Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rob Manfred tries to "one up" Roger Goodell and slowly destroy baseball:

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by DandyDon View Post
    Golf?
    Talking about the 5 major sports. Also Golf is more a hobby than sport. Any activity where drinking a few beers helps is not a real sport lol. Golf, darts, bowling, pool, Wiffle ball....

    Don't get me wrong though, I love golf as frustrating as it is.
    WE ALREADY HAVE A GREAT RUNNING BACK:

    Comment


    • #17
      Ok changes I'm ok with to speed up the game:

      Batter in the box has to be ready. No more 20 seconds of adjusting his crotch and gloves. When the ump says get in the box, the pitcher can throw a pitch even if batter not ready.
      2 minute limit between innings. No more lolly gagging by the defense. Get your 5 warm up pitches in. Once the ump gives the call and it's time to pitch you must get in the wind up.
      Relief pitchers to face a minimum of 3 batters unless injury. If pulled out for "injury" he can not play the following 3 games. This will prevent fake injuries.

      Maybe something they should do to fix the time issue is stop with the commercials every pitching change or end of a half inning. Won't happen, but they are being hypocritical there.
      WE ALREADY HAVE A GREAT RUNNING BACK:

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by SG88 View Post
        I agree with most of what you are saying. I would not mind a reliever having to face at least 3 batters before coming out. The whole lefty righty match up them just to get through one late inning is brutal for most watchers. I don't mind it, but I do hear the complaints when watching the games at a bar or restaurant.
        Don't think you would even need to make it 3 batters, 2 would do. The reality is most mangers purposely try and set up their lineups L-R-L to try and force the opposition to burn through relievers trying to get a better matchup.

        Was listening to Francessa talk to Manfred in a really long good interview a few weeks ago, and Manfred said they were talking about a lot of things, one of which was limiting the overall number of pitchers allowed in a game. Kind of like timeouts in the NFL, you have to use them when you really need them. Don't think that is the way to go, but maybe just having a rule that if you pull a pitcher before he completes 2 at bats the next pitcher gets no warmup on the mound. Its not about ruining the strategic aspect of game, but just speeding it up a bit.

        Mike also asked Manfred about the infield shifts (which I hate). Manfred was kind of non-committal about that, but said it was part of the discussions. He also said that players would adapt to the shift by learning to hit it the other way, but I think that's not very realistic.

        Comment


        • #19
          I don't care about the infield shift. Doesn't bother me at all. What bothers me is a hitter who declines to accept the free base hit handed to them with a nubber down the 3rd base line. Yeah, I'm looking at you Tex.

          They would rather hit that HR once out of 15-20 ABs than get a single in 9 out of 10 tries. Do it enough and they would adjust.
          WE ALREADY HAVE A GREAT RUNNING BACK:

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by DandyDon View Post
            Don't think you would even need to make it 3 batters, 2 would do. The reality is most mangers purposely try and set up their lineups L-R-L to try and force the opposition to burn through relievers trying to get a better matchup.

            Was listening to Francessa talk to Manfred in a really long good interview a few weeks ago, and Manfred said they were talking about a lot of things, one of which was limiting the overall number of pitchers allowed in a game. Kind of like timeouts in the NFL, you have to use them when you really need them. Don't think that is the way to go, but maybe just having a rule that if you pull a pitcher before he completes 2 at bats the next pitcher gets no warmup on the mound. Its not about ruining the strategic aspect of game, but just speeding it up a bit.

            Mike also asked Manfred about the infield shifts (which I hate). Manfred was kind of non-committal about that, but said it was part of the discussions. He also said that players would adapt to the shift by learning to hit it the other way, but I think that's not very realistic.


            As much as we may hate the shift, they could never make it illegal. It's smart baseball strategy if you scout the opposition and do your homework.

            As far as this limiting the number of pitchers in a game or making less pitching changes, that would be insane.
            sigpic

            Comment


            • #21
              One of the dumbest rule changes I'v ever seen, easily.

              Comment


              • #22
                If they want to speed the game up put a 15-20 sec limit between pitches.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by dezzzR View Post
                  If they want to speed the game up put a 15-20 sec limit between pitches.
                  Again, that would only prove to be a huge mistake. It would wind up hurting pitchers arms and possibly batters by getting hit with a fastball. That is not the answer. Even if they did that, the pitcher can still throw to first base to reset the clock.
                  WE ALREADY HAVE A GREAT RUNNING BACK:

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by dezzzR View Post
                    If they want to speed the game up put a 15-20 sec limit between pitches.

                    +1

                    This is one of the few options that would make sense. Enough with pitchers like David Price taking forever between pitches!

                    It would not effect the game itself at all. It would not harm the pitchers at all (it's ridiculous to think that it would, lol). If you look at footage of pitchers from 40 plus years ago (you know, when they had no pitch counts) they hardly took time between pitches. There's no reason why a reasonable time frame could be set (without runners on base) to be enforced on the mound.

