MLB and Union talk major rule changes

[DrungoHazewood]

28 minutes ago, atomic said:

It would be interesting.  At least baseball isn't specialized as football. You would think one player would be able to both punt and kick field goals.  

Instead of moving the extra point back, the NFL should have done two other things: Make whoever scored the TD kick the point after, and place the point after try from the same distance from the sideline that the TD crossed the line.  If the guy dove for the pylon, he's kicking the try from almost on the sideline.

[Beef Supreme]

3 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I'm a fan of re-aligning into regional leagues of 8-12 teams each.  You play almost all or even all of the schedule in your regional league.  You never play a regular season game more than one time zone away, and the whole league plays exactly the same schedule.  You go back to the playoffs and All Star game being your chance to see the guys in the other leagues.

Similar to what I have advocated for years now: regional alignment of 32 teams divided into 2 Leagues, 2 Divisions, 8 teams per division, 154 game schedule weighted to the individual teams league opponents, evenly balanced within the league, 4 wild card teams that play 3-game divisional series in the ballparks of the teams that have the better records. all subsequent playoff series are best-of-7. The abolition of everyday interleague play. Interleague play restricted to eight (playing the 8 opponents in the other leagues divisions in alternating years) weekends from late June to early August -- all 4-game series with Saturday doubleheaders. From Memorial Day to Labor Day during which time all Saturdays will feature split-gate doubleheaders. The 26-man roster expands to 28 players for weekend series featuring doubleheader Saturdays. End the regular season @ September 15 to try to finish the World Series by  October 21.

I am sure some of those specifics would need to be tweaked. I think the League could get the Union to agree to Saturday doubleheaders with the one-man roster expansion as well as the 2-man additional roster expansion on weekends featuring doubleheaders.

[Beef Supreme]

12 minutes ago, Number5 said:

Would you also eliminate two pinch-hitters in a row?

At this time, I do not think i would advocate eliminating two pinch-hitters in a row. How do you feel about it?

[Number5]

1 minute ago, Beef Supreme said:

At this time, I do not think i would advocate eliminating two pinch-hitters in a row. How do you feel about it?

It just seems hard to justify one without the other, from a competitive standpoint, IMO.

[Beef Supreme]

5 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Instead of moving the extra point back, the NFL should have done two other things: Make whoever scored the TD kick the point after, and place the point after try from the same distance from the sideline that the TD crossed the line.  If the guy dove for the pylon, he's kicking the try from almost on the sideline.

I like this. I thought they should have a second set of hashmarks for PATs that were wider than the goal posts at the 3-yard line. That way, they could choose to kick, go for 2, or fake the kick and go for 2.

[Number5]

19 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I wouldn't, because offensive substitutes don't interrupt the flow of the game.  Every in-inning pitching change is the equivalent of a three- or four-minute timeout.

I think they need to think long and hard before they artificially change the competitive dynamic of the game by tying one manager's hands by limiting his in-game roster use.  To me fair and competitive play is more important that any speed of game concerns.

Edit:  I'd rather see a roster limit on pitchers.  It accomplishes what advocates of this change are seeking, without creating some unreasonable competitive situations.  At least then the manager isn't told he can't manage his roster in-game as he sees fit.  Otherwise, we would undoubtedly begin to see some "soccer-type"  "injuries" begin to occur to pitchers forced into bad match-ups.

[atomic]

9 minutes ago, Beef Supreme said:

I like this. I thought they should have a second set of hashmarks for PATs that were wider than the goal posts at the 3-yard line. That way, they could choose to kick, go for 2, or fake the kick and go for 2.

As you are further back when you are kicking an extra point , you would be kicking from near the sideline, and your running back would be kicking it, I doubt anyone would buy a fake extra point attempt in such a situation. 

[NCRaven]

I would limit the three hitter rule to the first inning only.  Tampa Bay had some games where the "opener" pitched to the first batter and left the game.  I'd go back to the 15 day disabled list to prevent the Dodgers from playing games with their pitching staff.  If rosters are expanded to 26, limit the number of players that are used primarily as pitchers to 12 or 13.

But what they really need to do is figure out how to increase the amount of money paid to players in the early years when they are actually worth the most and provide a decent wage to minor leaguers.  The owners share of revenues has grown tremendously compared to the players.  I don't pay my money to stare up into the owners' skyboxes.  They really should eliminate the luxury tax.  It just allows the owners to have an excuse to pocket more of the revenue and hasn't done anything to prevent the large market teams from dominating.

[DrungoHazewood]

30 minutes ago, Number5 said:

I think they need to think long and hard before they artificially change the competitive dynamic of the game by tying one manager's hands by limiting his in-game roster use.  To me fair and competitive play is more important that any speed of game concerns.

Edit:  I'd rather see a roster limit on pitchers.  It accomplishes what advocates of this change are seeking, without creating some unreasonable competitive situations.  At least then the manager isn't told he can't manage his roster in-game as he sees fit.  Otherwise, we would undoubtedly begin to see some "soccer-type"  "injuries" begin to occur to pitchers forced into bad match-ups.

I think it's less tying hands and more of pushing the innovation and strategy back to the offense.  Used to be that a manager could really do some, well... managing, to get an advantage.  Earl was wonderful at this.  Start Mark Belanger at short, and if you're losing in the 6th you pinch hit, then defensive sub, then pinch hit, then defensive sub.  You could pinch run regularly.  You could have Jim Dwyer play seven or eight innings in RF, then you'd always have a better outfield glove in reserve for the 9th.  You could platoon at four positions.

