Sign in to follow this  
WeatherWonk

Major changes to MLB reportedly discussed by Manfred, MLBPA

96 posts in this topic

I think I have lost my interest in the DH argument.  The purist in me says I hate it but the realist in me says the DH in the NL is basically inevitable so accept and move on.

The more important battle to fight us game length.  Way way too long.  Way too much dead tinlme.  Too many pitching changes and hitters spending 39 seconds between pitches fixing their gloves.

The umpires have to force it.  I don't want an actual clock.  I want umpires to be empowered to drive the pace.  Warn them verbally they have 10 seconds to throw a pitch or 5 seconds to he ready to hit otherwise a ball or strike is called as a penalty, including potentially strike 3 or ball four.  This time would be purely subjective to the umpire, not challengable!  (Obviously if an umpire abuses it they would be disciplined or fired just like if they abused other judgement calls).  We give umpires pure discretion in throwing out an arguing manager.  I am fine letting them drive the pace as well.  It would work itself out.

Three pickoff throws max during any hitters at bat (reset if runner steals to next base).  This seven tosses to first to "keep him close" is ridiculous.  If you are not picking them off on any if the first three pickoff attempts then they are already being kept close and you are just wasting time.  If you burn all three pick off attempts, yes you are screwed.  So don't do it.  Throw over there once or twice, then work fast to the hitter.  Once you have thrown to first twice, then it is basically "full count" between the pitcher and the runner.  Does he try to pick him off this one last time?  Now the runner actually might take an even larger lead because the pitcher has more risk in this 3rd pickoff throw.  Added drama AND faster pace.

And I know it is ambitious but they have to tackle the time between innings.  I get it.  It has to do with commercial time.  But here is the reality.  I am not watching as many games if the game takes 4 hours or I am just watching all 4 hours.  We have other shit to do.

So cut the time between innings to One minute, 5 seconds!  That's it.  (Commercial break now is 2 min, 5 seconds). It's play ball after one minute five seconds and now we are back to the umpire having the authority to call ball one if the pitcher now wastes another 30 seconds kicking dirt around. And if this means I have a Pepsi logo scrolling in a ribbon across the bottom of my screen then so be it.

They have got to cut a half hour out of these games. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ScottT said:

It's odd that people that spend time in message boards like this are concerned with shaving off 7 minutes per game

I am also open to reducing the amount of time between the end of the world series and opening day.

January and February dead tine produces this!

Bored!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Troll Daddy said:

Manfred doesn’t like the proposed idea of a DH in the NL. 

 

Stupid is as stupid does...thought we made progress when Bud retired....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hot take / huge rule change proposal:

Eliminate the trade deadline...

Put two weeks between the end of the regular season and the start of the playoffs...

This proposal rebrands the post season as it's own stand-alone, Champions League style tournament, restoring the regular season to it's former prominence. The two week gap would make for some intense hot stove action with big names traded, and the talent level of the playoffs significantly increasing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn’t read through all this, but my 2 cents....

Instead of a 3-batter rule, only X mid-inning pitching changes per game. I am thinking 2. 

Now it’s more of a floating thing and it adds another layer of strategy, on when to use it. If you want to use them both in one inning, go ahead.

I’d also drop mound visits to about 3. 

Fine on the roster changes. Fine on the DH in the NL.

I also like getting rid of some commercial time and throwing more picture-in-picture commercials during the innings, at slow points between hitters. 

And let’s go back to enforcing the rule from a couple years ago about hitters staying in the box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and this is my way out of the box, never gonna happen idea...

One time a game, a manager can flip flop players in his batting order. 

Youd know Mike Trout would always get to hit in the 9th inning. Of course the other team could still walk him, and then he’s stuck in his new spot, so you’d have to really think through when you’d do it. 

And if he came up in his regular spot in the 9th inning and they walked him? Just swap him then into the next spot and he’s still up! 

This would be way more exciting than double switching for the pitchers spot, without having a pitcher in the lineup. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I didn’t read through all this, but my 2 cents....

Instead of a 3-batter rule, only X mid-inning pitching changes per game. I am thinking 2. 

Now it’s more of a floating thing and it adds another layer of strategy, on when to use it. If you want to use them both in one inning, go ahead.

I’d also drop mound visits to about 3. 

Fine on the roster changes. Fine on the DH in the NL.

I also like getting rid of some commercial time and throwing more picture-in-picture commercials during the innings, at slow points between hitters. 

And let’s go back to enforcing the rule from a couple years ago about hitters staying in the box.

I like all of this. One fewer commercial between innings and in game PIP makes sense. Maybe 3 in inning pitching changes instead of 2 but it would create interesting strategies. 

I think the DH and 26 man roster will be part of the next CBA. Owners will use them as a chip. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I don't necessarily think MLB is against DH in the NL.  It was unrealistic for 2019 considering when it was proposed.  There should be some time for teams to adjust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Limiting mid inning pitching changes makes more sense than a three batter minimum, but I think they should tackle this "problem" in other ways.  Longer injured list and stay in the minors minimums are one way to do that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2019 at 10:35 AM, ScottT said:

It's odd that people that spend time in message boards like this are concerned with shaving off 7 minutes per game

It's not "us" that baseball is concerned about reducing the length of games for. They got US. And we aren't increasing enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On February 8, 2019 at 9:44 AM, Dtwncbad said:

I am also open to reducing the amount of time between the end of the world series and opening day.

January and February dead tine produces this!

Bored!

yeah, it would be great to watch a game at Wrigley right now 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A retired player wants less games?   Do the current ones want lower salaries?  Do the current owners want less revenue?  

I'm going to wear my own net to games this year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard on MLB radio this week about a discussion between some baseball writer (didnt catch his/her name) and the former agent-rep-turned-GM for the Mets, Brodie Van Wagenen. Basically, the writer asked him how he could justify taking on Cano's contract, given how back-loaded it was. The writer basically said that it doesnt make any sense; given that Cano is now in the NL and there is no DH. Van Wagenen stated that he expects the DH to be in the NL well before the end of Cano's contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best rule is the draft pick one, a team that falls out of the race doesn't need to win games because that means a higher draft pick, that is bad for baseball and fans.  The teams that are closest to .500 should get the benefit of the doubt as they competed all season didn't throw games and provided entertainment for the fans to the best of their ability.  And most importantly the worst teams skimp on free agents and spending for their fans because they'd rather draft their way to the post-season creating huge gaps between success via 'rebuilding', the bane of all pro sports.  Obviously for this to work there would need to be an advanced algorithm. One again, I don't think the worst team should get the highest pick because that team likely didn't spend money or try hard enough to entertain their fans, they are the lowest common denominator and should be penalized by losing a draft slot for every 5 or so games below .500, they'll likely get a good draft slot regardless.  It's pretty simple at a glance, it rewards marginal teams that help the sport,  and persuades fierce competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • AngelsWin.com Ad-free Membership Options