Do you like the style of baseball that is currently being played?

[Enjoy Terror]

5 hours ago, Dark Helmet said:

Hate shifts, but batters aren't doing anything to adjust to them. If the batters start adjusting more, they will go away. 

I think you’ll see batters that can’t adjust go away before you’ll see shifts go away because of players adjusting. 

I think that makes sense?

[Chavez Ravine]

I should probably put this in the rants thread...but I think I may  already have  a post about this there .  Anyway,  I hate replay. The game is played by real people in real time. It should be officiated by real people in real time. Whatever lack of excitement and action the three true outcome style of play has engendered is a passing cloud compared to the persistent marine layer that is replay.  Did that jaw dropping play Manny just made actually count? Watch this Little Caesars Pizza commercial first, then come back and find out!!

 

[OFFNY]

o

 

I heard an interesting statistic during tonight's Yankees-Red Sox game.

 

In the last 30 years (1988-Present), only one Yankee pitcher has had 3 consecutive games of pitching at least 6 innings and ceding 0 runs.

C.C. Sabathia did it in late June and early July of the 2011 season.

He pitched 7.67, 7.00, and 9.00 innings of shutout ball respectively against the Brewers, the Indians, and the Devil Rays.

 

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/NYA/NYA201106300.shtml

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CLE/CLE201107050.shtml

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/NYA/NYA201107100.shtml

 

 

Jimmy Key, David Wells, David Cone, Andy Pettitte, Mike Mussina, Orlando "El Duque" Hernandez, Ivan Nova, Luis Severino, Roger Clemens, and Randy Johnson never did it while pitching for the Yankees (since 1988.)

 

Masahiro Tanaka was attempting to to do it tonight, but he ceded a solo home run to Markus Betts in the bottom of the 5th inning.

 

o

[allquixotic]

16 hours ago, oriole said:

For the most part I'm happy with it as far as actual play goes. I like shifts and it's part of what makes it a game of strategy. The replays have grown on me. I don't want a machine calling balls or strikes but the limits on how it's used keeps the game honest. I'm probably in the minority but I actually can't stand the home plate collusion rules. It adds to the excitement when a runner is coming in for a close play. 

 

One thing that is huge for me and I've been becoming more distant to the sport because of it is payroll sizes. I think it is absolute bullshit that the O's are stuck in a division where the Yankees and Red Sox will always be outspending everyone else and because of that they will always be in contention. Then there is the fact that we have millionaire athletes in a complete orbital class over the rest of the society. Why does anyone deserve 20 million a year when the extent of their contribution to the community is entertainment? It doesn't sit well with me, though I watch and pay attention because I love the game. 

I do want a machine calling balls and strikes. Every call should either be challengeable (so that a human can watch the replay, take their time and get it right) or called by machine. The most infuriating thing ever is when your team gets totally hosed by the ump making a horrible call on something that can't be challenged, like a ridiculous (one way or the other) check swing call.

I agree about the payroll sizes. Sure, most guys who play in the MLB are at the very top of the talent heap, and the ones that get huge FA contracts, even more so. But their contribution to society often isn't consummate to the amount of resources they loot from it with their massive ruling-class warchests, except for those who go out of their way to reinvest in communities in ways that are truly beneficial to said communities. But that is neither required nor guaranteed, and many guys do the minimum charity donation recommended by their agent and hoard the rest, or invest it overseas, which is slowly weakening our economy the more it happens.

Incredibly, baseball isn't the sport with the highest-paid athletes. I'm not sure how the sport compares in terms of overall spending, but for individual players, I think boxing and soccer might be at the top.

I'm a big fan of the young, relatively low-paid and hungry guys from pretty much any team, and it's obvious that they put in max effort to try and break through. But it's so disappointing when those same guys slum it the second they get a huge contract and they're no longer playing for a contract. I think at least part of Davis' recent ineptitude is because he simply has no financial incentive to perform; he won't lose a dime no matter how bad he is. I think contracts should have a base salary that affords a comfortable, even luxurious life, maybe $350k per year, and all income after that should be purely performance-based. I'm sure the stats guys can come up with a way to analyze a player's portfolio and come up with a fair haul based on performance. It wouldn't be a linear amount per hit or home run or whatever, because someone hitting 50 home runs should be worth considerably more than someone who hits 25, not just twice as much.

