MLB and Union talk major rule changes

[Number5]

3 minutes ago, atomic said:

Baseball isn't going to give you diabetes.  Really I don't drink soda but Coca Cola never really changed their formula back.  When they went to new coke they went from using Sugar to Corn Syrup. When they supposedly went back to the old flavor they still used Corn Syrup.  So I am not sure what your example is supposed to prove. Maybe interesting in a business class but has nothing to do with the situation.  Unless you want us to trick you into thinking nothing changed. 

And originally Coca Cola had cocaine in it.  

Baseball has issues. You can ignore them and by the time you got around to fixing the issues it would be too late to save. 

This very mindset is the most serious issue the game faces.  It has a commissioner that looks to make knee-jerk massive changes while focusing on minutia, rather than staying focused on the big picture.  There is an ocean of difference between ignoring the issues and realizing the true depth of the issues and the ramifications, both good and bad, of making changes.  

[DrungoHazewood]

17 minutes ago, Aglets said:

The answer to the cord cutting thing is simple.........just figure out a way to get streaming to work.  It's clearly the future.  

I don't know of any way to get millions of people to pay for my MLB or MASN streaming service who never watch it.  I pay $3 a month for MASN because the 80% of cable subscribers who never watch it also pay $3 a month.  They won't if they don't have to.  The solution is to charge more to the people who want it, but does the math work out the same?  Would you pay several hundred dollars a year for MASN?

[Sessh]

4 minutes ago, jjnono said:

I don't know if this has been brought up, but I'd imagine that if a three-batter rule were implemented for relief pitchers, the amount of intentional walks would increase noticeably.  I bring my relief pitcher in one batter-early, and walk the first guy he faces in order to get to the guy I want him to face, especially if the guy I want represents the last out of an inning.  Then I only have to pitch to the first guy in the next inning.  

And while I understand the DH promotes job openings and career longevity for players, I wish it would be thrown out altogether...  But I agree there needs to be similarity in both leagues with regard to its usage (or preferred non-usage)...

Good point about the IBB's and I would also argue that if it's obvious that a pitcher clearly doesn't have it after one batter and is forced to face another two batters, more runs are given up and a pitching change will happen anyway, just later which means more game time. What if the next pitcher comes in and is equally ineffective? Then, another pitching change after three batters. I can definitely see IBB's being used as a loophole here. I hadn't considered that, but it's definitely a valid and interesting point.

I disagree about throwing the DH out. I still think that the right solution is to just make it optional and have the home team decide if there will be a DH or not. This way, fans like yourself who do not like the DH won't feel so put off by it. I think it's easier to accept over time if your team is making those decisions instead of having the league mandate it. Making it optional also makes using or not using the DH more of a strategic decision as opposed to an mandatory enforced one. I definitely think this is the better way to go for the fans who are opposed to it as well as the other factors.

[Frobby]

37 minutes ago, Number5 said:

I think you and others are massively misreading the tealeaves.  Attendance is historically high.  Revenue is historically high.  Offense is historically high.  Those are facts. 

Interesting “facts” you have there.  

- Attendance last year was below 70  mm for the first time since 2003.   https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2018/10/03/how-mlb-attendance-dropped-below-70-million-for-first-time-in-15-years/amp/

- Runs per game were at 4.45, which is nowhere near the modern high.    It’s basically middle of the road.

Revenues at an all-time high, I’ll give you.   But the demographics of the fan base don’t paint a rosy picture for the long run.

Edit: I see Drungo beat me to it on the “facts.”    Should’ve known he would.

 

[DrungoHazewood]

3 minutes ago, Sessh said:

Good point about the IBB's and I would also argue that if it's obvious that a pitcher clearly doesn't have it after one batter and is forced to face another two batters, more runs are given up and a pitching change will happen anyway, just later which means more game time. What if the next pitcher comes in and is equally ineffective? Then, another pitching change after three batters. I can definitely see IBB's being used as a loophole here. I hadn't considered that, but it's definitely a valid and interesting point.

I disagree about throwing the DH out. I still think that the right solution is to just make it optional and have the home team decide if there will be a DH or not. This way, fans like yourself who do not like the DH won't feel so put off by it. I think it's easier to accept over time if your team is making those decisions instead of having the league mandate it. Making it optional also makes using or not using the DH more of a strategic decision as opposed to an mandatory enforced one. I definitely think this is the better way to go for the fans who are opposed to it as well as the other factors.

Make the rule max three pitchers per game, with an allowance for an extra pitcher for each two extra innings.

I do like home team choice for DH.  A team with limited resources or a poor DH could force David Ortiz to play the field or sit the bench.

[Number5]

6 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

MLB attendance has declined in five of the last six seasons.

Revenues are at or near historic highs.

Offense is nowhere near historic highs.  2018 was the 85th-highest scoring season of all time, 55th-highest since 1900, 31st-highest since WWII, and 13th-highest since 2000.

