What sorts of issues would you like the new commissioner to address?

glennhoffmania

king of nothing
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,412,123
NY
On the topic of stadiums, they should require bullpens to be in separate enclosed areas as opposed to along the foul lines.  It's ridiculous to me that a team would build a stadium and not allocate some space for bullpens.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
grimshaw said:
I never understood why not all the stadiums since the early 90's (Toronto/Baltimore) didn't have retractable roofs either to avoid all the PPD's or fan discomfort.  I'm especially talking Minnesota, Texas, Miami, Houston etc. I understand it adds greatly to the expense, but  how do you explain Yankee Stadium???.  Cleveland had 1000 fans the other day for game 1 of a doubleheader and ratings take a big dump.  Plus the players union hates double headers...
 
This is a ridiculously absurd comment.
 
You might as well say "No more ballparks in urban environments", unless you want horrible stadiums like the one in Toronto. The only retractable roofs that make aesthetic sense are ones where the roof retracts completely off the field (for example, Safeco). In order to do that  you need 1/3 more real estate than a normal park (or a railroad right of way, like Seattle) - which means no more Camden Yards, Target Fields, Tiger Stadiums, Pittsburgh, etc.
 
Baseball's made to be played outdoors and weather has always been a factor. Fun fact: Safeco's roof (really, just a retractable umbrella) is among the least used in all of baseball, and cost more than $70M to install...and it's one of the cheaper roofs around.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,307
Portland
geoduck no quahog said:
 
This is a ridiculously absurd comment.
 
You might as well say "No more ballparks in urban environments", unless you want horrible stadiums like the one in Toronto. The only retractable roofs that make aesthetic sense are ones where the roof retracts completely off the field (for example, Safeco). In order to do that  you need 1/3 more real estate than a normal park (or a railroad right of way, like Seattle) - which means no more Camden Yards, Target Fields, Tiger Stadiums, Pittsburgh, etc.
 
Baseball's made to be played outdoors and weather has always been a factor. Fun fact: Safeco's roof (really, just a retractable umbrella) is among the least used in all of baseball, and cost more than $70M to install...and it's one of the cheaper roofs around.
''Ridiculously absurd'' seems a bit of an exaggeration since it wasn't exactly a statement but a question.  Keep that in your pocket for something that is.
 
 The average Yankee and Red Sox ticket price is around $50.  One game of ticket sales for the Yankees is = $2,550,000, and one game for the Red Sox is $1,907,000.  If there are 10 home games at each of those stadiums per year where the weather is cold, drizzly, crappy what have you, those stadiums are maybe half full or less, as I mentioned in the Indians game example. it isn't going to take very long to make back that 70 million in total revenue over a few years.  Granted many of those tickets have been sold anyhow but that doesn't account for any penny not used on tickets, or viewers tuning out during rain delays
 
The point about real estate is valid, though I don't think you can say for certain that every one of those cold weather cities wouldn't have had room for them.
 
Baseball was meant to be played outdoors, until the Astros decided it wasn't, back in the 60's, and several teams have followed suit.
 

jimc

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 28, 2006
527
Toronto
I would rather suffer a hundred rainouts than watch a game in Toronto with the dome closed. I mean, I still go to closed-dome games because I'm a sucker for baseball, but they are so depressing. The most infuriating thing is that for reasons I cannot fathom the dome is never opened before late May regardless of the weather. Screw domes. 
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
11,971
Washington, DC
I would bet that the crappiness of a team plays a much, much bigger factor in attendance than fan discomfort. Otherwise the leaders in attendance annually would be Tampa Bay, Houston, Arizona, Seattle, Toronto, and Milwaukee.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,307
Portland
jimc said:
I would rather suffer a hundred rainouts than watch a game in Toronto with the dome closed. I mean, I still go to closed-dome games because I'm a sucker for baseball, but they are so depressing. The most infuriating thing is that for reasons I cannot fathom the dome is never opened before late May regardless of the weather. Screw domes. 
I prefer the domes opened whenever possible as well.  Seeing the CN Tower in the back drop made it more scenic at least.  Otherwise there was no atmosphere when I went in the late 90's.
 
