Fast Game Times and Tasty Waves

[weams]

I agree, but it doesn't stop posters from complaining about it.

The only reason that bunting is still a thing at all is that the National League still wants pitchers to "hit."

[allquixotic]

So basically, because certain stars have gotten so good at the game, they want to (to borrow a term from the video game world) "nerf" the relief pitchers? Oh no, Zach Britton is too good, we should prevent Buck from using him unless the starter goes 8 IP! SMH... Imagine if they nerfed the rules to "balance" Babe Ruth's incredible talent, or Mickey Mantle's, or make it so third basemen can only stand in certain places to nerf Brooks Robinson, or put a limit on the number of career games you can play to nerf Cal because people get tired of seeing the same guy every year....

Yeah, Rob Manfred is an idiot. You don't tweak the rules of baseball. The players themselves and the management will make adjustments over time that will make any particular strategy or talent or type of player less effective -- it just takes time. People will learn how to hit Britton's sinker eventually.

Sounds to me like they're just butthurt that their favorite team got shut down 1-2-3 in the ninth by Britton. Maybe they would have faster games if they'd cut down the length of commercial breaks. Oh, but wait, that won't help line their pockets with gold, so they'll never do that. Instead they will make ridiculous changes at the expense of the game while cramming longer and more frequent commercials down our throats.

Disgusting to see the sport tampered with and ruined by a bunch of greedy, stupid buffoons.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Aristotelian]

I love the shift and the strategic element it brings to the game. I think a manager should be able to position his nine guys wherever he wants depending on the situation. "Positions" are really a construct, they are the spots on field that will produce the most outs, whether that is 7 guys on the infield or 3 on the right side, etc. If Manfred wants to artificially increase runs, he could also legislate against double play depth, OF in, IF in, etc. (For that matter, he could change the strike zone or ban pitches over 92 MPH). There has never been a rule about player positioning and this would just be an awful precedent to set.

I don't like the proposal to limit pitching changes. There is a natural limit imposed by the 25 man roster, no need to limit further.

Pitcher clock seems OK to me as long as they give guys some flexibility and also put some limits on the hitters. While there may be a psychological dimension to the pace, I am guessing it will all even out and there would be little effect on the game other than speeding it up.

One of the few things baseball has going for it is the sense of tradition and history. It is never going to be a fast action oriented game. Don't mess with it.

[InsideCoroner]

I love the shift and the strategic element it brings to the game. I think a manager should be able to position his nine guys wherever he wants depending on the situation. "Positions" are really a construct, they are the spots on field that will produce the most outs, whether that is 7 guys on the infield or 3 on the right side, etc.

I agree. I still think the Orioles should consider bringing in a fifth infielder when Britton is on the mound.

[Aristotelian]

If they are going to time pitchers, I would favor a home run trot clock. Give them 20 seconds and put them on second base if they don't make it. Ortiz would have to bust his butt or lose about half his homers.

[Phantom]

If they are going to time pitchers, I would favor a home run trot clock. Give them 20 seconds and put them on second base if they don't make it. Ortiz would have to bust his butt or lose about half his homers.

Fans definitely want to see a nice boring emotionless jog around the bases after an exciting play.

[foxfield]

It is interesting how much the shift is employed now. And how little folks still bunt against it. Cough cough no names please.

It is interesting how fans dismiss the difficulties inherent in bunting against major league pitching. Cough cough no names please.

Bunting is dumb in the American League.

Did you noticed Jones taking a ball off his hand, trying to bunt. That could have ended his season.

Bunting is not without risks.

Bunting is mostly dumb. This is no longer that game.

I agree, but it doesn't stop posters from complaining about it.

The only reason that bunting is still a thing at all is that the National League still wants pitchers to "hit."

I am not dismissing anything. I think statistics pretty much make clear that hitting a baseball in any way is one of the more difficult things to do in sports. I also think, that given that difficulty of hitting a baseball, and the added difficulty of it falling where the defense is not, will ultimately draw a calculated response by hitters if defenders continue to employ a strategy by which they concede portions of the playing field to limit said opportunities.

Risk? There is calculated risk in any move. Pitching Bundy, bunting Jones, Davis or others. And yes, bunting for sacrifice, in my opinion it dumb. As Earl would say it gives away one of the precious 27 outs of a game. But would this change require sacrifice? I don't know. Merely laying a bat out for a left hander and bouncing a ball towards a vacant third base into left field would not be easy, but hitters routinely foul off pitches they do not want to hit in order to hopefully see a better pitch. When Tampa Bay was one of the only teams utilizing the shift people thought THEY were dumb.

As Bob Dylan once said...The times, they are a changin!

[weams]

I am not dismissing anything. I think statistics pretty much make clear that hitting a baseball in any way is one of the more difficult things to do in sports. I also think, that given that difficulty of hitting a baseball, and the added difficulty of it falling where the defense is not, will ultimately draw a calculated response by hitters if defenders continue to employ a strategy by which they concede portions of the playing field to limit said opportunities.

Risk? There is calculated risk in any move. Pitching Bundy, bunting Jones, Davis or others. And yes, bunting for sacrifice, in my opinion it dumb. As Earl would say it gives away one of the precious 27 outs of a game. But would this change require sacrifice? I don't know. Merely laying a bat out for a left hander and bouncing a ball towards a vacant third base into left field would not be easy, but hitters routinely foul off pitches they do not want to hit in order to hopefully see a better pitch. When Tampa Bay was one of the only teams utilizing the shift people thought THEY were dumb.

As Bob Dylan once said...The times, they are a changin!

A man attempting to bunt that hits a home run one in every 25 plate appearances does this. He gives up his one in four chance of getting a hit anyway. He gives up his one in ten chance of walking anyway. He gives up his one in 100 chance of being HBP or being safe on a strike out. He gives up his one in twenty chance at a double and his one in fifty chance at a triple. He sacrificies one out of his three precious strikes half the time. He sacrifices his second precious strike a fifth of the time. He gives up any chance that a pitcher throws a wild pitch advancing any possible base runners and he stands a one in 50 chance of being called out for runners interference while trying to leg that single out. He stands a one in 100 chance of being injured while beating down that base path. All for the one in four chance of a successful bunt that is not fielded by an alert pitcher, catcher or infielder racing to cover the open spot. It just has a bad feel to it for me. Did I mention that he can never hit a home run with that approach? Yes. I did.

[Can_of_corn]

I've seen someone HBP on a bunt attempt before.

[weams]

I've seen someone HBP on a bunt attempt before.

I've seen hbp that injures a player and is also called a strike because it was offered at as well.