Jump to content
Diehard_O's_Fan

MLB and Union talk major rule changes

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Why?  Because teams have used the absence of roster rules to evolve strategies that are more optimal for winning,

I do believe the rules about Guaranteed contracts, Limited Option Years, Rule 5 protection, and how long you need to be out on optional assignment are also limiting on teams rosters.

 

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

It's like the four-corners in basketball, but perhaps less extreme.  Why should the basketball powers-that-be dictate what strategies teams should use?  That's obvious: the strategies were good to win, but horrific from the standpoint of fan experience. 

So you would like to see limits on shifts in the infield and outfield???  These are used under the same principal as the "Four r corners in Basketball.

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

What if teams figured out that if they had 25 pitchers on the roster each throwing to one or two batters, the other team would never get a hit?  The whole team would be pitchers, the fielders would be out-of-position pitchers, standing out there on the off chance that someone didn't strike out.  Wouldn't it be incumbent on the league to stop this, because nobody wants to watch 27 guys strike out every game?

Teams would need to score to win.  I some how doubt using a roster with Twenty-Five pitchers would give you much of a scoring chance.

 

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

At some point the league has to step up and say we need to make this something people want to watch and pay for.  It can't all be about the purity of 100+ year old rules.

Baseball got to where it is at with this archaic rules.  Change for the sake of change may lose them as many fans as they would hope to gain.  NASCAR made rules changes and have lost attendance and ratings.  Football made changes and net ratings dropped.  Changes are not always a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, thezeroes said:

So you would like to see limits on shifts in the infield and outfield???  These are used under the same principal as the "Four r corners in Basketball.

Baseball got to where it is at with this archaic rules.  Change for the sake of change may lose them as many fans as they would hope to gain.  NASCAR made rules changes and have lost attendance and ratings.  Football made changes and net ratings dropped.  Changes are not always a good thing.

Shifts don't take 5-4 and 7-5 games and turn them all into 1-0 games.  Shifts are only detrimental to the sport in that a few fans find them distasteful, but I think most are good with it.  Plus, there's an easy way around them: just hit where nobody is standing.

It's not change for change's sake.  It's change to make for a more engaging, poplar, sport that might appeal more broadly to people under the age of 50.  Baseball has changed one major rule in the last 115 years, and the game has gone from eight homers leading the league and pitchers throwing 400 innings to teams hitting 300 homers and the Cy Young winner sometimes throwing 180 innings.  Strikeouts have gone from two a game to nine.  Teams used to use 1.5 pitchers a game, now its five or six.  Baseball will change whether the rules do or not.  It's up to the powers-that-be to make the change into something positive, or otherwise let it run uncontrolled and have no input on where the game ends up and whether or not anyone likes it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

It's change to make for a more engaging, poplar, sport that might appeal more broadly to people under the age of 50. 

I do think the change to the new "SUPER BALL" this year has done more for the need/want of having more pitchers on the roster.  Would MLB have the guts to go back to the 1960's style of ball.  Home Runs would decrease by a large margin.  Balls that are now going out would be "Warning Track Power".  The need for Max Effort out of pitchers would also wane since the Homeruns would be cut  by a third.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I think this is step one.  They could start lowering the number of allowed pitchers in a few years to 12, then 11, then 10.  To me that's the only sure-fire way of getting individual pitchers to pitch more, and back off from max effort all the time.

And I think they decided to make these irrelevant rules defining when a non-pitcher can pitch just to show they're putting something in the rules drawing a line between pitchers and non-pitchers.  And to keep teams from stashing an extra real pitcher on the bench as a position player for use in real game situations.

Wow !! -- that's deep -- not sure if it is deep thought or deep state😧

Perhaps, the cabal at MLB is pushing teams to develop more player versions of the 1918-1919 Babe Ruth😄

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

    • To me, the clear lesson here isn't about how good your FAs are or necessarily how good your top prospects are. It's about the importance of deep depth.  Baseball is full of failures. Expensive failures in FA. Expensive top draft picks. Rule V guys. Whatever. Obviously those decisions matter, but for a team like the O's, we're not going to be able to buy our way out of those issues. That CAN'T be the approach. The Phillies and the prognosticators over rated them based on those high profile names. They didn't appreciate the apparent lack of depth. This is why I still like the Iglesias trade. I want 40-45 FV guys sitting on the bench in the minors if necessary. I want so many capable minor leaguers that I won't really care (except on a human level) when one blows his arm or leg out in a fluke fly fishing accident. I want so many medium probability guys that we're almost guaranteed that 10 of them become valuable at some point. When you're there, you can blow your budget on a Lindor or trade a Mancini for more young talent and still handle it just fine both financially and on the field. 
    • Mancini could be an ownership test.  Keeping Mancini strikes me as a move Peter would force upon his GM.
    • It's fine.  If you are in the mood for it I imagine you will be glad I posted it.  
    • I think that any MiL hitter would benefit from going against our MiL pitching at this point. If it didn't benefit them, they're probably already close to Major League All Star level players. Really, any hitter that has to face 95 MPH and decent secondaries will benefit from that. That doesn't mean I'm saying our arms are all ML arms, but they're very good MiL arms, which is toward the top of what they'd be facing if they were actually playing minor league games. 
    • I have expressed my concertns about Elias, but obviously he understands that you have to have a core of young, cheap players that get to the majors around the same time.  Players that don't fit this timeline are being traded when the time or return is right.  This can make a lot of fans (and me) angry.  I'll be surprised if Mancini remains an Oriole past this year, regardless of his production.  Its probably more likely he's traded, the better he performs.  The O's don't have the deep pockets to acquire multiple top of the line free agents (or at least an owner that is willing to spend in that manner).  If the timing isn't right, even massive spending to the luxury tax won't make you a winning, playoff team. 
    • I don't know, but if it's still a problem I imagine that Elias has a plan to get it fixed. Those advanced tools are central to his evaluation and player development strategies.
    • I’m not ignoring any financial issues that occurred in 2020.  The Os were crying poor me because of the MASN case or whatever excuse you want to use before covid. Do you really think the payroll would be another 20-40M if Covid never happened?  I’m betting the payroll is the same going into 2021 regardless of the situation. And I am in no way blaming Elias.  I’m really glad he is here and I have basically agreed with everything he has done.  I don’t have any complaints about him. All of my complaints are centered around the family that has driven this organization into the ground for 2 decades.  They don’t deserve an ounce of the benefit of the doubt and it’s astounding to me that anyone would give it to them even if we all agree the sons are better than the dad. Davis and Cobb do not stop you from doing anything if your ownership allows it.  The Orioles can easily spend another 20-30M, have those players here and field a better team.  That money is spent.  You don’t have to hide from it.  You just have to work around it.  If the team was willing to do that, they easily could.     If Davis retires tomorrow, meaning we aren’t on the hook for his contract, would ownership allow Elias to spend 20M on free agents?  Maybe.  I tend to doubt it though.    Overall, I love the direction of the team and organization but they should be trying harder to win now and the idea that people accept that they aren’t is absurd to me.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...