To be clear, I'm not advocating keeping domes closed at all in order to maintain pristine playing conditions.  I just couldn't ever see myself attending a Marlins or Rangers game in August as a New Englander.  The locals can deal with it, but traveling fans, not as much. 
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,733
02130
OttoC said:
 
The Kansas City Royals, under owner Ewing Kaufmann, decided to create a baseball academy ca. 1969, to tap non-traditional sources of ball players. It really did not produce much in the way of players and it was more costly than the minor league system and closed down after about five years. Ted Williams taught hitting, btw.
Huh? The academy produced 14 future MLBers, including Frank White (34.7 career bWAR, all with the Royals), U.L. Washington (9.7 bWAR) and Ron Washington, and Kaufmann regretted shutting it down. Maybe not quite worth the $500k yearly cost, but I'm not sure what revenues were in those days either. But they got a double-play combination out of it for 5 years.
 
http://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/sam-mellinger/article940797.html
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
New Rule:

Batter hit above the shoulders (intentionally or not) - automatic ejection and

12 game suspension for starter
5 game suspension for reliever

Rule enforced to limit potential head injuries by eliminating the high and tight pitch.

Many will suffer due to simple mistakes, but protecting the batter deemed paramount.

Whadyathink?
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
32,350
Asheville, NC
How about:
Ball hits batter outside his batter's box but not behind it: no base, ump calls a ball or strike as normal. Crowd the plate at your own risk.
Ball is thrown in or behind batter's box: Batter gets 1B automatically, regardless of whether he's hit or not. There's no duty to try to avoid it, but that's common sense and avoiding it doesn't lose you the free base.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
72,714
SumnerH said:
How about:
Ball hits batter outside his batter's box but not behind it: no base, ump calls a ball or strike as normal. Crowd the plate at your own risk.
 
I haven't kept up with this thread, but I was thinking exactly the same thing the other day, good call. 
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
I'd also like to fantasize about cracking down on shifts.

I'd put in a "No zone defense" rule like the NBA has, which would basically mandate that the SS and 2B have to be on the 3B and 2B side of the infield, respectively, and that the 1B and 3B cannot be more than 30 feet away from their assigned bases, and no infielder may be positioned on the outfield grass, until after the pitcher releases the ball.
 

OttoC

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2003
7,353
SumnerH said:
How about:
Ball hits batter outside his batter's box but not behind it: no base, ump calls a ball or strike as normal. Crowd the plate at your own risk.
...
 
Not quite sure how to interpret, "Ball hits batter outside his batter's box but not behind it" but the rules already state that if the batter is hit by a pitch in the strike zone, it is to be called a strike. It's not all together well enforced. I also think that if the batter swings at a pitch that hits him, it is supposed to be called a strike. Another rule is that batters are supposed to make an effort to avoid being hit. If they don't, it is supposed to be called a ball or strike, as appropriate. Of course, we all know how much effort is made to avoid pitches that are not threatening head, knees, or the genital area.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
32,350
Asheville, NC
Plympton91 said:
I'd also like to fantasize about cracking down on shifts.

I'd put in a "No zone defense" rule like the NBA has, which would basically mandate that the SS and 2B have to be on the 3B and 2B side of the infield, respectively, and that the 1B and 3B cannot be more than 30 feet away from their assigned bases, and no infielder may be positioned on the outfield grass, until after the pitcher releases the ball.
I hate this. It'd stop legal on-field innovation. Hell, if something like this had been implemented from the get-go the shortstop would be stuck in the outfield.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
32,350
Asheville, NC
OttoC said:
Not quite sure how to interpret, "Ball hits batter outside his batter's box but not behind it" but the rules already state that if the batter is hit by a pitch in the strike zone, it is to be called a strike. It's not all together well enforced. I also think that if the batter swings at a pitch that hits him, it is supposed to be called a strike. Another rule is that batters are supposed to make an effort to avoid being hit. If they don't, it is supposed to be called a ball or strike, as appropriate. Of course, we all know how much effort is made to avoid pitches that are not threatening head, knees, or the genital area.
I know all that. I'm saying to basically eliminate the "hit" part of HBP and make it a "who has the right to this area" rule, thus eliminating the rarely enforced "has to try to avoid the pitch" rule and still incentivizing the batter to actually avoid the pitch. This also reduces the situation where a pitcher is throwing at a batter multiple times until he hits him, but still allows for brushbacks of the batters who are actually crowding the plate:

If the ball goes in the batter's box, or behind the batter's box ("behind" means behind the back of a batter who's standing in the box ready to swing) the batter gets 1st base (whether or not it hits him).

