Changes to the Game May Be in the Offing

[hockeyfan1]

MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred hinted that there may be considerations in changing the way the game of baseball is played.  While the CBA agreement ends December the 2nd of this year. it doesn't give the Commissioner carte blanche to implement changes to improve the sport, but then again he has the power to suggest and make  improvisations to the game.


Limiting pitching changes, restricting defensive shifts, altering the strike zone and installing pitch clocks are among the ideas Major League Baseball may consider as it undertakes a multiyear review of the game that could include the sport?s most radical changes in decades.

"The point of the conversation today was that the game has changed dramatically. It?s changed organically. It kind of has flowed where the competitive juices of managerial and general managerial decisions have taken it. And the question is, you take a snapshot after 40 years of that and you say, wow, here?s what it looks like, here?s what it used to look like and should we be thinking about what has occurred and whether we want to allow it to continue to go on on the path it?s on?"

Offence dropped steadily after the start of drug testing in 2003 until an uptick started in the second half of last season. Strikeouts have set records annually for much of the past decade, increasing from an average of 12.74 per nine-inning game in 2006 to 15.57 this season.

And the average time of a nine-inning game is exactly 3 hours...

Manfred said defensive shifts have changed the game: There were 2,464 on balls in play in 2011 and this year?s total projects to 28,117, according to Baseball Info Solutions. Pitchers per nine-inning game have increased from 6.89 in 2000 to 7.88 last year.

"You can make an argument that more relievers have lengthened the game, more pitching changes has slowed the pace of the game and the unbelievable effectiveness of those relief pitchers have robbed some of the action from the game," Manfred said.

While Manfred would like to see pitch clocks, which have been used successfully in the minor leagues since 2015, the union has been reluctant, leaving the matter for this year?s bargaining.

"There?s too many scenarios within a game that depend on either the pitcher or the batter to take a little extra time and if you get penalized for that," Boston pitcher Clay Buchholz said. "I don?t see how that?s going to make the game any better. It?s going to actually cost people some jobs, I think. No, I don?t think I?d be in favour of that."

"But the commissioner is the commissioner, he can do what he wants to do. If that happens, then I?ll abide by it and go from there," he said.

More:
http://www.sportsnet.ca/baseball/mlb/mlb-may-consider-limits-pitching-changes-shifts-pitch-clocks/

 

[cabber24]

I would like to see a digital strike zone if even possible. It is, or isn't a strike, always the same. Baseball is a very chill sport I don't see the need to speed it up.

 

[Peter D.]

Call me old school and a traditionalist, but I find baseball to be pretty much fine as is. 

Limited pitching changes is silly.  I think defensive shifts are ridiculous to begin with and hope they eventually make their way out of the game on their own.  I have my reservations of a digitalized strike zone, although the variance in zones from one ump to another isn't good for consistency in the game.

 

[bustaheims]

Call me old school and a traditionalist, but I find baseball to be pretty much fine as is. 

Limited pitching changes is silly.  I think defensive shifts are ridiculous to begin with and hope they eventually make their way out of the game on their own.  I have my reservations of a digitalized strike zone, although the variance in zones from one ump to another isn't good for consistency in the game.

Agreed - though, I don't think the defensive shifts are silly. They're a legitimate defensive tactic, and there's no reason to create rules against them. Teams and players need to adapt, instead - like they have for every change in tactics in the history of the game.

I'm 100% against a digitized strike zone. The variance is part of the human experience in sports. I'd be much more in favour or replacing umpires that struggle with in-game consistency with their calls, or have too extreme a strike zone. Improve the consistency of the existing standard without eliminating the human factor.

The only thing that's mentioned that I see some value in are pitch clocks - but, even then, as Buchholz implies, there needs to be differences for scenarios. Instead of the pitch clock, maybe limit the amount of time the catcher can go out to the mound per at-bat or inning and/or shorten the amount of time they're allowed to spend out there, or limit the number of throws to first between pitches, or timeouts a batter can take per at-bat.

 

[L K]

I don't get the issue with defensive shifts.  If you don't want to have them, stop hitting exclusive to one side of the field.

 

[Kin]

I think there are some smart/fair things to do to speed up a game. For instance, unless there's an injury there shouldn't be any warm-up pitches for relievers. If you want to bring in a new pitcher, they can get warmed up in the bullpen. Likewise, stop letting batters step outside the box with every pitch. Don't call time just because a hitter wants it called.

Lots of ways to cut time without inventing new rules on shifts or pitch clocks.

 

[Deebo]

I'm 100% against a digitized strike zone. The variance is part of the human experience in sports. I'd be much more in favour or replacing umpires that struggle with in-game consistency with their calls, or have too extreme a strike zone. Improve the consistency of the existing standard without eliminating the human factor.

I don't see the appeal in a human factor when it comes to calling balls and strikes (or any other rules). The strike zone is clearly defined in the rules of the game. Different umpires shouldn't have different strike zones.

