LambeauLeap1250 WSSP


  
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10  Next  [ 185 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply

Proposed MLB rule changes

Author Message
Offline  Re: Proposed MLB rule changes
#41

Posted: March 08, 2019, 1:33 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 70
Location: Canandaigua, NY
I’d be okay with the 20 second pitch clock with bases empty, but when there’s a runner on I don’t think there should be a clock. I just think there’s too much going on, especially when you’ve got a speedy runner on base. Worse case with 20 second clock is pitchers will just throw off to 1B repeatedly until they’re ready, possibly leading to longer game times.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Proposed MLB rule changes
#42

Posted: March 08, 2019, 1:44 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 8731
KeithStone53151 said:
pitchleague said:
I don't understand the last one: "distance from pitching rubber to home plate extended 24 inches, in the second half of the season only." They're going to make pitchers throw from 2-feet further???? They're going to move the mounds in all the stadiums back, in the middle of the season?

What am I missing? I don't get the purpose.


It's super weird that they are only doing it in the 2nd half of the season, but yes it seems like they'll be moving the mounds back and the pitcher will throw from 2 feet further away.


The only thing I can think of is that they don't want to mess with things and prevent guys from getting signed by major league teams. In theory, MLB teams have seen all they need to see after the first half so making the change in the second half shouldn't hurt guy's chances of getting signed.

I also don't think changing the distance by 2 feet will dramatically change the results. Some guys probably won't be able to adjust but I would guess that overall offensive numbers won't go up that much. They may even go down. Yes, you have more time to react to a fastball but breaking pitches also have more distance to break.

The one I find interesting is making the bases bigger. I would assume that's for safety but it also shortens the distance between home/first and third/home by 1.5 inches and first/second and second/third by 3 inches. I'm sure the benefit to the offense will be negligible in the numbers but it still is a benefit.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Proposed MLB rule changes
#43

Posted: March 14, 2019, 6:01 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 2110
http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/2625 ... atform=amp
This year brings a single trade deadline, all star election day, and million dollar bonus for home run derby. Next year we get the stupid 3 batter minimum, roster expansion to 26, and limits in september to 28. Both sides are looking into pitcher limits on the roster as well, proposed as 13 with an increase to 14 in september.

reillymcshane said:
Remember what Yoda said:

"Cubs lead to Cardinals. Cardinals lead to dislike. Dislike leads to hate. Hate leads to constipation."


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Online  Re: Proposed MLB rule changes
#44

Posted: March 14, 2019, 6:10 AM Post
Posts: 5123
I'm ok with everything but that 3 batter minimum nonsense....there are just so many reasons not to mess with it, and I think if part of their intent implementing it is to reduce game times, they will quickly realize it will actually lengthen them.

I'd be interested in getting the managers' takes on this rule - there can't be too many that are happy about it. Not to mention LOOGYS. And unless the DH is implemented in the NL to go along with this move, it's a really stupid idea that will put bats in the hands of middle/late game relievers in crunch time. If they are brought in to finish an inning and still need to face another batter or two before a manager can pull them, we will get to witness guys who never pick up a bat flail away and pray not to hurt themselves. Or, will there be an exception to the 3 batter minimum if a pitcher finishes an inning and is removed for a PH?


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Proposed MLB rule changes
#45

Posted: March 14, 2019, 6:45 AM Post
Posts: 1110
Fear The Chorizo said:
If they are brought in to finish an inning and still need to face another batter or two before a manager can pull them, we will get to witness guys who never pick up a bat flail away and pray not to hurt themselves. Or, will there be an exception to the 3 batter minimum if a pitcher finishes an inning and is removed for a PH?


We'll have to see when the full details are released, but I would think that with the purpose being pace of play, then between-inning pitching changes would be exempt. I mean if they weren't, then the pitcher would go out there for a batter or two, only to likely have another mid-inning pitching change which kind of defeats the purpose.

