Jump to content
Diehard_O's_Fan

MLB and Union talk major rule changes

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, LocoChris said:

hi-res-a3e91b87db11221af1356edbbb56bdbc_Would you trust this guy?

I think baseball has gone nothing g but down hill since he took over, and that is saying something given he followed Selig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats







  • Posts

    • The best thing that could happen for us would be teams falling in love with Castellanos as a FA and some team really over pay for him like the White Sox. Something like 4/60. Something like that would really make Mancini look like an an attractive option.  Mancini to the Cubs might be the best fit I can see. They need a RH COF bat. They just saw how valuable Castellanos was for them. Their OF isn’t huge, so Mancini’s D wouldn’t kill them. Plus, it appears they are trying to keep paryroll down. 
    • I think the Tigers valued their top pick in the Rule 5 draft, and wanted the flexibility to draft two players. Or at least draft two and then trade on draft day. It’s a good way to pick up int’l slot money. 
    • Seattle making “good” baseball moves?  This is weird. All but guarantees that Navarez will be an AS next year.  Navarez is a good example of how we do have the advantage of picking up players, giving them MLB ABs, and then seeing what their value is once they establish themselves. 
    • As we found out with Garcia and Araujo. Even if we successfully carry them on our 26 man roster, are they even worth the 40 man spot the following season? I’d like to see us come away with a potential IF piece for the future. That could be a guy like Rojas, or a guy like Newton/Javier. Also, I’d like to see us snag an arm. Sharpe, Sheffield or Brown. 
    • He can reach out to his trade partner, Dennis Sarfate, who made a successful jump to NPB. He made a couple million a year over there and was wise to embrace the culture and build a business/brand around himself. Not a massive opportunity but better than AAA back here. You’re treated very well. Many players who go over don’t see this opportunity. (I lived in japan for a couple years and worked with many ex mlb guys)
    • Jim Callis--13 names to watch ahead of the Rule 5 Draft: https://www.mlb.com/news/rule-5-draft-names-to-watch?t=mlb-pipeline-coverage
    • Having been to both places I agree 100%.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...