MLB sends 2 new rule changes to Union

[Russ2dollas]

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/18631714/mlb-proposes-scrapping-intentional-walk-raising-strike-zone

thoughts?

1. if you intentionally walk someone you just give a signal and they go. no more tossing 4 softballs
2. raise the strike zone.

I like them both.

I think the letters to the top of the knees should be the zone. It seems like the zone right now is the bottom of the belt to halfway up the shin.

[bravesfanMatt]

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/18631714/mlb-proposes-scrapping-intentional-walk-raising-strike-zone

thoughts?

1. if you intentionally walk someone you just give a signal and they go. no more tossing 4 softballs
2. raise the strike zone.

I like them both.

I think the letters to the top of the knees should be the zone. It seems like the zone right now is the bottom of the belt to halfway up the shin.

as hard as pitchers throw now.. a higher zone will kill scoring.

[mqt]

Intentional walks should definitely be done the way they're proposing. It's pointless to make them do it.

[striker42]

I'm not a huge fan of either.

I understand the reasoning of the intentional walk and think it's going to happen sooner rather than later. However, while the majority of IBBs are uneventful, every so often it's fun like when a pitch is too close to the zone and the hitter swings or when it goes to the backstop. I'm a purist so this isn't surprising. However, eliminating it does speed up the pace of the game and reduces a slight injury risk.

As for raising the zone, it would result in a lot more offense and probably a lot more Ks. Both make the game faster moving and more exciting but it makes the game harder for sinkerballers. Guys in the mold of Tim Hudson would be disproportionately impacted.

[striker42]

as hard as pitchers throw now.. a higher zone will kill scoring.

I'm not so sure. It will definitely jump Ks but it will make pounding the bottom of the zone harder.

[FreemanFan]

I dislike rule 1. A lot can go wrong during the baseball's trip to home plate. The pitcher should have to actually throw balls and the catcher catch them.

Raising the strike zone is fine with me. It used to be knees to letters. I'd go back to that.

[mfree80]

I dislike rule 1. A lot can go wrong during the baseball's trip to home plate. The pitcher should have to actually throw balls and the catcher catch them.

Raising the strike zone is fine with me. It used to be knees to letters. I'd go back to that.

I 'm mixed. A lot of pitchers make a living by being able to stay down in the zone. Making that bottom of the zone pitch more hittable by moving it up a few inches should take that pitch away from some pitchers. Calling more high strikes could make the hitters more aggressive, and I believe will lead to more strikeouts. The guys who will be hurt by that change will be hitters with good strike zone judgement who will be forced to swing at pitches they are less likely to be able to hit.

I am also enough of a purist to want to see a pitcher make a mistake on and IBB every now and then!!!!

[Enscheff]

I dislike rule 1. A lot can go wrong during the baseball's trip to home plate. The pitcher should have to actually throw balls and the catcher catch them.

Raising the strike zone is fine with me. It used to be knees to letters. I'd go back to that.

I agree with your thoughts on Rule 1. I read there were a total of about 1000 intentional walks total in 2016, which is less than 1 every other game. I don't see how getting rid of 30 seconds every other game is worth losing the few interesting plays that can occur during an intentional walk.

I'm indifferent on Rule 2 because I haven't seen any data either way. Plus, I assume umpires will continue to call the zone so poorly that changing the zone a few inches will have minimal effect overall.

[Horsehide Harry]

I agree with your thoughts on Rule 1. I read there were a total of about 1000 intentional walks total in 2016, which is less than 1 every other game. I don't see how getting rid of 30 seconds every other game is worth losing the few interesting plays that can occur during an intentional walk.

I'm indifferent on Rule 2 because I haven't seen any data either way. Plus, I assume umpires will continue to call the zone so poorly that changing the zone a few inches will have minimal effect overall.

If they want to speed up the game they could start by not having so many GD commercial breaks.

[Managuarantano's Volunteers]

If they want to speed up the game they could start by not having so many GD commercial breaks.

Hear, hear.

