Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SonOfJack

A few MLB changes coming Thursday

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, FishFan95 said:

So if a position player who is not designated as a pitcher comes in with a 7 run lead and gives up a homer to the first batter would they be required to pull him or would that violate the 3 batter minimum rule?

I think I read something about there are also exceptions for extra innings and I think it's a 6 run or more lead.

1 hour ago, SilverBullet said:

MLB.com cites this example of why the 3 batter rule is happening...

I get that... that's too much in one half inning. But I think the 3 batter minimum is trying to prevent the above scenario but will create other stupid problems. Maybe they've already considered this but isn't there a better alternative to the 3 batter minimum that can still stop this above nonsense? Is setting a maximum number of pitching changes per half inning a better way to go? "A team can only make two pitching changes per half inning... then further changes per inning can only happen after the last pitcher gives up X runs or faces X batters? The last part would protect against the meltdown of the final pitcher of the inning, in which case the team would be allowed to finally do a third change? Something like that maybe? It would cut down on pitching changes but also not force teams to stick with struggling relievers out there forever because of the 3 batter rule? Doing it this way also would add more strategy I think.

Then you're picking an arbitrary number for how many runs to give up.  Is 2 enough?  Is 5 enough?

In a 1 run game, 2 runs could mean the game.  In a 5 run game, 2 hurts but doesn't mean as much.

34 minutes ago, SilverBullet said:

One more thing about creating more offense... I'd imagine that most fans who are actually watching because they care about their team winning or losing actually want less offense, not more. I'm perfectly happy watching my team score a few runs and then shut down the opposing team's lineup the rest of the way. Watching a 12-10 slugfest more often sounds like a nightmare (in multiple ways) and creates way more chances to lose than to win. This "creating more offense" idea is for idiots who are more interested in the entertainment of the game than the result of the game. Yes a baseball game is entertainment but I get the most entertainment from my team winning than from seeing a bunch of runs scored.

That seems to be all that exists these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

Then you're picking an arbitrary number for how many runs to give up.  Is 2 enough?  Is 5 enough?

In a 1 run game, 2 runs could mean the game.  In a 5 run game, 2 hurts but doesn't mean as much.

1 hour ago, SilverBullet said:

So then make it by minimum batters but only after a certain point in the inning. Let the team make 2 pitching changes per half inning and then after that each pitcher must face 3 batters minimum. I hate the restriction to 3 batters when there's no reason to do so.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think it makes sense to both make efforts to shorten the game and also increase offense. They’re just trying to optimize for both. Like, we want to add as much offense as possible while also saving as much time as possible. Both goals are important to them.

 

For example, if they can save 10 minutes of total game time while also adding 1 run per game, which causes 5 minutes of additional game time, that would be good. They net saved 5 minutes and added offense in this made-up example. That’s the kind of thing I imagine they want.

Edited by mystikol87 (see edit history)
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, mystikol87 said:

I think it makes to both make efforts to shorten the game and increase offense. They’re just trying to optimize for both. Like, we want to add as much offense as possible while also saving as much time as possible. Both goals are important to them.

 

For example, if they can save 10 minutes of total game time while also adding 1 run per game, which causes 5 minutes of additional game time, that would be good. They net saved 5 minutes and added offense in this made-up example. That’s the kind of thing I imagine they want.

So their goal is to add 5 minutes to game time? What's that gonna do? Why bother?

Share this post


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

Manfred is the worst thing to happen to baseball since Jorge Julio.

They're both far behind Derek Jeter though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think many people are confusing pace of play with time of game. I'm pretty sure pace of play is more about amount of time between anything happening. Three batter minimum helps here. More offense helps here. Pace of Action is probably the better term.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael said:

I think many people are confusing pace of play with time of game. I'm pretty sure pace of play is more about amount of time between anything happening. Three batter minimum helps here. More offense helps here. Pace of Action is probably the better term.

Yeah, "Pace of Play" means eliminating dead time where nothing's happening (i.e. sitting around waiting for the commercial to end), so yes, more runs/action can improve the pace of play.  However, a metric the league has often used to tout the "success" of their pace of play efforts has been overall time of game, which as you point out, is not necessarily a proper indicator for pace of play.  It can be, but not always.  You could have a 3.5 hour game that goes "quickly" because teams are scoring and fans are engaged, despite it being longer than an average 3 hour game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, rmc523 said:

Yeah, "Pace of Play" means eliminating dead time where nothing's happening (i.e. sitting around waiting for the commercial to end), so yes, more runs/action can improve the pace of play.  However, a metric the league has often used to tout the "success" of their pace of play efforts has been overall time of game, which as you point out, is not necessarily a proper indicator for pace of play.  It can be, but not always.  You could have a 3.5 hour game that goes "quickly" because teams are scoring and fans are engaged, despite it being longer than an average 3 hour game.

Exactly this. I was at a college game tonight that was exactly 3.5 hours and it didn't feel like that long. Final score was 10-9. Good offense and defense on both sides, and nobody felt bored.

Share this post


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

So their goal is to add 5 minutes to game time? What's that gonna do? Why bother?

I'm confused about what bothers you. The 5 minute thing was just made up. I have no idea how much actual time these will save. But I imagine it could make a difference to some fans on the margins.

I don't really care much about these rule changes. But I understand why others do.

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...