If it's between the batter's box and the strike zone, or if it's on the far side of the strike zone from the batter, it's a ball (even if it hits the batter, no base is awarded) unless the batter swings, in which case it's a strike.

Just as it is now, if it's in the strike zone it's a strike (even if it hits the batter).
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,733
02130
Plympton91 said:
I'd also like to fantasize about cracking down on shifts.

I'd put in a "No zone defense" rule like the NBA has, which would basically mandate that the SS and 2B have to be on the 3B and 2B side of the infield, respectively, and that the 1B and 3B cannot be more than 30 feet away from their assigned bases, and no infielder may be positioned on the outfield grass, until after the pitcher releases the ball.
Can I bring an outfielder into shallow right field with Ortiz is up? Can my 3B sprint to his left at the precise moment the pitcher releases? Do we draw a bunch of new lines on the field? What is the penalty for violating this rule?
 
Shifts are a good thing. People thinking outside the box is cool. They have not significantly affected team BABIPs. Additionally, there is already a way to beat them -- hit or bunt the ball the other way. If you are a complete hitter, teams don't shift against you. We don't need to regulate them out.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,307
Portland
Couple of repeated ideas as well as shit against the wall for shaving time
 
-Home runs out of the park don't need a home run trot.  The ump signals home run, and you and/or the rest of the players head back to the dugout.  This would shave an hour off of games in Toronto.
 
-Intentional walks without pitches.  Wild pitches occur about as often as the 3rd to 1st pick off play . . .which was eliminated.
 
-No pitching coach visits.  Just the injury timeout and/or replacing the pitcher
 
-No catcher visits
 
-Pitch clock enforced
 
-If the pitcher steps off the mound to buy time for the pitcher warming it will result in an automatic ball if he doesn't throw a pitch before the manager removes him.
In other words, the Joe Girardi rule.
 
-One foot in the box, one timeout max per at bat by batter
 
-Glowing balls.  You know, like the glow puck on Fox.
 

VORP Speed

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
6,684
Ground Zero
SumnerH said:
I know all that. I'm saying to basically eliminate the "hit" part of HBP and make it a "who has the right to this area" rule, thus eliminating the rarely enforced "has to try to avoid the pitch" rule and still incentivizing the batter to actually avoid the pitch. This also reduces the situation where a pitcher is throwing at a batter multiple times until he hits him, but still allows for brushbacks of the batters who are actually crowding the plate:

If the ball goes in the batter's box, or behind the batter's box ("behind" means behind the back of a batter who's standing in the box ready to swing) the batter gets 1st base (whether or not it hits him).

If it's between the batter's box and the strike zone, or if it's on the far side of the strike zone from the batter, it's a ball (even if it hits the batter, no base is awarded) unless the batter swings, in which case it's a strike.

Just as it is now, if it's in the strike zone it's a strike (even if it hits the batter).
 
Automated ball/strike technology would make this easy. I don't know if I'd make it an automatic base if it's in the batter's box and doesn't hit the batter, but would be great to define the edge of batter's box and not award a base on HBP if the ball does not encroach batter's box. Just another benefit of bringing in the robots.
 

OttoC

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2003
7,353
SumnerH said:
I know all that. I'm saying to basically eliminate the "hit" part of HBP and make it a "who has the right to this area" rule, thus eliminating the rarely enforced "has to try to avoid the pitch" rule and still incentivizing the batter to actually avoid the pitch. This also reduces the situation where a pitcher is throwing at a batter multiple times until he hits him, but still allows for brushbacks of the batters who are actually crowding the plate:

If the ball goes in the batter's box, or behind the batter's box ("behind" means behind the back of a batter who's standing in the box ready to swing) the batter gets 1st base (whether or not it hits him).

If it's between the batter's box and the strike zone, or if it's on the far side of the strike zone from the batter, it's a ball (even if it hits the batter, no base is awarded) unless the batter swings, in which case it's a strike.

Just as it is now, if it's in the strike zone it's a strike (even if it hits the batter).
 
Okay, I see what you are saying but the distance from the edge of the plate to the batter's box is 6 inches. That does not allow the pitcher much margin for error if he is trying to pitch inside to a batter, particularly if he is throwing a pitch that is supposed to break in towards the batter. Frankly, I think pitchers should be allowed to back batters off the plate but batters should not be given first base unless they actively try to avoid being hit by the pitch. There shouldn't be an umpire's discretion in ejecting pitchers after warnings have been issued (as in the earlier fiasco between the Rays and Red Sox).
 

