MLB lifers decry the state of the modern baseball: 'Unwatchable'

[UpstateNYfan]

IMO, probably wrong, the shift, due to the advanced metrics, has turned the game into a boring live computerized game. I would make a chalk, ring about 10 feet beyond the dirt of the infield. You must have all four infielders inside that ring (their could be exceptions, late in the game winning run on third, maybe others). Also, at the time the pitch is thrown you must have two infielders to the left and right of second base. They can move when the ball leaves the pitcher's hand. I am not a Davis fan, but he would have had a lot of extra base hits to right-center if it wasn't for the shift. Also, why four balls for a walk, make it three. Everyone seems a walk is a great thing, make it easier (maybe people would be more pleased with Mountcastle). No waste pitches.

[Frobby]

Just now, UpstateNYfan said:

IMO, probably wrong, the shift, due to the advanced metrics, has turned the game into a boring live computerized game. I would make a chalk, ring about 10 feet beyond the dirt of the infield. You must have all four infielders inside that ring (their could be exceptions, late in the game winning run on third, maybe others). Also, at the time the pitch is thrown you must have two infielders to the left and right of second base. They can move when the ball leaves the pitcher's hand. I am not a Davis fan, but he would have had a lot of extra base hits to right-center if it wasn't for the shift. Also, why four balls for a walk, make it three. Everyone seems a walk is a great thing, make it easier (maybe people would be more pleased with Mountcastle). No waste pitches.

I find the “right justified” format of your post ironic, since the subject of your post is a critique of shifts.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, UpstateNYfan said:

IMO, probably wrong, the shift, due to the advanced metrics, has turned the game into a boring live computerized game. I would make a chalk, ring about 10 feet beyond the dirt of the infield. You must have all four infielders inside that ring (their could be exceptions, late in the game winning run on third, maybe others). Also, at the time the pitch is thrown you must have two infielders to the left and right of second base. They can move when the ball leaves the pitcher's hand. I am not a Davis fan, but he would have had a lot of extra base hits to right-center if it wasn't for the shift. Also, why four balls for a walk, make it three. Everyone seems a walk is a great thing, make it easier (maybe people would be more pleased with Mountcastle). No waste pitches.

The shift has very little impact on the advance of the three true outcomes.

[canonfaz]

Make strikeouts worth 2 outs and a successful bunt single worth 2 runs. That'll show em.

[weams]

17 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I find the “right justified” format of your post ironic, since the subject of your post is a critique of shifts.

 

[weams]

7 minutes ago, canonfaz said:

Make strikeouts worth 2 outs and a successful bunt single worth 2 runs. That'll show em.

Repeat after me. Never bunt. 

[DrungoHazewood]

32 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

The shift has very little impact on the advance of the three true outcomes.

To me it was a little unexpected that the preferred method of beating the shift isn't by going against the shift, but instead way, way over it.

Maybe the solution isn't to ban the shift, but to eliminate a fielder.  Would be easier to implement than moving the fences back 30', but of similar effect.  Maybe the rule could be that you can have a DH and eight fielders, or no DH and nine fielders.

[DrungoHazewood]

19 minutes ago, weams said:

Repeat after me. Never bunt. 

The bunt is fun and exciting, but often counterproductive when combined with intentionally giving up an out.  Baseball should be figuring out ways to make fun and exciting also productive.

[Jammer7]

16 hours ago, weams said:

December 23, 1975

That changed baseball. 

There never was a field of real dreams. Frank Robinson would have told you that. Ed Murray will still. 

Some current and former players, even HOF’ers, actually don’t even like baseball. Some hate it, at least that is what they will say privately. I get what you’re saying, from the perspective of the player. But as a fan, the culture of the game is/was what made it special to me. It was far more entertaining when ignorance was bliss.

We now know far too much, innocence lost. There is no...”Magic of Orioles Baseball.” Somewhere, the heart of Wild Bill Hagy is broken. 

 

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Tony-OH said:

It's pretty clear batters are willing to get to deep counts now because the strike out is no longer looked down upon like it once was. I can remember back in the day when 100 strikeouts meant you were a strikeout machine. 

