Rule changes part of CBA

[Trov]

We all know the CBA really comes down to money, but part of it will be rule changes.  We already know about the DH change.  The most recent player proposal makes it clear a few other changes will happen.  The size of bases, pitch clock, and anti-shifting.  Base sizes is expected to lead to more steal attempts, so more action.  All for that.  Pitch clock is expected to lead to less waiting around and think it includes less throw overs, which will lead to more base stealing as well, maybe more pitch outs.  That part of game will be interesting to see how it develops.

What I wanted to write on is where I think most people will be split, the anti-shift rules.  First, I am all for allowing shifts, and wish they did not make a rule to stop the defense from putting themselves in a place to get an out.  I think the shift needs to be defined, and I think most would refer it to when a middle infielder plays on the opposite of the traditional side of the base, or an infielder plays in the outfield.  At least those are the "shifts" I think people want stopped.  Not the shift of where the OF plays, the corners being in to stop a bunt, or on the line to stop a double, or the middle infielders closer to the base at "double play depth".  

The reason you need a definition is if you are going to make a rule you need to decide where the line is drawn.  Defenders have always moved based on the situation.  There are even times teams would bring in a 5th infielder, will that be outlawed?  Will a corner guy playing in on the grass be outlawed?  Will the middle infielder playing just to the side of the base, essentially up the middle like what most teams did at end of Mauer's career be outlawed?  Will a SS be able to play more in the hole against a righty, or a 3rd baseman playing more off the line against a lefty? 

I get why MLB wants the change, it should lead to more offense, because over the last decade the hitters have failed to adjust to the change.  Back in the day, many hitters would just work the shift and get the hit that was given to them, but now, the hitters, for the most part cannot adjust to the shift, and the hitters cry foul.  Instead of just adjusting and getting the free hit.  We are rewarding bad hitters with a move like this. 

Where I am more worried is how the rule will be worded, and how will it be enforced.  If an ump feels the rule is violated what will be the result, an automatic hit?  What if the hitter does not even hit to where the offending player is?  For example, lefty is up and either the SS or 2nd baseman violates the shift rule, but the hitter hits a fly ball to left or center, does the violation mean anything?  Will special situations mean special exceptions?  Will just the middle infield guys get addressed or will other positions?  

I guess I have always been a fan of let the 7 fielders, pitcher and catcher need to be where they are, play where they want.  Let the hitter try to hit where they are not.  I mean if I am a fielder I know 75% of the time a guy hits it to a certain spot, but the rules tell me I cannot stand there, it gets frustrating.  What happens after this will the players that hit liners caught at the wall complain that the OF starts off to deep and we should make them start closer in?  How about like KC used to play Mauer way on the LF line and Joe could never get a hit down the line, should the OF be limited on where they can start? 

I am not against the rule change because I personally enjoy the shift, I am against it because of putting one in will be difficult to really make I think and will lead to many more issues than it may solve.  It seems like it will happen no matter what, guess we will see what the rule looks like and how it really works.  I hope it has the planned affect of more balls in play for more action, my guess it will not though because the guys that really get affected by it, do not hit a ton of balls in play on the ground anyways.   

[Brock Beauchamp]

The pitch clock is absolutely necessary.

I'm in favor of banning the shift but it's not going to make a huge difference either way. I just happen to find the shift incredibly annoying and boring, as it reduces the importance of athleticism in the infield.

I don't understand why we're constantly talking about increasing the size of the bases but I also don't really care so whatever.

But I am generally happy that the owners and players stopped hitting each other over the head with foam mallets long enough to agree that the game needs to change and speeding up the process of how those changes can be made.

[chpettit19]

I think a rule requiring at least 4 guys "on the dirt" would be reasonable. And it's the test rule that's shown the best results as far as there being more hits in the minors. I really dislike the rockets to short right that are caught by a 2B playing rover and the ones right back up the middle caught by the SS standing directly behind the pitcher. I don't want designated areas where infielders can stand so I don't think we can get rid of the balls up the middle being outs, but I'm good with making the 2B actually stay on the dirt.

I was hoping the minor league pitch clocks would lead to a quicker major league game since the players were used to playing at that pace, but it doesn't seem to be happening that way (at least not quickly enough) so I'm good with a pitch clock. Make the hitters stay in the box and get the pitcher back on the rubber.

