Baseball Article

Discuss current Major League Baseball here.
Ted
Ex-GM
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:50 pm
Has thanked: 368 times
Been thanked: 378 times

Re: Baseball Article

Post by Ted » Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:20 pm

I LOVE the moving the mound back idea. It's one of the best ones proposed. And 2-4 inches is all you would need. Deadening the ball would have to work by getting players to swing for the fences less and work on contact more, shortening their swings up. It might help, but offense could just go in the tank. Moving the mound back 2-4 inches on the other hand basically sets pitcher velocity back about 20-30 years, and that might be all you need to do. Strikeouts down, contact up.

The OTHER thing I would like to see first though, is just put a pitch clock in and enforce it. IF the catcher doesn't receive the ball within 20 seconds of the pitcher receiving it, a BALL is called. IF the batter steps out of the box between pitches, call a STRIKE. I bet, that if you made these guys pick it up, and they couldn't rest up for two minutes between each pitch, you'd see a natural decrease in velocity, batters cutting down on swings, etc.
Ted Schmidt
Twin Cities Typing Nightmares(2044-present)
California Crusaders (2021-2038)
Image

User avatar
RonCo
GB: JL Frontier Division Director
Posts: 19809
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:48 pm
Has thanked: 1981 times
Been thanked: 2901 times

Re: Baseball Article

Post by RonCo » Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:30 pm

In general I agree with a clock, though I think on the whole that a bigger issue than the clock is the number of pitchers being used. I think it's pretty clear a clock is coming.

There's also some thinking that could be done on the grinders--hitters who are soaking up pitches. Hence a more generous strike zone. You want guys swinging.

Anyway..
GM: Bikini Krill
Nothing Matters But the Pacific Pennant
Roster

Ted
Ex-GM
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:50 pm
Has thanked: 368 times
Been thanked: 378 times

Re: Baseball Article

Post by Ted » Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:53 pm

RonCo wrote:In general I agree with a clock, though I think on the whole that a bigger issue than the clock is the number of pitchers being used. I think it's pretty clear a clock is coming.

There's also some thinking that could be done on the grinders--hitters who are soaking up pitches. Hence a more generous strike zone. You want guys swinging.

Anyway..
I'm a fan of just changing one thing at a time, and seeing how it shakes out. I wouldn't be surprised if just making the players work faster doesn't do a TON to help the game. It will even affect the grinders. My guess is that they will strike out more/faster against pitchers who throws strikes (probably looking) and take more walks (but again faster) against guys with command issues. IF they feel rushed, they will just do the thing that is most natural for them, which is taking pitches.
Ted Schmidt
Twin Cities Typing Nightmares(2044-present)
California Crusaders (2021-2038)
Image

User avatar
RonCo
GB: JL Frontier Division Director
Posts: 19809
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:48 pm
Has thanked: 1981 times
Been thanked: 2901 times

Re: Baseball Article

Post by RonCo » Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:02 pm

It's an interesting psychological question. I think the waiting has actually grown more because it's about who's in change rather than as a issue of not wanting to be rushed. Waiting to deliver a pitch says I'm in control. Waiting to get into the box says I'm in control. My guess is that the umpire being in control won't change the actual confrontation--grinders would still grind, etc. But I've been wrong before. :)

The game has been doing all sorts of little things to theoretically deal with basic game pace by reducing dead time (limit mound visits, automatic walk). None of them really do that much.

Realize that back in the day there were fewer actual pitches in a game. Even with a clock, every pitch adds 20 seconds, you can do the math. Remove only 1 pitch an inning and you get 18 20-second segments back. You remove pitches by increasing contact.
GM: Bikini Krill
Nothing Matters But the Pacific Pennant
Roster

Ted
Ex-GM
Posts: 5630
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 2:50 pm
Has thanked: 368 times
Been thanked: 378 times

Re: Baseball Article

Post by Ted » Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:47 pm

RonCo wrote:It's an interesting psychological question. I think the waiting has actually grown more because it's about who's in change rather than as a issue of not wanting to be rushed. Waiting to deliver a pitch says I'm in control. Waiting to get into the box says I'm in control. My guess is that the umpire being in control won't change the actual confrontation--grinders would still grind, etc. But I've been wrong before. :)

The game has been doing all sorts of little things to theoretically deal with basic game pace by reducing dead time (limit mound visits, automatic walk). None of them really do that much.

