Rule Changes

[clutch]

So what does everyone think of the pace of play rule changes that came out today?

1.) batters must keep one foot in the box throughout the whole at bat. Can face a fine if they don't.

2.) 2:25 timer between innings. Pitchers are to throw last pitch with 30 seconds on clock, batters are to be in the box with 20 seconds left on clock.

3.) limitations to time available for managers to make a challenge. Mainly just trying to get them to make a challenge within 20-30 seconds of the play happening.



The MLb is also looking into a few other things. One big one is that they are looking at shrinking the strike zone. They are wanting to increase offense by shrinking the strike zone. In my opinion this goes directly against speeding up the pace of play. Smaller strike zone means more walks and offense, which means longer innings and longer games.

If it's offense that they are worried about, just go ahead and unban steroids. Offense was never more exciting than during the prime if the juicing stage.

I may be in the minority, somewhat of a purist I guess you'd say, but I wish they'd just leave the rules alone. Have a feeling we're going to see a lot of changes with this new commish.

[GolfNut57]

So what does everyone think of the pace of play rule changes that came out today?

1.) batters must keep one foot in the box throughout the whole at bat. Can face a fine if they don't.

2.) 2:25 timer between innings. Pitchers are to throw last pitch with 30 seconds on clock, batters are to be in the box with 20 seconds left on clock.

3.) limitations to time available for managers to make a challenge. Mainly just trying to get them to make a challenge within 20-30 seconds of the play happening.



The MLb is also looking into a few other things. One big one is that they are looking at shrinking the strike zone. They are wanting to increase offense by shrinking the strike zone. In my opinion this goes directly against speeding up the pace of play. Smaller strike zone means more walks and offense, which means longer innings and longer games.

If it's offense that they are worried about, just go ahead and unban steroids. Offense was never more exciting than during the prime if the juicing stage.

I may be in the minority, somewhat of a purist I guess you'd say, but I wish they'd just leave the rules alone. Have a feeling we're going to see a lot of changes with this new commish.

At the moment I am going to take the wait and see approach.......

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/109822622/mlb-announces-new-pace-of-game-initiatives-changes-to-instant-replay

[clutch]

The one foot in the batters box thing is going to be a huge failure I figure. Baseball players are set in their routines, a lot of times even superstitious about them. They've gone through the same pre pitch routine since they were in little league. That's their process, they won't change.

[jrulz83]

For the most part it's dumb, just throw and call strikes if you want faster games. A real live pitch clock is the logical progression (and not a good idea).

The manager hovering and waiting on the challenge call from the dugout is a waste of time that does need fixing. Make them immediately challenge or just sit on their hands, no waiting on the call from the dugout.

Overall though, leave it alone.

[Rocky&Boarwinkle]

Saw a bit on ESPN about it yesterday, talking about how long the games were etc.  Here is the fundamental difference between the major sports: Basketball and Football and even Soccer have a clock.  Things like fouls, passing vs. running etc. can have an effect on the actual time length, including overtime.  Baseball by definition of the innings, where one inning could last an hour depending on pitching changes, offense, etc. is totally unpredictable on when it will end.  I have seen baseball games much shorter than football games and I have seen some that were ridiculous in their length. Doesn't matter to me, because I love to watch baseball either way.  If they are doing this to improve MLB ratings or advertising rate, I don't know if they can except for growing fans like my son who has been playing baseball since he was 4 years old and who will watch tons of baseball.  But he is an anomaly for a 13 year old.

[clutch]

I see it like this.

They are overly fixated on the length of the game right now. The length isn't the problem. The problem is, people want excitement. A lot of casual fans can't seem to get excited about baseball unless there's lots of offense.

That's why I'm not totally against steroids in baseball. The game was booming when players were hitting 60 a year. Now that they've cleared steroids out somewhat offense has stalled. It went back to the way it was before. That's not a bad thing in my opinion, but I'm a true baseball fan, not a casual watcher. They gave the casual fans a taste of what the games like with boatloads of offense and then took it away from them. Baseball isn't suddenly less exciting than it was 50 years ago, it's just that people saw what it was like when it was even more exciting and now it just seems that way.

