MLB playoffs

@RJM posted:

The cost of moving back fences in many parks would be high. In a handful, impossible. Google an overhead of Fenway and Wrigley.

I took a tour of Fenway a couple years ago with my boys (cousin lives in Boston) and it is a beautiful ball-park. (On a side note Atlanta's tour was really cool as well, they let the kids go through the dugout and onto the field, boys had a blast acting like big leaguers) I haven't gotten a chance to visit Chicago, but it is on my list. My statement about moving the fences back was generalized. If the majority of teams do it, others will have to adjust in order to score runs. Won't happen over night, but it would change the game over time. Same thought-process with raising the mound as well.

As far as the cost ???   -   Its just a padded fence and maybe a row or two of bleachers - Legit homeruns are still homeruns   -  Just take away to ones that should have been warning track power. 

Anybody know the average HR distance the past couple of years?

@TerribleBPthrower posted:

Anybody know the average HR distance the past couple of years?

It varies from barely over the OF wall to all the way out of the park.

@TerribleBPthrower posted:

Anybody know the average HR distance the past couple of years?

Avg homer distance has  been around 400 ft for at least a decade. I think it hasn't changed much because there are more long homers but also more warning track outs flying out.

How about just raising the wall instead of moving them back? As a kid one of the most exciting plays was watching Wade Boggs slap a ball off the Green Monster for a double.

I like the ideas of no new innings after 2h 45m, no more then 1 foul ball allowed after two strikes (Would force to put the ball in play), and de-juice the ball like KBO did. IMO

Fences moving out won't happen. Mlb likes the long ball and many teams actually moved in the fences in the last decade (giants, mets, padres, marlins and probably others).

I don't think a single team has moved out fences in the last decade.

^^^ agree that it won't happen,  but believe that it SHOULD happen. Games would be much more entertaining to watch if they would take the leash off players like Mookie Betts.     

Just give these guys room to run  -  It would change the game for the good.

I only started liking baseball when my son became interested.  So I don't have a sense of the "old days" - for most of my life I couldn't understand why anyone watched baseball.  Now that I understand more, I like it just fine the way it is.  A catch in the outfield is great, a home run is great, a double-play is great, even a bunch of Ks with the game on the line is exciting.  Time between pitches could definitely be speeded up, that's the only thing that seems ridiculous to me, especially when there is a rule that is routinely ignored.

Time between innings is necessary for the mascot races, t-shirt shots, mock-sumo (maybe that's just MiLB).

Now, what I hate in football:  score, commercial, kickoff to endzone, commercial, resume play.  Almost all kickoffs are the same, why bother?  I haven't seen a really great kickoff return in ages.

@Dominik85 posted:

Fences moving out won't happen. Mlb likes the long ball and many teams actually moved in the fences in the last decade (giants, mets, padres, marlins and probably others).

I don't think a single team has moved out fences in the last decade.

Also, new parks in the past twenty years are smaller.

@ReluctantO'sFan posted:

Just give these guys room to run  -  It would change the game for the good.

Why can’t we get guys like this?

Bob Lobel, former sports director, WBZ4 Boston

@ReluctantO'sFan posted:

I took a tour of Fenway a couple years ago with my boys (cousin lives in Boston) and it is a beautiful ball-park. (On a side note Atlanta's tour was really cool as well, they let the kids go through the dugout and onto the field, boys had a blast acting like big leaguers) I haven't gotten a chance to visit Chicago, but it is on my list. My statement about moving the fences back was generalized. If the majority of teams do it, others will have to adjust in order to score runs. Won't happen over night, but it would change the game over time. Same thought-process with raising the mound as well.

As far as the cost ???   -   Its just a padded fence and maybe a row or two of bleachers - Legit homeruns are still homeruns   -  Just take away to ones that should have been warning track power.

The cost is losing high prized ticket seats.

Also most fans do like homers. They don't like the other stuff that comes with it like walks, Ks and many pitching changes but they do like the long ball.

Thus my suggestion is make the strike zone slightly smaller and at the same time deaden the ball a bit. Not a ton, just enough to stop the increase in homers and give the pitchers an incentive to pitch more to contact.

That way we only would have similar homer numbers but also more balls in play. Smaller zone might increase walks a bit but the deader ball means that pitchers have less incentive to nibble.

Watched a game in Miami a few years ago when I was traveling through FL, Stanton hit a 2 second missile into that Dolphin thing they had CF. Honestly, I didn't know a human being could hit a ball that hard. That was exciting to watch in person, not some fisted off bloop just over some short porch.

As far as the seat cost???  When I go to watch a game the expensive seats seem to be field level, either behind the plate or next to the dugouts.  Even if the 1st couple rows of outfield seats are more expensive, then when you remove them (or push them back) the next couple rows become the 1st couple.  Price doesn't change as the location to the fence didn't change. Also to note, when was the last time you watched a baseball game (pre-covid) and said man there was a lot of fans in the outfield stands?  And that's why they are called the cheap seats.

Smaller strike zone - seriously -  pitchers are drafted based on velo not command. Many can barely throw strikes as it is (nibbling or not).

Maybe with a smaller Zone the wild hard throwers would get weeded out some?

It sounds  sacrilegious but how about making mlb games 7 innings? They already did this with double headers last year and I kinda liked it.

Pitchers only go 5-6 these days anyway so is seeing 3-4 innings of relief pitching that great of an experience for the viewer?

This would reduce game time and also maybe reduce bullpenning some and give starters a more prominent role again.

@Dominik85 posted:

It sounds  sacrilegious but how about making mlb games 7 innings? They already did this with double headers last year and I kinda liked it.

Pitchers only go 5-6 these days anyway so is seeing 3-4 innings of relief pitching that great of an experience for the viewer?

This would reduce game time and also maybe reduce bullpenning some and give starters a more prominent role again.

I’m all for no inning starts after 2:45 from the start.