A better change, for some reason less reported on, is the shortening of commercial breaks

https://twitter.com/JeffPassan/status/1 ... 1241903110


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Proposed MLB rule changes
#46

Posted: March 14, 2019, 6:57 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 5021
Lathund said:
Fear The Chorizo said:
If they are brought in to finish an inning and still need to face another batter or two before a manager can pull them, we will get to witness guys who never pick up a bat flail away and pray not to hurt themselves. Or, will there be an exception to the 3 batter minimum if a pitcher finishes an inning and is removed for a PH?


We'll have to see when the full details are released, but I would think that with the purpose being pace of play, then between-inning pitching changes would be exempt. I mean if they weren't, then the pitcher would go out there for a batter or two, only to likely have another mid-inning pitching change which kind of defeats the purpose.

A better change, for some reason less reported on, is the shortening of commercial breaks

https://twitter.com/JeffPassan/status/1 ... 1241903110


I've seen the split screen model used more recently in golf. Not sure why all sports don't start incorporating that. In football do we really need a full screen for a kickoff that is a touch back 98% of the time? Also, I sure hope that between inning pitching changes are exempt.


Last edited by Patrick425 on March 14, 2019, 7:04 AM, edited 1 time in total.

 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Proposed MLB rule changes
#47

Posted: March 14, 2019, 7:02 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 1487
Rob Manfred and Tony Clark are going to ruin this sport.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Proposed MLB rule changes
#48

Posted: March 14, 2019, 7:11 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 5021
Fans will vote online for All-Star starters, and the top three vote-getters will take part in a one-day election


I'm not sure I'm understanding this. 3 players will take part in a one day "election"? How do you have an election with 3 people? Will it really an election or will those guys just decide who is on the remainder of the two rosters? Is it an election or is it a selection?


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Proposed MLB rule changes
#49

Posted: March 14, 2019, 7:21 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 1282
Location: Baltimore, MD
I'm cool with all the changes. For a league that's so resistant to change, the three batter minimum is definitely a bit surprising, but I think it'll be interesting to see how it plays out. LOOGY's are definitely the big loser here, but otherwise, I don't see it taking away from strategy, just changing it. In addition to eliminating LaRussa-esque back-to-back-to-back pitching changes, I like that it eliminates the lefty/righty matchup dance that burns batters and pitchers without them actually playing in the game.

I also think it's interesting they went with "three" as the limit so if you don't like a matchup, or within the first batter or two you know your pitcher doesn't have it, you can always issue intentional walks to fill out the remaining of the pitcher's quota without giving up additional runs. I haven't heard for sure if injuries actually do let you bypass the minimum or not, seems like everyone assumes they do, but with the new rule that you can issue free passes without throwing a pitch, they could still enforce the minimum without additional risk to the pitcher. That would be pretty harsh for actual injuries, but it would also eliminate the "fake" injuries everyone is assuming will happen with the new rule.

All in all, I think the changes will be intriguing to watch, but as mentioned by others, the biggest winner is shorter commercial breaks. I'm surprised the owners approved that and will take that in exchange for anything that's lost by losing LOOGY's.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Proposed MLB rule changes
#50

Posted: March 14, 2019, 7:35 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 5021
MrAllen said:
or within the first batter or two you know your pitcher doesn't have it, you can always issue intentional walks to fill out the remaining of the pitcher's quota without giving up additional runs.


Well...if those intentional walks don't score, that is. This change does not sit well with me. A reliever comes in at the start of the game, walks the 1st batter on four pitches and clearly does not have it...now you are forced to leave him in there for 2 more batters?? That is too big of a change to the basic rules of the game in my opinion. If they allow for pitchers to be removed because of injury, I can see managers/trainers "pretending" they are seeing an injury related issue and removing wild pitchers for "precautionary" reasons.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Proposed MLB rule changes
#51

Posted: March 14, 2019, 7:37 AM Post
Posts: 5222
Location: Madison, WI
I agree with Patrick. 3 out thing is the only one I'd be adamantly against.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Online  Re: Proposed MLB rule changes
#52

Posted: March 14, 2019, 7:38 AM Post
Posts: 5123
We'll have to see when the full details are released, but I would think that with the purpose being pace of play, then between-inning pitching changes would be exempt. I mean if they weren't, then the pitcher would go out there for a batter or two, only to likely have another mid-inning pitching change which kind of defeats the purpose.

