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.
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...
''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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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 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.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 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: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.
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?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.
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).
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).
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.
Why not recommend the Moises Alou method of toughening the hands then?OttoC said:Let them go to spring training and get some callouses.
If shifts don't affect BABIPs, then why do teams shift?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.
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.
Plympton91 said:If shifts don't affect BABIPs, then why do teams shift?
geoduck no quahog said:...
- God Bless America: absolutely. Just kill it....
Well, there is a word in there you ignored. Along with the other questions I posed.Plympton91 said:If shifts don't affect BABIPs, then why do teams shift?
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.
How about a pitch thrown 85mph or faster within a foot of the batter's original head position the batter is awarded first base?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.
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.
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.
OttoC said:
I'm sure I understood that as well as you understood what I wrote.
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.
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.
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.
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....