Manfred suggestions: good or bad?

I have no issue with the first.  Working fine in minors and college.

When you start tampering with strategy of the game in exchange of time, then I can't get on board.  If player is coming out of pen, limit warm-up pitches to two or three (he was literally just throwing).  one or two should be enough to get a feel for the mound, and if it isn't, then he'll figure it out along the way.

If you run the pitch clock, then defensive shifts should be taken care of.  If they can't be made within the pitch clock, then the penalty comes into play.  I say the guys can run poles between pitches if they want, as long as they're in legal position when the pitch occurs (within the time limit).

The easiest way to shorten the game is to cut an inning or two.  Blasphemy, but 9 innings is already a random number, why not 8.

I don't really like any of the three suggestions. Although Nuke brought up an interesting idea about if we had a clock then it may reduce defensive shifts. I don't like the shifts but hate seeing a rule change just for that.  They lowered mounds back in the late sixties (Gibby) so I guess they could put something in about shifts. I am just a traditionalist, I guess. I don't much like changes. I don't like the DH either.

if they put a pitchers clock in, maybe do something similar for the batter.

another thing they could do is to shorten the length of time between half-innings. I heard something on MLB Network this week that said that in the sixties, there were 60 seconds of commercials. Now there are 120-150 seconds of commercials.  Dropping back to 60 would save 16 minutes off the top.  If it is actually 150 seconds then it would save even more. I know they wont do this because of concessions and ad revenue but it could be done.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Ban undoing and redoing batting gloves

I'm kinda in agreement with all the above.  I too am old school and a traditionalist.  I really don't like changes just for the sake of changes.  I can't really see those 3 changes affecting much.  As far as the shift goes, for the life of me, I cannot understand how a professional hitter wouldn't feast if the defense all moves to one side of the field.  If nothing else, bunt the flipping ball down the 3rd base line.  You could walk to 1st.

younggun posted:

I'm kinda in agreement with all the above.  I too am old school and a traditionalist.  I really don't like changes just for the sake of changes.  I can't really see those 3 changes affecting much.  As far as the shift goes, for the life of me, I cannot understand how a professional hitter wouldn't feast if the defense all moves to one side of the field.  If nothing else, bunt the flipping ball down the 3rd base line.  You could walk to 1st.

but chicks dig the long ball .

As far as the clock I am all for it. Just needs to be for both the pitcher and batter. If pitcher is ready and the batter isn't assess a strike, if opposite- assess a ball.

Not sure about everybody else here but my son's college team plays 9 innings and regularly get done in 2 1/2 hours. I do think Redfishfool is on to something about time in-between innings. Multiple times during the NCAA tournament the last 2 years my sons team played in it and when I went to the CWS the year before, there was an extra delay of a minute to 3 in-between inning waiting for TV.

BAD for the game.  My biggest problem with the suggestions is - who is complaining and what are the complaints?  I have never heard any baseball fan complain that the game is too long and there isn't enough action.  MLB keeps using these arguments though.

Much like the free market, if there is a problem, baseball will correct itself.  The current baseball pendulum is on the side of pitching.  It will swing (pun intended) back to hitting.  It always does.  If the shift is really a problem, the hitters need to prove it wrong.  As much as I hate seeing it, it works.  I'd say the onus falls on hitters to fix it; not MLB to make another rule.

Maybe MLB needs to start enforcing the existing rules that are already in place (ie. batter in box).  Maybe they should get rid of replay or use a little more common sense to calls on replay.  I don't want to see robo-umps calling balls and strikes, but maybe that could help and then let the umps focus on enforcement of rules & judgment calls?

The avg length of a baseball game has already been shortened by 9 minutes over 2014 - 2015, but it is still a 3 hour long game.  Does Manfred really think that eliminating a couple more minutes from a game is going make a difference? Does less game time mean more commercial time?  Does less game time mean less of an opportunity for me to buy concessions at a game?  I just don't understand the motivation.  

