I'm waiting for the saudis to show up and shake things up.

I don't necessarily disagree with that, but I'm more focused right now on the - to me, anyway - shocking fact that MLB has finally acted on multiple levels to try to make the game more entertaining.

and if the changes are effective, then at that point there's hope for even more improvement.

heck, at some point down the road, the game might be SO entertaining that I'll even resume watching their commercials - instead of letting myself get 30 minutes behind the live feed, then catch up on every pitch in 15 minutes (tops) by FFing commercials and dead time, which what I was doing the last several years.

:)

And suppose you made it 10 players. Fine, then the active squad will be 9 position players, a C, the SP and 5 relievers with some poor AAAA schlub getting lit up for 5 innings because the manager doesn't want to waste his closer.

Imagine being in a room full of people discussing enlarging the size of the base, and it occurs to only one of them that this will make stealing bases easier.

They already limit you to 13 pitchers on the roster, I don't see why you couldn't just further reduce the limit of active pitchers on gameday.

...and figure out how to make bunting for a hit a high-enough percentage strategy that it is a threat for every batter that can run even just a little bit.

how does it make base stealing easier? I dont get it. Its what 4"? These guys are moving 28'/sec. Thats approx. 1/100 of a second difference in the time they travel. You're never gonna see that show up as a statistical uptick.

Granted it will be hard to tease out how much of the effect is due to the base size vs the change in pickoff rules. But the difference between a fairly "easy" CS and a successful SB is definitely fractions of a second.

Yes what baseball needs now is a new generation of Matty Alous and Brett Butlers to bring the fans back to the stadium.

Sorry. I agree with much of what you're saying there but that statement was a little bit out of whack with the rest of the suggestions which seem obvious and also have approval of most/many primates. Cut down on TTO baseball, sure but do we really need small ball? I dont see it.

They are most certainly not moving 28'/sec by the time they are reaching the base because they aren't running through it; they're decelerating no matter what type of slide they make. So I rather doubt that 1/100th of a second is accurate.

The point is to make baseball tactically interesting again.

Though having said that, maybe the distinctions that seemed big to us in the 1970s and '80s weren't. Go back to 1977, and it was 112/114 (Fulton County) to 89/91 (also San Diego).

Agreed, John. What I wonder about is whether homers lost would be offset by more balls being caught, or more balls falling in for XBH

The difference is that in real businesses the product gets better and better for the consumer.

The curse of the parade of relievers is a function of the 26 man roster.

modify the ball so home runs are harder

They went to 26 because relievers were already soaking up so much of the roster?

MLB commissioner Rob Manfred, speaking on-air during the Rangers TV broadcast Thursday, said the league will not “have our feet in stone” in regard to the pitch clock. Manfred said he hopes umpires will exercise some discretion late in games to allow for slower, tense moments.

Manfred said he hopes umpires will exercise some discretion late in games to allow for slower, tense moments.

They banned the shift

and put in the ghost runner, which seems counterproductive to this

Again, they aren't geniuses. I am not a big critic of the ghost runner, however - it's one way to avoid 20-inning weekday games. In this I am in agreement with the overall goal of Manfred, et. al. - you are trying to create a product that is consistently a good experience for the spectator, so that they become repeat customers. I have, myself, been to many extra-inning games, including a 16-inning game a few years back. In the latter case I was lucky(?) to have gone myself, so I could make my own choice as to whether to stay or go - noting that all the concessions had closed up (including hot-chocolate on a cold fall evening) after the 9th inning. Many people had to leave without witnessing the end of the game. Some groups had to split up, with portions leaving early. By the time the game was over most public transit had ceased operations. How is that a good spectator experience? If one goes to just about ANY other spectator sport there is an attempt at least to make the contest conclude in a reasonable amount of time. The ghost runner is at least an attempt at this, if a clumsy one. Even then, this change might actually INCREASE tactical options, because, well, now you might decide to steal third base, or bunt the runner over, or? It's actually tactically more complex than what was happening before in extra-inning games, which largely was folks waiting around for reliever to mess up give up a solo homer.

can we please stop calling it a ghost runner? It's not only definitionally wrong; it's an affront to the beautiful tradition of the ghost runner.

