MLB and Union talk major rule changes

[Matt]

6 minutes ago, Tx Oriole said:

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. 

I feel like this is a pretty popular opinion. Then again, if the game was so much better back then, wouldn't doing things to make the game just like it was back then bring younger folks to the audience?
When I think about that era, I think of a hand full of amazing players who would have been amazing in any era of MLB, but then a majority of players who would not have been even replacement-level players in today's game. If there could be a way to make it so that happened again, then pitchers could pitch at 50% to most of the lineup, and things would go back to the way they were. And maybe that really would be more exciting. When everyone is playing at such a high level, like in today's game, it forces teams to rely on analytics and strategies that may not be as fun to watch (or so goes the assumption).

[Matt]

3 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

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.

That would be pretty hilarious.

[DrungoHazewood]

10 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

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.

I'm sure the combination of no warmup pitches and a dasterdly 2 degree difference in the slope of the mound will have catastropic effects that the game will never recover from.

26 minutes ago, Tx Oriole said:

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. 

What did you like better about the 50s and 60s?  

There are about twice as many batters hit by pitches today as there were in the 50s and 60s.  0.4 per game in 2018, and a range of 0.18 to 0.24 from 1950-69.

[DrungoHazewood]

14 minutes ago, Matt said:

I feel like this is a pretty popular opinion. Then again, if the game was so much better back then, wouldn't doing things to make the game just like it was back then bring younger folks to the audience?
When I think about that era, I think of a hand full of amazing players who would have been amazing in any era of MLB, but then a majority of players who would not have been even replacement-level players in today's game. If there could be a way to make it so that happened again, then pitchers could pitch at 50% to most of the lineup, and things would go back to the way they were. And maybe that really would be more exciting. When everyone is playing at such a high level, like in today's game, it forces teams to rely on analytics and strategies that may not be as fun to watch (or so goes the assumption).

I've sometimes said that the game could be more exciting with a wider spread in talent, so that the stars could stand out more.  With today's high level of talent it's basically impossible for someone to pull off Ruthian feats like hitting more homers than any other team, or hitting .400, or throwing 350 innings.  

Expansion to 60 or 80 teams in a short period of time would accomplish that kind of thinning of talent.

[Matt]

Just now, DrungoHazewood said:

I've sometimes said that the game could be more exciting with a wider spread in talent, so that the stars could stand out more.  With today's high level of talent it's basically impossible for someone to pull off Ruthian feats like hitting more homers than any other team, or hitting .400, or throwing 350 innings.  

Expansion to 60 or 80 teams in a short period of time would accomplish that kind of thinning of talent.

I actually erased a part of my post where I suggested expanding to 90 teams. But yes, I think we are on the same wavelength here. 

[DrungoHazewood]

58 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? 

- I think that people in general prefer action over inaction.  In sports they prefer to watch exciting athletic performances over a bunch of guys standing around waiting for something to happen.  How exciting do Americans find cricket?  In the US around the time of the Civil War cricket and baseball were vying for dominance, and baseball won out in large part because more things happened in a more concentrated period of time.  You can find writings attesting to baseballs vigorous and manly athleticism being perfect for the rugged 19th century American.

- I think that if you remove the names from the time periods few people would pick the 1950s as a model to emulate.  It was a period of few steals, lots of big, slow sluggers, and historic highs in walks.  If I had to pick an era I'd go for either the 1920s or 1970s-80s.  Transitional periods with competing styles, a fair number of homers and triples, higher batting averages, big parks, and in the latter period lots of baserunning.

- I don't know how you'd mandate more base stealing.  What you could do is make base stealing more of a positive offensive event and incentivize its use.  Teams don't steal much now because 45 steals and 10 caught have about the same impact as three or four homers.  Yes, you could eliminate or limit pickoff throws or change the balk rule, or maybe say the first baseman can't play on the bag to hold the runner, for example.

[DrungoHazewood]

11 minutes ago, Matt said:

I actually erased a part of my post where I suggested expanding to 90 teams. But yes, I think we are on the same wavelength here. 

Of course there are some more-or-less insurmountable impediments to expansion of that magnitude.  I can come up with some very reasonable alternate-reality scenarios with 90 MLB teams, but getting there in our universe is exceptionally unlikely.

[Matt]

17 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

 

- I think that if you remove the names from the time periods few people would pick the 1950s as a model to emulate.  It was a period of few steals, lots of big, slow sluggers, and historic highs in walks.  If I had to pick an era I'd go for either the 1920s or 1970s-80s.  Transitional periods with competing styles, a fair number of homers and triples, higher batting averages, big parks, and in the latter period lots of baserunning.

