Quote from MrPadre19 on March 8, 2019, 1:17 pm

So apparently MLB is experimenting with rule changes with an agreement with the Atlantic League to implement them this year to see if they produce the results they desire.

New rules include :

Robot assisted Balls and Strikes

No mound visits except to change pitchers or injury

Pitchers must face minimum of 3 batters or reach end of inning

Enlarging the bases by 3 inches from 15 to 18

Require two fielders on each side of 2nd base when pitch is thrown

Shorten time between innings

And my favorite......Moving the pitching rubber  back 2 feet without changing height or slope of mound.

 

Thoughts?

Quote from Brian Connelly on March 8, 2019, 5:38 pm

Quote from David Nevin on March 8, 2019, 1:17 pm

So apparently MLB is experimenting with rule changes with an agreement with the Atlantic League to implement them this year to see if they produce the results they desire.

New rules include :

Robot assisted Balls and Strikes   Would love to see the robot move the entire strike zone vertically up 2-3".  A pitch 2 inches below the letters on guy's chest IS a strike

No mound visits except to change pitchers or injury   Stupid.  Going too far.  I'm OK with limiting the #, but not zero

Pitchers must face minimum of 3 batters or reach end of inning  "or reach end of inning" is a GREAT fix to this flawed idea.  Eliminates the LH/RH per batter Tony La Russa or Bochy switches to some degree, but not totally.

Enlarging the bases by 3 inches from 15 to 18    ?? Why not??  but why?

Require two fielders on each side of 2nd base when pitch is thrown  REALLY like it.  I say paint a line out from 2B to 40-50' into OF; 2 INF each side of the line.

Shorten time between innings   Worth trying.  Little bits of time cumulatively add  up.

And my favorite......Moving the pitching rubber  back 2 feet without changing height or slope of mound.  Like that they're trying it & only in 2nd 1/2 to give a comparison to 1st 1/2, but 2' sounds pretty drastic.  Even 6-12" would help the batters without completely changing where the Pitchers' pitches break, cross plate etc.  Safe bet:  # of walks, hits goes way  up in 2nd 1/2... making games longer.  But may be offset by way more contact outs vs K's that take longer... will be interesting to see.

 

Thoughts?

 

Quote from fenn68 on March 9, 2019, 7:20 am

Testing those rules changes make sense to me (not sure about the base size logic but whatever).

In part pace of play and in part trying to get more balls in play.

The robot strike zone's time has come. One, getting the calls consistent and right should be a core objective. We are now in a state where detailed statistical analysis can show the impact of one bad call ... on the at bat, on the inning, on the game ... basically taking the game away from the players performance. What takes this to a new level is the legitimizing gambling on baseball and that is getting embraced by MLB and with the technology used today ... everyone can see the bad call. Not a good thing if someone has money on the game and opens the door for game fixing with umpires.

I think it is ESPN that has an exceptional robot strike zone technology ... way beyond the 2 dimensional box that everyone else seems to use. The ESPN technology is 3 dimensional and tracks the ball through the entire strike zone ... highlighting "any part of the ball" crossing "any part of the strike zone" by coloring the intersection on red. Rapid feedback. Actually very interesting view ... often surprising when a ball that looks clearly wide or low from the naked eye actually clips a front corner and should be a strike.

If deployed, can see another step in "sizing" the strike zone after the evaluations show whether this move would advantage the hitters or pitchers ... keeping in mind that besides getting the call right the league wants to encourage more hitting balls in play. Clearly a robot strike zone can be modified with just a computer change as opposed to  getting the resistant umpires to change or be consistent.

Sooner the better.

Quote from fenn68 on March 9, 2019, 7:33 am

At first read, thought moving the rubber back was a bad idea and physically be an issue for the pitchers. However, harking back to the late 60s when the height of the mound was legislated lower ... similar arguments existed. Pitchers would have to re-learn how to throw (especially breaking balls) and could (will) cause a spate of arm injuries. A half of century later, baseball still exists ... so the worry is (as usual) is over played.