OttoC

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2003
7,353
If I were commissioner, I think one of the first rules that I would implement would be that any broken bat that interferes with a player fielding a ball would result in the batter being called out for interference and any base runners would have to hold their positions. This would also go for those batters who cannot keep a grip on their bat and let it fly in fair territory. I find it very irksome to watch professional players let their bats fly into the stands and all over.
 
One of these days, a player, coach, umpire, or media person is going is going to be killed by a broken bat or a fan in the stands by a flying bat. I don't think that MLB should wait until that happens before taking steps to try and ensure that it doesn't.
 
For those who have never bothered to read the back of a major league ticket (and I eventually had to put on 2x reading glasses and use a magnifying glass to read mine from Minute Maid Park from earlier this month), it says, in part:
 
The  holder assumes all risk incidental to the event of baseball, whether occurring prior to (including but not limited to batting practice), during or subsequent to the actual playing of the event, including specifically (but not exclusively), the danger of being injured by thrown or broken bats or thrown or batted balls, and agrees that the Houston Astros, LLC, The Houston Astros Baseball Club, Major League Baseball, The Office of the Commissioner of Major League Baseball, the National League, American League, Participating Clubs, their Agents, Players, or other related entities or other individuals are not liable for damages or injuries resulting from such causes. By attending the event, the holder is deemed to have given a full release of liability to the entities listed above (both on his/her behalf and on behalf of any minor(s) attending the event with the holder) to the fullest extent permitted by law. If the holder does not wish to or is not authorized to grant such a release, he/she and any accompanying minors should immediately leave Minute Maid Park.
 
I also think I would ban batting gloves. I don't see that they do anything but keep a player's hands soft (and some baseball people, albeit older ones, agree). We wouldn't nned to waste time watching players adjust the Velcro straps after every pitch nor would they need to swap batting gloves for sliding gloves every time they get on base. Let them go to spring training and get some callouses.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,733
02130
So you want to ban batting gloves, which allow players to grip the bat better, but also lament the scourge of batters letting bats slip out of their hands and want to penalize that too? Besides Nomar, who takes a lot of time adjusting their gloves? This is time that would just be taken up by the pitcher staring in anyway.
 
My understanding is that bats break because they have gotten thinner and more are made of maple instead of ash. The way to cut down on this is to regulate that the bats need to be stronger like MLB is already doing and not penalize the players for bad luck.
 
Some of the best ideas were thought crazy at first, so I won't knock that, but do you even think these things through?
 

OttoC

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2003
7,353
If batting gloves help players grip the bat better why am I seeing so many more players lose their grip on bats than I did back in the '50s, '60's? And for what it's worth, the baseball people I spoke with at the SABR convention earlier this moth tended to agree with me.
 
I am aware that MLB has a program in place to reduce broken bats but it still happens far too often. The 2012 article you cite says the all-time high for bat breakage was in 2008 when there was about one per game and the most up-to-date number given was about 0.53 per game. One thing to note is that they are talking about multipiece failures per game, in other words, bats breaking into two pieces were not counted. I may be wrong but it would seem to me that a bat the has one large piece that goes sailing through the infield might prove more hazardous than several smaller pieces (155mm shell vs. shrpnel).
 
This site is an interesting read even though it is written by someone who founded a hard maple bat company: http://www.woodbat.org/ . Admittedly, he says that Slope of Grain failure, which typically causes the bat to break into multiple pieces, is the most dangerous to players and fans, so I may be wrong in my interpretation. But regarding thickness of handles, he says that a handle with a diameter of 0.93 inches has only 80% the strength of a handle with a diameter of 1.0 inches. 0.07"? That's scarcely more than 1/16-th of an inch..
 

glennhoffmania

king of nothing
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,412,123
NY
SumnerH said:
How about:
Ball hits batter outside his batter's box but not behind it: no base, ump calls a ball or strike as normal. Crowd the plate at your own risk.
Ball is thrown in or behind batter's box: Batter gets 1B automatically, regardless of whether he's hit or not. There's no duty to try to avoid it, but that's common sense and avoiding it doesn't lose you the free base.
 
I saw an example of this last night (I can't remember which game) where it was simply a curve that got away from the pitcher.  I don't think that a 75 mph pitch that was clearly just a shitty pitch should result in the batter getting a free base.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,307
Portland
Other thoughts
 
-Sing God Bless America before the game on Sundays if it has to remain. 
 
