jazzeum
Four Star General
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2005
- Messages
- 38,433
Some radical rule changes are being considered, http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/25935056/mlb-players-discussing-rule-changes-alter-game
2019 Baseball season (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter lancer
- Start date
Warrior
Lieutenant General
- Joined
- May 12, 2005
- Messages
- 15,283
A three-batter minimum for pitchers...…..yeah that's an awful idea.
A universal designated hitter...……..I'm all for it, no more having to watch AL pitchers flail away or run the basepaths, either both leagues have it or can it altogether.
A 20-second pitch clock...…..boneheaded idea; baseball is the only team sport with no time clock; let's keep it that way.
Some interesting ideas, to be sure. All for the roster expansion with the way the game is played today. Not a fan of the DH at all. Think the the 3-batter minimum a bad idea, but the 20-second pitch clock could fly. I am a die-hard baseball fan but even I start to get antsy once a game has passed the 3 hour mark, still in the 7th inning. -- Al
Panzer ace
Colonel
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2007
- Messages
- 8,061
How about a rule limiting how many times a batter can step out of the box to adjust his batting gloves 800 different ways?
Some players do that after every pitch (including some Giants) and it is annoying.
Some players do that after every pitch (including some Giants) and it is annoying.
I think there is some rule restricting the batter stepping out in regards to frequency and length of time but I don't believe it is heavily enforced. Then again, it might have been just a trial rule. -- Al
Warrior
Lieutenant General
- Joined
- May 12, 2005
- Messages
- 15,283
I remember Ortiz crying about this rule; you don't need to step out of the batters box, adjust your gloves for five minutes, spit in your hands and slap them together after every pitch, enough is enough.
Combat
Brigadier General
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
- Messages
- 10,415
Good to see MLB at least trying to address some of the obvious problems. We have beat this to death in the past but the games are too long, and there are too many pitching changes. I would also outlaw the defensive shift. The shocking drop in attendance is finally starting to wake them up. All sports are suffering from fan saturation but none more so than MLB. When the playoff and world series games routinely don't end until 1AM or later its time for changes. None of these proposals are all that radical though. I like the idea of making pitchers stay in the game for more than one batter. I thought they already had some sort of clock though? That won't speed the game up enough to make a difference.
jazzeum
Four Star General
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2005
- Messages
- 38,433
I don’t have an issue with most of the changes but the three batter minimum makes no sense. What will it do? A 20 second pitch minimum only makes sense if they prevent batters from constantly stepping out of the batter’s box.
Combat
Brigadier General
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
- Messages
- 10,415
The three batter minimum would seemingly bring about an end to the tortuous practice of stopping the game to bring in a pitcher to face just one batter, then having to stop the game again after that batter to bring in another pitcher and so on. Probably more of an issue in the playoffs where managers will use even starters as relief pitchers and can make such changes even more frequently. It's absolutely brutal and unwatchable once they start doing that.
jazzeum
Four Star General
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2005
- Messages
- 38,433
It upends a strategic part of the game. Matchups are important. If you bring in a LH specialist to face a LH and he then has to face two RH hitters, you run the risk of destroying what you brought in the LH for: to stop runs from scoring. It’s a terrible suggestion. Managers need the flexibility of keeping runners off base. The suggestion negates having a strong bullpen.
I don't like the shifts, either, but it really is a legitimate tactic to stop a hitter. It is on the hitter to adjust and beat the shift. If everyone wasn't so 'launch angle' infatuated and Hr oriented, maybe someone could actually try to 'hit them where they ain't' and bunt their way on or just go the opposite way, as it were. Shifts have been around a long time (Ted Williams faced them all the time), and the problems they are causing the hitters is because of the way the game is now played, the all or nothing approach at the plate, HR or strikeout. Maybe a partial return to 'small ball' will put an end to the large amount of defensive shifts that we have been treated to over the last several seasons. -- Al
jazzeum
Four Star General
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2005
- Messages
- 38,433
I agree with Lancer on allowing the shift as the strategic part of the game is one of the things that keeps the game exciting, As for my childhood hero . . . the Spendid Splinter . . . I always fet that he could've ended the shift with a few pokes to right field. If memory serves me correctly, he once got a double by bunting down the third base line! Many years later I had the pleasure of being an escort for him at a dedication ceremony. YaaHoo!
Bosun Al
Bosun Al
Panzer ace
Colonel
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2007
- Messages
- 8,061
The Giants are still talking about how great their meeting went with Harper yet there has been no report of any offer being made.
Fine by me, anyone but a team in the NL East, except the Nats, of course. Really ready for the Harper/Machado drama to be over. -- Al