I'm not so sure the size of the bases is going to make any meaningful difference so that's just kind of a nothing rule to me.

[Brock Beauchamp]

  On 3/7/2022 at 3:38 PM, chpettit19 said:

I think a rule requiring at least 4 guys "on the dirt" would be reasonable. And it's the test rule that's shown the best results as far as there being more hits in the minors. I really dislike the rockets to short right that are caught by a 2B playing rover and the ones right back up the middle caught by the SS standing directly behind the pitcher. I don't want designated areas where infielders can stand so I don't think we can get rid of the balls up the middle being outs, but I'm good with making the 2B actually stay on the dirt.

Expand  

I think the rule should have three parts but I'm wishy-washy on the third. But I think the first two are incredibly simple and easy to enforce:

1. Infielders must be in the dirt when the pitch is released

2. Two infielders on each side of second base

3. Divide the OF into three zones, one OF must occupy each zone, put lines on the OF walls so the home plate umpire can make the call

Teams will still be able to shade hitters and "shift" but the amount they're allowed to move would be greatly reduced. One side effect of this happening would be that second base would once again become a premium defensive position. Over the past five years, we've seen players like Mike-****ing-Moustakas play second base because the position just doesn't matter anymore if the "second baseman" spends 50% of his time as an additional outfielder.

[chpettit19]

  On 3/7/2022 at 3:41 PM, Brock Beauchamp said:

I think the rule should have three parts but I'm wishy-washy on the third. But I think the first two are incredibly simple and easy to enforce:

1. Infielders must be in the dirt when the pitch is released

2. Two infielders on each side of second base

3. Divide the OF into three zones, one OF must occupy each zone, put lines on the OF walls so the home plate umpire can make the call

Teams will still be able to shade hitters and "shift" but the amount they're allowed to move would be greatly reduced. One side effect of this happening would be that second base would once again become a premium defensive position. Over the past five years, we've seen players like Mike-****ing-Moustakas play second base because the position just doesn't matter anymore if the "second baseman" spends 50% of his time as an additional outfielder.

Expand  

The idea that your middle infield both matter again is a big reason why I'd like to see some rules in place. That and just the idea that the game should look relatively close to what we all had growing up. That's mostly just nostalgia for me, but it doesn't look right when the 2B is in RF.

I think parts 1 and 2 are reasonable rules. I don't know that the OF rule would impact many players. And I kind of like when they get too aggressive on Arraez and he rips one into the right field corner.

[Brock Beauchamp]

  On 3/7/2022 at 4:47 PM, chpettit19 said:

The idea that your middle infield both matter again is a big reason why I'd like to see some rules in place. That and just the idea that the game should look relatively close to what we all had growing up. That's mostly just nostalgia for me, but it doesn't look right when the 2B is in RF.

I think parts 1 and 2 are reasonable rules. I don't know that the OF rule would impact many players. And I kind of like when they get too aggressive on Arraez and he rips one into the right field corner.

Expand  

Yeah, I'm less confident in the third bullet point.

And whether or not it's nostalgia, the aesthetic of baseball is just better with something close to its standard alignment. Watching a ball get past the dirt only to be scooped up by an infielder standing 10 feet into the grass makes for a bad spectating experience. It's so boring. And this is a spectator sport. If the sport changes to become more boring, just fix it and move on.

The current implementation of the shift simply wasn't possible before the StatCast era and there's absolutely nothing wrong with making rule changes to thwart technology in sports. If hitters suddenly found a way to create a bat that added 10mph to their exit velo, wouldn't we be screaming about making changes to their bats to compensate? Obviously, we'd advocate for that change to happen immediately so why is there so much pushback on eliminating the shift, which has also been driven by advances in technology?

And while I acknowledge that hitters should take a more rounded approach and mitigate the shift on their own, it's simply not happening. Part of that is due to the hitters but a significant part of that is also due to the unholy velocity of modern pitchers. This situation isn't entirely due to "lazy" or "incomplete" hitters.

