MLB Rule Changes

[monkeyman576]

MLB Rule Changes

Here are the most likely rule changes this year.

A 15-second pitch clock with the bases empty and a 20-second clock with runners on --- Eh, I don't really think it is necessary but I'm not really against it either.

Two disengagements from the rubber -- including pickoff attempts -- per plate appearance -- In favor. You don't really need to be trying to pick off the same runner five times in an at bat. Although I'm assuming this will result in an increase in stolen bases by the fast guys.

A requirement by hitters to be in the batter's box and "alert" with eight seconds to go on the clock. Hitters are allowed one timeout per plate appearance -- Goes with the first rule change. Indifferent.

Only two infielders will be allowed on each side of second base, with all four required to be on the dirt (or inner grass) -- Firmly against. If you can't hit it to where the infielders aren't, that's your problem.

Infielders cannot position themselves on the outfield grass before the pitch is thrown - Firmly against, see above.

Bases will increase in size from 15 inches squared to 18 inches. -- Probably makes sense to avoid injury and collisions.

[Déjà Bru]

I'm a bit differently aligned than you, monkeyman. Generally, I don't mind changes that are intended to move the game along, such as the pitch clock.

But what bothers me are the changes to the game itself; that is, ones that tend to change the results and stats.

To wit:

Two disengagements from the rubber -- including pickoff attempts -- per plate appearance

Only two infielders will be allowed on each side of second base, with all four required to be on the dirt (or inner grass)

Infielders cannot position themselves on the outfield grass before the pitch is thrown

Bases will increase in size from 15 inches squared to 18 inches.

These are the ones that will alter the way the game is played. The first and last will indeed aid base stealers; for example, after two disengagements from the rubber, the runner will have a green light and the base he is reaching for will be bigger.

And yes, FORCE batters to re-learn how to hit rather than altering the game to suit today's big swing, low contact players.

[swoboda]

I'm only against the pick off change that seems to give an unfair advantage to the base runner. I'm sure most people will be against the restrictions on where infielders can line up before the pitch but given the fact that Major Leaguers don't seem to be able to hit the other way anymore, as incredible as that may be, I'm in favor of it.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by swoboda

I'm sure most people will be against the restrictions on where infielders can line up before the pitch but given the fact that Major Leaguers don't seem to be able to hit the other way anymore, as incredible as that may be, I'm in favor of it.

I will not argue further, but merely say that it's sad that your point of view will likely be the one to prevail. Nothing personal to you, of course.

[Déjà Bru]

I just love statements like this:

“These steps are designed to improve pace of play, increase action and reduce injuries, all of which are goals that have overwhelming support among our fans,” Manfred said in a statement. “Throughout the extensive testing of recent years, minor league personnel and a wide range of fans — from the most loyal to casual observers — have recognized the collective impact of these changes in making the game even better and more enjoyable."

Um, "overwhelming support," Mr. Commissioner? Care to share the data?

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Um, "overwhelming support," Mr. Commissioner? Care to share the data?

But, I suppose you can't argue with facts like these:

The pitch clock was tested in minor league baseball this season, with different time allowances than will appear next year in M.L.B. In the minors, pitchers were allowed 14 seconds between pitches, and 18 seconds with at least one runner on base (19 seconds in Class AAA). The results were dramatic: The average length of a nine-inning game with a pitch clock has been 2 hours 38 minutes, down from 3:04 last year. According to M.L.B., stolen bases per game also increased from 2.23 (68 percent success rate) to 2.83 this season (77 percent success rate).

The lack of defensive shifts could cause an even more noticeable change. According to data from Sports Info Solutions, the use of defensive shifts on balls put in play increased from 2,357 in 2011 to 28,130 in 2016 to 59,063 last season. Through midseason this year, clubs were on pace for 71,000 shifts in 2022.

