I'm surprised this hasn't come up yet, so I thought I'd post it. Seems to me like some of this makes some sense, and some of it is a little weird. Like starting extra innings with a runner on 2nd. Wondering what your thoughts are.
https://www.milb.com/milb/news...for-2018/c-268683294
Replies sorted oldest to newest
I'm ok with it, but no runs or stolen bases should count for the guy leading off on 2nd in extra innings. No LOB, FC, RBI DP's should count for/against for the batter either.
bballman posted:I'm surprised this hasn't come up yet, so I thought I'd post it. Seems to me like some of this makes some sense, and some of it is a little weird. Like starting extra innings with a runner on 2nd. Wondering what your thoughts are.
https://www.milb.com/milb/news...for-2018/c-268683294
Why not go with a penalty kick shootout?
hsbaseball101 posted:I'm ok with it, but no runs or stolen bases should count for the guy leading off on 2nd in extra innings. No LOB, FC, RBI DP's should count for/against for the batter either.
Yeah, from the article, it looks like they accounted for the runner pretty well from a pitcher's perspective, but from a batter's perspective, it is a little murky.
I understand these rules are for pace of play. And the mound visits seem substantial enough where it shouldn't create too much of a problem. However, MiLB ball is supposed to be for development, so I guess they had to balance between a faster paced game and a kid getting some good mound pitching advice from a coach. Especially when they are considering making an infielder coming over to say something to the pitcher as a mound visit.
Anyway, saw this article a few days ago and was waiting for it to come up. Never did, so I thought I'd throw it out there.
Instead of a penalty shoot out how about hitting dingers off a tee for the win?
Perhaps after the 18th inning shorten the game. Until then, an entire bull pen is waiting to get innings and prove themselves. Those guys generally don't get enough work (most were starters in their prior job) - one inning every third or even fourth day (which is pretty standard until AA) isn't enough to keep sharp.
hsbaseball101 posted:
I'm ok with it, but no runs or stolen bases should count for the guy leading off on 2nd in extra innings. No LOB, FC, RBI DP's should count for/against for the batter either.
Why? Not one of those metrics has to do with how a batter reached base. By your logic those things shouldn’t count for pinch runners or runners who have been awarded a base either.
MidAtlanticDad posted:I know many people hate the runner on 2nd rule. I happen to have a lot of respect for many of those people. However... I don't see it as any big deal. Maybe I don't know the whole story. I don't think I would ever be ok with this for MLB, but it does make sense to me for MiLB. I see mostly A-level games. Most of the fans have left by the 9th inning. The players are there mostly for development, right? Playing a 13 inning game and getting your pitching schedule all out of wrack doesn't make sense to me in that environment.HSB101, good point about stats.Some of that will be screwy. When that guy on 2nd scores, how does he get a Run with no PA?
The same way a pinch runner does.
Stats4Gnats posted:MidAtlanticDad posted:I know many people hate the runner on 2nd rule. I happen to have a lot of respect for many of those people. However... I don't see it as any big deal. Maybe I don't know the whole story. I don't think I would ever be ok with this for MLB, but it does make sense to me for MiLB. I see mostly A-level games. Most of the fans have left by the 9th inning. The players are there mostly for development, right? Playing a 13 inning game and getting your pitching schedule all out of wrack doesn't make sense to me in that environment.HSB101, good point about stats.Some of that will be screwy. When that guy on 2nd scores, how does he get a Run with no PA?The same way a pinch runner does.
I didn't actually mean the runner's personal stats, I meant the runner in general. There's no accounting for how a runner reached base (using traditional scorekeeping). How will you prove your score without some accounting of him? I know they use this method in International play, so I assume someone has made up some new categories for it.
It also impacts the value of a run now that I think about it.
MidAtlanticDad posted: I didn't actually mean the runner's personal stats, I meant the runner in general. There's no accounting for how a runner reached base (using traditional scorekeeping). How will you prove your score without some accounting of him? I know they use this method in International play, so I assume someone has made up some new categories for it.
It also impacts the value of a run now that I think about it.
How would you account for a runner who gets awarded 1st base by defensive interference by the catcher? I mark it Int(2). That way I know not only how he got on but who to charge with the error and to make sure I know the run cannot be earned. For the new rule I’d likely mark it ByR or some other easily recognizable designation.
How do you think the value of a run is impacted?
Stats4Gnats posted:
How do you think the value of a run is impacted?
It will result in more runs scored per inning than happens with current extra innings. So the value of scoring a run goes down since it becomes less difficult (thinking analytics). It doesn't change anything for that specific player who comes up in the 10th (no different than if he had followed a lead-off double), but for scoring runs in total. I'm not saying that it really matters in the grand scheme of things, but it does change a fundamental part of the game that many assumptions are based on.
MidAtlanticDad posted: It will result in more runs scored per inning than happens with current extra innings. So the value of scoring a run goes down since it becomes less difficult (thinking analytics). It doesn't change anything for that specific player who comes up in the 10th (no different than if he had followed a lead-off double), but for scoring runs in total. I'm not saying that it really matters in the grand scheme of things, but it does change a fundamental part of the game that many assumptions are based on.
I’ll grant that more runs will likely be scored by starting an inning with a runner on 2nd. Mebbe I’m naive here, but I’m wondering who is running those kinds of analytics for Mil baseball. Are there hot stove leagues for MiLB?
I honestly don’t see how this rule is gonna warp the fabric of the game in the slightest. Now if they institute the rule at the ML level that’s a different story.
So one thought. Since a catcher is charged a visit to the mound. If the ump gets drilled by a pitch does the catcher still call time and go talk to the pitcher as a courtesy to the ump.