To me, the real beauty of baseball is in the smaller things. Great plays in the field, great pitching, long at bats where the batter sees 10+ pitches and then draws a walk or bloops a single into right field, manager decisions such as pitching changes, base running strategy, well executed hit and runs, or knowing when to lay down the perfect bunt. However, I can definitely see the more casual fans problems with the game.

[ucahogfan]

I would like to see an implementation of a pitch clock with the bases empty just like the SEC has.  It helps keep the game going when no one is on base.  20 seconds is plenty of time from the time the pitcher gets the ball from the catcher until he has to release it again with the bases empty.  I don't think it has caused a problem at all in SEC play in the last couple of years it has been implemented.  That alone should shave a few minutes off per game especially when you have some of the notorious workers and teams that take forever like the Red Sox and Yankees.

I like the strike zone the way it is.  It is how the strike zone is meant to be.  I would like to see more offense injected back into the game just like pretty much everyone else, but not if it compromises the integrity of the game.  Hitters are just going to have to learn how to adjust to the new zone.

[GolfNut57]

I would like to see an implementation of a pitch clock with the bases empty just like the SEC has.  It helps keep the game going when no one is on base.  20 seconds is plenty of time from the time the pitcher gets the ball from the catcher until he has to release it again with the bases empty.  I don't think it has caused a problem at all in SEC play in the last couple of years it has been implemented.  That alone should shave a few minutes off per game especially when you have some of the notorious workers and teams that take forever like the Red Sox and Yankees.

I like the strike zone the way it is.  It is how the strike zone is meant to be.  I would like to see more offense injected back into the game just like pretty much everyone else, but not if it compromises the integrity of the game. Hitters are just going to have to learn how to adjust to the new zone.

The hitters? I thought I read that they were going to make the strike zone smaller to generate more offense? If that is the case then it is the pitchers that are going to have to adjust to it.

Funny how when I played baseball in high school the strike zone was from the knees to the armpits once you assumed your natural batting stance. But in the pros pretty much anything above the waist is considered high and a ball.

Here's the biggest thing I think would help both the pitcher AND the batter. Establish a strike zone and make ALL of the umpires adhere to it rather than letting each one use his own "interpretation" of it. That way both batter and pitcher know from game to game what they will be seeing. The idea of one ump calling the high pitch around the letters a strike while the next one demands the pitcher throw it no higher than the waist and also calls a strike on any pitch at mid shin a strike is asinine.

[ucahogfan]

The hitters? I thought I read that they were going to make the strike zone smaller to generate more offense? If that is the case then it is the pitchers that are going to have to adjust to it.

Funny how when I played baseball in high school the strike zone was from the knees to the armpits once you assumed your natural batting stance. But in the pros pretty much anything above the waist is considered high and a ball.

Here's the biggest thing I think would help both the pitcher AND the batter. Establish a strike zone and make ALL of the umpires adhere to it rather than letting each one use his own "interpretation" of it. That way both batter and pitcher know from game to game what they will be seeing. The idea of one ump calling the high pitch around the letters a strike while the next one demands the pitcher throw it no higher than the waist and also calls a strike on any pitch at mid shin a strike is asinine.

Well, I was referring to the current strike zone which is somewhat new because I think the MLB changed it in like 2010 or something like that.  The MLB added a little more to the bottom of the zone and took some off the outside of the zone.  It became a more traditional strike zone according to the rule book.

It would be impossible to have every ump make the correct call every single time.  The MLB has a rule about the zone and the ump has how they see it.  We could always do the whole K Zone that ESPN has created as the new ump, but human error is one of the things that makes baseball what it is.  And umps get graded on how they call a game.  They call something like 98% correct on average so it isn't that bad.