Realize that back in the day there were fewer actual pitches in a game. Even with a clock, every pitch adds 20 seconds, you can do the math. Remove only 1 pitch an inning and you get 18 20-second segments back. You remove pitches by increasing contact.
This is true, but reducing the time between pitches is a huge factor as well. This has been analyzed extensively. We are up around 11 pitches per game compared to 20 years ago, less than a ten percent increase, and under five minutes of actual game time. We are up just over 3 second between pitches, from 21.5 to 23.8, just in the last ten years. That's 13%. Over the last twenty years, its up something like 30 percent. If we just got back to 20 seconds between pitches, we'd cut about ten minutes from games.

Also, if you make these guys work faster, they can't throw as hard. This has also been studied. Make them go faster, they can't go max effort all the time. Velocity declines, contact goes up that way.
Ted Schmidt
Twin Cities Typing Nightmares(2044-present)
California Crusaders (2021-2038)
Image

User avatar
jiminyhopkins
BBA GM
Posts: 3487
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 2:33 pm
Location: OH
Has thanked: 296 times
Been thanked: 911 times

Re: Baseball Article

Post by jiminyhopkins » Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:51 pm

I just stick to Mud Hens Games. :bowtie:
GM, 2051 and 2053 JL 4TH WILDCARD Phoenix Talons (2029-??), BBA
CARETAKER GM, 2053 GBC CHAMPION Tokyo Pearls (2053 - 2056)
GM, THE GREATEST MINOR LEAGUE TEAM OF ALL TIME Toledo Liberty
Vic Caleca Team News Award Winner: 2051, 2054, 2057

User avatar
RonCo
GB: JL Frontier Division Director
Posts: 19809
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2015 10:48 pm
Has thanked: 1981 times
Been thanked: 2901 times

Re: Baseball Article

Post by RonCo » Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:01 pm

I figure we'll find out soon. A clock is definitely coming as far as I can tell.
GM: Bikini Krill
Nothing Matters But the Pacific Pennant
Roster

Fat Nige
Ex-GM
Posts: 3982
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 3:50 pm
Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire, ENGLAND
Has thanked: 586 times
Been thanked: 456 times

Re: Baseball Article

Post by Fat Nige » Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:26 am

RonCo wrote: For me personally, a big difference is the availability of the game on TV. When I was a kid I watched the Braves and Cubs pretty much any day on WGN/TBS. Today, the broadcasting rights to games are odd contracts, so many times I sit down to catch a game and there's nothing on unless I want to give MLB a bunch of cash for their MLB network.

So, yeah, I think there are problems in baseball-land. Not total deathknell problems, but problems that need to be dealt with.
English football has the same problem with TV availability too, almost all our games at most levels go through cable/sattillite. Very few games on free to view channels, football is strong and has so far has overcome this but TV interference/ reschedules etc is shaking that strength. More and more are turning to illegal streams or overseas streams (everywhere else in the world gets to watch the Premier League live, we get what the cable/satellite companies choose.
Cricket is our big loser, 60’s, 70’s, 80’s it was all over terrestrial (free to view) TV very popular. In the 90’s though it sold its soul to the devil of the cable companies and now it never gets seen. Sky satellite has it wrapped up, they don’t want to show the longer forms of the game so it’s spiralling to shorter and shorter ‘bite-size’ tv. We have moved from mainly four day games down to 20 overs (120 balls) and the latest suggested competition will be 100 balls.
Could cable try to revitalise baseball the same way? Only two outs in an innings? Only 7 innings? Only two strikes? Be careful what you wish for, once the big boys become the main financiers anything can happen
Nigel Laverick
(former GM of El Paso Chilis #WeWereShitty) ,
Now GM Riyadh Red Crescents #WeBeNotSoNewNow #WeAreJustAsShitty


Riyadh GM since May 2046

JL Manager of the Year 2000 (Baltimore Monarchs)
Nothing since


An MBBA GM since 1995 (off & on)

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Return to “MLB Talk”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests