Around the Majors - 2022 Version

jpx7 said:
It's not that they haven't learned to do that. It's just not worth it, in the grand scheme, given the potential outcomes they're sacrificing.
Click to expand...

Way back when, teams did an exaggerated shift on Ted Williams. I believe he was one of the first, if not the first, hitter that faced a shift of that nature. When the Boston press asked him (and as great as Williams was, the press always seemed to be on him for something) why he didn't try to beat the shift, Williams' response was something to the nature of "That would be limiting me to singles." Of course, he was Ted Williams and I think an argument can be made that at some points in games depending on the situations that some guys should try to beat the shift more than they do, but power guys with elite EVs should just do what they do best. I'm curious to see how the whole shift things works out. I thought leaving the second base alley open was the better option than what they've proposed, but we'll see how this experiment works.

In other news, former Braves' farmhand (and high draft pick) Joey Wentz picked up his first major league win by throwing 6-plus innings of shutout ball against the Royals last night. The Braves traded Wentz and Travis Demeritte to the Tigers for Shane Greene at the trade deadline in 2019. Wentz had Tommy John Surgery in 2020 and has worked his way back.
 
Coredor said:
It’s because a lot of those guys drive it the other way in the air. A lot of power hitters don’t want to slap the ball to increase their chances of getting a single while reducing their chance to drive the ball.

I personally am fine with shifting and even the depth infielders play on the left side of the infield. I hate the deep over **** against left handlers though. Guys have always played on the fringe. That doesn’t bother me at all.

I don’t really want the thing about fouling the ball off either but if you want to speed the game up it’s better than what they’re doing. The running game is going to get out of control. Pitchers need to be able to hold runners which combined with the larger bases is going to have a big effect.
Click to expand...

You're missing the entire point of ALL the rule changes. The goal is to provide more ACTION so fans don't turn the channel. The main reason for tuning in to games Henderson and Coleman were playing in on TV was to see them steal bases since you didn't have the chance to see all the out-of-market games on MLB.tv. The shifting has even cut down the number of amazing defensive plays that were made by the best defenders since they're usually positioned where everything appears to be routine when they're in the right spot. More SBs and hits will provide much less "dead time" with boring groundouts whether it changes most hitters' approaches or ultimately leads to more runs being scored. The majority of today's fans have short attention spans and will look for something else to entertain them after they've "wasted" 30 minutes if they happen to watch for that period and no one hits the ball over the wall.
 
Last edited:
Exactly. If the running game becomes “out of control” then mission accomplished. There will be more eyeballs watching as a result.
 
NYCBrave said:
Are stolen bases really that exciting that they cause more people to tune in??
Click to expand...

They used to be - but as I mentioned, you didn't have MLB.tv available so you could watch the guys like Henderson and Coleman whenever you wanted to back in the day.

Entirely different set of fans today - what we do know is that the current product is pretty boring and the games take entirely too long for the amount of action they provide. As currently structured, we know that's not going to change and we know that the sport has been losing fans.

Will the younger fans tune in more with these changes? Who knows? We do know that they're not particularly interested in the current product though.
 
Increasing balls in play and movement on the bases is a great goal, but accomplishing it by limiting pick off attempts is about the worst way I can imagine to get it done.

After the first runner draws 2 throws and is then able to essentially walk to 2nd base since the pitcher can't hold him on, maybe then folks will realize the stupidity of the rule. We will see how "exciting" it is watching a baserunner get 2B for free.
 
Enscheff said:
Increasing balls in play and movement on the bases is a great goal, but accomplishing it by limiting pick off attempts is about the worst way I can imagine to get it done.

After the first runner draws 2 throws and is then able to essentially walk to 2nd base since the pitcher can't hold him on, maybe then folks will realize the stupidity of the rule. We will see how "exciting" it is watching a baserunner get 2B for free.
Click to expand...

Then the pitcher will have to throw to the plate more often and vary their timing to the plate.

You shouldn't have to throw over 5 or 6 times in a PA. Whats the magic number to make it 'fair'? I have no clue but unlimited is absurd.
 
thethe said:
Then the pitcher will have to throw to the plate more often and vary their timing to the plate.

You shouldn't have to throw over 5 or 6 times in a PA. Whats the magic number to make it 'fair'? I have no clue but unlimited is absurd.
Click to expand...

You really can't grasp it...like your brain is physically unable to break out of a rut once you fall into it...

No amount of "varying their timing" will combat the fact that they can't throw to 1B. The runner will literally be able to walk to 2B, and nobody will be able to do anything about it.