If MLB wants to attract a younger audience, speeding up the pace of play is only one thing.  <Sarcasm> Maybe they also need to bring more violence / bloodshed to the sport.  Maybe a more Rollerball approach to it? </Sarcasm>   The television watching and event attendance paradigm has shifted.  If the motivation is truly to fill more seats and get more viewership (and not financially driven), stop charging so much.  Admission to the stadium costs too much.  Subscription to MLB tv is too much.  Lowering these costs might be a better start.  JMO

Phanatic posted:

BAD for the game.  My biggest problem with the suggestions is - who is complaining and what are the complaints?  I have never heard any baseball fan complain that the game is too long and there isn't enough action.  MLB keeps using these arguments though.

I agree with the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", but the problem that MLB is recognizing is their demographics have their fan base dying off.  All us old traditionalists are fine with the game and continue to watch.  What MLB is losing is the battle for young, new viewership.  They're losing that heavily to NBA, NFL and soccer.  The primary reason their research finds is those sports are quicker paced and more appealing to the younger generation.

Remember, we're the generation of letter writing, they're the generation of twitter and instagram. 

If they don't do something to appeal to the younger demographic, then MLB will become NHL and you'll have to look for the World Series on SpikeTV in the next 30 years.

Good discussion... they better be listening to us 

Pitch clock - good.

Limit pitcher changes - New pitcher/new inning doesn't really affect game duration.  It might be a good idea to limit # of changes per game that occur once the defensive inning has started (say 3 per game).  This would allow for injury, a struggling P and a few, but not too many match-up changes.  

Limit shifts - let the hitters adjust.

Nuke83 posted:

Phanatic posted:

BAD for the game.  My biggest problem with the suggestions is - who is complaining and what are the complaints?  I have never heard any baseball fan complain that the game is too long and there isn't enough action.  MLB keeps using these arguments though.

I agree with the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", but the problem that MLB is recognizing is their demographics have their fan base dying off.  All us old traditionalists are fine with the game and continue to watch.  What MLB is losing is the battle for young, new viewership.  They're losing that heavily to NBA, NFL and soccer.  The primary reason their research finds is those sports are quicker paced and more appealing to the younger generation.

Remember, we're the generation of letter writing, they're the generation of twitter and instagram. 

If they don't do something to appeal to the younger demographic, then MLB will become NHL and you'll have to look for the World Series on SpikeTV in the next 30 years.

According to my son the primary reason his generation isn't flocking to baseball fields is because no there are not a lot of fights and showboating is frowned upon, it's actually about watching the game, which isn't what his generation wants.  They want something "cool" to happen.

He's got a point, two NFL'ers get into a slugging match it isn't even reported, today CNN still has an article about the Bautista/Odor slug, and that happened in May!  And how long did we discuss the bat-flips last year, yet NFL has to have a rule about the touchdown dance not being too taunting to the opposition...humm....maybe baseball isn't fun to watch for this generation.

Why are some MLB parks packed night after night and some are nearly empty?  It's not just about having a good team or a very new (or very old) stadium. There are some good-looking yards occupied by decent teams that don't do well.  I really do not get it.  

Nuke83 posted:

Phanatic posted:

BAD for the game.  My biggest problem with the suggestions is - who is complaining and what are the complaints?  I have never heard any baseball fan complain that the game is too long and there isn't enough action.  MLB keeps using these arguments though.

I agree with the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", but the problem that MLB is recognizing is their demographics have their fan base dying off.  All us old traditionalists are fine with the game and continue to watch.  What MLB is losing is the battle for young, new viewership.  They're losing that heavily to NBA, NFL and soccer.  The primary reason their research finds is those sports are quicker paced and more appealing to the younger generation.

Remember, we're the generation of letter writing, they're the generation of twitter and instagram. 

If they don't do something to appeal to the younger demographic, then MLB will become NHL and you'll have to look for the World Series on SpikeTV in the next 30 years.

While I think you're correct, I don't see where chopping five or six (or even an hour) off the game time is going to address these problems - it's still baseball.

Honestly, one problem is simply that there are too many games for this generation. With a 162 game schedule, each individual game doesn't have the importance and impact of a single regular season NFL or college football game. Having said that, it's not something you can fix without drastically altering the game. the one thing baseball has going for it is the rich and storied tradition of the game.