[wildbillhiccup]

17 hours ago, Frobby said:

I’d love to find a way to cut strikeouts back to 5-6 per 9 innings.    I just don’t know how you’d do it without doing something radical like moving the mound back a couple feet.   

I think lowering the mound might work too...

[Frobby]

1 minute ago, wildbillhiccup said:

I think lowering the mound might work too...

That is less radical and I’d try that first.   

[wildbillhiccup]

8 hours ago, Enjoy Terror said:

I think you’ll see batters that can’t adjust go away before you’ll see shifts go away because of players adjusting. 

I think that makes sense?

...cue a video of Chris Davis sailing his ship off into the sunset. Unfortunately we'll have figure out how to time travel and set the dial to 2023 to see it

[forphase1]

Do I like the way the game is played today?  I think it's still the greatest game on earth, but there are certainly things I don't like and that I'd change.

1) take as many decisions away from human umps as possible, especially balls/strikes.  Few things are more irritating to me than the arbitrary strike zone that changes from ump to ump, pitcher to pitcher, and batter to batter.  I'd much rather have some consistency in the way the game is called.  It really shouldn't matter who is in blue behind the plate, if it's Greg Maddux or Sidney Ponson throwing the pitch, or Derek Jeter or Luis Matos at the plate, a ball should be a ball and a strike should be a strike.  And I don't care if it hurts or helps the Os....I've been angry at games we've won when that rally in the 9th shouldn't have happened due to an obviously missed call by the ump.  Essentially I want the players rewarded/punished for their actual performance, not for their performance as inaccurately perceived by an umpire.

2) A continuation of #1 to a point, but too many umps call a low 'ball' as strike instead.  Pitches at the ankles are close to impossible to get any decent wood on them.  I think if we raised the lower strike zone to the 'knees' as it used to be called, I think the number of strike outs would decrease and the number of balls put into play would increase.  For me that's a much easier/better method to get more balls in play and fewer strikeouts than moving or altering the mound.  Same goes for the 'edges' of the plate.  Shrinking the strike zone a bit, mainly by applying the rules already in place, would help make the game more exciting I think

3) DH for everyone.  For me it's painful to watch an NL game at times.  Few things are worse than having the hole of a pitcher in your lineup.  It's the perfect time to go make a sandwich or get a drink...problem in that's what commercials are for, and it shouldn't be that way in game action time.  Does it change some of the strategy?  Sure.  Does it make the pitchers more fearless as they never have to bat?  Maybe.  But the terrible pitcher at bats outweigh any other considerations for me

4) Shifts.  I hate the shifts.  And I hate that MLB hitters can't seem to adapt to the shifts.  I'm honestly torn here as to the solution.  Part of me doesn't want to reward the 'bad' hitters by not allowing shifts to happen...instead I want to the see the hitters adjust, lay down a bunt, do something.  But it's also very frustrating to see a ball that usually would be a base hit being snagged by a 3rd infielder.  On this issue I'm probably going to punt as I don't really like either solution. 

There are a few other things that could be changed like roster sizes, number of pitching changes allowed in game or in inning, etc.  Some of these could also be beneficial, but not sure I'd want to mess with it too much.  As noted before, still the greatest game on earth, but not sure it's as great as I remember it being in the 80s and 90s.  Would be more enjoyable with fewer strikeouts and more balls put into play...and more runners on bases too.  Just my 2 cents.

[Greg Pappas]

I'd like to thank everyone for their input... it's an interesting topic, as pretty much everyone has an opinion on these matters, and reading so many well-thought posts is enjoyable for me. 

As with some of you, I get torn between the purist side and the change-the-game-for-the-better side. For one, I really can't stand wondering every game what the strike zone will be... and often it shifts around during a game, leaving me, the fans, and the players wondering what the strike zone is. Umpires calling balls and strikes is the way it's always been, but I'd absolutely love it if they were given some electronic assistance to help with the calls. If there were a device that the home plate umps could carry on them that registered the right call, they would still give the call behind the plate, but their often erroneous judgement would be eliminated.  If, again, if there is such technology, it would enable both pitchers and batters to have an unflinchingly consistent strike zone, the way it should be. From the fans standpoint, nothing would change.

Regarding shifts, I'm torn. I don't like them because it is killing batting averages and eliminating much of the game action. However, if players were better hitters, able to hit the ball the other way, etc, the shifts would stop.  They should be able to do that, but many can't. That's a tough call. I'm open on this matter.