[cajunrevenge]

What I would like to see is balls and strikes called by computers. Its time we get that **** right. It affects the outcome of games way too much.

[Managuarantano's Volunteers]

Would also be faster...just saying.

[50PoundHead]

Absolutely no to #1. It would totally invalidate one of the great fake-out moments in baseball history.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR0jGrfQCu4

[striker42]

I agree with your thoughts on Rule 1. I read there were a total of about 1000 intentional walks total in 2016, which is less than 1 every other game. I don't see how getting rid of 30 seconds every other game is worth losing the few interesting plays that can occur during an intentional walk.

I'm indifferent on Rule 2 because I haven't seen any data either way. Plus, I assume umpires will continue to call the zone so poorly that changing the zone a few inches will have minimal effect overall.

You might be right about rule 2. I doubt most umps would be able to implement a new zone.

They need to stop tinkering with the zone and work on having a consistent zone. If you're consistent, pitchers and hitters will adjust accordingly.

[Knucksie]

1. if you intentionally walk someone you just give a signal and they go. no more tossing 4 softballs


This is not just a hypothetical situation. It has happened. Runner in scoring position. Pitcher starts to intentionally walk batter. One soft toss is thrown wildly over catcher's shoulder. Runner advances!

[smootness]

1. Part of me likes the idea that you have to actually perform the action of throwing pitches. The only reason it's an 'intentional walk' is because it appears the pitcher threw 4 intentional balls, but it's not an actual part of baseball in and of itself. It's just 4 pitches thrown intentionally way outside the zone, but they're still live plays like any other. And yes, it would do virtually nothing to speed up games. Having said that, I don't really care either way, and nothing interesting happens on 99.9% of them, so if they change that, fine.

2. I don't fully understand this one. The article only mentions raising the bottom of the zone. It makes sense that if they raise the bottom, they'll also raise the top, but do we know that's part of it? Anyway, my issue is that they're trying to correct umpire mistakes by changing the actual rule. That is counter-intuitive. They don't have a problem with the zone as currently outlined, they just have a problem with the way it's called in games, and they're hoping by raising it above the knee, it only actually goes down to below the knee. That is dumb. Just tell your umpires they're doing a bad job and hold them accountable when they don't call it correctly. Problem solved.

[Russ2dollas]

This is not just a hypothetical situation. It has happened. Runner in scoring position. Pitcher starts to intentionally walk batter. One soft toss is thrown wildly over catcher's shoulder. Runner advances!

so?

i want faster and more balls in play. i dont like seeing guys pound it into the ground bc the shins are in the zone.

I'm all for robo umps for balls and strikes. Sign me up. I think the chest is the original high point and it should be. If you have elite velocity good for you. You will see a lot of Ks. you'll also see some crazy HRs.

Main issue is safety if guys try to throw up more.

Right now I feel like i either see belt to mid shin (most of the time) or navel to just below the knee. I think the navel to knee is just too small. Too many walks. Have to have truely elite stuff to pitch in that box.

So I want balls in play but not a bunch of 10-7 games.

[smootness]

so?

i want faster and more balls in play. i dont like seeing guys pound it into the ground bc the shins are in the zone.

I'm all for robo umps for balls and strikes. Sign me up. I think the chest is the original high point and it should be. If you have elite velocity good for you. You will see a lot of Ks. you'll also see some crazy HRs.

Main issue is safety if guys try to throw up more.

Right now I feel like i either see belt to mid shin (most of the time) or navel to just below the knee. I think the navel to knee is just too small. Too many walks. Have to have truely elite stuff to pitch in that box.

So I want balls in play but not a bunch of 10-7 games.

....

He quoted and responded to your post about the intentional walk, and you replied with a further explanation of your thoughts on the strike zone. I'm confused.

[Russ2dollas]

....

He quoted and responded to your post about the intentional walk, and you replied with a further explanation of your thoughts on the strike zone. I'm confused.

so was my comment...it wasn't clear.