This idea that pickoffs are the reason games are long and boring is pretty moronic, and not based in actual facts. Games are long because it's too hard to make contact, so it takes a lot pitches to K or BB. Then each pitch takes 30 seconds and it adds up to 4 hours of Ks and BBs with a few HRs sprinkled in.

The correct course of action is to move the mound back so guys can actually hit 95 MPH cutters.
 
Last edited:
Enscheff said:
You really can't grasp it...like your brain is physically unable to break out of a rut once you fall into it...

No amount of "varying their timing" will combat the fact that they can't throw to 1B. The runner will literally be able to walk to 2B, and nobody will be able to do anything about it.

This idea that pickoffs are the reason games are long and boring is pretty moronic, and not based in actual facts.
Click to expand...

The rule actually states disengagements not 'pick-offs' so if a runner takes off it becomes a different play altogether. If you think that a runner can just take off and the pitcher has to stand there then you are a fool.

The rule also states you can throw over a third time but the runner automatically advances if they aren't thrown out.

So maybe you shoudl stop being an absolute prick and read the rule changes.

Chump.
 
thethe said:
The rule actually states disengagements not 'pick-offs' so if a runner takes off it becomes a different play altogether. If you think that a runner can just take off and the pitcher has to stand there then you are a fool.
Click to expand...

Riiight, and who determines what a "disengagement" is? Walking towards 2B? Running towards 2B? A lead of 10'? A lead of 15'?

If you think these interpretations aren't going to cause more arguing and controversy that waste more time than they save you are exactly the fool we all know you are already.
 
Enscheff said:
Riiight, and who determines what a "disengagement" is? Walking towards 2B? Running towards 2B? A lead of 10'? A lead of 15'?

If you think these interpretations aren't going to cause more arguing and controversy that waste more time than they save you are exactly the fool we all know you are already.
Click to expand...

Read the rules idiot - You are wrong.
 
The saving grace will hopefully be this, "A pitcher can attempt a third pickoff but if it doesn't result in an out, it is an automatic balk.".

If the runner gets too crazy the 3rd pick off attempt should result in an out. They will still be getting insane leads, but at least it won't completely ruin baserunning as it's currently known...hopefully.
 
Enscheff said:
The saving grace will hopefully be this, "A pitcher can attempt a third pickoff but if it doesn't result in an out, it is an automatic balk.".

If the runner gets too crazy the 3rd pick off attempt should result in an out. They will still be getting insane leads, but at least it won't completely ruin baserunning as it's currently known.
Click to expand...

Oh - the genius finally got around to reading how his initial statement was wrong.

Congratulations. I was wondering how long you wouldn't grasp this...like your brain would be physically unable to break out of a rut once you fall into it...
 
Last edited:
thethe said:
Oh - the genius finally got around to reading how his initial statement was wrong.

Congratulations. I was wondering how long you wouldn't grasp this...like your brain would be physically unable to break out of a rut once you fall into it...
Click to expand...

It’s funny…

The quote I posted showing why this might not be too bad is nothing like what you said was the reason it wouldn’t be so bad. And yet…here you are, crowing like a 10 year old
 
Enscheff said:
It’s funny…

The quote I posted showing why this might not be too bad is nothing like what you said was the reason it wouldn’t be so bad. And yet…here you are, crowing like a 10 year old
Click to expand...

I figured this would be your way to side step the fact you just looked like an idiot.

And of course if you didn't initiate the douchebagery this could have been a very polite conversation which would have ended with me educating you on the new rule changes and how it wouldn't have the impact you said it did.

You chose a different direction. I have no issues with that.
 
Just wonder how masterful of an intellect it takes to think a rule would be created that would result in a runner getting a free lead to the next base? Like this was an actual thought in this persons head?
 
Isn’t disengagement worse. Once a pitcher engages the rubber he has to make a pitch or step off. So if for some reason a pitcher gets a bug in his eye or can’t sync with catcher, is that one of his disengagement?

I hate the idea of limiting players from doing something that is just part of the game. Why do we have to reinvent the game. Just make it easier to watch and market your freaking stats better.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
Isn’t disengagement worse. Once a pitcher engages the rubber he has to make a pitch or step off. So if for some reason a pitcher gets a bug in his eye or can’t sync with catcher, is that one of his disengagement?

I hate the idea of limiting players from doing something that is just part of the game. Why do we have to reinvent the game. Just make it easier to watch and market your freaking stats better.
Click to expand...

Disengagements are further described as 'pick-offs' or 'step-offs' which have their own definition.

If a bug gets into the eye of the pticher then there is no intent to 'check' the runner. I think they would let that pass. Just my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top