So the 3 batter minimum would only apply to starters and any relievers beginning an inning? That is pretty much already standard practice, even for "openers". I guess that rule would eliminate what the Brewers did to start Game 5 of the NLCS by running a "starter" out for one batter, but it's very rare for the one out specialists to start an inning and get pulled mid-inning already.

If it's ok to yank a pitcher mid inning before he reaches his 3 batter minimum, what happens if a LOOGY/specialist is brought in to close out an inning for 1 batter and the next two opponent hitters are another lefty and a RH slugger nobody would want him to face? Does the manager have the option to remove him from the game mid-inning after facing only 1 batter, but if he runs him back out to start the next half inning he'll then be forced to face two more batters to reach his minimum - then still have to make a mid-inning pitching change? It just seems like a cluster of unintended consequences. I also fully expect feigned injuries by pitchers to circumvent the rule in certain situations - prompting mid-inning changes where by rule the replacement pitcher is allowed plenty of time to come in and warm up.

If they implement the rule, it's gotta be a 3 batter minimum per pitcher regardless of the time he's brought into the game - otherwise there will be so many wacky exceptions and situational allowances that there won't be a point to the rule in the first place.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Proposed MLB rule changes
#53

Posted: March 14, 2019, 7:56 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 1282
Location: Baltimore, MD
Patrick425 said:
MrAllen said:
or within the first batter or two you know your pitcher doesn't have it, you can always issue intentional walks to fill out the remaining of the pitcher's quota without giving up additional runs.


Well...if those intentional walks don't score, that is. This change does not sit well with me. A reliever comes in at the start of the game, walks the 1st batter on four pitches and clearly does not have it...now you are forced to leave him in there for 2 more batters?? That is too big of a change to the basic rules of the game in my opinion. If they allow for pitchers to be removed because of injury, I can see managers/trainers "pretending" they are seeing an injury related issue and removing wild pitchers for "precautionary" reasons.

I see this argument a lot, however, how often do you see a manager pull a pitcher for ineffectiveness after a single batter? That is a super quick hook for a pitcher that you intended to pitch more than a batter or two.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Proposed MLB rule changes
#54

Posted: March 14, 2019, 7:58 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 5021
Fear The Chorizo said:
So the 3 batter minimum would only apply to starters and any relievers beginning an inning? That is pretty much already standard practice, even for "openers"......, but it's very rare for the one out specialists to start an inning and get pulled mid-inning already.


I actually think this happens quite frequently

Fear The Chorizo said:
If they implement the rule, it's gotta be a 3 batter minimum per pitcher regardless of the time he's brought into the game - otherwise there will be so many wacky exceptions and situational allowances that there won't be a point to the rule in the first place.


The intent of the rule change seems to be to speed up the game. I think not allowing a mid-inning change at any time (even if the previous pitcher only faced 1 or 2 batters), would defeat the point of the rule.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Online  Re: Proposed MLB rule changes
#55

Posted: March 14, 2019, 8:00 AM Post
Posts: 3912
MrAllen said:
Patrick425 said:
MrAllen said:
or within the first batter or two you know your pitcher doesn't have it, you can always issue intentional walks to fill out the remaining of the pitcher's quota without giving up additional runs.


Well...if those intentional walks don't score, that is. This change does not sit well with me. A reliever comes in at the start of the game, walks the 1st batter on four pitches and clearly does not have it...now you are forced to leave him in there for 2 more batters?? That is too big of a change to the basic rules of the game in my opinion. If they allow for pitchers to be removed because of injury, I can see managers/trainers "pretending" they are seeing an injury related issue and removing wild pitchers for "precautionary" reasons.

