How to make baseball more interesting

[El Gordo]

I don't care about the pace of the game but then I'm old and anything to stretch things out now is good.

1) Robo Ump calls balls and strikes.

2) Give the bottom 10 teams two extra roster spots, the middle 10 1 extra, and the top 10 stays at 25. Will help with parity.

3) Realign the leagues around regional proximity to reduce travel times. 

4) Give teams the option to use the DH in interleague games.

5) Go back to 154 G so as to increase the number playoff games. Allow for 3 G WC series.

[Moose Milligan]

23 minutes ago, ExileAngelos said:

The goal is to bring more action into the game.  Base hits, base runners, plays at the plate etc.  The shift, at least in my opinion, is hurting the game in the area.  I know the simple answer is to have hitters go the other way to counter the shift.  But we have seen for years now that most of them either aren't capable or aren't willing to do just that. 

How many hits per game does the shift take away from per game?

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

How many hits per game does the shift take away from per game?

At least thirty.

[Tx Oriole]

4 hours ago, atomic said:

Baseball is losing younger fans who don't like the slow pace of the game.  Even older fans like me are getting bored with all the strike outs and pitching changes.  Now we have openers nonsense.  No matter what the sport coaches try to destroy the game.  Other leagues like the NFL and NHL are constantly changing the rules to counter-act coaches  destroying the sport while baseball stands still.  What are your suggestions. Here are mine:

1) Limit a team to 10 pitchers on the 25 man roster.  

2) A pitcher has to pitch to at least 3 batters

3) No managers or coaches on the field when their team is pitching.  (Only first base and third base coaches on field when their team is batting).  A manager doesnt need to come on to the field to make a  pitching change

4) Make the ball less lively.  With less chance of a home run, guys trying to hit home runs on every at bat will change or they will leave the game.  Lead to less strike outs.  

5) Eliminate the need to go back the bag after a fly out.  That will reward putting the ball in play and faster players. 

Well I don't wont the game changed at all. 

[Sessh]

1 hour ago, spiritof66 said:

Well, sure, if you're satisfied with everything about the game the way it is, there's no reason to change anything. 

I love the game the way it is, but some things have changed, and are continuing to change, the game in ways that I don't like. More scoring by HRs. Fewer guys on base and, it would follow, fewer baserunning plays. Many more strikeouts and swings and misses. More foul balls. Too many delaying tactics -- "conferences" at which nothing is discussed, endless throws to check runners -- that serve no purpose other than to get a relief pitcher ready. Too many terrible ball-strike calls by umpires. (Maybe those were always there and we just didn't see them as well, but I think umpires' ability to make accurate calls has been eroded by the higher speed of pitches and the increased deception by catchers.)

If lots of others agree, I think it's worth thinking about at least experimenting with changes that could affect those things.

You'll have even more strikeouts if you start handing them out for foul balls. Being able to foul pitches off and extend AB's is a desirable trait, not one that needs to be punished with more of what you claim there is already too many of. Fewer guys on base falls on the players not prioritizing getting on base. It is not something that we need more rules for.

The other things fall more into the category of strategy to me. A pitcher unexpectedly starts getting hammered and your reliever needs more time to warm up. Any manager with smarts would do whatever they could to buy a few extra seconds for them. I would much rather the pitchers are adequately warmed up before coming in the game as we already have enough pitching injuries as it is. Even still, this is a minor part of a game and doesn't even happen in every game or every other game. It is, IMO, trivial.

Balls and strikes will always be divisive. Sometimes, the calls go for your team and sometimes against. I'm fine with that personally as it sort of evens out that way, but to each their own. The higher speed of pitches probably has nothing to do with anything, though. Pitchers have been throwing mid-upper 90's for a long, long time. I think the lack of accountability with umpires is the root of the problems. What incentive is there to get better if they can be horrible at their job and still keep doing that job at the same frequency and pay? None. There's a big part of the problem. If solving that problem (which includes higher standards for being an MLB umpire, better training techniques etc..) doesn't increase performance, then I would be willing to consider electronics. Not before then, though. I see it as a last resort. Electronics come with their own baggage, risks and unforeseen consequences.

I am not satisfied with *everything*, but messing with the fabric of the game to the extent suggested is not reasonable nor is it more likely to fix problems than it would be to create more. It took almost 15 years for the negative consequences of the PED scandals to become visible, but they are now. The game is not the same. Whether people want to admit it or not, PED's were part of that fabric for decades and played a huge part in producing the game that many grew to love and the records that populate the record books. The bar was set with PED's. Take them away and you have an inferior product that does not (and probably can not) reach that bar without some help. The game developed with lots of that "help" and now it has been truncated and replaced with scandals and witch hunting. It's crystal clear to me, but that's just me.

[notyourbuddy]

1 hour ago, Matt Bennett said:

Rizzo was right. Shorten the season. 162 games? Every individual game is so insignificant. But if the season was 120 games? You’re getting closer to the point where one individual baseball game has the same significance to the season as one individual hockey game or one individual basketball game. 

