I’m also in favor of reducing the role of managers and coaches during the game. Once the players are on the field, the players themselves should just play. I’d be in favor of prohibiting anyone from stepping onto the playing field who isn’t officially in the lineup.
Not only proposed it, but already using it since last year in the minors.
It’s somewhat addressed by the proposed rule. If the batter is not ready in the box with 7 seconds left on the pitch clock, a strike is called.
Well that’s insane. It sounds like an idea that would have been suggested had they solicited ideas from the backs of kids cereal boxes.
Mike Hargrove – the Human Rain Delay!
Yes, his behavior used to be *that *unusual. Now, as you say, everyone does it.
Frankly, I’m opposed to all of these changes to one degree or another, so my list isn’t so much from “best” to “worst” as from “least objectionable” to “most objectionable.” It sometimes seems like these lists get generated by people who don’t really like baseball all that much. But anyway.
OK. Not sure how much it will actually matter. I doubt any fan would notice this change even if it happened.
I… guess? I’ve not timed it, but how often does a pitcher really take more than 20 seconds between pitches? Again, would this really even have an impact?
As an NL fan, I have no interest in this. It would hurt my enjoyment of the sport if the Mets were deploying a DH in every game - not enough to stop watching, but enough to watch less. Given that opinions on this seem to be split pretty much down the middle among fans - and the split seems to roughly correspond with which league people follow the most - I see no reason to change the status quo in either direction. Leave us alone.
I hate this. You’d have to have an injury exception, so in practice you’d get a ton of questionable “injuries” to get around the rule, which might actually slow the game down even more.
Hard no. Why the heck would anyone want this? I love baseball. Extra innings games constitute more baseball, and by definition exciting baseball to boot. Speeding up the pace of play is a laudable goal; shortening the games is not, in my opinion.
My preferred rule change would be this: pitchers do not get warm-up pitches if brought into a game mid-inning. Get warm in the bullpen, but once you’re in the game, your first pitch is to a live batter. Inserting a new pitcher should be as quick and interrupt the flow of the game as little as inserting a pinch hitter.
I like the 20 second pitch clock, but I’d also add a rule for batters to play “ready”. As in, if the pitcher is ready to throw,he gets to throw, even if the batter is off in la la land trying to get signs from the dugout. I’d allow the batter one brief time out per at bat.
The DH… I’m an AL fan so I’m OK with the DH but if NL fans want to whoop it up and cheer during the announcement of a double switch, they can do without.
Reducing mound visits is a winner.
Requiring 3 batters or a completed inning is good in my book. Yes, managers can get around it, but they won’t make a habit of it. You can just have a penalty, if the pitcher goes out early, the next batter is counted as an intentional walk.
Starting a man on 2nd in extra innings is pretty stupid, except potentially in the 12th or 13th inning, where you just need the damn thing to end, so everyone can go home. This would not apply to playoff games.
They all suck. Baseball is fine the way it is. I don’t like the DH, but some people do, so let’s keep the current system: One league with a DH, one without. The mound visit reduction is harmless, I guess.
For the baseball purists, how do you like watching a game where a pitcher like Chris Sale is working quickly? Does it reduce your enjoyment of the game when the pitcher isn’t walking around the mound, wiping his brow, and shaking off multiple pitches?
I don’t like having to use something artificial like a pitch clock to prevent those delays. But there’s not another good way to fix it, and I certainly appreciate a quicker pace.
That’s why the “runner on 2nd” rule is so stupid. It’s not the length of games that’s a problem, it’s the pace within the game.
I agree with this. Once the batter has stepped into the batter’s box for the first time, a pitcher should be able to throw whenever he wants for a strike, whether or not the batter is paying attention, looking away, taking practice swings, settling in, or has wandered out of the box.
I’m OK with the DH in both leagues.
There should be no mound visits at all. Not even to change the pitcher. Manager can signal that from the dugout. “Let’s talk about how to pitch to this guy, since his his style has changed dramatically since we were watching film on him before the game, and we never talked about what to do if a guy got on base!”
The rest, no thanks.
From what I’ve read, the 20-second clock would apply to both the pitcher and batter, though I’m not sure how that would work.
Another proposal – to limit the number of pitchers on the roster to 12 – would also slow down the nonsense with five pitching changes in an inning.
The NL adding the DH is the only one that makes sense to me, but if they prefer to be a backwards-ass league, not my problem. Pretty much every major league in the world employs the DH. Pitchers have a unique and valuable skill-set that doesn’t correlate to hitting and running bases.
ETA: By the way, I have no issue with the length of games. I love baseball, and the longer the game the better!
No kidding. When was the last time a fan walked out of the park after a fifteen inning game and said “Damn it! I watched too much baseball today!”
And when was the last time I said, “Good Lord, it’s only the 5th inning? I’m bored out of my mind!” Oh yeah, it was during last year’s playoffs.
As TroutMan said, the problem isn’t the length of the games, it’s the pace.
You’ve never seen someone leave a game early? What do you think they are saying when they do that?
As I have said before, the DH is an abomination in the eyes of God, but if it extends the playing life of some fan favorite a couple years…nah, the jerk should just retire, get a realtor’s licence, and give some kid a chance.
I’ve been a fan of the Yankees, Mets, Dodgers, Angels, Orioles and Nationals and AFAICT, having designated hitters is nice. You extend the careers of some marquis players and at the same time the games have more action. Sure you lose a little bit of strategizing around the fact that you can reliably get the pitcher out but frankly its boring and only serious fans (or ones with excellent seats) really enjoy a pitcher’s duel. In fact I was not kidding about letting DHs hit for catchers. Noone enjoyed watching Wieters get thrown out at first base as he hobbled there after a clean single through the gap. I would not be overly distraught at the bifurcation of offense and defense. These are two different skill sets and the mlb has a lot of very good hitters with very mediocre fielding and the minors is littered with almost circue du soliel level acrobats who are just monsters defensively (but they can’t hit the ball). You would still be hamstrung by roster size so every designated hitter you add would limit your bullpen or ability to platoon players.
Football does it to great effect, imagine if we made the quarterback get out on the field during defense. Or the offensive line? Having specialists is not horrible, it improves the game. The pitching game has been accelerating past the hitting in recent years because the pitchers get to specialize while the hitters have to practice batting and fielding.
Good point. Acting would become an important skill for relievers. The game would start to resemble soccer with everyone pretending to be injured. You’ve convinced me.
I like this idea. 8 warm-up pitches is too much.
I agree with your order, except get rid of DH altogether. If #4 could be changed to require a pitcher to face at least one batter, I’d move that up to #2.
Like thisguy?
Isn’t that already a rule?