-I'd be curious to see how much overall time has been saved by limiting arguments and tantrums by umpires as opposed to reviewing plays. 
 
-Add one more west coast team in the AL and a central team in the NL.  The Rockies and D-Backs have too much travel.
 
-This will never happen but I'd make double headers 7 innings each and schedule a few on holidays  If you can sell that, then you can probably sell 1 or 2 scheduled double headers on the west coast vs east coast and vice versa and get 12 games in 10 days.  Boom, one road trip per coast.
 
-More offense will attract younger viewers and divert attention from lengthy games.  Offense is down because PED's are disappearing, and shifting seems to contribute as well.  Try and find a way to turn it around a bit.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Toe Nash said:
Can I bring an outfielder into shallow right field with Ortiz is up? Can my 3B sprint to his left at the precise moment the pitcher releases? Do we draw a bunch of new lines on the field? What is the penalty for violating this rule?
 
Shifts are a good thing. People thinking outside the box is cool. They have not significantly affected team BABIPs. Additionally, there is already a way to beat them -- hit or bunt the ball the other way. If you are a complete hitter, teams don't shift against you. We don't need to regulate them out.
If shifts don't affect BABIPs, then why do teams shift?
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
Putting in a shifting rule is silly. This is the way the game is played. Establishing defensive parameters would mean, among other things, that you couldn't put 5 infielders into play in a game losing situation. 
 
And shortening games by impacting play on the field is draconian. I'm told that hitting and pitching is hard. A batter has always had the privilege of setting himself up (mind and body) to attack a pitcher, and pitchers have always had the right to collect themselves on the mound. This doesn't seem to be an issue in other leagues...so let's face it - the biggest reason for lengthier games is commercial breaks between innings and during pitching changes.
 
I could understand forcing pitchers to deliver more quickly when no one is on base, but really - how much time would that save.
 
It's gotten to the point where one letter to the NYT suggested that baseball enact a "2-strike foul is an out" rule, along with "3 balls for a walk". My impression is that some people simply don't like baseball (would that guy promote a 3-down football rule to speed the NFL along?). There's plenty of texting and googling and youtubing to be done between pitches for those whose attention span is 1 second. Baseball's always been a game (I think Roger Angel stated it this way) of intense spurts of action scattered among long periods of inaction...a game conducive to conversation and the wandering of the mind.
 
Let's look at some suggestions:
 
- Mound visits: changing signs or clarifying pitches when a runner is on 2nd, establishing infield defense strategies, a catcher or coach pointing out a mechanical flaw, re-establishing how to pitch in a certain situation, or even giving the pitcher a breather (it's not always about delaying the game to allow a reliever to warm)
 
- Stepping out of the box: a hitter clearing his head after a tough pitch, or re-establishing his setup when a pitcher takes too long, clearing his vision from dust or insects, or simply collecting his thoughts
 
- Restricting the use of relievers: just invent a different game
 
- Calling an intentional walk: really? ok - save us the 11 seconds that takes once every 8 games...in very high intensity situations
 
- Review times: agree, anything that can speed this up (and still get it right) is a good thing...although reviews also are pretty rare
 
- God Bless America: absolutely. Just kill it.
 
My point again is: try not to do anything that materially impacts the game for very marginal benefit.
 

OttoC

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2003
7,353
Plympton91 said:
I'd also like to fantasize about cracking down on shifts.

I'd put in a "No zone defense" rule like the NBA has, which would basically mandate that the SS and 2B have to be on the 3B and 2B side of the infield, respectively, and that the 1B and 3B cannot be more than 30 feet away from their assigned bases, and no infielder may be positioned on the outfield grass, until after the pitcher releases the ball.
 
Seems to me that would lengthen game times as there would be constant carping about the defense's positioning. Are they going to add extra lines on the fields to aid umpires in determining whether a corner infielder has exceeded his distance allowed? Is this going to be a rule like the one governing staying in the coach's box or the batter's box (rubbing out the back line) where a team has to appeal to the umpire to call it (and they don't because they will get it called on their team, too? Will it be subject to appeal? I suspect that we are stuck with the shifts until more batters either start bunting against it or learn how to hit away from it.
 

OttoC

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2003
7,353
geoduck no quahog said:
...
- God Bless America: absolutely. Just kill it....
 
