Commissioner to Look at Ways to Improve Game

[Bobbob1313]

You're not going to change the game for the better by increasing strike outs, which is the only tangible effect of enlarging the strike zone. Whatever else comes out of that will only be a lessening of offense through less walks and more strikeouts. Players already strike out too much as it is, this isn't goingto make things any better. If anything, it creates a league more based on the homerun for scoring because offense will go down all around.

[Fritz]

Less offense is going to drive away the casual fan.

[Branch]

no NO NONONONONONO

Why? The human inaccuracy aspect appeals to you? Or maybe the fact that, just like refs in the NBA, some umpires hold grudges against certain teams/managers/players and are more likely to call some at-bats unfairly because of that? You enjoy that aspect of the game, do you?

If a pitch is a ball, it should be called a ball. If it's a strike, it should be called a strike. This is actually a situation that is just too challenging for most humans to be able to handle responsibly. We should probably use machines for it, if only for the sake of accuracy and fairness. I can't count how many times I've been watching a game on TV and the network's "PitchZone" tracker labels a pitch as clearly and obviously the opposite of the call the umpire made. Makes me sick. We have the technology to be able to call every pitch accurately, we should be fucking doing it.

[nc42dad]

Am I the only one that doesn't think there need to be any changes, other than maybe allowing for "reviewable" plays that come from the booth rather than from the challenge?

Maybe I'm on board for limited the number of visits a catcher can make in an inning, but it'd have to be a reasonably high number because there is the "professional courtesy" that comes into play when an umpire gets hit and the catcher takes a walk, plus what counts as a visit, the catcher relays the 1st and 3rd signs a decent amount so that is a competitive disadvantage if it's taken away.

I think the game on the field between the chalk is great and needs almost no tweaking, it's what goes on in the ownership suites that needs a massive overhaul, and that just won't happen under Selig.

I think you are with the majority. The majority of people do not want any change. However, for the old timers like me we have watched the game change and not necessarily for the better. Not to date myself but..... I remember when I was young we got box seats at Comiskey Park for $3 (late 60's/70's). We spent more time talking about the game than we did how much money the players made. You wonder why these young players (Johnson and all the rest) coming up are DEMANDing big money? It is all baseball fans talk about - $$$.

Players in the 70's worked in local sporting good stores in the winter to supplement their income. With the big money came steroids....

[Bobbob1313]

I like a world where our players can focus on the sports so they can be better.

[Party]

You're not going to change the game for the better by increasing strike outs, which is the only tangible effect of enlarging the strike zone. Whatever else comes out of that will only be a lessening of offense through less walks and more strikeouts. Players already strike out too much as it is, this isn't goingto make things any better. If anything, it creates a league more based on the homerun for scoring because offense will go down all around.

It may temporarily increase strikeouts, but if it comes to adversely affect the game players will adjust just like they always have. If anything a slightly bigger strikezone is going to force players to use the entire field instead of the sit back and wait to pull one 400 feet mentality that the current strikezone encourages.

Calling high strikes again is not going to kill offense.

[Bobbob1313]

If we're name dropping Bill James, I prefer his suggestion about making the handle of the bat thicker. We've had a lot of talk about the fragility of the bats in the last two years, and this is one way to take care of that and it will also promote bat control.

I would also like to get rid of metal bats in amateur baseball, as it creates that same "wait for the 400 foot homer" mentality because you can hit homers on any pitch with a metal bat.

To paraphrase Bill James, increasing the size of the strike zone is just going to make .300 hitters who hit 45 homers turn into .280 hitters with 35 homers, and .280 hitters who with 35 homers will turn into .250 hitters who hit 25 homers.

You're going to see a decrease in offense, and that's not what baseball needs to promote, regardless of whether you think it's "good" for the play on the field to have less offense, as Fritz has said a couple of times, the casual fan likes offense.

If anything, I think strikeouts are a big problem with baseball, and that's why I like Bill James' idea to increase the handles on the bats. It promotes bat control and makes more contact and less power. you can't have something that has a net negative effect on offense, it has to be something that at least is a wash.

[Omar]

The casual fan isn't interested in games that last hours and hours - which is exactly what happens with games that are overly offensive.

