It's Official: Pitch Clock, Shift Ban and Bigger Bases Coming to MLB in 2023

Kepler should hit about .423 with this

Is this really "banning" the shift? Teams are just going to lineup their shortstops and second basemen an inch on the "good" side of second base, and continue as they have been. Seems like substantially, all this rule really does is disallow the positioning of infielders in the outfield grass.

Copy/pasting my comment from the forums:

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.

I hope this helps the next generation of fans - as one of the really old fans I am delighted.  Anything that creates action and reduces the time of the game is very welcome to me.  

For skeptics - let me say that MLB games were 2 1/2 hours during the days of Maury Wills and other base stealers.  Stealing bases is not going to make the game longer.  This is great, if only the robo ump was put in too!

Next - limit tv commercials.  Have them figure out a new way of getting advertising - fun banners at the bottom of the screen, but keep the commercial break to 1 minute.  

1 hour ago, mikelink45 said:

...Next - limit tv commercials.  Have them figure out a new way of getting advertising - fun banners at the bottom of the screen, but keep the commercial break to 1 minute.  

 

Wanna pay double for your tickets? LOL. Seriously, though. MLB did shorten commercials a couple years ago already. 

Players still take 2 minutes to shift from batting to fielding. A left fielder would be a good example. If they leave the inning at 3rd base, jog back into the dugout, swap out their helmet and gloves for a fielding card, glove and hat, grab a drink of water and run back out to left field. That takes a couple minutes. If they have to make an emergency bathroom run, a little more.

So all you'd see are the broadcasters talking about the game and no action anyway. 

A shift ban will add 70 points to Kepler's batting average.  Kepler is the undisputed king of 4-3.

And I loved games under 2:30.   2:15 and under was unusual with Koufax or Gibson on the mound.

Rules I think need changed, that are not:

Pitchers are still allowed to hit batters flagrantly without penalty. (Not talking about accidental. Like flagrant fouls in the NBA, it is a judgement call and finally stops pitchers from throwing cowardly and purposely at batters, and even if they do it not intentionaly, if it is so wild and out of control it still happened, can or did cause injury, and needs to have a consequence to reign the wildness in)

Players can still come off the bench and delay the game with no penalty for any reason and do the strutting comedy. (sure they can get suspensions for basically assualting another player and hitting them et al, but no need for them to all come on the field, ever. There are enough on the field already to do the goofy posturing like grade schoolers).

And plate umpires are still calling balls and strikes, some very very poorly (like yesterday).

Changes:

I think limiting pick-off attempts is giving the runners free reign. That might be fun, but it will spell doom for the Twins, who can't steal anymore, and already hardly can ever throw someone out. But I like the running game and miss it. This should help that happen.

I don't mind limiting the shift, and it still allows for 5 in the infield, and on the infield grass. This part of the rule I think is ridiculous: "The team must designate two infielders for each side of second base and they cannot switch (for example, a team can't have a stud defender move back and forth based upon the handedness of the hitter)."

I like a pitch clock and especially the batter getting penalized for delay. I am really tired of umpires letting them call time as the pitcher is finally ready. Big deal that they have to wait. What else do they have to do but be ready and wait for the pitch?

Bigger bases? OK, but really not needed and frivolous.

Banning the shifts is the exact opposite of what is needed. Long-term, it will further incentivize batters taking pitches waiting for one they can pull and launch. Look for even more long at bats, more strike-outs…all for the benefit of a small number additional ground balls through the hole. Dumb. Batters are NOT going to start trying to hit the ball on the ground. Yet another step toward the extinction of guys that have flexible approaches, can handle the bat and hit the opposite way…all so guys like Kepler can hit 240 instead of 225.

Also…If I understand the restrictions…here is what the Twins would/should do against a dead pull lefty….

Buxton plays center, left fielder (especially if you have someone with infield experience in left field like Arraez, Gordon, or even Kirilloff) plays deep second in the pull hole. Right fielder plays ‘normal’ right field, second baseman plays a straightaway second. And we’ll see if the batter tries to hit it enough the opposite way that Buxton (or any fast CF) can’t track it down. Spoiler alert: 90% of today’s batters won’t even try. It’s not in the toolbox. Only happens by accident when they slice something.