These rules reinforce the common perception that MiLB isn't about winning but about developing the few prospects on each roster while delivering an entertaining product fans will pay to see.
Get the prospects their reps, get the games in quick, and let's not hang around too long after the beer concession closes and there's no more money to be made from the captive audience.
The honesty is refreshing.
I think it's ridiculous....I hated it in 12U travel ball, but I understand that the tourneys were on a bit of a time schedule.
The rule is put in for two reasons....pace of play, which this rule doesn't effect...it effect the length of the game. If you don't want to stay....just get up and go home...it happens all the time in MiLB. A lot of those fans are there for "something to do"...and could care less about the game.
The second reason was due to pitching issues...too many innings, not enough arms, etc, etc. If that's the case, I'd rather them just play 12 innings....and if it's tied at the end of 12, call it a tie. Heck, you can tie in the NHL and people deal with it. It is what it is. I'd rather see a team go all out in the bottom of 12 trying to score a run any way they can to get the win than see a 0-0 game ruined when it ends in the bottom of 10 on an error to 3B on the first pitch of the inning.
They could try telling umpires to actually call the high strike. That would shorten things a lot, and save pitcher’s arms.
Teaching Elder posted:They could try telling umpires to actually call the high strike. That would shorten things a lot, and save pitcher’s arms.
If that would really shorten games and save arms they'd go to using technology to call pitches not swung at and wouldn't have to tell umpires anything. 
What's wrong with ending in a tie after 9 in MiLB? I mean, if they want to save arms and keep games shorter, and winning isn't what its all about anyway, why not just keep things simple and say game's over.
MidAtlanticDad posted:Stats4Gnats posted:
How do you think the value of a run is impacted?
It will result in more runs scored per inning than happens with current extra innings. So the value of scoring a run goes down since it becomes less difficult (thinking analytics). It doesn't change anything for that specific player who comes up in the 10th (no different than if he had followed a lead-off double), but for scoring runs in total. I'm not saying that it really matters in the grand scheme of things, but it does change a fundamental part of the game that many assumptions are based on.
Love that chart. Not to hijack the thread, but it seems to indicate that a no-out sac bunt to move the runner from 1st to 2nd is counter-productive (as is the bunt to move the runner from 2nd to 3rd, or 1st & 2nd to 2nd & 3rd with no outs).
4T2 posted:MidAtlanticDad posted:Stats4Gnats posted:
How do you think the value of a run is impacted?
It will result in more runs scored per inning than happens with current extra innings. So the value of scoring a run goes down since it becomes less difficult (thinking analytics). It doesn't change anything for that specific player who comes up in the 10th (no different than if he had followed a lead-off double), but for scoring runs in total. I'm not saying that it really matters in the grand scheme of things, but it does change a fundamental part of the game that many assumptions are based on.
Love that chart. Not to hijack the thread, but it seems to indicate that a no-out sac bunt to move the runner from 1st to 2nd is counter-productive (as is the bunt to move the runner from 2nd to 3rd, or 1st & 2nd to 2nd & 3rd with no outs).
Yes, it is (individual tendencies notwithstanding.)
4T2 posted:Love that chart. Not to hijack the thread, but it seems to indicate that a no-out sac bunt to move the runner from 1st to 2nd is counter-productive (as is the bunt to move the runner from 2nd to 3rd, or 1st & 2nd to 2nd & 3rd with no outs).
Correct. That's why you pretty much no longer see it done in the majors (except by pitchers). I don't think we currently have enough data to predict how similar the numbers would be for college and high school. One problem is that there's a much wider range of still in college and high school, so you really shouldn't generalize as much.
I follow D3 baseball. For a swag, I look at the OBP and SLG for the guys coming to bat. There are loads of guys with > .500 OBP. I wouldn't give up an out with one of those guys at the plate just to move a runner except for a few very specific situations.
Scotty83 posted:So one thought. Since a catcher is charged a visit to the mound. If the ump gets drilled by a pitch does the catcher still call time and go talk to the pitcher as a courtesy to the ump.
If the umpire agrees that F1 and F2 are "crossed up" he can allow F2 to go out without charging a visit.
From what I have heard, much of the specifics are still in flux on this rule.
MidAtlanticDad posted:4T2 posted:Love that chart. Not to hijack the thread, but it seems to indicate that a no-out sac bunt to move the runner from 1st to 2nd is counter-productive (as is the bunt to move the runner from 2nd to 3rd, or 1st & 2nd to 2nd & 3rd with no outs).
Correct. That's why you pretty much no longer see it done in the majors (except by pitchers). I don't think we currently have enough data to predict how similar the numbers would be for college and high school. One problem is that there's a much wider range of still in college and high school, so you really shouldn't generalize as much.
I follow D3 baseball. For a swag, I look at the OBP and SLG for the guys coming to bat. There are loads of guys with > .500 OBP. I wouldn't give up an out with one of those guys at the plate just to move a runner except for a few very specific situations.
I'm a case by case guy, and it depends on the situation what I would do. As you mention, what's the OB % of my hitter?, is the hitter hot?, is he in a slump?, game score?, etc.
noumpere posted:Scotty83 posted:So one thought. Since a catcher is charged a visit to the mound. If the ump gets drilled by a pitch does the catcher still call time and go talk to the pitcher as a courtesy to the ump.
If the umpire agrees that F1 and F2 are "crossed up" he can allow F2 to go out without charging a visit.
From what I have heard, much of the specifics are still in flux on this rule.
I was wondering about that. I'm sure if the catcher took time for the benifit of the umpire then the ump could use that clause. I actually wondered if that's why they put it in there since blue getting drilled could easily be attributed to a cross up on signs.
