Rule changes for 2023

[Vanimal46]

The next step is ensuring these new rules are actually enforced by the umpires. I don’t care if it takes a 5th umpire in the stadium who will only look at the pitch clock. It needs to be done. 

[Unwinder]

Looking at it from a different angle, we've reached a point where teams are convinced (though many of you obviously aren't) that the most competitive winning strategy is one that results in a low-action, high-strikeout, no-small-ball game. At this point, I think we have to choose one or the other: A game that looks and feels approximately like the baseball we're familiar with, or a game that has the same rules as the baseball we're familiar with. We can't have both. Teams aren't about to start bunting and stealing bases just because it's fun to watch.

[Trov]

For the people that are for the anti-shift rule, how do you comport the fact, at least according to Glen Perkins, that since the increase in the shift the BABIP has remained the same as prior to the increase?  Personally, I feel like there is just many balls that get stopped by the shift that get through the traditional defense.  

Also, the rule really is only stopping having 4 OF, or the second baseman playing in short OF, with the SS playing on the right filed side of base.  There is nothing stopping the SS playing just 1 step to LF side of 2nd. So teams will not go back to the old way of leaving up the middle fully open in most cases.  The 3rd base line will still be wide open for most left handed guys.  

[ashbury]

In the 19th Century, there was this concept of Scientific Baseball.  It was controversial at the time - it involved arcane concepts like Willie Keeler's "hit 'em where they ain't," and Christy Mathewson's "pitching in a pinch." Manager John McGraw even (ghost-?)wrote a book in 1913 with "Scientific Baseball" as a title.  It was the Analytics of its day.

By now of course it's dogma.  Even though conditions have changed, those analytic dogmas of the past still hold sway for most fans.  Even though the players themselves seems to disagree:

• "Hit 'em where they ain't?  These pitchers are too good, even at AA.  I just swing hard in case I connect."
• "Pitch in a pinch?  These batters are too good, even at AA.  When I don't go max effort, I get clobbered."

[CRF]

The one I really wanted to go away, is the ridiculous runner on 2nd base in extras. Since there was no mention of that, I'm assuming it's staying. I'd trade one of the other changes for that in a heart beat!

[mnfireman]

15 minutes ago, Unwinder said:

I don't understand how so many people are so sure that hitters' inability to "hit it where they ain't" is a failure of hitters' work ethic or coaches' willingness to teach hitting. Pitchers' work ethic seems to be just fine since velocity and stuff keep improving. It seems odd that this epidemic of unmotivated, undercoached players could be limited to position players only.

Hypothetically, let's pretend it could be proven without a doubt that today's pitchers have stuff that's just too good for a human beings with human reflexes to hit with the level of finesse needed to send the ball to the part of the field where they want it to go. Would you want them to restrict infield shifts then, or would you still want the rules to stay the same?

I have seen way too many at bats that have the fielders playing in the "overshift" and, despite the pitch being over the outer half of the plate (or even outside), the batter still hits a slow roller into the "overshift" for an easy out. There are also too many well struck balls back up the middle that used to be base hits that are routine grounders for the SS or 2B, but that's part of defensive positioning, I guess.

[chaderic20]

I like the pitch clock, and I think in 5-10 years it will be a complete non-issue. Some of the current veterans will put up a stink, but they will slowly get used to it and/or retire. I think pitch clock infractions will become about as common as balks, just a few per year per team. Get the ball, get the sign, pitch the ball. Get the ball, get the sign, pitch the ball. Let's go!

Larger bases, I don't really care one way or another. I'd be curious what the data says about whether or not it increased SB attempts and/or success rate in the minors. I feel like I did see an article about this somewhere once, but I don't remember what the conclusion was.

Limited disengagements, I think this will have minimal impact as you rarely see a pitcher throw over or step off more the once or twice an at bat anyway.

I dislike the shift limitations. I feel like this year we were finally starting to see some batters make the adjustment to hitting the other way, and now MLB limits shifts, so everyone can go back to being pull happy. I've said before, and I'll say again, hitting the other way doesn't mean you have to do that for the rest of your career. You just have to show the other team you're willing and capable of it, and it will no longer be worth it for them to shift you. Then, once they no longer shift you, you can start pulling to your heart's content again. And if they then starting shifting you again, you put a few the other way, and repeat they cycle.

[DocBauer]

1} I like the pitch clock and I like it even more that the batter is part of the equation and held responsible as well.  I love not having a clock in baseball, but human rain delays on the mound and in the batter's box just slow the game unnecessarily. The clock itself will be a non-factor within a couple seasons as milb seemed to adapt very easily.

2} I like the larger bases for player safety. I can easily see the extra couple inches can make a real difference to avoid collisions and awkward steps. I'm not yet convinced about an increase in stolen bases. Does a 3" difference really make it easier to steal a bag? I mean, it will probably help eliminate over-slides, but fielders now have an extra inch and a half or two to snare a ball on a close play. So is there really an advantage? I'm unconvinced but I do like the player safety issue.

