I’m glad MLB is finally addressing its issues, but some of the proposed changes IMO stretch the envelope a little too far. Here’s my ranking of the in-game proposals, from best idea to worst:
[ol]
[li]Extending the DH to the National League[/li][li]20-second pitch clock[/li][li]Reducing mound visits to 5 from 6[/li][li]Requiring pitchers to face a minimum of 3 batters (unless they close out an inning)[/li][li]Starting all extra innings with a runner on 2nd base[/li][/ol]
There are other proposed changes that impact MLB on a more macro scale, but I’m really interested in how these changes will affect the games themselves.
Least offensive: 20 second pitch clock. A better solution: make batters stay in the box and not have to readjust gloves every pitch.
Second least offensive: Reducing mound visits from 6 to 5. Another “problem” with a better solution, cut the length between innings would work better.
Third least offensive: Extending DH to NL. Would prefer elimination of DH.
Second worst: 3 batter minimum. Would prefer that pitchers come in ready to go with fewer warmup throws.
Worst: Starting extra innings with runner on 2nd. Completely batshit crazy.
Right? I mean, how do you account for that in the stats?
Right you could go 0 for 7 with two runs scored (start say 10th and 13th on second base and score)
And which player starts on 2nd? The next guy up in the lineup? Or a pinch runner from the bench? And does he get to do it every inning, or do you need a new guy each time?
[quote=“Akaj, post:1, topic:829185”]
I’m glad MLB is finally addressing its issues, but some of the proposed changes IMO stretch the envelope a little too far. Here’s my ranking of the in-game proposals, from best idea to worst:
[li]Extending the DH to the National League[/li][/quote]
Fantastic idea. Hopefully this will be the first step towards designated hitters for other positions as well (e.g. catcher).
[quote]
[li]20-second pitch clock[/li][/quote]
Meh, I’d like to know how much it will shorten games. I would rather see a rule like this tried out in the minors first.
Meh, Once again, how much will this shorten games?
[quote]
[li]Requiring pitchers to face a minimum of 3 batters (unless they close out an inning)[/li][/quote]
This is a good idea. Perhaps give each team one pass per game when they can replace a pitcher with less than 3 batters faced. It is pretty boring watching multiple pitcher changes in a single inning.
This is nucking futz. I might be able to live with in during exhibition games and maybe after the 12th inning of regular season games. It would be unacceptable during the post season and put a huge asterisk next to any championship won that way.
Uncharged “intentional” walk. If the runner scores, it’s an unearned run.
Still batshit.
I think it’d be the last out of the previous inning.
NO DH! EVER! It’s stupid for the AL, it’s stupid for the NL. As said above, why stop at Pitcher, why not Catcher, or Short Stop or Third Base? They need to concentrate on their defensive duties as well! Why not just have 9 defensive players that never hit and 9 hitters that never play the field? It’s ludicrous.
These pretty much go from bad to worse.
- I could care less if there is a limit on visits to the mound or not. Least dumb proposal on the list.
- Requiring pitchers to face a certain number of batters is dumb, but less dumb than the following.
- How about we remove the DH from the American League?
- Clocks have no place in baseball. If we start throwing clocks into the mix, I’m just going to watch basketball instead. I sympathize with the problem of long plate appearances, but this is not the way to fix it.
- Starting an inning with a runner on base is foolishly absurd. Might as well settle a tie with a game of darts.
#1 - Reducing mound visits to 5 from 6
While I don’t really like any of the rules, this is the one with which I have the fewest problems.
#2 - Extending the DH to the National League
Getting rid of it in the American League is a better idea, but there’s no way the MLBPA allows that. How about a compromise - all games in the World Series have DH, rather than just the ones in the NL park.
#3 - 20-second pitch clock
It may depend on how it is written. Does this mean the pitcher has 20 seconds to pitch to home plate, or are pickoff attempts included? If it has to be to home plate, then it seems to give a huge advantage to a runner on first.