I don't see slowing down the game for the tiny chance that something happens. Yes it's possible to throw a strike, throw a wild pitch or get a base stolen. I agree.

I just don't agree that the chance of that pink elephant is worth the vast majority of intentional walks.

[Metaphysicist]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6YzVvtxoaY

[Metaphysicist]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WgK4FtRkTo

[Metaphysicist]

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/1995/sep/12/galarraga-cashes-in-on-intentional-walk/

Andres Galarraga was shocked that a pitcher would intentionally walk a batter to get to him. Then Galarraga did some shocking of his own.

Galarraga, at bat after Larry Walker was passed intentionally, doubled off the left field wall with one out in the last of the 12th inning Monday night, giving Colorado a 5-4 victory over Atlanta and sole possession of first place in the N.L. West.

“I couldn’t believe they left (Brad) Woodall, a left-hander, in to pitch to me after he’d walked Walker,” the right-handed hitting Galarraga said. “I took it personal. I got a slider up high and nearly hit it out.”

The ball caromed off the 347 sign near the line in left and Mike Kingery scored easily from second.

The victory was Colorado’s fifth in a row, matching a season high, and gave the Rockies a one-game lead over Los Angeles, which was beaten at Chicago.

[Metaphysicist]

Braves' Adcock Spurns Intentional Walk, Reaches for Hit to Beat Pirates in 10th (http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1957/03/23/page/22/article/braves-adcock-spurns-intentional-walk-reaches-for-hit-to-beat-pirates-in-10th/)

[Knucksie]

so?

i want faster and more balls in play. i dont like seeing guys pound it into the ground bc the shins are in the zone.

I'm all for robo umps for balls and strikes. Sign me up. I think the chest is the original high point and it should be. If you have elite velocity good for you. You will see a lot of Ks. you'll also see some crazy HRs.

Main issue is safety if guys try to throw up more.

Right now I feel like i either see belt to mid shin (most of the time) or navel to just below the knee. I think the navel to knee is just too small. Too many walks. Have to have truely elite stuff to pitch in that box.

So I want balls in play but not a bunch of 10-7 games.

None of what you said has anything to do with my post.

Even if the walk is intentional, the pitcher still has to throw 4 pitches according to the existing rules. If a pitch is wild or a PB, that's the reason, esp. if there are runners on base with an opportunity to advance.

[Enscheff]

so was my comment...it wasn't clear.

I don't see slowing down the game for the tiny chance that something happens. Yes it's possible to throw a strike, throw a wild pitch or get a base stolen. I agree.

I just don't agree that the chance of that pink elephant is worth the vast majority of intentional walks.

Again, there were less than 1000 total intentional walks in all MLB games last year. If my math is correct, there were 2430 games in total, not including playoffs.

That comes out to a single intentional walk every 2.43 games, each one taking about 30 seconds. The overall increase in pace of play will be almost zero.

Is saving 30 seconds 3 times per week (on average) in games played by your team worth losing the few interesting plays that happen during an intentional walk? I don't think it is.

The biggest place to improve pace of play is time between pitches when players are literally standing around doing nothing, and there is zero chances of anything happening. Fix the real problem rather than making a rule that won't speed the game up anyways.

[bravesfanMatt]

Again, there were less than 1000 total intentional walks in all MLB games last year. If my math is correct, there were 2430 games in total, not including playoffs.

That comes out to a single intentional walk every 2.43 games, each one taking about 30 seconds. The overall increase in pace of play will be almost zero.

Is saving 30 seconds 3 times per week (on average) in games played by your team worth losing the few interesting plays that happen during an intentional walk? I don't think it is.

The biggest place to improve pace of play is time between pitches when players are literally standing around doing nothing, and there is zero chances of anything happening. Fix the real problem rather than making a rule that won't speed the game up anyways.

*2429 -1 cancelled game

agreed.. enforce the batter stepping out rule..

Then we can discuss the #of pitching changes per inning.. pitch clock for pitchers... time between innings (don't see that happening since that is a big source of revenue)

[Enscheff]

*2429 -1 cancelled game

agreed.. enforce the batter stepping out rule..