- I don't know how you'd mandate more base stealing.  What you could do is make base stealing more of a positive offensive event and incentivize its use.  Teams don't steal much now because 45 steals and 10 caught have about the same impact as three or four homers.  Yes, you could eliminate or limit pickoff throws or change the balk rule, or maybe say the first baseman can't play on the bag to hold the runner, for example.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Drungo, but you grew up in the 70s/80s, no? I wonder if most people don't want baseball to be like it was when they were a kid. Not that you're wrong about that era. Then again, I became a fan in '87.

That's what I meant about base stealing--incentivizing it such that (smart) teams decide to (drastically) increase the frequency of stolen base attempts. So, that means it has to be easier to steal bases/harder to throw out baserunners. Lots of potentially interesting ways of doing that! Imagine having three speedsters in your outfield, each stealing 90 bases and getting caught 4 times! EXCITEMENT.

[Matt]

32 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

- I think that people in general prefer action over inaction.  In sports they prefer to watch exciting athletic performances over a bunch of guys standing around waiting for something to happen.  How exciting do Americans find cricket?  In the US around the time of the Civil War cricket and baseball were vying for dominance, and baseball won out in large part because more things happened in a more concentrated period of time.  You can find writings attesting to baseballs vigorous and manly athleticism being perfect for the rugged 19th century American.

It's not that I disagree with you on this, it's that I think it's an unproven assumption that the current meta game is a problem for viewers. Maybe young folks believe strikeouts and home runs are exciting athletic performances, more exciting and impressive than the small ball tactics that most of us on this board would like to see. It'd probably be pretty interesting to dive into whatever market research stats MLB has on this stuff. I truly don't know what younger viewers really want. I don't even know what I want, beyond the Orioles being competitive again and winning a World Series. I'm not even sure I like baseball for baseball's sake, as much as I like that it connects me to my childhood.

[DrungoHazewood]

15 minutes ago, Matt said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, Drungo, but you grew up in the 70s/80s, no? I wonder if most people don't want baseball to be like it was when they were a kid. Not that you're wrong about that era. Then again, I became a fan in '87.

That's what I meant about base stealing--incentivizing it such that (smart) teams decide to (drastically) increase the frequency of stolen base attempts. So, that means it has to be easier to steal bases/harder to throw out baserunners. Lots of potentially interesting ways of doing that! Imagine having three speedsters in your outfield, each stealing 90 bases and getting caught 4 times! EXCITEMENT.

I did grow up in the 70s and 80s.  And although I like the diversity of strategies in that era, I'll readily admit there were downsides.  In the 80s you often had league-leading home run hitters with 33 or 35, nobody really hit for high averages after Brett in '80.  The pitching was decidedly mediocre in the first half of the 80s.  Pete Vukovich with a Cy Young, seriously?

What I'm really looking for is competing strategies and players challenging big records on occasion.  It's exciting when one team has 200 steals and their opponent never steals but has 200 homers.  That happened in the 70s-80s, doesn't today.  It's cool when someone makes a run at .400 or 61 homers.  It would be cool if somebody got close to 30 wins or 400 strikeouts or 130 steals.  I like the shift, because it's new, and interesting and innovative.  I liked Earl's style of managing because the Orioles were good, but also because it was doing something, not sitting back and waiting and using the whole roster to feed six relievers serially into every game.   When I discovered the Baseball Encyclopedia as a kid I really took to the 1890s Orioles because they had players who hit .432 and scored 165 runs in a season.  That's astounding stuff in a world where Ken Singleton hitting .328 was as high as an Oriole would ever see.  Who doesn't like astounding stuff?

[DrungoHazewood]

11 minutes ago, Matt said:

It's not that I disagree with you on this, it's that I think it's an unproven assumption that the current meta game is a problem for viewers. Maybe young folks believe strikeouts and home runs are exciting athletic performances, more exciting and impressive than the small ball tactics that most of us on this board would like to see. It'd probably be pretty interesting to dive into whatever market research stats MLB has on this stuff. I truly don't know what younger viewers really want. I don't even know what I want, beyond the Orioles being competitive again and winning a World Series. I'm not even sure I like baseball for baseball's sake, as much as I like that it connects me to my childhood.

Sure, it's an open question.  I've never been given a survey asking if I'd rather see .400 hitters or 50 homer hitters.  If I'd rather see 18 strikeouts a game or 6.  I don't know that MLB has ever done that.  Perhaps because they've never had any intention of trying to push the game in any particular direction.

But also questions like that very hard to definitively answer.  People tend to answer surveys based on what they know and what they've experienced.  Many people would just answer "I want what it was like when I was 15, whatever that was."  Or "I want to see lots of runs."  Most people in the stands have no real concept of the historical norms and ebbs and flows of the game.  If you asked 1000 casual fans what kind of baseball they'd prefer we might end up with a 4-inning game featuring 25 runs.