3} Not sure I like the pitcher only being able to throw over twice. Twice, right? I'm more than OK with a limitation to avoid the tedious games of catch we see at times when a pitcher is trying to control the pace. I mean, I get it, but things really draaaag. But I question if 2 is the proper amount. And if I'm wrong on the number, then forget what I just said. LOL

4} I really do like the defensive shift limitations. And that's the key word, "limitations". Nobody said the OF can't shift, or come in closer, or play deeper. A SS or 2B can play right up on the 2B bag, he just can't cross it to overload a single side. Nor can an infielder now play like a softball rover in the grass. I love the over-shifts when it benefits the Twins pitching/defense and I hate the over-shifts when it hurts the Twins offensive production. LOL But it's going to even out, overall, for all teams. I just like a SS playing SS and a 2B playing 2B and making the field a more "neutral" environment in the melee between hitter and pitcher,  and the supporting defense behind him.

[Cap'n Piranha]

5 hours ago, Unwinder said:

Looking at it from a different angle, we've reached a point where teams are convinced (though many of you obviously aren't) that the most competitive winning strategy is one that results in a low-action, high-strikeout, no-small-ball game. At this point, I think we have to choose one or the other: A game that looks and feels approximately like the baseball we're familiar with, or a game that has the same rules as the baseball we're familiar with. We can't have both. Teams aren't about to start bunting and stealing bases just because it's fun to watch.

This is the best post in this entire thread.  Football and basketball have both implemented rules that fundamentally changed their games, massively for the better (imagine the NFL existing in 2022 with only handoffs, or an NBA with no 3-point line where the first team to score could just sit on the ball until the game clock ran out). MLB needs to do the same.

My suggestion would be to give each team 125 pitches, all with the exact pitch clock being implemented next year by MLB.  Everything else in the game will be the same (3 strikes, 4 balls, switch team batting after 3 outs, 9 innings in a game, etc.), with the exception of some new bonuses available at the end of the game.  For every 3 outs your team does not make while at bat, you get a bonus run.  For every 4 pitches your team does not need to use to get 27 outs, your team gets a bonus run.  For example, the Twins send 30 men to the plate in 125 pitches, but only 21 make outs; the Twins are awarded 2 bonus runs.  Or the Twins record all 27 outs while only throwing 113 pitches; the Twins are awarded 3 bonus runs.

To ensure batters don't constantly waste pitches, a new rule is added that says it's a strikeout after 4 strikes of any kind (so 4 foul balls is now an out, or 2 called strikes and 2 foul balls).  To also ensure teams don't use too many pitchers in a game, only 4 different players can throw a pitch in any given game, unless a pitcher leaves because of an injury.  If a pitcher does leave due to an injury, they must immediately be placed on the 15 day IL.  Every pitcher now has an incentive to attack hitters, hitters have an incentive to put the ball in play, and games will be all but certain to end in 2.5 hours at most.

[Cap'n Piranha]

6 hours ago, bean5302 said:

It seems like people kinda need to hear this, but MLB is not eliminating the shift.

 

A 3B can still stand where the SS normally stands. A SS can still stand just a tick to the far side of 2B. The shift is still acceptable. The super extreme version of the shift cannot be used.

Spot on.  Why can't Jorge Polanco stand 15 feet away from where he would be under the current shift, and simply backpedal there as soon as the pitcher disengages from the rubber?  Why can't Carlos Correa stand one inch away from second base, and run over to the right side as soon as the pitcher disengages from the rubber?

[Cap'n Piranha]

5 hours ago, Vanimal46 said:

Love it. This is an excellent step in the right direction for baseball. Extreme shifts needed to go away and pace of play will be noticeably better with the pitch clock. 

Because 200-hoppers dribbling into the outfield for singles is the kind of action fans are clamoring for?  Eliminating the extreme shift will not only not reduce the explosion of launch-angle driven pull hitting, it will increase it, as there now is less disincentive to hit that way.

[Nine of twelve]

Regarding the pitch clock and the disengagement rule, they must be set up such that a runner is not given a free stolen base when he knows he can run on a certain pitch without the pitcher being able to make a play on him.

There are situations when a pitcher is required by the rules to disengage to avoid balking. Yet the new rule reads that a balk shall be called if a pitcher disengages too many times. The rule must be set up such that a pitcher can always avoid a balk without penalty.

[Mike Sixel]

All for the pitch clock, but batters need to be in the box faster. Not sure how I feel about shifting being banned. 

[Cap'n Piranha]

5 hours ago, Unwinder said:

I don't understand how so many people are so sure that hitters' inability to "hit it where they ain't" is a failure of hitters' work ethic or coaches' willingness to teach hitting. Pitchers' work ethic seems to be just fine since velocity and stuff keep improving. It seems odd that this epidemic of unmotivated, undercoached players could be limited to position players only.

Hypothetically, let's pretend it could be proven without a doubt that today's pitchers have stuff that's just too good for a human beings with human reflexes to hit with the level of finesse needed to send the ball to the part of the field where they want it to go. Would you want them to restrict infield shifts then, or would you still want the rules to stay the same?

I don't think it's players work ethic, but I do think it's coach's unwillingness, and it's because every front office has decided that the "best" way to win games is to work counts for walks, and hit for power.  Accordingly, coaching a player to perform in a way that does not advance those desirables is counter-productive, and does not happen.