As I posted elsewhere, the NCAA considered this, but the “playing rules oversight panel” overruled the rules committee, primarily on grounds of cost and what to do if, say, a conference tournament game is played at a neutral site where they won’t allow the clock to be installed.
#4 - Starting all extra innings with a runner on 2nd base
It would be a better idea if it started in the 12th or 13th inning, but not in the 10th (except maybe in the All-Star Game). In softball, where this is used now, the first two extra innings begin with the bases empty.
#5 - Requiring pitchers to face a minimum of 3 batters (unless they close out an inning)
This is unnecessary as long as you have roster limits and the rule that a player removed from the game cannot return. Maybe they can add another rule, although it probably wouldn’t be necessary - when a pitcher is moved to another position, that player cannot pitch for the remainder of the game.
The DH will never be removed. Most fans like it, and (more important) the players’ union loves it.
There’s little merit to the argument that it apply to catchers, too. Qualifying catchers (400 AB or more) batted .252 last year, while pitchers batted .115. Sure, if you mix in the many catchers with fewer appearances the average goes down, but the median of all catchers who batted last year is still .221.
I’m ruling this a Great Debate.
-
I love baseball like Madonna loves attention.
-
It’s a refreshing change of pace.
So stop reporting it! Great Debates isn’t only serious debates.
People were reporting this? I’m still pretty new, so I’m unclear on what threads should go where, and I had no intention of pissing anyone off.
But thanks for the endorsement!
I guess the pitch clock and reducing mound visits are least offensive. Note that these rules, along with the runner at 2nd in extra innings, went into effect last year in the minors. You can see here for details of the implementation, but most questions from above are answered.
Requiring pitchers to face a minimum of 3 batters seems dumb. I’d think there must be an exception for injury, so it seems like an easy rule to game (“I think my arm is sore, coach”).
Starting all extra innings with a runner on 2nd base is idiotic.
But I’ll save my vote for most ridiculous to extending the DH, because I really hate the DH.
Jumping back in to encourage you. Well done and do it again. We need a wider variety of debate here.
[quote=“Akaj, post:1, topic:829185”]
I’m glad MLB is finally addressing its issues, but some of the proposed changes IMO stretch the envelope a little too far. Here’s my ranking of the in-game proposals, from best idea to worst:
[LIST=1]
[li]Extending the DH to the National League[/li][/quote]
Extending the DH to the National League would be the end of baseball for me. I’d treat it as dead history.
[quote]
[li]20-second pitch clock[/li][/quote]
I’m in favor
[quote]
[li]Reducing mound visits to 5 from 6[/li][/quote]
I’m in favor
[quote]
[li]Requiring pitchers to face a minimum of 3 batters (unless they close out an inning)[/li][/quote]
I’m in favor of any rule that limits substitutions. I would like as much as possible for a game to be nine people against nine people for nine full innings with substitutions only for serious injury. Period.
[quote]
[li]Starting all extra innings with a runner on 2nd base[/li][/quote]
Eh, it seems weird to me.
I shall not question the wisdom of the decision, but I’ll note that there may well be baseball fans on the board, who actively participate in this sort of conversation over in The Game Room, who may not see this thread because they don’t frequent this forum.
Has MLB actually proposed starting extra innings with a guy already on 2nd???
And, now, replying to the actual question of the thread.
IMO, the glacial pace of the game today is a huge problem. Thus, the changes which the OP lists that I think are the best idea are the pitch clock, and the reduction in mound visits.
However, I agree with BobLibDem that a big chunk of the reason why the game has slowed down is batters stepping out of the box (every single batter now bats like Mike Hargrove used to), and if MLB is serious about speeding up the game, that needs to be addressed, too.
Beyond that, I’m not a fan of the “minimum three batters” or “runner starting on second” proposals, as they make fundamental changes to how the game is played.
And, while I’m not a big fan of watching pitchers bat, I do appreciate the fact that the lack of the DH in the NL does, at least sometimes, add to the required strategy – combine that with the fact that a significant proportion of baseball fans truly abhor the DH, and I think that forcing it on the NL is a bad, bad idea.