Decade Of Change
A little while ago, the network asked me to write a guest post for SBNation.com, detailing what changes I would like to see baseball make over the next ten years. Here is the result. This is far from a complete list, but it's a start, and it's also a really fun conversation topic, so go nuts. If you want to call me stupid, save it for a few hours, because I'm going golfing.
152 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I second everything,
especially in the Safety section. A very interesting read!
Have to disagree on the PED issue, though
I know we’ve been through the whole “steroids are illegal” crap, blah blah blah, but the bottom line is that MLB doesn’t have the authority to allow and regulate them. Something tells me that the feds would not appreciate it.
Thats where I draw the line, and why I don’t get your comparison to LASIK. LASIK is very much legal under the law of the land, steroids very much are not. If MLB doesn’t like it, they can try to get the law changed. If they can’t—tough.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, SBN's Oregon Ducks blog
It doesn't matter
ibuoprofen is performance enhancement if it allow you to play through pain. I couldn’t give less of a rip about performance enhancement. The ethical line to me isn’t about performance or not, its about legality vs illegality.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, SBN's Oregon Ducks blog
Which is a perfectly reasonable line, except that steroids are legal in the U.S with a prescription, and it wouldn't be hard at all to get one for pro athletes
by seattlebruin on Jan 15, 2010 1:27 PM PST up reply actions
And prescriptions have to have a legitimate medical purpose
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, SBN's Oregon Ducks blog
OK, so a guy gets hurt and wants HGH to help him recover faster
where’s the non-legit medical purpose? You can get vicodin prescribed for a sprained ankle
by seattlebruin on Jan 15, 2010 1:30 PM PST up reply actions
because no legitimate doctor would prescribe HgH
for a bum knee or a pulled hammy.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, SBN's Oregon Ducks blog
And yet they prescribe vicodin for the tiniest of painful injuries or xanax for someone disliking flying
by seattlebruin on Jan 15, 2010 1:43 PM PST up reply actions
vicodin and xanax are small beans
I get your general point, though. Anxiety medicines are widely overused in this country.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, SBN's Oregon Ducks blog
That wasn't the point though
The point is that prescriptions don’t always have a legitimate medical purpose.
Why not
doctors prescribe it to old people who want to feel younger.
by Edgar for Pres on Jan 15, 2010 1:47 PM PST up reply actions
And if the first doctor says no
You just find yourself another doctor who says yes.
OK, how about a pitcher with a career-threatening shoulder injury with tons of soft-tissue damage?
I imagine many legitimate doctors would write a legal HGH prescription then. Thoughts?
by Terminator X on Jan 15, 2010 9:04 PM PST up reply actions
My wife gets xanax prescriptions because she doesn't like to fly and would rather zonk out
“Doesn’t like to fly” isn’t exactly a legitimate medical purpose, and yet she gets xanax whenever she needs it.
I think it's an insane line
Some laws are stupid. Some laws are not. Why on earth anyone would use a legal code to define morality is beyond me.
by Graham MacAree on Jan 15, 2010 1:29 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
When why would the line be an 'ethical' one?
by Graham MacAree on Jan 15, 2010 1:31 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, i'm trying to square that with the original comment and this line:
“I couldn’t give less of a rip about performance enhancement. "
I understand the point from a practical standpoint; they can’t just legalize amphetamines for ‘focus’ within baseball and have that mean a whole lot.
So if someone invents PEDs that aren't illegal yet, that's cool, right?
by Graham MacAree on Jan 15, 2010 1:41 PM PST up reply actions
(Incidentally I think Jeff's idea is stupid)
by Graham MacAree on Jan 15, 2010 1:41 PM PST up reply actions
I think it depends
I don’t care about ethics as far as the “integrity of baseball” crap. But there is an ethical medical obligation as far as health of players goes. A doctor SHOULDN’T prescribe steroids just because a player wants them for a pulled hammy. The side effects of the steroids have to be taken into account vis-a-vis the health problem.
Because I would think from this standpoint, any course of PED’s would have to be monitored by a legitimate doctor, I would have no problem with use of PED that is FDA approved and under doctor supervision, so long as the use is widely considered legitimate.
But your point is a valid one, the chemists will always be coming up with new stuff faster than it can be checked out. So try enforcing the above, and I know its impossible.
I guess we’re just coming at it from different perspectives. I agree with you from a baseball ethics standpoint. I couldn’t give a rip about ‘performance enhancement’ as an idea. I see it more like concussions in the NFL, and are we going to have a bunch of 50 year old cancer cases?