Then we can discuss the #of pitching changes per inning.. pitch clock for pitchers... time between innings (don't see that happening since that is a big source of revenue)

Yeah, it seems to be the equivalent of tinting the windows of a car that doesn't start and has 4 flat tires.

[The Chosen One]

Thank you Enscheff for toning it down. That joke was pretty tame by your standards.

[Orphan Black]

Wow...Sanchez almost hit his for a homer

[Russ2dollas]

heard Buster on Mike and mike this morning.

He said that the issue wasn't the rule, it was the umps lowering the strike zone on their own.

Why can't we have pitch tracker be the strike zone other that the Ump union?

[50PoundHead]

heard Buster on Mike and mike this morning.

He said that the issue wasn't the rule, it was the umps lowering the strike zone on their own.

Why can't we have pitch tracker be the strike zone other that the Ump union?

Because Curt Schilling would go to every park and smash the pitch tracker with a baseball bat like he did with the QuesTec machines. From Wikipedia:

Meanwhile, a more hands-on approach was taken by former Arizona Diamondbacks pitcher Curt Schilling; Schilling used a bat to smash one of QuesTec's field cameras after being told by an umpire that he wanted to call some of his pitches strikes, but QuesTec made him call them balls, an act that led to a fine for the pitcher. The NLRB grievance was dropped by the WUA as part of the contract negotiations with MLB after the 2005 season, ending the legal challenges to the system.

[smootness]

heard Buster on Mike and mike this morning.

He said that the issue wasn't the rule, it was the umps lowering the strike zone on their own.

Correct.

In terms of using pitch tracker, to begin with, I don't trust pitch tracker. There are definitely times where it seems to have missed where the pitch ended up. Now, it's possible I'm just dumb and their tracker is much better than what I can see with given angles. But even if pitch tracker was entirely accurate, I'm not totally sure I would be in favor of using it. I do like the idea of the strike zone not being the exact same every game, which forces pitchers and hitters to adjust. I know some think that's stupid, but I do like the idea of that. But you just have to have a line for what is unacceptable in umpiring and enforce it.

[thewupk]

Correct.

In terms of using pitch tracker, to begin with, I don't trust pitch tracker. There are definitely times where it seems to have missed where the pitch ended up. Now, it's possible I'm just dumb and their tracker is much better than what I can see with given angles. But even if pitch tracker was entirely accurate, I'm not totally sure I would be in favor of using it. I do like the idea of the strike zone not being the exact same every game, which forces pitchers and hitters to adjust. I know some think that's stupid, but I do like the idea of that. But you just have to have a line for what is unacceptable in umpiring and enforce it.

So no Eric Greg strikezones?

[zitothebrave]

Again, there were less than 1000 total intentional walks in all MLB games last year. If my math is correct, there were 2430 games in total, not including playoffs.

That comes out to a single intentional walk every 2.43 games, each one taking about 30 seconds. The overall increase in pace of play will be almost zero.

Is saving 30 seconds 3 times per week (on average) in games played by your team worth losing the few interesting plays that happen during an intentional walk? I don't think it is.

The biggest place to improve pace of play is time between pitches when players are literally standing around doing nothing, and there is zero chances of anything happening. Fix the real problem rather than making a rule that won't speed the game up anyways.

While I agree with your general opinion that this won't lead to much of an increase in time saved. What I disagree on though is that it isn't a good idea. It's a waste of time and a waste of energy in the game. And at most you have 1 time an intentional walk fails per year? I'd put the number even lower and say that once every 2 or 3 years is more close to reality. So you're opposed to this rule because of something that has at best a 1/1000 chance of happening. It would be like being opposed to using condoms because they're only 99.9% effective, might as well raw dog it (yes I know that's not the real numbers, just making a point)

To me the advantage of this rule is that it better paces the next AB. Sure it doesn't happen that often, but it tends to happen in high leverage situations and it can deflate the air out of a moment for just a few minutes. And that can suck.

