I interpreted ‘fix’ to mean ‘make better’ not ‘make more marketable to attention-deficit mouth-breathers who can’t understand or appreciate anything more subtle than HULK HIT BALL FAR’, or ‘make suggestions that have any chance of being implemented by MLB in the near future’.
P.S. I am still not a crank. You can tell because I didn’t call home run fans ‘barbarians’, even though they are.
I’m curious as to what the evidence is that baseball needs really gigantic numbers of home runs to be popular; that is not consistent with a hitory of baseball attendance movement. Baseball attendance and interest went through its first truly great period of growth in the 1970s, a time not known for lots of home runs. It was climbing, rapidly, prior to the 1994 strike, again in years not known for lots of 50-homer seasons.
Having very few home runs is clearly not sensational for attendance, but really we are well beyond the point of “very few” being a concern.
Pretty much. I’m not saying that minor tweaks shouldn’t be made on occasion. But just about every “change” suggested in this thread is, IMHO, asinine or worse. The sport doesn’t need to be sped up for the ADHD generation. It doesn’t need increased scoring. It doesn’t need artificial excitement to keep people interested. It is, by and large, just fine the way it is.
As for instant replay - hell yes that’s a great change. It keeps people from getting ejected, it settles the endless fights over blown calls, and it doesn’t slow the game down one bit. That’s the kind of change that is productive and helpful, without fundamentally changing the strategy or pace of the sport.
Nah. But I’d consider robo-announcing. It couldn’t be any more stultifying and moronic than the real article.
The only fixing I’d fixate on is speeding things up a notch. Limit pitcher and batter dawdling, stop giving extra warmups to pitchers entering the game, and fine both the Yankees and Red Sox $1 million each, every time one of their games goes over 3 1/2 hours.
I am agnostic on the DH, but it seems silly to allow it in one league and not the other.
My first major league baseball game was 68 years ago and I’ve seen a lot of changes, not all of them for the better.
Balks were hardly ever called and stolen bases were rare. The constant throwing to first base slows things down, but SBs are fun.
Yes, a pitch clock should be instituted but batters should not be granted automatic timeouts. Garciaparra was a one-man rain delay and this should not be allowed. Get in the box and be ready to take a pitch, and the next, and the next. Think about it, in a typical 9 inning game there will be 16 or 17 half-inning breaks. Since each one takes 3 minutes, that’s 50 minutes alone. When they were one minute, back in 1946, they took only 1/3 as long. That’s over a half hour there alone. The starting pitcher usually finished the game, unless taken out for a late-inning PH. Relievers were broken-down old starters, not relief specialists. That was just beginning to change. The Phillies won the 1950 NL pennant, making extensive use of what we would now call a closer, Jim Konstanty, who pitched in something like half the games, meaning in most of the wins. Yes, it would be an improvement if new pitchers came in and started pitching immediately. And nothing screws up a game worse than having each umpire establish his own unique strike zone. Pitch-track can now do a fine job of calling balls and strikes; let it. Make established pitchers suffer through the same strike zone as raw rookies. And I like the instant replay. And we must keep the infield fly rule. I once saw an umpire who didn’t understand the rule: nepotism-in-action Hunter Wendelstadt, the poorest excuse for an umpire I have ever seen.
Reverse interleague play rules:
If you’re playing in an NL stadium, you play by AL rules, and vice-versa.
Give the fans of one league a taste of how the game is played in the other.
The problem is, since there are 15 teams in each league, the number of games played has to be a multiple of 28, so the regular season is either 140 games or 168.
I can think of one problem; the increased likelihood of a batter losing his grip on his bat when he swings. Even though they don’t use metal bats, it’s still a weapon as far as the pitcher is concerned.
It’s two minutes, not three.
I’ve got to hear that story. If in fact he didn’t apply the rule correctly, one team or the other should have appealed.
It’s off topic but I’ve never understood why people find the infield fly rule so hard.
The only time I’ve found it hard was in that Atlanta playoff game last year. (Uh, I think that was last year.)
Year before last actually. I was there. Sitting about 12 rows up. The play happened right in front of me. Worst. Call. Ever.
Not that we are still bitter or anything.
Already been said but I’ll say it again:
*Get rid of the designated hitter. Either a pitcher bats or he can’t play at all.