As these numbers have increased, offense has decreased. This year’s overall batting average of .243 through Thursday tracks as the lowest mark since 1968 and the third lowest mark since 1908. When the game’s overall batting average dipped to .237 in 1968, baseball responded by lowering the pitching mound from 15 to 10 inches for the 1969 season.

The game has to change somewhat with the times. Theo Epstein had a couple of good quotes:

“At every turn, fans wanted a faster pace of play, more athleticism on display in the field and on the bases, more balls in play and more action overall,” said Theo Epstein, the former top baseball operations executive with Boston and the Chicago Cubs and now a consultant for baseball and a member of the Joint Competition Committee. “Fans want less dead time less of anything that slows down the pace of play or pace of action. So to get closer to that best version of baseball and give the fans more of what they like and less of what they dislike, we knew we needed to create a faster pace.”

“The game on the field has been evolving for decades in a way that has taken us away from action, away from contact, away from a faster pace,” Epstein said. “And this is no fault of the players whatsoever. In fact, most of these trends have been driven simply by modernization, by data, and by front office optimizations. But the game has evolved in a way that nobody would have chosen if we were sitting down 25 years ago to chart a path toward the best version of baseball.”

Sigh. I guess so.

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

I just love statements like this:

Um, "overwhelming support," Mr. Commissioner? Care to share the data?

I support efforts to reduce injuries, and improve the pace of play, but I don't support stupifying the game.

[thehef]

I'm not a fan of seeing the second-baseman playing in shallow right field, but I generally do not see the need for any restrictions on the shift. After all, in one form or another it's been around forever (I remember seeing shifts for Boog Powell in clips from the 1970 World Series; the announcers weren't shocked by it so it wasn't unheard of...)

The drastic versions we see now are, IMO, temporary. It's only a matter of time before some team finds itself with several speedy contact hitters, and they find success with bunts and "going the other way." And they'll have success, and their ways will be copied... and so forth...

Left only to the cyclical nature of the game, the shift isn't going the way of the run-and-shoot in the NFL, but the drastic shifts we see now will go away, I believe... Just a matter of time...

Also, I don't like the idea of banning desperation alignments such as four outfielders or five infielders. Not sure if the new rules will do that...

BTW, what will the consequences be if the umps determine that, for example, the shortstop was lined up to the wrong side of 2nd base?

[kq76]

Originally Posted by thehef

BTW, what will the consequences be if the umps determine that, for example, the shortstop was lined up to the wrong side of 2nd base?

David Samson was saying it'd be like football where the umps will ask the offended team if they want the result of the play to stand or not. I was surprised by that. I didn't even consider they'd only notice after the fact so good on them, and you, for thinking about it.

[Izz]

Banning the shift is just stupid. You could already see that the young guys coming through have learned/are learning how to not be overly reliant on the pull. In 2-3 more seasons things would've leveled back out, imo, and we'd be seeing the shift a lot less anyway, and the game would be just as entertaining as ever. What an absolute mega error, imo.

As an aside, the other day Bo Bichette had a 3-homer game and homered to each field. It was a beautiful thing

[Cod]

I tend to agree that banning the shift may not be the right answer. In the minors, the limits on shifts has done nothing to change the number of balls in play, which is the main selling point of those wanting the shift banned. Here's a good write-up about it from Baseball America: https://www.baseballamerica.com/stor...in-the-minors/

BA also did a write-up about the overall effect these rules have had in the minors so far: https://www.baseballamerica.com/stor...rules-changes/

[kq76]

What they did vote on:

Time Clocks - I was totally in favour of a pitch clock, but if you read what they approved, there's a clock on everything now. Even if they have 2 people whose sole jobs are just to clock everything and do nothing else, I still think they'd probably screw it up. Who is in charge of all this time-keeping anyway? If it's the umps, who apparently have too much on their plates already, God help us. I was looking forward to this, but now I think it's going to be a mess!

Shift Ban - I wish it didn't have to come to this, but for awhile now I've felt it's time. I didn't feel so bad for batters, but what's really gotten to me are the hits that would have been easy outs had the team not shifted. If you watch the Jays I'm sure you know what I mean. They might be one of the worst shifting teams in baseball. If I pitched for them I'd be so constantly pissed off. Another important aspect of this is it will allow infielders to show off their skills more whereas now they're responsible for much less of the field.

Bigger Bases - I don't have a problem with this. The difference is so small I laugh whenever someone complains it's going to be bad for the game. Might there be more SBs? Sure, but not that many more. There are far too few for my liking anyway. The larger bases should make the game safer and that's good enough for me. I recently read that people's feet have grown considerably since we adopted the 15 inch bases and that a lot of people are getting their hands and feet stepped on by cleats. Just imagine. Ouch!

What they should have voted on:

Automatic Balls & Strikes - I've had enough of the bad umps. They need to do something, even if it's only a very small something. I get it, it's a really difficult job and I want to keep human umps in the game in some form or another. But if an ump sucks as much as some do, there needs to be some relief of some kind.

Buster Posey Rule - I was down with it, but after that play went for the Orioles and against Alejandro Kirk the other night, they clearly need to clean it up somehow. Kirk gave the guy such a huge wide lane to run and yet they still overturned it saying he didn't do it fast enough. WTH? I don't know how you fix it, but they need to tweak it somehow. As it is now, players at 3rd might as well just go to home as they please, you can't possibly end up out anymore.

DH & Pitchers - It's really unfortunate that with the bargaining dispute early in the season they apparently had enough arguing and just went with the universal DH instead of somehow tying the DH to the pitcher(s). I was really hopeful that they'd do it and I think they might have had it not been for the CBA dispute. The window maybe gone now.

[Cod]

Originally Posted by kq76

Time Clocks - I was totally in favour of a pitch clock, but if you read what they approved, there's a clock on everything now. Even if they have 2 people whose sole jobs are just to clock everything and do nothing else, I still think they'd probably screw it up. Who is in charge of all this time-keeping anyway? If it's the umps, who apparently have too much on their plates already, God help us. I was looking forward to this, but now I think it's going to be a mess!

I don't understand the requirement for this. Why not just ensure the umpires are enforcing the rules that are already in place? Do they think this will somehow get the umpires to start doing this part of their job now that everyone can see the clock?

Automatic Balls & Strikes - I've had enough of the bad umps. They need to do something, even if it's only a very small something. I get it, it's a really difficult job and I want to keep human umps in the game in some form or another. But if an ump sucks as much as some do, there needs to be some relief of some kind.

The system is not ready for the "big time" yet from what I can tell. There are still a lot of discussions regarding zone size and what is/isn't a strike. For zone size, the minor leagues have been tweaking the size throughout the season. In most cases, the zone is smaller than what the rule book says and "more in line with what players expect". Not sure I agree with changing the zone because of expectations, but whatever. As far as balls vs strikes, there's a lot of discussion around how much of the ball needs to cross the zone for it to be considered a strike. If a single seam from a curve ball catches the front corner of the plate while diving into the middle of the other box, is that a strike? Hitters will complain. For the at least a quarter (or more) of the ball to pass through a part of the zone, pitchers will complain. The automated system still has a good way to go in my opinion.

EDIT: In a recent Youtube video, Trevor Bauer talks about the automated system and how if it's anything like what HitTrax offers, pitchers are screwed.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by kq76

Automatic Balls & Strikes - I've had enough of the bad umps. They need to do something, even if it's only a very small something. I get it, it's a really difficult job and I want to keep human umps in the game in some form or another. But if an ump sucks as much as some do, there needs to be some relief of some kind.

I, too, am sicks of bad umps. I'm not totally on board with robo-umps, but I'd like to see the human ump signaled if the ball crosses the plate. Then it's up to the ump to determine if if the pitch is indeed a strike. IOW, the ump would determine if the pitch was a strike from a vertical perspective, which is a judgement call anyway since the vertical strike zone is different for each player and subject to interpretation. But whether or not a pitch is over the plate or not, that's not really a judgement call - regardless of the height of the player. Yet it's one that umps consistently miss...

This would also serve to lessen the impact of framing, which IMO would be a good thing.

[Amazin69]

Manly Rob Manfred has done it! He has utterly destroyed Baseball!

Bud Selig must be green with envy…

As bad as it was that the DH infested the NL, that they ruined extra innings (different rules in the 10th rather than the 9th? Explain that logic!), and that the idiocy of the 7-inning doubleheader games despoiled two straight years, the game was still somewhat recognizable. I had planned to give up the sport forever this year, after not watching at all in 2020 and only watching innings 1-9 last season (okay, I watched ONE 7-inning game, just because DeGrom was pitching), but with the demise of the 7-inning monstrosity and Extra Innings screwing up and giving me the Mets for free, I decided I could live with one year's worth of DH-ball, as long as I skipped the "ghost runners" and that unnecessary first round of the playoffs (should the Mets qualify but not get the bye).

But this is just ridiculous. Outlawing defensive strategy? OMG the poor babies don't know how to "hit 'em where they ain't"! We can't be punishing our unthinking overswingers by making them adjust to the defense! What will happen to our precious launch angles and exit velocity if people need to HIT instead of just swing wildly?

In case you don't know, defensive shifts go back to the 19th Century. They played people all over the field. (Cap Anson sometimes put all three of his outfielders in left field.) When Willie Keeler said "I hit 'em where they ain't", he wasn't being a smart-ass; he was saying that the secret of his success was that he adjusted to the shifts, rather than pointlessly trying to slam his way past the fielders. Which worked well for Ted Williams, but not so much everyone else.

But no, we can't have one team trying STRATEGY and the other team adjusting. What's next, having the same nine men who play offense play defense? Heresy! How dare you interfere with our Sacred grunting and flailing? Next thing you know, pitchers will throw breaking balls and change speeds instead just raring back and throwing as hard as they can! Hitters might choke up, or even bunt! Cats and dogs, living together!

And sure, let's eliminate the pickoff. Two throws, and that's it! And let's change the size of the bases so all of our stats are distorted because there's now a shorter distance between the bases. Who needs history?

There's nothing wrong with a pitch clock; indeed the rule was already on the books back in the 1960s. It's just that they didn't install clocks, so it was up to the umpires to enforce the rule, and they didn't. Per Bill James, Charley Finley got upset by this and put in a clock at Kansas City, but the A's pitchers responded poorly, and the umps still didn't make the calls.

The whole idea is stupid, anyhow; what's been slowing down the game is all the ads in between innings. Cut the commercial break back to 1 minute instead of the current 2:30, and problem solved. But of course, between "pace of play" and greed, greed wins every time.

(Seriously, fielders can't even play back on the grass against strong hitters now? In the 1930s, shortstops would play back on the grass against Hall of Fame catcher Ernie Lombardi, knowing that "Schnozz" could smash the ball past them otherwise, but he was so slow you could field the ball in short left and still throw him out at first. Heavens to Betsy! Strategy! Back, Demons! Leave this Place!! No wonder we had a Depression going on!)

And then, there's what they've done to the schedule. But that's another story. Different post for that.

So, I've got another month of watching the Mets choke away the division, then they'll lose in the first round to San Diego or whomever while I'm not watching, and I'm done. Forever. Thanks for nothing, Rob. I'm opposed to the Death Penalty (IMO it is ALWAYS wrong, no matter what)…but if Rob chooses to literally eat **** and die, I won't mourn for a nano-second.

Farewell, Metsies. I'll miss you.

(I live in South Carolina; not enough free TV Mets games for me to continue if the game is too unrecognizable to merit paying for Gary, Keith & Ron. I'm sure af not watching my "home team" Braves just because I'm bored.)

