Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 89
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Annapolis MD
    Posts
    11,224
    Quote Originally Posted by PowerHouse View Post
    Facing a 3 batter minimum would never gain traction in the NL because it would backfire and take away strategy in certain situations.

    What happens in a one run game when the starter makes through 7 1/3, you bring in the reliever, he gets two quick outs to end the inning, then next inning you get a couple of guys on base and its pitcher's turn to hit, now the manager is forced to let this middle reliever guy bat (since he didnt reach his 3 batter minimum) when its late in a close game and the outcome of the game rides on this moment.
    Which is where you make another rule change that the MLBPA would have no problem making, which is the DH covers both leagues. Pitchers no longer risk injury batting and on the bathpaths, the DH allows for either an all-bat/no glove player to have a roster spot, or for teams to rotate players for a day off from the field. They would agree to that no problems.

    Also, I would say in this instance, either the pitcher stays in for three batters, or if they make it through the inning in the way you described, that they are allowed to be pulled. The point of the OP is to minimize the time it takes during an inning for these types of pitching changes, and that there wouldn't be an issue if the pitcher made it through the inning likde that.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    35,423
    Quote Originally Posted by ThomasTomasz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PowerHouse View Post
    Facing a 3 batter minimum would never gain traction in the NL because it would backfire and take away strategy in certain situations.

    What happens in a one run game when the starter makes through 7 1/3, you bring in the reliever, he gets two quick outs to end the inning, then next inning you get a couple of guys on base and its pitcher's turn to hit, now the manager is forced to let this middle reliever guy bat (since he didnt reach his 3 batter minimum) when its late in a close game and the outcome of the game rides on this moment.
    Which is where you make another rule change that the MLBPA would have no problem making, which is the DH covers both leagues. Pitchers no longer risk injury batting and on the bathpaths, the DH allows for either an all-bat/no glove player to have a roster spot, or for teams to rotate players for a day off from the field. They would agree to that no problems.

    Also, I would say in this instance, either the pitcher stays in for three batters, or if they make it through the inning in the way you described, that they are allowed to be pulled. The point of the OP is to minimize the time it takes during an inning for these types of pitching changes, and that there wouldn't be an issue if the pitcher made it through the inning likde that.
    Yeah. Would be minimum of 3 batters per inning. Once the inning is over he can be taken out, regardless.

    Really wouldn't impact the DH.
    "Ain't got the call no more. Got a lot of sinful idears but they seem kinda sensible...."

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    8,112
    Quote Originally Posted by fanofclendennon View Post
    Baseball is getting ridiculous what with using 3 pitchers to get through an inning. Managers micro-managing for optimal matchups. Enough!

    If a major league pitcher can't be trusted to get three outs, he shouldn't be a major league pitcher.

    If baseball was really serious about speeding up the game they'd institute this change.
    I've been wanting this exact rule for some time. It's the most obviously helpful way to speed up the game and move away from the One-Out specialists that result in multiple pitching changes to get three outs.

    I would amend it, though, to allow any pitching changes that occur BETWEEN INNINGS. To change a pitcher while he's on the mound, he has to have pitched to at least three batters. I don't care what they do once they get in the dugout.
    Last edited by MickeyMgl; 07-06-2017 at 01:45 AM.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    35,423
    Quote Originally Posted by MickeyMgl View Post
    I've been wanting this exact rule for some time. It's the most obviously helpful way to speed up the game and move away from the One-Out specialists that result in multiple pitching changes to get three outs.

    I would amend it, though, to allow any pitching changes that occur BETWEEN INNINGS. To change a pitcher while he's on the mound, he has to have pitched to at least three batters. I don't care what they do once they get in the dugout.
    Yeah, that's the intent. Didn't mean for it to be enforced once the pitcher is in the dugout after the third out.

    And yep, great minds think alike!
    "Ain't got the call no more. Got a lot of sinful idears but they seem kinda sensible...."

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    35,423
    Quote Originally Posted by ccugrad1 View Post
    I've always been on board with the pitcher having to pitch at least 1 inning when they are brought in. It is similar to my feelings when we see 8 million time outs at the end of each half in NCAA Basketball Tournament games. One day I was watching a game and it took nearly 35 minutes to play the last 2 minutes of a half due to all the timeouts. Totally ridiculous!
    Your comment about basketball continues to strike a nerve. It's one of the many reasons why i just stopped following the sport even though, once upon a time, i was probably a bigger basketball fan than I was of baseball.

    The time outs are bad enough but the intentional fouling is worse. foul rule was intended to be a penalty for illegal contact. It was never meant to be used as a defensive strategy. In baseball, when players started doing things to subvert the rules, like intentionally dropping pop flies to induce double plays, the rule makers went to work to prevent such "strategies." Hence, the Infield Fly rule.

    Basketball needs to do something to prevent intentional fouls for the purpose of stopping the clock and forcing an in-bounds. Again, very simple: Award the offended team with a technical foul shot followed by a free in-bounds pass.

    This way, the last 2 minutes of the game will at least resemble the previous 46. But i suppose no one wants to hear from someone who stopped watching years ago.

    (Ok, back to baseball....)
    Last edited by fanofclendennon; 07-06-2017 at 10:20 AM.
    "Ain't got the call no more. Got a lot of sinful idears but they seem kinda sensible...."