Also, fwwi…this lengthens the game to the extent that we see more ground balls through the hole…which will be hit primarily by guys that don’t or can’t steel bases, regardless of whether it becomes marginally easier to steal…because you’ll have more and more launch and pull guys and because analytics will still say a 2-run HR (which, if anything, will be more likely under the restrictions) trumps multiple successful steals.

3 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Players still take 2 minutes to shift from batting to fielding. A left fielder would be a good example. If they leave the inning at 3rd base, jog back into the dugout, swap out their helmet and gloves for a fielding card, glove and hat, grab a drink of water and run back out to left field. That takes a couple minutes. If they have to make an emergency bathroom run, a little more.

Nope. If a pitch clock can be implemented a transition clock can too. One minute is enough. Between the plethora of coaches in the dugout and players not in the lineup each player who is on the bases, batting, or on deck can have a designated equipment handler to facilitate a quick exchange. Hustle in, hustle out, and resume the game. Bathroom and water breaks can be done at other times.

This is feasible and it's the simplest, most logical, and most efficient approach to minimizing in-game down time because the duration of the between-half-innings break is the single biggest contributor to the problem. My understanding is the minimum length of a break is 2:15 so in reality I suspect it's about 3 minutes from third out to first pitch almost every time. With 16 or 17 such breaks in a 9-inning game, going to a 60-second break would decrease the running time of a typical game by 32-34 minutes.

Of course, the obvious flaw here is that minimizing in-game down time is not the goal these rule changes are seeking to address. MLB's one and only objective in everything they do is to maximize owner profit. Any and all changes made are done to further that goal and that goal alone.

I'm kind of in shock, because I think the bureaucracy got this one exactly right.....

This is a really strange feeling....

Limited step-offs/pick-offs.  If the pitcher just holds the ball, can the hitter still call time out?  Or should the hitter wait out the pitcher to run out the pitch clock? How about the quick-pitch? Pitcher still has to come set (discernable stop) right?

The pitch clock is about a decade overdue.  Pitchers and catchers have acted like they are in a virtual huddle, like football players between plays, deciding which set of signs they are on that inning, and hitters going through their glove and helmet  routine between every pitch; it puts you to sleep.  Once the batter is in the batters box and the pitcher is on the rubber, game on.  Stay there.  Throw the ball.  Hit the ball.  Or not, and strike out.  But knock off the silly routines.  

The shift ban is a result of the game not teaching the fundamentals anymore.  They want the launch angle, and speed off the bat, etc.  Learn to hit the ball the other way.  And if you learn how to bunt the ball where they aren't, the shift ends by itself.  Since you can't, or won't, the league has to step in for you.  Embarrassing.  

And I do love the bigger bases and less pick off throws.  I love the stolen base, and it is long overdue coming back.  Just think what it is going to do to the catching position.  With the robot ump around the corner and more frequent stolen base attempts, framing pitches won't matter anymore, and an arm that can throw out runners will be back in.  Welcome back!

Overall, looking forward to '23.  Let's see who adapts the fastest and the best.  Baseball just might be fun again.    

I'm against any restriction on positioning of fielders, other than the rule that has been in place almost since the beginning that the catcher is the only player allowed to set up in foul territory. There is no argument that will convince me to change my mind.

There are many other ways to counter the perceived problem of too little action and too little offense that make more sense. The most obvious of these is to move the pitching rubber farther from home plate. I would suggest starting out with a 6 or 12 inch increase and evaluate how that affects the game. This makes it easier to hit a pitch (including to direct the batted ball) and to steal a base. I would also be in favor of lowering the mound. To balance the advantage those changes would give the batter I think a larger strike zone should be put in place. This also has the benefit of reducing the number of bases on balls. More balls put in play, fewer walks, fewer strikeouts, more stolen bases. And also consider softening the ball a touch so that home runs don't get easier.