I see this argument a lot, however, how often do you see a manager pull a pitcher for ineffectiveness after a single batter? That is a super quick hook for a pitcher that you intended to pitch more than a batter or two.

I agree. We are far more likely to see a gigantic thread questioning why CC left in a pitcher who "clearly didn't have it" than we are to see a pitcher pulled after one hitter for ineffectiveness.

but it's not like every guy suddenly forgot every piece of advice he gave


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Proposed MLB rule changes
#56

Posted: March 14, 2019, 8:01 AM Post
Posts: 3806
Patrick425 said:
Fans will vote online for All-Star starters, and the top three vote-getters will take part in a one-day election


I'm not sure I'm understanding this. 3 players will take part in a one day "election"? How do you have an election with 3 people? Will it really an election or will those guys just decide who is on the remainder of the two rosters? Is it an election or is it a selection?


Pretty sure I read their will be a vote to get the top 3 for each position, then there is an election day between those 3, for all positions.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Proposed MLB rule changes
#57

Posted: March 14, 2019, 8:23 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 1282
Location: Baltimore, MD
Lathund said:
We'll have to see when the full details are released, but I would think that with the purpose being pace of play, then between-inning pitching changes would be exempt.

An interesting side effect of this would be a hesitation to start an inning with a reliever you may not be confident in. I wonder if you'll see more "2nd-tier" relievers only being used after there's already 1 or 2 outs, and with the bases empty, to minimize the potential damage they could cause. Even if they come in, give up back-to-back singles and you have them intentionally walk the 3rd batter to get them out of the game, the next reliever could still get out of the jam with a double play. I think there's a lot of interesting scenarios and strategy the rule change creates.

With an already increasing emphasis on having good relievers, this definitely increases their importance that much more. This could be a pretty big benefit to a team already deep in their relief corps like the Brewers. Now go get Kimbrel and take full advantage!

Not to mention, it increases the importance of having starters that can go deep in the game to avoid using unnecessary relievers. So go get Keuchel too!


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Proposed MLB rule changes
#58

Posted: March 14, 2019, 8:31 AM Post
Posts: 12347
Patrick425 said:
MrAllen said:
or within the first batter or two you know your pitcher doesn't have it, you can always issue intentional walks to fill out the remaining of the pitcher's quota without giving up additional runs.


Well...if those intentional walks don't score, that is. This change does not sit well with me. A reliever comes in at the start of the game, walks the 1st batter on four pitches and clearly does not have it...now you are forced to leave him in there for 2 more batters?? That is too big of a change to the basic rules of the game in my opinion. If they allow for pitchers to be removed because of injury, I can see managers/trainers "pretending" they are seeing an injury related issue and removing wild pitchers for "precautionary" reasons.


Since when is walking a guy on four pitches a sign that a pitcher "clearly doesn't have it"? I can't count the times a guy has walked his first batter on four pitches well outside the zone and then come back to strike out the side.

Yes it's a change to the basic rules, but those rules have been exploited in a way that the commissioner and many others don't think is good for the game. A manager can list a RH starter for a game to entice the opposing manager to fill his lineup with LH bats, and then take the guy out after one hitter and bring in a LH pitcher. The other manager can't counter that move because rules prohibit players from returning to games once they've been taken out. I think it might be a better alternative to limit teams to a 12 man staff rather than even 13, because that would put some of a damper on endless pitching changes.


Last edited by JohnBriggs12 on March 14, 2019, 8:39 AM, edited 1 time in total.

