What would you change in MLB?

[GrantNKY]

One other thing to consider that would increase the popularity of baseball in my opinion would be the support of legalized gambling in MLB. Both the NBA and NFL are behind legalized gambling. The old school, holier than thou baseball purists would be appalled though so full fledged support of gambling in the MLB will never happen but it should. It would likely take instituting Pete Rose in to the hall of fame first to do that so it will never happen. 

[Voice of Reason]

7 hours ago, GrantNKY said:

There are other sports though that are just as long as a baseball game and nobody ever really cites the length as reasons for not watching those sports. I mean when was the last time baseball was really fun? I think most people would point to the home run chase between Sosa and McGuire. I think we should try to get back to that era of baseball any way we can. Eliminating the shift, lowering the pitchers mounds, universal DH, and moving the fences in a bit I think are all ideas to increase action that don’t fundamentally change the game. 

All of those change the game more than a three ball walk.

As I said above, the reason baseball feels slow is pitch, wait, next pitch, wait, foul, step out of box, adjust batting gloves, pitch, wait, pitcher shakes off catcher, shakes off catcher again, steps off rubber, etc. If you are watching golf, they move non stop from player to player always showing a shot. There isn't the down time with nothing happening.

[GrantNKY]

18 hours ago, Voice of Reason said:

All of those change the game more than a three ball walk.

As I said above, the reason baseball feels slow is pitch, wait, next pitch, wait, foul, step out of box, adjust batting gloves, pitch, wait, pitcher shakes off catcher, shakes off catcher again, steps off rubber, etc. If you are watching golf, they move non stop from player to player always showing a shot. There isn't the down time with nothing happening.

I get what you’re saying I just disagree that the options I presented change the sport less. I just wouldn’t be a fan of a rule change as dramatic as moving to a 3 ball walk. 

[Voice of Reason]

11 minutes ago, GrantNKY said:

I get what you’re saying I just disagree that the options I presented change the sport less. I just wouldn’t be a fan of a rule change as dramatic as moving to a 3 ball walk. 

All a three ball walk does is speed up the at bat. What do you see as dramatic and/or negative about a three pitch walk? The only stat that might change is more walks and I am not sure how many more walks would happen. Pitchers will throw more strikes and be more aggressive. That first pitch strike becomes more important to a pitcher.

[Jumper_Dad]

One of Baseball's problems is there are too many games. It makes individual games,  pitches and at-bats insignificant and unable to hold your attention for most of the year. That makes the game seem boring, especially on TV.

The thing that makes MLB playoffs so much better than the regular season is just how important each pitch and at-bat are. A playoff game can swing on one pitch. Regular season has a feeling of, "If we lose, we have 161 more games to make it up, or I have 600 more at-bats."  

[CincySportsFan]

On 2/5/2021 at 1:33 PM, Voice of Reason said:

 Here is why baseball needs to be sped up with some kind of a change - down time with no action taking place. Every time a pitch is thrown we have another minute of down time where we're watching nothing happen.  The battle between pitcher and batter gets dragged out because pitchers can waste pitches throwing balls. Think about what a baseball game would look like if it was one pitch per batter and how much action there would be. Obviously that is extreme but if we get that pitcher batter battle to conclude faster I think it is better for the game.

Disagree.  It's taken the same amount of balls to get a walk for the past 100 years.  The game hasn't slowed down because of some rule change that's suddenly allowed for pitchers to waste more pitches.

The pace has slowed down because we've stroked the egos of the pitcher and hitter by allowing them to "gather themselves" after each and every single pitch.  Growing up in NE Ohio and watching Indians games, one of the guys that I watched a lot was Mike Hargrove.  After each pitch, he'd dig a little more dirt out where his back foot would be, tap his cleats clean, bring his right foot out of the box, then lean the bat against his leg, mess with his helmet and hair, adjust one batting glove, then other batting glove, grab his bat, wipe his nose on his sleeve as he's bringing his other foot back into the box.  After every. single. pitch.  Back then, it's no wonder his nickname was the Human Rain Delay.  But now, there are HUNDREDS of guys who do that...he wouldn't even stand out.

And the pitchers today are no different.  Last year, I watched a repeat of Tom Browning's perfect game from 1988.  I actually timed some of his pitches.  Actually, I timed the "in-between" pitches...from when he got the ball back from Reed, to when he started his windup.  Often times it was 10 seconds...or less!  Guys nowadays feel like they have to have this elaborate routine they go through before they can throw the ball.  Horse hockey!