[Southcack77]

I feel like there is more than one IBB every 2.5 games.

Must be more than that in the NL at least.

[zitothebrave]

I feel like there is more than one IBB every 2.5 games.

Must be more than that in the NL at least.

IBBs were more frequent in the NL, the regular season had 590 of them, or one ever 156.8 PA. AL had 342 or one every 269.1 PA. If you go with the average number of plate appearances per game, of abut 38 per team per game or about 75 per game (rounding down) it makes it closer to every 2 games in the NL and every 3.5 games in the AL

Removing IBBs is more of a mental improvement.

[bravesfanMatt]

Mark Wholars is throwing something right now.. and probably missing wildly.

[Hawk]

Another rule change being weighed by Major League Baseball is more radical and would put a runner on second base at the onset of extra innings, reports Jeff Passan of Yahoo Sports. The league is planning to test the scenario in the lowest levels of the minor leagues, according to Passan, and there’s already at least one proponent of the idea among the league’s top decision-makers: MLB chief baseball officer Joe Torre.

“Let’s see what it looks like,” Torre told Passan. “It’s not fun to watch when you go through your whole pitching staff and wind up bringing a utility infielder in to pitch. As much as it’s nice to talk about being at an 18-inning game, it takes time. … What really initiated it is sitting in the dugout in the 15th inning and realizing everybody is going to the plate trying to hit a home run and everyone is trying to end the game themselves. I don’t know what inning is the right inning. Maybe the 11th or 12th inning. But there are a number of reasons.”

---

Yeah, **** that.

[FreemanFan]

That sounds like one of Bud Selig's brilliant ideas. I can live with the intentional walk change, but I don't see how giving the visiting team a free double in extra innings makes any sense. Would it only be at the top of the 10th inning or at the start of all subsequent innings? Either way, it gets two thumbs down from me.

[cajunrevenge]

Because Curt Schilling would go to every park and smash the pitch tracker with a baseball bat like he did with the QuesTec machines. From Wikipedia:

Meanwhile, a more hands-on approach was taken by former Arizona Diamondbacks pitcher Curt Schilling; Schilling used a bat to smash one of QuesTec's field cameras after being told by an umpire that he wanted to call some of his pitches strikes, but QuesTec made him call them balls, an act that led to a fine for the pitcher. The NLRB grievance was dropped by the WUA as part of the contract negotiations with MLB after the 2005 season, ending the legal challenges to the system.



I cant fathom why Umpires are allowed to change the rules to what they want. Its one thing to jusy get it wromg but this is intentionally changing the rules. Might as well change the rule bool to say the strike zone is whatevee the umpire wants because thay is the reality. I can understand Schilling being upset to, pitchers can scout umpires too. He should let the teams know he planned to call the strike zone correctly since he was being monitored.

[50PoundHead]

Another rule change being weighed by Major League Baseball is more radical and would put a runner on second base at the onset of extra innings, reports Jeff Passan of Yahoo Sports. The league is planning to test the scenario in the lowest levels of the minor leagues, according to Passan, and there’s already at least one proponent of the idea among the league’s top decision-makers: MLB chief baseball officer Joe Torre.

“Let’s see what it looks like,” Torre told Passan. “It’s not fun to watch when you go through your whole pitching staff and wind up bringing a utility infielder in to pitch. As much as it’s nice to talk about being at an 18-inning game, it takes time. … What really initiated it is sitting in the dugout in the 15th inning and realizing everybody is going to the plate trying to hit a home run and everyone is trying to end the game themselves. I don’t know what inning is the right inning. Maybe the 11th or 12th inning. But there are a number of reasons.”

---

Yeah, **** that.

I don't want to rag on statheads, because this really isn't their fault. But if managers quit playing match-up with relief pitchers in the sixth inning, maybe they wouldn't run out of pitchers. The deep analysis available to managers gives them a lot more in terms of utilizing effective options, but that doesn't mean they have to start employing them as early as they do. The reluctance to roll the dice is what is emptying bullpens.

