MLB and Union talk major rule changes

[Number5]

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

- You also elmminated most of the 1920-60 era that saw as much or more scoring as today.  

- I don't think offense is a problem, either  I agree with Frobby that the type of offense and lack of action is the major problem.  I'd be very happy if we contined at 4.5 run/game baseball but looked more like 1935 or 1977/79 with a lot more balls in play, fewer homers, some players with really high averages, and more stolen bases.

- If you went to three balls for a walk that would be a big change.  Walks are now right around historic averages at about 3.25/team/game.  I'd guess they'd go up to around 4.5/team/game.  The all-time high is 4.03 in 1949.  Strikeouts would do down a bit, with somewhat fewer long/deep counts.  But you're trading a lot of walks for a few strikeouts.  This won't do anything for action, my guess is overall balls in play as a percentage of at bats would go down a bit. Scoring would go up roughly 0.5 run/game, back to 2000-ish levels.  But don't know how many people would be on board with pushing three true outcomes to higher levels.

Perhaps I overestimate MLB pitchers' ability to command pitches.  I truly believe that if three balls resulted in a base on balls that MLB pitchers would throw more pitches over the plate and that currently many pitches thrown off the plate are done so purposely.  I certainly don't think that every three-ball count we see today would result in a three-ball walk with such a rules change, as pitchers would make fewer pitches intentionally out of the strike zone, IMO.  With more pitches thrown over the plate, MLB hitters would put more balls in play, IMO.  Or maybe I'm overestimating MLB hitters' ability to make contact with a good pitch.  As I said, I'd like to see it tried out in a AAA league first to see if just maybe it might work out the way I think it might.

[Number5]

2 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

- You also elmminated most of the 1920-60 era that saw as much or more scoring as today.  

- I don't think offense is a problem, either  I agree with Frobby that the type of offense and lack of action is the major problem.  I'd be very happy if we contined at 4.5 run/game baseball but looked more like 1935 or 1977/79 with a lot more balls in play, fewer homers, some players with really high averages, and more stolen bases.

- If you went to three balls for a walk that would be a big change.  Walks are now right around historic averages at about 3.25/team/game.  I'd guess they'd go up to around 4.5/team/game.  The all-time high is 4.03 in 1949.  Strikeouts would do down a bit, with somewhat fewer long/deep counts.  But you're trading a lot of walks for a few strikeouts.  This won't do anything for action, my guess is overall balls in play as a percentage of at bats would go down a bit. Scoring would go up roughly 0.5 run/game, back to 2000-ish levels.  But don't know how many people would be on board with pushing three true outcomes to higher levels.

Perhaps I am overestimating MLB pitchers' ability to command pitches, but I truly believe that if three balls resulted in a base on balls, pitchers would throw more pitches over the plate, and that many pitches thrown out of the zone today are done so purposely.  I'm pretty sure that a good amount of three-ball counts we see today would not actually result in three-ball walks, as I think pitchers would throw less pitches intentionally out of the zone.  Walks may go up marginally, but not really all that much, IMO.  I also believe that with more pitches thrown over the plate that MLB hitters would put more balls in play.   Or maybe I'm overestimating MLB hitters' ability to make contact with pitches in the strike zone.  I think we'd see more balls in play, noticeably so, as well as a sizable reduction in average game time.  That's why I'd like to see it tried out for a season in a AAA league first to see if my wild idea just might work.  If it works in AAA, it should work even better with the highest skilled players on the planet.

 

EDIT*  Sorry for double post, my screen went blank and I thought I lost the first post, as I hadn't yet hit submit.  I didn't realize the fist post went thru, so I retyped it.  Oops.  

[DrungoHazewood]

47 minutes ago, Number5 said:

Perhaps I overestimate MLB pitchers' ability to command pitches.  I truly believe that if three balls resulted in a base on balls that MLB pitchers would throw more pitches over the plate and that currently many pitches thrown off the plate are done so purposely.  I certainly don't think that every three-ball count we see today would result in a three-ball walk with such a rules change, as pitchers would make fewer pitches intentionally out of the strike zone, IMO.  With more pitches thrown over the plate, MLB hitters would put more balls in play, IMO.  Or maybe I'm overestimating MLB hitters' ability to make contact with a good pitch.  As I said, I'd like to see it tried out in a AAA league first to see if just maybe it might work out the way I think it might.

