|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Gromit points out that “Tom Tango’s article on rule change ideas is interesting”.
Rule Change No. 3B: The Floating DH
As an option to tweaking the existing DH rule, we can continue with our David Ortizes and Travis Hafners, but they can bat for anyone in the lineup, and can come up no quicker than one time per every nine team at-bats. So, if No. 8 hitter Adam Everett is up with men on base, you can bring in your floating DH to bat for him.
But, that means that the next batter, the pitcher, must bat for himself. The floating DH must wait for at least eight more batters to come up, before being brought in. This may drastically increase the value of a guy like Vladimir Guerrero, by taking him off the field of play, and provide the flexibility of floating him to bat in someone’s place when you need him the most. This would also imply that the first time he comes to bat would be no earlier than the 9th batter of the game. It’s a small tweak with drastic implications.
Repoz
Posted: April 17, 2008 at 01:57 PM | 71 comment(s)
| Login to Bookmark
Related News: General, Special Topics
|
Support BBTF
Thanks to
dirk
for his generous support.
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: Sources: Cubs’ Starlin Castro Accused Of Sexual Assault (5593 - 12:49pm, Feb 08)Last: SugarBear BlanksNewsblog: OT: NBA Monthly Thread, February 2012 (254 - 12:48pm, Feb 08)Last: NJ is feeling betterNewsblog: Megdal: A Note On Access And The Mets (80 - 12:45pm, Feb 08)Last: SoSH U at workTransaction Oracle: 2012 ZiPS Projections - Texas Rangers (5 - 12:45pm, Feb 08)Last: Jim WisinskiNewsblog: Primer Dugout (and link of the day) 2-8-2012 (8 - 12:44pm, Feb 08)Last: GuapoNewsblog: Barry Bonds Free to Swing 'Dangerous' Bats ... Again (18 - 12:43pm, Feb 08)Last: Bob TuftsNewsblog: NYBD: Silva: Yankees Fragrance and 1996? (4 - 12:42pm, Feb 08)Last: Yankee Redneck is a Pinhead.Newsblog: Edwin Jackson turned down three-year offer from Pirates (80 - 12:40pm, Feb 08)Last: Matt Clement of AlexandriaNewsblog: OT: The Soccer Thread: February 2012 (38 - 12:40pm, Feb 08)Last: Shooty: Applying to be Fearless LeaderNewsblog: Trump's Son-In-Law Seeks To Buy Dodgers (14 - 12:38pm, Feb 08)Last: EphusNewsblog: BPro: Wyers: Reintroducing PECOTA (10 - 12:32pm, Feb 08)Last: Kiko SakataNewsblog: BTF Chicago Softball Team? (4 - 12:31pm, Feb 08)Last: Greg PopeNewsblog: Fraley: Rangers' Josh Hamilton has relapse with alcohol at area bar (327 - 12:22pm, Feb 08)Last: Something OtherNewsblog: 'Duk: Tim Lincecum slims down with swim routine, loses appetite for McDonald’s (202 - 12:14pm, Feb 08)Last: Greg PopeNewsblog: College Football: Postseason Thread (328 - 12:14pm, Feb 08)Last: William Satterwhite
|
|
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Then again, maybe it was just Tango trying to be funny.:)
Let's have also dinosaurs chase those courtesy runners. Look how successful the Jurassic Park movies were, despite the poor acting. Fans will scream for basebpath carnage.
This is unfair to guys who struggle with control who are having a bad day. Yeah, life's not fair, but you're penalizing a guy having a bad day. The point of this penalty is to stop teams from doing something, but this is something that you just simply stop doing. I guess you could throw a meatball down the middle, but that's likely to have a result too extreme for goal you're trying to achieve.
So, if No. 8 hitter Adam Everett is up with men on base, you can bring in your floating DH to bat for him.
But you don't know that he's coming to bat with the bases loaded until after the previous batter's AB is over. So you either have to gamble that he will and put the DH on deck, or have him come to the plate cold turkey (well, you could give him some time to warm up, but that would defeat the time saving rules that you're trying to put in).
The first pickoff throw, per batter, is a freebie. Any other pickoff throw is treated like a pitchout: a called ball, if the runner is not picked off.
