MLB Rule Changes

[Mike Sixel]

I agree with Jimmer, in terms of how the inter-league should work. Rotate it like the NFL does. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

This i absolutely agree about.  To me: enforce a pitch clock, no stepping off the rubber multiple times, don't let batters step out of the batters box and call repeated time outs (limit one per at-bat or something like that).  Beyond that the only other thing that could significantly pick up the pace of the game is calling two strike foul balls as automatic strikeouts, but that would be a HUGE rule change in the game, not sure anyone would go for that.

 

Umpires could stop giving 3-0 pitches as near automatic strikes also......

[laloesch]

 

Umpires could stop giving 3-0 pitches as near automatic strikes also......

 

Never thought of that point, but that's a good one too.  That opens a different can of worms.....umpires...hmmm

[laloesch]

 

Each team should have to play every other team in their league 10 times. That is 140 game per team. Add 15 interleague games, with each team in a division playing a 3 game series against the same teams from another division (like NL East plays AL West) and the interleague division matchups rotate yearly.

155 games

 

Years ago i was completely against this idea, but now i'm completely for it.  MLB just like the NHL has a much dragged out season.  I would also propose that the league go back to two divisions, east and west which would create a more balanced variety of opponents instead of white sox, indians, royals, tigers over and over again.  Keep the wild cards.  

[jimmer]

Years ago i was completely against this idea, but now i'm completely for it. MLB just like the NHL has a much dragged out season. I would also propose that the league go back to two divisions, east and west which would create a more balanced variety of opponents instead of white sox, indians, royals, tigers over and over again. Keep the wild cards.

with my proposal, we would play AL East and AL West teams the same amount as we play AL Central teams.

[gunnarthor]

I'm not sure how I feel about less games. I like 162 games.  I don't want less baseball.  And I doubt the owners want to lose out on that revenue so it's probably DOA anyway. 

 

I think it was Jayson Stark who suggested bringing back more planned double headers and making Mondays a no-baseball day so players had a set rest day (and a rainout day).  That way, they'd have just as many games but fewer playing days and more off days.  I'm not sure if it was completely thought out though.  Stark's fun but he can be a little nutty.

[Mike Sixel]

I think if you added playoff games, and gave some of that money to teams that lose revenue, you could probably cut the number of games, probably.

 

but then, I think EVERY team should make the playoffs, in a very, very, different format than we have today.

[TheLeviathan]

 

My few thoughts on this.  First, starting the runner at second in extra innings is the dumbest idea ever.  Anyone think Game 7 of the 1991 World Series would have been better if Atlanta got a guy on second to start the inning?  The guys thinking about this are only thinking about 14 inning slogs in August between non-contending teams.  

 

Baseball's biggest problem isn't pace of play, it's that it's become incredibly regional.  Twins fans don't care about the game much past the Twins.  Most of us probably can't name five starters the Reds used last year.  Part of that has been caused by the unbalanced schedule where we only play Baltimore 6 times at most and play Detroit 18 or 19 times.  But part of it is also the crack down on things that bring attention to games/teams - showing an opponent up, baseball justice, legit rivalries outside your division.  None of the suggested solutions really deal with those issues.

 

I think all sports are experiencing the regional issue.  The advent of a cable channel devoted to every region has had the effect of minimizing the national, spotlight games in favor of following your own home team more closely rather than the sport at large.  I'm guilty of that for sure.  I pretty much only watch Minnesota teams. (except for football)

 

I don't think rivalries change that much, I think that's just a reality we have to deal with now.  So i think that leads back to pace of play - how do you get new fans interested?  I don't think you do it with 4 hour baseball games.  The days where a kid like me grew up enjoying Twins games on the radio during the summer are over.  The product on TV matters a lot.

[Lee-The-Twins-Fan]

 

How about this proposed rule change MLB is going to test in rookie ball?

 

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/report-mlb-testing-a-new-radical-extra-inning-rule-in-rookie-ball-to-shorten-games/

That would corrupt the game, IMO. What runner? Manager's choice? Someone on the bench, or a hitter in the game?

