We could be nearing a sort of inflection point on this score, where we transition to a new significantly lower offensive level if K’s end up hitting a certain level. More K’s puts more pressure on hitters to compensate/adjust in other ways to maintain their value-but the room to do so may be steadily shrinking.
I’d just like to be proactive on this score.
If by that you mean you wouldn’t implement any of the “fixes” suggested in this thread, I completely agree.
Limiting pitching changes would be ridiculous. What if a pitcher is getting hammered or can’t throw a strike? The manager would be forced to leave him out there? That wouldn’t improve the game at all.
I honestly find this statement totally, completely baffling.
There is almost nothing in the Official Rules of baseball about what’s “fair and right and just and proper.” Almost the entirety of the Official Rules is based on creating a game that is enjoyable to play and watch based on creating a set of physical parameters that allow the sport to be a fun contest based on the assumption the competitors are adult males. The bases are not 90 feet apart because that’s “just.” They’re 90 feet apart because if they were any other distance, batting averages would be too high (and games would last too long) or too low (and no one would score runs) and so the game would be less fun. The pitching mound is 60’6" from the plate because that distance strikes a fun balance. The infield fly rule exists to prevent that situation from always resulting in a double play. So on and so forth.
There are a few tidbits of “justness” in the rulebook, such as rules against making a travesty of the game, but rules of games- be it baseball, chess, “Ticket to Ride,” or poker - are mostly about just making the game work in a way that is fun.
I agree. And I like the slow pace of the game. I can maybe…maybe live with the robo-umps. Maybe. Everything else I’m fine with.
That’s almost never enforced anyway.
There’s a humiliation factor in forcing the pitcher to throw four deliberately bad pitches in surrender. That’s worth watching. 
There’s also the outside chance (it’s probably happened less than a dozen times in MLB history) that the pitcher may try to pull a fast one and throw a strike past the batter who’s expecting an IW. I’m pretty sure Pete Rose got bamboozled on this at least once in his career.
Perhaps most (in)famously, Johnny Bench in the 1972 World Series.
These days virtually every non-hit pitch is tracked by the very accurate Zone Evaluation System which judges how the pitch passes through the three dimensional box creating the strike zone individualized for each batter. The umpires receive a report after each game on how they did calling balls and strikes against that strike zone. In general umpires are over 95% accurate and about a dozen times a year an umpire will call a game perfectly. This is used as part of the umpire’s semi-annual evaluation and in the end will determine if he gets to keep his job.
Dennis Martinez and Tony Pena did it to a batter once. I can’t remember who the batter was, though. Hilarious.
Bring back bullpen cars! Remember those? With the giant caps for roofs?
I can’t believe the number of people who say inconsistent umping is one of the main problems “ruining” baseball. We’ve only had fallible humans calling balls and strikes since, well, forever. I can see fans supporting a RoboUmp system, since we have the technology and all, and I can understand arguments for it. Saying different umpires’ differing strike zones is the main problem with the game? That’s just laughable, to me. Frankly, I see it as a feature, not a bug … I can see arguing against the umps, but it’s far from the worst thing affecting the game.
What is hurting the game is the pace. Watch a game from the 70s or 80s on ESPN Classic sometime. The pitcher gets the ball, gets the sign, and throws it. The batter stays in the box. It’s amazing how quickly those games go by, in contrast with today.
Enforce the rules about staying in the box and time between pitches. That alone will pick up the pace considerably and improve the game. (Will the RoboUmp be able to enforce that, I wonder?)
End interleague play. It was always a gimmick, and it’s still a gimmick.
On the same lines, the AL and the NL can be different. They are separate leagues, after all - or they were before interleague games and a unified umpiring pool came about. Let one have the DH, and the other have the pitcher bat. Since they’ll only face each other in the World Series, like God intended, there’s no problem.
Since no one’s said it yet, surprisingly:
Fire Bud Selig.
Yeah, but that only applies in the extremely rare situation where a team switches to the IW with two strikes already on the books–typically in response to a runner advance on a stolen base or wild pitch.
I too like the leisurely pace, at least since Derek Lowe retired. That dude was glacial. It gives you time to get a beer or three, and a hot dog, and garlic fries, and another couple of beers.
