Rules Changes

[weams]

29 minutes ago, Fla_O'sfan said:

On the Dan Patrick show today, they added up the intentional walks in 2016 and multiplied by the average time they took and divided by number of games and discovered that rule change will save 24 seconds per game. Big deal.

Indeed.

[Frobby]

39 minutes ago, Fla_O'sfan said:

On the Dan Patrick show today, they added up the intentional walks in 2016 and multiplied by the average time they took and divided by number of games and discovered that rule change will save 24 seconds per game. Big deal.

I'm surprised it's that much.  

[Ori-Al]

4 hours ago, Spy Fox said:

I agree that it's mostly trivial, but I think it happens more than once every few seasons. The Miguel-Cabrera-type messups when the batter actually hits the ball may be only once every few seasons, but this video has a decent sample size of wild pitches on intentional walks that happened in impactful situations, all within the past few years.

There are also the much more common occurrences when the pitcher who throws the IBB is unable to regain his control pitching to the next hitter or hitters, which can impact the game.

Eliminating the four pitches was stupid, IMO.  Doing so will neither retain fans nor attract new ones, nor will it have any real effect shortening games. 

[Bahama O's Fan]

I have no issue with the IBB rule. Doesn't matter much anyway. I have no issue with an electronic strike zone. Here is something I know people would hate, but I would like to see a standardized field size. A HR in Camden Yards is a HR in every ballpark. Get rid of inflated  or deflated HR stats. On challenges, you either challenge or you don't. None of this asking for a review, but not using your challenges crap. Challenges have to be made before the next pitch. If you are batting, make up your mind quickly. If you are pitching, let your pitcher try to stall a little. Kinda like the NFL, if you are on offense or defense.

[Superbee83]

abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/mlb-make-unilateral-rule-2018-45641651

IMO the intentional walk mandate was Manfred's way of telling the MLPA that He would make additional changes to the rules unilaterally. I think that while this change seems innocuous on the surface, it is a power play by a guy who wants to put his stamp on the game. Further, while I do think that putting a two minute time limit on replay review is a step in the right direction, I believe that if the commissioner really wanted to " get his head out of the sand " about how the game has changed He would have tweaked the replay system even more. IMO, nothing has has impacted the game more in a negative way than replay and most importantly how it is implemented. Games are stopped at critical moments and for a long period of time so that the call be be reviewed at a "nerve center" multiple times during a game.  

I know replay is not going away, however, I think that by giving each team two challenges per game and limiting official reviews to home run and fan interference calls only would help pace of play but I think that it would make umpiring a bit sharper. It seems to me that the longer that replay has been implemented, the more umpires have leaned on it as a crutch on close calls. 

As for the future changes that Manfred is looking to implement. I have no real issue with a 20 second clock on pitchers with the bases empty. However, instead of fines on batters for leaving the box in between pitches, the umps should be given latitude to call a strike if they think that the batter is delaying the game. I am strongly against any rule that limits a manager strategy. and that's what the pitching change rule will do. It's a thinly veiled way of trying to jump start offenses against the back end of stacked bullpens. Overall, I do not have a problem with the intentional walk mandate because it was packaged with the 2 minute limit on the replay review.

 

 

 

 

[Frobby]

40 minutes ago, Superbee83 said:

 IMO, nothing has has impacted the game more in a negative way than replay and most importantly how it is implemented. Games are stopped at critical moments and for a long period of time so that the call be be reviewed at a "nerve center" multiple times during a game.  

I know replay is not going away, however, I think that by giving each team two challenges per game and limiting official reviews to home run and fan interference calls only would help pace of play but I think that it would make umpiring a bit sharper. It seems to me that the longer that replay has been implemented, the more umpires have leaned on it as a crutch on close calls.

 

 

 

 

There are not challenges "multiple times per game."     Last year there were 0.63 replay reviews per game, and on average they took 2 minutes 30 seconds to resolve.    With rare exceptions, it's not overused, and having a limit of two per team per game is going to do very little, since making more than two challenges per game is an extremely rare occurrence.    I assume you're aware that right now teams only get one challenge per game, unless the challenge results in a reversal.   Also, the number of umpire-initiated reviews has decreased each year the system has been in place, and only happened once every 14 games last year.    

I wasn't a fan of allowing replay review in MLB, but I think it's been implemented reasonably well.    Anything they can do to speed up the time of review is good with me, though artificially limiting the length of time it's allowed to take is probably going to increase the number of times they get it wrong.  

[Frobby]

By the way, the Orioles challenged 39 calls in 2016, and 22 were successful (56%).   They only had three games all year when they challenged more than one call -- two games where they challenged two calls, and one game where they challenged three.    In the game where they challenged three, all three challenges were successful.    

[Frobby]

Other teams in our division (successful challenges/total challenges):

Jays: 20/55

Rays: 32/53

Red Sox: 23/50

Yankees: 19/28

It's interesting to see the different philosophies.    Joe Girardi may irritate you, but he doesn't challenge calls without a very good reason.    John Gibbons challenges calls at the drop of a hat.  Is it worth it to make 27 extra challenges to get one more reversed call?   That's got to annoy the umpires.     And I clearly recall a game last year where the Blue Jays had an extended first inning against our starting pitcher, who had to throw 35-40 pitches, and then in the bottom half of the inning he stupidly challenged some call that gave our starter several extra minutes in the dugout and had no chance of being successful.    

As an aside, Gibbons challenged six calls in games with the Orioles, and was only successful once.   On the other hand, Buck was only successful 1/4 against the Jays.   

[Superbee83]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

There are not challenges "multiple times per game."     Last year there were 0.63 replay reviews per game, and on average they took 2 minutes 30 seconds to resolve.    With rare exceptions, it's not overused, and having a limit of two per team per game is going to do very little, since making more than two challenges per game is an extremely rare occurrence.    I assume you're aware that right now teams only get one challenge per game, unless the challenge results in a reversal.   Also, the number of umpire-initiated reviews has decreased each year the system has been in place, and only happened once every 14 games last year.    

I wasn't a fan of allowing replay review in MLB, but I think it's been implemented reasonably well.    Anything they can do to speed up the time of review is good with me, though artificially limiting the length of time it's allowed to take is probably going to increase the number of times they get it wrong.  

As I stated in my post, I know that replay is not going away.and my overall point is that replay has done more to slow the pace of play than anything else that has been implemented the past few years. I would prefer to give teams two challenges per game regardless if the challenge is successful or not. Also, IMO "official reviews" should only be used when the challenges are spent by both teams  and used for home runs and fan interference only. Right now, most "official reviews" are used by the umpires to police their calls. Overall, I despise replay. It has adversely affected umpiring, curbs momentum, and most importantly it stops the natural flow of the game of baseball. 

 

[Frobby]

29 minutes ago, Superbee83 said:

As I stated in my post, I know that replay is not going away.and my overall point is that replay has done more to slow the pace of play than anything else that has been implemented the past few years. I would prefer to give teams two challenges per game regardless if the challenge is successful or not. Also, IMO "official reviews" should only be used when the challenges are spent by both teams  and used for home runs and fan interference only. Right now, most "official reviews" are used by the umpires to police their calls. Overall, I despise replay. It has adversely affected umpiring, curbs momentum, and most importantly it stops the natural flow of the game of baseball. 

 

My point is giving teams two challenges a game regardless of whether they are successful or not is likely to increase the average number of challenges per game, not decrease it.    Managers are reluctant to make their first challenge, because they know that if they're wrong, they're out of bullets.    Give them two, and they'll be much more likely to use the first one.    And they very rarely use more than two now, so that's a bad tradeoff.

What I dislike is when the manager has made an unsuccessful challenge, and then later goes out and petitions for an umpire review.     Sorry bud, you blew your chance and the umps should just say no unless someone else on the crew really thinks that the ump making the call blew it.     But as I said, umpire reviews happen once every 14 games.    It's not like this is a nightly occurrence.    

[joeyc]

On Mon Feb 06 2017 at 1:41 PM, MDtransplant757 said:

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

Only for the 1st year. The 2nd year and forward MLB does not need permission from the MLB PA to enforce the rule changes,  per the new collective bargaining agreement.

What they really should do to speed up the game is enforce the 20 second pitch clock and enforce the batters staying in the box between pitches. That would shave a lot of time off the game.

[Frobby]

2 minutes ago, joeyc said:

Only for the 1st year. The 2nd year and forward MLB does not need permission from the MLB PA to enforce the rule changes,  per the new collective bargaining agreement.

What they really should do to speed up the game is enforce the 20 second pitch clock and enforce the batters staying in the box between pitches. That would shave a lot of time off the game.

I just posted a thread on the pace of various O's pitchers.    Several of them average more than 20 seconds with the bases empty, and they pretty much all do with runners on base.   I think it's tough to enforce the rule when runners are on.

[Superbee83]

38 minutes ago, Frobby said:

My point is giving teams two challenges a game regardless of whether they are successful or not is likely to increase the average number of challenges per game, not decrease it.    Managers are reluctant to make their first challenge, because they know that if they're wrong, they're out of bullets.    Give them two, and they'll be much more likely to use the first one.    And they very rarely use more than two now, so that's a bad tradeoff.

What I dislike is when the manager has made an unsuccessful challenge, and then later goes out and petitions for an umpire review.     Sorry bud, you blew your chance and the umps should just say no unless someone else on the crew really thinks that the ump making the call blew it.     But as I said, umpire reviews happen once every 14 games.    It's not like this is a nightly occurrence.    

I concede your point about the two challenges. My initial thought was to give the manager two opportunities to challenge the call during a game, but to completely take away the ability to have a crew chief review a call ( other than home runs which is the way that it is written) after the manager has exhausted his challenges. I see your point that these crew chief reviews happen every 14 games. However,  I'd like to see the crew chief challenges used for what they were intended and that is home run calls only. Further, the rules allow for two manager challenges in playoff games. I prefer post season games to be handles like regular season games when it comes to replay. They should either expand it to two challenges during the regular season or change it to one in the post season. Nice discussing this with you Frobby.

[weams]

‪ http://www.si.com/mlb/2017/03/01/jose-abreu-ate-fake-passport-chicago-white-sox-0?xid=socialflow_twitter_si‬

[MDtransplant757]

13 minutes ago, weams said:

‪ http://www.si.com/mlb/2017/03/01/jose-abreu-ate-fake-passport-chicago-white-sox-0?xid=socialflow_twitter_si‬

Isn't that crazy?