[Bobbob1313]

You have to strike a balance. You can't give one facet of the game an overt advantage with a rule change.

[Omar]

Not sure how calling the rules as written is an overt advantage for one facet of the game over another. What it would be doing is removing the overt advantage one aspect of the game has (offense) and replacing it with the way it's 'supposed' to be called.

[Bobbob1313]

I don't see how offense has an overt advantage right now.

Strikeouts are already at the highest levels they've ever been, increasing the strikezone will only make that worse. It isn't going to produce the desired effects, it will just make more strikeouts. Guys aren't going to stop swinging for the fences.

[Party]

Right and for many years one facet (hitting, in technology, league rule interpretation, stadium architecture, etc. etc. etc.) has had an overt advantage over the other and it's starting to adversely affect the time and pace in which games are completed.

Calling high strikes (while giving baserunners an advantage) is not going to bring about another 1968 and it won't drop batting averages by 20 points. I don't want the Eric Gregg 'everything in the zip code' interpretation of the strikezone either. I just want something similar to the 1980s.
--------------------

I don't see how offense has an overt advantage right now.

Strikeouts are already at the highest levels they've ever been, increasing the strikezone will only make that worse. It isn't going to produce the desired effects, it will just make more strikeouts. Guys aren't going to stop swinging for the fences.

Ahem.

[Bobbob1313]

I mean, wasn't the whole point of the QuesTec to straighten that out, and hasn't that mostly been successful? Wasn't the whole point of that to start making umpires accountable for going by the rules? They even implemented a new, more modern version last season. I don't think you can just say "they need to go back to the strike zone in the rule book, because that's already what they are emphasizing.


http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/528743/

I think teams are starting to emphasize walks more, and that is a cause of some of the slower pace of games. This shouldn't be discouraged. I think there are ways to emphasize contact over power that will have the desired effects of quickening pace while not giving either side an advantage.

[Party]

Speaking of ways to improve the game:

SEC Baseball Tournament will experiment with clock

By JON SOLOMON

News staff writer

The SEC Baseball Tournament will experiment with a clock between pitches and half innings in 2010, with the hope a time limit can speed up long days of baseball and create a better product for TV.

Next May in Hoover, SEC Tournament games will have a 20-second clock between pitches when no one is on base and a 90-second clock between half innings. SEC athletics directors approved the changes this week as a tournament experiment, but not for the regular season.

Also, early-round tournament games will start at 9:30 a.m., a half hour earlier than usual. Infield practice at Regions Park will be eliminated, cutting the time between games from 45 to 50 minutes to 30.

All told, the SEC projects the changes will save about two hours on days with four games. At last year's tournament, the first two days of the tournament ended at 1:54 a.m. and 1:09 a.m., and first pitches of those games came around 10 p.m.

"It wasn't just when the games ended. We weren't hitting any of our published game times all day," SEC Associate Commissioner Charles Bloom said. "The clock also lends itself to a bigger issue, and that's making college baseball more manageable to television."

Starting this season, ESPN has the rights to the SEC Tournament, held May 26-30. The championship game will be broadcast nationally on ESPN2, and the networks for other games will be announced next month.

Bloom said SEC coaches, not ESPN, requested using a clock. Coaches also considered changing to pool play, used in the ACC Tournament, but will keep its eight-team, double-elimination "Omaha" format for 2010.

The 20-second clock between pitches only comes into play if no runners are on base. A ball will be called if the pitcher does not deliver the ball within 20 seconds and he is responsible for the delay. A strike will be called if the batter is not in the box ready to take the pitch with five seconds showing on the clock.

Some of the details about the rules are not finalized yet. [B]The current proposal says the pitch clock can only be reset if the batter is granted time by the umpire with five or more seconds on the clock. The request for time by the batter must be for legitimate reasons. If neither the pitcher nor the batter is ready, the pitcher is held responsible for the delay.

Meanwhile, teams will have 90 seconds between half innings to take the field and have a batter ready in the box. The clock starts with the last out in the half inning and stops when the pitcher begins his windup.

If the batting team is not ready within 90 seconds, the umpire calls a strike. If the defensive team is not ready in that time, a ball is called.