[Russ2dollas]

That sounds like one of Bud Selig's brilliant ideas. I can live with the intentional walk change, but I don't see how giving the visiting team a free double in extra innings makes any sense. Would it only be at the top of the 10th inning or at the start of all subsequent innings? Either way, it gets two thumbs down from me.

It would lead to a ton of leadoff bunts. It's very stupid.

[Krgrecw]

I like the runner on second. Basic premise as college football overtime rules where you start out overtime in scoring position.

[Russ2dollas]

I like the runner on second. Basic premise as college football overtime rules where you start out overtime in scoring position.

no. it's awful. It's not baseball.

Everyone would bunt the runner to third. Then look for a sac fly to win the game.

[smootness]

no. it's awful. It's not baseball.

Everyone would bunt the runner to third. Then look for a sac fly to win the game.

Agreed. And I love the rationale that everybody starts going up trying to hit home runs. Uh, ok...so tell them to stop doing that. This is again a counter-intuitive and illogical rule proposal. 'Games are being dragged out too long because managers are using up their bullpens too early and hitters start swinging for the fences every AB in extra innings. Solution? Put a man on 2B to start each half of an inning once you hit the 10th.'

The heck?

[DirkPiggler]

I don't want to rag on statheads, because this really isn't their fault. But if managers quit playing match-up with relief pitchers in the sixth inning, maybe they wouldn't run out of pitchers. The deep analysis available to managers gives them a lot more in terms of utilizing effective options, but that doesn't mean they have to start employing them as early as they do. The reluctance to roll the dice is what is emptying bullpens.

Excessive pitching changes are the main culprit behind the slow games. Manager brings in a right handed pitcher to face a right handed batter. Opposing manager then pinch hits with a left-hander. Next batter is left handed, so now we get another pitching change to bring back a lefty. Manager then pinch hits again with another right handed hitter. Rinse and repeat multiple times from the 6th-7th inning on in reasonably close games.

Require all pitchers who enter a game to either face three batters, record two outs, or pitch to the end of an inning before being lifted. In addition to shortening the games, this would also end the abomination that is the 13 pitcher staff, and would do away with guys like 60 year old Jesse Orosco who pitch in 70 games and have 30 IP.

[50PoundHead]

Excessive pitching changes are the main culprit behind the slow games. Manager brings in a right handed pitcher to face a right handed batter. Opposing manager then pinch hits with a left-hander. Next batter is left handed, so now we get another pitching change to bring back a lefty. Manager then pinch hits again with another right handed hitter. Rinse and repeat multiple times from the 6th-7th inning on in reasonably close games.

Require all pitchers who enter a game to either face three batters, record two outs, or pitch to the end of an inning before being lifted. In addition to shortening the games, this would also end the abomination that is the 13 pitcher staff, and would do away with guys like 60 year old Jesse Orosco who pitch in 70 games and have 30 IP.

As most everyone here knows, I am way old (if being in one's 60s is way old) and in an earlier era, it wasn't that rare to have a relief pitcher throw more than 100 innings (or at least 1.5 IP per appearance). You never see that now.

[cajunrevenge]

That extra innings idea is beyond retarded. Does Roger Goodell work for MLB now?

[Southcack77]

Excessive pitching changes are the main culprit behind the slow games. Manager brings in a right handed pitcher to face a right handed batter. Opposing manager then pinch hits with a left-hander. Next batter is left handed, so now we get another pitching change to bring back a lefty. Manager then pinch hits again with another right handed hitter. Rinse and repeat multiple times from the 6th-7th inning on in reasonably close games.

Require all pitchers who enter a game to either face three batters, record two outs, or pitch to the end of an inning before being lifted. In addition to shortening the games, this would also end the abomination that is the 13 pitcher staff, and would do away with guys like 60 year old Jesse Orosco who pitch in 70 games and have 30 IP.

Your rule change isn't really baseball either.

Baseball is a slow game. That's just the way it is.