I like the larger base size because it makes plays around the bases safer. And don't lose sight of the fact that larger bases are a bit of an advantage for fielders too--it will be easier for a fielder to touch a base on a force play.

And, of course, electronic pitch calling. NOW!

If you are a batter at the professional level, IMO you should be able to bunt or hit the ball the other way and beat a shift.  Few hitters have been willing to do this.  Shifts have been around since Ted Williams played and have only increased because hitters have been unwilling to change to beat them.

I'm surprised they went with 15 seconds. I would've thought 18. Seems fast, but I'm not complaining, I'm all for it. Nothing better than watching a pitcher work fast and deal. Some pitchers are going to have a hard time with this (Archer) and velocity will drop for many. This may reduce pitchers throwing with max effort because of the shorter recovery time, resulting in less velocity and maybe less injury. This will be interesting. 

Is there concern the pitch clock will lead to more arm injuries with less recovery time between pitches? Will we ever see a pitcher need to concede a ball just to give his arm a little more time? 

If they want to shorten games couldn’t they have shortened the time between half innings? Let’s try to shorten the clock on that first. Oh wait… maybe not. They would need to cutback on commercials.

In favor of all these rule changes.   Hopefully robo ump soon to follow, can come fast enough for me.

Two more on my wish list:

1. Ban all in game electronics.  Players are using it to figure out the pitcher in real time.  Bring some skill and sport back into the equation and make them figure it out on their own.
2. Lower the mound a couple of inches to reduce velocity.  Pushing the mound back could also work but idk of the two lowering the mound seems it would be less of an injury risk.

I like these changes.  As was said by by D.C. the bureaucracy finally got something right.  There are still magic moments in baseball, but "analytics" has over analyzed the game into something not as good as it once was.  It's lost its "poetry." 

I miss the days of pitchers who got the ball, took the sign and rocked and fired.  I miss the stolen base.  I think I almost always unconsciously hold my breath every time the catcher makes the throw.  The Twins will have problems with this stuff next year though.  Rocco is the least aggressive manager in baseball history (yes, this is hyperbole).  He and his staff must not value the SB at all because guys that SHOULD be able to steal bases (Buxton, Gordon, Kepler) NEVER RUN.  It's all 3-Run HR's for Rocco.

Part of baseball is disputing ball and strike calls, but this year and the last couple years have been really frustrating watching that little "box" and what does get called a strike and what doesn't.  If they're going to continue to put that "box" up on the TV screen, just go to computer ump balls and strikes.  At least that's my opinion.

I also agree with whoever commented that due to teams and players refusal or inability to counter the exaggerated shifts, MLB had to step in and do something.  Kepler is "Exhibit A."  An intelligent guy like him should NOT be this futile against a shift.  I'd like to believe he hits .270-.280 next year, but...I'll believe it when I see it.  

A little help, please:

Quote

Pitchers will be required to deliver the pitch within 20 seconds with runners on base or 15 seconds with the bases empty.

The question is, 20 seconds from when?  When the pitcher steps on the rubber? What if a pitcher decides to take a walk behind the mound for a while after every delivery?

Ambivalence over the shift abounds.  Hitters who cannot spray the ball around the field should be at a disadvantage versus those who can.

Everyone should be screaming for balls and strikes to be called electronically.  The inconsistency of umpiring (on full display recently at Yankee Stadium) is just too great to ignore.

And for the love of Pete, the abomination that is a runner starting at second base in extra innings must go.  Every run must be equally earned. 

13 hours ago, heresthething said:

In favor of all these rule changes.   Hopefully robo ump soon to follow, can come fast enough for me.

Two more on my wish list:

1. Ban all in game electronics.  Players are using it to figure out the pitcher in real time.  Bring some skill and sport back into the equation and make them figure it out on their own.
2. Lower the mound a couple of inches to reduce velocity.  Pushing the mound back could also work but idk of the two lowering the mound seems it would be less of an injury risk.