Today there is little of that.  All the strategy has been consumed by the need for five or six relievers a game.  When you have 13 pitchers and 12 position players, as often happens, you really have a bench of a utility infielder, a 4th outfielder, and a backup catcher.  That's it.  There's no proactive strategy on offense when your backups' primary role is to be there in case someone at one of four different positions turns an ankle, not to hit .330 against lefties.

[Tx Oriole]

29 minutes ago, Beef Supreme said:

Similar to what I have advocated for years now: regional alignment of 32 teams divided into 2 Leagues, 2 Divisions, 8 teams per division, 154 game schedule weighted to the individual teams league opponents, evenly balanced within the league, 4 wild card teams that play 3-game divisional series in the ballparks of the teams that have the better records. all subsequent playoff series are best-of-7. The abolition of everyday interleague play. Interleague play restricted to eight (playing the 8 opponents in the other leagues divisions in alternating years) weekends from late June to early August -- all 4-game series with Saturday doubleheaders. From Memorial Day to Labor Day during which time all Saturdays will feature split-gate doubleheaders. The 26-man roster expands to 28 players for weekend series featuring doubleheader Saturdays. End the regular season @ September 15 to try to finish the World Series by  October 21.

I am sure some of those specifics would need to be tweaked. I think the League could get the Union to agree to Saturday doubleheaders with the one-man roster expansion as well as the 2-man additional roster expansion on weekends featuring doubleheaders.

Afternoon games on local TV stations on Saturday would be good. But I know that won't happen. With all the cable or satellite crap. MLB TV is too expensive. It will never get back to the way it used to be. When I was a kid the WS came on in the afternoon. 

[DrungoHazewood]

6 minutes ago, NCRaven said:

I would limit the three hitter rule to the first inning only.  Tampa Bay had some games where the "opener" pitched to the first batter and left the game.  I'd go back to the 15 day disabled list to prevent the Dodgers from playing games with their pitching staff.  If rosters are expanded to 26, limit the number of players that are used primarily as pitchers to 12 or 13.

But what they really need to do is figure out how to increase the amount of money paid to players in the early years when they are actually worth the most and provide a decent wage to minor leaguers.  The owners share of revenues has grown tremendously compared to the players.  I don't pay my money to stare up into the owners' skyboxes.  They really should eliminate the luxury tax.  It just allows the owners to have an excuse to pocket more of the revenue and hasn't done anything to prevent the large market teams from dominating.

First inning-only for the three hitters and 12-13 pitchers basically just takes you back to 2016.  It doesn't change anything in a meaningful way.   That's why I suggested an eight or nine man pitching staff, phased in over a period of 3-4 years.  That would certainly force meaningful change in big problem areas.

The downside of transferring revenues to younger players is that takes away the primary tool lower-revenue teams can use to compete.  I have a lot of ideas, probably some wackier than others, about player compensation and contracts... but that would take a long time to think through and write up.

[Tx Oriole]

11 minutes ago, NCRaven said:

I would limit the three hitter rule to the first inning only.  Tampa Bay had some games where the "opener" pitched to the first batter and left the game.  I'd go back to the 15 day disabled list to prevent the Dodgers from playing games with their pitching staff.  If rosters are expanded to 26, limit the number of players that are used primarily as pitchers to 12 or 13.

But what they really need to do is figure out how to increase the amount of money paid to players in the early years when they are actually worth the most and provide a decent wage to minor leaguers.  The owners share of revenues has grown tremendously compared to the players.  I don't pay my money to stare up into the owners' skyboxes.  They really should eliminate the luxury tax.  It just allows the owners to have an excuse to pocket more of the revenue and hasn't done anything to prevent the large market teams from dominating.

Houston won a WS couple years ago. I don't consider Houston a large market. 

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

First inning-only for the three hitters and 12-13 pitchers basically just takes you back to 2016.  It doesn't change anything in a meaningful way.   That's why I suggested an eight or nine man pitching staff, phased in over a period of 3-4 years.  That would certainly force meaningful change in big problem areas.

The downside of transferring revenues to younger players is that takes away the primary tool lower-revenue teams can use to compete.  I have a lot of ideas, probably some wackier than others, about player compensation and contracts... but that would take a long time to think through and write up.

I think mandating a 9 man pitching staff will just increase offense and lengthen games.  Lets stretch out starters and relievers longer while increasing the weapons the manager has on offense.

I know I don't enjoy watching a pitcher being hung out to dry because the manager has to save the bullpen.

[Bradysburns]

2 hours ago, atomic said:

Lowering mound would help hitters.

I have suggested the 3 batter minimum for pitchers many times. Also the limit on the number of pitchers on roster. I think all the changes are good.  Like the minimum of 14 non-pitchers.  

Draft change is good for Orioles.  I like if you lose 90 games back to back seasons you are punished in the draft. This will help the Orioles and protect them from their cheap owners.  The Orioles are a disgrace this year.  No team should not making any effort to improve themselves.  Doing this is going to kill the sport if nothing is done.  

I thought of that too. Hey, they don't like teams sucking for too long. I feel the same, and I never used to like the idea of "rebuilding." Mainly because I didn't trust anyone in the front office to handle it right.

Now I think we have THE front office team to handle it. And I want them to not worry about wins and losses this year, but build something wisely... something lasting.

So I wouldn't want to see an artificial "cattle prod" entering the equation. 

Also, there's something worse for baseball than a team losing 100 games two years in a row. 

And that is: a team losing 80 games every year... forever. And that's what this rule could trigger, as teams like the O's try TOO SOON to be competitive, rather than building a fundamentally sound, long-term program. 

[Can_of_corn]

I wonder how long the O's streak of consecutive losing seasons would have stretched if they had been getting hit with draft pick penalties?