I prefer Bill Jame's idea of limiting the number of pickoff attempts. It's a more subtle way to speed up the game.
You put a commit line thirty feet from home plate. Once a runner crosses that line, it becomes a force play at home plate. Now, the catcher simply needs to touch the base, and not worry about tagging the runner.
You're zapping out the excitement of a play at the plate. I love baseball, but the one of the last things it needs is less excitement.
Being stupid on its face is the downside.
Let's just get rid of lead offs, so there is no need for pickoffs. Only the very fast will try to steal.
>>It's a more subtle way to speed up the game.
<<<
Forget subtlety -- if speeding up the game is what we want, let's just play seven innings.
I don't want to get into the DH debate today, all the points are already out there. People just need to decide what scoring environment they want: low means shorter games, more steals and bunts, high means longer games, more pitchers, more dingers, and less smallball.
Right now, we're stepping down from a high scoring environment, so maybe these tactics will revive naturally.
It's not about speeding up the time of the game so much as it's about getting rid of all the dead time in a game, which makes the game seem slow. It'll make the game a little quicker, but it'll also keep the excitement going, which is the point. Pickoff attempts are boring unless they're really close or the runner is thrown out, most of the time they're just boring.
There's already a penalty for throwing four balls, and a pretty harsh one - the batter gets to go to first base. That's enough in and of itself that the intentional walk is deployed pretty rarely. There's really no need to go any further.
That is idiotic of course. But, you could cut almost a minute out of each pitching change if you just made the teams be proactive. There's no reason for a manager to need to walk out and get the ball from the pitcher. There is no reason for a pitcher to have to walk or jog in from the outfield bullpen, or even take all 8 warm up tosses, if they know ahead of time what they want to do. Of course that is a minute less ad time to sell, and a minute less of people consuming beer at the ballpark, so there's little motivation to make that happen.
Then make the batters stay in the box, get rid of the additional TV time between innings, etc. Don't change something that will eventually reward another team with an unfair competitive imbalance by not being able to check the runner.
>>>Pickoff attempts are boring<<<
So are uncontested steals, which is what limiting pickoffs will lead to.
No disagreement there.
So are uncontested steals, which is what limiting pickoffs will lead to.
Only if the catcher doesn't throw to 2nd.
1) The hit-batter misconduct rule is intriguing, except that most HBP are fairly harmless, and the penalty (free pass) is already pretty much a disincentive. If accidental injuries from HBP are a really extreme problem, then how about putting the pitcher who injures a batter on a disqualified list (with pay) for as long as said batter goes on the DL? You might want some sort of limit, 60 days or something like that in extreme (Conigliaro-type) cases. And of course there's potential for abuse, as in a case where Josh Beckett hits Wilson Betemit and the Yankees decide that Betemit has to be hospitalized forever.
2) The only other suggestion I like is the mid-inning reliever penalty, but I would go further; I don't think the increased counts are a disincentive. I'd say, no mid-inning changes unless the pitcher is injured (and if he's relieved mid-inning, he goes straight to the DL). But this raises a lot of problems: do you want 8 or 10 runs to score just because somebody doesn't have good stuff today? (That won't speed up a game.) How much of a problem do mid-inning pitching changes create? You could institute the extreme penalty only for the second pitching change of an inning, but that's rare anyway; the Rangers and Blue Jays used 16 pitchers yesterday, but only one half-inning saw three different pitchers used.
Most dead time is created by TV. If we quicken the pace of the game, the powers that be will create more deadtime for TV. Don't ruin the game by trying to break this unbreakable dynamic.
Which he won't do if the runner is taking a 25-foot lead.
TV deadtime is between innings and during pitching changes. Not during an AB.
Which he won't do if the runner is taking a 25-foot lead.
Game. Set. Match. If I was arguing a point I thought of myself, I'd feel really foolish right now. But since I was talking about a point someone else made, I only feel like half the fool I usually do.
If the runner isn't checked, there isn't going to be any sense in throwing down to second, even if the runner is painstakenly slow.
And concurrently enforce the 20-second rule for pitchers.
Because sportswriters want to get to the bar. Most other sports events earlier than baseball games do. Whenever some whiney sportswriters (or stadium employees who blog) have to stay late, they start calling for the game to be sped up.
