Jump to content
atomic

How to make baseball more interesting

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, atomic said:

 

Yeah. It would make a fly ball much more valuable than a strike out. 

 

 

 

22 hours ago, ExileAngelos said:

 

So you can score from 2nd base on a pop-up ???

 

o

 

And in some cases, you could score from 1st base on a pop-up.

In fact, if the bases were loaded with less than 2 outs, you could have a "bases-clearing pop-up" ........ the fictional Willie Mays Hayes might lead the league in RBI's instead of having to do 50 push-ups every time that he hit the ball in the air.

 

A pitcher could lead the league with a 7.12 ERA ........ maybe 6.88 if another of the suggestions (make the ball less lively) were also implemented.

 

o

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/3/2018 at 12:09 PM, ORIOLE33 said:

I would definitely get rid of the shift.

I would definitely get rid of players who are so pull-dependent that the shift is a great strategy to make them hit .168.

The shift is a great incentivizer of employing more guys who slap the ball to the opposite field and run hard.  Outlawing the shift is not only unwieldy and going against nearly 200 years of baseball history, but it also enables our descent into three true outcomes becoming the only outcomes.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"How to make baseball more interesting"

Translation: How to make baseball more like sports I actually enjoy and take the time to learn about.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More bat flips. More emotion. More players visibly having fun. Fewer grouchy, boring, old white dudes in the announcer’s booth. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I would definitely get rid of players who are so pull-dependent that the shift is a great strategy to make them hit .168.

The shift is a great incentivizer of employing more guys who slap the ball to the opposite field and run hard.  Outlawing the shift is not only unwieldy and going against nearly 200 years of baseball history, but it also enables our descent into three true outcomes becoming the only outcomes.

I agree completely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I would definitely get rid of players who are so pull-dependent that the shift is a great strategy to make them hit .168.

The shift is a great incentivizer of employing more guys who slap the ball to the opposite field and run hard.  Outlawing the shift is not only unwieldy and going against nearly 200 years of baseball history, but it also enables our descent into three true outcomes becoming the only outcomes.

Along similar lines, I think outlawing the shift would be a step towards making baseball more like snookers (that is a game where the outcomes are circumscribed by a strict set of rules and constraints) and less like a game where folks run freely around on some grass ( or pseudo grass) and compete athletically against each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chavez Ravine said:

Along similar lines, I think outlawing the shift would be a step towards making baseball more like snookers (that is a game where the outcomes are circumscribed by a strict set of rules and constraints) and less like a game where folks run freely around on some grass ( or pseudo grass) and compete athletically against each other.

If they outlaw the shift I will be done with the game.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, El Gordo said:

A team of 9 Ichiros would be more fun to watch than 9 Judges.

Four of the Ichiros would  use Judge's approach. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, VaBird1 said:

I think splitting all of the tv revenue equally would make the game more interesting.

Yeah, look at the NFL, it created parity. Is that what you really want for baseball?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely get the argument against change from the traditionalists, but they absolutely need to find a way to speed up the game if they want to attract a younger fan base. And if they don't, it's probably going to go they way of hockey and become more of a niche sport. I'm not sure I agree with all of the suggestions made by the original poster, but pitching changes take up a ridiculous amount of unnecessary time and they completely kill the pace of the game. Limiting the number of pitchers allowed on rosters and making them face more than one batter seems like it would help. 

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 Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2020 Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2020 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






  • Posts

    • Bad move and I am not going to be excited about it! I gave a list in my last posts of guys they could've taken a shot on in the rule 5. Obviously some of them aren't ready but who cares. They would've saved around 1 million dollars and as long as his glove plays who cares if you are signing a guy that going to get on base as such a low percentage anyway. I honestly thought Elias would move away from the low OBP guys that have been a staple of Orioles baseball for a long time. I understand trading Iglesias for resources ....But I don't see how signing this guy does anything but cost extra money that the Orioles are showing signs of financial distress.
    • I said I was exaggerating! I'm not incorrect in saying that this move is "Dumpster Diving" or the Bottom of Bargain Bin signing! And as @Tony-OH said they could've just gave the at bats to Martin or someone else that we have playing for the minimum. Or draft a guy in the rule 5 that perhaps has a future in MLB baseball. Like Lenyn Sosa, SS, Alfredo Rodriguez, SS , Wenceel Perez, SS , Livan Soto, SS , Leonardo Rivas, SS , Omar Estevez, 2B/SS,  Wander Javier, SS , Arquimedes Gamboa SS, Jordy Barley SS, Kevin Smith SS/3B Players that I highlighted 1) Wander Javier 60 ARM/60 GLOVE 2) Livan Soto   55 ARM/ 60 GLOVE /50 HIT 3) Leonardo Rivas 60 ARM/60 GLOVE/55 HIT (***BB PROSPECTUS 2020) 4) Arquimedes Gamboa 60 ARM/60 GLOVE /60 RUN 5) Jordy Barley 60 ARM/ 55 GLOVE/60RUN 6) Kevin Smith  60 ARM/ 55 GLOVE https://www.mlb.com/news/rule-5-draft-eligible-prospects-2020   AND DONT BE A TROLL!!  
    • Me either, but apparently they believe Galvis is a significantly better player then he's been over the last few years offensively and the major drop off last year defensively was apparently an aberration, because players normally get better at 31.  I don't hate this move, I just don't see what it does all that much. I think they could have player Sanchez at SS and probably gotten the same defense and allowed Valaika or Urias to play 2B every day to see what they have. But hey, why not bring in a 31-year old with bad defensive numbers last year and well below average stick?
    • I just dont understand why anyone would be excited about this move.
    • It was his first year back calling games in 2020 and unless Garceau started cursing during broadcasts last year, he was always going to be in the fold. 
    • We won 14 games last year and 11 games this year doing exactly what I'm saying, and Lamar won an MVP for it last year.  Brees won 12 games this year without really throwing downfield, including beating the bucs twice in the regular season.  Manning won a super bowl in 2016 without being able to throw it deep.  So no, I'm not wrong.  If you don't think Lamar specifically can succeed with midrange passes then I'd like to know why.  But there are plenty of examples of successful QBs within the past 5 years that didn't rely on deep balls.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...