Last time I looked an average MLBer now strikes out about 120 times per 600 PAs.  There were years where 100 Ks led the league, now it's below-average. You're a contact hitter if you have 100 Ks.

[Sessh]

3 hours ago, atomic said:

Deaden the ball and move the fences back and then you have more incentive to hit the ball on a line drive instead of launching the ball for the sky.  I have no idea why the league decided to juice the ball.  Terrible idea. 

 

3 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Because they couldn't/wouldn't do other things to keep overall offense at acceptable levels while pitchers continue to throw 100 mph and strike out a batter an inning.

I think it's an attempt to recapture the 90's which, let's face it, was a pretty damn exciting time in baseball. I think a lot of all this stuff has to do with baseball being unable to reinvent itself after removing PEDs which had been used pretty much throughout the entire history of the game, but became more pronounced when guys started hitting the weight room in the 80's and 90's. Baseball is still hung up on home runs, but the home run obsession is hopelessly tethered to PED usage. So, you want to move on from one, but keep the other. What do you do? Improve the aerodynamics of the baseball to compensate. I just wish MLB would figure out what they want and stick with it. Changing the ball every season isn't good for the game, either.

Baseball may even be afraid to let go of the home run. I admit to having a degree of indecisiveness on the issue myself, but I generally think that too much has been lost from the sport to make room for more home runs and the increase in strikeouts that come with it. I think increased velocity has ultimately had a negative impact on the game as well especially without PED usage being what it was through the 50's-00's. Hitters don't react as fast and won't have the same bat speed while pitchers tear their arms and shoulders apart throwing mid-upper 90s with questionable secondary stuff and many of those guys using bad mechanics to achieve their velocity goals. It's also possible that PED's were helping players to stay healthy to some degree especially pitchers.

It's certainly a messy issue almost certain to be made worse by Manfred.

[DrungoHazewood]

10 minutes ago, Sessh said:

I think it's an attempt to recapture the 90's which, let's face it, was a pretty damn exciting time in baseball.

The 1990-2005 era was exciting because we were seeing things that hadn't happened in baseball since before most of us were born.  I grew up reading about Jimmy Foxx and Lou Gehrig and Hank Greenberg hitting 50 homers and slugging .700.  Pretty much nobody did that from 1965-1992.  In 1989 Fred McGriff led the AL with 36 homers.  This year's Twins might have six guys over 30 homers.

It was exciting because it was the rebirth of something not seen in decades.  Now it's utterly commonplace.  If tonight some team hits eight homers it might not even lead SportsCenter.  If your #9 hitter hits one off the end of the bat or the handle and it goes 425' it's just a thing.  Home runs are banal.  They're nothing special.  Between the two teams you see three homers a game.  If it's the Orioles you might see 5-6, with 4-5 hit by the opponent.  

Different is exciting.  We've had wall-to-wall power for 25 years.  It's boring.  If I wanted to see 18 huge guys stand around and wait for a homer I can go to a St. Mary's County beer league softball game.

[weams]

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

The bunt is fun and exciting, but often counterproductive when combined with intentionally giving up an out.  Baseball should be figuring out ways to make fun and exciting also productive.

Got it. Like an attempted bunt out is not counted. It’s like a free space. 

[weams]

1 hour ago, Jammer7 said:

Some current and former players, even HOF’ers, actually don’t even like baseball. Some hate it, at least that is what they will say privately. I get what you’re saying, from the perspective of the player. But as a fan, the culture of the game is/was what made it special to me. It was far more entertaining when ignorance was bliss.

We now know far too much, innocence lost. There is no...”Magic of Orioles Baseball.” Somewhere, the heart of Wild Bill Hagy is broken. 

 

Kevin Kiermaier said if bow fishing paid, we would never ever see him again. 

[osfan83]

Let's get radical! 

- Any pitch over 93 MPH is a ball (no more max effort by pitchers)

- A ball hit over the wall in fair territory on a fly is an out (no more swinging for the fences)

- add an extra base to be tagged in shallow right/center (more action on the base paths)

- "foul" balls that stay in play are now fair (speed on defense is now rewarded)

- two strikes and you are out (speed up the game, contact hitters rewarded)

These would put a lot of balls in play...lots of base runners, and fewer deep counts.