You may be right, but I don't think most walks are a result of not being able to hit the strike zone.  I think they're a result of MLB hitters being able to crush most balls over the plate, so pitchers are in a constant battle to get them to chase balls off the plate.  That won't change as a result of three balls for a walk.  I think, but certainly don't know, that the main result will be more walks because that's preferable to putting more hittable pitches in the strike zone.

[DrungoHazewood]

23 minutes ago, Number5 said:

That's why I'd like to see it tried out for a season in a AAA league first to see if my wild idea just might work.  If it works in AAA, it should work even better with the highest skilled players on the planet.

Certainly they would try this out in the minors or instructional league before pushing it to the majors.  But I wonder if that would show full effect, since the batters and pitchers aren't as skilled at lower levels.  It could be that the impacts are non-linear and would be much more pronounced with the very best hitters and pitchers.

[Number5]

1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

You may be right, but I don't think most walks are a result of not being able to hit the strike zone.  I think they're a result of MLB hitters being able to crush most balls over the plate, so pitchers are in a constant battle to get them to chase balls off the plate.  That won't change as a result of three balls for a walk.  I think, but certainly don't know, that the main result will be more walks because that's preferable to putting more hittable pitches in the strike zone.

If this is true, and pitchers prefer to walk hitters rather than throw strikes, then no rules changes will help  at all and we are locked in to what we've got.

[Number5]

2 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Certainly they would try this out in the minors or instructional league before pushing it to the majors.  But I wonder if that would show full effect, since the batters and pitchers aren't as skilled at lower levels.  It could be that the impacts are non-linear and would be much more pronounced with the very best hitters and pitchers.

That's why I suggested a AAA league, as there are too many pitchers lacking command and control at lower levels.  It would net a false read on what would happen at the major league level, IMO.  AAA still wouldn't give us the results that would occur in MLB, IMO, but it would give us a better indication.

[Il BuonO]

Changing from the DL to the IL should speed up pace of play 

[Tx Oriole]

6 minutes ago, Number5 said:

That's why I suggested a AAA league, as there are too many pitchers lacking command and control at lower levels.  It would net a false read on what would happen at the major league level, IMO.  AAA still wouldn't give us the results that would occur in MLB, IMO, but it would give us a better indication.

Good grief. I wish they'd leave the game alone. 50 to 60 years ago the NFL was fun to watch. But the powers that be screwed up that game. Now I didnt watch much of the NFL. 

[wildbillhiccup]

18 minutes ago, Tx Oriole said:

Good grief. I wish they'd leave the game alone. 50 to 60 years ago the NFL was fun to watch. But the powers that be screwed up that game. Now I didnt watch much of the NFL. 

Sports have to be able to adapt / change with the times. You might not like the NFL, but if ratings are any indication it's more popular than it's ever been. I'm not saying that I agree with all the proposed MLB changes, but I certainly agree with the concept of needing to update the game a bit. Especially if they want to be on par with the NFL and NBA. If not baseball is destined to become a niche sport like hockey, especially in the smaller markets.  

[Camden_yardbird]

24 minutes ago, Tx Oriole said:

Good grief. I wish they'd leave the game alone. 50 to 60 years ago the NFL was fun to watch. But the powers that be screwed up that game. Now I didnt watch much of the NFL. 

And none of those players are still alive or are alive and not doing well.  Games change for a reason.  MLB needs to change, not drastically, but needs to change to become safer, to provide more parity, to change the metagame and stay interesting (something we see more in video games but must apply to physical sports to engage younger audiences.)

[DrungoHazewood]

55 minutes ago, Number5 said:

If this is true, and pitchers prefer to walk hitters rather than throw strikes, then no rules changes will help  at all and we are locked in to what we've got.

I don't think that's true at all.  Pitchers will throw strikes, but they'd prefer to get a batter to chase a ball out of the zone.  If they have to put one over the plate when they don't want to  a walk is better than a ball hitting Eutaw St. 

