reluctantly watch baseball if the DH comes to the NL, but I will find it a lot less interesting, and exciting. Not to mention that having one more regular to pay will further hamper the Bucs. I absolutely hate, hate, hate the DH.
I also detest the DH. The Orioles are my 2nd team so I see it in action every game. I love the strategy of pitching around someone to get to the pitcher, or the pitcher laying down a perfect sac bunt, or the decision of removing a pitcher for a PHer. And even though pitchers are usually easy outs, it's ok because that's part of the game and in those infrequent instances where a pitcher gets a hit, sometimes an RBI or even a HR, it is an exciting moment that's long remembered. The DH is just not baseball. It's a mutated version that makes no logical sense. Baseball players play both offense and defense. There have been middle infielders over the years who were weak hitters but were valuable because of their defense. It's no different with pitchers. They are not employed because of their ability to hit, but it's welcome if they can. AL pitchers don't even practice hitting until it becomes necessary for interleague play, so they are worse than they should be.
The excuse explanation for the DH when it was first implemented was that the fans wanted more hitting. However, there has never been and advantage in attendance for the AL. I think what will eventually bring this abomination to the NL is the owners' fear of having high paid pitchers get hurt batting or running. But the DH reduces the game of baseball to a lower standard, i.e., "Yeah, we know the guy doesn't field but we just want to watch him bat." But that's not how the game is supposed to be played. Funny how all those old sci-fi movies had everything in the future being so advanced. But all I see is standards being lowered for everything.
It'll be given up for some concession from the PA, like keeping the economic system terrible for example.