The catcher will be advised with about 25 seconds remaining in warmups to throw the ball to second base if he does not want to get a penalty. If the catcher is on base when the third out is made, he may need help from someone on the bench to buckle his shin guards and gather his equipment. Additional warm-up time will not be granted.

However, on televised games the 90-second rule will be extended to 105 seconds. Play is supposed to resume whether TV is ready or not. The length of commercials in college baseball games has usually been closer to three minutes.

It's not clear yet where the clock will be posit ioned. The outfield scoreboard or on top of dugouts are possibilities. A horn could be used to signal when time expires.

The American Baseball Coaches Association has been in favor of going to clock rules to speed up games. The Missouri Valley Conference experimented with a clock in 1990 and '91 and saved 21 minutes per nine-inning game, but the NCAA ended the experiment because no other conference was using a clock.

"Our coaches feel it will save between 15 to 20 minutes per game," Bloom said.

http://blog.al.com/solomon/2009/12/s...nt_will_e.html

I don't think an actual clock is necessary, but it is something to watch.

[Party]

PARADISE VALLEY, Ariz. -- The first Special Committee meeting called by Commissioner Bud Selig on Thursday afternoon began at 2 p.m. MT and lasted four hours.

That led one member of the media to ask Selig if he would consider forming a committee to study the length of these committee meetings.

"That's all right," Selig said. "I'm delighted you all have a sense of humor. I'm too tired to have one now."

The 14-man committee was gathered to analyze ways of improving MLB on the field. By Selig's request, none of the four managers, four former and present general managers, four owner representatives, MLB consultant and Hall of Famer Frank Robinson, plus renowned columnist George Will, would comment on the substance of the meeting.

"It was a very good meeting," Dodgers manager Joe Torre said. "Please don't ask me anything else because I don't want to be eliminated on the first day."

Managers Jim Leyland of the Tigers and Mike Scioscia of the Angels also deferred comment to Selig, who was also mum on content, saying that 15-20 subjects were discussed and that the committee had "a lot of work to do." Selig did make two promises: The committee will meet again in two-to-three weeks at a still undetermined location and at least one of the changes would be implemented by the start of the regular season.

"I have a sense that action will come out of this soon. This is an action committee," said Selig said about a meeting that convened only two hours after the end of the first quarterly owners' meeting of the year. "Some will happen pretty quickly, others will take some time.

"It was really productive day and a great experience. As we said in the initial press release there was over 450 years of [baseball] experience in the room. There was a great exchange of ideas on many subjects. Everybody was engaged and did a lot of homework. I must say that this was a most enjoyable afternoon."

Selig said some changes might be able to be unilaterally implemented, while others must be collectively bargained with the MLB Players Association. The current Basic Agreement expires on Dec. 11, 2011, and negotiations are expected to begin in earnest next year.

"I said there would be no sacred cows and there were no sacred cows," Selig said. "Everything was on the table."

The four managers on the committee are Leyland, Torre, Scioscia and Tony La Russa of the Cardinals.

From the GM ranks were Braves president and former GM John Schuerholz, Andy MacPhail of the Orioles, Mark Shapiro of the Indians, and Terry Ryan, the former GM of the Twins.

Among the owner representatives was Chuck Armstrong, president of the Mariners; Paul Beeston, president of the Blue Jays; Bill DeWitt, chairman of the Cardinals; and Dave Montgomery, president of the Phillies.

Asked why he wanted to keep the meeting's subject matter private, Selig said: "I don't want to talk about the subjects now. The only subject we actually never talked about is they didn't evaluate the Commissioner. That's the only thing I can tell you. Other than that we really discussed everything, from A to Z."

The playoff schedule issue was broached by Scioscia, who complained about numerous off-days during this past postseason. Selig has pledged to make some changes before the postseason begins this October.

Since the five-game first round and the start of the World Series is fixed, Selig has only a few options: start the first round a day earlier, eliminate the rain day from each League Championship Series or simply extend each of the first-round Division Series to a best-of-seven format.

"There is a lot of sentiment [for a seven-game first round] among players, as a fairer competitive issue," said Mike Weiner, the new executive director of the Players Association, upon his election late this past year. "I expect it'll have to be dealt with in collective bargaining, so we would have to wait until after the 2011 season."

Barry M. Bloom is a national reporter for MLB.com. This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?...=.jsp&c_id=mlb