[Amazin69]

As for the schedule, it's bad enough that some traditional rivals only play each other 7 times a year as it is. (Mets-Cubs, Phils-Pirates, Dodgers-Cards, etc.). To make it even less and take away divisional games so that we can have cameo matchups with every single team in the other league is completely ridiculous, IMO.

Here's how I would fix the schedule.

1) Add two teams to bring the total to 32. It's been 25 years since the last expansion; the population has grown enough to justify a 6.6% expansion of the majors. My suggestion would be to return baseball to Montreal and add Charlotte (North Carolina supports the other three major sports; they're good for four.)

2) Realign by sending the Brewers back to the AL, put both expansion teams in the NL, and swap Colorado for Tampa Bay.

NL Divisions:

East: Mets, Montreal, Philadelphia, Washington
South: Charlotte, Atlanta, Tampa Bay, Miami
Midwest: Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Cubs, St. Louis
West: San Francisco, Dodgers, San Diego, Arizona

AL Divisions:

East: Yankees, Boston, Toronto, Baltimore
Midwest: Detroit, Cleveland, White Sox, Milwaukee
Central: Minnesota, Kansas City, Texas, Houston
West: Seattle, Oakland, Colorado, Angels

Schedule breakdown:

22 meetings v Divisional rivals. (3x22 =66 games)
12 meetings v one other division in league (4x12=48 games)
6 meetings v other divisions in league (8x6 =48 games)

66 +48 +48 =162 games. You would rotate the divisional matchup so that (say) the Mets make two trips to Chicago in 2024, then two to Atlanta in 2025, then two to Dodger Stadium in 2026. And so on?

Interleague play? Hardly necessary, and it was never fair (why should the Mets and Padres be competing for WC spots when they don't play the same teams?) If you want a Met-Yankee game (or Dodger-Angel, Cub-White Sox, Blue Jay-Expo, whatever), just play it on the Thursday after the ASG, and have it be part of the determination for home field in the World Series. (If the Mets beat the Yankees but the Astros lose to the Braves, and the Mets face the 'Stros in the Series, Mets get home field. If both teams got the same result from their interleague game, THEN the All-Star result comes into play, but not before.)

All JMO, naturally. BTW, with only 4 teams per division, only division winners make the playoffs. Bye-bye wild cards! Bye-bye useless extra playoff round!

A pipe dream, obviously. But that's my particular dream.

(There's an argument to put the expansion team in Tennessee instead of Carolina. In that case, move Washington to the South, the Pirates to the East [22 Pittsburgh-Philly games! Yes!] and put the Memphis Bells [or whatever] in with the Cubs, Cards and Reds.)

[andyhdz]

I've seen several minor league games with the pitchcock and they're definitely a godsend. Games are quicker and I enjoy them a lot more.

[mytreds]

MLB is a conservative sport. Progressively changing the game will kill it and drive its main fan base away while failing to recruit new fans. RIP MLB.

The real change that needs to occur is reverse the antitrust ruling from 1922.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by andyhdz

I've seen several minor league games with the pitchcock and they're definitely a godsend. Games are quicker and I enjoy them a lot more.

I know they've changed the # of seconds from what they were testing, but is the rest all the same, like the 8 seconds for the batter and max 2 "disengagements" for the pitcher? How was base-stealing when the pitcher reached their max disengagements? Who does the time-keeping, the umps or someone else? If it wasn't the umps, did someone constantly have to come on the field to stop play? Did it seem like everyone was successfully following the rules or did it seem like it was only sometimes enforced?

I'm honestly curious because all that I read before sounded much simpler than what they've announced.

[PSUColonel]

Regarding the shift ban...what is to prevent a manager from bringing an outfielder into the very shallow outfield (essentially making him an infielder much like you have now) and play with two outfielders? You would have a huge hole in the outfield in the opposite field, but what would stop this?