[CrimsonCowboy]

Another rule change being weighed by Major League Baseball is more radical and would put a runner on second base at the onset of extra innings, reports Jeff Passan of Yahoo Sports. The league is planning to test the scenario in the lowest levels of the minor leagues, according to Passan, and there’s already at least one proponent of the idea among the league’s top decision-makers: MLB chief baseball officer Joe Torre

http://www.faithit.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/confused.gif

[4maddux_cy's]

The runner on second is a non-starter for me. I hate the ibb proposal too but I can live with it a bit more. What may put me at a decision to make down the line is if the DH is ever forced onto me as a NL fan.

[rico43]

The runner on second is a non-starter for me. I hate the ibb proposal too but I can live with it a bit more. What may put me at a decision to make down the line is if the DH is ever forced onto me as a NL fan.

What we're hearing now is that this will be a trial balloon in the GCL and the AFL, according to a member of a minor league's team front office I know.

[smootness]

This may not even shorten games much. Teams will just start playing for one run, and they'll get it most of the time but rarely more.

[DirkPiggler]

Your rule change isn't really baseball either.

Baseball is a slow game. That's just the way it is.
One could easily make the argument that 13 man pitching staffs and relief specialists designed to face one batter aren't really baseball.

[zitothebrave]

This may not even shorten games much. Teams will just start playing for one run, and they'll get it most of the time but rarely more.

Yup, play it safe for one run. Kind of like running it up the gut 3 times and kicking it a fieldgoal with the hope of breaking through.

[Freshmaker]

All for #1!! Gotta save the strain on those arms!

[cajunrevenge]

How about hitting a batter in the head is 2 bases instead of 1.

[Horsehide Harry]

Teams gonna start carrying a designated extra innings guy.

Runs like Hayes. Hits like sh*t.

[goldfly]

the extra inning thing is honestly the dumbest thing i have ever heard for baseball

quit trying to compete with the NFL

just be baseball and try to expand into inner cities and poor areas where kids can't play cause of not having the funding and or the room to play

it's a longer play but that will grow your base more than trying to "shorten the game" by making it something else.

[Russ2dollas]

the extra inning thing is honestly the dumbest thing i have ever heard for baseball

quit trying to compete with the NFL

just be baseball and try to expand into inner cities and poor areas where kids can't play cause of not having the funding and or the room to play

it's a longer play but that will grow your base more than trying to "shorten the game" by making it something else.

the whole baseball is dying thing is a myth. But all objective measurement there is more interest and money in the game than ever.

USA inner cities is probably not the growth area. Latin areas of the country and Latin American Countries are the areas of growth.

[smootness]

As others have touched on, the reason games are longer now is because of more commercials (more pitching changes and longer commercial length), higher counts as batters see more pitches, and far more periods of time where batters are stepping out of the box and pitchers are stepping off/walking around the mound.

These rule changes do nothing about pitching changes and higher counts, and you're likely not going to do anything about them. Thus, yet again, the issue is not with the rules, but with the way umpires enforce things. Just make sure the umps are getting people back in the box and set, ready to go, more quickly. That's literally all it will take.

[striker42]

As others have touched on, the reason games are longer now is because of more commercials (more pitching changes and longer commercial length), higher counts as batters see more pitches, and far more periods of time where batters are stepping out of the box and pitchers are stepping off/walking around the mound.

These rule changes do nothing about pitching changes and higher counts, and you're likely not going to do anything about them. Thus, yet again, the issue is not with the rules, but with the way umpires enforce things. Just make sure the umps are getting people back in the box and set, ready to go, more quickly. That's literally all it will take.

This. You start having batters getting strikes against them because they wont get set and you'll have batters getting ready much, much quicker.

[50PoundHead]

Teams gonna start carrying a designated extra innings guy.

Runs like Hayes. Hits like sh*t.

Is Herb Washington still alive?

[Julio3000]

Is Herb Washington still alive?

Yes, and I'll be he could beat Brian McCann in a footrace.