I’m not a doctor, so I don’t know. But I think they should be making those decsions, and not blog commenters, 20 year old kids, or major league baseball.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, SBN's Oregon Ducks blog
I guess I was really wrong about your argument
This has nothing to do with the law (doctors don’t write laws, politicians do) and everything to do with medical ethics or something. That’s fine, that’s a perfectly valid way to draw the line, but understand it’s not going to align with federal law. You’ll have to choose at some point.
I’m betting HGH is completely fine (along with Lasik) and some things that are legal now would be banned.
yeah, I understand that the law
and the medical legitimacy don’t match up perfectly. But without it, you have the issue of doctors who don’t give a crap giving the patient whatever they want regardless of the effects.
sigh
I don’t pretend its easy. But I find Jeff’s solution as bascially saying “this is a difficult issue so we’re going to pretend that everything is okay and not deal with it”
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, SBN's Oregon Ducks blog
I think prescribing medicine by a doctor
is decided by balancing the risk/reward of the patient. Something like HGH is relatively safe and it wouldn’t surprise me if it begins to be used for injury recovery for the public in the future as the cost comes down.
by Edgar for Pres on Jan 15, 2010 2:01 PM PST up reply actions
exactly on the risk/reward thing
I’m no expert on HgH. I know that there are potentially fatal side effects if there is too much in the body, but I don’t know how that threshhold relates to a usual dose or how common that side effect is.
Something like Anabolic Steroids are a different beast altogether.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, SBN's Oregon Ducks blog
There is still risk/reward with that too
Is taking an anabolic steroid for 2 weeks dangerous? What if you have a torn hamstring and you are 25 yrs old on the verge of breaking out in the MLB? You could earn millions of dollars if you return within 1 yr. You promise your doctor that you will use those millions of dollars on a 10 person fitness staff that will counteract the negative impact those few doses of steroids did. At some point there is a lot to be gained by taking short courses of these drugs. Doctors do what is best for their patient and even a short regime of steroids is not extremely hazardous as long as it is prescribed and observed.
Taking them every day for years is very dangerous. I think everybody agrees with that. Taking 16 Tylenol a day for years is also dangerous. I agree its tricky but I think there is a real argument to be made for allowing strictly controlled prescribed use of even the worst of these drugs.
The health of the athletes always needs to come first though.
by Edgar for Pres on Jan 15, 2010 4:03 PM PST up reply actions
By that reasoning, Barry Bonds didn't break any rules
because he was using stuff that the guys who makes the rules didn’t yet know existed.
I like using semi-colons; they make me feel smart.
Right, hence my frustration with the legality argument
I think it’s perfectly reasonable to dislike PEDs based on the integrity of baseball, but my point on the McGwire article was that there was systemic corrupting of said integrity (fans, media, players, management, owners were all involved to some extent) and that the players are being singled out after everyone else encouraged/enabled them to take steroids. I think this is a pretty shitty thing to do to the guys we lauded as heroes when we needed them to be cheating.
by Graham MacAree on Jan 15, 2010 2:04 PM PST up reply actions
Think about it for awhile
It’s not insane at all. The idea that people have an ethical obligation to obey the law is well over 2,000 years-old and has been repeated in every single century by moral and political philosophers ever since, so obviously we’re not going to entirely cover the subject on a baseball blog. Nevertheless, here are some considerations in favor of the view:
Our obligation to follow the law can’t simply come from the fact that there are punishments for breaking it because that simply transfers the question to the legitimacy of punishment.
There are many laws you have to follow which have nothing to do with antecedent morality. You have to pay your taxes, an onerous duty, but there’s no moral obligation to hand money over to society before laws about taxes are created. Hence, the obligation to follow laws can’t only come from antecedent moral obligations.
The idea that individuals get to be the judge of which laws are stupid and which laws are not is so fraught with holes that no one takes it seriously. (At least not if one may thereby ignore those laws deemed stupid.) The general view among people who work on political obligation is that we have to follow stupid laws but that we should also work within the system to change them. (Of course, there are special exceptions for societies in which citizens are removed from the law making process so that they cannot work within the system; that’s an exceptional case and not the one in which we find ourselves.) So even if you think a law is stupid, that doesn’t entitle you to break it, and the government is perfectly justified in ignoring your ideas about what’s stupid if it punishes you for breaking the law.
