Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SilverBullet

Experimental Rule Changes

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, marlinsmaniac said:

They range from pointless to egregious. What is this obsession with shortening games? For gods sake it’ll save a couple of minutes but it’s still gonna be a somewhere in the ball park of 3 hours like pretty much every sport. No one fucking complains about the 12 minute halftime break in football. Next thing thing you’re gonna see is them throwing around mercy rules or reducing the amount of innings. Ugh leave this shit alone.

Yeah what kills me is how all of this is gonna save 10-20 minutes on average game time. Ultimately the goal is to get more people to go to a game because its shorter but how is 20 to 30 mins max gonna make a difference in a casual fan choosing to attend a game? If they don't wanna sit through a 3 hour game now then they won't be convinced by making the game 2 and a half hours. So in the end this isn't gonna make much of a difference at all. And the only games that really suffer from these things are playoff games... are playoff tv ratings and attendance really a problem? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SilverBullet said:

Yeah what kills me is how all of this is gonna save 10-20 minutes on average game time. Ultimately the goal is to get more people to go to a game because its shorter but how is 20 to 30 mins max gonna make a difference in a casual fan choosing to attend a game? If they don't wanna sit through a 3 hour game now then they won't be convinced by making the game 2 and a half hours. So in the end this isn't gonna make much of a difference at all. And the only games that really suffer from these things are playoff games... are playoff tv ratings and attendance really a problem? 

exactly, it's freaking ridiculous! Baseball is not a "sexy" sport. You don't go there for a photo opp or to look cool like celebrities do in the NBA. Those of us who go to the games do so because we love the sport and have ZERO qualms about spending 3 hours at the stadium watching the game and having some beers. I think they need to stop looking at this on a spread sheet and realize that baseball is a god damn masterpiece of a sport before they fuck it all up. And to your point, there are absolutely no issues with attendance or ratings during the playoffs so clearly there isn't a lack of interest. They need to realize the problem is that for more and more of the population getting off at 5pm, commuting back home, hustling to get the kids ready, and driving to the stadium in traffic to hopefully be there by the first pitch is just not feasible (at least in most cities). With 162 games in a season, it's tough to place demand on a random tuesday non-rivalry game in the middle of may. Leave the sport alone lol

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2019 at 5:57 PM, Michael said:

Probably for borderline stuff, it'll be a quick buzz in their ear for a strike and no noise for a ball [kinda like how it is now - ump makes no motion, it's a ball].

But then, what constitutes as "borderline?"  Something the ump asks for?  What if he's confident a ball is a strike (or it's in "his zone" on a given night) and calls it such, but roboump says it's a ball.  Do they overrule the umpire?  "sorry folks, that was actually a ball".  The umps do an incredible job and are actually very accurate, but I feel if you institute roboump, it has to be all or nothing, otherwise you'll have players, fans, managers all clamoring for roboump verdict on a borderline pitch the umpire calls, which will slow the game (though maybe it re-introduces some manager/ump scuffles that I think fans enjoyed.

----

Ohhhh, wait.  I re-read what you said after typing that and I see what you're saying now.  The ump would have the buzz/no buzz on all pitches, and then he would defer to roboump if he wasn't sure.  That makes sense.  But still we'd have situations where the ump calls it confidently but roboump differs.  Are teams then able to challenge?

Agree completely - this is dumb, UNLESS they can do something similar to what they have in the NFL and set up a communication system between manager, pitcher, and catcher, who will have to remain silent unless they use some sort of code or hand signals. But even then ... my thing is, why is it ANYONE who visits the mound? What if the second baseman picks up something in the pitcher's motion that's causing some issue, and just quickly jogs to the mound to say "hey bud, I noticed on curves you tuck in your elbow, just letting you know cause they might see it, too." Now if that happens, gotta take him out of the game? Bad idea.

Yeah, could you just put and earpiece in the pitcher/catcher/manager's ear?  Guess you can't have a "full" mound meeting either (where infielders come in like you sometimes see).  That leaves infielders in the dark outside of regular signs.

