MLB and Union talk major rule changes

[Camden_yardbird]

5 hours ago, LocoChris said:

Would you trust this guy?

I think baseball has gone nothing g but down hill since he took over, and that is saying something given he followed Selig.

[thezeroes]

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Why?  Because teams have used the absence of roster rules to evolve strategies that are more optimal for winning,

I do believe the rules about Guaranteed contracts, Limited Option Years, Rule 5 protection, and how long you need to be out on optional assignment are also limiting on teams rosters.

 

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

It's like the four-corners in basketball, but perhaps less extreme.  Why should the basketball powers-that-be dictate what strategies teams should use?  That's obvious: the strategies were good to win, but horrific from the standpoint of fan experience. 

So you would like to see limits on shifts in the infield and outfield???  These are used under the same principal as the "Four r corners in Basketball.

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

What if teams figured out that if they had 25 pitchers on the roster each throwing to one or two batters, the other team would never get a hit?  The whole team would be pitchers, the fielders would be out-of-position pitchers, standing out there on the off chance that someone didn't strike out.  Wouldn't it be incumbent on the league to stop this, because nobody wants to watch 27 guys strike out every game?

Teams would need to score to win.  I some how doubt using a roster with Twenty-Five pitchers would give you much of a scoring chance.

 

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

At some point the league has to step up and say we need to make this something people want to watch and pay for.  It can't all be about the purity of 100+ year old rules.

Baseball got to where it is at with this archaic rules.  Change for the sake of change may lose them as many fans as they would hope to gain.  NASCAR made rules changes and have lost attendance and ratings.  Football made changes and net ratings dropped.  Changes are not always a good thing.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 minute ago, thezeroes said:

So you would like to see limits on shifts in the infield and outfield???  These are used under the same principal as the "Four r corners in Basketball.

Baseball got to where it is at with this archaic rules.  Change for the sake of change may lose them as many fans as they would hope to gain.  NASCAR made rules changes and have lost attendance and ratings.  Football made changes and net ratings dropped.  Changes are not always a good thing.

Shifts don't take 5-4 and 7-5 games and turn them all into 1-0 games.  Shifts are only detrimental to the sport in that a few fans find them distasteful, but I think most are good with it.  Plus, there's an easy way around them: just hit where nobody is standing.

It's not change for change's sake.  It's change to make for a more engaging, poplar, sport that might appeal more broadly to people under the age of 50.  Baseball has changed one major rule in the last 115 years, and the game has gone from eight homers leading the league and pitchers throwing 400 innings to teams hitting 300 homers and the Cy Young winner sometimes throwing 180 innings.  Strikeouts have gone from two a game to nine.  Teams used to use 1.5 pitchers a game, now its five or six.  Baseball will change whether the rules do or not.  It's up to the powers-that-be to make the change into something positive, or otherwise let it run uncontrolled and have no input on where the game ends up and whether or not anyone likes it.

[thezeroes]

2 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

It's change to make for a more engaging, poplar, sport that might appeal more broadly to people under the age of 50. 

I do think the change to the new "SUPER BALL" this year has done more for the need/want of having more pitchers on the roster.  Would MLB have the guts to go back to the 1960's style of ball.  Home Runs would decrease by a large margin.  Balls that are now going out would be "Warning Track Power".  The need for Max Effort out of pitchers would also wane since the Homeruns would be cut  by a third.

[AZRon]

6 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I think this is step one.  They could start lowering the number of allowed pitchers in a few years to 12, then 11, then 10.  To me that's the only sure-fire way of getting individual pitchers to pitch more, and back off from max effort all the time.

And I think they decided to make these irrelevant rules defining when a non-pitcher can pitch just to show they're putting something in the rules drawing a line between pitchers and non-pitchers.  And to keep teams from stashing an extra real pitcher on the bench as a position player for use in real game situations.

Wow !! -- that's deep -- not sure if it is deep thought or deep state

Perhaps, the cabal at MLB is pushing teams to develop more player versions of the 1918-1919 Babe Ruth