MiLB - Experimental Rules

In basketball, nobody just watches the ball go thru the rim.  it's the pass/the drive/ the athleticism of the players leading up to the shot or dunk that excites fans.

The NBA has its own set of problems turning off fans. The analytics say chuck up forty three pointers per game. The poster boy for this is the Clippers. Guys drive to the hoop not to score. They drive to the hoop to draw in the defense to hit a shooter in the corner for the open three. Players pass up layups and open five footer to hit the open three shooter.

It’s awful to watch when a team has an off night and throws up forty bricks. When a team is having an off night they should be looking for the easy score.

@bandera posted:

once the casual fan sees one home run they've seen them all.  there is little to promote visually in a HR other than a distance travelled metric and that doesn't hold anyone's attention very long.  younger people want action.  and lots of it.  not long periods of guys striking out or walking with an occasional HR that looks essentially like every other HR you've ever seen in your life.  boring!

I never quite understood why a home run is a "top 10 play."  Usually it's because of the situation, but in a "top 10 plays" reel, it's pretty boring.   Unless there's a great bat flip or something...

I grew up with college basketball, can't stand watching the NBA (at least after Michael Jordan retired).

@Dadof3 posted:

22and25, I don't under stand why you are arguing?  Everyone posted, besides you, say they agree and something needs to change.  Who cares if they game is exactly the same as it was 100 years ago.  Either you evolve and continue to live or you go extinct!  If fans are finding it boring then you need to evolve.  Change is necessary.   I am much more interested in watching college baseball and I don't care who is playing!  When "my" mlb team is on, I struggle to watch more then an inning or two.  Now I will take the family to a game or two a year, but other then that, I don't really watch too much of that on TV, it's boring.

I am making my point just like the rest here, no better no worse.  Frankly,  I know a ton of “baseball people“ in everyday life and the overwhelming majority that I interact with hate all of this “speed up the game at all cost” BS.  

I get it, the game is not unchanged but it has evolved over time in a measured way.  The current commissioner seems hell bent on making his mark on the game and I don’t have to like it, sorry.  I think it’s misguided to fundamentally change the game in ways that disenfranchise your core customers to hopefully entice new fans to your bastardized product....but hey, old Rob can be forever remembered as the guy who changed the game🙄

@22and25 posted:

I am making my point just like the rest here, no better no worse.  Frankly,  I know a ton of “baseball people“ in everyday life and the overwhelming majority that I interact with hate all of this “speed up the game at all cost” BS.  

I get it, the game is not unchanged but it has evolved over time in a measured way.  The current commissioner seems hell bent on making his mark on the game and I don’t have to like it, sorry.  I think it’s misguided to fundamentally change the game in ways that disenfranchise your core customers to hopefully entice new fans to your bastardized product....but hey, old Rob can be forever remembered as the guy who changed the game🙄

As with so many other things, there is no single right answer. I don't agree with everything you say, but it's an important viewpoint and you say it well. While I agree with many others that changes are necessary, I think it's a good idea to be cautious about making wholesale changes that will alter the core of the game.  That's one of the reasons I like some of the small changes -- de-juiced ball, higher mound, bigger bases -- adjustments that don't toss the entire record book out along the way.

Stadium attendence is certainly down, can't really debate that. However other outdoor activities have trouble too, people just are in their homes a lot more due to TV and the internet.

As for tv: ratings seem to be somewhat down recently however cable stations are still paying record sums to get broadcasting rights so they are not seeing that as a dying market at all.

The transition from cable to online streaming will be tricky for baseball though as the stream likely means that it will be sold separately and not so much packaged with other stuff. We will see if prices hold steady when cable dies and gets replaced 100% by streaming because if baseball has to be bought separately on an account like mlb.tv especially younger people might be more willing to leave it than old people were to leave cable which has other stuff than baseball too. Obviously it could also be on a package streaming service like disney+ or Netflix but the price pressure in that market is very high (just compare the price of your cable with Netflix or disney+).

MLB is doing great financially but they are worried about a decline of young viewers as well as some minorities which why mlb is trying to Adress that in some marketing campaigns.

Baseball created it's own problem juicing the ball which incentivized homeruns.  Current strategy does not often consider "small ball" since the risk vs reward does not pay off.  Anyone can pop a two or three run homer.  Counter that with bullpens that have high velocity arms often resulting in high pitch counts culminating in a lot of pitchers per AB and often a strikeout or walk.  In theory the number of pitches per game would have gone up compared to twenty years ago but I haven't checked on that.

While I'm not a fan of the pick off it is the only way to hold a runner.  The lefty balk move has always been an unfair advantage for a lefty versus a righty but forcing the lefty to step off to throw to 1B would seem appropriate.  There rarely is a time I get frustrated because a pitcher is holding a good runner close.  They might as well draw a line on the field that is where the runner can lead off.  That eliminates throws completely and allows the runner to get a running start.  The rule seems a little absurd after two pickoffs you might as well move the runner to second.  I just don't see this one making sense.  I would think a lot of stolen bases will result in longer innings because there will be less double plays.  Billy Hamilton may have significant value if the rule gets to MLB and he can still run. 

I am in favor of the 15 second pitch clock.  To me this is the primary drag on the game.  It is fair to expect that a player (pitcher or hitter) does not need thirty or more seconds to be composed for the next pitch. 

Automated K zone is coming.  That will be the Commissioner's mark on the game.  It will be a win for some.  But just like the baseball I'm sure there will be changes made to favor a style.  Too many K's in the game then tighten the zone.  There is always a somewhat unintended consequence in fixing a problem.  Experimenting in the minors and independent leagues is good but when it makes it to MLB there will be serious thought on how to improve outcomes or use the rule advantageously as possible.  I doubt the trial leagues have many people trying to figure out how to maximize the outcome of a rule being tested. 

Oh, they have not mentioned the three minute commercial break between innings.  I think it is at three but maybe it is two minutes.  Either way it is a time that is built in that has to be there for revenue.  So, there is 30+ minutes of built in dead time that has to be there.  I'm assuming more in game product advertising is coming in the form of a banner or product getting a five second splash screen type placement.  With larger TV screens they will figure out how to use the screen space to get advertisement dollars.

I'm not a fan of major changes when the biggest problem is the length between pitches due to hitters or pitchers not being ready.  My son's college team had games averaging four hours, it was a dreadful amount of time as coaches called pitches and catchers then relayed at varying pace.  Most Summer league games were called by catchers and they lasted two to two and a half hours.  Much better fan experience for sure. 

I cut the cord several years ago and went with YouTube TV since it had the MLB Channel.  Cost was $49, now it is $65 and they seem intent on being like cable TV.  It is still a much better deal than cable but they seem to be victims of adding non-valued channels in order to get the one channel they want from a provider.  I guess the business model works for them or they wouldn't add the non-valued channel for the one they want. I'm spoiled with the DVR so for now it it the best deal going. 

@Dadof3 posted:

22and25, I don't under stand why you are arguing?  Everyone posted, besides you, say they agree and something needs to change.  Who cares if they game is exactly the same as it was 100 years ago.  Either you evolve and continue to live or you go extinct!  If fans are finding it boring then you need to evolve.  Change is necessary.   I am much more interested in watching college baseball and I don't care who is playing!  When "my" mlb team is on, I struggle to watch more then an inning or two.  Now I will take the family to a game or two a year, but other then that, I don't really watch too much of that on TV, it's boring.

Me too.  College baseball figured it out.  Fifteen years ago the game was ridiculous with 10 or more HRs a game and scores in the teens and 20s.  Now it's awesome.  MLB should open their eyes and take a look.