Since thousands of pages are written every decade (perhaps even every year) on this subject, I certainly haven’t covered the issue in full here. But I hope I succeeded in showing that the view isn’t insane.
by philosofool on Jan 17, 2010 11:25 AM PST up reply actions
Nobody ever has an ethical obligation to follow the law
They have a legal obligation to follow the law. The idea that laws follow the ethics of society as a whole is ludicrous. They follow what the people who make the laws want society to do.
by Graham MacAree on Jan 17, 2010 1:19 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Drunk driving is illegal...
And plenty of professional athletes have been convicted of DUIs.
And while they’re popularity takes a hit and they may be suspended, their baseball careers are hardly effected, so you can’t argue that steroids are a purely legal matter.
The fact is that the “cheating” equation is always going to be the biggest factor, and Baseball has so far just drawn a line between what is considered ethical (lazik, cortisone and vitamin shots, etc.) and what is groundless cheating.
"affected" not "effected"
had to point it out since you caught their/they’re
by seattlebruin on Jan 15, 2010 4:19 PM PST up reply actions
That particular differentiation seems pretty hard.
You see national writers goof on that one pretty commonly.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
Every time this comes up, I always think of Randy Johnson's knee.
He was either bone on bone, or pretty close to it. He was getting a gel substance injected in there, kind of a synthetic lubricant/cartilage replacement. Without it he would have probably quit the game somewhere around 2004, he said so himself in an interview.
by Kermit. on Jan 15, 2010 1:29 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Raising the question of bionics
For those who don’t have a problem with using PED’s, what about mechanical enhancements? Is there a significant difference? Would the ADA permit MLB to exclude a player from playing with, say, a prosthetic arm that could throw 120mph fastball? This is a problem pro sports is going to face soon. The Olympics already are.
I think you can make a distinction between those medications and procedures designed to cure, heal and repair and those that fundamentally and materially alter a player’s body or brain. It won’t always be clear, but it is, to me significant and worth drawing.
Unless you’re ready for robo-ball.
Cyborg baseball players would be awesome.
Is that the light at the end of the tunnel, or the headlights of an oncoming train?
And I be the BBWA
Won’t vote them into the HoF either. Droid-hating bigoted bastards.
by wandergeist on Jan 15, 2010 4:48 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Wireless Joe Jackson and Pitchomat 5000 deserve to be in the hall!
Hard work never killed nobody, but I won't take my chances.
Steroids are perfectly legal with a prescription
that’s why they exist, for legitimate medical purposes. Same with LASIK. It’s not the fault of the creators that athletes use the surgery to gain an edge in visual acuity.
by seattlebruin on Jan 15, 2010 1:24 PM PST up reply actions
Or they could just send people to get roided up in a country where it's legal
It’s bizarre to think that the US government should control an international league.
by Graham MacAree on Jan 15, 2010 1:25 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Once again
Tons tons tons of things that are illegal are permissible in sports. Have you ever watched a hockey game?
If you can draw a convincing line, draw it. I just don’t see any good reason why improving your vision to 20/10 isn’t as much of a PED as anything else. If not more.
by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 15, 2010 4:39 PM PST up reply actions
The line that gets drawn has to do with the health risk vs reward
Maybe I’m wrong about this but the consensus seems to be that LASIK is a low risk procedure while anabolic steroids come with serious long term health concerns. It’s hard to justify taking drugs, or allowing players to take drugs, with a laundry list of significant side effects. And for what it’s worth I think there are some ethical concerns with a doctor performing LASIK on a player with normal eyesight but the risks seem clearly different.
Here's what I think:
Players who take steroids want to get stronger, right? Hard work (lifting weights) can help that player achieve his goal. However, by taking steroids, he is cheating by taking the easy way out.
Players who get lasik want to have better eyesight. You can work as hard as you can, but you may never be able to get 20/10 vision. By getting lasik, a player isn’t taking the easy way out. He is merely leveling the playing field between himself and those born with incredible eyesight (such as Ted Williams).
But why should players have the right to even the playing field in such a way?
It’s one thing if you want to enforce an upper threshold of vision correction. At least that would make some shred of sense. In the current setup, anyone can theoretically surpass anyone else, artificially.
by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 15, 2010 8:11 PM PST up reply actions
You can train your eyes much in the way you can lift weights
And, just like you may not be able to get 20/10 vision, Willie Bloomquist will never be able to hit home runs like Albert Pujols, no matter how much he lifts weights.
Dammit you're right
This is an outrage!
by Dewey N on Jan 15, 2010 8:45 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
"Hard work (lifting weights) can help that player achieve his goal. However, by taking steroids, he is cheating by taking the easy way out."
