MLB experimenting with huge new rule changes

I was perusing an older thread that was talking about the Rule 5 draft and I wonder how, if at all, the 26 man/25 active roster would play into that. Would a Rule 5 draftee be required to be on the active roster so many days throughout the season or could he be the 26th man and never see the field? Not an earth-shattering thought coming from me, but I am really curious to see the ripple effects from the move. I think it might bring back the era of the third catcher or glove-only guy.

I've been thinking more about the 3-batter minimum and I'm happy with it. I think we are seeing a stunting of player development with the over-specialization of pitching. Somebody sees a guy in AA who has trouble with opposite-handed batters and rather than work with the guy to improve that, he becomes a specialist.

Vizcaino and Minter won't have any trouble with the 3-batter minimum. Strategy or not, the often walk the first batter they face.
 
the 3 batter minimum will reinforce the idea of alternating righty and lefty batters...it will also increase the number of intentional and semi-intentional walks
 
nsacpi said:
the 3 batter minimum will reinforce the idea of alternating righty and lefty batters...it will also increase the number of intentional and semi-intentional walks
Click to expand...

I guess player development staffs will just have to teach pitchers how to pitch to all batters.
 
50PoundHead said:
I guess player development staffs will just have to teach pitchers how to pitch to all batters.
Click to expand...

They've been trying. The pitch that seems to be the key to success against opposite handed hitters is the change. Pitching coaches have definitely made advances in generating velocity. But the secrets of teaching the chance remain as mysterious as they were ten or twenty years ago.
 
The game has changed throughout time with certain things having a big influence on how the game was played.

In the early days when there were no fences and/or far away and variable fences and the balls were used over and over without regard to quality and where equipment like gloves were substandard, the game was played a certain way. HR weren't much of a concern unless they were inside the park so player emphasis was on speed and contact for offense and movement, location and longevity for pitching. There were also very few competing sports for talent and very few ML clubs, albeit with a much smaller population from which to draw.

When parks started firming up into the early stages of their modern equivalents and when the ball quality and other equipment became more standardized then the HR emerged, player types changed to accept bigger, stronger, slower players on offense and pitchers who could get swinging strikes became more in demand. Defense was less important.

Then parks started getting bigger, fences further back and artificial turf was introduced. With turf came a reemergence of the slap hitter who could run and defense became a premium once again. HR rates dropped off some.

Come to near modern baseball. Parks are smaller overall. Turf is gone. TV is the single most influential thing in the sport. And there are very significant competing sports. Chicks did the long ball. K's aren't something for internal shame anymore. Pen specialization starts.

Now, come to today. All near modern baseball is in play from above but now add the heavy influence of 2 things: 1. Analytics 2. Business acumen by those running franchises. Analytics is driving everything from on field strategy (defensive alignments, in game managerial moves, opener/closer, pen use, SP use, etc.) to roster construction and player comp. Business acumen is influencing payroll growth, marketing, etc.

I do think analytics and business acumen has LOST a lot of the ability to conduct great marketing for the sport. Marketing is about building a vision that people will buy and the current analytics and business people are so focused on the numbers that they are forgetting to build the vision for their customers.

It's time for the sport to evolve once again.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
The game has changed throughout time with certain things having a big influence on how the game was played.

In the early days when there were no fences and/or far away and variable fences and the balls were used over and over without regard to quality and where equipment like gloves were substandard, the game was played a certain way. HR weren't much of a concern unless they were inside the park so player emphasis was on speed and contact for offense and movement, location and longevity for pitching. There were also very few competing sports for talent and very few ML clubs, albeit with a much smaller population from which to draw.

When parks started firming up into the early stages of their modern equivalents and when the ball quality and other equipment became more standardized then the HR emerged, player types changed to accept bigger, stronger, slower players on offense and pitchers who could get swinging strikes became more in demand. Defense was less important.

Then parks started getting bigger, fences further back and artificial turf was introduced. With turf came a reemergence of the slap hitter who could run and defense became a premium once again. HR rates dropped off some.

Come to near modern baseball. Parks are smaller overall. Turf is gone. TV is the single most influential thing in the sport. And there are very significant competing sports. Chicks did the long ball. K's aren't something for internal shame anymore. Pen specialization starts.

Now, come to today. All near modern baseball is in play from above but now add the heavy influence of 2 things: 1. Analytics 2. Business acumen by those running franchises. Analytics is driving everything from on field strategy (defensive alignments, in game managerial moves, opener/closer, pen use, SP use, etc.) to roster construction and player comp. Business acumen is influencing payroll growth, marketing, etc.

I do think analytics and business acumen has LOST a lot of the ability to conduct great marketing for the sport. Marketing is about building a vision that people will buy and the current analytics and business people are so focused on the numbers that they are forgetting to build the vision for their customers.

It's time for the sport to evolve once again.
Click to expand...

what the sport needs to start doing is trading players away from it. i think someone like freeman is a good candidate for this
 
nsacpi said:
They've been trying. The pitch that seems to be the key to success against opposite handed hitters is the change. Pitching coaches have definitely made advances in generating velocity. But the secrets of teaching the chance remain as mysterious as they were ten or twenty years ago.
Click to expand...

Very true, but I, for one, am tired of watching a LOOGY come out of the bullpen and throw lollipop curves to one hitter.

As for the shift limitation, I think it was enscheff who mentioned that it's not the number of players on one side of the second base bag that really makes a difference. It's the fact that the infielders are playing short outfield. If all infielders had to remain on the dirt, it wouldn't make much difference in terms of shifting. A team could still shift, but the reduction in reaction time would then be the issue for the defensive team. Curious to see how it works out. I'm agnostic on this change, but some of the shifts have become really ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Southcack77 said:
Wasn’t an mvp dark horse three years ago. Still plenty of value there.
Click to expand...

Still plenty of value but not tradeable now due to change in team circumstances. Three years ago it's a necessary part of a rebuild. Now, the team at least has the appearance of a borderline contender and maybe more if everything goes just right. For good or bad, they are committed to the path. Freeman has to be a part of that now without regard to true and likely chances or window longevity.

If the team had the finances to address all the major holes with real fixes without depleting the farm too much (the farm is what feeds the window length) then I would say keeping Freeman was the right move all along. However, since the Braves obviously DON'T have the finances and are going into 2019 with two broken war horses behind the plate, a late in career liability in RF, no real closer, an iffy pen and a completely unsettled and shaky rotation, I have to say the Braves are relying on luck to carry them through instead of plan, which usually isn't a good spot to be in. Magic is always possible. It's just not likely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top