How do you like the new “three batter” rule?

[sportsfan8703]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

I’d argue that the postseason is when you need this rule the most.    The games are much longer and there are many more pitching changes.    

I like the chess match of the postseason.  I think this rule hurts the smaller teams that have to manufacture a way to cover 9 IP, versus the big market teams that have big money SP and 3-4 high priced relievers in defined roles.  

[SteveA]

1 hour ago, bird watcher said:

This is true and might be another reason to do it from baseball’s perspective.  Baseball gets boring without runs. Pitching duels appeal to the hardcore but nothing gets fans screaming like a line drive double.  By making the pitcher stay in the game you’ve increased the chance of a run scoring play in your scenario. This is good for baseball.  

I don't think low scoring games is a problem plaguing baseball right now.

[mdbdotcom]

I'm not sure it will save any time. Pitchers facing hitters they have no business facing will result in more hits and runs, which will take up time. My guess is the time savings factor will be close to a wash.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, mdbdotcom said:

I'm not sure it will save any time. Pitchers facing hitters they have no business facing will result in more hits and runs, which will take up time. My guess is the time savings factor will be close to a wash.

Even if you're right you will be substituting five minutes of commercials and talking about your 11th-best reliever warming up, for five minutes of baseball.  That's a win.

[Frobby]

I support the three batter rule, but my other thought is, try it for three years and if everyone hates it, you can always get rid of it.   

[Beef Supreme]

Not only do I hate this ridiculous and unjust idea, but it probably will not result in shortening games. It may actually lengthen games because more base runners may be allowed.

[Beef Supreme]

On 11/15/2019 at 4:52 PM, Can_of_corn said:

But removing commercials would be a necessary step.

More like changing commercials. Shorten the time between innings will shorten the length of the game. Selling shorter picture-in-picture commercials within innings will make up for lost revenue from fewer between innings commercials. Might result in increased revenue, as advertisers get used to it.

[Beef Supreme]

7 hours ago, Frobby said:

I’d argue that the postseason is when you need this rule the most.    The games are much longer and there are many more pitching changes.    

I would argue that the post-season is when this rule damages competition the most.

[Frobby]

4 minutes ago, Beef Supreme said:

I would argue that the post-season is when this rule damages competition the most.

I would argue it doesn’t damage competition at all, so long as the rules are the same for both teams.   

[Beef Supreme]

On 11/20/2019 at 7:49 AM, DrungoHazewood said:

That should be the penalty for swapping pitchers.  The new one has to take a batter or two to figure out the slight nuances of the game mound.

There should be a "penalty" for swapping pitchers!? smh 

[Beef Supreme]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I would argue it doesn’t damage competition at all, so long as the rules are the same for both teams.   

I think the comment about the "rules (being) the same for both teams" is disingenuous as nobody has suggested that the rules would be applied differently to different teams. 

[Beef Supreme]

I would expect that If MLB had any evidence that this particular rule reduced the length of games in the independent Atlantic League, they would be trumpeting it on MLB.com and encouraging every national sportswriter to include the information in every article written about the rule change. Yet I can not find a single mention even suggesting such.

[bird watcher]

6 hours ago, SteveA said:

I don't think low scoring games is a problem plaguing baseball right now.

Says the “already a baseball fan” fan. What about attracting younger kids with super short attention spans? More scoring wouldn’t hurt baseball. It’s obviously a point of focus given the juicing of baseballs. 
 

I’m in favor of it.  I find it frustrating when a team brings in a specialist for one batter to end a promising rally.  

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, bird watcher said:

Says the “already a baseball fan” fan. What about attracting younger kids with super short attention spans? More scoring wouldn’t hurt baseball. It’s obviously a point of focus given the juicing of baseballs. 
 

I’m in favor of it.  I find it frustrating when a team brings in a specialist for one batter to end a promising rally.  

Has attendance been up or down since they started juicing the balls?

[terpspe]

Attendance isn’t the only metric that matters.  Rights fees have skyrocketed with more offense.