I said:
As you were...
Well, then there's no point to the three-pickoff-throw rule. The whole idea of pickoff throws is to keep the runner close, so if we're going to make a rule that requires the runner to be close, you're not penalizing the pitcher for throwing over.
The exceptions are concerning the mid-inning pitching changes and the pick-off throws. I actually don't mind the idea of limiting pick-off throws -- though you would need a "commit" line that, if the runner lead off past it, the pitcher would be allowed to throw down there. And there should be no restrictions on catchers throwing.
As for the mid-inning thing ... it seems that you could come up with a rule to address La Russaisms without incurring the count penalty.
Neither of these are a big deal, I don't think, just tinkering. I don't think excessive pickoff attempts or multiple mid-inning pitching changes are fun, but that's mostly an aesthetic preference.
I didn't think anything else these suggestions address even needed to be addressed.
But if you speed up individual at bats, you speed up the entire game. Networks/MLB won't just accept short telecasts and happily move along. They will use it to slot more commercial time between innings.
Multiple mid-inning pitching changes already carry a penalty: use of roster spots. I disagree with the conventional wisdom that teams forgo a larger position player bench in favor of more specialist relievers, but its not like there isn't a downside already.
I'm thinking a pack of velociraptors could be let loose on the field during a Red Sox-Yankees game.
I don't agree that they will, and even if they do, that's still a trade I'll take. If I'm at the ballpark, that means my time in line to get a beer and food between innings will be eaten up more by TV breaks, and if I'm at home I'll have more time to do whatever it is I do during commercials.
Iamgine the controversey if this was implemented. Was Johnny Met over that line or not? Did Johnny Met try to fool the pitcher that he was over the line to elicit a throw? Is that legal? Imagine the blather from the TV announcers:
Jim Kaat: "Back in my day, we didn't need a sissy line that told us where the baserunner was. We practiced until we could feel the runners in our eyelids and our eyelids told us when they had crossed the line."
Joe Morgan: That is right, Jim, which is why I used to put stinky cheese in my socks -- to block the pitchers' eyelids."
The only way to make this "Commit Line" work would be to dig moats and fill them with orcs, alligators, and vicious horny toads. That way we'd know exactly what side of the line the runner is on, and the announcers could not talk about how they were tougher in their day. There is only one thing bad enough to build moats like that: Killdozer.
2: no, too much penalty for just plain sucking
3A: huh? no
3B: huh? no
4: no, ditto #2
5: commit line, eh? I thought we were trying to speed things up; so, no
6: catchers already can't be pushed over by a batter while there's a runner on third, which is the analogy with hockey, and QBs are fragile and catchers are not, so that analogy doesn't work; as for the rest of it, I'm good with a change in the icing rule because I don't care...wait, wasn't this supposed to be a baseball discussion?
I'm not in favor of such a rule, but everyone that I've read suggesting such a rule has included the caveat that penalties only be applied when a pickoff is unsuccessfull. A runner taken such a brazen lead would still get picked off.
Not if the pitcher isn't allowed to throw over there any more.
The "three pickoff" rule is a dumb one. Pitchers really don't waste a lot of time throwing over to first.
If they want to speed up the game, enforce the rule about batters stepping out, and the rule about pitchers wasting time between pitches. They don't need to introduce any new rules.
I particularly dislike the plate-blocking one, since there's already a rule on the books to deal with that situation, and baseball could correct the "problem" simply by enforcing the rules that already exist (i.e. not letting catchers block the plate).
Really, and the example used has been out of date for at least six years, and more likely sixteen. Yet somehow still I don't think he's having us on.
If you're referring to the Bill James suggestion (mentioned in number 6), that rule was similar to Tango's in that after 3 throws the pitcher is charged a ball if unsuccessful. He's still allowed to throw, he'll just get the penalty if the runner makes it back. Thus no 25 foot leadoffs. At least that's how it was suggessted in the New Historical Abstract.
I agree the batter should not be allowed to leave the box, nor the pitcher the mound, once the at bat has begun.
How about limiting trips to the mound for catchers also. No more than 1 per IP, or 3 total per game? If you can't figure out your signs too bad.
Whenever this gets to an annoying level in a game (say, when Jason Varitek is catching and the bases are loaded), I always wonder why there's a rule preventing the guy standing on third from stealing home.