So, if there's a pitch clock to speed the pace up, it needs to go both ways.  If a pitch is thrown without the batter being ready...it's fine to call it a strike.  If the batter's waiting and the pitcher delays...it's a ball.  If they both delay...add a ball and a strike.  It's a shame that we have to "legislate" something like this, but we see where this me-me-me focus has gotten us.  And honestly 20 seconds is too much, in my opinion.  I'd take it down to 15 or maybe even 12 seconds.  And yes, this would put a lot of pressure on the home plate umpire...but, guess what, that'd be his sole focus.  Calling balls and strikes is going to be automated in my world.  Ump can rule on checked swings, foul tips, HBP, etc.  But, that's it.  If a batter doesn't like the ball/strike call...there's nobody to argue it with, because it's out of their hands.

 

[ColonelMike]

PLEASE, oh please, get rid of the asinine runner on second for extra inning games rule....

[ColonelMike]

MLB doesn't seem to believe that I exist.

I mean, everything the folks running MLB right now have done of late seems to be based on the concept that me - and everyone like me - dislikes the game.

I love baseball.   As it is.  

[CincySportsFan]

Another change I'd make is to put someone with some kahunas in the replay booth. Check that, I'd put 3 people in the booth...majority rules. I'm not asking for 100% conclusive. I'm asking three people to make their own call, based upon what they see on replay.  Once it goes to replay, the umpire's call is inconsequential.  As Mel Allen used to say during TWIB, "you make the call."

Last night's Phillies-Braves game review was a joke.

[punttheball]

Surprised nobody suggested outlawing the defensive shift. 

I go back and forth on it. I do wish more guys would just slap against the shift. 

[TheDeuce]

7 minutes ago, punttheball said:

Surprised nobody suggested outlawing the defensive shift. 

I go back and forth on it. I do wish more guys would just slap against the shift. 

Nothing wrong with the shift IMO. It's no different than knowing where a guy hits the most pitches in the strike zone and throwing away from it. It's strategy. 

If guys want to beat the shift, they should put in the work to not just pull everything. 

[bugatti]

15 hours ago, CincySportsFan said:

Another change I'd make is to put someone with some kahunas in the replay booth. Check that, I'd put 3 people in the booth...majority rules. I'm not asking for 100% conclusive. I'm asking three people to make their own call, based upon what they see on replay.  Once it goes to replay, the umpire's call is inconsequential.  As Mel Allen used to say during TWIB, "you make the call."

Last night's Phillies-Braves game review was a joke.

Replay is one of the umpire crews in rotation in NYC. So it is kind of how you describe, unless I am missing something about your post.

[bugatti]

23 minutes ago, TheDeuce said:

Nothing wrong with the shift IMO. It's no different than knowing where a guy hits the most pitches in the strike zone and throwing away from it. It's strategy. 

If guys want to beat the shift, they should put in the work to not just pull everything. 

Yeah I've never followed the rationale behind wanting to ban it. I suppose the only thing you can equate it to is illegal defense in the NBA. The rule no longer exists, but it does provide for a defensive three seconds now.

[CincySportsFan]

14 minutes ago, bugatti said:

Replay is one of the umpire crews in rotation in NYC. So it is kind of how you describe, unless I am missing something about your post.

Then maybe we need to get somebody not afraid of offending one of their fellow brethren. 

I look at it this way.  Say you have three cameras (viewpoints) to pull from on replay, and you have three sets of eyes looking at the play, multiple times...IN SLOW MOTION...we should not be deferring to the field umpire (one person), with one instantaneous look, from one viewpoint.

As I said before...once it goes to the booth, the call of the umpire is/should be inconsequential.  You make the call based upon what the video evidence is.  There is no certain amount needed to "overrule"...you're making the call based upon only what you can see in the video.  Did you actually see the foot touch the base before the tag?  If so, he's safe.  If you say you're unsure the foot touched the bag, then he's out.  It's so simple, but we've made it so convoluted.

The technology is there, and it's not going away.  Nor should it.  The process of appealing may even be just fine.  But, we've got a bunch of dodos obviously running (and ruining) it.

 

 

[TheDeuce]

22 hours ago, CincySportsFan said:

As I said before...once it goes to the booth, the call of the umpire is/should be inconsequential.  You make the call based upon what the video evidence is. 

I agree completely.