Dead Badger, I suspected that the scoring percentage on corner kicks was pretty low, and after having seen a handful of them, I figured that they take so long to set up and execute that if the percentage was indeed low, you could be waiting over an hour to get a result, which would make it unreasonable.
And great point about how the red carded team still might have to face a disadvantage in a penalty kick shootout. As unlikely as it is to be realized, just the fact that it could happen makes it sit better in my mind.
[QUOTE=fetus]
What do you think of this treatise?
The game of baseball has too many home runs and too few extra-base hits. I think that’s silly and makes for a boring game. We need to mandate that all stadiums add another 50 feet all around the outfield, shorten the basepath to first base down to 70 feet because everybody makes it to first anyway, then shorten the other basepaths to 80 feet so that we have more triples. For that matter, let’s put a “commit line” on the home stretch, and if the baserunner crosses that line he has to run home–that will create more runs and more plays at the plate. Then we should time pitches so that pitchers can’t take all day putzing around on the mound.
[/quote]
First, great post with many excellent responses to my laundry list of questions. I think this bit I quoted was something you’d like an actual response to.
Note that baseball is not my sport; I do not watch it, and do not even know most of the rules. However, my best answers would be, in order: (Colored for easy skipping, because the answers themselves aren’t really on-topic for the thread.)
Agreed that there are too many home runs and too few extra base hits. My understanding is that the triple is all but extinct. Also, I cannot stand the posing at the plate while batters showboat watching their ball go over the fences. Sometimes it fails to go out, and then they have to hoof it. The initial posing cost them extra bases, so I’d like to see managers hand out sanctions for every instance of plate-posing.
50 extra feet sounds fine to me, but more importantly I’d like to see a standardization leagues-wide making all outfields the same dimensions. While parks like Fenway try to equalize shorter distances with taller walls, I find that to be an unsatisfactory solution.
Shortening the base path to first by even 10 feet (as opposed to your proposed 20) would increase batting averages league-wide, simply because it would be harder to beat the runner to the plate from the infield. Baseball’s primary appeal is that it is unchanging through the ages when it comes to infield dimensions, though the pitcher’s mound has seen subtle height variations. Even still, today in 2006 you can theoretically compare hitters on your team to hitters on teams from 1906, and the comparisons will be meaningful. Since much of the appeal of baseball is its rich history and tradition, this change would serve to undercut a major attraction that the leagues have deliberately fostered and maintained. (Same basic reply for the other base path distances, but for the record anything that increases triples is aces in my book.)
The commit line sounds neat; I’d like to see it tried in the minor leagues to see how well it worked. I have a feeling that a purist would hate it because throwing down a runner between bases is a basic part of the game. Then again, you’d still be able to do it between first, second and third. Actually, I’d kinda like to see it tried between all bases.
As far as I am aware, pitchers are already timed between pitches. (Though that may just be batters must be ready in the box within a certain amount of time between pitches.) But the clock is never enforced. I would absolutely love to see a pitching clock enforced. (First implemented if it’s not already.) Award a ball if the clock runs out. Simple. On second thought, I don’t think there’s a pitch clock because they can throw to first base to try and pick somebody off all day long. I find that annoying, so count that as another reason I’d like to see a pitch clock.
Okay, so there’s my answers. Clearly, I am not a baseball fan. But can you see the difference between those answers and this:
“That would fundamentally change the game. It would be like changing the distance of a marathon from 26 miles to 26 feet.”
The former addresses the questions posed. The latter is nothing but content-free handwaving. Also, note that baseball is unique in American sports in that its rules almost never change. Football and hockey have multiple rule changes – some changing the sport quite dramatically – virtually every season. (Example of NFL rule changes colored for easy skipping.)
The NFL is famous for rule changes, with the league constantly creating rules to help the offense. Defenses always catch up with superior strategy, “gaming” the rules to maximum benefit, and then the league passes another set of rules to help the offense again. This is how its always been, and likely how it always will be.
The last time the league propped up the offense was a few years back when they began emphasizing pass interference. There used to be a prize defensive player known as a “shut-down corner,” meaning you could leave him 1-on-1 against any receiver to completely remove that receiver from the game. Now with the shift in rules emphasis by the league, (thanks to Peyton Manning’s whining like a little bitch after the Patriots raped his receivers in the playoffs one year,) there isn’t a single shut-down corner in the entire league, nor can there be one. (The shutdown guys still play; you just can’t shut down a receiver anymore.)
After a couple seasons, defenses have adapted. It’s no surprise to any savvy fan how much more emphasis you’re seeing put on defensive ends and pass rushing linebackers. The Texans passed on Superman in order to snag a premiere DE. The Giants – who have the best DE tandem in the league – drafted a DE with their first round draft pick despite having a very high-quality third DE already on the roster. The idea is, if you can’t pressure the reciever, pressure the passer. In a few years, look for the league to tinker with blocking rules to give the offensive linemen a leg up.
Given all that, you can see how the idea of being resistant to rule changes is a foreign concept to me. Quickly, the massive overhaul in countless rules in the NHL last year served to improve the action on the ice immensely. Thoughtful change is good for sports. Fanatical devotion to the status quo is not, unless you specifically market the game’s unchanging history as a major selling point. FIFA clearly doesn’t do that, as evidenced by the multiple changes to substitution limits and overtime formats.
I actually had another idea for a last-ditch tiebreaker for advancing out of group play to be inserted just ahead of drawing lots, though drawing lots would still need to be included as the final arbiter. I wouldn’t think this would be ideal for tiebreaking the outcome of a game, but if there was a suggestion to have a game decided by the corner kicks in the game, then I guess this would be at least as legitimate as that:
(I can already here the peanut gallery groaning.)
Instead of corner kicks as a tiebreaker, corner kicks scoring percentage. If nobody scored on a corner kick, then it’s no help. (Thus still needing the lot drawing for the group play tiebreaker.) But you’d have to be careful about getting too many corner kick chances, as that would more than likely dilute your average. Eh? Whaddya think?
Of course, as some of you may remember, the original UFC had the greatest tiebreaking rule every put into existance: no “overtime”, no judges, no nothing. In the event of a tie, both competitors were eliminated and an alternate advanced to the next round. Now that would be a kick-ass change IMO. It would sure light a fire under the asses of two teams locked in a 0-0 tie in the 90th minute, no? hehheh. (This is tongue in cheek, but I seriously did love the UFC for this tie rule. It rocked the house.)
