What is your take so far on the rules? I think I mostly really like it. I think the pitch clock rule needs a few little tweaks but overall the rules are all pretty great. Stolen bases are up a lot so far, and games like 25 minutes shorter
Replies sorted oldest to newest
I am a huge fan of the pitch clock. Games are 30 mins shorter with more action (more hits due to no infield shift - lefty batting averages were up like 70 points in preseason) and more stolen bases. I have to think runs will be up (prob too soon for that data). I also think they balanced the schedule this year, meaning NL will play every AL team (and vice versa), and in divisional games go from 19 games to 13 games, so you will see more teams as well. A+ grade from me.
After seeing a few games, I like the changes overall. Pitch clock is a huge improvement. I was against the shift as I think the defense should do whatever it can to get hitters out, but willing to let that slide for more data.
The single biggest change has to be the disengagement from the pitching rubber rule. MLB is limiting it to two times. It should be unlimited....a pitcher should be able to keep a runner close to the base especially now there is a pitch clock keeping the game moving. That was my single biggest complaint when they announced these rule changes and it still is. Nothing I've seen makes me want to keep that new rule.
@fenwaysouth posted:
The single biggest change has to be the disengagement from the pitching rubber rule. MLB is limiting it to two times. It should be unlimited....a pitcher should be able to keep a runner close to the base especially now there is a pitch clock keeping the game moving. That was my single biggest complaint when they announced these rule changes and it still is. Nothing I've seen makes me want to keep that new rule.
With bigger bases, too, the advantage is now with the runner. I like seeing runners on the move and pitchers limited to throwing over only three times. I hated seeing pitchers throw over there five times in a row (said as a pitcher's father whose lefty son rarely threw over - atrocious I know). Pitchers will adapt. They will start getting guys on the third throw over (runners don't think they will try) and risk the automatic runner going to second if they don't get him. Once pitchers start trying to get them a third-time runner behaviors will have to change. Right now, I don't think runners will think a pitcher will throw a third time. Has that even happened yet?
I guess a year's worth of data will resolve this rule, but the rest are staying is my guess, and probably a new one that restricts outfielders from shifting.
@Gunner Mack Jr. posted:With bigger bases, too, the advantage is now with the runner. I like seeing runners on the move and pitchers limited to throwing over only three times. I hated seeing pitchers throw over there five times in a row (said as a pitcher's father whose lefty son rarely threw over - atrocious I know). Pitchers will adapt. They will start getting guys on the third throw over (runners don't think they will try) and risk the automatic runner going to second if they don't get him. Once pitchers start trying to get them a third-time runner behaviors will have to change. Right now, I don't think runners will think a pitcher will throw a third time. Has that even happened yet?
I guess a year's worth of data will resolve this rule, but the rest are staying is my guess, and probably a new one that restricts outfielders from shifting.
I was taught in college to throw over at least five times on a fast runner. This is my terrible move. Get out a little further. I want you to think this is my best move. Take another step. Gotcha! If I can't get you I want you diving back a couple more times and wearing yourself out.
Absolutely hate the pitch clock (add at least 5 seconds to both parts and I may consider it lol). OK with banning the shift. Hate the disengagement rule. OK with the bases
I admit it may just amount to "I know it when I see it," but I think rule changes shouldn't alter the fundamental way the game unspools. The pitch clock seems fine to me. It doesn't change the pitcher vs batter duel fundamentally--it just limits dead time. Larger bases are a matter of shortening distances by inches, not altering the basic requirements to get from one bag to another. Plus, there's precedent for small-scale spatial changes such as lowering the mound or changing the strike zone.
But limiting the number of throws to hold a runner is like deciding batters get four strikes--you have materially altered one of the tools pitchers were always allowed to use to control the running game. We will know more after a year of the new rule, but I'm a skeptic. (Granted, being able to take extra time between pitches to throw off a runner's timing is no longer possible with the pitch clock. I won't claim my opinions are perfectly logical, but that seems to me like a less significant change.)