Individual NBA games have no significance though.  The regular season is as nonessential as it comes.  There are no must win games/series anywhere on the schedule and the final month "push to the playoffs" is an irrelevant afterthought.  If anything basketball has a lot it could learn from MLB/NFL's setup.  

As for this thread's issue regarding youth not watching baseball.  Does it really matter?  I played the game as a kid, had fun doing so, and yet during all those years never sat down to actually watch one on TV.  Never crossed my mind and there is not a single rule change mentioned in this thread that would have even remotely made me consider doing so.  

Perhaps we should just accept that watching baseball is something better suited for when you get older and life starts to slow down.  That trying to change things to get teenagers and young 20's to tune in just isn't going to happen.

[Babypowder]

Sports participation and viewing is way down across the board among the young. It's not a baseball problem. Minor rules changes aren't going to fix this. We are the midst of major changes in entertainment media and kids have better options than watching sports. I don't know if it is a solvable problem.

A 12 year old would rather play Fortnite with his friends than watch a baseball game. Hell, I'm 34 and only watch the games on my PC while I'm playing my PS4 simultaneously. I can't even remember the last time I actually sat at home and watched an entire game with my attention solely on it. It was probably the last playoff game.

[Moose Milligan]

47 minutes ago, notyourbuddy said:

Individual NBA games have no significance though.  The regular season is as nonessential as it comes.  There are no must win games/series anywhere on the schedule and the final month "push to the playoffs" is an irrelevant afterthought.  If anything basketball has a lot it could learn from MLB/NFL's setup.  

As for this thread's issue regarding youth not watching baseball.  Does it really matter?  I played the game as a kid, had fun doing so, and yet during all those years never sat down to actually watch one on TV.  Never crossed my mind and there is not a single rule change mentioned in this thread that would have even remotely made me consider doing so.  

Perhaps we should just accept that watching baseball is something better suited for when you get older and life starts to slow down.  That trying to change things to get teenagers and young 20's to tune in just isn't going to happen.

Your 2nd paragraph is spot on.  That's the point I was trying to make in regards to ADHD little Timmy.  No rule change is automatically going to make that kid love baseball all of a sudden.

Where I disagree with your 3rd paragraph is that by the time you're in your 20s, it's super hard to get into a sport.  We're into the sports we watched when we were kids...for me, baseball, football, basketball.  I tried to get into hockey in my 20s and just couldn't do it.  At least not on a level like the other sports.

[ExileAngelos]

1 hour ago, Roy Firestone said:

I think if a pitcher blows a save, he should be executed. That way its even MORE exciting!

Would bring new meaning to 'high leverage innings.'   Perhaps put his neck in a noose out in the bullpen gallows and let him sweat it out until game is final. 

[TommyPickles]

4 hours ago, gmelson26 said:

A salary floor and a salary cap as well as revenue sharing...

You wanna know what's really interesting?  Turning on a game and feeling as though the team you will take to the grave in you heart has an equal chance of winning against teams that are fairly arrayed against them. 

You wanna know what's really interesting?  Feeling that your team has the shot the following year or maybe the year after that because it's on an even playing field with the rest of it's division.

 

I get it, we need to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and take a long hard look at Houston 7 years ago.. no excuses.  But I suspect Yankee fans, year in and year out, enjoy watching MLB a lot more Oakland fans.

I feel you, but Oakland started the year with the lowest payroll in the league and they're in the playoffs.

[TommyPickles]

4 hours ago, El Gordo said:

I don't care about the pace of the game but then I'm old and anything to stretch things out now is good.

1) Robo Ump calls balls and strikes.

2) Give the bottom 10 teams two extra roster spots, the middle 10 1 extra, and the top 10 stays at 25. Will help with parity.

3) Realign the leagues around regional proximity to reduce travel times. 

4) Give teams the option to use the DH in interleague games.

5) Go back to 154 G so as to increase the number playoff games. Allow for 3 G WC series.

Gotta say, I like these ideas.

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, TommyPickles said:

I feel you, but Oakland started the year with the lowest payroll in the league and they're in the playoffs.

We don't talk about things like that.

Also, the Rays won 90 games.

[VaBird1]

5 hours ago, ORIOLE33 said:

I would definitely get rid of the shift.

I hate the shift,  but the solution is to be a better hitter. 

[ORIOLE33]

Just now, VaBird1 said:

I hate the shift,  but the solution is to be a better hitter. 

Some hitters are just naturally better than others. It’s no different than telling a random small forward, since you’re playing the same position, you should be able to do what LeBron does. 

If more hitters could go the other way, I’m sure they would.

[VaBird1]

2 minutes ago, ORIOLE33 said:

Some hitters are just naturally better than others. It’s no different than telling a random small forward, since you’re playing the same position, you should be able to do what LeBron does. 

If more hitters could go the other way, I’m sure they would.

True, but that isn’t the other team’s problem.