 

[Kin]

I don't see the appeal in a human factor when it comes to calling balls and strikes (or any other rules). The strike zone is clearly defined in the rules of the game. Different umpires shouldn't have different strike zones.

Is it though? The rulebook describes it as being relative to a batter's body but that doesn't account for changes in height or stance. A pitch that's a strike to Miguel Cabrera isn't necessarily a strike to Jose Altuve.

 

[Kin]

Jonah Keri just made a really good point in a live chat he's doing. If the idea is to speed up the game, limiting shifts is counter productive. Shifts lead to more outs and more outs is the quickest way for a game to end. Increasing offense and speeding the game up are at cross-purposes.

 

[Deebo]

I don't see the appeal in a human factor when it comes to calling balls and strikes (or any other rules). The strike zone is clearly defined in the rules of the game. Different umpires shouldn't have different strike zones.

Is it though? The rulebook describes it as being relative to a batter's body but that doesn't account for changes in height or stance. A pitch that's a strike to Miguel Cabrera isn't necessarily a strike to Jose Altuve.

It says that the strike zone is determined from the stance as he is prepared to swing.

If its relative to a batter's body, doesn't that account for height?

 

[Kin]

It says that the strike zone is determined from the stance as he is prepared to swing.

If its relative to a batter's body, doesn't that account for height?

That's what I'm saying though. A ball or a strike isn't clearly defined. It's relative to a hitter. It doesn't give upper and lower dimensions to a strike zone in numbers, it just gives you a vague guideline to where it should be. But a hitter can change his stance on every pitch so what the strike zone is would need to be in constant flux.

I'm not against a digital strike zone on moral reasons, I just don't see how it would work.

 

[cabber24]

It says that the strike zone is determined from the stance as he is prepared to swing.

If its relative to a batter's body, doesn't that account for height?

That's what I'm saying though. A ball or a strike isn't clearly defined. It's relative to a hitter. It doesn't give upper and lower dimensions to a strike zone in numbers, it just gives you a vague guideline to where it should be. But a hitter can change his stance on every pitch so what the strike zone is would need to be in constant flux.

I'm not against a digital strike zone on moral reasons, I just don't see how it would work.

Sounds dumb, it should be defined as "X" amount of inches above the plate to a height of "Y" and "Z"inches on either side of the plate. Bring in the digital strike zone.

 

[Kin]

Sounds dumb, it should be defined as "X" amount of inches above the plate to a height of "Y" and "Z"inches on either side of the plate. Bring in the digital strike zone.

I don't know how you could do that without drastically increasing the value of either very tall or very short hitters.

 

[Peter D.]

Agreed - though, I don't think the defensive shifts are silly. They're a legitimate defensive tactic, and there's no reason to create rules against them. Teams and players need to adapt, instead - like they have for every change in tactics in the history of the game.

Yeah, to clarify, I don't think they are silly in the sense that teams are stupid for using them, moreso that hitters aren't taking advantage of them more to make teams re-think doing them.  I want to see a lefty lay a bunt down the 3rd base line or slice one opposite field when all four infields are playing near 2nd base. 

Telling teams on how to play the field is beyond ridiculous.  Talk about overthinking it.

 

[TML fan]

Couldn't you just alter the dimensions based on each player's height? I assume the program is run by a computer. If so you could just program each batter's strike zone profile.

 

[L K]

Agreed - though, I don't think the defensive shifts are silly. They're a legitimate defensive tactic, and there's no reason to create rules against them. Teams and players need to adapt, instead - like they have for every change in tactics in the history of the game.

Yeah, to clarify, I don't think they are silly in the sense that teams are stupid for using them, moreso that hitters aren't taking advantage of them more to make teams re-think doing them.  I want to see a lefty lay a bunt down the 3rd base line or slice one opposite field when all four infields are playing near 2nd base. 

Telling teams on how to play the field is beyond ridiculous.  Talk about overthinking it.

Smoak can't even make contact with ofspeed pitches.  Maybe we need to petition MLB to ban anything but fastballs down the middle of the strikezone.

 

[Joe S.]

If you watch the pitch tracker game in and out the umpires are pretty damn close to being right all the time.

You get  the odd game where the umpire goes nuts and the strike zone is all over the place,  but I'd hope that's dealt with internally with a review process.

Just my opinion,  but umpires to me seem like the most consistent of all the major league sports.

 

[TML fan]

If you watch the pitch tracker game in and out the umpires are pretty damn close to being right all the time.

You get  the odd game where the umpire goes nuts and the strike zone is all over the place,  but I'd hope that's dealt with internally with a review process.

Just my opinion,  but umpires to me seem like the most consistent of all the major league sports.

But they are not right all the time, and one wrong call can change the outcome of an inning or even an entire game. The difference between a 2-2 and a 3-1 count is enormous. With the technology available wouldn't it be better to have the right call made every time?

 

[seahawk]

Couple changes that have been tested in the AZ Fall league include giving an intentional walk by flashing a signal rather than the 4 pitches and a limit of 3 coaching visits per game (including pitcher-catcher conferences), not including pitching changes.