MLB and Union talk major rule changes

[atomic]

11 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence.  The O's totaled about 11 WAR by bb-ref and eight by Fangraphs.  That's in the neighborhood of 50 wins.

Replacement level team is 48-114.  48 + 11 = 60 Wins.  Pythogeran Wins for Orioles was 55.  Still that is significant difference anyway you look at it. 

[MikeAD]

10 hours ago, ExileAngelos said:

Surely you can't be serious....

Very serious.  I don't care too much but MLB needs to make changes to continue to grow, and really to even stay where they are.  Especially with a strike coming.   The DH  makes no sense when theres been year round interleague play for seasons now.  The league needs new fans and families to stay alive.  Games need to be shorter.   Playoff baseball needs to be exciting, it can't be 5 hour 2-2 games.  Traditionalists will complain but not making changes is going to lead to continued lower attendance.  We've seen TV ratings go up across markets even when attendance is down.  A shorter, tighter game with less interruptions, commercials should be the target.  I'm not married to any one fix but Id prefer the outcome where MLB is thriving and ballparks are full.  

[DrungoHazewood]

5 minutes ago, atomic said:

Replacement level team is 48-114.  48 + 11 = 60 Wins.  Pythogeran Wins for Orioles was 55.  Still that is significant difference anyway you look at it. 

Most years you'll have one or two teams off by 10 wins.  It's not a big deal, probably not indicative of anything.  Sometimes it's an over/underachieving or poorly/well-leveraged bullpen.  Could also be sequencing of events, bad luck in high leverage situations.  I can't think of any reason that strikeouts would influence that  much at all.

[atomic]

11 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Most years you'll have one or two teams off by 10 wins.  It's not a big deal, probably not indicative of anything.  Sometimes it's an over/underachieving or poorly/well-leveraged bullpen.  Could also be sequencing of events, bad luck in high leverage situations.  I can't think of any reason that strikeouts would influence that  much at all.

A flaw in their methods. 

[DrungoHazewood]

12 minutes ago, MikeAD said:

Very serious.  I don't care too much but MLB needs to make changes to continue to grow, and really to even stay where they are.  Especially with a strike coming.   The DH  makes no sense when theres been year round interleague play for seasons now.  The league needs new fans and families to stay alive.  Games need to be shorter.   Playoff baseball needs to be exciting, it can't be 5 hour 2-2 games.  Traditionalists will complain but not making changes is going to lead to continued lower attendance.  We've seen TV ratings go up across markets even when attendance is down.  A shorter, tighter game with less interruptions, commercials should be the target.  I'm not married to any one fix but Id prefer the outcome where MLB is thriving and ballparks are full.  

Couldn't you just as well say that pitchers (badly) hitting makes no sense because we've had year round interleague play for seasons now?

[DrungoHazewood]

1 minute ago, atomic said:

A flaw in their methods. 

I look forward to reading your analysis.

[Frobby]

18 minutes ago, atomic said:

Replacement level team is 48-114.  48 + 11 = 60 Wins.  Pythogeran Wins for Orioles was 55.  Still that is significant difference anyway you look at it. 

I agree with you on this, but I don’t think it has much to do with strikeouts.   The Orioles has exactly the same number of strikeouts in 2017 and 2018, yet they scored 121 fewer runs in 2018.

I think WAR measures the impact of strikeouts just fine.    The two major reasons why WAR doesn’t match up perfectly with wins are:

1.   WAR doesn’t take sequencing into account (i.e., a home run has the same WAR value regardless of the score, the inning or the runners on base; it’s all based on the average increase in runs scored resulting from a home run).

2.   The defensive component of WAR is not as accurately measured as the offensive component.    

There are probably some other reasons, but those are the main two.   

[Number5]

2 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Baseball has refused to change almost any rules for over a century.  And the game has evolved itself from a game of 2.50 ERAs, two Ks a game, and teams with < 10 homers a season to what we have today. 

Come on, Drungo, you know better than this.  The ball alone accounts for most of the difference.  The dimensions, outlawing foreign substances, lowering the mound, expansion, and the invention of the slider all also had substantial impact. 

The fact that fans have been in love with the home run since Babe Ruth has meant that teams want sluggers on their rosters.  Legislating the home run out of baseball would be the game's death knell.  Making a bunch of needless game-changing rules changes will lose far more fans than it will gain, IMO.  People that aren't interested in baseball aren't going to suddenly flock to the stadium because a pitcher has to face at least three batters.  MLB revenue in recent years is at an all-time high.  What an incredibly stupid time to think that making major rules changes would be a good idea.  How did it work out when Coca Cola changed it's formula?  As far as I can tell, the one single change that would be best for the game would be to replace the Commissioner.

[atomic]

9 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I agree with you on this, but I don’t think it has much to do with strikeouts.   The Orioles has exactly the same number of strikeouts in 2017 and 2018, yet they scored 121 fewer runs in 2018.

I think WAR measures the impact of strikeouts just fine.    The two major reasons why WAR doesn’t match up perfectly with wins are:

 1.   WAR doesn’t take sequencing into account (i.e., a home run has the same WAR value regardless of the score, the inning or the runners on base; it’s all based on the average increase in runs scored resulting from a home run).

 2.   The defensive component of WAR is not as accurately measured as the offensive component.    

 There are probably some other reasons, but those are the main two.   

Yeah #1 is what I was saying. It is fine to have one high home run , low average/low OBP on your team and guy that strikes out a lot. But if you have a team full of them then you will overrate the offensive numbers of such guys. You hit a home runs but they are mostly solo shots.  And if you do get guys on base and they strike out with guys on 3rd with less than 2 outs etc. 

