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
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

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.


  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 87 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






  • Posts

    • I think the NBA and NHL are handling this better as we aren't hearing this public bickering.  Really it doesn't help the players or the owners to argue about more on this.  It makes them look both greedy and harms the sports image in this time where most everyone is suffering in some way.  I don't really care how they divide up the money.  Just go in a room and get it done.    Both sides would lose with a shutdown with NBA and NHL starting in the middle of summer.   I am sure cable subscription numbers will be down due to thie economic reality of the situation.   They already have the shame of the cheating scandal. They want to back that up by not playing because of money?
    • I listened to Nick Sundberg on a podcast.  He is the player rep for the Redskins.  He shared a detail of the negotiations for the NFL.  He said that the owners proposed that if a player tests positive for COVID-19 they would go on a non football related injury list for a minimum of 14 days.  The problem is that, unlike injured reserve, the player doesn’t get paid when on the non football related injury list.  I’m curious as to how the MLB proposal handles this.
    • Just saw this little tidbit.    I didn’t know Bill Gates was an Orioles fan!  🤣
    • Look 8 straight 7+ WAR seasons may be good for you but it’s pretty thin from where I stand.
    • There are lots of ways to look at this situation. Here's mine. Most of the owners are highly successful business people (or their children), many of them entrepreneurs who build businesses from the ground up. Quite a few of them have MBAs, law degrees, or business degrees. I'm sure many of them have lots of passion for baseball; I know that at least a few go to a lot of their teams' games. But I think that whatever emotional attachment they feel to the sport has little if any effect on the way they approach decisions like the one they now confront -- it's a financial matter, to be analyzed pretty much like other major business decisions. These guys look at their teams predominantly, if not exclusively, from a financial point of view, just as they would if they owned a business that makes computer chips or sells office supplies or owns vacation resorts or whatever. Aside from wanting to build a winning team (which I think is pretty much irrelevant to the 2020 situation), they have two related objectives: making money from their investments in MLB, and maximizing the price they (or their heirs) will get when they decide to sell the team. From their financial perspective, both those goals require creating for MLB (and their individual teams) a business model that enables them to make money under a wide variety of foreseeable circumstances. And that's what they've done. The Forbes numbers, and the information about the sales of teams, says most teams are doing well. I've seen it said in a couple of places, though I can't remember where, that the owners have been on a roll. So here comes the pandemic, and it presents circumstances that won't allow teams operating under the regular business model to succeed. Many teams, maybe virtually all of them, are not going to make money if they have to pay the players their pro rata salaries, bear their normal expenses plus those of creating Covid test capacity and other safety measures, and don't sell tickets. The pandemic has put, and will continue to put, many businesses in a similar position: each owner of a restaurant or department store or theater has the right to decide whether to operate under less-than-optimal circumstances, stay closed while waiting things out, or fold 'em.  The same is true of MLB's owners (except that they aren't about to go out of business). From their point of view, there are two viable options: restructure things so that most of them can make some money, or forget it. The owners undoubtedly have in mind an amount of MLB payroll (maybe it's 60 percent of players' pro rata salaries) that will enable them to accomplish the first under conservative assumptions about other costs and revenues. If they can't get payroll down to that amount, or close to it, they won't open for business. Maybe that will harm baseball in the long run, but I don't think they care much about that, or that has much impact on their negotiating position.  I guess it's fair to say that the owners should feel an obligation to give us baseball this summer as a measure of their patriotism, even if that involves some financial sacrifice, or that the widespread public support of stadium construction for the benefit of many MLB teams imbues them with a some responsibility to serve the public, or that a league that enjoys protection from the antitrust laws shouldn't deprive the country of the only top-flight baseball in the country. I don't think the owners look at it that way. Their obligations are to themselves (and their stockholders or partners), just like in their other businesses. The barrier on the players' side is history. Over the past 50 years, they have accomplished impressive gains in salary and benefits. But the owners have never made it easy for them. They have forced the union and the players to make those gains slowly, over time, by litigating everything they could litigate. They have cheated and colluded to lower salaries whenever they could. Anyone can feel differently, but I can't say the players should agree to be paid less for 2020 (OK, maybe a little less) than what their contracts or the CBA calls for, much less agree to a completely different compensation system whose outcome will be unknowable for a while. Calling on the players to give up their legal rights in order to bail out the owners, because the owners might lose money for a change, has little appeal to me. The fundamental fact is that Major League Baseball operates on a highly structured, heavily negotiated arrangement between parties who don't trust each other. (Well, the union and players certainly don't trust the owners. I assume but don't know that the owners don't trust the union. I suppose the owners trust the players, but I bet more than a few of them resent the fact that they pay so much money to guys who, they assume, would never make it in the business world. (Some of them can't even speak English!)) I don't blame either side for the fact that the pandemic demolished baseball's financial arrangement for 2020. I'm saving my anger and name-calling it for the 2022 strike or lockout or work stoppage.
    • I agree. See Christian Laettner as another example at Duke. But he had to shut up and sit the bench on the Dream Team...lol Remains to be seen just how far he takes it, but I doubt it is anywhere near those two. That would be something the area scout would have to do his homework on. Elias will have that diagnosed. If you win, you're a leader. If you lose, you are a malcontent or ego maniacal because you hate losing. Martin has been a baseball player for along time, so I am sure his fire is tempered some. Its a game of failure, and that is what Jordan learned as a Birmingham Baron. It's very humbling. From what I have seen, Martin has the respect of his Vandy teammates. You have to have some Alphas on a winning team. Whether anyone likes them or not. 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...