Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hangar Talk' started by timwinters, Feb 8, 2019.
It's being reported that the national league is considering going to designated hitters...
I say no but not because dh is Stoopid. Because otherwise what's the difference between Al and nl?
Chicks dig the long ball. When you can put essentially 2 first basemen on the team and bat them both, offensive numbers go up and casual fans that like home run derby type games get what they pay for. More casual fans = more money.
Personally I'd rather field a team of Ichiro/Rickey Henderson/Ty Cobb and small ball 130 wins a year. But since all that is gone from the from early on, kids starting out want to go yard, small ball is dead.
Just like every other sport the end result is money and those who were alive prior to the DH in the AL aren't the target audience anymore.
DH takes away from the the game. Although, looking at the Phillies manager it would make his life easier since he has no clue about pitching or game strategy. Yes, I am a Phillies fan.
+1, the game has changed, small ball IS dead, and it's all about the $$$. It sucks.
Worse than the DH, they also want to eliminate the lefty v lefty pitching match-up by requiring a pitcher to pitch to 3 batters unless the inning ends. Pretty soon there will be no need for a manager.
Tell the 2015 Royals that small ball is dead.
What about the 2019 Royals? Or the 2018 second worst record in the majors Royals?
I'm actually okay with that rule change (or some iteration of). I HATE the idea of putting a pitcher in for one batter, or even three honestly. I know why they do it, but it slows the game down in a game that moves slowly enough as it is. I miss the days of having a starter throw for 6-7 innings and a closer coming in for 2-3. Having games where each team is throwing 5-6 guys isn't how I like to see the game played. Yeah, playing percentages and not letting the lineup see the same pitcher is great and all, but it diminishes the game.
Yup, my Royals showed is was still relevant in back-to-back 'Series. Oakland and their moneyball/smallball hasn't been too bad, either.
2018 was going to be a rebuilding year from the start so the only surprise was just how bad they turned out to be and much of that can be blamed on a historically bad bullpen. Once they jettisoned some of the deadwood and let the kids play they were much better in the second half. 2019 will be interesting because the trades last summer and the offseason signings all point to the team going back to its roots, the real question this year will be pitching.
Every successful Royals team from the earliest days of the franchise to the 14-15 teams has been built around pitching, speed, and defense.
MLB is dead but nobody noticed.
Naw, you're thinking of the NFL. Or NASCAR.
Employment for one-trick ponies.
2018 was certainly a terrible year for Royals in the league, but historically they don't even make the list of Top 20 worst overall records. When you have to sell off most of your talent in 2016/2017 because the large-market teams showed the cash, 2018 ended up with the cupboard pretty bare.
In that case, since there are 9 players and 9 innings (barring OT), maybe the players should rotate positions each inning. That might make the game half way interesting.
I really, REALLY hope the NL doesn't go this route. I for one love the dynamics and strategy of the pitcher having to hit. Especially in the WS when an AL team plays in a NL park.
KC will be interesting this year. Yeah, they have to play a version of small-ball, since they have one of the largest outfields in MLB. They need the guys that can spray hits and then leg out a double or triple. The long ball guys in this park remind me of the slow pitch softball guys that set their cigarette and beer on the bench, grab a bat, hit the ball a mile over the fence, jog around the bases, and then go take a seat again.
I wasn't a fan of the DH when it got started, but now that it's in place it's hard to go back. There is something to be said about making the leagues more consistent - when an AL team plays in an ML stadium, they have to do it without 1/9 of their offense. The purist in me, though, always wants to see the pitcher take his turn with the bat just like everyone else has to. The double-switch and PH you see in the NL gives people something to talk about, but I'm not sure what it actually does for the game. I don't know how it affects average scores or average game times.
The 3-batter minimum rule for pitchers --- nope, not a fan. Sure, when teams do the lefty/righty switch it adds time, but sometimes you need to yank a pitcher after one batter. I'm not sure how to handle a case where a guy comes in from the pen and ends up not even getting one pitch close to the strike zone. I don't think you want force a team to have to leave him in to walk 2 more batters before you can pull him. There might be a lot of "owww, my elbow!" injuries. Maybe you only get so many pitching changes before you have to give up a replay challenge? Dunno how to work this one. They already have the rule that after a certain number of mound visits a pitching change must happen.
The other change that's being considered is a 20-second pitch clock. That one will be interesting to see. I wonder if they'll try that during spring training?
There is now?
Already used here in AAA ball.
I think triple A has had that for a couple years now.
Or do what Formula 1 does: put a finite time limit on a game. 2.5 hours would make me happy.
It seems like baseball wants to do two things, shorten the games and increase scoring. What most people fail to understand is that those two things are mutually exclusive. Making hitters stay in the box and pitchers work quicker can help cut a little dead time, but the game naturally slows down anytime there are runners on.