I like replays, as I'm a big advocate of getting the calls right, but wish the decisions would be made a bit quicker.

The DH matter is another I have mixed feelings on. While having the DH in both leagues is a consideration, and for the most part pitchers cannot hit, it bothers me that there are pitchers, like Ohtani, that CAN hit. It's only fair that if you have a great talent that can both pitch and hit, and the other team's pitcher is awful, you should be rewarded by having them both hit, like the NL does currently.  Of course, those good-hitting pitchers are few in number, and pitcher injuries running the bases or swinging when they're not used to it, poses a real problem.  The idea one of the posters had about having a home team decide to DH or not, is interesting.  I guess if it came down to it, I'd vote towards having a DH in both leagues.

I'd love to get an educated opinion on the matter of catchers being unable (maybe never taught?) or not being given the opportunity, to call games.  I feel like it's becoming more and more common for managers or someone on the bench making the calls. 

The idea of having a salary cap, like the one employed by the NFL, appeals to me, as I find it ridiculous that teams like the Yankees, Red Sox and Dodgers can afford to spend often far more than their competition.  It's never been an equal playing field. However, the odds of that ever becoming a reality, at least in the next decade, seem remote.

[Sessh]

13 hours ago, 24fps said:

Why stop at designated hitters?  How about designated fielders?  We could have Chris Davis play first and Caleb Joseph hit for him for a clear net gain.  Why there's no end to the tinkering, all that's missing is a little imagination and a servicable narrative.  Get Rob Manfred on the phone...

We don't stop at designated hitters. We do have designated fielders, they are called defensive replacements. We have designated runners called pinch runners and designated pitchers called relief pitchers. Pinch hitters are basically DH's anyway, but the AL only has one while the NL has three or four a game. You are deliberately being obtuse and unrealistic.

1 hour ago, Greg Pappas said:

As with some of you, I get torn between the purist side and the change-the-game-for-the-better side. For one, I really can't stand wondering every game what the strike zone will be... and often it shifts around during a game, leaving me, the fans, and the players wondering what the strike zone is. Umpires calling balls and strikes is the way it's always been, but I'd absolutely love it if they were given some electronic assistance to help with the calls. If there were a device that the home plate umps could carry on them that registered the right call, they would still give the call behind the plate, but their often erroneous judgement would be eliminated.  If, again, if there is such technology, it would enable both pitchers and batters to have an unflinchingly consistent strike zone, the way it should be. From the fans standpoint, nothing would change.

...

The DH matter is another I have mixed feelings on. While having the DH in both leagues is a consideration, and for the most part pitchers cannot hit, it bothers me that there are pitchers, like Ohtani, that CAN hit. It's only fair that if you have a great talent that can both pitch and hit, and the other team's pitcher is awful, you should be rewarded by having them both hit, like the NL does currently.  Of course, those good-hitting pitchers are few in number, and pitcher injuries running the bases or swinging when they're not used to it, poses a real problem.  The idea one of the posters had about having a home team decide to DH or not, is interesting.  I guess if it came down to it, I'd vote towards having a DH in both leagues.

I don't mind error with umpires. It adds an unpredictable variable to every game. Sometimes, it goes against you and sometimes it falls in your favor. So many times, there's people in the game threads or the PBP guys complaining about how a call wasn't a strike while the "electronic" K zone clearly shows it to be a strike. There's always going to be complaining and missed calls. I think there's too much reliance on tech as it is now. The umpire situation could be improved if they were held accountable and MLB had some sort of standard an umpire had to meet in order to be qualified to call balls and strikes. There are several really good and consistent umpires and several that are not so good. This problem could be vastly improved just by injecting some accountability into the situation with some kind of standard.

With the DH, I don't like forcing it one way or the other. Giving teams the choice is the way to go. Both leagues then have the same rules and have a choice of whether to use the rule or not. I don't really see why it MUST be all or nothing. Put some more strategy at the feet of the teams and let them decide what the best strategy is for them in every game. There's no need to enforce it one way or the other. Watching pitchers hit is painful and in NO WAY helps most teams. If a team feels it does help them, then they can choose not to use the DH. If they would rather have nine hitters instead of eight, then they can use the DH. Let them decide. That's how it should be. I just don't believe in enforcing this one way or the other, but I definitely think they should have the choice. Both the AL and NL will have the same rules then.