There many rules changes that would result in more balls in play.  Thicker and heavier bats, and thicker bat handles, reducing the effectiveness of the current loft/strikeout strategy while giving the bats more surface area for contact.  Changes to pitcher usage, like the three batter rule, or limiting the number of pitchers either on the roster or that you can use in a game.  Deeper fences, athough that's s non-starter in many or most stadiums.  Reducing the size of gloves, which would mean balls in play have more value; strikeouts used to be avoided like the plague when 10% or more of balls in play were errors.  I'm sure we could come up with many others.

[DrungoHazewood]

40 minutes ago, Tx Oriole said:

Good grief. I wish they'd leave the game alone. 50 to 60 years ago the NFL was fun to watch. But the powers that be screwed up that game. Now I didnt watch much of the NFL. 

You sound like Ty Cobb bitterly lamenting the end of scientific baseball at the hands of these gol-darned sluggers and their stupid jackrabbit ball.

Whether or not they try to control control the changes the game will change.  It's a question of whether or not you care where it goes.  MLB has changed tremendously over the last 50 or 60 years with only one or two significant differences in the rules.  The rules are 99% the same as they were in 1905.

[Matt]

Great topic, great discussion. 

A few things occurred to me while reading this thread. There is an assumption that fans prefer the way the game used to be played (fewer strikeouts, etc). What evidence is there of this? Probably the most important thing is, what do younger fans prefer? I think we are all imagining that it’d be great to go back to the time where there were more strategic decisions to me made... and maybe that’s true that that would help, but it really seems just to be an assumption. You could argue that the current home run vs strikeout vs walk scenario creates a compelling dynamic for man fans.

One thing I’m fascinated by is the idea of not allowing relief pitchers to throw warmup pitches once they reach the mound. Or, as Drungo suggested, implementing a 30 second substitution clock. Curious why the league doesn’t focus on this, but is kicking around ideas like limiting number of relievers/mandating numbers of batters faced.

Another thought: would a rule change that made stealing bases significantly more attractive have the side effect of improving some of the problems people have with the game? It would incentivize strategy and athleticism, disincentivize walks. The question would be: how? Make the catchers sit one foot further back? Eliminate pickoff attempts? 

[Tx Oriole]

1 hour ago, Camden_yardbird said:

And none of those players are still alive or are alive and not doing well.  Games change for a reason.  MLB needs to change, not drastically, but needs to change to become safer, to provide more parity, to change the metagame and stay interesting (something we see more in video games but must apply to physical sports to engage younger audiences.)

The game was so much better back in the 50's and 60's. Mays, Brooks and players of that era are ones I grew up watching. MLB safer? It's safer now than it was. The batting helmets are stronger. Isn't brush back pitches illegal now? Gibson didn't give a damn if he hit a batter. Now a pitcher can be tossed from the game if he accidentally hit the batter. Yes I guess the game has to change to bring younger folks into the audience. 

[Can_of_corn]

34 minutes ago, Matt said:

Great topic, great discussion. 

A few things occurred to me while reading this thread. There is an assumption that fans prefer the way the game used to be played (fewer strikeouts, etc). What evidence is there of this? Probably the most important thing is, what do younger fans prefer? I think we are all imagining that it’d be great to go back to the time where there were more strategic decisions to me made... and maybe that’s true that that would help, but it really seems just to be an assumption. You could argue that the current home run vs strikeout vs walk scenario creates a compelling dynamic for man fans.

One thing I’m fascinated by is the idea of not allowing relief pitchers to throw warmup pitches once they reach the mound. Or, as Drungo suggested, implementing a 30 second substitution clock. Curious why the league doesn’t focus on this, but is kicking around ideas like limiting number of relievers/mandating numbers of batters faced.

Another thought: would a rule change that made stealing bases significantly more attractive have the side effect of improving some of the problems people have with the game? It would incentivize strategy and athleticism, disincentivize walks. The question would be: how? Make the catchers sit one foot further back? Eliminate pickoff attempts? 

If they eliminate reliever warm up pitches I'm making sure that the visitor's bullpen mound isn't the same as the game mound.