Forget robo-umps. Real umps are more accurate, and more fun. Nobody ever bitches about all the calls that went their way. With the addition of instant replay challenges, the really terrible calls will be reversed on the field anyway.
People, sponsors and TV aren’t paying megabucks to see Columbus play Rochester. If they do, salaries will rise.
Will they sell tickets in Montreal? I attended a game there eons ago. Olympic Stadium was dark, dank and nearly empty. I think I remeber the
Expos and Pirates coming up and introducing themselves to each customer.
Pitching changes are alright, but I agree with making the batters (and pitchers) stop scewing around.
Interleague games - limit them to a seven game series BETWEEN THE LEAGUE CHAMPIONS at the end of the season.
DH? As I said in a previous post, make both leagues use the same rulebook. I don’t care if the AL drops it or the NL adopts it.
Basebeerball sounds highly entertaining. If I can persuade you to allow handheld non-edged weapons, like billy clubs, blackjacks, breads knuckles, etc., I would be interested in knowing: how can I invest in your idea? I want to name my basebeerball franchise team the Las Vegas Cashinos (the mascot will be a walking drunken slot machine character, of course).
Why not? Because I’m not running the NFL, that’s why. Platooning has made football worse. DH is just a step towards that abomnation.
Sure, but for most of us humans, something that’s egregiously unjust is not very much fun, to watch or to participate in.
Anyway, the fix I want for baseball is to make fielding more important, and maybe pitching less so. I say move outfield fences back, to start. Triples are exciting and inside the ballpark home runs are the best play in baseball, but watching a ball sail over a fence then seeing a guy slowly jog around the bases is only entertainment for the weak.
Next steps are slightly deadening the ball, so reaching the fence is even harder, while slightly narrowing the strike zone, so there are more hits. Then we’ll have a game that’s not one guy against a succession of batters, while eight other guys mostly stand around watching until it’s their turn to go against the other pitcher.
I feel sure, that now I have explained the advantages of this, MLB will quickly move to adopt it.
P.S. I am not a crank.
Yes, reducing home runs which singlehandedly turned baseball into a national sensation and has played a large part in sustaining its popularity will be an idea the league office is unlikely to take under serious consideration.
I like good pitching, triples, good fielding as much as the next purist but to pretend home runs aren’t incredibly important to getting people interested in baseball is having blinders on.
On the rest, I’ll second the gist of RickJay’s post, sports aren’t about weird esoteric concepts of “fair” (as defined by you, there’s no universal morality at play in sports rules), they are about making the game interesting, competitive, and fun to play and watch.
You’ve made this claim before - in fact, you copied and pasted parts of this reply - and been corrected before. It’s wrong. Umpires aren’t nearly 95% accurate; they are about 85% accurate on balls in the strike zone (So for pitches that should be strikes, sfor every six correctly called, one is called wrong) and for pitches out of the strike zone they’re about 93% accurate - though it depends HOW far from the strike zone it is; for balls way out it’s 100%, but for close calls it’s more like 85%. And the more important the situation, the worst they get.
95% accuracy on balls and strikes is simply not even close to true. You may be mistaking their accuracy on OTHER types of plays with ball/strike calling. Calls on other plays - safe/out, fair/foul, catch versus a trap - are almost always right; the blown calls are notable and memorable, but unusual.
Missed the thread yesterday. I actually was at a day game! Nice, except my team lost. Again!
Touche!
Nothing personal, silenus, but I find that opinion to be rather narrowly focused ( unless you were being sarcastic, or hyperbolic, but others here have said similar things). WHICH baseball is perfect?
Do you mean that baseball now, today is perfect? Because there have been rule changes, or at least re-emphasis on certain rules every year. Last year’s perfection is different than this year’s perfection. Let alone the big ones. Was the game perfect before the DH was adopted? Was it perfect before the mound was changed?
Or have we, after 150 years, finally achieved absolute perfection in the game? No other adjustments, let alone major revisions, can or should be allowed? That the current lack of enforcement of certain rules that have existed forever (stepping out of the batter’s box, time between pitches) is the ideal game?
Was it replay that finally made it perfect? That must be it!