[Greg Pappas]

10 minutes ago, Sessh said:

We don't stop at designated hitters. We do have designated fielders, they are called defensive replacements. We have designated runners called pinch runners and designated pitchers called relief pitchers. Pinch hitters are basically DH's anyway, but the AL only has one while the NL has three or four a game. You are deliberately being obtuse and unrealistic.

I don't mind error with umpires. It adds an unpredictable variable to every game. Sometimes, it goes against you and sometimes it falls in your favor. So many times, there's people in the game threads or the PBP guys complaining about how a call wasn't a strike while the "electronic" K zone clearly shows it to be a strike. There's always going to be complaining and missed calls. I think there's too much reliance on tech as it is now. The umpire situation could be improved if they were held accountable and MLB had some sort of standard an umpire had to meet in order to be qualified to call balls and strikes. There are several really good and consistent umpires and several that are not so good. This problem could be vastly improved just by injecting some accountability into the situation with some kind of standard.

With the DH, I don't like forcing it one way or the other. Giving teams the choice is the way to go. Both leagues then have the same rules and have a choice of whether to use the rule or not. I don't really see why it MUST be all or nothing. Put some more strategy at the feet of the teams and let them decide what the best strategy is for them in every game. There's no need to enforce it one way or the other. Watching pitchers hit is painful and in NO WAY helps most teams. If a team feels it does help them, then they can choose not to use the DH. If they would rather have nine hitters instead of eight, then they can use the DH. Let them decide. That's how it should be. I just don't believe in enforcing this one way or the other, but I definitely think they should have the choice. Both the AL and NL will have the same rules then.

Yeah, whether they use an electronic assistance device or not down the road, choosing the very best ball/strike umpires to call games, rather than a rotation of poor ball/strike callers- makes sense.  

[Ruzious]

To me, it's weird that people are complaining about shifts because it has nothing to do with any rule changes, changes with the ball, the mound, etc.  It's just using a strategy a lot more than it's been used in the past.  Teams used to shift for Ted Williams way back in the day.  Saying you shouldn't allow it makes no more sense than saying you shouldn't be able to use analytics.  Disallowing either makes no sense whatsoever, imo.  Just my 2 cents.    

 

 

[24fps]

8 hours ago, Sessh said:

We don't stop at designated hitters. We do have designated fielders, they are called defensive replacements. We have designated runners called pinch runners and designated pitchers called relief pitchers. Pinch hitters are basically DH's anyway, but the AL only has one while the NL has three or four a game. You are deliberately being obtuse and unrealistic.

 

It's not deliberate, it's natural.  Organic even. 

If you read the post I was responding to, the observation was made that there's nothing more boring than watching a pitcher flail away at the plate, or words to that effect.  I maintain that it's just as boring and considerably more frustrating to see Chris Davis flail away at the plate.  If the highly subjective criteria of fan boredom is a license for tinkering with the game, then the sky's the limit right?  Chris Davis can field OK, but in my opinion has no business having a bat in his hands.  I want to see a personal DH for Chris Davis every time he comes to the plate.  4-5 times a game, I don't care.  I want my boredom addressed.

[Nevermore]

I'd rather see pitchers flailing away than see DHs flail as they swing for the fences. And actually, in some instances, a manager could switch Mycheal Givens to SS (his original position) and bring in another reliever. After the AB, or perhaps for the next AB as well, take the reliever out and put Givens back in as the pitcher, and do some other switching so that the SS can play reasonably well. Or perhaps relief pitchers should learn a position, then they could switch back and forth for an inning or two.  Better yet, get more pitchers who can slug like Madison Baumgarner - you should Google him and see what he thinks of the DH.

As for shifts, hitters should learn how to adjust. Perhaps more switch hitting would help this problem. Also learning how to bunt.

As for commercials, they affect shortening the time between half innings. Also for pitcher changes. These commercials bring revenue to the teams. Maybe they should be juried by a panel of fans, so the stupid or obnoxious ones could be eliminated.  

[CheeryO]

I like the shift, and I like replay.  I think we'll see more high OBP, base stealing type players over the next several years as the answer to the shift.  That will make baseball more exciting.  Baseball has its next Mickey Mantle in Mike Trout.  What baseball needs is its next Rickey Henderson, Ty Cobb and Ichiro Suzuki.