I remember talking to my son and some of his friends a couple months ago and they - you can't make this up - articulated their main concern with MLB as being that with a 162 game schedule, you can't play a season on The Show quickly enough without simulating a large part of the schedule. Really, that was their complaint.

The one problem I would fix?  Get rid of the instant replay.  Can't stand it.  Looks silly with manager looking over his shoulder to dugout.  I think the umpires aren't quite as good with it.

I can live with the mistakes - even in the WS.

justbaseball posted:

The one problem I would fix?  Get rid of the instant replay.  Can't stand it.  Looks silly with manager looking over his shoulder to dugout.  I think the umpires aren't quite as good with it.

I can live with the mistakes - even in the WS.

As a very long time Royals fan, I was certainly ok with there being no replay in the 1985 W/S.

roothog66 posted:

justbaseball posted:

The one problem I would fix?  Get rid of the instant replay.  Can't stand it.  Looks silly with manager looking over his shoulder to dugout.  I think the umpires aren't quite as good with it.

I can live with the mistakes - even in the WS.

As a very long time Royals fan, I was certainly ok with there being no replay in the 1985 W/S.

Get rid of catcher visits and pitching coach visits to the mound. That would eliminate 10 boring minutes right there.  Talk to your pitcher between innings like quarterbacks do in football. You visit the mound only to remove him.

My question is my player is a junior in high school this year and just turned 16 he has no verbal commits yet do I need to worry? Any thoughts on this would help so much

Thank you!

Renee Linscombe posted:

My question is my player is a junior in high school this year and just turned 16 he has no verbal commits yet do I need to worry? Any thoughts on this would help so much

Thank you!

If you have a 16 yo son you chould always be worried.  On a serious note, it is certainly not too late, but if this is a serious inquiry, you may want to find a more appropriate thread in which to pose this question.  You will probably get pointed to the general outline for Recruiting Tips which, while slightly dated, will show you that the upcoming summer will be of paramount importance.  You can find this under HSBASEBALLWEB.COM above.

Are there specifics with eliminating the shift?  Can the SS line up 2 inches to the right (facing home plate) of second base??

First off, I like Manfred and I like the fact that he is thinking & discussing these things. 

I'm okay with the #1 suggestion IF the game truly moves at the pitchers pace and the batter's keep their "derrieres" in the batters box.  Too much fidgeting, checking signs, adjusting one's junk, checking the gloves after no swing, etc..  Move at the pitchers pace, and I'm okay with giving it a chance.  I've yet to be convinced it is a good thing, but I'm willing to try it out.

Absolutely not on #2 and #3.  Hitters need to adjust to the problem they have been presented with by pitchers and defense.  Learn how to hit to the opposite field or learn to bunt are my suggestions.

I look at it like this... the whole point is what? 1. To make the game more appealing to younger fans and increase the fan base? Or is it 2.  to make the game more appealing to watch on television, and thus increase television revenue? The public answer is 1, but the reality is probably 2.

To me, NASCAR is a good example. They had a product that was growing and they went with one TV contract and then later hit the big network deals. The tracks used to be filled with fans. They started killing off the smaller tracks in favor of bigger, cookie cutter tracks with more seats, all throughout the country. Then, they started tweaking the way they determine a champion. Races at the end of the season were meaningless if the points had been wrapped up. And at this point, the bread and butter was television, not butts in seats. And with television, and the races on Sunday, they were now competing with the NFL.

Is TV viewership up in NASCAR - no? Track attendance is way down. If the goal of MLB is to increase TV viewership, then maybe tweaking the game is the right way to go.

If they really want more attention, then more focus should be given to the homerun. We're back in reality now where a 30 homerun season is a big deal (and it should be a big deal). But once the public has had a dose of 70 homeruns in a year, and guys routinely hitting 40 and 50, you can't just bottle it up. Everybody digs the long ball.

Maybe they should just turn a blind eye like they were doing 15 years ago and the game might just explode in popularity again.

Stafford posted:

 

If they really want more attention, then more focus should be given to the homerun. We're back in reality now where a 30 homerun season is a big deal (and it should be a big deal). But once the public has had a dose of 70 homeruns in a year, and guys routinely hitting 40 and 50, you can't just bottle it up. Everybody digs the long ball.