Again, attendance is historically high.  You know this.

Offense is historically high.  You also know this.  Naturally it is lower than the steroid era, but that has nothing to do with these proposed rules changes.  Pre 1900 is, of course, completely irrelevant to the discussion.

[Frobby]

1 minute ago, Number5 said:

Again, attendance is historically high.  You know this.

Offense is historically high.  You also know this.  Naturally it is lower than the steroid era, but that has nothing to do with these proposed rules changes.  Pre 1900 is, of course, completely irrelevant to the discussion.

You must have a different definition of “historically high” than most people.   

[Number5]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Interesting “facts” you have there.  

- Attendance last year was below 70  mm for the first time since 2003.   https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/maurybrown/2018/10/03/how-mlb-attendance-dropped-below-70-million-for-first-time-in-15-years/amp/

- Runs per game were at 4.45, which is nowhere near the modern high.    It’s basically middle of the road.

Revenues at an all-time high, I’ll give you.   But the demographics of the fan base don’t paint a rosy picture for the long run   

 

Come on, FRobby, attendance is way higher than it was for most of your life.  Also, I thought it was understood that the steroid years were obviously higher scoring.

[Number5]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

You must have a different definition of “historically high” than most people.   

There is a big difference between historically high and historically the highest.  Apparently you disagree.

[DrungoHazewood]

Just now, Number5 said:

Again, attendance is historically high.  You know this.

Offense is historically high.  You also know this.  Naturally it is lower than the steroid era, but that has nothing to do with these proposed rules changes.  Pre 1900 is, of course, completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Yes, attendance is historically high if you ignore that it's declined five of the last six years and is below 70 million for the first time in 15 years.

And yes, offense is historically high if you ignore 1871-1900, 1920-1941, most of 1947-62, 1977, 1979, 1987, and 1993-2010.

[atomic]

12 minutes ago, Number5 said:

This very mindset is the most serious issue the game faces.  It has a commissioner that looks to make knee-jerk massive changes while focusing on minutia, rather than staying focused on the big picture.  There is an ocean of difference between ignoring the issues and realizing the true depth of the issues and the ramifications, both good and bad, of making changes.  

The game has already changed.  In the old days pitchers pitched every 4 days most of the time complete games.  In 1974 Mike Marshall led the league in saves and pitched over 200 innings in relief.  Tippy Martinez was a loogy who pitched 100 innings in a season. 

Yogi Berra played 19 seasons and struck out a total of 400 times.  Modern guys do that in 2 seasons.   People used to steal bases. Now hardly anyone does.  

 

[Sessh]

1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Make the rule max three pitchers per game, with an allowance for an extra pitcher for each two extra innings.

I do like home team choice for DH.  A team with limited resources or a poor DH could force David Ortiz to play the field or sit the bench.

I could easily see your first point leading to more pitcher injuries, though. If not real injuries, faked ones.

Indeed or you could take Ohtani out of the lineup unless he's pitching. Wouldn't it be interesting to see Ohtani come in as a long reliever just to get him in the lineup in those situations? There's potential there for some interesting strategic moves. It would make the DH a lot more interesting, that's for sure.

[Number5]

1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Yes, attendance is historically high if you ignore that it's declined five of the last six years and is below 70 million for the first time in 15 years.

And yes, offense is historically high if you ignore 1871-1900, 1920-1941, most of 1947-62, 1977, 1979, 1987, and 1993-2010.

No, there is no need to ignore some of the few years with higher attendance to state the clear fact that attendance is still historically high.

No, I'm ignoring pre-1900 and the steroid era only.  Both for obvious reasons.  You apparently are confusing the word high with the word highest.

[DrungoHazewood]

5 minutes ago, atomic said:

The game has already changed.  In the old days pitchers pitched every 4 days most of the time complete games.  In 1974 Mike Marshall led the league in saves and pitched over 200 innings in relief.  Tippy Martinez was a loogy who pitched 100 innings in a season. 

Yogi Berra played 19 seasons and struck out a total of 400 times.  Modern guys do that in 2 seasons.   People used to steal bases. Now hardly anyone does.  

 

It's all about whether you want to try to influence the changes.  Baseball has taken the position that they'll just let things happen as they happen for more than a century.  I'd prefer they get ahead of the changes and mold the game into something more engaging with faster pace and more action, rather than just accept whatever happens no matter what.

[Number5]

6 minutes ago, atomic said:

The game has already changed.  In the old days pitchers pitched every 4 days most of the time complete games.  In 1974 Mike Marshall led the league in saves and pitched over 200 innings in relief.  Tippy Martinez was a loogy who pitched 100 innings in a season. 

Yogi Berra played 19 seasons and struck out a total of 400 times.  Modern guys do that in 2 seasons.   People used to steal bases. Now hardly anyone does.  

 

So what?  Updating your company's computer system isn't changing the product.