If indeed the problem is that velocity is just too great, and hitters can't catch up to it, then we would expect to see shifts applied to righties, not lefties, as both would be struggling to catch up to the velo.  This would results in lefties hitting their weak grounders to the 3rd base side, and righties hitting theirs to the 1st base side.

[Mike Sixel]

4 hours ago, CRF said:

The one I really wanted to go away, is the ridiculous runner on 2nd base in extras. Since there was no mention of that, I'm assuming it's staying. I'd trade one of the other changes for that in a heart beat!

I say just let them tie in the regular season. 

[Nine of twelve]

9 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

To ensure batters don't constantly waste pitches, a new rule is added that says it's a strikeout after 4 strikes of any kind (so 4 foul balls is now an out, or 2 called strikes and 2 foul balls). 

Why should the pitcher be the one to benefit? It makes just as much sense to award a base on balls because the batter prevented the pitcher from striking him out.

[Cap'n Piranha]

1 minute ago, Nine of twelve said:

Regarding the pitch clock and the disengagement rule, they must be set up such that a runner is not given a free stolen base when he knows he can run on a certain pitch without the pitcher being able to make a play on him.

There are situations when a pitcher is required by the rules to disengage to avoid balking. Yet the new rule reads that a balk shall be called if a pitcher disengages too many times. The rule must be set up such that a pitcher can always avoid a balk without penalty.

An easier way I think would be to ban pickoffs entirely, and instead create a circle around every base (say 7-8 feet in radius) that a runner must have at least one foot in until the pitcher starts his motion.  The pitcher cannot throw to a base unless the runner has left the circle, and if the pitcher breaks that rule, it is a balk.

[Cap'n Piranha]

1 minute ago, Nine of twelve said:

Why should the pitcher be the one to benefit? It makes just as much sense to award a base on balls because the batter prevented the pitcher from striking him out.

Because the pitcher threw 4 pitches that the batter was incapable of putting into play.  The goal of a hitter should not be to avoid strikeouts, it should be to put the ball in play.  As such, preventing a pitcher from striking you out is no great accomplishment.  Throwing 4 strikes to a hitter without him being able to put even one in play is an accomplishment.

[Vanimal46]

32 minutes ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Because 200-hoppers dribbling into the outfield for singles is the kind of action fans are clamoring for?  Eliminating the extreme shift will not only not reduce the explosion of launch-angle driven pull hitting, it will increase it, as there now is less disincentive to hit that way.

Must have been hit hard enough to get by the infield. Yep, that works for me to get more players on base. 

[bean5302]

1 hour ago, Nine of twelve said:

Regarding the pitch clock and the disengagement rule, they must be set up such that a runner is not given a free stolen base when he knows he can run on a certain pitch without the pitcher being able to make a play on him.

There are situations when a pitcher is required by the rules to disengage to avoid balking. Yet the new rule reads that a balk shall be called if a pitcher disengages too many times. The rule must be set up such that a pitcher can always avoid a balk without penalty.

The pitcher can avoid those situations by... throwing a pitch.

Since pitchers are doing everything except throwing pitches, MLB needed to make these undesirable rules changes. It wasn't MLB's first choice. It's the lesser of multiple evils. 

[dantal]

8 hours ago, Trov said:

For the people that are for the anti-shift rule, how do you comport the fact, at least according to Glen Perkins, that since the increase in the shift the BABIP has remained the same as prior to the increase?  Personally, I feel like there is just many balls that get stopped by the shift that get through the traditional defense.

I wondered about this too when I heard Perk say it, but the premise isn’t exactly true. In this millennium, the average babip is .297. The last three seasons have been .292, .292, and .291. Those are the three lowest since 1992. Some may think 5-6 points is insignificant. I think it is significant, especially as exit velocities increase.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/majors/pitch.shtml

[ashbury]

1 hour ago, dantal said:

I wondered about this too when I heard Perk say it, but the premise isn’t exactly true. In this millennium, the average babip is .297. The last three seasons have been .292, .292, and .291. Those are the three lowest since 1992. Some may think 5-6 points is insignificant. I think it is significant, especially as exit velocities increase.

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/majors/pitch.shtml

Oh my!  I've used b-r.com for years and don't remember this little corner of it, at all!  (And the link's right there on the main page at the top.)

[bean5302]

On 9/9/2022 at 12:41 PM, gunnarthor said:

Well, apparently, they had issues they thought should have been heard but weren't. Not sure what they were but they probably had to do with tanking and payroll so ...

The collective of all baseball fans. "Who cares?"
The equivalent of: "I'm not going to pull this person from their burning car because I clearly see a Precision Tune oil sticker in the windshield and Precision Tune overcharged me on my last service!"

[Game7-91]

The under the radar change happening is expanded cooperation with betting. MLB, MLBPA, local franchises all getting in bed with booking operations- what could go wrong? In 5 years in-game betting will erase any gains made in pace-of-play by pitch clock, we'll be waiting for bets to finalize what pitch is next, etc....Yep, what could possibly go wrong?