 

[gunnarthor]

The young kids don't watch baseball might be oversold a bit, too.  When I was a younger guy, baseball was my least favorite sport.  In college, it was Vikings, T-Wolves, Gophers ..... Twins.  But as I got older, baseball grew on me and now it's the sport I follow the most.  And I have a lot more earning power than 20 year old me had.  :-)  

[Mike Sixel]

 

That would corrupt the game, IMO. What runner? Manager's choice? Someone on the bench, or a hitter in the game?

 

I'm ok with this at low levels, where you are playing for development, might not have many pitchers (and certainly can't call them "up" from the minors). Not so much in the majors, though. Not at all.

[Thrylos]

 

I look at it as an "integrity of the game" thing. Is it really in the best interest of the game for a team to lose, or win, a game because of these instances? I would emphatically say no.

 

How about when a team loses because of Bill Buckner instances?   Pretty similar. 

 

The other thing is that sometimes they do not know whether they want to walk someone intentionally or not and just happens after a 3-0 or 3-1 count.

 

I am really against any of the proposed things to "speed the game", other than robotic umpires.  That will speed the game really quickly, and get rid of several inflated egos

[Steve Lein]

 

How about when a team loses because of Bill Buckner instances?   Pretty similar. 

 

The other thing is that sometimes they do not know whether they want to walk someone intentionally or not and just happens after a 3-0 or 3-1 count.

 

I am really against any of the proposed things to "speed the game", other than robotic umpires.  That will speed the game really quickly, and get rid of several inflated egos

 

Not sure how a Buckner type play is even remotely similar to what I'm discussing. He didn't make the play on a live ball. As far as I'm concerned, and what I'm arguing, is an intentional walk doesn't need to be, or should be, a live play. There is no major league baseball skill involved for what happens.

 

Now, this intentional walk thing doesn't really affect pace of play in an overall sense. It does in the instances it happens and in that moment of a game. But as others have stated you're shaving off like a minute, and not anything significant to the overall measurements of pace.

 

I have long wanted them to crack down on batters stepping out of the box. That would help a lot I think.

 

[Mike Sixel]

Even if it didn't help a lot, people would perceive it as less wasteful and better, that's actually more important than whatever really happens or not....

[drjim]

In my mind, schedule should be:

18 games against division - 72 games

6 games against all other teams in league - 60 games

1 additional home and home against other teams finishing in same place in other divisions in league - 12 games

3 interleague games against each team in another division in kther league, rotates each year - 15 games

Final 3 games are against designed interleague rival

[Mike Sixel]

 

In my mind, schedule should be:
18 games against division - 72 games
6 games against all other teams in league - 60 games
1 additional home and home against other teams finishing in same place in other divisions in league - 12 games
3 interleague games against each team in another division in kther league, rotates each year - 15 games
Final 3 games are against designed interleague rival

 

I would endorse this, 100%. 

[Vanimal46]

The young kids don't watch baseball might be oversold a bit, too. When I was a younger guy, baseball was my least favorite sport. In college, it was Vikings, T-Wolves, Gophers ..... Twins. But as I got older, baseball grew on me and now it's the sport I follow the most. And I have a lot more earning power than 20 year old me had. :-)

Concur. It comes in cycles, and it sounds like our experiences are similar. Loved baseball from 8-13 years old, transitioned to loving football and hockey more in the teen/college years, now back to enjoying baseball the most.

[jimmer]

1. Baseball as a little kid, baseball as a teenager, baseball as a young adult, baseball as an older adult. Baseball till I die.  Doesn't matter who is playing, I'll watch baseball.

 

All other sports fall far behind.

 

Hockey 

Football (only when my teams are playing)

Premiere League/World Cup Soccer

Tennis

 

[jimmer]

932 intentional walks in 2428 games.

 

That's LESS than half of ONE intentional walk a game last year. (.38 per game).  I don't think making this change is going to make much of a difference in pace of game.

[gil4]

 

I like inter-league play. However, I think it's been overdone to a considerable degree. I would much prefer to see the Twins play Milwaukee every year. Make inter-league play special and something to really look forward to in terms of rivalries rather than insisting each team play most of an another division.

I wouldn't mind the Twins playing the Brewers every year, but that's because they usually aren't very good, not because of some rivalry between the teams. 

