Rules Changes

[MDtransplant757]

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/18631714/mlb-proposes-scrapping-intentional-walk-raising-strike-zone
http://es.pn/2lc803Y

 

Rule changes proposed are tightening the strike zone and announcing an intentional walk instead of throwing 4 pitches 

[Can_of_corn]

Insert obligatory comment about Britton and a raised strike zone.

Not sure how shrinking the strike zone is going to increase balls in play.  Seems to me anything gained by a lower K rate will be lost to an increased walk rate.  Strikeouts are not near as boring to me as walks.

[MDtransplant757]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Insert obligatory comment about Britton and a raised strike zone.

Not sure how shrinking the strike zone is going to increase balls in play.  Seems to me anything gained by a lower K rate will be lost to an increased walk rate.  Strikeouts are not near as boring to me as walks.

These all have to be approved by MLBPA. Don't think that the strike zone will be changed. 

[Frobby]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Insert obligatory comment about Britton and a raised strike zone.

Not sure how shrinking the strike zone is going to increase balls in play.  Seems to me anything gained by a lower K rate will be lost to an increased walk rate.  Strikeouts are not near as boring to me as walks.

I don't think shrinking the strike zone leads to a 1:1 tradeoff of strikeouts to walks.   Smaller strike zone => more pitches thrown in an area where hitters are likely to hit them.   

[scOtt]

I'm all for the intentional walk change. I'll believe a change in the strike zone when I see it. Like Tony says, actions speak louder than words.

[ArtVanDelay]

9 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Insert obligatory comment about Britton and a raised strike zone.

Not sure how shrinking the strike zone is going to increase balls in play.  Seems to me anything gained by a lower K rate will be lost to an increased walk rate.  Strikeouts are not near as boring to me as walks.

I love strikeouts.

(Except when Orioles hitters strikeout, obviously.)

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I don't think shrinking the strike zone leads to a 1:1 tradeoff of strikeouts to walks.   Smaller strike zone => more pitches thrown in an area where hitters are likely to hit them.   

I expect the grip it and rip it mentality would soon be replaced by the glacial style the turn of the millennium Yankee and Red Sox teams deployed so effectively.

[Frobby]

5 minutes ago, scOtt said:

I'm all for the intentional walk change. I'll believe a change in the strike zone when I see it. Like Tony says, actions speak louder than words.

The strike zone has been changed many times, both by rule and by practice.   I don't see why it would be hard to change it again.    However, with the fairly big increase in runs/game over the last two years, why bother?

[Can_of_corn]

31 minutes ago, Frobby said:

The strike zone has been changed many times, both by rule and by practice.   I don't see why it would be hard to change it again.    However, with the fairly big increase in runs/game over the last two years, why bother?

The problem has always been in getting the umps to call the new strike zone.

Solution, robot umps.

[Number5]

40 minutes ago, scOtt said:

I'm all for the intentional walk change. I'll believe a change in the strike zone when I see it. Like Tony says, actions speak louder than words.

Well, here is one argument against it:

 

[Can_of_corn]

I also like it when they uncork a wild pitch on the IBB allowing the baserunner to advance.

Good times.

[PaulFolk]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I also like it when they uncork a wild pitch on the IBB allowing the baserunner to advance.

Good times.

Or pull a Todd Williams and give up a game-losing RBI single to Miguel Cabrera on what's supposed to be an intentional ball.

[Satyr3206]

I'd be happy if they went a few years with no rules changes.

[Rich Mac]

Just for argument's sake...and simply for argument's sake... if you're going to make the IBB automatic to speed up the game, why not make a HR automatic? As soon as the ump signals the HR the batter and baserunners may proceed directly to the dugout without touching all of the bases. There are many more HRs than IBBs.

[OFFNY]

12 minutes ago, Rich Mac said:

Just for argument's sake...and simply for argument's sake... if you're going to make the IBB automatic to speed up the game, why not make a HR automatic? As soon as the ump signals the HR the batter and baserunners may proceed directly to the dugout without touching all of the bases. There are many more HRs than IBBs.

o

 

Good point.

Also, the likelihood of a pitcher throwing the ball away while attempting an intentional walk is a lot higher than the likelihood of a team screwing up the base-running on a home run ball that goes over the wall ........ so you could argue that eliminating the home run trot around the bases MAKES EVEN MORE SENSE THAN eliminating the process of throwing four pitches for an intentional walk, of which the pitcher has to make sure that he doesn't come down with a temporary case of Steve Blass-itis, Mackey Sasser-itis, Chuck Knoblach-itis.,etc.