Rule Changes
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
Rule Changes
The big problem I see (and the DH is a symptom of it) is that the game is devolving into home run derby. Hitting the opposite way and getting on base is now forgotten. But that aside, I agree with the thought that the injury risk to pitchers is now the motivating factor on owner's parts.
Rule Changes
Electronic strike zone - Yes, please.
DH - No. An emphatic No. Ivan Nova clearly had little interest in hitting and was nearly always an automatic out, but that is no reason to have the DH.
26 man roster - I think this makes sense, provided that there is a limit (12) on the number of pitchers on a roster. Too many times teams in the NL have very limited benches because of minor injuries that take one or more players away from a game. Also, some of the travel schedules at the major league level are brutal. Catchers could be the main beneficiary of this change.
3 batter requirement - No. I too prefer limiting the number of pitch changes per inning. Less concern if this rule only would apply to the first inning.
One not on the list - The ML need to better refine the no contact with catcher rule. Too much inconsistency in how it has been applied.
DH - No. An emphatic No. Ivan Nova clearly had little interest in hitting and was nearly always an automatic out, but that is no reason to have the DH.
26 man roster - I think this makes sense, provided that there is a limit (12) on the number of pitchers on a roster. Too many times teams in the NL have very limited benches because of minor injuries that take one or more players away from a game. Also, some of the travel schedules at the major league level are brutal. Catchers could be the main beneficiary of this change.
3 batter requirement - No. I too prefer limiting the number of pitch changes per inning. Less concern if this rule only would apply to the first inning.
One not on the list - The ML need to better refine the no contact with catcher rule. Too much inconsistency in how it has been applied.
Rule Changes
I just posted about the steroid era in baseball in another thread, and it got me thinking...I think most of these proposed rule changes are a direct result of the effect steroids have had on baseball. Here's what I mean. Consider the following:
Glavine and Maddux were right. Chicks did the long ball.
1. Removing steroids from the game simultaneously had an net negative impact on offense.
2. Improved throwing programs for pitchers led to increases in velocity. It used to be throwing 95 made you a power pitcher. Dennis Quade's character Jimmy Morris said to his wife in The Rookie, "You know how many guys can throw 98? I can count 'em on one hand." Now, there's five in every bullpen. And every kid is trying to light up radar guns to impress scouts. Hence, more TJ surgeries, and more guys popping 98-99.
3. On the offensive side of the ball, long balls get you paid, even if objectively a guy who gets on base might be more valuable to a team.
So, we have this combination of guys off the juice who are still trying to hit the long ball against pitchers who all throw 98.
What does that equal? Lots of dingers and lots of Ks.
So, how does MLB combat that...lower the mound and back it up (to what, 61 feet? 62 feet?), add a universal DH, use pitch clocks, have a three-batter minimum to eliminate the "specialist" role.
The whole thing is absurd and just reeks of manipulating the game. The game has been fine for over 100 years. It will be fine 100 from now if they don't muck around with it.
As the saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
Glavine and Maddux were right. Chicks did the long ball.
1. Removing steroids from the game simultaneously had an net negative impact on offense.
2. Improved throwing programs for pitchers led to increases in velocity. It used to be throwing 95 made you a power pitcher. Dennis Quade's character Jimmy Morris said to his wife in The Rookie, "You know how many guys can throw 98? I can count 'em on one hand." Now, there's five in every bullpen. And every kid is trying to light up radar guns to impress scouts. Hence, more TJ surgeries, and more guys popping 98-99.
3. On the offensive side of the ball, long balls get you paid, even if objectively a guy who gets on base might be more valuable to a team.
So, we have this combination of guys off the juice who are still trying to hit the long ball against pitchers who all throw 98.
What does that equal? Lots of dingers and lots of Ks.
So, how does MLB combat that...lower the mound and back it up (to what, 61 feet? 62 feet?), add a universal DH, use pitch clocks, have a three-batter minimum to eliminate the "specialist" role.
The whole thing is absurd and just reeks of manipulating the game. The game has been fine for over 100 years. It will be fine 100 from now if they don't muck around with it.
