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.
Page 2 of 2 pages
how would you reduce pitchers/PA? other than making 3 balls a walk and/or 2 strikes a KO?
You know what? Baseball is fine.
Make some tweaks that make it easier to make contact but harder to hit home runs.
Is it the run/game production or the high number of strike outs that we need to address at the present?
Yeah 4-4.5 R/game is probably the sweet spot. What we need is the average game to be under 2:30.
Two significant parts of the answer are "make the games take less time to play" and "fewer pitches per plate appearance." You would accomplish both by incentivizing batters to put the ball in play more.
what exactly is the problem? People make it sound as if run scoring is at dead ball era II (1967-68,70) levels which it isnt. Not quite yet anyway.
or is it more about too many strike outs. The "aesthetics" of the game to quote one of our above posters. Yes strike outs continue to go up, and have been for a long enuf time to wonder about what is going on there.
Also, you cannot discount the shift entirely. So I am a little concerned about cardsfan who is usually pretty well informed on stuff. If I recall correctly it was having an effect on slugging, so while the point about "effective babip" may be putting a too fine point on it; clearly shifting is having an positive effect for defenses.
Well relievers in general are a scourge upon the game (they are also a leading cause of increased game time), so I think it would be a good thing regardless. But I agree that it's probably too extreme of a rule change to happen for awhile.
I would tend to agree with no 120 as well. Isnt the only way to increase contact to move back the fences?
think definitely there's a point to be made about the size of rosters. It seems every playoff game one team is either short a pinch hitter or a utility IF or a pr. Pirates had really no PR last post season, for example.
But that still begs the question, if you had a 26th man: who would teams spend it on? Another 95 mph reliever? That doesnt help the problem does it?
2. Require smaller gloves.
I think 1, 3, 5 and 6 are actually feasible. The other ones are either ridiculous or ineffectual.
EDIT: I was coming at this from the standpoint of encouraging the ball be put into play.
If you expand the major league roster to 26, managers will absolutely use the extra roster spot on another reliever. If you expand the rosters to 28, managers will add three more relievers.
Don't see it...3 hours sure, but 2.30 is not profitable and is not what the viewing public expects...Football is 3 hours and 15 minutes for 1 hour of game time and 11 minutes of actual action...basketball and hockey both take roughly 3 hours to play an hour game also.... 3 hours is the expectations nowadays, nothing wrong with that, but fooling people(like the NFL, NBA, NHL and Soccer do) into thinking there is more "action time" is a laudable goal.
You could lower the mound, deaden the ball a bit, make the bats heavier, and expand the strike zone along side any or all of those things. Gotta make them there guys swing them bats.
Baseball's issue isn't low scoring, it's length of game time primarily due to dead time.
As stated many times; pitchers f*cking around, multiple throws to 1B, batter's f*cking around; stepping in and out of the box etc. I have never been bored watching Buehrle pitch because the dude works fast.
If umps adhered to the rules governing time between pitches for both hitters and hurlers, you wouldn't notice the low scoring atmosphere because there would be action all the time.
Soccer is usually 95-97 minutes with a 10 minute half.
American football is a boring as batsh*t.
as the all star game showed, when given a choice for a player to return, the managers went with a speedy specialist instead of a utility player. My goal was to bring back the right handed/left handed power bat or the base running specialist or whatever...give more flexibility.
hat 28 man roster thing would also be interesting vis a vis the third catcher. I have not studied rosters but isnt nowadays they are pretty much keeping an extra position player who almost never plays just in case of injury?
It is possible numbers are down on shifted plays but they're not down overall so that would have to be balanced by a large increase in production on non-shifted plays relative to earlier years -- which makes no sense.
Since 2013, when Ortiz has hit ground balls and short line drives -- the kinds of situations likely to be affected by a shift -- he has averaged .230 against the shift and .350 against a traditional defense. Mike Napoli, for his part, has hit .217 with a shift and .275 without.
While the batting average to the opposite field for lefties has gone down slightly (overall batting averages have been trending down), it absolutely has cratered when lefties pull the ball. Shifts appear to be working very well against lefthanded pull hitters.
David Ortiz Batting Average When Pulling the Ball
AB H AVG
1997-2007 1,078 481 .446
2008-14.... 728 250 .343
Unlike the anecdotal evidence showing how shifting seems to be working for the Rays and Brewers, we consider the 40- 50 point drop in batting average on grounders, short liners and bunts against the Ted Williams Shift to be direct evidence in favor of The Shift. Is it conclusive? No.
If we measure a sport's value solely by the amount of movement and interaction between players, baseball is the most boring sport imaginable.
1. No dragging the infield after the start of the game. If it gets bumpy it gets bumpy.
2. Require smaller gloves.
3. Mandate positions. In other words do away with the full shift. You have to start with two infielders on each side of second base and infielders may not be on the outfield grass to start a play.
4. Shorten the baseline to 85' (really stupid idea but would encourage putting the bat on the ball).
5. Minimum two batters faced or ending an inning before changing pitchers.
6. No more than 11 pitchers on the roster (stealing it from snapper, LOVED that suggestion).
7. A fair/foul line 60' down the first and third base lines so a hot shot that is fair at that point is fair, not when it crosses the bag.
2. Unlikely the Players' Union will agree.
5. I support anything that limits mid-inning pitching changes.
7. I don't understand this. What does it accomplish?
Now that is something I think the players union would have a problem with.
Shifts have essentially doubled in each of the past three years.
On what grounds? As long as jobs aren't being eliminated, what would the union care? (Beyond the obvious point that they will pretend to care about everything for negotiating purposes.)
it's being used selectively and the data we've seen suggests that it's working against those hitters. I doubt if the whole league is this seriously deluded.
Does anyone want to comment on the links that support the idea that shifts do work? I mean to say they are not working is going against a sea change in thinking. Shifts have essentially doubled in each of the past three years.
I wonder if the umpires had more difficulty determining if the runner was leaving early when the running start was executed.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (9 members)
Page rendered in 1.0621 seconds, 73 querie(s) executed