MLB Announces 2022 Minor League Experimental Rules

The robo umps at AAA makes me think they will be going to that at MLB sooner than later.  The challenge system in A ball seems interesting.  I wonder how quickly you would need to decide, and if teams will have their own access to a system to get an idea or if it will just be guess.  It would add to strategy of when to use them.  

For example, would you use them on a 2-0 count when a strike is called but it is important at-bat?  Do you use on a 3-0 count when the "auto" strike is called, with 2 outs and no one on, just to prove a point?  Would you use more as a pitching team, or a hitting team, or would it be very specific to the situation.  I mean of course there are clear cases on a 3-2 count that leads to a bases loaded walk, if it is close you use it, or last outs of games on called third strike or walks that could be last out of game.  

I am interested to see how that plays out, even though, I am much more of a fan of the overall robo umps.  

I am a fan of the pitch counts as well.  It will also lead to gaming the system, having pitchers wait to last second to throw when runner on maybe waiting to throw over at that last second, or quick pitching when all throw over is done.  No more long set motions by pitchers.  

Old guy here who doesn't like any of the rule changes. Get off my lawn! Ok, no, the robot umps can stay...

What the heck - just do it.  Rule changes is the rule since the game began.  Just end up with entertaining baseball. 

Robo umps are bad for the game. They remove controversy and fan engagement. Umpires get things wrong occasionally, but hating the ump is part of the game which gets the fans excited.

How many times have the fans been engaged watching an angry manager trot out of the dugout arguing balls and strikes? How many times have cheers rained down on the field watching a manager get ejected for arguing those calls?

22 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

Robo umps are bad for the game. They remove controversy and fan engagement. Umpires get things wrong occasionally, but hating the ump is part of the game which gets the fans excited.

How many times have the fans been engaged watching an angry manager trot out of the dugout arguing balls and strikes? How many times have cheers rained down on the field watching a manager get ejected for arguing those calls?

Totally disagree. I hate the bogus arguing. It has always just looked stupid to me, and a waste of time. I feel the robo ball/strike is the most important rule change, for many reasons previously stated over and over (not on this thread). Ghost wins, ghost runners, and base size I hate. Pitch clock I support. Limited throws to fist will not last. I also like two fielders on each side of second.

I am very curious to see how the rule changes affect the perceived values of specific players when/if implemented in majors. For instance, Kepler is viewed as someone who is hurt significantly by the shift and is pretty fast. Do the shift and (slightly) shorter base paths increase his value?  Does Jeffers lose value as his framing ability gets nullified by a robo ump?  Does the FO trade for someone who fits potential new rules better, taking the risk that those rules are implemented?

These are great points, and until we see some of these (or all of them) at the Major League level it's hard to accurately guess how they might affect the game, much less specific players.  But I believe change IS coming.  MLB needs to find some way to speed up the pace of the game without artificially making it SEEM unnaturally "sped up."  

10 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Robo umps are bad for the game. They remove controversy and fan engagement. Umpires get things wrong occasionally, but hating the ump is part of the game which gets the fans excited.

How many times have the fans been engaged watching an angry manager trot out of the dugout arguing balls and strikes? How many times have cheers rained down on the field watching a manager get ejected for arguing those calls?

I personally have never been entertained by a manager or player throwing a tantrum.  Umpires get balls and strikes wrong way too often.  They put in replay to fix the calls they get wrong on the field, save for a few cases, but yet to fix the call they get wrong most, because it is hard to get right.  Umps may be about 90% on the ball strike call, and even if you think 90% is good enough, they are actually around 50% on close calls.  So they get the easy calls right 100%, but it is basically a coin flip on the boarder line calls.  What makes it even worse, they will adjust what they call based on the circumstances.  If the count is 0-2, and the pitch is close the ump is more likely to call a ball, just like if 3-0 they are more likely to call a strike.  Also, if they just called it one way and a similar pitch location they will call it the other way, again if boarder line. 

To say having bad calls be made is part of the game and what is entertaining about it, to me means you do not like the game because you do not care about the players making the difference, but you want the umps to get people angry.  