[Matt]

1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I did grow up in the 70s and 80s.  And although I like the diversity of strategies in that era, I'll readily admit there were downsides.  In the 80s you often had league-leading home run hitters with 33 or 35, nobody really hit for high averages after Brett in '80.  The pitching was decidedly mediocre in the first half of the 80s.  Pete Vukovich with a Cy Young, seriously?

What I'm really looking for is competing strategies and players challenging big records on occasion.  It's exciting when one team has 200 steals and their opponent never steals but has 200 homers.  That happened in the 70s-80s, doesn't today.  It's cool when someone makes a run at .400 or 61 homers.  It would be cool if somebody got close to 30 wins or 400 strikeouts or 130 steals.  I like the shift, because it's new, and interesting and innovative.  I liked Earl's style of managing because the Orioles were good, but also because it was doing something, not sitting back and waiting and using the whole roster to feed six relievers serially into every game.   When I discovered the Baseball Encyclopedia as a kid I really took to the 1890s Orioles because they had players who hit .432 and scored 165 runs in a season.  That's astounding stuff in a world where Ken Singleton hitting .328 was as high as an Oriole would ever see.  Who doesn't like astounding stuff?

I'm totally with you. I think there has to be a way of combining that era with the more analytically-inclined era, such that smart, innovative GMs will find new ways of constructing teams around particular concepts. It will take rules changes to make various strategies more viable. I guess in the end, I'm in favor of things that make new strategies enticing.

[Matt]

1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Sure, it's an open question.  I've never been given a survey asking if I'd rather see .400 hitters or 50 homer hitters.  If I'd rather see 18 strikeouts a game or 6.  I don't know that MLB has ever done that.  Perhaps because they've never had any intention of trying to push the game in any particular direction.

But also questions like that very hard to definitively answer.  People tend to answer surveys based on what they know and what they've experienced.  Many people would just answer "I want what it was like when I was 15, whatever that was."  Or "I want to see lots of runs."  Most people in the stands have no real concept of the historical norms and ebbs and flows of the game.  If you asked 1000 casual fans what kind of baseball they'd prefer we might end up with a 4-inning game featuring 25 runs.

I have to imagine market research these days is pretty next-level. Rather than rely on surveys or answers to questions, they may have people watch specific portions of a game, and then measure biomarkers that correspond to interest level to gauge what was appealing. I'm kinda just spitballing here here, but there are really innovative ways of conducting this type of research. And it's what I'd be funding I had bazillions of dollars and a vested interest in the continued health of the game. So my guess is they're doing research like this or, quite likely, better. Whether they're do anything (or anything we'd notice) with it is another question. 

[DrungoHazewood]

17 minutes ago, Matt said:

I have to imagine market research these days is pretty next-level. Rather than rely on surveys or answers to questions, they may have people watch specific portions of a game, and then measure biomarkers that correspond to interest level to gauge what was appealing. I'm kinda just spitballing here here, but there are really innovative ways of conducting this type of research. And it's what I'd be funding I had bazillions of dollars and a vested interest in the continued health of the game. So my guess is they're doing research like this or, quite likely, better. Whether they're do anything (or anything we'd notice) with it is another question. 

On some levels, like in-game analytics, I think baseball is pretty cutting edge.  On business ops and long-term strategic planning... I don't know.  For example, I'd expect a lot of things to be going on with dynamic pricing of both tickets and concessions, but I don't know if the Orioles' ticket prices are very much different from 10 or 15 years ago, with maybe a little inflation tacked on.

If they're doing advanced biomarker reasearch... where is that reflected in the game?  I kind of doubt that people's prefrontal cortex lights up when they hear the jingle for the Pohanka Honda-Toyota-Edsel dealer for the 11th time during the 6th pitching change.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

On some levels, like in-game analytics, I think baseball is pretty cutting edge.  On business ops and long-term strategic planning... I don't know.  For example, I'd expect a lot of things to be going on with dynamic pricing of both tickets and concessions, but I don't know if the Orioles' ticket prices are very much different from 10 or 15 years ago, with maybe a little inflation tacked on.

If they're doing advanced biomarker reasearch... where is that reflected in the game?  I kind of doubt that people's prefrontal cortex lights up when they hear the jingle for the Pohanka Honda-Toyota-Edsel dealer for the 11th time during the 6th pitching change.

They certainly do a terrible job marketing the players.  I know Trout isn't much interested in being marketed but I'm sure other young players would be willing.  I think to a large extent they market locally without the league having much of a plan to market at the national and international level..