[TwinsDr2021]

  On 3/7/2022 at 3:41 PM, Brock Beauchamp said:

I think the rule should have three parts but I'm wishy-washy on the third. But I think the first two are incredibly simple and easy to enforce:

1. Infielders must be in the dirt when the pitch is released

2. Two infielders on each side of second base

3. Divide the OF into three zones, one OF must occupy each zone, put lines on the OF walls so the home plate umpire can make the call

Teams will still be able to shade hitters and "shift" but the amount they're allowed to move would be greatly reduced. One side effect of this happening would be that second base would once again become a premium defensive position. Over the past five years, we've seen players like Mike-****ing-Moustakas play second base because the position just doesn't matter anymore if the "second baseman" spends 50% of his time as an additional outfielder.

Expand  

100% agree on the first two and in the same boat as you on the third, seems pretty easy to have the grounds crew put some lines of the filed to help the umps. And if they make these changes Mauer could come out of retirement probably hit over .300 and get to 3000 hits.

Win, win, win

[4twinsJA]

Keep it simple, infielders start on dirt or infield grass and see the results. The shift has increased the importance of 3B having range, since many times only one on that side of field.

[Trov]

  On 3/7/2022 at 3:41 PM, Brock Beauchamp said:

I think the rule should have three parts but I'm wishy-washy on the third. But I think the first two are incredibly simple and easy to enforce:

1. Infielders must be in the dirt when the pitch is released

2. Two infielders on each side of second base

3. Divide the OF into three zones, one OF must occupy each zone, put lines on the OF walls so the home plate umpire can make the call

Teams will still be able to shade hitters and "shift" but the amount they're allowed to move would be greatly reduced. One side effect of this happening would be that second base would once again become a premium defensive position. Over the past five years, we've seen players like Mike-****ing-Moustakas play second base because the position just doesn't matter anymore if the "second baseman" spends 50% of his time as an additional outfielder.

Expand  

I think you have the basics of the rule, and I think that is basically what the minors did.  My main question is what does a violation equal, and does it have to be a violation need to affect the play?  For example, the out of the base path rule is not that you need to be within so far of the line between bases or you are out, but that you cannot deviate from the direct path of the base to avoid an out.  So, if the runner runs way outside the path, as long as no one is trying to tag him, he is not out, or if he is not trying to get in way of a throw.  

Again, I have no real issue implementing a rule, but I am more concerned on how it is worded and enforced. I think really the best they can do is keep the infielder in the dirt.  How about this though, what if there are infielders on both sides of the bag, but the second baseman is a few steps in the OF because the runner is super slow and can field those ground balls?  Will he need to be on dirt until contact is made, or when pitch is released? Does this apply to corner guys trying to take bunts away can they come in on the grass?  See what I mean, so many questions based on the just a simple rule. 

[Trov]

  On 3/7/2022 at 3:38 PM, chpettit19 said:

I think a rule requiring at least 4 guys "on the dirt" would be reasonable. And it's the test rule that's shown the best results as far as there being more hits in the minors. I really dislike the rockets to short right that are caught by a 2B playing rover and the ones right back up the middle caught by the SS standing directly behind the pitcher. I don't want designated areas where infielders can stand so I don't think we can get rid of the balls up the middle being outs, but I'm good with making the 2B actually stay on the dirt.

I was hoping the minor league pitch clocks would lead to a quicker major league game since the players were used to playing at that pace, but it doesn't seem to be happening that way (at least not quickly enough) so I'm good with a pitch clock. Make the hitters stay in the box and get the pitcher back on the rubber.

I'm not so sure the size of the bases is going to make any meaningful difference so that's just kind of a nothing rule to me.

Expand  

The pitch clock has only been active in minors for like a year.  It was used some in Arizona fall league and stuff, but it is not like the minors have used it for several years where most players have used it.  It sped up the game last year in the league it was used by like 20 min last year I read.  I am all for the pitch clock, and will lead to some gamesmanship by pitcher and runner in some cases, that will be fun.

For the base size, the purpose is by increasing the size of the bases it will make it slightly easier to steal a base.  You would cut down the distance between bases just a few inches, but they did it in minor leagues and think it had small increase.  I do not think it will make all that much of a difference at this level though.  Most teams stopped running because the risk reward was not there in most cases.  Maybe if the risk is lowered though with the smaller bases it will be. 

