Mound visit rule not part of OOTP?

[rink23]

Is it just me, because I am playing a carryover league that dates back to OOTP19, or is the six-mound visits per game not part of OOTP?
Never really paid attention, as I rarely do more than 2-3 visits per game, until I had a recent game that was really high scoring and I realized I had gone out probably well more than six times in nine innings.
If it is in the game, and I just don't have it turned on, how do you do so?

[jimmysthebestcop]

Originally Posted by rink23

Is it just me, because I am playing a carryover league that dates back to OOTP19, or is the six-mound visits per game not part of OOTP?
Never really paid attention, as I rarely do more than 2-3 visits per game, until I had a recent game that was really high scoring and I realized I had gone out probably well more than six times in nine innings.
If it is in the game, and I just don't have it turned on, how do you do so?

I don't think it is in the game. There is no setting for it as far as I know. Just 1 visit per inning.

MLB really only did it because they are always trying to combat game time as they have targeted "game time" as their ratings Achilles heel. Even though I believe it is the total lack of player personality. I mean coaches/umpires have more personality. But that is off topic.

OOTP can't handle "warm up" for the AI. I know I personally turned it off as I don't sim many games and not seeing the opposing team warm up pitchers it makes me forget to do so.

And I believe the only reason to do a mound visit in OOTP is to get your bullpen more tosses to get ready.

I think it's been alleged there might be some short term effect for your pitcher when in a bad situation. But I've have never seen it stated as 100% fact as a feature/mechanic of the game.

And even if there is some slight benefit of the visit besides reps for the bullpen there is no game mechanic to indicate this to us the human player. If it is a game mechanic the visits should at least produce some kind of "smiley" effect like it does for player personality. Then it be a mechanic. Oh this pitcher likes visits and this one doesn't etc.

It's all speculation about "slight" calming effect. But there is no mechanic for calming effect anywhere. It doesn't exist in ratings, feedback, personality, traits etc.

The importance of mound visits usually pops up once a year on the forum and at least the last 2 years I haven't seen any hard evidence of it doing anything. Again except for the reps if you have warm ups turned on.

well that's my take

[rink23]

OK, so I wasn't missing anything in terms of mound visit limits.

I play out every game in the regular season/postseason, so I got rid of warmups years ago.
As to the calming effect, I've heard there is nothing to it in terms of mound visits.
But I still do them anyway, that way I can pat myself on the back for a good decision when my pitcher battles his way out of a tough situation.

[Anyone]

Originally Posted by jimmysthebestcop

MLB really only did it because they are always trying to combat game time as they have targeted "game time" as their ratings Achilles heel. Even though I believe it is the total lack of player personality. I mean coaches/umpires have more personality. But that is off topic.

Game time isn't it so much as "dead time" where nothing is going on. That increases game time, but it isn't the time it takes to play a game. It's that when games were 2 1/2 hours rather than 3, they had the same amount of action (enough at bats to get 27 outs on each side). The extra 30 minutes (all times approximate, of course) is all boring, dead time.

It is a problem.

Maybe a bigger a problem is the movement toward "3 true outcomes." I believe the areas sabermetricians would all agree on, they are right; but the problem for the game is that teams mostly accepted their findings also, and go for hitters who hit more homers and draw more walks, not worrying if they strike out a lot, steal fewer bases, etc.. While it's nice not to see nearly as many frustratingly bad decisions, more 3 true outcomes at bats diminishes the fun and variety in the games.

There are ways, like forcing bats to be heavier, MLB could make it harder to hit for power. Or if they wanted to be simpler about it, pull back the fences. No fences within 360 feet of the plate, even down the lines, maybe also other restrictions in that spirit (but don't deaden the ball; that will also decrease BABIP).

Increase the size of the strike zones to hurt players whose value is walk-intensive.

Rebalance the elements of the game, in other words, to make sabermetric-favored stratgies less effective. People use them because they absolutely work. So make them not work so well.

They can't make players more interesting in personality; it's really luck (for the whole league) whether or when they come along, as getting a superstar player is for a team, and it wouldn't do as much as making the games more interesting; but by increasing the types of players that are the stars they can make players' abilities have "personality" rather than everyone being "someone else going to try to hit a home run."