There are some sports doctors that theroize that the lower mound is a big culprit for creating TJ patients. They injury started in mass since the lowering of the mound from 15" to 10. I haven't really looked ror the articles again, but I remember reading them,

19 hours ago, h2oface said:

There are some sports doctors that theroize that the lower mound is a big culprit for creating TJ patients. They injury started in mass since the lowering of the mound from 15" to 10. I haven't really looked ror the articles again, but I remember reading them,

The mound was lowered during the 1968-1969 off-season and has not been adjusted since then. The first TJ surgery (on TJ himself, of course) was in 1974. So there's no way to correlate the change in the height of the mound to the rate of surgeries.

1 hour ago, Nine of twelve said:

The mound was lowered during the 1968-1969 off-season and has not been adjusted since then. The first TJ surgery (on TJ himself, of course) was in 1974. So there's no way to correlate the change in the height of the mound to the rate of surgeries.

Obviously. Good call N o T. The increase in the number of TJ surgeries correlates with the increase in pitch velocity, which has been building to the current level. 

20 hours ago, h2oface said:

There are some sports doctors that theroize that the lower mound is a big culprit for creating TJ patients. They injury started in mass since the lowering of the mound from 15" to 10. I haven't really looked ror the articles again, but I remember reading them,

Maybe in Tralfamadore?

I like all the changes. Living in a minor league city, I have watched how they all impact the game. ALL for the better (except the shift is still allowed at AAA) The pitch clock hasn't hurt the game one single bit. And it also keeps the batter in the box, where he belongs. For decades he had to stay in there, but suddenly with the advent of the batting glove and a lot of other between pitches nonsense, a batter stepped out after every pitch. Nonsense. The game IS faster and crisper and much more enjoyable to watch. No question. And the number of automatic penalty balls or strikes has been miniscule. Players adapted quickly. The clock starts once the catcher throws the ball back to the pitcher. So no, he can't wander around the mound.

Also the rule that allows only 3 'step-offs or throws to first' per batter is also great. Pitcher will only throw over now when he has a legit chance of picking the runner off. Less time between innings is also a big plus. I only wish they would limit the warm-up tosses a new pitcher takes when he enters the game. What the heck was he doing in the bullpen besides wearing out his arm? Getting used to the mound? You need 8 pitches to do that? One of baseball biggest wastes of time.

Overall, the increased pace of the game has really helped keep the fans engaged and yes, in most cases you will see as much as a half hour (of totally wasted time) shaved from the games. We hear ZERO complaints from fans on these changes. ZERO.

The shift? Yes it was used in days of yore....sparingly. Not for every batter. And never with an infielder playing the outfield, except in the final inning trying to preserve a lead. Hitters have not adapted by bunting or going the other way. Having the infielders play their regular positions will not slow the game down. Besides we rather prefer batters hit the ball...anywhere, than strike out. I think the shift has been bad for the game. Somehow we managed for decades without its constant use. Would also like to point out that perhaps while offsetting more ground ball singles, taking 'time', pitchers used to pitch complete games, which reduced the time of games.

Bigger bases? Meh. OK. We have seen a few more steals this year at AAA, but its impact has not been seismic by any stretch. At least not  yet.  Ghost runner? Haven't heard the final decision on that. Its a huge gimmick, like the shootout in hockey. I will say it does add more excitement and strategy to extra innings. I say it reluctantly because I detested it when first introduced. If they keep it, I'm OK. If they dump it, I'm also OK. Just don't ever decide a game with a homerun hitting contest!!

On 9/12/2022 at 1:33 AM, Nine of twelve said:

The mound was lowered during the 1968-1969 off-season and has not been adjusted since then. The first TJ surgery (on TJ himself, of course) was in 1974. So there's no way to correlate the change in the height of the mound to the rate of surgeries.

I didn’t write the article. But there was a lot of correlation used, and several pretty curious and open minds from medical and sports people involved. It was correlated to the injury type reported, not the new surgery to repair it. I read it years ago. I am not advocating or denying. Sorry I couldn’t find it now for all the know it all folks. Velocity is just a theory, too. I still was impressed and will not pretend to know. It is not simple. It will still be a welcome part of my personal exposure and curiosity. 
 

Even in Tralfamadore.