Competition committee agrees to MAJOR changes to strike zone, intentional walks
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
Strike zone revision is overdue. Not a fan of the slow-pitch softball intentional walk for MLB.
Compromise? Keep the old intentional walk procedure for the postseason?
Compromise? Keep the old intentional walk procedure for the postseason?
Last edited:
No more Vlad reach out poke a hit on the intentional walk? Baseball is cancelled. Go home everyone.
I'm not crazy about speeding up a random amount of games with the IBB. It doesn't happen every game, but when it does, its usually a fairly compelling situation, so I'm not going to mind the two minute delay (or whatever that is) in that situation.
If you're going to make a change and chalk it up to speed of play, it should be something in play in every game.
Edit: IBB rates are about .2/game AL and .3/game NL as of 2010.
If you're going to make a change and chalk it up to speed of play, it should be something in play in every game.
Edit: IBB rates are about .2/game AL and .3/game NL as of 2010.
Oh for fuck's sake, throwing the pitches is not the problem with the intentional walk, the intentional walk is the problem with the intentional walk.
Have every batter advance a base whether forced or not, and you'll virtually eliminate the intentional walk and all the bullshit about whether to throw the pitches or not will be irrelevant.
Have every batter advance a base whether forced or not, and you'll virtually eliminate the intentional walk and all the bullshit about whether to throw the pitches or not will be irrelevant.
I prefer Posnanski's (?) suggestion: however obtained, a batter who has been issued a walk may decline the walk, resetting the count to 0-0. If the result of his thus-continuing plate appearance is another walk, then instead of taking 1 base, he is awarded second base, with any runners affected advancing to the next open base as normal.
Aside from resulting in fewer intentional walks to the league's premium hitters, NL teams might decline a walk to their #8 hitter in situations where they'd prefer an "honest" plate appearance rather than their pitcher striking out to end an inning. But if a pitcher is sincerely trying to get someone out, and walks them, they're likely to take their base rather than resetting the count and giving the pitcher another crack at them. And if you're facing 2004 Barry Bonds with the tying run at third, maybe you give him 2nd base rather than 1st, but at least walking them is an even bigger hurt than it usually is.
It's not bad, but it would make intentional walks take more than twice as long, plus how do you explain it to an eight year old that four balls is a walk except when it isn't?
It would make intentional walks, which advance the batter to second, take twice as long. How frequent would those be?
This is simply skirting around the edges of ways to speed up the game. Baseball needs to address the core issues - starting with the length of an at-bat. Keep batters in the box once the at-bat begins, with few exceptions like running out a ball that rolls foul. Seriously manage the time between pitches. Once a reasonable limit (ie 15 seconds) is reached, either the pitcher is in motion or it's a ball. Anything else is a band aid on an amputation.
You say the overall length of at-bats is the key, but I don't see how reducing the official strike zone will improve anything on that score. More walks and foul balls? Adding more at-bats will still make the game longer, even if each one is shorter.
This rule, plus the rule on slides into second, means that "pace-of-play" is clearly taking a backseat to Manfred's "pace-of action" concern. Basically, I see from this that MLB is doing a pivot to return to the higher run-scoring environment of the steroid era, just trying to do so without juicing baseballs or lowering the mound, or turning a blind eye to pharmaceutical now-taboos.
Because people enjoy a high-scoring game. It's more fun, even if less thrilling than a pitcher's duel. And if people are having fun, the length of the game won't matter that much to them.
If the overall length of the average game was actually an issue, the answer is simple and requires no alteration to the rules of the game whatsoever: reduce the time allocated for television advertising spots between innings by 1 minute, and you've shaved at least 17.5 minutes off each game.
Seems like a solution in search of a problem. At the IBB rates posted by Paul above, if we assume an IBB takes 40 seconds we're talking about a rule change that will take 10 seconds off average length of game.
Part of what I appreciate about baseball is that you have to execute the mundane things. No matter what the score is or what your record is, four balls is a walk, three strikes is an out, 27 outs is a game. You don't get to just concede a game when you're down 10-0 in the 8th or have a NL pitcher declare himself out rather than swing the bat and run the bases risking injury. You have to complete the plays.
Part of what I appreciate about baseball is that you have to execute the mundane things. No matter what the score is or what your record is, four balls is a walk, three strikes is an out, 27 outs is a game. You don't get to just concede a game when you're down 10-0 in the 8th or have a NL pitcher declare himself out rather than swing the bat and run the bases risking injury. You have to complete the plays.
Four balls is a walk. But the batter can choose to take it, or go double-or-nothing.
Intentional walks wouldn't take twice as long, because basically nobody would issue a 2nd one. It's a gambit - does the batter take the walk or decline it? If he declines it, do they walk him again or pitch to him honestly? - but the costs of putting a runner on 2nd for free would really shift teams' calculus, I think.
Also, they wouldn't take as long because I support the change made here which we're discussing - a team can just indicate to the ump that they're walking the guy, and it is done, no need to farcically throw 4 balls way off the plate. So that's two gestures towards first base, or one gesture plus a normal (but higher-stakes) plate appearance. No big deal either way.
Instead of monkeying with the mechanics of the game, the league should establish an acceptable average time between pitch and enforce through post-game reviews and suspensions. Track it on a weekly or bi-weekly basis and hand down suspensions for all offenders. Increase suspensions for multiple offenses. Do the same thing with batters, with an acceptable average time to be back in the box ready to hit. This way you're not interrupting the flow of the game, forcing umpires to be timekeepers, punishing one-off events like getting a bug in your eye or ridiculously altering a game by calling a shot-clock violation in a crucial situation. Only the chronic slow-pokes will ever be punished, the system won't be open to superstar deference by on field officials, and it will be up to the teams to rein in the behavior of chronic offenders or have them unavailable for significant chunks of time. Behavior patterns would change pretty quickly, I suspect.
We have a sport w two different sets of rules based on an arbitrary division of teams. You think this is even remotely realistic?
This is strange to me. The IBB can be exciting, where, for example, home fans boo the exercise for the 40 or so seasons, rallying for the next at bat. You give up the possibility of the passed ball / wild pitch, stolen bases, the potential for contact, while minimal, still possibilities that are given up. The IBB really doesn't seem to be a "problem" in terms of delay of game.
The problem that baseball has is that speeding up games is at odds with scoring runs. If you want to speed up the game without changing core mechanics the fastest way to do it is raise the mound again or widen the strike zone.
How does the existence of the DH in the AL change whether rules regarding walks can be improved?
Baseball's rules have been finely tuned to create dramatic viewing. Improving upon them without leading to unintended consequences is a very delicate affair. I sincerely believe that this suggestion (the idea for which is not mine) would be an improvement, yes. But do I think it is realistic that my post on a message board will result in MLB changing its rules? Uh, no. We're all just here to talk. It's cheaper than hookers.
Hence "pace of action". It's about all the dead time where someone would change the channel. I wish MLB would consider seriously shrinking between-innings by 30 seconds.
There's no real correlation between run scoring and game length. Especially in recent years--run scoring declined hugely from 2003 to 2015 while the length of games increased significantly.
http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2015/1/29/7921283/baseball-game-length-visual-analysis
Reducing time between innings last year was part of the successful attempt to shorten game length. In 2015, game length was down about 6 minutes/game, a pretty decent drop. It was actually down more like 11-12 minutes/game in the first half, when the batter's box rule was being enforced more seriously.
Faster pitch clocks helped in the minors, too:
I bet the correlation shows up when you control for number of pitching changes. You're not actually trying to argue that, everything else being equal, a low scoring game takes just as long as a high scoring game, right?
No, I'm arguing that the relative difference from run-scoring environment is swamped by other variables.
(Of particular note, the overall difference between a high-scoring era and a low-scoring era is rather tiny compared to the difference between a high-scoring game and a low-scoring one. Especially given that we've already returned to a pretty low-scoring environment, there's just not much time to be saved there.)
Sure. But even within the same article what you'll find is a really nice correlation between PAs and game length. That the increased PA don't always translate to runs gets to the same issue. If you want to reduce game length, the best way to do it is to reduce the number of PA. Anything you do to manipulate that number is likely to reduce runs as well at this point.
Yeah, wait, I'm unclear on how a SMALLER strike zone would shorten game length? I guess I'm fine with getting rid of the formality of the IBB (even if I enjoyed the chance of something exciting happening), but I don't think it will make much difference. For the strike zone though, wouldn't they want to make it bigger, rather than smaller?
These two posts lead me to wondering if the unintentional BB rate is going to climb. If so, it's likely to happen with more than 4 pitches thrown and possibly multiple times per game, so where is the benefit to either rule?
Remember, Manfred doesn't care about game length, just lengthy (boring) PAs. Too much chess, not enough checkers.
Pitchers throwing more pitches where guys can hit them (even if at the edge of the zone) could lead to more highlight/fun action in a game. Counter-intuitively, it's possible that - 3 years down the line - P/PA falls because there's more to swing at.
Pitchers throwing more pitches where guys can hit them (even if at the edge of the zone) could lead to more highlight/fun action in a game. Counter-intuitively, it's possible that - 3 years down the line - P/PA falls because there's more to swing at.
I always thought the easy way to reduce the IBB would be to have it as a 2 base walk automatically.
Then you would have less IBB and more guys trying to throw balls off the plate, with a bigger chance they screw up and groove one.
Then you would have less IBB and more guys trying to throw balls off the plate, with a bigger chance they screw up and groove one.
For me, pace of play is fucked up by these things:
- Pitchers not throwing the ball (hello Clay, hello Dice-K). I find it excruciating when a ball is thrown back and the pitcher decides this is a good time to take a stroll behind the mound, inspecting the health of every blade of grass. Solution: (1) Pitcher must stay on the mound between pitches, (2) Pitch clock {I doubt very much batters stepping out is as critical, plus it's the batter getting something ballistic thrown near his body, not the pitcher...meaning I want the batter to have every opportunity to step away, clear his vision, or get comfortable}
- Throws to 1st base, specifically when it's pretty obviously done to buy more time for a reliever to get ready. I have no idea, however, how this can be addressed. {EDIT: How about something like a balk if a first-base throw over occurs while the runner is on the bag?}
- And the big, already acknowledged one: Mid-Inning pitching changes. That's something that's definitely evolved during the history of the game. There have been many ideas put forward to address this, some of which would result in more interesting strategies and excitement.