[Cynical]

https://www.nationalsarmrace.com/?p=475
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...all-broadcast/



Baseball has more action and less downtime than American Football. Length of games and pace of play isn't the problem; the problem is, post-steroids, the most exciting thing to happen in the game has been a cheating scandal. No one is ever going to put up the kinds of numbers that Bonds, McGwire, and Sosa did without "eating a balanced breakfast" *cough* and so there's no exciting "chases" for the sort-of fan to tune in to watch.

[Anyone]

Originally Posted by Cynical

https://www.nationalsarmrace.com/?p=475
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...all-broadcast/



Baseball has more action and less downtime than American Football. Length of games and pace of play isn't the problem; the problem is, post-steroids, the most exciting thing to happen in the game has been a cheating scandal. No one is ever going to put up the kinds of numbers that Bonds, McGwire, and Sosa did without "eating a balanced breakfast" *cough* and so there's no exciting "chases" for the sort-of fan to tune in to watch.

There's no question that games have the same amount of action they used to, but take much longer to complete. Downtime is bad.

Downtime is probably easier for fans to handle in football, because the commentators can run a replay of the last play and analyze "See how the wide receiver got a step on the cornerback here? That freed him and the QB saw it and hit him." "Yeah, and without the block by the tackle, the QB might not have had the time."

Baseball announcers try, and they do much better in that way than they used to, showing the pitch sequence; but the strategy in baseball within an at bat isn't as deep as that in a given football play, so it just doesn't work equally well. And it's after an at bat, to analyze the pitch sequence. A pitcher taking his time throwing pitches, you just have to wait.

The big thing that would make the game a lot quicker and more exciting-- I know there was some experimentation with this: The pitcher has to throw the ball within 20 seconds of receiving it from the catcher, or it's a ball. The catcher can't hold it more than 5 seconds after receiving it from the pitcher to give the pitcher time, either, or it's a ball. Keep it moving....

[krafty81]

I would argue real world games could be sped up if the batter had to stay in the box after a ball or swing and miss. I am so sick of the "routines", opening and closing velcro on batting gloves, banging spikes, etc...

[Anyone]

Originally Posted by krafty81

I would argue real world games could be sped up if the batter had to stay in the box after a ball or swing and miss. I am so sick of the "routines", opening and closing velcro on batting gloves, banging spikes, etc...

I agree very much with this, too. In fact, I'd say the batter should never be able to step out of the box once he steps in for the at bat (you would leave it open after a pitch taken for a strike for some reason), outside of very unusual circumstances, like debris thrown onto the field.

He has to stay in the box from the moment he steps in for the at bat. And if while in the box he tries to adjust something, he can do that, but the pitcher can throw the pitch while he adjusts his glove.

[Mike D]

Originally Posted by Anyone

I agree very much with this, too. In fact, I'd say the batter should never be able to step out of the box once he steps in for the at bat (you would leave it open after a pitch taken for a strike for some reason), outside of very unusual circumstances, like debris thrown onto the field.

He has to stay in the box from the moment he steps in for the at bat. And if while in the box he tries to adjust something, he can do that, but the pitcher can throw the pitch while he adjusts his glove.

Nice. While were making demands like this, once a pitcher touched the rubber for the beginning of an AB, he should not be allowed to clean his cleats or touch a rosin bag nor be allowed to step off to rub up a baseball. Also, once he's on the rubber getting ready to throw a pitch, he's not allowed to step off, or its an automatic ball.

[Anyone]

Originally Posted by Mike D

Nice. While were making demands like this, once a pitcher touched the rubber for the beginning of an AB, he should not be allowed to clean his cleats or touch a rosin bag nor be allowed to step off to rub up a baseball. Also, once he's on the rubber getting ready to throw a pitch, he's not allowed to step off, or its an automatic ball.

Agreed, though my suggestion some posts back that the pitcher has to throw the ball within 20 seconds of receiving it from the catcher would largely force this anyway, but I'm all for even codifying it in this way.

[cgh3rd]

Does visiting the mound do anything to help the pitcher out?

Thanks,

Chuck

[BBGiovanni]

Originally Posted by Anyone

Agreed, though my suggestion some posts back that the pitcher has to throw the ball within 20 seconds of receiving it from the catcher would largely force this anyway, but I'm all for even codifying it in this way.

You guys are the best, such discerning palates.

