Tracking page for impact of MLB Rule Changes

[LansdowneSt]

Baseball-Reference has a new page tracking the impact of the new MLB 2023 rules. Everything from Game Time to Baserunning to Shifts. These changes have been discussed in various threads but quantitative data is always helpful. Here's the link:

https://www.baseball-reference.com/f...es-stats.shtml

[ashantewarrier]

Originally Posted by LansdowneSt

Baseball-Reference has a new page tracking the impact of the new MLB 2023 rules. Everything from Game Time to Baserunning to Shifts. These changes have been discussed in various threads but quantitative data is always helpful. Here's the link:

https://www.baseball-reference.com/f...es-stats.shtml

Cool! Thanks for this!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pelican]

Actual metrics due tend to quiet discussions. I've been a steadfast opponent of the pitch clock; but it's really hard to argue with the results, if your only goal is to rush through games. That said, suspect that the effect, if any, of the three-batter minimum for relievers was negligible. Not worth the lack of flexibility for managers. Likewise hard to tease out the effect of the limit on pickoff throws, but maybe a minute or two per game? Of course, ghost runners have cut down on the total game time for extra innings; but at a cost of the integrity of the game = not worth it!

[cody8200]

Originally Posted by Pelican

Actual metrics due tend to quiet discussions. I've been a steadfast opponent of the pitch clock; but it's really hard to argue with the results, if your only goal is to rush through games. That said, suspect that the effect, if any, of the three-batter minimum for relievers was negligible. Not worth the lack of flexibility for managers. Likewise hard to tease out the effect of the limit on pickoff throws, but maybe a minute or two per game? Of course, ghost runners have cut down on the total game time for extra innings; but at a cost of the integrity of the game = not worth it!

I LOVE the pitch clock and hate the Manfred Man. Feels so much more like an 1980s/90s baseball game I grew up on. But the 2nd base runner in extra innings has got to go.

[Rain King]

It is imperative these days for there to be a rule that in effect eliminates the marathon games as pitching staffs are no longer built to handle them.

I don't care much what that rule is. For example, I would have no issue with calling the game a tie after 12-innings as they do in Japan.

However, some kind of rule is necessary and both the players and coaches seem to like the current one. I'm always quite surprised at the extremely vocal fan opposition to it.

[ojoe]

Originally Posted by Pelican

but it's really hard to argue with the results, if your only goal is to rush through games.

Is that the only goal? Is that really a goal at all? "Improve pace of play" is not the same thing as "let's get this over with as quickly as possible."

Originally Posted by Pelican

Of course, ghost runners have cut down on the total game time for extra innings; but at a cost of the integrity of the game = not worth it!

The Baseball-Reference page indicates that the time of game stats only include 9-inning games. So the free runner has no effect on the time-of-game averages posted there.

Not sure how that's an integrity of the game issue. It's a new rule. Everybody has to play by the rule. It's not selectively enforced or give an inherent advantage (or disadvantage) to anybody. So I think the integrity of the game is just fine.

What has lost its integrity? The meaning of "ghost runner." Ghost runners aren't really there. They're for when you have really small teams and a player's turn to bat comes up while they're still on base. Ghost runner on 3rd, come back in and hit. The runner on extra innings is a free runner, but he's really there, so he's not a ghost.

[cheo25]

Originally Posted by cody8200

But the 2nd base runner in extra innings has got to go.

I can't stand this rule.

[Rain King]

Originally Posted by cheo25

I can't stand this rule.

I've seen a lot of these kind of statements, but have yet to see someone actually put together a good argument against it or really even describe why they dislike it.

[andyhdz]

Originally Posted by cody8200

I LOVE the pitch clock and hate the Manfred Man. Feels so much more like an 1980s/90s baseball game I grew up on. But the 2nd base runner in extra innings has got to go.

If Manfred gets the criticism for one rule he should get the praise for the other. The Manfred Clock?

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Rain King

I've seen a lot of these kind of statements, but have yet to see someone actually put together a good argument against it or really even describe why they dislike it.

A simple question: why should only extra innings get this 2nd base runner? Why not have a runner at 2nd base for the start of every inning?

What other rules exist or have existed which are/were exclusive to extra innings?

[LansdowneSt]

Um… the thread was intended to provide people with quantitative data to adjust their sims to reflect the way the game is evolving. So if one wanted to adjust for more hits, more SB attempts, higher SB percentages, etc., they’d have accurate, up-to-date numbers to inform their game stat modifiers. I didn’t post it to debate the one change not discussed on that baseball reference page. How it morphed into a Talk Sports thread about a now old rule is beyond me.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by LansdowneSt

Um… the thread was intended to provide people with quantitative data to adjust their sims to reflect the way the game is evolving. So if one wanted to adjust for more hits, more SB attempts, higher SB percentages, etc., they’d have accurate, up-to-date numbers to inform their game stat modifiers.

It's mostly pointless to do that, however, while the season is in progress since the data will necessarily be incomplete. Just because the early data may indicate certain trends does not mean those trends will be sustained for the remainder of the season.

One really needs a full season to draw any conclusions, and quite possibly multiple seasons.

[LansdowneSt]

It may. It may not. I’m not going to argue. The site is updated daily so when the data stabilizes can be seen. Because it’s data.

[Syd Thrift]

Back to the original topic… the shift rule appears to have wound back about half of the loss of BABIP compared to 2017, although early outcomes indicated that maybe it’d all get rolled back. Still, we’re talking about .295 as opposed to the high of .300, so this is not really a huge difference.

The bigger bases but I suspect especially the 3 moves to first rule has caused a 33% increase in steals with caught stealings remaining static, although at that I suspect there are more “classic” 2-6 or 2-4 CSes while the 1-3-6 pickoff is all but nonexistent.

[Rain King]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

A simple question: why should only extra innings get this 2nd base runner? Why not have a runner at 2nd base for the start of every inning?

What other rules exist or have existed which are/were exclusive to extra innings?

Because that is the first point where the game has extended past its' expected length.

Teams also get extra mound visits in extra innings. Do you believe that rule should also be eliminated?

When you look at other sports, almost all of them have rules that change once the expected amount of play has been exceeded because of a tie.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Rain King

Because that is the first point where the game has extended past its' expected length.

So? Why should the rules change just because additional innings are needed to resolve the game? Why not just call it a tie? Other baseball leagues do this. (Indeed, MLB itself does this during spring training.)

Originally Posted by Rain King

Teams also get extra mound visits in extra innings. Do you believe that rule should also be eliminated?

Feel free to explain how an extra mound visit materially changes the way the game is played on the field as compared to effectively granting clubs a double it did not hit.

Originally Posted by Rain King

When you look at other sports, almost all of them have rules that change once the expected amount of play has been exceeded because of a tie.

Not originally. Leagues have over the years altered their rules for extra time in the regular season to become more gimmicky.

[Syd Thrift]

Oh boy, another thread that just wanted to do something not involving debate bro pervertry turned into debate bro pervertry.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Oh boy, another thread that just wanted to do something not involving debate bro pervertry turned into debate bro pervertry.

"The debate must flow!" — Baron Harkonnen, probably

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

"The debate must flow!" — Baron Harkonnen, probably

There’s no sign in here that says you have to keep going.

[Dr Naysay]

Anybody see the new rules snuck through for testing in the Atlantic league? I like the current rule changes but these new ones in testing are just horrible imo.

https://sports.yahoo.com/mlb-announc..._ilIjNk4MCX8Np