Jump to content
Diehard_O's_Fan

MLB and Union talk major rule changes

Recommended Posts

The mound was lowered from 15 to 10 inches in 1968 and offense jumped from 6.84 to 8.14 runs per game.

That being said they also shrunk the strike zone and decided to enforce more restrictions on doctored balls, so teasing out how much of the offense jump was due to the mound is tricky.

I think the general consensus is a lower mound benefits the batter.

  • Upvote 1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why lowering the mound is even being talked about. Just leave the mound alone. Can you imagine how much the game will change if a reliever has to pitch to a minimum of three batters? Talk about a major change.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Diehard_O's_Fan said:

I don't see why lowering the mound is even being talked about. Just leave the mound alone. Can you imagine how much the game will change if a reliever has to pitch to a minimum of three batters? Talk about a major change.

I kind’ve like the three batter rule.   I’m not a fan of multiple pitcher changes during an inning.   As a fan that’s extremely boring, and it allows for over-specialization.   So yeah it would change the game, but I’d like that change.   

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I kind’ve like the three batter rule.   I’m not a fan of multiple pitcher changes during an inning.   As a fan that’s extremely boring, and it allows for over-specialization.   So yeah it would change the game, but I’d like that change.   

So much for the situational one batter pitcher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

So much for the situational one batter pitcher.

Yes that is the whole idea.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Redskins Rick said:

Im not a fan of it.

I am even less a fan of MLB trying to manage the game through stupid rules.

 

I agree. I like the LOOGY role... Jesse Orosco was one of my favorite relievers to watch. He was SO good at his specialty. It was a joy to watch him spin that slider right into the bread basket of righties, too.  

That to me removes a degree of specialization that makes the game interesting. 

I also think it's arbitrary to say: you must face three batters. That puts a premium on generalized relievers. That's fine. But again... it takes away some of the fun, for me. Maybe a rule like: after the first reliever, who can face a single batter... everyone else must face at least 3 batters. That way, the LOOGY could still have a potential role if a left-handed slugger comes up in a high-impact situation. 

The 20-second pitch limit seems reasonable, given that we have a shot clock in basketball... and play clock in football, etc. At the same time, it's a one-sided rule. What if a hitter's not in his stance? The pitcher just hucks it up there? Seems weird. I'd have to hear more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely love the thought of having a DH in the National League. That sure would make inter league play more fair for American League teams. It is also a safety thing when you have a pitcher batting for the first time in a year. There have been countless pitchers that have got hurt during inter league play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Diehard_O's_Fan said:

I absolutely love the thought of having a DH in the National League. That sure would make inter league play more fair for American League teams. It is also a safety thing when you have a pitcher batting for the first time in a year. There have been countless pitchers that have got hurt during inter league play.

I think its ludicrous to have the DH in only the AL.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes:  expand the rosters, universal DH, single trade deadline, ML contracts for two sport athletes, lowered mound, 20 second pitch clock (loosely enforced)

No:  3 batter rule, draft advantages for winning teams and penalties for losing teams

  • Upvote 1
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Diehard_O's_Fan said:

Since the Orioles are hoping to rebuild their team through the draft, wouldn't the proposed draft changes absolutely kill them?

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Universal DH: Yes.  I could go into this, but it's a long conversation.

Three batter rule:  No.  I dont like taking managerial decisions out of a managers hand if a pitcher clearly doesnt have it.  I would like to see this be a 15-20 pitch requirement OR 3 batters.  This would end at the end of an inning or due to injury.  There are situations where a reliever comes in and just doesnt have it.  Sometimes they get lit up by the first three batters and you know.  But sometimes they just struggle with the first guy in a 10 pitch AB.  I don't want to see a reliever go 20 pitches to the first two guys and then have to stay out there if they clearly arent going to be getting outs.

Draft Penalties for losing: Absolutely freaking* not.  This rule would exacerbate disparity between spenders and not spenders.  It would put an end to the deep rebuild which is one of the only ways small market teams have to build a window.  It would really if ever affect larger market teams.  If MLB wants small market teams to quit phoning it in for 78-81 win seasons then force those owners to spend some money.  I know there is not a simple answer for this but this solution strikes me as terrible.

EI runners:  please stop with this player on second stuff.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Diehard_O's_Fan said:

Would lowering the mound help the hitters or pitchers? The draft changes would certainly affect the Orioles in a negative way. I like the thought of adding a 26 man to the roster. I also like the September rule changes 

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/25935056/mlb-players-discussing-rule-changes-alter-game

Lowering mound would help hitters.

I have suggested the 3 batter minimum for pitchers many times. Also the limit on the number of pitchers on roster. I think all the changes are good.  Like the minimum of 14 non-pitchers.  

Draft change is good for Orioles.  I like if you lose 90 games back to back seasons you are punished in the draft. This will help the Orioles and protect them from their cheap owners.  The Orioles are a disgrace this year.  No team should not making any effort to improve themselves.  Doing this is going to kill the sport if nothing is done.  

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores

News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Spring Training Stats

Baseball Savant Stats

Minor League Stats







  • Posts

    • One of BP's eyewitness guys ventured a "looks like Jered Weaver" comp on him, and tagged his windup as slow and deliberate, not that TTTP is as much of an organizational priority anymore.
    • If you told me my CF played elite defense, hit 25 dingers and had 40 SB I would say that's pretty spectacular.  List the guys who have done that in the last ten years. That said, I think he could end up being a weak version of a player Elias had in Hou, Jake Marisnick.
    • At the end of the day, you will most likely be disappointed with whatever the actual result is in the next signing period. I don't say that as a slight to you, really, just that there will still be a disparity between what actually occurs in their first actual year of entering this market and what we envision is possible. But whatever they do, it looks like it will clearly be the MOST they've done EVER. It doesn't mean it will be effective in terms of that turning into ML talent. But the progress toward that goal will be noteworthy, and their international efforts should only improve from that point on. 
    • When I talk to people about this who dont think it's a problem I always ask them if they are a parent, and what they would think if their son/daughter and a friend came home with a test.  The test is a ten question test and the friend got 7/10 questions right while their son/daughter got 8/10.  However when asked what the grade is the son/daughter got a B while the friend got an A.  That's major league baseball. And the analogy usually works to show people the absurdity of what has been deemed a competitively balanced system. Large market teams simply can make more mistakes and end up with better results. The Boston Redsox won the WS last year with over $80 million in dead money (Sandoval, Craig, Rusney Castillo).  That was more dead money than 4 teams were paying their entire payroll.
    • They only play the Yankees 8 more times all year, so that will help them not make it to 115 losses.  Hopefully they will have some opponents over the rest of the year that don't intimidate them as easily as the Yankees do.  Just imagine how badly New York would be beating the Os if they actually had even a reasonably healthy team.
    • The way this team is looking, they just might lose more than 115 games. Hard to imagine, but they'll probably be even worse in July, if they trade Mancini.
    • But he didn't call out Jones or Schoop.  
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...