Maybe they should just turn a blind eye like they were doing 15 years ago and the game might just explode in popularity again.

Unless your kid is a pitcher

Unless your pitcher son is Madison Baumgartner, then it might be Ok. Crazy how good that guy is!

A game that is nicknamed the "National "Pass time" is in danger of become just that - the past. 

I would go much further than these suggestions.  3 Ball walks and 2 pitch strikeouts and a little bigger strike zone is what is needed.  And before you get all crazy - It has happened before when walks were changed from 5 balls to 4 in 1889.  This followed an equally radical change in 1887 when batters were no longer allowed to call the zone for a pitch.

The game survived both and got better.  The same kind of big thinking is needed today.  The NFL does not resemble the game played 40 years ago and is an infinitely better product now than it was in 1976. 

Here's a few more for you:

1)  Walks get 2 bases  - get those pitchers pounding the zone.

2)  HR's over 450 score another run - Love the long ball make'em count double!

3)  Failed replay appeals by defense move runners up one base - replay will stop on iffy plays  - no more "what the hell" appeals.

4)  A run takes an out off the board so a Sac Fly with one out that scores a run keeps the offense on one out when the next batter steps in the box.  A two run double with 2 outs means zero outs for the offensive team.  Reward the offense for scoring by giving the chance to score more.  Will mean a game is not over at 7-1 in the 7th.  No - there are not negative outs following a lead off homer.  But you would get a SAC bunt back if you can score the runner.

5)  2nd foul ball with 2 strikes is a K - no more slappy swings ruining great pitches.

OK I'm down with all of that as long as this guy umpires all the games.

luv baseball posted:

A game that is nicknamed the "National "Pass time" is in danger of become just that - the past. 

I would go much further than these suggestions.  3 Ball walks and 2 pitch strikeouts and a little bigger strike zone is what is needed.  And before you get all crazy - It has happened before when walks were changed from 5 balls to 4 in 1889.  This followed an equally radical change in 1887 when batters were no longer allowed to call the zone for a pitch.

The game survived both and got better.  The same kind of big thinking is needed today.  The NFL does not resemble the game played 40 years ago and is an infinitely better product now than it was in 1976. 

Here's a few more for you:

1)  Walks get 2 bases  - get those pitchers pounding the zone.

 

.....

 

Actually, Luv, the purpose of the first three you mention (3ball BBs/2 strike K's, little bigger strike zone and walk gets 2 bases to get pitchers to pound the zone) can be addressed by not making any change at all - simply start calling the strike zone the way it already is in the rule book - something closer to the letters at the top of the zone instead of the belt.  This zone would result in more strikes, more swings and quicker games (all good things) and it is already right there in front of them IN THE CURRENT RULES.

Luv, just no!

cabbagedad posted:

luv baseball posted:

A game that is nicknamed the "National "Pass time" is in danger of become just that - the past. 

I would go much further than these suggestions.  3 Ball walks and 2 pitch strikeouts and a little bigger strike zone is what is needed.  And before you get all crazy - It has happened before when walks were changed from 5 balls to 4 in 1889.  This followed an equally radical change in 1887 when batters were no longer allowed to call the zone for a pitch.

The game survived both and got better.  The same kind of big thinking is needed today.  The NFL does not resemble the game played 40 years ago and is an infinitely better product now than it was in 1976. 

Here's a few more for you:

1)  Walks get 2 bases  - get those pitchers pounding the zone.

 

.....

 

Actually, Luv, the purpose of the first three you mention (3ball BBs/2 strike K's, little bigger strike zone and walk gets 2 bases to get pitchers to pound the zone) can be addressed by not making any change at all - simply start calling the strike zone the way it already is in the rule book - something closer to the letters at the top of the zone instead of the belt.  This zone would result in more strikes, more swings and quicker games (all good things) and it is already right there in front of them IN THE CURRENT RULES.

The zone being currently called is actually larger than the book zone--it's pretty much on up and down, and slightly larger out.

Matt13 posted:

cabbagedad posted:

luv baseball posted:

A game that is nicknamed the "National "Pass time" is in danger of become just that - the past. 