In the same vein, while it's not a new rule this year, it is new as a permanent rule: Starting extra innings with a runner on second base still seems like a terrible idea. The fact the rule doesn't apply in the postseason just highlights that the "ghost runner" is not real major league baseball. (And stats for extra inning games now are usually anomalous because no pitcher gets charged with an earned run for the ghost runner and the runner's OBP doesn't change.) (But the ghost runner can be an RBI... Go figure.) At a minimum, I wish MLB would play 12 innings before magicking players into scoring position.
@Chico Escuela posted:In the same vein, while it's not a new rule this year, it is new as a permanent rule: Starting extra innings with a runner on second base still seems like a terrible idea. The fact the rule doesn't apply in the postseason just highlights that the "ghost runner" is not real major league baseball. (And stats for extra inning games now are usually anomalous because no pitcher gets charged with an earned run for the ghost runner and the runner's OBP doesn't change.) (But the ghost runner can be an RBI... Go figure.) At a minimum, I wish MLB would play 12 innings before magicking players into scoring position.
Forgot about the runner on 2nd thing.....no, no, no! Agree that maybe later in the game (not the 10th) would be better.
Why doesn’t baseball allow for a tie after 9 innings during the regular season? Would that be so bad?
With the pickoff rule I think catcher backpicks should be used a lot more to keep the runner closer.
The only problem I have seen with the rule is the one this weekend where they called a strike on the batter when the runner, in their opinion, took too long returning to first after a foul ball. The umpire threw the pitcher the ball right away and the runner had rounded second and took a slow jog back to first.
@TexasLefty posted:Why doesn’t baseball allow for a tie after 9 innings during the regular season? Would that be so bad?
I have thought about this, too. And my first reaction is “you can’t have ties in baseball!” But really, it doesn’t seem that hard to imagine. A main aim of the "ghost runner” rule is to shorten games to reduce player fatigue/injury risk, and ties would be even better at that
The bigger change would be that you could no longer compare teams’ win-loss records to those of pre- ties-allowed era seasons. To a lesser extent, the same would be true of pitching win-loss stats, since you would not have a winner or loser in tie games. But modern analytics tell us we shouldn’t care about pitcher W/L records anyhow.
Maybe how much ties would bother you depends on how fond you are of trying to compare players and teams across eras. Some would say the game and the players have changed too much anyhow, others believe one of baseball’s charms is the ability to analyze (and argue about) decades of statistical data. Season standings would look radically different than previous years—and would look a lot like (gasp!) soccer leagues’. I could see some minor strategy changes as teams play for ties when they don’t need a win, but baseball isn’t soccer and that doesn’t seem like a big factor to me. In the end, ties might do less damage to the “game as it always was” than the ghost runner rule.
@PitchingFan posted:The only problem I have seen with the rule is the one this weekend where they called a strike on the batter when the runner, in their opinion, took too long returning to first after a foul ball. The umpire threw the pitcher the ball right away and the runner had rounded second and took a slow jog back to first.
PF - If you are referring to the Pete Alonso walk back to first base, then I agree with the umpires. There was no slow jog. It was clearly a leisurely walk back to first. He could have made it back to first in a much more timely manner. https://twitter.com/i/status/1641558021045391360
Afterthought - so I'm going to recant my earlier umpire comments about the Realmuto situation where he was kicked out of the game. That was not on the umpire or Realmuto. Kimbrel was the instigator, and the one "dicking around" trying to slow the game down. I've watched the video a few times, and Realmuto was a victim of circumstance and it all started with Kimbrel. The umpire was correct to toss a player, he just tossed the wrong one.
If there is one thing that seems to be universal in baseball this year, it is the umpires aren't taking any crap so far this year. I've seen a handful of games, and they've got no problem enforcing the rules and pace of the game.
I agree the end of it was a walk but he started with a jog then did what every coach who has ever coached told him to do which is take your time and get your breath so you are ready to go when you get back to the bag. So how much time should a runner take getting back to first? There has to be a time amount or a warning by an umpire to hurry up.