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    7,907
    To me, the problem is sort of being approached the wrong way. People are complaining about the length of games. But I'm not sure the time spent watching the game is really the problem. I think it's more of an amount of action problem than anything.

    We are all baseball fans and always have been. But for new fans, pitching duels with 25 strikeouts between the teams aren't that interesting, even if the game is a "short" game. And vice versa, I'm willing to bet most causal fans would be fine spending an extra 20 minutes watching a back and forth game featuring a bunch of hits and great defensive plays. Basically, in my mind, fans are saying the issue is game times, but I think the issue might really be amount of time spent vs actual action.

    And I know this suggestion will probably be blasted, but I'd be in favor of raising the bottom of the strike zone and "deadening" the ball. In my mind, today's baseball has turned too much into a home run driven league. Basically everyone is a threat to hit one out. I'm a brewers fan, and the brewers could legit have 11 players hit 10 or more homers.

    The math has gotten to the point where it's beneficial for a lot of hitters to not worry about putting it in play or striking out, as long as the hit homers and slug at a high percentage. By deadening the ball, you take that incentive away from some players. It should lower slugging percentages some, in which case, putting the ball in play and not striking out become more valuable again. And likewise, pitchers won't be as afraid of giving up homers, so they should be more willing to pound the zone.

    On the flip side, by deadening the ball, you're decreasing offense. So to combat that, you raise the bottom of the strike zone to make strikes more hittable pitches. This should decrease strikeouts as well, since bottom strikes should be more hittable.

    All in all, I think my solution should encourage less strikeouts, less walks and more balls in play. More balls in play means more action plays for casual viewers. Deadening the ball would decrease homers, but if they don't deaden it too much, you should still see enough homers, which are one of the most exciting plays. It may not shorten game times, but it may make the games seem faster as their is more stuff happening.
    Last edited by crewfan13; 07-14-2017 at 07:26 PM.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    20,308
    I know a lot of traditional die hard fans will say none of the rules need to be changed, and I was apart of that crowd at one point... however I've done a 180... the future of baseball's national relevance really depends on them shortening the game. They're just too long for the casual fan. I think implementing the 20 second pitch clock is a huge step in the right direction. There are pitchers who take over 30 seconds to throw a pitch... OVER 30 ****ing seconds!!! That's less than 2 pitches per minute.... I also really like the idea of forcing a batter limit on pitchers. Or even a minimum amount of pitches that can be thrown (obviously with exceptions for injury, and the end of innings, etc.). Another thing that needs to be limited is mound visits by a catcher. 1 visit per pitcher per inning should be enough.

    I think if you can put those 3 things in play there's a good chance you can cut the game to 2:30-2:45 consistently


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


    lol, small kid got tripped by a tuba player

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    A Phillies Phan in Ocean Twp & BKLYN
    Posts
    6,499
    Is it me or have they started letting guys leave the box again without a fouled pitch or a timeout?

    20 seconds between pitches, classic strike zones, and making the batters stay in the box.

    I don't think forcing pitchers to stay in games is the right though I do hate all of the pitching changes. It has dragged the game on, especially since these guys are getting warmups and TV goes to a commercial each time.

    You can see how crazy fast they used to be. I actually went to a game this year that went 2:30.

    https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/misc.shtml
    Quote Originally Posted by Crucis View Post
    Parity is about equality of opportunity, not equality of results.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Brooklyn New York
    Posts
    15,626
    I'm all for this.

    I hate watching Terry Collins take out a pitcher to put in Blevins for one batter then going to another pitcher. It's so ****ing boring and time consuming.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    51,767
    Nah. It takes away the strategy big time. Baseball relies a lot on splits.

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    51,767
    Implement a pitch clock and call it a day already.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    11,514
    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    Nah. It takes away the strategy big time. Baseball relies a lot on splits.
    That's because they allow it. Why should it be relied upon?

    Either way you slice it, there would be some sort of strategy. And if you're a lefty and can't get a right handed batter out (or vice versa), then maybe you don't belong in the league.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    35,423
    Quote Originally Posted by One Nut Kruk View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    Nah. It takes away the strategy big time. Baseball relies a lot on splits.
    That's because they allow it. Why should it be relied upon?

    Either way you slice it, there would be some sort of strategy. And if you're a lefty and can't get a right handed batter out (or vice versa), then maybe you don't belong in the league.
    Zactly. The strategy just changes.
    "Ain't got the call no more. Got a lot of sinful idears but they seem kinda sensible...."

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    A Phillies Phan in Ocean Twp & BKLYN
    Posts
    6,499
    Quote Originally Posted by One Nut Kruk View Post
    That's because they allow it. Why should it be relied upon?

    Either way you slice it, there would be some sort of strategy. And if you're a lefty and can't get a right handed batter out (or vice versa), then maybe you don't belong in the league.
    You could say the same thing about relief pitchers in general, especially closers. If you can't pitch more than an inning you shouldn't be in the league let alone the HoF.

    Not how I think, but people can use the same thought process. In fact, many HOF voters have thought that way for many years.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crucis View Post
    Parity is about equality of opportunity, not equality of results.

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    11,514
    Quote Originally Posted by thefeckcampaign View Post
    You could say the same thing about relief pitchers in general, especially closers. If you can't pitch more than an inning you shouldn't be in the league let alone the HoF.

    Not how I think, but people can use the same thought process. In fact, many HOF voters have thought that way for many years.

    I don't agree with pitching one inning being the same as pitching to one specific kind of batter.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •