MLB Rule Changes

[Cod]

Originally Posted by 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?

Tampa has already been shifting players between infield/outfield for a couple of years now. I know they've employed four outfielders on multiple occasions against players that very rarely hit the ball on the ground. Bryce Harper and Aaron Judge come to mind where the Rays employed this tactic recently.

[zappa1]

They lie about the pitch clock. It saves nothing. Why? Because hardly anybody violated the rule. That was not what shortened the games. It was cutting the time between innings that did it. The pitch clock is a farce and being made the scapegoat so they could implement it. No way a pitch clock saved 26 minutes a game. That's just silly. Why don't they just leave the game alone for a few years and see how it goes. New rules added every year just to justify a group of people coming up with this garbage. Just because you have a rules committee doesn't mean they need new rules every year. This stuff just continues to ruin this great game for me. What's next? Painting white lines in the outfield grass where the defense can play? Sick of their rules. Manfred needs to go from long ago.

[Jason Moyer]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

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

The numbers they gave to demonstrate the impact of the shift are almost entirely meaningless. They cited a massive drop in batting average from 2011 to now, but BABIP hasn't changed significantly since 1994 and is still around 10 points higher than it was in the 80's and 20 points higher than it was in the 70's. Now who knows, maybe without shifting BABIP would have kept creeping higher and higher for 10-20 years and banning it will cause some huge jump, but I still don't see why it's a problem.

The problem with the balance between hitting/pitching/fielding is the number of strikeouts, and I don't see anything in these rule changes that addresses that.

[Cod]

Originally Posted by zappa1

They lie about the pitch clock. It saves nothing. Why? Because hardly anybody violated the rule. That was not what shortened the games. It was cutting the time between innings that did it. The pitch clock is a farce and being made the scapegoat so they could implement it. No way a pitch clock saved 26 minutes a game. That's just silly. Why don't they just leave the game alone for a few years and see how it goes. New rules added every year just to justify a group of people coming up with this garbage. Just because you have a rules committee doesn't mean they need new rules every year. This stuff just continues to ruin this great game for me. What's next? Painting white lines in the outfield grass where the defense can play? Sick of their rules. Manfred needs to go from long ago.

Mike Hargove and Pedro Baez have entered the chat...

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

The numbers they gave to demonstrate the impact of the shift are almost entirely meaningless. They cited a massive drop in batting average from 2011 to now, but BABIP hasn't changed significantly since 1994 and is still around 10 points higher than it was in the 80's and 20 points higher than it was in the 70's. Now who knows, maybe without shifting BABIP would have kept creeping higher and higher for 10-20 years and banning it will cause some huge jump, but I still don't see why it's a problem.

The problem with the balance between hitting/pitching/fielding is the number of strikeouts, and I don't see anything in these rule changes that addresses that.

BABIP is down around 10 points from when the shift started to be widely implemented circa 2017. But yeah, 10 points. Big whoop. That's around 7 points of batting average. This will not have the big effect that either the pro or the con side think it will.

The other stuff, especially the pitch clock, I'm all for. Well, maybe especially squared the pickoff timer, which I first saw as a proposal in one of Bill James' Abstracts in the 1980s. Yes, runners will be able to take leads of like 50 feet if you use up both of your pickoff moves. That means that in effect you get one. The second basically becomes if the runner is leading waaay too far off of first and you are 100% sure you can get the out.

[BBGiovanni]

Originally Posted by kq76

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.

I'm not 100% sure, as they don't really announce what is happening (in San Jose anyway) and Cal League umpires are even worse than they were for High A. I can't verify the effect on base stealing, as it just seems like guys will run a lot at Low A (I think because the catchers are limited in throwing guys out especially after losing development time for 2 years).

As to the timekeeping, the scoreboard op runs the clock and the ump(s) direct them to start/stop/rewind/whatever. Like anything, there are disputes sometimes when a pitcher blows it, and once in a while the ump may let a second or two go. So, like everything else MLB will throw it in without adequate supervision of umpires and we'll see what happens.

I'm with Andy though, it sounds like Fresno games have been as good as SJ in terms of crisp play. And college and minor league games were way tighter in the first place, few A ball guys are such divas they need to obsess with their batting gloves or take a walk behind the mound after every pitch.

