MLB sends 2 new rule changes to Union

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.
 
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...

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.
 
Russ2dollas said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Enscheff said:
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.
Click to expand...

*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)
 
bravesfanMatt said:
*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)
Click to expand...

Yeah, it seems to be the equivalent of tinting the windows of a car that doesn't start and has 4 flat tires.
 
Thank you [MENTION=59]Enscheff[/MENTION] for toning it down. That joke was pretty tame by your standards.
 
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?
 
Russ2dollas said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Russ2dollas said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
smootness said:
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.
Click to expand...

So no Eric Greg strikezones?
 
Enscheff said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Must be more than that in the NL at least.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
50PoundHead said:
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.
Click to expand...

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