One of the recent Sea Dog vs. Fisher Cat games had God Bless America, an honor for our Armed Forces, the Star Spangled Banner, and Take Me Out to the Ball Game. I could skip all four.
 

OttoC

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2003
7,353
Papelbon's Poutine said:
 
Broken bats are dangerous but do you feel like they are intentional? Because I don't see why a player should be punished for something that is out of their control. Even maple bats break. 
 
The players could so something about them, though, by not using such thin-handled bats, being more careful about how they hold maple bats. But my main concern is getting something done before someone gets killed.
 

Pedro 4 99MVP

New Member
Dec 6, 2013
56
Maine
1. Add 2 teams. An even number in both leagues means that interleague games don't have to happen all the time.
2. Eliminate interleague play. If it must stay, go back to just a couple of weeks in June. Keep rivalries such as Chicago teams, Southern Cal teams, Bay Area teams, and NY teams. If a team doesn't have a "natural" rival, assign one. They will be rivals soon enough.
3. DH in the NL. I know there are traditionalists that like the pitchers hitting, but most of them not named Bumgarner suck at it. This is the Major Leagues, why put out someone who sucks at their job when there are plenty of good hitters available to DH. I want to see excellence at this level.
4. The all-star game means nothing. Determine home field advantage in World Series on a rotating basis or on best regular season record, I don't care.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
16,173
glennhoffmania said:
 
I saw an example of this last night (I can't remember which game) where it was simply a
curve that got away from the pitcher.  I don't think that a 75 mph pitch that was clearly just a shitty pitch should result in the batter getting a free base.
How about a pitch thrown 85mph or faster within a foot of the batter's original head position the batter is awarded first base?

Throwing at/near heads should really
be discouraged.
 

OttoC

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2003
7,353
There have been 585959 pitches thrown in 4020 games so far this season in the majors. That works out to about 145.8 per team per game, or 291.6 per game for both teams. If an average of three seconds were cut between the time of each pitch then the time of an average game would be cut by nearly 15 minutes. You don't let the batter wander all over the place after every pitch; in fact, you tell him he stays in the batter's box and you tell the pitcher to throw when he is ready (just as long as it is not a "fast pitch."). Of course, batters won't like this and probably will start trying to call time to "check signs" with their coach. Don't give them time out and tell the pitcher to pitch. The Players' Union will get all bent out of shape but some of these rules are already on the books and the Commissioner has "in the best interests of the game clause" to fall back on. After a year, or so, things will calm down and batters, pitchers will adapt and the games speed up somewhat.
 
The alternative is for the fans to vote with their wallets but if we recall the 1994 stoppage, we might recall that that did not work that well.
 

HriniakPosterChild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 6, 2006
14,841
500 feet above Lake Sammammish
OttoC said:
There have been 585959 pitches thrown in 4020 games so far this season in the majors. That works out to about 145.8 per team per game, or 291.6 per game for both teams. If an average of three seconds were cut between the time of each pitch then the time of an average game would be cut by nearly 15 minutes. You don't let the batter wander all over the place after every pitch; in fact, you tell him he stays in the batter's box and you tell the pitcher to throw when he is ready (just as long as it is not a "fast pitch."). Of course, batters won't like this and probably will start trying to call time to "check signs" with their coach. Don't give them time out and tell the pitcher to pitch. The Players' Union will get all bent out of shape but some of these rules are already on the books and the Commissioner has "in the best interests of the game clause" to fall back on. After a year, or so, things will calm down and batters, pitchers will adapt and the games speed up somewhat.
 
The alternative is for the fans to vote with their wallets but if we recall the 1994 stoppage, we might recall that that did not work that well.
 
Right, because why should the batter care if he makes an out or not? It's not like the results of his AB's are going to affect his next contract. 
 

OttoC

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2003
7,353
HriniakPosterChild said:
 
 
Right, because why should the batter care if he makes an out or not? It's not like the results of his AB's are going to affect his next contract. 
 
 
I'm sure I understood that as well as you understood what I wrote.
 

strek1

Run, Forrest, run!
SoSH Member
Jun 13, 2006
32,924
Hartford area
My "Wish" List
 
Eliminate unbalanced schedules
 
Bring DH to National L.
 
Robots for the strike zone.  The clown can still stand there for foul tips, calls at the plate, balks etc....
 