I'll try to pay more attention to the details tonight.

[Westheim]

I can't wait to see Angel Hernandez eject pitchers after they fluster their nostrils when he calls an automatic ball with :02 on the clock.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by BBGiovanni

I'm not 100% sure, as they don't really announce what is happening (in San Jose anyway) and Cal League umpires are even worse than they were for High A. I can't verify the effect on base stealing, as it just seems like guys will run a lot at Low A (I think because the catchers are limited in throwing guys out especially after losing development time for 2 years).

As to the timekeeping, the scoreboard op runs the clock and the ump(s) direct them to start/stop/rewind/whatever. Like anything, there are disputes sometimes when a pitcher blows it, and once in a while the ump may let a second or two go. So, like everything else MLB will throw it in without adequate supervision of umpires and we'll see what happens.

I'm with Andy though, it sounds like Fresno games have been as good as SJ in terms of crisp play. And college and minor league games were way tighter in the first place, few A ball guys are such divas they need to obsess with their batting gloves or take a walk behind the mound after every pitch.

I'll try to pay more attention to the details tonight.

Regarding the clock stuff, minor leaguers have now been subject to it for several years so most of the Rick Mannings are older veterans. It's really up to the MLB umps to enforce this rule, which it has to be said they've been presented with this in the past and have refused to enforce it so it may wind up being a generational issue.

I do have to say that the game time thing, while interesting, is more of a secondary or tertiary stat to look at the thing that's really the point of the rule: to increase the percentage of time there's action in the game. I think the general tide is just beginning to turn away from this but in the 70s and 80s there was a lot less of this thing where hitters leave the batter's box after every pitch to reset or whatever, to the point that guys who did so got a reputation for it.

[Amazin69]

Originally Posted by Cod

Tampa has already been shifting players between infield/outfield for a couple of years now. I know they've employed four outfielders on multiple occasions against players that very rarely hit the ball on the ground. Bryce Harper and Aaron Judge come to mind where the Rays employed this tactic recently.

Again, completely not new; Gil Hodges played a four-man outfield against Dick Allen in 1969. (Eventually, Allen hit one into the second deck and Hodges conceded that he wasn't able to put an outfielder up there.) And I'm sure Gil didn't think it up, either.

But Manly Manfred will keep on acting as if shifts are a nefarious "modern" invention and he's "responding to the fans" (meaning, those fans who tell him what he wants to hear…) and ban four man outfields, five man infields, pitchers shuttling between the mound and the outfield, etc, etc.)

They're just trying to make managing so simple even Luis Rojas can do it. Although that might be impossible, IMO.

[yanko]

In regards to the shift rule what's to say teams won't have infielders in motion like an NFL wide receiver pre-snap? As long as the two infielders on each side is met at the time of the pitch, it seems to be fair game to have the infielders move into position right after the pitch leaves the pitchers hand. It will look ridiculous though but I could see say the SS running full speed trying to time the pitch release to run past second base to position into right field, as an example. If the SS runs past second before the pitch is that considered "offsides"? And is this going to introduce more replays to determine if the defense was legal or not, causing the game to take longer?

[pilight]

Why not bring the outfielder in, shift the other two over, and send the wrong side infielder out.

Hell, just do the shift and if the ump says anything, tell them it's an outfielder. Only the pitcher and catcher are defined positions in the rulebook.

[Cod]

Originally Posted by pilight

Why not bring the outfielder in, shift the other two over, and send the wrong side infielder out.

Hell, just do the shift and if the ump says anything, tell them it's an outfielder. Only the pitcher and catcher are defined positions in the rulebook.

The way I understand the rule, this isn't completely viable because the infielders have to "check in" with the umpire whenever they enter the game and declare which side of the infield they will be on. It's akin to how American football makes people check-in as eligible receivers when stacking the line.

When a player checks-in, he must be on the declared side. So if he goes to the outfield, he would still have to be on the same side of second base at the start of the pitch.

[pilight]

So the Centerfielder has to stay on one side of the bag? Or is MLB mandating the number of infielders/outfielders? This seems like a nightmare for umpires.

[Cod]

Originally Posted by pilight

So the Centerfielder has to stay on one side of the bag? Or is MLB mandating the number of infielders/outfielders? This seems like a nightmare for umpires.

They aren't mandating the number of infielders vs outfielders, but they are mandating the minimum number of people that must have feet in the infield dirt when a pitch is thrown. Per the league:

• Upon release of each pitch, there must be a minimum of four defenders -- other than the battery -- with both feet within the outer boundary of the infield dirt.
• Upon release of the pitch, there must be two of the four infielders on each side of second base.
• The team must designate two infielders for each side of second base and they cannot switch (for example, a team can't have a stud defender move back and forth based upon the handedness of the hitter).

Based on these rules, an outfielder can't just switch with an infielder at any time. You still must have four people on the infield and those four must be in the dirt. However, you could bring in a 5th infielder or play a roving outfielder, but then you only have two outfielders playing normal depth. The rover typically works in men's slow pitch softball because you have four outfielders, not so much in baseball.

[pilight]

Originally Posted by Cod

They aren't mandating the number of infielders vs outfielders, but they are mandating the minimum number of people that must have feet in the infield dirt when a pitch is thrown.

I fail to see the difference.

There's nothing in the rules specifying the depth of infield dirt, or indeed that there must be dirt in the infield at all. This still seems ripe for gamesmanship.

[Syd Thrift]

It seems rife with people arguing a useless point. The shift has had virtually no effect on the game outside of a handful of players (sorry Kyle Seager) and that works in both directions: the new rule won't actually do anything but it also won't change strategy all that much because it doesn't do anything.

[Cod]

Originally Posted by pilight

I fail to see the difference.

There's nothing in the rules specifying the depth of infield dirt, or indeed that there must be dirt in the infield at all. This still seems ripe for gamesmanship.

Not sure what you mean. There are clear rules for defining infields:

• Infield Arc Radius (from pitching rubber): 95’ | 28.9 m
• Infield Hypotenuse: 127' 3-3/8” | 38.8 m

Just because there isn't dirt, doesn't mean the infield doesn't exist with boundaries.

[Cod]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

It seems rife with people arguing a useless point. The shift has had virtually no effect on the game outside of a handful of players (sorry Kyle Seager) and that works in both directions: the new rule won't actually do anything but it also won't change strategy all that much because it doesn't do anything.

To the smart / above average baseball fan, I agree. Casual fans and those new to the game view the shift as terrible for baseball based on what they see (not the data). MLB banning the shift wins the hearts and minds of those, and potential new fans, while ignoring what the diehards already know.

[Syd Thrift]

I mean, the real things that would win actual casual fans would be doing more to open up offenses but even more than that at least IMO making the game less static. I realize we can't rewind to 1985 or whatever but the true culprit here isn't BABIP, which as Jason noted is actually higher now than it was back then, it's that a relatively small number of balls are put into play in the first place compared to 30 or 40 years ago, and those balls are being put into play after longer at-bats.

Mandating that the time between pitches be shorter is a good start. I do feel like the ultimate answer here is something more drastic, like moving the mound back or making the ball slightly larger. It's clear that hitters whiffing is not exactly a new trend but one that's continued from when K rates plummeted at the end of the deadball era until now (although the rates were relatively unchanged from the 60s to the 90s and then have been greatly accelerated over the last decade or so). That tells me that just waiting for things to get better on their own, which has done baseball well in the past, isn't going to exactly work this time out.

Of course they'll need to test this in the minor leagues and all that...

[cephasjames]

Yeah, I'm okay with the rules designed to speed up the game.

The jury is out in my mind on the limited pickoff throws. We'll see how/if that gets exploited or if it works as hoped.

Not a fan of banning the shift. Not because "batters need to just hit it where the fielders aren't" or some grumpy old man saying like that, but because, as has been mentioned, the stats don't prove its necessity.

I also agree on the idea that measures need to be taken to lessen the advantage pitchers currently have over batters. Not a fan of a bigger ball (yet) but I'm on board with lowering the mound and/or moving the mound back some. Pitchers are just too dominant right now and the game doesn't have enough action.