I would go much further than these suggestions.  3 Ball walks and 2 pitch strikeouts and a little bigger strike zone is what is needed.  And before you get all crazy - It has happened before when walks were changed from 5 balls to 4 in 1889.  This followed an equally radical change in 1887 when batters were no longer allowed to call the zone for a pitch.

The game survived both and got better.  The same kind of big thinking is needed today.  The NFL does not resemble the game played 40 years ago and is an infinitely better product now than it was in 1976. 

Here's a few more for you:

1)  Walks get 2 bases  - get those pitchers pounding the zone.

 

.....

 

Actually, Luv, the purpose of the first three you mention (3ball BBs/2 strike K's, little bigger strike zone and walk gets 2 bases to get pitchers to pound the zone) can be addressed by not making any change at all - simply start calling the strike zone the way it already is in the rule book - something closer to the letters at the top of the zone instead of the belt.  This zone would result in more strikes, more swings and quicker games (all good things) and it is already right there in front of them IN THE CURRENT RULES.

The zone being currently called is actually larger than the book zone--it's pretty much on up and down, and slightly larger out.

Really?  I thought the definition of top of the zone was this...

"as a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the batter's shoulders and the top of the uniform pants."

I rarely see anything called above the belly button. 

cabbagedad posted:

Matt13 posted:

cabbagedad posted:

luv baseball posted:

A game that is nicknamed the "National "Pass time" is in danger of become just that - the past. 

I would go much further than these suggestions.  3 Ball walks and 2 pitch strikeouts and a little bigger strike zone is what is needed.  And before you get all crazy - It has happened before when walks were changed from 5 balls to 4 in 1889.  This followed an equally radical change in 1887 when batters were no longer allowed to call the zone for a pitch.

The game survived both and got better.  The same kind of big thinking is needed today.  The NFL does not resemble the game played 40 years ago and is an infinitely better product now than it was in 1976. 

Here's a few more for you:

1)  Walks get 2 bases  - get those pitchers pounding the zone.

 

.....

 

Actually, Luv, the purpose of the first three you mention (3ball BBs/2 strike K's, little bigger strike zone and walk gets 2 bases to get pitchers to pound the zone) can be addressed by not making any change at all - simply start calling the strike zone the way it already is in the rule book - something closer to the letters at the top of the zone instead of the belt.  This zone would result in more strikes, more swings and quicker games (all good things) and it is already right there in front of them IN THE CURRENT RULES.

The zone being currently called is actually larger than the book zone--it's pretty much on up and down, and slightly larger out.

Really?  I thought the definition of top of the zone was this...

"as a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the batter's shoulders and the top of the uniform pants."

I rarely see anything called above the belly button. 

Look at the Brooks Baseball data instead of watching it with your eyes. The top of the zone is lower than what most people think (because it's determined in the stance) and pitches at the top of the zone are higher than most people think.

Regarding adjusting to the shift,  it is possible but a pull hitter has his strongest hits to pull and pull center. By placing more fielders in his sweet zone you ask him to either sacrifice power to beat the shift or to hit to his strengths (shift can't defend Homers) and accept like a 15-20 points BABIP hit. 

I remember Matt Adams hitting the other way more one year to beat the shift and I think his average went up a little but his power went down a lot. 

On he other hand, Moustakas worked on hitting the other way to beat the shift and became a much better hitter because of it.

JCG posted:

OK I'm down with all of that as long as this guy umpires all the games.

JCG, in that case - "And may the odds be ever in your favor!" 

As for the shift discussion - it takes at least 3 singles to score one run (no bbh/bp//sac/sb/pb etc) as compared to a homerun.  The defense WANTS hitters to give up on the homer.  You have to hit .500 in every inning to score one run...maybe if all you get is singles.  So hitting the other way may actually work FOR the defense not against it. 

It is a numbers game.  In terms of base hits, the most prolific team of all time; the 1930 Phillies (Whodda thunk?) averaged 11.6 hits per game.  FWIW only 22 teams have ever had 1,660 hits in a season and only 6 of them since 1940.  So 10 hits a game is a hugely prolific offense.