They need to get rid of the lefty throw over where they can lift the front leg and throw over.  This will really increase stolen bases.  For right handed guys you look at feet, front foot goes up you can run, but for left handed guys you cannot make that call until the front foot either goes toward home or crosses the back leg.  This leads to many guys either not running at all, or just going on first move and pitcher deciding to throw over then.  

[TwinsDr2021]

  On 3/7/2022 at 6:01 PM, Trov said:

I think you have the basics of the rule, and I think that is basically what the minors did.  My main question is what does a violation equal, and does it have to be a violation need to affect the play?  For example, the out of the base path rule is not that you need to be within so far of the line between bases or you are out, but that you cannot deviate from the direct path of the base to avoid an out.  So, if the runner runs way outside the path, as long as no one is trying to tag him, he is not out, or if he is not trying to get in way of a throw.  

Again, I have no real issue implementing a rule, but I am more concerned on how it is worded and enforced. I think really the best they can do is keep the infielder in the dirt.  How about this though, what if there are infielders on both sides of the bag, but the second baseman is a few steps in the OF because the runner is super slow and can field those ground balls?  Will he need to be on dirt until contact is made, or when pitch is released? Does this apply to corner guys trying to take bunts away can they come in on the grass?  See what I mean, so many questions based on the just a simple rule. 

Expand  

They could do a couple of things, not sure which is the best, but they could call a balk if runners are on, they could call a ball if nobody on, or they could give the manager a warning on the first one, kick him out of the game on the second, and maybe after the second ejection they could start fining the manager. All those seem like good deterrents.

[chpettit19]

  On 3/7/2022 at 6:07 PM, Trov said:

The pitch clock has only been active in minors for like a year.  It was used some in Arizona fall league and stuff, but it is not like the minors have used it for several years where most players have used it.  It sped up the game last year in the league it was used by like 20 min last year I read.  I am all for the pitch clock, and will lead to some gamesmanship by pitcher and runner in some cases, that will be fun.

For the base size, the purpose is by increasing the size of the bases it will make it slightly easier to steal a base.  You would cut down the distance between bases just a few inches, but they did it in minor leagues and think it had small increase.  I do not think it will make all that much of a difference at this level though.  Most teams stopped running because the risk reward was not there in most cases.  Maybe if the risk is lowered though with the smaller bases it will be. 

They need to get rid of the lefty throw over where they can lift the front leg and throw over.  This will really increase stolen bases.  For right handed guys you look at feet, front foot goes up you can run, but for left handed guys you cannot make that call until the front foot either goes toward home or crosses the back leg.  This leads to many guys either not running at all, or just going on first move and pitcher deciding to throw over then.  

Expand  

AA and AAA implemented pitch clocks in 2015. The proposed time of the major league pitch clock (14 and 19 seconds) was just implemented a year ago in Low-A, but AA and AAA have had 15 and 20 second pitch clocks since 2015. I would've thought that would have made more of a difference with pitchers being more used to it, but it doesn't seem to have.

I have no doubt front offices around the league have a ton of data on what an extra inch on the base would've meant for their stolen base percentages for the last few years. I don't have any problem with that change, but I find it hard to believe teams are going to drastically change their approach. Doesn't hurt and even a few extra SBs would be a nice influx of action into the game.

They need to actually enforce the rules about lefty throw overs. Or maybe adjust it to just being able to step straight at first or it's a balk. They've made a joke of the 45 degree rule. There's guys like Urias who are darn near stepping straight at home and throwing to first. There's some interesting things being discussed on limiting the number of throw overs that could be a fun little addition to the game and add some strategy.

[stringer bell]

With the limit on using options to the minors, how does that impact extra players called up for doubleheaders? Will that count as an option if they are called up for one game and returned after?

Perhaps off-topic I had a question about whether the first two draft selections of any year ended up being teammates as Correa and Buxton will be. 

[Otto von Ballpark]

  On 3/27/2022 at 11:04 PM, stringer bell said:

Perhaps off-topic I had a question about whether the first two draft selections of any year ended up being teammates as Correa and Buxton will be. 

Expand  

BJ Surhoff and Will Clark (1985) were teammates for the 1999-2000 Orioles.

Paul Wilson and Ben Grieve (1994) for the 2001-2002 Devil Rays.