This is a misconception that drives me batty. You don’t take steroids and then poof MUSCLES! No.You take steroids because they help you recover from fatigue and injury faster which enables you to work out even more. Certain PEDs aid in muscle growth in an of themselves, but you don’t get the benefits without working out. It’s not “taking the easy way out,” it’s taking on risk in order to allow your body to do things it would not otherwise be capable of doing.
by Aaron Campeau on Jan 15, 2010 9:01 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Exactly
Ryan Franklin took steriods and he was still the little bitch he always was.
by Edgar for Pres on Jan 15, 2010 10:38 PM PST up reply actions
Lots of people don't care about performance enhancement per se
its the health effects of abuse.
There are no negative health effects of LASIK, so nobody gives a crap.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, SBN's Oregon Ducks blog
There are many negative health effects of LASIK including not being able to see
Here’s a list of the most common ones, some of which can be permanent.
I really like the 2B IBB idea
but it’s probably amongst the least likely to happen. Also scrapping the mid-inning pitching change might be a tough sell to advertisers.
by Eyeball Kid on Jan 15, 2010 1:25 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
I hate the idea of every IBB being two bases
a while back Posnanski proposed an idea where the second time you do it, it’s a double walk, third time triple walk, etc.
by seattlebruin on Jan 15, 2010 1:26 PM PST up reply actions
I like the 2B 4-pitch BB as well
Meanwhile, let the Randy Johnsons of the world continue to challenge with the inside heat — no additional penalty for hit batsman.
Lots of good suggestions. The only thing area that I disagree is the commentary on the speed of the game.
Pick-off attempts and slow pitch-pace, while annoying to many, is a part of the game. I don’t see it as being a major problem and at the end of the day, the games usually end in about 3 hours (+/- 20 minutes) no matter who is pitching.
Tell me you've never wanted to rip your eyes out while watching Miguel Batista pitch
by seattlebruin on Jan 15, 2010 1:33 PM PST up reply actions
I've wanted to rip my eyes out watching batters look and relook at signs, or when watching Nomar undo and redo his batting gloves every pitch
but I don’t really want to legislate it.
Why?
Is cutting down the time a batter has to adjust or look at signs really a pressing issue for the game?
You could limit the number of 2 strike foul balls a batter ‘gets’ to save time too. Good idea?
Sure, why not?
It’s already done on bunts, after all. What’s the difference between limiting it on bunts and hits? Why should there be a difference?
“Pressing issue” is in the eye of the beholder, and to me, the batter killing time by stepping out of the box an annoying number of times for no good reason is something that I would love to see go away.
pdb.
The reason why there is not unlimitted bunts is because it is much easier to direct a bunt… the best of bunters would be able to go up with every atbat and bunt foul every strike and let go all the balls thereby earning a free BB. That is your reason.
I think I read somewhere that back in the day they did not have the rule of a 2 strike foul bunt being an out and I believe that a player did just that and earned a walk in every atbat that he had in a given game.
Here's my two cents on the pacing.
When I watch a baseball game, I have nothing better in my life to do than watch that game. However that works out, mostly it’s on the radio and I can tune the game in and out with the action just by the sound of the announcers voice. Leaving me free to to whatever.
Rarely it’s on t.v. or in the stadium, and when I make time for those moments, it’s an actual event. If a pitcher is working extremely fast and the game goes 1:50::, that’s as annoying to me as Kenny Rogers throwing to first base 20 times before going to the plate once. But I love all of it, it’s strategy, cat and mouse, and the nuts and bolts of the game.
What was important to me when I was 10 was not as important to me when I was 20. Same difference between 20 and now, and so logic follows what matters to me now will not seem so imperative when I’m 50. Changing the game to suit my needs at 20, or make me happy when I’m 50, I do not like this line of thinking. It’s baseball, it is what it is. If it’s frustrating, that’s part of the game, and every bit as important as the highs. Perhaps without the frustrations, the rewards do not feel as great. I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure I don’t want to start tweaking the game just to make the 30 year old me happy and find out I hate what the game has become when I’m 50.
by Kermit. on Jan 15, 2010 1:47 PM PST up reply actions 20 recs
When read in the voice of James Mason it adds a few layers to this comment.
Anyway, I hate all the bullpen moves late in games and wish they’d fix that. So I’m a big hypocrite.
Jeff at 10
CHANGE #1 EVERYBODY HITS DINGERS
by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 15, 2010 5:47 PM PST up reply actions 7 recs
The one I don't get is the league realignment
I suppose it’s theoretically possible to have one interleague series going at all times, and to have that rotate through each team in a logical way, but that’s… that’s difficult.