OttoC

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2003
7,353
There have been suggestions that intentional walks be made automatic as a time-saving measure. Through yesterday, there has been 370 IBB in the AL in 2040 games and 438 in 2044 NL games this year. That is .018 and 0.21 per game, respectively by league and given that it takes very little time to complete one, not much time would be trimmed per game. Still, you say, why bother? Well, I cannot tell you the last time it has happened but there are known instances of batters getting hits when they were in the process of being intentionally walked; the pitcher failed to get the ball far enough away or the batter threw his bat at the pitch.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,426
OttoC said:
There have been suggestions that intentional walks be made automatic as a time-saving measure. Through yesterday, there has been 370 IBB in the AL in 2040 games and 438 in 2044 NL games this year. That is .018 and 0.21 per game, respectively by league and given that it takes very little time to complete one, not much time would be trimmed per game. Still, you say, why bother? Well, I cannot tell you the last time it has happened but there are known instances of batters getting hits when they were in the process of being intentionally walked; the pitcher failed to get the ball far enough away or the batter threw his bat at the pitch.
 
The instances of some unexpected event occurring during an IBB are way too rare to justify the monotony of throwing the four balls, IMO.  If something has the same result nearly every time,why are you doing it?  I feel the same way about the PAT in football. 
 

OttoC

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2003
7,353
moondog80 said:
 
The instances of some unexpected event occurring during an IBB are way too rare to justify the monotony of throwing the four balls, IMO.  If something has the same result nearly every time,why are you doing it?  I feel the same way about the PAT in football. 
 
Well, as I pointed out, the instances of IBBs aren't really common either. The time they add to a game is almost negligible, so why not the (albeit extremely) rare chance of a batter breaking up the IBB? In 2013, there were 1018 intentional walks in 184873 plate appearances in the major leagues. That is 0.55% of all PA.
 
As for football, that game could be sped up by not playing it at all.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,426
OttoC said:
 
Well, as I pointed out, the instances of IBBs aren't really common either. The time they add to a game is almost negligible, so why not the (albeit extremely) rare chance of a batter breaking up the IBB? In 2013, there were 1018 intentional walks in 184873 plate appearances in the major leagues. That is 0.55% of all PA.
 
As for football, that game could be sped up by not playing it at all.
 
 
I agree it's not a huge time savings, but when it does happen it's quite tedious to watch, particularly since it's generally a tense moment in the game.  Moreover, if you want to decrease game times, there's no one single thing that's going to make a huge impact, it's going to be a series of different small changes that will add up to big savings.
 
As for the PAT, that's hardly a radical concept, the NFL has already explored the idea.  Give the team a an automatic point, or let them risk by going for a two point conversion.
 

OttoC

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2003
7,353
moondog80 said:
 
 
I agree it's not a huge time savings, but when it does happen it's quite tedious to watch, particularly since it's generally a tense moment in the game.  Moreover, if you want to decrease game times, there's no one single thing that's going to make a huge impact, it's going to be a series of different small changes that will add up to big savings....
 
Oh, give me a break. 1018 IBBs that take, say, 20 seconds each, will add approximately 339 minutes to the total game times for the 2013 season. 339/(162 x 15) = approx. 14 seconds per game.
 

Fuzzypants

New Member
Jul 6, 2014
4
The gym I work out at has treadmills that face a mirror and you can see the reflection of a TV while working out.  Watching a baseball game is odd because players appear to run down the third base line.
 
This got me thinking ... what if the rules were changed allowing players to run in either direction to get on base?  Scoring would then be changed to the total number of bases a runner touched before returning home rather than runs.
 
Since this is an absurd idea I won't go into the details, but it might eliminate the use of the shift.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,307
Portland
-0-3 designated flex roster spots year round.  It's dumb just for September or just for April as has been tossed around as well.  These 0-3 spots are for 40 man players.  You give a fringey guy a start for Pedey who is nursing his thumb, or a rookie a looksee.
The biggest benefit would be not burning out your pen or risking further injury to banged up players.  Phantom DL injuries are silly too.  You can manage minor league innings better too if you allow them to skip starts here and there without optioning them back and forth
 
-Maybe if players are scratched they don't accumulate service time, still get paid as minor leaguers, but at least get acclimated to MLB (and enjoy post game spreads).  It is an abomination that MLB ready players are being stashed in the minors.  Cubs fans would be pumped and checking online to see if/when Kris Bryant gets a start.