There is talk now of rule changes, the universal use of the DH for one, roster expansion perhaps, and a requirement to use a reliever for at lease three batters. As each side wants something, I could see something like this happening. Personally, I'd like to see electronic strike calls, with perhaps a hair widening of the strike zone.
https://www.bucsdugout.com/2019/2/5/182 ... re-infield
Rule Changes
Moderators: SammyKhalifa, Doc, Bobster
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3631
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Rule Changes
3D3F252335500 wrote: the universal use of the DH for one,
where's the barfing emoji when you need it?
where's the barfing emoji when you need it?
-
Bobster21
Rule Changes
4A7874746052717875707F78190 wrote: the universal use of the DH for one,
where's the barfing emoji when you need it?
where's the barfing emoji when you need it?
-
psuinpgh21
- Posts: 367
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 2:28 am
Rule Changes
I'm all for strategy, and with a DH and no loogy, that takes away a big chunk. Pitch clock with nobody on, OK. But if you have a DH and can't change pitchers as often, why do you need more players? OK, the MLBPA wants more players as a bargaining chip. At least there is not talk of eliminating the shift. Ted Williams would have hit .500 with no shifts. Although the idea of moving your better OF from LF to RF or vice-versa bugs me, if they can do it with no fanfare I'm fine with it. If the coach has to come out to signal the change, charge them with a trip to the mound.
Wider strike zone, OK. I umpired one game years ago and I told the coaches I wasn't there to watch kids walk. I was not asked back.
Get rid of replay. If they call Polanco out trying to go to third, he's more than likely out after review anyway.
As far as speeding up the game, I don't care. I'm at PNC Park to get away from things for a couple of hours. Could be 2, could be 4.
Wider strike zone, OK. I umpired one game years ago and I told the coaches I wasn't there to watch kids walk. I was not asked back.
Get rid of replay. If they call Polanco out trying to go to third, he's more than likely out after review anyway.
As far as speeding up the game, I don't care. I'm at PNC Park to get away from things for a couple of hours. Could be 2, could be 4.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3631
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Rule Changes
I've come to a conclusion internally that the game lengths isn't about time between ABs or pitching changes, or the things they're trying to fix.
It's pitch counts. Batters are trained (rightly) to work counts to get to the pens and get better hitters counts. I have no real evidence to back this up, but I'm willing to bet that there are more actual pitches thrown per game than "back in the day" where players were more likely to go up there and take their whacks.
Now you can't/shouldn't legislate out strategy, so I think changing the strike zone would go most towards shortening games. Taking out the average number of pitching changes per game from 4 to 3 or removing the oh-so-tedious intentional walk does nothing in the wider scope if the game has 10% more "game" being played. There were intentional walks back when games were two hours so that's not the problem.
It's pitch counts. Batters are trained (rightly) to work counts to get to the pens and get better hitters counts. I have no real evidence to back this up, but I'm willing to bet that there are more actual pitches thrown per game than "back in the day" where players were more likely to go up there and take their whacks.
Now you can't/shouldn't legislate out strategy, so I think changing the strike zone would go most towards shortening games. Taking out the average number of pitching changes per game from 4 to 3 or removing the oh-so-tedious intentional walk does nothing in the wider scope if the game has 10% more "game" being played. There were intentional walks back when games were two hours so that's not the problem.
Rule Changes
Everything is small potatoes to me except the DH. Pitch clock doesn't seem like the craziest idea in the world, I don't like the reliever idea but I'd live. But please, for the love of all that is good, no DH. I don't want to be grumpy old guy, but I honestly think I'd watch less. Other than playoffs I don't watch the AL at all right now.
-
Bobster21
Rule Changes
75474B4B5F6D4E474A4F4047260 wrote: I've come to a conclusion internally that the game lengths isn't about time between ABs or pitching changes, or the things they're trying to fix.
It's pitch counts. Batters are trained (rightly) to work counts to get to the pens and get better hitters counts. I have no real evidence to back this up, but I'm willing to bet that there are more actual pitches thrown per game than "back in the day" where players were more likely to go up there and take their whacks.
Now you can't/shouldn't legislate out strategy, so I think changing the strike zone would go most towards shortening games. Taking out the average number of pitching changes per game from 4 to 3 or removing the oh-so-tedious intentional walk does nothing in the wider scope if the game has 10% more "game" being played. There were intentional walks back when games were two hours so that's not the problem.
I basically agree. But rather than changing the strike zone I would merely enforce it with electronic ball/strike calling. If batters know a strike will be called a strike instead of taking pitches hoping for favorable calls on the borderline ones, they will be more inclined to offer at pitches to avoid getting behind in the count. The home plate ump would have a piece in his ear to tell him the result of the pitch. He would then call the pitch and signal for the benefit of the players and fans. He would also be there to indicate foul tips, check swings and plays at the plate. So the ump remains a necessary part of the game, the ball/strike calls are uniformly accurate and I think it speeds up the game.
It's pitch counts. Batters are trained (rightly) to work counts to get to the pens and get better hitters counts. I have no real evidence to back this up, but I'm willing to bet that there are more actual pitches thrown per game than "back in the day" where players were more likely to go up there and take their whacks.
Now you can't/shouldn't legislate out strategy, so I think changing the strike zone would go most towards shortening games. Taking out the average number of pitching changes per game from 4 to 3 or removing the oh-so-tedious intentional walk does nothing in the wider scope if the game has 10% more "game" being played. There were intentional walks back when games were two hours so that's not the problem.
I basically agree. But rather than changing the strike zone I would merely enforce it with electronic ball/strike calling. If batters know a strike will be called a strike instead of taking pitches hoping for favorable calls on the borderline ones, they will be more inclined to offer at pitches to avoid getting behind in the count. The home plate ump would have a piece in his ear to tell him the result of the pitch. He would then call the pitch and signal for the benefit of the players and fans. He would also be there to indicate foul tips, check swings and plays at the plate. So the ump remains a necessary part of the game, the ball/strike calls are uniformly accurate and I think it speeds up the game.
Rule Changes
I don't like having to have a pitcher face a minimum number of batters (well, greater than 1).
I'm okay with DH since pretty much everyone uses it but NL teams. - that is a change in position for me. I used to think AL would eventually drop it but that isn't going to happen.
I agree with Sammy that pitch counts is responsible for lengthening the game but think that other things can be done to speed up. The other factor that lengthens the games is time between innings. That has added at least 30 minutes to each game since 1960.
Batters don't mind striking out any more and that adds to pitches.
I am for electronic ball and strike calls.
I'm okay with DH since pretty much everyone uses it but NL teams. - that is a change in position for me. I used to think AL would eventually drop it but that isn't going to happen.
I agree with Sammy that pitch counts is responsible for lengthening the game but think that other things can be done to speed up. The other factor that lengthens the games is time between innings. That has added at least 30 minutes to each game since 1960.
Batters don't mind striking out any more and that adds to pitches.
I am for electronic ball and strike calls.
-
fjk090852-7
- Posts: 3495
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 2:52 pm
Rule Changes
I would agree to roster expansion, but as I have noted in the past I would leave the game day roster at 25, but the team would have to deactivate a player or two from every game. It would be very simple to deactivate the starting pitcher from the previous game, or the pitcher scheduled to pitch the next day. The union should have no problem with this change, because it would include additional players under their rank and file.
-
SammyKhalifa
- Posts: 3631
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 4:19 am
Rule Changes
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)