Commissioner to Look at Ways to Improve Game

[Omar]

They have to enlarge the strike zone at this point, to be honest.

And there's no way the DH comes to the NL. A majority of owners are in the NL and I can't see them voting for it.

[CrimsonCane]

Here's an explanation of James' idea: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=9431

Basically, the team would get 2 throw backs per inning. Any subsequent throws would count as a ball to the current batter. (This applies only to unsuccessful throws. A successful pick off would not count as one of the two throws or as a ball)


This makes more sense than an outright limit.

[Party]

How will that affect the game though? I'm not really crazy about that idea. In the eyes of the runner, they can take a huge lead once they've made that one throw-over.

Not having 800 throw overs in the last 3 innings = Fans win

They may take that lead, but then the game shifts from a pitcher-runner confrontation to a catcher-runner situation. In the 8th inning of a tie game, I'd rather have the second scenario. It reintroduces a facet of the game which has been under utilized for far too long.

And yes, pitchers may lose, but they have been on the bad side of rule changes for a century. I would do the throw over limit and slightly larger strike zone simultaneously.

Offense is good, but too much is not good and turns games into 4 hour Red Sox-Yankees games. I hate those. Those types of games feed the stereotype that baseball is boring. The average game is almost 2 hours and 50 minutes. MLB should set a goal of cutting 10-15 minutes off that time.

2 hr and 30 min games are awesome.
--------------------

I just don't know how you practically resolve that, outside of making it a subjective call for umpires to make (which is probably not en vogue considering the shit heaping umps have taken lately).

Can you throw over past your limit if the runner takes a huge lead? If so, how big is huge? Can he go halfway to second? If not that, do you limit the lead that runners can take? I don't like the idea of putting those kind of restrictions on play, and I don't really see any other way to institute a throw-over limit.

If the guy takes a huge lead, the pitcher throws a ball outside and the catcher guns him down at first or second. The runner won't have free-reign over the field.

[Bobbob1313]

Enlarging the strike zone is not for me. Too drastic and it won't have the desired effect.

[Metes]

If the guy takes a huge lead, the pitcher throws a ball outside and the catcher guns him down at first or second. The runner won't have free-reign over the field.

Right, and the pitcher wastes a ball and any guy with decent wheels is standing on second because they were halfway there already.

[Party]

Right, and the pitcher wastes a ball and any guy with decent wheels is standing on second because they were halfway there already.

The situation would never get to that point because the pitch would occur long before he was a quarter or halfway to second in a game where there is a strict limit.

James' proposal is for me though.
--------------------
Matt Wilson's great grandfather was against allowing pitchers to throw overhand because of all the deception involved in overhand throwing.

[CrimsonCane]

After thinking it over, I'm in favor of James' idea.

As a personal preference, I would also like intentional walks to count as 2 bases instead of 1. It is not as fun when great players come up in clutch situations only to see them intentionally walked. I think it's a strategic move that should be discouraged.

[Party]

Enlarging the strike zone is not for me. Too drastic and it won't have the desired effect.

A 1980s style strike zone is a nice middle ground between the 2000s and 60s strike zone and it would not drastically change the game.

It's cool watching a game from 1985 and counting how many pitches wouldn't be called strikes today.

[Fritz]

I want an automatic device that calls balls and strikes. Eff the nonsense.

[nc42dad]

Limit the number of visits a catcher makes to the mound.
2 minutes between innings in the playoffs versus three.
Intention walks - just send the dude down to 1st versus making 4 throws.
New relief pitchers coming into the game get 5 warm ups versus 8.

I'd vote for the DH in both leagues. AL is more attractive to free agent hitters because it gives them the option to hit and not play the field. More star power.

[Fritz]

I like the intentional walk thing but I know that everyone is going to cite that game we played against the Orioles a few years back where Miggie hit a single because of a bad IBB pitch.

[CrimsonCane]

That's why I think you give 2 bases for a true intentional walk. (And you can have it be automatically issued, no pitches needed). By keeping them rare, it makes things more interesting, especially because intentional walks are given way too frequently now from both an entertainment and a strategic viewpoint. If you want to pitch around the batter, fine, but you should have to run the risk of having a pitch run away from you.

[nc42dad]

So if you give two bases, and assuming there is a guy on second....does he score then or go to third?

I watched one Phille/Dodger playoff game and it took over 30 minutes to play one-half inning (five pitching changes.) They all threw 8 warm ups pitches x's 5 = 40! In High school the kids get 5 also when they come in... The game has changed in that bullpens are used way, way more than ever before so I think these guys can get warmed up enough in the pen. I am still in favor of 8 warm ups for the guy who starts the inning - sometimes you sit (30 minutes?) quite a while.

It is hard for me to watch MLB games after watching so many Minor League games - not sure what the average time of one of them is but it sure seems a lot quicker. 3 1/2 hours is torture. The last two innings of MLB games take forever.

Side note. Either the Yankee pitchers or Jorge Posada are intellectually challenged because I have never in my day seen a catcher go out to the mound as much as he did. Geez Alou, give the sign, play the damn game.

[CrimsonCane]

So if you give two bases, and assuming there is a guy on second....does he score then or go to third?

The runner would score. An intentional walk would be akin to a ground rule double.

The purpose of the 2 base rule is more to eliminate intentional walks altogether. (I'd support an all-out ban too) The new rule would increase the level of risk inherent in pitching around the league's best hitters. To me, the intentional walk is just such a cop out strategy. It also deflates the crowd when it's happening because it's probably the least suspenseful thing in baseball, with the exception of warm up throws. Lastly, it's not what the fans want to see. For example, people paid to see Barry Bonds hit home runs, not to see Jeff Kent hit after Barry Bonds got a free pass to first base.

[Namaste]

I want an automatic device that calls balls and strikes. Eff the nonsense.

no NO NONONONONONO