12 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Robo umps are bad for the game. They remove controversy and fan engagement. Umpires get things wrong occasionally, but hating the ump is part of the game which gets the fans excited.

How many times have the fans been engaged watching an angry manager trot out of the dugout arguing balls and strikes? How many times have cheers rained down on the field watching a manager get ejected for arguing those calls?

Really? Robot umps are bad for the game because there will be fewer angry managers arguing with umpires and fans won’t have someone to hate? That’s a hockey mentality where fans get lathered over violence on the ice. I hope that despising umpires is way down on the list of the reasons to go to a game for most of us. 

The pitch clock may be a good addition, but the real problem with the timing of pitches is that batters are allowed to step out of the box too often. Umpires refuse to enforce rules that are already on the books about stepping out of the box. Enforce those rules and the problem is largely solved.

As for banning shifts, I've yet to hear a single good argument for why baseball will benefit from giving left handed pull hitters a couple extra hits a year. Banning the shift is a classic reactionary move, it makes no sense. Why try to prevent smart teams from getting an edge? Why punish players who have the ability to hit to all fields?

5 hours ago, Otaknam said:

Really? Robot umps are bad for the game because there will be fewer angry managers arguing with umpires and fans won’t have someone to hate? That’s a hockey mentality where fans get lathered over violence on the ice. I hope that despising umpires is way down on the list of the reasons to go to a game for most of us. 

Yes. It's exactly the same general concept as fans cheering for fights in hockey, which I dislike... yet it's extremely popular. Though there is an enormous difference between a physical fist fight which can end careers and cause serious injury or death and a manager kicking dirt over a plate or offering to buy an umpire a lifetime subscription to Lens Crafters. A manager arguing balls and strikes amps up the crowd and the team. It's a fact and it's often considered an endearing trait for a manager.

Fan and crowd engagement is important. Regardless of what a few people on this board like, the manager getting tossed or the crowd commiserating together over a bad call is fan engagement and baseball desperately needs more fan engagement.

4 hours ago, Alex Schieferdecker said:

The pitch clock may be a good addition, but the real problem with the timing of pitches is that batters are allowed to step out of the box too often. Umpires refuse to enforce rules that are already on the books about stepping out of the box. Enforce those rules and the problem is largely solved.

As for banning shifts, I've yet to hear a single good argument for why baseball will benefit from giving left handed pull hitters a couple extra hits a year. Banning the shift is a classic reactionary move, it makes no sense. Why try to prevent smart teams from getting an edge? Why punish players who have the ability to hit to all fields?

Agree, banning the shift won't actually result in more interesting baseball (unless your idea of exciting baseball is weak grounders dribbling 20 ft into the outfield), as lefties will continue to sell out for loft and power--there's even less disincentive to do that if the shift is banned.

Further, banning the shift might not actually ban the shift.  Teams might still play the 1B and 3B where they currently do with the shift legal, and have the 2B and SS motion into traditional shift positions as soon as the pitcher starts his windup--if the SS is positioned literally 1 inch to the left of second base, and the 2B is literally one inch off the outfield grass, they would still be "banned shift compliant".

If MLB truly wants more baserunners, and more action on the bases, the only way that happens is if the HR is devalued--I would propose one of the three ways below;

1. Each team has a max number of out-of-the-park HRs they can hit, whether in a game or in a season.  After that, out-of-the-park HRs are outs.
2. The number of runs scored on an out-of-the-park HR is always 1, but all bases are emptied all the same--that is, if the bases are loaded, and an out-of-the-park HR is hit, only one run is scored, and all runners are taken away.
3. Every out-of-the-park HR creates the same number of outs as runs scored.  This means that all grandslams and 3R HRs always end the half inning, 2R HRs end the inning unless there are no outs, and solo HRs create one out.

So what is the penalty if an infielder is "out of position" and has a foot on the grass? 

I'm neutral on a lot of these but HATE the anti-shift rule. Shy of drawing "position boxes" in the dirt, this seems like a rule for the sake of rules.