*No interleague play! The All Star Game and the World Series is the only time the two leagues should meet. (I would like to eliminate interleague play in the NFL also).
*No divisions within the league. Team with the most wins at the end of the season is the league champion and goes to the World Series. 3 game play offs if there is a tie.
*If I can’t have that, at very least NO GODDAMNED WILD CARDS! Teams that aren’t good enough to win their division should not be in the play offs! This goes for every other sport too!
*If the World Series goes to game 7 that game has to be played in the Glenbulah village park. These are my rules, I made them up.
Maybe you should be a stand-up comic instead. And you might try learning something about umpiring. Having been an umpire for many years, I know whereof I speak.
Yes, you will have an occasional blown call - they’re only human. But look at someone’s career overall and that strike zone only varies when a rule change makes it vary. Some guys seem to call nose to toes, dugout to dugout, while others seem to call the width of the plate and a shoebox at the belt level. But they are consistent in those calls.
I don’t know what games you are watching, but that’s blatantly not true.
And arguing from authority that since you have been an ump you know whereof you speak is laughable. Of course you think you are a good ump - they all do. Even Angel Hernandez and CB Bucknor probably sleep well, knowing they are right and everyone else is wrong, and wondering why everyone hates them (including their baseball loving mamas).
Even if an ump is as precise as you believe, umps are not consistent within their ranks. No two umps seem to have the same strike zone.
The strike zone is as old as baseball. You think maybe umps could figure that out by now.
So what? No two parks have the same dimensions, no two pitchers are the same, and the weather changes. Again, so what? All I ask of the umpires is consistency of calls by any individual ump.
Are there bad umps out there? Yeah. Again, so what? You deal with it and move on. That’s why it’s a game you can bet on. Some of you people seem to want the game to be played entirely on computers. Feed in the stats for each team, the park, the weather, robo-ump up and press “Play.” Hey we won!
A game with terrible umpires is still better than no game at all.
Better than “Hawk” Harrelson, at least.
Was he worse than Steve “Human Rain Delay” Trachsel? I’m not sure.
[QUOTE=silenus]
Are there bad umps out there? Yeah. Again, so what? You deal with it and move on. That’s why it’s a game you can bet on. Some of you people seem to want the game to be played entirely on computers.
[/QUOTE]
This is so weird and illogical I can’t tell if you’re serious or not.
The reason it’s a game you can bet on is that it’s PLAYED by humans, not umpires. All people want is for the results to be determined by real life** players**, and what the players actually do.
Nobody seems to mind that we use technology to determine the winner of a 100-metre dash, which is perhaps the most perfectly human and pure of all sports. If you eliminate the timers and photos and just had some guy deciding who won based on his eyesight it’d be a goddamned travesty. Every now and then a major meet would have the wrong person be awarded the gold medal just because the track and field version of Eric Gregg was daydreaming about pancakes and blew the call. Would athletics be better off if that were the case? Is is somehow geeky to want the winner to actually be the runner who crossed the finish line first?
The umps are as much a part of the game as the players. I am against any attempt to standardize, regularize, homogenize, sanitize and/or roboticize the officiating, other than constant training and coaching of said umps.
If you really think it’s so bad, then I’ll accept firing the bottom 5% or so each year based on after-action evaluations by a neutral board during the off season. Instant replay is also a good tool. But computerized strike zones and strike/ball counts? Count me out. If that happens I’ll start watching soccer.
Y’know, silenus, you’re making miss Eric Gregg’s strike zone.
groundskeepers.
Without them, there would be no game, the grass would be 2 feet high, there would be no lines painted, and the bases would be ruined 3 weeks into the season. So what if they leave a rake in the outfield and the bases aren’t in the same place game to game, it’s the human element, can’t take that away.
Yes, that is an accurate statement that describes the game as it is played today. The point of the thread is finding ways to improve baseball, which by definition means altering it from its present state.
If your position is that baseball is perfect and should never be changed (like others, I am curious as to when this perfection was achieved) then great, but you’ve stated your preference. If you want to keep going on at least explain WHY. Why is accepting human error in calling balls and strikes preferable to not doing so? If the answer is “just because I like it that way” well, that’s cool, but out of curiosity do you have anything that might convince someone else?