Jump to content

Baseball is Moving Second Base


BRobinsonfan

Recommended Posts

(If this has already been discussed please delete or merge.). 

MiLB is moving 2nd base on an experimental basis.  Right now, the middle of second base lines up at 90 degrees to first and third base.  The top of First and third base are  lined up at the 90 degree angle, making second base the outlier here.  Which is something I never realized in 55 years of playing/watching baseball.  This move will have the effect of moving 2nd closer to home plate, but also closer to 2nd and third.  The larger sized bases will increase this effect.  

Thought?  Will it increase "small ball?"  More base stealing attempts?  More attempts at stretching a single in to a double?  

Is this a good thing?  Or is this one of those things foretold in the book of Revelations as a sign of the end times?  As with all matters like this I'm hoping DrungoHazewood weighs in.  https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/each-mlb-teams-longest-tenured-player-entering-2022-season-yadier-molina-jacob-degrom-joey-votto-and-more/

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally don't like this, but I don't like change in general. Probably the same reason I disdain the LF wall moving back and the company logos on uniforms. There is something pure and aesthetic about symmetry, and no sport captures the art of symmetry quite like baseball. But then again, maybe it isn't so symmetric after all...

I've watched/played baseball my entire life and never ever knew this: "Second base will move from 88 feet, 1.5 inches away from first base to 87 feet. Before you yell at me, the distance was never actually 90 feet between these bases."(Courtesy of the Athletic Newsletter). I have always believed that it was a perfect 90 feet between all bases. So now that my whole world has been prove a lie, I guess nothing matters anymore. Move second base to left field. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, CharmCityHokie said:

I personally don't like this, but I don't like change in general. Probably the same reason I disdain the LF wall moving back and the company logos on uniforms. There is something pure and aesthetic about symmetry, and no sport captures the art of symmetry quite like baseball. But then again, maybe it isn't so symmetric after all...

I've watched/played baseball my entire life and never ever knew this: "Second base will move from 88 feet, 1.5 inches away from first base to 87 feet. Before you yell at me, the distance was never actually 90 feet between these bases."(Courtesy of the Athletic Newsletter). I have always believed that it was a perfect 90 feet between all bases. So now that my whole world has been prove a lie, I guess nothing matters anymore. Move second base to left field. 

It's actually more symmetrical if you look at the drawings.  2nd base has always been out of whack compared to first and third... the incredible thing is I'm 60 years old and I never realized this!  But yeah, now that I've reached official old guy status, my default mode is "no change."  (But I'm okay with the DH).  🙂

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/29/2022 at 2:53 PM, CharmCityHokie said:

I personally don't like this, but I don't like change in general. Probably the same reason I disdain the LF wall moving back and the company logos on uniforms. There is something pure and aesthetic about symmetry, and no sport captures the art of symmetry quite like baseball. But then again, maybe it isn't so symmetric after all...

I've watched/played baseball my entire life and never ever knew this: "Second base will move from 88 feet, 1.5 inches away from first base to 87 feet. Before you yell at me, the distance was never actually 90 feet between these bases."(Courtesy of the Athletic Newsletter). I have always believed that it was a perfect 90 feet between all bases. So now that my whole world has been prove a lie, I guess nothing matters anymore. Move second base to left field. 

The reason it’s not 90 feet is because bases are not 0 feet wide.   

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Posts

    • Wait, are you saying that it's the combined H2H? I guess that does make sense. So, in that circumstance, in a 3 way tie...the Tigers get the #4 seed, the O's #5, and Royals #6?
    • Bubic is really good. Zerpa has a pretty bad K-BB rate on the season though and gives up hard contact, so it looks like that may just be a good stretch for him. His xERA is 4.49 on the season. Lynch is solid but he’s a low K, low BB lefty. Definitely not bad, but he’s going to give up contact.  
    • Yeah, I was tracking #1 overall at some point, not next year. Unless Basallo still has rookie eligibility, I don't see anyone having a chance after next season.
    • Cano has been great since June 1st even if the last week has been rough. 11.27 K/9, 3.41 ERA, 2.56 FIP, 2.64 xFIP, 2.73 SIERA. Perez’s ERA is worse than last year but his K-BB rate, FIP, and xERA are all better than last year, while his xFIP is slightly worse. I don’t feel notably different about those two this year than heading into the playoffs last year. If anything, having Cano as a 7th/8th inning option instead of the closer like last year is probably better.  The pen isn’t great but I don’t think it’s that bad. Cano, Perez, Soto, Dominguez, Coulombe, Webb, and Akin have combined for a 3.37 ERA and 9.81 K/9 this year with the O’s. They’re missing a go to back end guy (which is evident when pitching to guys like Judge and Soto) but they have a number of solid options that can strike guys out. Guys like Kimbrel, Irvin, Baker, Smith, Tate, Ramirez, and Heasley really hurt the overall bullpen ERA and they won’t be pitching in the playoffs. I’m definitely taking them over KC’s pen and I’m not sure it’s that much worse than any other AL playoff team’s besides Cleveland. 
    • Your conclusions are 100% correct, but it has nothing to do with division records in that 3 way tie It is head to head results among the tied teams: 1) Det 10-9 (4-2 vs Balt, 6-7 vs KC) 2) Balt 3-3 (4-2 vs KC, 2-4 vs Det) 3) KC 9-10 (2-4 vs Balt, 7-6 vs Det)
    • I assumed the OP meant next year.  I don't think there's anyone on the international side who has a chance at this point to blow up that quickly.  I agree that if we're looking beyond just next year then yes, that's more likely.
    • You are wrong. If Detroit wins out and the Orioles are swept (and KC doesn't sweep), we fall to the #2 wild card due to our tiebreak loss to Detroit head to head.  Detroit is the #1 wild card in that case.  We are the #2 wild card.   If KC wins 1 or 2, they are the #3 wild card, otherwise Minnesota is the #3 wild card. If Detroit wins out AND KC wins out and we are swept, it is a 3 way tie for the 3 wild card spots.   Based on head to head among tied teams, we are 3-3 (4-2 vs KC, 2-4 vs Det), KC is 9-10 (2-4 vs us, 7-6 vs Det), and Det is 10-9 (4-2 vs us, 6-7 vs KC).   So Det is the #1, we are the #2, and KC is the #3. So to be the #1 wild card and get home field Tuesday, we need either one win or one Detroit loss.   KC's results are irrelevant to whether we get the #1 spot or not, although they could jump us and Detroit by winning out if we lose out and Det wins out.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...