In the 60s they were trying to put more offense in the game ... same objective now. Moving the rubber back gives a split second more for the batter to react and helps to offset for growing number of arms that just throw hard for one relief inning as their only skill. Might just make "pitchers" more valuable than just "throwers".

More contact ... more balls in play ... good.

Quote from fenn68 on March 9, 2019, 8:19 am

Penny-wise but pound foolish. Tampa Bay is going to renew Blake Snell (pre-arbitration year 3) for near minimum of $573,000. This is within the CBA rules so that is not the issue. TB seems to be strictly adhering to their internal model of paying players and will not deviate lest it gives cause for other players to push for more.

Consider we are dealing with Snell (still just 26) who won the AL Cy Young award last season .... giving no "bonus" adjustment for that kind of performance (that probably make a lot of extra money for the club) is just short sighted. The potentially strained relationship between the club and player who may feel ill used not only hurts any extension talks but may even impact his on field performance (never know how this impact a player's attitude).

More than that ... every other player sees how TB treats its stars and will also not be all that eager to work out deals with TB. Keep in mind that TB's projected payroll is near league low at about $60MM ... so not sure pleading poverty is going to sell given maybe and extra million at this point would have been enough to make the parties happy given the CBA rules.

Package all that ... and we have another Union argument in the next CBA which will lead to a strike. Can see the Union pushing for much higher league minimums and progressions for each year of service ... shorter control times (e.g. 6 years to 5 years) ... basically getting higher pay for the base of the players (not just the premium players). Given TB's model of not paying their core players and just working the 6 year control ... those potential changes would hurt them financially more than most.

Pennywise - Pound foolish.

Quote from Booster SD on March 9, 2019, 4:48 pm

Quote from fenn68 on March 9, 2019, 7:33 am

At first read, thought moving the rubber back was a bad idea and physically be an issue for the pitchers. However, harking back to the late 60s when the height of the mound was legislated lower ... similar arguments existed. Pitchers would have to re-learn how to throw (especially breaking balls) and could (will) cause a spate of arm injuries. A half of century later, baseball still exists ... so the worry is (as usual) is over played.

In the 60s they were trying to put more offense in the game ... same objective now. Moving the rubber back gives a split second more for the batter to react and helps to offset for growing number of arms that just throw hard for one relief inning as their only skill. Might just make "pitchers" more valuable than just "throwers".

More contact ... more balls in play ... good.

The financial set back to this rule change would be difficult to deal with below the professional levels. Think of all of the high schools, middle schools, and city fields that would have to change their mound and the cost of that.

Quote from Commie on March 9, 2019, 5:33 pm

Why not just lower the mound?

Quote from MrPadre19 on March 10, 2019, 5:25 am

24 inches is also too far at one time IMO.

Wouldnt every pitcher have to completely adjust everything they’ve ever done just to throw strikes?

I have a feeling if this idea every becomes a reality it will be with a shorter distance....maybe 1 foot?

If the goal is to add offense moving the rubber 24 inches would do it.

But it wouldn’t help in shortening games.

 

Quote from Brian Connelly on March 10, 2019, 8:32 am

Quote from Booster SD on March 9, 2019, 4:48 pm

Quote from fenn68 on March 9, 2019, 7:33 am

At first read, thought moving the rubber back was a bad idea and physically be an issue for the pitchers. However, harking back to the late 60s when the height of the mound was legislated lower ... similar arguments existed. Pitchers would have to re-learn how to throw (especially breaking balls) and could (will) cause a spate of arm injuries. A half of century later, baseball still exists ... so the worry is (as usual) is over played.

In the 60s they were trying to put more offense in the game ... same objective now. Moving the rubber back gives a split second more for the batter to react and helps to offset for growing number of arms that just throw hard for one relief inning as their only skill. Might just make "pitchers" more valuable than just "throwers".

More contact ... more balls in play ... good.

The financial set back to this rule change would be difficult to deal with below the professional levels. Think of all of the high schools, middle schools, and city fields that would have to change their mound and the cost of that.

Great point.  Did not think of that!