Also, wasn't one of the reasons for changing bat material the dangers of broken bats? There's no way the league would force the use of a more dangerous bat (right?...right?)Switching to ash en-masse would wipe out the few trees the ash borers didn't eat. That isn't even a feasible option, much less a good one.
Listen I get it with respect to the dangers of the bat breaking.....Also, wasn't one of the reasons for changing bat material the dangers of broken bats? There's no way the league would force the use of a more dangerous bat (right?...right?)
The era of the dangerous broken bat was actually tied to maple bats, not so much the ash. The ash bats have more of a tendency to splinter or "explode" which is safer than the version of maple bats that became popular because of Barry Bonds 15-20 years ago, which would shear off and become jagged projectiles. I'm no expert though, so I don't know what changes were made to make the maple bats safer, but they don't seem to be as big (or at least as frequent) of a problem anymore.Also, wasn't one of the reasons for changing bat material the dangers of broken bats? There's no way the league would force the use of a more dangerous bat (right?...right?)
Thanks, I knew there had been a change related to broken bats but apparently I had the timeline backwards.The era of the dangerous broken bat was actually tied to maple bats, not so much the ash. The ash bats have more of a tendency to splinter or "explode" which is safer than the version of maple bats that became popular because of Barry Bonds 15-20 years ago, which would shear off and become jagged projectiles. I'm no expert though, so I don't know what changes were made to make the maple bats safer, but they don't seem to be as big (or at least as frequent) of a problem anymore.
*
Ok. Now I’m in.It would be great if the runner would have to be tagged out just like they're stealing second or third. This could lead to the hilarious spectacle of getting into a rundown and sliding back into home the wrong way. Then they could just resume their at bat as though nothing happened.
I've been a baseball fan for a long and off the top of my head the only rule changes I can think of are no longer having to throw the ball four times for an intentional walk and catchers not being allowed to block the plate. How could such a drastic change to the game ever be approved? It would ruin the game for me.First blush, I like this rule, for two reasons.
First, as mentioned above, it gives teams a reason to give a damn about catcher defense once robot strike zones make pitch framing irrelevant. Preventing normal steals and passed balls are nowhere near as important as framing is, and once the robots take over sticking Ryan Doumit back there becomes a really solid option, with all the hideous aesthetic that entails. I'd rather teams have at least some reason to employ people who can catch without looking like a total clown.
Second, this is a rule that will boost offense in a manner completely independent of how well the ball is flying out of the park. MLB needs stuff like this, because the juiced ball is (very nearly) the only thing separating our current run environment from the dead zone of 2014. MLB will likely tone down the balls at some point, and they still want to see runners crossing the plate once and a while afterwards.
Finally, I don't think this adds any significant judgement calls. Have a "commit line" three to six feet past home plate down the first base line, if the batter's foot lands on or past that line he's a live runner and must touch either first base or home plate before being forced out. Nothing is perfect, but that is as cleanly enforceable as baseball rules come.
Couldn’t they just raise the mound to get the same result?Listen I get it with respect to the dangers of the bat breaking.....
However, if manufacturers continue to improve the maple bat and even get MLB to sanction other makers of 'birch' (which is being introduced lately)......
Then the fear MLB will have is the exit-velocity of a batted-ball.....to a pitcher that is 55-feet away and a corner-infielder that will eventually need some minor armor to protect himself.
If turning to ash isn't feasible -- look to reduce the bat as a weapon for the hitter.
Give the pitcher a chance / invitation to throw strikes.
Right now, they are forced to "miss the bat" with sliders, cutters and any other breaking pitches their arms can withstand.
And these breaking pitches (which are out of the strike zone --- just as much as they are in it) are elongating the game.
I would loveeee to see a pickle between first and home, and then the guy is safe and picks up a bat to continue his AB.For stealing first base, is the runner out by a tag or a throw to first as with ground balls? Can the runner return to home plate and continue the at bat if the former? For example, catcher drops the ball and it rolls a few feet. The runner takes off towards first, as the catcher picks up the ball and throws to first, could the runner simply stop advancing towards first and run/slide back into home plate, and then resume the at bat?
Maybe.....let's try that too.Couldn’t they just raise the mound to get the same result?
If they allowed a rundown between home and first then the rule would be a big change. Batters would try for first more frequently and it would end up being dumb. But that's not how the proposed rule would work. Batters wouldn't give up their chance of hitting to try to make it to first on a wild pitch unless they felt they had at least a 50-50 shot of making it safely. The ball would have to go pretty far away from the catcher for even a fast runner to decide he had a 50-50 chance.
This rule wouldn't shorten game length at all, but it would end a few at-bats sooner and keep the line moving faster, replacing more pitches with more action. That is why it's being experimented with.
There are certainly better ways to shorten game time and and speed the pace of play. There are already rules on the books that would do both, but they just aren't being enforced and it seems like they just won't be. So experimenting with this rule is just a look at making a minor tweak to replace the same pitch, pause, pitch, pause routine with more fast paced action a couple of times a game.
Again, this rule basically already exists when the hitter has 2 strikes. When batter whiffs and ends up at first, nobody calls it a mockery of the game or a ridiculous rule. If this rule is put in, it might add a little action to the game, which would be nice. It wouldn't change much and wouldn't fix much. But as long as the rules that would do that are ignored, only huge, risky rule changes or minor tweaks can really be looked at. I much prefer experimenting with minor tweaks.
Easy: You put a little marker on the first base line that if the batter goes beyond that, they are considered a runner. Obviously you would have to have separate lines for right and left handed batters. If a batter advances beyond the marker without yelling "STEALS!" as he moves, he is out. Once he yells "STEALS!" its a live ball----unless the opposing catcher yells "STICKERS!" beforehand, thus negative the ability to steal first.It would be a lot different than the current rule for 2 strikes. With the new rule the batter would decide whether it's to be a live ball or not which is blasphemy. What if the bases are loaded and the batter takes a step too far and the catcher steps on home for the force? How is it scored? CS at home or first?
Simply add the language "with first base open". Problem solved.It would be a lot different than the current rule for 2 strikes. With the new rule the batter would decide whether it's to be a live ball or not which is blasphemy. What if the bases are loaded and the batter takes a step too far and the catcher steps on home for the force? How is it scored? CS at home or first?
MLB umpires don't get a vote. As the saying goes nobody goes to the park to see the umps. With robot umpires calling balls and strikes and video review, the umpires are even more easily replaceable.And the robot change is far from a done deal. It would result in the home plate umpire just hanging around for a play at home. MLB umpires would never agree to it and and I doubt the players would either. It would hurt the guys good at pitch framing and other players are going to support them.
That would be SO much worse than the batter in the same situation reaching first on a missed third strike, or catcher's interference, or one of the other rules that are already on the books so no one gets mad about them.Ninth inning, 2 outs, a perfect game broken up by someone stealing first. Of course, it would have miraculous if there hasn't already been about five of them before that.
The conversation around bats is really interesting. MLB rules state "The bat shall be a smooth, round stick not more than 2.61 inches in diameter at the thickest part and not more than 42 inches in length. The bat shall be one piece of solid wood." There doesn't seem to be a rule regarding the bat's weight.Give the pitcher a chance / invitation to throw strikes.