MLB sends 2 new rule changes to Union

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

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!!!!
 
FreemanFan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Enscheff said:
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.
Click to expand...

If they want to speed up the game they could start by not having so many GD commercial breaks.
 
Enscheff said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Russ2dollas said:
1. if you intentionally walk someone you just give a signal and they go. no more tossing 4 softballs
Click to expand...

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!
 
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.
 
Knucksie said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
Russ2dollas said:
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.
Click to expand...

....

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.
 
smootness said:
....

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top