[gil4]

 

Reminds me of the "courtesy-runner" rule in Town Ball we had. Any time the catcher got on base you could bring in another player to run for him. Let him get in the dugout and get ready to catch the next inning. Runner was not a substitution. Also had "re-entry" rules. Often used it to take a player out so he could get ready to pitch the next inning.

They still have that courtesy runner rule in HS baseball (for the pitcher and catcher.)

[TheLeviathan]

 

The young kids don't watch baseball might be oversold a bit, too.  When I was a younger guy, baseball was my least favorite sport.  In college, it was Vikings, T-Wolves, Gophers ..... Twins.  But as I got older, baseball grew on me and now it's the sport I follow the most.  And I have a lot more earning power than 20 year old me had.  :-)  

 

Absolutely, there are a lot of ways to become a fan.  But if you're baseball, you want to hook them young and not hope they come back later,

[spinowner]

 

How about this proposed rule change MLB is going to test in rookie ball?

 

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/report-mlb-testing-a-new-radical-extra-inning-rule-in-rookie-ball-to-shorten-games/

There is absolutely no point in this. It would increase the likelihood of scoring in extra innings but it would increase it by the same amount for both teams so it would not shorten games. Just play real baseball.

[spinowner]

 

Each team should have to play every other team in their league 10 times. That is 140 game per team. Add 15 interleague games, with each team in a division playing a 3 game series against the same teams from another division (like NL East plays AL West) and the interleague division matchups rotate yearly.

155 games

About a year and a half ago I posted a nearly-unreadable analysis of the unbalanced schedule. Turns out that balancing the schedule would make very little difference in the standings. We also recently had a discussion about the disadvantages of cross-time-zone travel, which would be worse in a balanced schedule. Two years ago I was in favor of balancing it out. Now I'm against it.

[spinowner]

No on the automatic IBB proposal. You have to throw the pitches.

[spinowner]

No on decreasing the size of the strike zone. There are too many deep counts and BB's in baseball as it is, and this would exacerbate that problem. The strike zone should be larger, but to prevent an increase in strikeouts the mound should also be lowered.

I'm just mystified that everyone doesn't agree with me. After all, I'm absolutely right about this.

[darin617]

 

Umpires could stop giving 3-0 pitches as near automatic strikes also......

 

That is the one part of the game that I really hate and forgot about. That would speed up the game big time. It could cut a nice chunk of time out of the game.

[USAFChief]

Then why do you care if it's gone?

 

The IBB isn't a baseball skill. It's a game strategy that removes the actual skill from the game (ie. pitching to a batter).

 

I care about this the same way I care if the NFL were to remove the kneel down and automate it.

This is backwards. I don't want there to be a Kneel down in baseball.

 

There is currently no such actual thing as an "intentional walk," and there shouldn't be. The ball is live. The catcher must start in the catchers box, if there are runners on, the pitcher must start from the stretch. He is subject to the balk rule, runners can steal bases. The pitcher must throw the four pitches, just like any other plate appearance.

 

I can't believe people are in favor of adding dead ball base runners.

 

And that goes for starting an inning itch a runner on second. Worst idea ever.

 

Although...starting an inning with only one runner on would be a relief if one is watching the Twins bullpen. BA-dum-tsssssch

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

This is backwards. I don't want there to be a Kneel down in baseball.

There is currently no such actual thing as an "intentional walk," and there shouldn't be. The ball is live. The catcher must start in the catchers box, if there are runners on, the pitcher must start from the stretch. He is subject to the balk rule, runners can steal bases. The pitcher must throw the four pitches, just like any other plate appearance.

I can't believe people are in favor of adding dead ball base runners.

And that goes for starting an inning itch a runner on second. Worst idea ever.

Although...starting an inning with only one runner on would be a relief if one is watching the Twins bullpen. BA-dum-tsssssch

I agree that starting a runner on second is a terrible idea but I still don't have any problems with the IBB being changed. It's just such a trivial thing to me.

[USAFChief]

I agree that starting a runner on second is a terrible idea but I still don't have any problems with the IBB being changed. It's just such a trivial thing to me.

To me it's a principle thing. The ball is live, or there's no pitch. I see it as the opposite of trivial, it's a part of the game. You need to throw the ball over the plate and get the last out, even if its 20-0. And you need to throw four live pitches for a BB to occur.