This one is OK with me - I'm fine with having to face three batters [unless inning ends or injury, the latter being another potential issue regarding a fake injury but they can work around that via forcing IL time if they are hurt]. I also suggested having the relief pitchers warm up in a bullpen that's behind a dugout / in a batting cage in the clubhouse area instead (pretty sure most parks have an indoor cage in case of weather) so the manager can bring the reliever with him instead of having to wait for them to run in from the bullpen.

As for your question - I believe it has to be through completion of the plate appearance - so really, if you get a lefty-righty-righty-lefty situation, you could theoretically have your lefty come in, face the first batter, intentionally walk the next two if need be, and face the fourth hitter. Therefore he's "faced" four batters now (going beyond the requirement) and you got the guys out that you wanted. Of course that is also a huge risk as you're putting on two baserunners, but ... TBD. I get your displeasure with that idea though.

Forcing an IL (stupid name change) trip seems drastic, but I get your idea to prevent fake injuries - maybe instead a player isn't available for the next game if he comes out for an injury (that wouldn't hinder SPs though).

Also, apparently you can close out an inning and avoid the 3 batter rule, if I'm understanding it correctly.  Meaning the guy starting an inning faces 3, and another guy comes in an finishes the inning, I think he can be done after that (doesn't need to come and face two more) - presumably because you're already having an inning break, so you're not taking time to make a change.

This would absolutely make people safe more often, especially in stealing bases. Probably not a HUGE amount but certainly will be a decent amount that it's quantifiable. I was thinking this would make sense to occur only at first base, give them that double-bag similar to slow-pitch softball leagues so the runner can aim for the outer bag and not worry about colliding at first. But increasing base sizes - even if it is just an inch and a half each direction [15 inches to 18 inches, so inch and a half per side] - that's going to be slightly increased leads, leading to easier steals ... it's now 89 feet and 9 inches between bases with this assuming they leave the center of the base where it is [which they couldn't for first or third due to the foul lines ... so actually it gets even closer! 89'6"].

It could mean more baserunners, which = more action, which falls in line with pace of play.  If there's stuff going on, people are engaged.  They're trying to eliminate the dead time more than shorten the game, at least IMO.

Partial shift ban, yeah. "Can not have more than two infielders on the same side of second base before the pitch" - it's whatever.

Yeah I can live with this, as long as they don't go overboard and say "you can't move X feet/paces from this spot on the field"

 

On 3/9/2019 at 8:31 AM, marlinsmaniac said:

They range from pointless to egregious. What is this obsession with shortening games? For gods sake it’ll save a couple of minutes but it’s still gonna be a somewhere in the ball park of 3 hours like pretty much every sport. No one fucking complains about the 12 minute halftime break in football. Next thing thing you’re gonna see is them throwing around mercy rules or reducing the amount of innings. Ugh leave this shit alone.

 

On 3/9/2019 at 11:29 AM, SilverBullet said:

Yeah what kills me is how all of this is gonna save 10-20 minutes on average game time. Ultimately the goal is to get more people to go to a game because its shorter but how is 20 to 30 mins max gonna make a difference in a casual fan choosing to attend a game? If they don't wanna sit through a 3 hour game now then they won't be convinced by making the game 2 and a half hours. So in the end this isn't gonna make much of a difference at all. And the only games that really suffer from these things are playoff games... are playoff tv ratings and attendance really a problem? 

Yeah, I always find it amusing that they institute these changes, and seems like they expect a big time difference, and then they announce "our pace of play things are working - avg game time dropped from 3hr 5min to 3hr even.  Like really?  Woaaahhhhhhh THAT'S going to sway a lot of people!  And I suppose a lot of changes together can cut off maybe 20-30 like you said, but I still don't think that'll sway people.  They'll stay just as long for football games, which technically should only have an hour of gameplay.