Last edited:
This just slows down the game by making pitchers throw "unintentional" walks instead.
Why is the game too long, again? I don't mind the new IBB rule. I don't like changing the strike zone. I do like the pitch clock. I also like the clock on mound visits. And I'd love to find a way to stop Girardi from being able to slow the game to a crawl to get a reliever ready.
Ultimately though, except those Red Sox - Yankee 4 hour 9 inning games, in part due to the Girardi BS above, there's not really a problem to me.
Ultimately though, except those Red Sox - Yankee 4 hour 9 inning games, in part due to the Girardi BS above, there's not really a problem to me.
Not too long, but too slow. As in, not enough action - they're interested in eyeballs on the primary screen, and they want to guarantee they get the second screen if the first is occupied. (This isn't my opinion, it's MLB's.) So - more offense is good.
Think of it this way - they don't need to attract diehards. They want interested casual fans who'll show up occasionally, and then be counted on to watch the events (ASG, playoffs).
Bluntly, MLB doesn't care that much about you. Or me. They care about our kids and the audiences for whom there's no such thing as appointment TV or "nothing else on".
MLB would be fine with a 4 hour game if they had the excitement of last night's GSW-OKC game, but... 2.5-4 hours of a bunch of dudes basically standing around - with a few minutes (total) interruption by fun action - is boring. It's the same reason I can't stand golf even when there's nothing else on - I'd rather turn the TV off. I know casual viewers feel the same way about baseball.
Two ideas that might help MLB build that casual fanbase:
1) Build a very good video game franchise on all platforms. My interest in NBA is partly linked to 2K, and my very very occasional interest in soccer is solely linked to FIFA. The last great multi-platform baseball game was MVP 2005. Which means half a generation has basically missed the fun of playing on-screen.
2) Make the MLB radio free to all streamers via streamiung services (Pandora, etc). I shot many a basketball hoops while listening to Sox radio.
This is a great post. I do hear the same attitudes from people from time to time, and I think baseball should work to address both the delivery / availability side, and also the structural side about making it appealing to an audience. My sense, over a long time watching as a rabid fan, is that baseball is something that grows on you, if/when you take the time to figure out how the batter-pitcher psychological warfare really plays out, atbat-to-atbat and over the course of a game. The essence of baseball is the mutual command of the strike zone, pitcher deception and batter anticipation.
So, baseball is never going to appeal to those who only are interested in balls-in-play. This isn't tennis, it's more of a thinking-man's game than that. I certainly wouldn't advocate any changes that mess with the carefully-calibrated balance of power between pitcher and batter, nor would just about anyone on SoSH, I'd assume. But where baseball can make the biggest difference in excitement, without fundamentally changing the game mechanics, is in that dead time between pitches. P/PA is up, league-wide in a long-term multi-decade trend, due to an increased recognition of the value of a walk. So game length depends and will continue to depend on the pace of pitches. Everything MLB can do to eliminate dead time - pauses between pitches, catcher conferences, stepping out of the box, even pitching changes - is thus, to me, a plus. There shouldn't be a taboo about changing baseball's rules - the way the game is played shifts over time, and the structure should respond to those shifts by guiding it towards the best sport it can be. And sports are supposed to be entertaining.
Distribution is another great angle to how baseball can improve, no doubt. But I question whether these changes are really the essence of what they need. For #1, you've got MLB The Show which is cross-device at least within the Sony universe, but you've got console + handheld. You've also got the RBI Baseball franchise which was resurrected two years ago by Microsoft and is cross-platform for XBox, PS4, Android and iOS (and has a pretty cool frontman). I don't think they're lacking in the video game department, even if they don't have a household name like Madden.
For #2, that's not a bad idea, but they do make a piss-pot of money currently through MLB.TV audio, and its distribution is limited by partnerships with cable providers who want to control coverage (if you have cable, you can get it for free depending on your provider, but in some places you can't get it at all because the regional sports network is full of hatred or fear). Those networks would probably tie up any Pandora deal in litigation. Does anyone here know whether that would be a meaningful barrier? @Dehere
Bear in mind, it took baseball 20 years for the Dodgers to become the first to demonstrate that radio distribution didn't threaten gate receipts and was a net-positive to revenue. I find it hard to believe they're going to overcome their own inertia towards new mediums while simultaneously placating their distribution partners who are eternally worried about disintermediation.
Are you sure? There's no local blackout on MLB audio the way there is on video. Once you buy it, you can listen to any of the 30 teams regardless of your location or market.
No, I'm not sure at all. I'd be curious to hear from anyone who actually knows about how those contracts work.
This is also my experience. MLB is one step removed from giving away the audio anyway, so they should get ahead of this and just do it on every streaming platform. Make MLB audio ubiquitous.
I may be misremembering, but didn't it used to be free? I seem to recall streaming it back in the day; I think it came free with registering an account on MLB.com?