Whatever it meant before, I have seen it so often that it now refers to what is, in effect, a running appearing out of nowhere on the base, without coming to the plate. That seems pretty spooky to me.

The 1982 Cards were last in HRs and fifth in runs in the NL. The 1985 Cards were 11th in dingers and first in runs scored. I can't imagine you'd find anything close to that in the last 10 years.

Granted it will be hard to tease out how much of the effect is due to the base size vs the change in pickoff rules.

How is that a good spectator experience? If one goes to just about ANY other spectator sport there is an attempt at least to make the contest conclude in a reasonable amount of time. The ghost runner is at least an attempt at this, if a clumsy one.

I also learned that, based on the above information, if you draw a line around the outside edges of the bases and home plate, you do not get a perfect square (or diamond); home, first and third have their back corners tucked into a corner of the "square," whereas second base extends beyond the "corner" as its exact center (and not its back corner) is placed at the corner of the square. So the baseline from first to second is more like a 90.5-degree angle than a 90-degree angle relative to the first-base line.

This was changed with the new rule

but can we please stop calling it a ghost runner

Back in the day, the game ended when the sun went down. It was simple, if slightly subjective.

The Los Angeles Dodgers recently reduced the distance between first and second base at Dodger Stadium, which is the most significant change to the infield layout in the club’s history. The Los Angeles Dodgers, the oldest professional sports franchise in the United States, have relocated the second base bag 87 feet from the first base bag to decrease the distance between them by one foot and one-and-a-half inches. This is the first time the infield layout has been altered since the stadium opened in 1962. The change in direction is significant because it affects the entire infield and the angles of base paths. The second base bag now stands 87 feet away from the first base bag, while the third base bag stands 90 feet away from both the second and home plate. As a result, the lines between second base, third base, and home plate will now intersect at a 90-degree angle, resulting in a sharper angle at the infield corners. The Dodgers are one of the most storied franchises in the history of professional sports, and their decision to reduce the distance between first and second base is an exciting development. The change in the infield layout for the first time in nearly sixty years could also have an impact on the game for the better. With the addition of this new infield layout, baseball will have a unique dynamic that will change the way the game is played in the future.

In 2023, are MLB bases 4.5 inches closer to each other, or 13.5 inches closer to each other?

Has anyone split out SB success rates on attempts before and after two pickoffs yet? The sample size is probably currently too small to say definitively, but comparison of attempts before the two pickoffs with previous years will probably be instructive.

Add a quarter-inch of circumference and a quarter-ounce of weight, and you fix so much of what's wrong with baseball today.

The base-to-base length will remain at 90 feet, but players will find it more difficult to hit because their bases are larger.

In 2006, Major League Baseball made the decision to reduce the base size to its current size of 85 feet.

Although the base size has changed over the years [sic; it hasn't], it has remained a consistent part of the game and is an integral component of America’s pastime.

67. salvomania Posted: April 04, 2023 at 01:38 PM (#6122583)
NaOH, that's the same diagram I linked to...

...but I wouldn't be surprised if that diagram is incorrect, with its producer merely tasked with overlaying larger base outlines onto the existing layout to show the difference in size (without being tasked to pull in second base, if it is in fact pulled in).

They are most certainly not moving 28'/sec by the time they are reaching the base because they aren't running through it; they're decelerating no matter what type of slide they make...

AFAIC if a runner had beaten the tag to begin with he should never have been called out for oversliding the base to begin with.

That probably makes it less likely for the runner's foot/hand to bounce off the bag.

Right. You can define the bag as a column that extends up to infinity, once the bag is touched. So once the player touches the bag, he'd have to actually come off the bag in a horizontal direction to be called out.