On 3/9/2019 at 3:48 PM, marlinsmaniac said:

exactly, it's freaking ridiculous! Baseball is not a "sexy" sport. You don't go there for a photo opp or to look cool like celebrities do in the NBA. Those of us who go to the games do so because we love the sport and have ZERO qualms about spending 3 hours at the stadium watching the game and having some beers. I think they need to stop looking at this on a spread sheet and realize that baseball is a god damn masterpiece of a sport before they fuck it all up. And to your point, there are absolutely no issues with attendance or ratings during the playoffs so clearly there isn't a lack of interest. They need to realize the problem is that for more and more of the population getting off at 5pm, commuting back home, hustling to get the kids ready, and driving to the stadium in traffic to hopefully be there by the first pitch is just not feasible (at least in most cities). With 162 games in a season, it's tough to place demand on a random tuesday non-rivalry game in the middle of may. Leave the sport alone lol

I'm with you there.  I know I live in Fort Lauderdale, so it's not convenient to begin with, but there's zero chance I'd go home from work and come back down on a weekday.  If my brother or parents want to join me at a game, they have to drive down separately, and it's not a fun time trying to get to the park in rush hour.  Unfortunately, short of building some sort of elaborate transit system all leading to the ballpark, there won't be a way to avoid that.  I DO wish they'd somehow figure out how to connect the Brightline to the park.  You'd be able to park in FTL, ride the train down, and take some sort of other system from there to the ballpark.  Zero chance the city would build a transit system to the park, though - no demand.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://theathletic.com/858054/2019/03/11/trevor-bauer-wants-to-increase-mlbs-popularity-and-he-knows-his-reputation-must-improve-if-hes-to-lead-the-charge/

 

The Athletic had an interesting part 1 of an article (part 2 is coming out tomorrow) discussing how Trevor Bauer is making an effort to reach out to a younger crowd, with his creation of a company called Watch Momentum.  And basically in involves recording pretty much all of what he does as a player - essentially taking the "mic-ed up" scenario from All Star games and supersizing it to all the time, with the idea being that "fun" or "interesting" (my words) parts of what he says or does can be cut down to short clips that are then pushed out onto social media.   He even goes so far as to talk to himself on the mound, explaining what he's thinking at the time to give insight into the thought process.  He talks about how athletes in the other major sports can have personalities, but baseball as a rookie you're told to sit in the corner and not speak; and how clips of Steph Curry has 1.5 M views in minutes, while a Trout home run stealing highlight isn't shown anywhere but ESPN a few times.

His goal is to show the players' side of things - as players, as people - similar to Jeter's Player's Tribune, but all in video/digital format, not so much writing.  And using that as a way to reach a younger audience, which prefers things that are shorter - ex. a short 10-15 second Snapchat or instagram story clip.  His point was that you look at other sports, whose fanbase reaches into the younger audience, while baseball has an older fanbase, and if you extrapolate that out 20-30 years, it's not a good path for the game.

 

It's an interesting read so far, and frankly, I think it's a good idea that they need to do more of.  I just summed it up broadly - the article gets more into specifics.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Changing the base size can have a tremendous effect on totals and records and that would suck from a historical perspective. I know things like that have changed before but I think the game has been around long enough that they shouldn't be changing things like the dimensions and sizes of physical aspects of the field no matter what. I mean think about if the NBA lowered the baskets or if the NFL shortened the length of the field. It's arguably a whole different game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SilverBullet said:

Changing the base size can have a tremendous effect on totals and records and that would suck from a historical perspective. I know things like that have changed before but I think the game has been around long enough that they shouldn't be changing things like the dimensions and sizes of physical aspects of the field no matter what. I mean think about if the NBA lowered the baskets or if the NFL shortened the length of the field. It's arguably a whole different game.

I'm with you.  The other moves affect tactics within the game.  Those change the game.  Though I guess they have changed the mound size before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

I'm with you.  The other moves affect tactics within the game.  Those change the game.  Though I guess they have changed the mound size before.

I'd listen to mound height changes but not mound distance changes. The height of the release of pitches varies by pitcher height and release point/arm slot anyways. Batters can adjust to that. The distance from the rubber to the plate shouldn't be changed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, SonOfJack said:

I miss Bud Selig

Seems like Rob Manfred has done at least one thing nobody thought possible, then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



×
×
  • Create New...