                    Good thought, dezzzR!
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Here is some more of his tinkering:

                      First, Manfred is proposing that the four-pitch walk be eliminated. This would save time, since instead of awkwardly throwing four pitches to a standing catcher while the batter sort of waits there until it's all over, the batter could just go to first base. The second change he's proposing is a little more ... intense. He wants to raise the strike zone several inches to above a player's knee. Currently, the strike zone resides in "the hollow beneath the kneecap," so this would be quite the change. It would eliminate the low strike, which has been called more in recent years.

                      But here's the problem, and you may have already noticed it. Even though it might not save much, eliminating the four-pitch intentional walk is meant to save time during a game. But raising the strike zone is supposed to generate more offense, which actually makes games longer. You can't have both. Well, you can, but they work at cross purposes. Any time saved on intentional walks you lose on non-intentional walks. You can have shorter games or more action. If you want both, Manfred needs to essentially cut an inning or two off of the end of every game.
                      http://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2017/2/7...me-of-baseball
                      WE ALREADY HAVE A GREAT RUNNING BACK:

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by BronxBomberBlue View Post
                        +1

                        This is one of the few options that would make sense. Enough with pitchers like David Price taking forever between pitches!

                        It would not effect the game itself at all. It would not harm the pitchers at all (it's ridiculous to think that it would, lol). If you look at footage of pitchers from 40 plus years ago (you know, when they had no pitch counts) they hardly took time between pitches. There's no reason why a reasonable time frame could be set (without runners on base) to be enforced on the mound.

                        Good thought, dezzzR!
                        Lol. The Yanks are the poster-child for long games. Their batters delay games as a strategy.

                        I bet if you average the Yankees/Red Sox games in the past 5 years they would be the longest games in the history of MLB.
                        Last edited by DandyDon; 02-11-2017, 01:29 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by DandyDon View Post
                          Wow, seriously? The Yanks are literally the poster-child for long games. Their batters delay the game as a strategy.

                          Any Yankees/Red Sox game will possibly be the longest game in the history of the sport.




                          Those NYY vs BOS games are long because of the high amount of runs that are usually scored in them, the hitters on both teams are smart and patient who take a lot of pitches because they have good eyes and don't swing at bad pitches, which makes the pitcher work even harder (good strategy), and because of a lot of pitching changes during the middle to the end of the game. NOT because the Yankee hitters take too much time stepping out of the batter's box..

                          Anybody who complains about a Yankee vs Red Sux game is either not a real baseball fan, or a Yankee hater.
                          sigpic

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by DandyDon View Post
                            Lol. The Yanks are the poster-child for long games. Their batters delay games as a strategy.

                            I bet if you average the Yankees/Red Sox games in the past 5 years they would be the longest games in the history of MLB.
                            So true. Yankees are notorious for having longer at bats and keeping an inning going. And Girardi and his pitching changes are crazy at times and some times costs him. Red Sox always do the same though as the the Big Roidtiz always took much time getting ready. Checking his cleats, checking the batting glove, spitting, shifting his weight, rechecking his batting glove, making sure the cameras are on him, doing a lil dance, shifting his weight again, making sure his eyebrows and beard is trimmed perfect.... 3 minutes go by...

                            Anyone who cries about people bringing up the length of a Red Sox Yankee game is obviously not paying attention to the game of baseball (and sound ridiculous).

                            They are long games.

                            I only enjoy it though because Im a big time Yankee fan.
                            WE ALREADY HAVE A GREAT RUNNING BACK:

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Instead of fooling with the basic components of a game, keep everything the same as is, but reduce regulation games to 7 innings. THAT'LL greatly shorten the length of games without harming fans' sense of sport integrity overall, it seems to me.

                              Reduce regular season to 130-140 games, give or take. Start season late April. World Series would end early-mid October. The regular season is too damn long. It dilutes interest, certainly for the non avid baseball fan--which is one reason a broader baseball audience has been shrinking, imo.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by gmen46 View Post
                                Instead of fooling with the basic components of a game, keep everything the same as is, but reduce regulation games to 7 innings. THAT'LL greatly shorten the length of games without harming fans' sense of sport integrity overall, it seems to me.

                                Reduce regular season to 130-140 games, give or take. Start season late April. World Series would end early-mid October. The regular season is too damn long. It dilutes interest, certainly for the non avid baseball fan--which is one reason a broader baseball audience has been shrinking, imo.
                                I strongly disagree about 7 inning games. Baseball is 9 innings. cant change that. I don't mind shortening the season however. start later in April, end a bit earlier (although I love that classic October baseball). Maybe giveven more days off by having a lot more 6 game weeks instead of doing so many 7 game weeks. Figure out a way to add more off days for the players.

                                The biggest issue is the commercial breaks but we all know they won't limit those.
                                WE ALREADY HAVE A GREAT RUNNING BACK:

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X