Tim Beckham and Pedro Alvarez (2008) for the 2017-2018 Orioles.

[Otto von Ballpark]

  On 3/27/2022 at 11:04 PM, stringer bell said:

With the limit on using options to the minors, how does that impact extra players called up for doubleheaders? Will that count as an option if they are called up for one game and returned after?

Expand  

I haven't seen any clarification on that, either way. So I'd assume those would still count as options toward the limit of 5.

[Squirrel]

  On 3/28/2022 at 1:49 PM, Otto von Ballpark said:

I haven't seen any clarification on that, either way. So I'd assume those would still count as options toward the limit of 5.

Expand  

I thought I read somewhere that it didn’t include call ups for double header additions? It didn’t count for this in the past, correct?

[Otto von Ballpark]

  On 3/28/2022 at 2:14 PM, Squirrel said:

I thought I read somewhere that it didn’t include call ups for double header additions? It didn’t count for this in the past, correct?

Expand  

In the past, no one counted times optioned within a season at all, just days on optional assignment.

You may be thinking of the 10-day minimum for players to be recalled from optional assignment -- that requirement didn't apply to extra players in doubleheaders. But that 10 day minimum also didn't apply to players called up to replaced injured/traded players, so I tend to doubt it would carry over directly to the new 5 option limit.

[Squirrel]

  On 3/28/2022 at 2:29 PM, Otto von Ballpark said:

In the past, no one counted times optioned within a season at all, just days on optional assignment.

You may be thinking of the 10-day minimum for players to be recalled from optional assignment -- that requirement didn't apply to extra players in doubleheaders. But that 10 day minimum also didn't apply to players called up to replaced injured/traded players, so I tend to doubt it would carry over directly to the new 5 option limit.

Expand  

Yes, that’s what I was thinking. And reading on this, I find no mention that double headers don’t count toward the 5 options, so I’m guessing they do? Again, wish it specifically clarified this.

https://www.mlb.com/glossary/transactions/minor-league-options

[Otto von Ballpark]

  On 3/28/2022 at 2:32 PM, Squirrel said:

Yes, that’s what I was thinking. And reading on this, I find no mention that double headers don’t count toward the 5 options, so I’m guessing they do? Again, wish it specifically clarified this.

https://www.mlb.com/glossary/transactions/minor-league-options

Expand  

It doesn't look like that glossary has been updated with the 5 option rule yet, so it's possible there could still be some doubleheader exemption to it. EDIT: Nevermind, I stand corrected. 

In fact, one exception was just revealed recently with the announcement of expanded rosters for the first month:

 

[Squirrel]

  On 3/28/2022 at 2:40 PM, Otto von Ballpark said:

It doesn't look like that glossary has been updated with the 5 option rule yet, so it's possible there could still be some doubleheader exemption to it.

Expand  

It says this at the end of the 2nd paragraph:

(Players may only be optioned five times per season; after that, it requires outright assignment waivers to assign the player to the Minor Leagues.)

[Otto von Ballpark]

  On 3/28/2022 at 3:02 PM, Squirrel said:

It says this at the end of the 2nd paragraph:

(Players may only be optioned five times per season; after that, it requires outright assignment waivers to assign the player to the Minor Leagues.)

Expand  

I missed that! Thanks.

In that case, I think it's safe to assume there is no doubleheader exemption to the 5 option limit.

[Cap'n Piranha]

I just don't get the angst about banning the shift, when almost everyone I've talked to agrees banning it won't do much.  It would be like the NFL in 2022 banning the wildcat--does it really change anything?  Even if the shift is banned, wouldn't teams just position their SS one inch away from second, and their 2B one inch off the outfield grass, and have both of them immediately go into motion as soon as the pitcher begins his motion?  If you say they can't move until the hitter makes contact, that opens new issues, as Trov pointed out--would that mean 1B and 3B would not be allowed to charge in on a hitter squaring around to bunt?

It should be clear to everyone that what we're actually bemoaning here is not that the teams have become more sophisticated in their defense, to the point that they are now quite able to place defenders in the most effective spots, but that too few PAs result in non-outs/non-HRs.  The fix for this comes from changing the value ratio between hitting a HR vis a vis not hitting a HR, and banning the shift does not accomplish that.