Well, he is Canadian.
You don't have to worry about someone being left out there to get shelled, if he is only facing 2, 3 or 4 batters at most. If you get to the point where you are making your fourth mid-inning change, the game is probably out of hand, and you are now warming up your 5th outfielder to take the mound. There could be an exception for injuries, crafted to avoid phony injuries.
I don't like any rule changes that "start" a batter with a one ball or two ball count. That is too radical for me. By contrast, charging a ball if a pitcher fails to deliver in time is not much different from the "hand to mouth = ball" rule.
I also don't like multiple penalties for intentional walks. I love those rare situations, in an extra inning game or the ninth inning, when a guy gets on third with less than two outs, and the manager rolls the dice, and walks the next two batters. I don't care if it is the dumbest play in "the Book", I just love watching the manager give it a shot.
All of the permutations of the rules to limit pick off throws just seem too complicated. Adding an extra line to the field just plain bothers me.
I don't understand the "by contrast". These are all free balls and free strikes (batter takes too long to get in the box), and act as disincentives for everyone to stop the dead time, and play ball.
The "must face x batters" needs a "health exception", meaning that some manager will abuse it, and therefore means that you need to modify it so that the pitcher must miss at least the next game.
If we can agree that we need a disincentive, it's just a matter of an appropriate measure.
Certainly, I love these rare occurrences. But, I hate the not-so-rare occurrences of walking a great batter as a decided advantage to the defense. I'm not sure how this benefits the fan. And the purpose of the walk rule is to act as a disincentive to the pitcher, to force him to throw strikes. For it to be an incentive in certain cases can't be a good thing.
That's what I was referring to, I forgot he had the ball penalty. It might be worth the penalty depending on who the batter and runner are.
By that argument, the gambit in chess should be outlawed as well.
(Hey, if hockey applies, then so does chess.)
The "must face x batters" needs a "health exception", meaning that some manager will abuse it, and therefore means that you need to modify it so that the pitcher must miss at least the next game.
Easy modification: Add the minimum number of batters to the next pitcher's minimum. And if the umpire thinks the injury is fake, run the pitcher and the manager, and suspend them both for a game.
I don't understand the "by contrast". These are all free balls and free strikes (batter takes too long to get in the box), and act as disincentives for everyone to stop the dead time, and play ball.
There is a difference. One is organic to the action on the field -- the pitcher has to be on the mound for the hand-to-mouth rule to apply. The 20 second delay rule requires the batter to be in the batter box. The other is a ball-strike penalty for violation of a substitution rule. Baseball has never had those, and I hope never will.
I hate the not-so-rare occurrences of walking a great batter as a decided advantage to the defense.
That has been a part of the game for many, many decades. It requires a team to make sure it has enough good players that they can't be defeated by taking the bat out of one player's hands. It is also a wonderful insult to the next batter who comes to the plate. If he can't come through, he looks like he deserved the insult.
...and would you then support that rule change?
It seems that alot of the objections are based not on the silliness of the proposal, but on the basic position to not change any rule that one now considers as part of the fabric of the game.
You can do that to every rule, flip it so that the rules in the proposal were the existing one, and the current rules we know are the ones being proposed. Larussa begging for a rule change to bring in his LOOGY? "Yeah, great idea. Let's do it." Pitchers wanting to keep Willie Wilson and Vince Coleman more at bay by throwing over forever? "Yeah, great idea. Let's do it." Let the pitcher hit the batter in the head without being ejected so that they can reclaim the inside of the plate? "Yeah, great idea. Let's do it."
That's the implication here, that either you like the rules as-is for the basic "tradition" of it and will object on that basis, or that the rules as being proposed would be overturned for the rules that we know because those rules we know make more "sense" (even though they would be seem to be a tough sell on their merit).
It's like the replay rule, that you only overturn on "clear evidence". If it's close, then you let the existing call on the play stand.
We're supposed to outlaw anything that fans don't find exhilarating regardless of its impact on the competition?
Well, one of my objections is that every one of those rule changes would increase offense. The game's got too much offense as it is.
My other objection is that you're fixing something that isn't broken. I don't see baseball as being that slowly-paced, at least not any worse than other sports.