Just cut out the time between pitches; both the pitchers and the hitters have expanded that greatly since the good old days of my youth. Someone will come out the winner if, say, a ball was given for DOG by the pitcher, and a strike if the batter steps out one too many. I doubt it will change scoring much, if the timed pitch rule stays the same with batters on base. Heck, limit the throws to first base.
Umpires have had the ability to award balls to pitchers that take too long for years, they just haven't enforced those rules.
I wouldn't be a fan of limiting throws to first, but i'm sure this years Royals team would love that idea.
The throws to first base (or any other base) is strategy, very rarely an actual delay of the game. It interrupts the base runner, makes the batter reset/readjust. It's not like you have pitchers throwing over to 1st five times in a row without throwing home. I do hate batters stepping out of the box and re-strapping batting gloves, helmets, shoelaces, sweatbands, etc. It was never really a thing decades ago.
I love baseball. I prefer that pitchers hit, or force the manager to use the bullpen. That's an important strategic part of the game.
And while you're at it @timwinters - WTF is renaming the DL to the IL? Injured is so much more PC than Disabled.
Solutions looking for problems, I suppose.
One of the things they did to "speed up the game" was to eliminate the need to throw four pitches for an intentional walk. Now you can just wave the batter over to first. That really sped things up, it gets used, what, once every other game?
Some of the blame is being given to the stats guys that are managing the game. Every pitch, every shift, every at-bat is all micromanaged to get the maximum odds of the outcome in favor of that team. On-base percentage is a big deal, so every batter fouls off as many pitches as possible before getting either that walk or that one pitch he's able to put into play. I know that game times keep creeping up, but I haven't found the numbers on how many pitches per at bat each game averages. One of the ways to shorten that up would be to open the strike zone and force batters to swing more often.
I voted yes for the hell of it, but I really don't care. I grew up with the DH, watching the Brewers when they were still in the AL. I think there's some interesting strategy around the pitchers batting, and I wish they would just freaking learn to bat better, but they don't. So, it's kind of the "gimme out" and I'm kinda tired of it.
A pitch clock would be interesting. Regarding fouls, maybe limiting it to two fouls when you already have two strikes would make things more interesting.
SOMETHING needs to get more interesting. Watching baseball has gotten almost as bad as watching golf.
Go Braves!!! Can't wait for opening day. The NL East should be interesting. Phillies should contend even if they don't add Harper. No to DH in the National League. Go Braves!!!
Ask me if I care. Baseball is boredom interrupted only by inactivity.
Want to speed the game up? Stop letting batters take so long before they step back in the box for the next pitch. Swing and miss, get back in your stance, take a warmup swing, and then take the pitch. None of the prima donna walking around adjusting half of their uniform full-on OCD routine. Just get to it.
If you want to speed up baseball, make it 2 innings.
Football can be 2 possessions per team.
Soccer can be 30 minutes (won't even effect the score)
Hockey can be 2 fights (that will keep the game time lowwwwww)
Golf can be left off of television altogether. Just like paint drying.
Of course, none of this addresses the only true need for these activities and televising them. If the "game", "event", or whatever is shorter there will be less advertising revenue. THAT CANNOT HAPPEN!
The only thing I would change is to not allow warm up on the mound for a new pitcher. Manager wants to sub a new pitcher, get him warmed up in the pen and on the mound NOW.
Yeah it was. I remember Mike Hargrove when my dad would take me to Indians games at Muni Stadium in the late 1970s/early 1980s. His at bats would take 10 minutes. He was the highlight of the game for me as a kid. We loved Andre Thornton (DH) and Buddy Bell as well. Good memories for a sucky team. 3-4K fans in an 80k plus venue.
True. But if you remember, it was two pitchers in that commercial, Glavine and Maddox. The chicks wouldn't be able to dig pitchers hitting the long ball any more.
So they want to speed up the game. At the same time, I imagine the money guys are not thrilled with a faster game that reduces concession sales. Decisions, decisions.
They also have to consider the players union that has wanted the DH in both leagues for years. With renegotiation of the contact coming up in '20 or '21 this could go some distance against the complaints that the owners are holding down the value/salaries of free agents.
The proposed rule change that bothers me is "runner automatically on second for extra innings".
One of the greatest things about baseball is its continuity.
It’s what makes comparing generations of players possible. Stats are still kept the same way they were from the early days. Rules changes over the years have made some differences, but not really anything fundamental to the game. Except the hinged glove that killed the .400 batter, but that wasn’t a rules change, though. My great grandfather, if he were still alive, wouldn’t recognize the jumbo-tron, the ice cream sundaes in a helmet, or the physical size of the players these days, but he would still be able to keep a score book and recognize an infield fly.