[atomic]

11 minutes ago, Number5 said:

Come on, Drungo, you know better than this.  The ball alone accounts for most of the difference.  The dimensions, outlawing foreign substances, lowering the mound, expansion, and the invention of the slider all also had substantial impact. 

The fact that fans have been in love with the home run since Babe Ruth has meant that teams want sluggers on their rosters.  Legislating the home run out of baseball would be the game's death knell.  Making a bunch of needless game-changing rules changes will lose far more fans than it will gain, IMO.  People that aren't interested in baseball aren't going to suddenly flock to the stadium because a pitcher has to face at least three batters.  MLB revenue in recent years is at an all-time high.  What an incredibly stupid time to think that making major rules changes would be a good idea.  How did it work out when Coca Cola changed it's formula?  As far as I can tell, the one single change that would be best for the game would be to replace the Commissioner.

Every sport the fans hate the commissioner.  I have turned the game off before when in the middle of an inning a pitcher is brought in to face one batter and then he is taken out and another pitcher is brought in. That is incredibly boring.  And now we even have replays in baseball I would love to remove replays from baseball.  Another needless delay of the game. 

[Number5]

2 minutes ago, atomic said:

Every sport the fans hate the commissioner.  I have turned the game off before when in the middle of an inning a pitcher is brought in to face one batter and then he is taken out and another pitcher is brought in. That is incredibly boring.  And now we even have replays in baseball I would love to remove replays from baseball.  Another needless delay of the game. 

Case in point. 

[MikeAD]

35 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Couldn't you just as well say that pitchers (badly) hitting makes no sense because we've had year round interleague play for seasons now?

Whoops that’s exactly what I meant! We need a DH in every game. All 162 for every team. 

[DrungoHazewood]

19 minutes ago, Number5 said:

Come on, Drungo, you know better than this.  The ball alone accounts for most of the difference.  The dimensions, outlawing foreign substances, lowering the mound, expansion, and the invention of the slider all also had substantial impact. 

The fact that fans have been in love with the home run since Babe Ruth has meant that teams want sluggers on their rosters.  Legislating the home run out of baseball would be the game's death knell.  Making a bunch of needless game-changing rules changes will lose far more fans than it will gain, IMO.  People that aren't interested in baseball aren't going to suddenly flock to the stadium because a pitcher has to face at least three batters.  MLB revenue in recent years is at an all-time high.  What an incredibly stupid time to think that making major rules changes would be a good idea.  How did it work out when Coca Cola changed it's formula?  As far as I can tell, the one single change that would be best for the game would be to replace the Commissioner.

That's the challenge, isn't it?  Any business has to walk the line between bringing in new customers and not alienating their existing base.  Baseball has a huge problem in that they're popular enough now, but you can see the demographic cracks.  The average age of a baseball fan is 174.  I kid, but it's not great for the future of the game.  Couple that with cable being a potential bubble - eventually there will be enough cord cutters to take a cut out of mandatory $3 montly MASN fees.

Baseball may choose to follow your path and not change anything, and let the game wander around wherever it sees fit.  That's how we've gotten to long games with relatively little action besides strikeouts and homers.  Personally I think it's stupid to see the writing on the walls with regards to an aging fanbase and a younger generation uninterested in long, tedious games, and do nothing.

I see baseball's current situation as somewhat analogous to basketball prior to the shot clock and 3-point line.  College basketball wasn't exactly in trouble when they did those things, but they saw obvious problems like stalling tactics and four-corners, and the dominance of 7-footers instead of athletic players and they did something about it.  And now March Madness is probably bigger than the World Series.  It wouldn't be if North Carolina was able to hold the ball for the last 18 minutes of a 19-14 game.

[NCRaven]

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I guess Americans have always bought their cars with an eye on dollars per pound.  Used to be people lusted after 25' long Caddys that weighed three tons and you could put seven bodies in the trunk, now it's three-row SUVs larger than a Manhattan studio.  I'm a contrarian on this, and every time I see an Escalade I want to go buy an imported Japanese Kei car or an old Austin Mini.

This is what I like about America.  You want a Mini, I want a 64 Mustang, others want their Escalade.  If we can keep others from telling us what we have to buy because it's what's best for us, we'll still be in good shape as a country.  Oops, politics.  

[Tx Oriole]

41 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

That's the challenge, isn't it?  Any business has to walk the line between bringing in new customers and not alienating their existing base.  Baseball has a huge problem in that they're popular enough now, but you can see the demographic cracks.  The average age of a baseball fan is 174.  I kid, but it's not great for the future of the game.  Couple that with cable being a potential bubble - eventually there will be enough cord cutters to take a cut out of mandatory $3 montly MASN fees.

Baseball may choose to follow your path and not change anything, and let the game wander around wherever it sees fit.  That's how we've gotten to long games with relatively little action besides strikeouts and homers.  Personally I think it's stupid to see the writing on the walls with regards to an aging fanbase and a younger generation uninterested in long, tedious games, and do nothing.

I see baseball's current situation as somewhat analogous to basketball prior to the shot clock and 3-point line.  College basketball wasn't exactly in trouble when they did those things, but they saw obvious problems like stalling tactics and four-corners, and the dominance of 7-footers instead of athletic players and they did something about it.  And now March Madness is probably bigger than the World Series.  It wouldn't be if North Carolina was able to hold the ball for the last 18 minutes of a 19-14 game.

Okay but you can't put a time clock on a baseball game. I really don't know what can be done to speed up the game. Make the batter stop calling time and stepping out of the box? Make the pitcher stop reaching for the rosin bag? Make the pitcher throw after a certain time?