If Manfred and the 30 thieves don't ruin/allow collapse in the minor leagues and you've never been to a game, go. The baseball is brisk, and even though between-innings are filled with games and nonsense, it's carefully timed so it doesn't delay the game, and since the pitchers/batters aren't all being OCD divas it's all a very tight and enjoyable package. Even rehabbing major leaguers don't waste time, they want to get their work in and get out of there.

So unless there are extra innings or one or more pitchers can't get anyone out, it's usually over within 3 hours and change. Manfred (and Selig before) wring their hands and moan about shortening games, when all they ever needed to do was catch a few A ball games.

[Brad K]

Look at some old games on youtube. The pitcher gets the ball, spins it around in the glove for a second, looks in for the sign, nods, and throws the ball. Today's pitchers act like they're being careful around explosives.

[r0nster]

what many people forget as to why most sports games last 3 hours such as baseball and football is advertisement revenue. Basketball and hockey go quicker because they do not get the revenue as they depend more on people in the seats where as baseball and most certainly football (pro) do not need us filling seats. just wait till you see their new advertising contract after this season you will understand

[ALB123]

While I hate change, I am aware that professional baseball is in trouble, especially with today's fast-paced society. I think some of these changes should be instituted in High School & College ball first. Let ball players get used to things like a 5-second "get in the box" rule. I just hope a lot of nuance isn't stolen from the game for the sake of selling more jerseys and a bump in the TV ratings.

I know that baseball has changed significantly over the years, but I only care about changing the game as I personally know it. After all, the world does revolve around me.

[polydamas]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Look at some old games on youtube. The pitcher gets the ball, spins it around in the glove for a second, looks in for the sign, nods, and throws the ball. Today's pitchers act like they're being careful around explosives.

Watch a Mark Buerhle game. His games were always quick. He had a 99 minute complete game in 2005 against the Mariners that is still is the only nine-inning contest to be completed in fewer than 100 minutes since 1984.

[TheMaus2]

I'd definitely chalk it up more to branding and the fact that the owners simply do not care about the game outside of the bottom line. Manfred is only doing the bidding of the owners (he's a former labor lawyers for chrissakes!)

[Antonin]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Look at some old games on youtube. The pitcher gets the ball, spins it around in the glove for a second, looks in for the sign, nods, and throws the ball. Today's pitchers act like they're being careful around explosives.

That's a great line!

One of the things I loved about the former Cleveland pitcher John Tomlin is that he didn't mess around on the mound.

[jimmysthebestcop]

There really isn't a problem or need to change rules with baseball on the diamond. The MLB front office problem is that it has no idea how to market baseball in the modern times. It doesn't know how to sell its product the players.

Trout the best player in decades and no ordinary person knows of him or what he even looks like. While my grandmother, who knows nothing of sports, knows who Tom Brady and Lebron James are.

It is why Harper was the most the famous MLB player for years. It goes beyond sports competition people want to be entertained. And it happens in bite size pieces across a multitude of devices now.

MLB is devoid of player personality. The MLB front office is to blame and well as the MLB media. Just look at the unwritten baseball rules. It kills personality and showmanship. That is what modern people want. It is why fans revolted against the NFL in recent years once the NFL tried to squash player personality. It started to hurt their bottom line and they changed.

The NHL has exactly the same problem as the MLB. No one (common person on street) knows 1 NHL player. But the NHL plays its underdog role like a bade of honor and makes it work. MLB being hundreds of years old and the perennial #1 sport until recent times can't really play that hand.

You keep the actual game on the diamond the same. But you must foster personality and showmanship and learn how to sell MLB entertainment. Not just the competition. The unwritten laws have to be done away with.

The game won't survive because it has no personality and no entertainment value. It doesn't matter how good the competition level. If you ask common people to name famous sports players they will all be NFL, NBA and even some huge foreign soceer players making an appearance. MLB and NHL would be lucky to get 2 or 3 players named.

NFL/NBA players are constantly all over modern day media. Have personalities etc. MLB also has the NHL problem because of the huge amounts of foreign players and interviews. Even though the NBA has large amounts they tend to speak English and still get involved in the media. Take Dirk for instance. That means coaching players not just on the sport but media/usa/english while they are in minors.

The common answer to name a baseball player would probably be ARod because he dates Jlo. NBA/NFL arent just covered by sports media but all media. That doesn't happen to MLB/NHL. Except for all the bad publicity with trying to start the mlb season this year.

[Ramzavail]

just get rid of the kiss cam and tshirt launch and voila there's 10 minutes back.