This should go without saying, but I guess I'll say it: I'm only talking about what I said.
Right, the tradition aspect of it, and to only make a change for clear improvement, rather than possible improvement. That should be made more clear by the posters who object, that even if the rules were flipped around, they'd object to flipping them back anyway.
The flip side of the argument is that these suggestions are just change for change sake, and don't represent any kind of improvement at all.
Didn't the NFL introduce a new rule that the receiver must have both feet inbounds, even if pushed out? Or the 3-point rule in NBA? Or the 4-on-4 in the NHL overtime? These could all be "change for change's sake", or they could all be to tackle a particular issue that may end up with some really good (or bad) results.
That's all I'm doing here, looking at a couple of things that could be improved upon.
Objecting on principle of tradition is fine. Objecting on the merits is fine.
But, if we always had the 4-0 rule, and then Larussa proposed the LOOGY rule, and one would object to that because one finds it silly, that doesn't make sense. It's as if whatever rule is in place is fine, and whatever new rule is silly, regardless of which rule is in place and which is proposed! One should simply say "Tradition" and move on. It doesn't need any support beyond that.
Well, yes, I'd say that, in order to change the way something is done, you need to show that the change is necessary, and that the old way of doing things isn't working.
If the idea is to speed up the game, well, as many on this thread have said, there are multiple unenforced rules on the book designed to keep the game moving. Before introducing new rules, doesn't it make sense to try enforcing the existing rules, to see if that works?
I propose that we keep the DH, but require that the only available DHs are those who have fielded a minimum of 1/2 the team's total innings played(or at least 5 or 6 innings in 1/2 the games). Therefore, players like Ortiz and Hafner are required to field in 1/2 their team's games. It would require a variety of players to DH and the pitcher would have to bat in at least game one of the season.
And that's a perfectly reasonable position to stand upon, without needing further qualification.
Yes, absolutely.
One rule I'd definitely put in: I'd eliminate on-field warmups after pitching changes, except in the case of injury. There's really no need for them any more, IMO; the pitcher's been throwing in the bullpen for a while, usually.
I'd also implement rule 6.02(d) in MLB (it's been in the minors since last season) - make the batter stay in the box between pitches.
I don't really see any need for major changes in the way that the game is played. Yes, multiple late-inning pitching changes can be annoying, but if they help keep more games close longer (and my preliminary research into the way that bullpen usage has evolved suggests that may be the case), then I think the value outweighs the cost.
-- MWE
The bull pen mound is not an exact duplicate of the field mound. No two mounds, in fact, are the same. And they change during the game, as each pitcher digs, kicks and "manicures" The pitcher should be allowed to get the feel of the mound. That may require less than the traditional number of warm-up pitches.
Separate it so that there’s a third league. This new league would consist of two teams, the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees. They play 162 games and then face the winner of the other two leagues in a Real Ultimate Baseball Power World Series Championship. ESPN could have a dedicated channel – ESPN Douche – showing only Sox/Yanks games, hyperventilating studio personalities, and features on Sox/Yank fans arguing on internet chatboards.
Then, I’d ban the DH. It’s too bad the people who like the DH are too stupid to appreciate how bad DH baseball is. I suspect it’s from watching too much AL baseball, it etches a dullness groove into the brain, incapacitating the intellect.
Kill the DH.
I have always seen the game as a sort of complicated version of tag, where you try to touch all the bases (the safe area) before being tagged by the ball or the ball beating you to the next base. With this in mind I would love to give the batter a chance to try and run to first whenever he wants, with no need to actually hit the ball. Once the batter is completely out of the box (another safe of sorts) he is capable of being tagged or forced out.
As a second part of this I would love to see them get rid of the 'time out' in baseball, except for the obvious occurrences. A base runner is always in play in this scenario. You wear 10 pounds of armor on your arm when you go to bat, you gotta keep it on while on the bases. I love the idea of the game being played constantly instead of being a series of starts and stops between at bats. Instead of stopping play after a runner decides he is content with a double lets make the defense stay on their toes the whole time.
This also speeds up the time between batters while increasing the running game.
I'd love to see someone like the Atlantic League or Eastern League try hat one out.
Or they'll just make a rule in the middle of the playoffs because someone complained.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main