As the saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
-
DemDog
Rule Changes
040C0F382E0B2C234D0 wrote: I just posted about the steroid era in baseball in another thread, and it got me thinking...I think most of these proposed rule changes are a direct result of the effect steroids have had on baseball. Here's what I mean. Consider the following:
Glavine and Maddux were right. Chicks did the long ball.
1. Removing steroids from the game simultaneously had an net negative impact on offense.
2. Improved throwing programs for pitchers led to increases in velocity. It used to be throwing 95 made you a power pitcher. Dennis Quade's character Jimmy Morris said to his wife in The Rookie, "You know how many guys can throw 98? I can count 'em on one hand." Now, there's five in every bullpen. And every kid is trying to light up radar guns to impress scouts. Hence, more TJ surgeries, and more guys popping 98-99.
3. On the offensive side of the ball, long balls get you paid, even if objectively a guy who gets on base might be more valuable to a team.
So, we have this combination of guys off the juice who are still trying to hit the long ball against pitchers who all throw 98.
What does that equal? Lots of dingers and lots of Ks.
So, how does MLB combat that...lower the mound and back it up (to what, 61 feet? 62 feet?), add a universal DH, use pitch clocks, have a three-batter minimum to eliminate the "specialist" role.
The whole thing is absurd and just reeks of manipulating the game. The game has been fine for over 100 years. It will be fine 100 from now if they don't muck around with it.
As the saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
Great post! Have to agree with all you said. It is indeed sexy to be a HR hitter. Chicks don't like the short chubby guy nearly like they do the chiseled 6'4" hairy chested lifeguard type guy.
Baseball screwed around in '69 with the mound after Bob Gibson's great season. What they did was react to a season by one of the best and most competitive pitchers of all time, not just my lifetime. Now they want to screw around and take away from current day pitchers that have taken advantage of new training techniques and pitching ideas. As for young pitchers, I think baseball needs to concentrate less on having them throw the ball through the backstop and focus more on control and command. I love to see a hitter make an out after being fooled by a sharp breaking ball. I love to see Vasquez K a guy with his killer changeup as much as with his 100 mph fastball.
As for young hitters, teams have to realize that a well-timed double is sometimes more important than a HR. They need to be taught to be cognizant of the K zone be able to get the walk-off hit even if it is not a HR. Winning by one run counts as much in the standings as winning by 20 runs. Hitters need to understand how to move runners along in the scheme of things.
As for the DH. Never liked it, never will! Until the DH came around a manager had to account for the pitcher coming to the plate. Sometimes you had to PH for a guy who was twirling a great game but was a run behind. Now in the AL that does not happen much at all.
Finally, I am taken back to my days as a kid. The 60's Pirates had Maz and Dr. Strangeglove on the team. Which on was more important to that team? Why it's easy to figure out. Maz! Not so much for his WS HR but for his work with the glove. Who was the starting 1B in game 7? A journeyman 1B, Rocky Nelson. A guy who could do much more with the glove than Stuart and still provide some pop with the bat. Trivia here, it was Nelson who hit the 1st Bucs HR in game 7. Without that Maz never gets the chance to hit his. What I am getting at is that the kids we see today are not always of top defensive capability. And the teams do not spend near the time on helping them become at least average defensively as they do trying to make a slugger out of a guy. Case in point is Polanco. How many times have we seen him take a bad route to a ball, turn the wrong way on a flyball? Cory Dickerson is an example of a guy who changed his style of play to become a much more complete player. One who hit with some pop but also got on base more and became a GG LFer as he focused on fundamentals more than in the past.
The Bucs need to quit turning young ballplayers in jack of all trades guys like JHay. Super subs like Josh do not come around all that often. Players need to learn 1 or maybe 2 positions and become better at those 2 positions. They are dealing with one like that now in Adam Frazer. Let the guy play 2B. Adam should have spent time this winter working on his D at 2nd base and moving to better to his right. It would have made him a better player and the Bucs a better team.
I'm running out of characters for this post so I will shut up and see what comes of it.
Glavine and Maddux were right. Chicks did the long ball.