 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Proposed MLB rule changes
#59

Posted: March 14, 2019, 8:32 AM Post
Posts: 2283
Location: Madison, WI
If I was Counsell, and wanted to use Claudio for just one batter, I'd tell him to pitch to that batter and when the at-bat was done then walk around the mound and claim to be having a dizzy spell or something like that so I could take him out of the ballgame. Then after this same scenario happens 6 times in 6 weeks, then we can see what MLB will do about it. Do the Brewers get fined? Does MLB then institute another rule that if a pitcher doesn't pitch to a required number of batters then he is ineligible to play in the next few games (three, maybe?). Since 30 out of 30 MLB managers like having the option of using a one batter specialist, does that mean all teams will have pitchers who suffer injuries after pitching to one batter and the new rule will, in effect, just be ignored (like pitchers using pine tar)?

Hopefully what I outlined above won't happen until the world's eyes are on baseball. Example, it gets to the seventh game of the World Series and a meaningless, irrelevant team like Milwaukee has a pitcher fake injury in the 8th inning and it obviously helps them knock off the all-important New York Yankees. Baseball writers wouldn't stop whining about this for at least two decades and MLB is sitting there with egg on their face. But hey, make stupid rules, then be willing to look stupid and face the consequences.

Also think putting a maximum amount of certain position on a roster (13 pitchers) is another dumb rule. If a team has 26 rosters spots, they should be able to use them in whatever manner they want to win the most games. If MLB is so scared of too many pitchers, then why add another roster spot?

Don't mind having one, hard trade deadline. But I think July 31 is too early. Would have rather seen them put this date at August 15 or even a bit later. Trades and player movement is fun for the fans. Although numerous blockbusters don't occur in August because of the waiver rules, it's still an opportunity for teams to make moves and fans can speculate on possible moves. This makes August a really long month IMO.

And from the perspective of a team that does not have all that great of a history, I think the 28 man roster in September is another bad idea. Frankly, if the team you root for is bad, it is still interesting to stick through September when you can watch many rookies see their first MLB action. Was just having 40 players eligible a bad idea? Maybe. But I think a far better solution would have been to have a 25 man "active roster" that is "fixed" on August 31, then be able to call up however many of the rest of the 40-man roster players a team desired...and from there the team plays with the fixed 25 and then the manager can insert and remove 7 more players daily so each game a team has a max of 32. I've never really cared for the whining that the old rules make the rosters too unbalanced. Teams that think they get the worst end of this deal have been playing under these rules for decades and had months to prepare to improve the overall depth on their 40-man roster. Personally, I think the 28 number is too small and just gives the fans of teams that have struggled all the more reason to just turn off the TV in September.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: Proposed MLB rule changes
#60

Posted: March 14, 2019, 8:36 AM Post
Posts: 4951
Here's a good one to the rule:
Position players will be allowed to pitch only in extra innings or when their team is ahead or behind by more than seven runs.

I thought I read the proposal somewhere else that exclaimed 3 batter minimum except during an inning change. So 2 outs and a Loogy gets the third he'd be done for his day with the inning change. The article posted doesn't say that but maybe that's just ignorance figuring that's common sense. I'm personally not worried about this for the Brewers since really the Loogy hasn't been that great for us and we're filled with 2IP relievers.

1million for the HR derby champ? Not a fan of that because you know how generally you make the HR derby? Any 1st-3rd season batters making under 1mil minimum just got a green light to swing for the fences until the AS break. On MLB's end I can see that they're putting out an incentive to get the best of the best to participate, but this really encourages HR swinging. How about the guy who's abnormally at 15-18HRs before AS break for a typical 20HR season hitter? Whatever just ranting.

I'm wondering if when they say top 3 vote getters for an Election if they are referring to at the position and not overall top 3. So for instance, at NL catcher you have Posey, Molina, and this year(hopefully) Grandal. You have 1 day election to vote that starter, even if Posey had a 1million vote lead previously? You would then get rid of the team with 5 or 6 vote winners on one team when 1 player hadn't even played in half the games...potentially?


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10  Next  [ 185 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply
  


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 82brewcrew82, B-Train, djoctagone, Fear The Chorizo, MrTPlush, remfire, turborickey, Vgmastr and 16 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search this forum (phpBB search):
Jump to:  
Search entire board (Google search):
Google
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Test