1. Removing steroids from the game simultaneously had an net negative impact on offense.
2. Improved throwing programs for pitchers led to increases in velocity. It used to be throwing 95 made you a power pitcher. Dennis Quade's character Jimmy Morris said to his wife in The Rookie, "You know how many guys can throw 98? I can count 'em on one hand." Now, there's five in every bullpen. And every kid is trying to light up radar guns to impress scouts. Hence, more TJ surgeries, and more guys popping 98-99.
3. On the offensive side of the ball, long balls get you paid, even if objectively a guy who gets on base might be more valuable to a team.
So, we have this combination of guys off the juice who are still trying to hit the long ball against pitchers who all throw 98.
What does that equal? Lots of dingers and lots of Ks.
So, how does MLB combat that...lower the mound and back it up (to what, 61 feet? 62 feet?), add a universal DH, use pitch clocks, have a three-batter minimum to eliminate the "specialist" role.
The whole thing is absurd and just reeks of manipulating the game. The game has been fine for over 100 years. It will be fine 100 from now if they don't muck around with it.
As the saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
Great post! Have to agree with all you said. It is indeed sexy to be a HR hitter. Chicks don't like the short chubby guy nearly like they do the chiseled 6'4" hairy chested lifeguard type guy.
Baseball screwed around in '69 with the mound after Bob Gibson's great season. What they did was react to a season by one of the best and most competitive pitchers of all time, not just my lifetime. Now they want to screw around and take away from current day pitchers that have taken advantage of new training techniques and pitching ideas. As for young pitchers, I think baseball needs to concentrate less on having them throw the ball through the backstop and focus more on control and command. I love to see a hitter make an out after being fooled by a sharp breaking ball. I love to see Vasquez K a guy with his killer changeup as much as with his 100 mph fastball.
As for young hitters, teams have to realize that a well-timed double is sometimes more important than a HR. They need to be taught to be cognizant of the K zone be able to get the walk-off hit even if it is not a HR. Winning by one run counts as much in the standings as winning by 20 runs. Hitters need to understand how to move runners along in the scheme of things.
As for the DH. Never liked it, never will! Until the DH came around a manager had to account for the pitcher coming to the plate. Sometimes you had to PH for a guy who was twirling a great game but was a run behind. Now in the AL that does not happen much at all.
Finally, I am taken back to my days as a kid. The 60's Pirates had Maz and Dr. Strangeglove on the team. Which on was more important to that team? Why it's easy to figure out. Maz! Not so much for his WS HR but for his work with the glove. Who was the starting 1B in game 7? A journeyman 1B, Rocky Nelson. A guy who could do much more with the glove than Stuart and still provide some pop with the bat. Trivia here, it was Nelson who hit the 1st Bucs HR in game 7. Without that Maz never gets the chance to hit his. What I am getting at is that the kids we see today are not always of top defensive capability. And the teams do not spend near the time on helping them become at least average defensively as they do trying to make a slugger out of a guy. Case in point is Polanco. How many times have we seen him take a bad route to a ball, turn the wrong way on a flyball? Cory Dickerson is an example of a guy who changed his style of play to become a much more complete player. One who hit with some pop but also got on base more and became a GG LFer as he focused on fundamentals more than in the past.
The Bucs need to quit turning young ballplayers in jack of all trades guys like JHay. Super subs like Josh do not come around all that often. Players need to learn 1 or maybe 2 positions and become better at those 2 positions. They are dealing with one like that now in Adam Frazer. Let the guy play 2B. Adam should have spent time this winter working on his D at 2nd base and moving to better to his right. It would have made him a better player and the Bucs a better team.
I'm running out of characters for this post so I will shut up and see what comes of it.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3642
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Rule Changes
I thought this was a really interesting article related to the pace of play that they're trying to fix with these rule changes.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fo ... ing-about/
The takeaway I got was new "intimate" ball parks=less foul area=fewer foul outs=more pitches. Interesting. I'm not really sure what you're supposed to do about that though.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fo ... ing-about/
The takeaway I got was new "intimate" ball parks=less foul area=fewer foul outs=more pitches. Interesting. I'm not really sure what you're supposed to do about that though.