Why not just add 2 teams? Or, for the more radical, scrap all this divisions crap (which exist solely to maintain excitement for the playoffs in more cities) and go with a single league. Have the regular season title actually MEAN something, and you keep the World Series as the championship of the post-season tournament.
I don't get what's so difficult about having one interleague series at all times
by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 15, 2010 4:28 PM PST up reply actions
When IL play was more of a novelty 10 years ago they wanted all the series on the same weekend for use as a marketing tool
4,762 series vs. the Padres later and it no longer special. I say let the “true” natural rivals play each other and do away with the forced ones.
I get why it was set up like this
but I feel like actually having balanced leagues is more important than whatever marketing advantage MLB might get from having all (but one) interleague series at the same time.
by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 15, 2010 5:49 PM PST up reply actions
Truthfully I don't like the safety suggestions
I agree with the 2B slides. They have their place I think however usually they are 5 ft off the base which is just blatant. They should crack down on this. On the other hand, the umpires need to make sure the 2B/SS actually touch 2B which often doesn’t happen when they turn the double play.
As for collisions at the plate, I have to say I like it how it is. Sure its tough and the catcher is gonna get creamed but its one of the most exciting plays in the game. If the catcher is blocking his path to the plate, he is free game. Same goes for any other player on the field.
On the HBP issue, I feel like this has already happened in baseball. Umpires have cracked down on beanballs quite a bit making it difficult for a pitcher to thrown inside. With all the tactics in baseball, I’d enjoy seeing more beanballs in the game to try to brush players off the plate. With all the protective gear worn by hitters, they’ve lost respect for getting hit by a pitch and are crowding the plate. As long as the beanball is thrown at the thigh, butt or back of the player I don’t see a big problem with it. I’m pretty sure a pitcher can avoid the head if he tries.
I like some of the other suggestions however implementation would be tricky. Ex. If you can only throw to 1B once per AB and you try to pick the guy off and don’t get him, he’ll probably take a 20 ft lead during the next pitch.
Also, need more robots…
by Edgar for Pres on Jan 15, 2010 1:46 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Cracked down on beanballs?
Beanballs are at an all-time high.
by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 15, 2010 4:30 PM PST up reply actions
There is a difference between getting hit in the elbow and a pitcher throwing at a batter
HBP may be higher than ever but from what I’ve heard from pitchers/coachs talk about the game it seems like actual beanballs are a much smaller part of the game because umps are fairly quick to warn both benches and then start ejecting people if they think it was intentional.
by Edgar for Pres on Jan 15, 2010 4:39 PM PST up reply actions
If true, that's good
But they should be eliminated completely. Or at least as completely as possible.
by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 15, 2010 4:42 PM PST up reply actions
I think its very similar to hockey in a way
If you skate into my goalie, I’m gonna punch you in the face.
If you slide into my 2B trying to break up a double play when he is 10 ft away from the base I’m gonna hit you in the butt with a 90 mph fastball.
I don’t know if its the right way to do it but similar stuff happens in most sports. Its not “refined” or probably the best way to do things but it keeps everybody in line.
by Edgar for Pres on Jan 15, 2010 4:48 PM PST up reply actions
I have to agree.
I appreciate the safety suggestions Jeff makes, but mostly I think you have to leave in some outlets for physical confrontation. I agree about beanballs to the head being way over the line, and I like the idea of an automatic ejection and two base penalty for it.
I don’t tune in to baseball for violence, but I do appreciate that there are fifty guys in uniform on and around the field who want nothing more than to dominate their opponents. Structured conflict is what sports are meant to provide. Maybe it’s just me, but I enjoy the conflict part just as much as the structure, in most cases.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
I don't think you've ever been as wrong as you are in this column.
You’re not wrong on every single point, but you’re not usually wrong at all. And you are here.
Phase in replay and robots. – I agree. Let’s use it on the phantom tag. Every time.
Quicken pitcher pace on the mound. – You’re basically asking people to steal more bases. Throwing to first repeatedly is a tactic that arose as a result of Rickey Henderson, and it works. You don’t change the rules of the game just because the way people play has changed and now produces diffferent outcomes. Different eras and different players play differently.
Limit or penalize mid-inning pitching changes. – Again, you’ve always been allowed to change pitchers when you’d like. If you want to limit how the game takes place on the field, a better way to achieve this end would be to reduce roster sizes.
Penalize intentional walks. – I strenuously disagree. That the intentional walk exists is a wonderful facet of the game, demonstrating that under some circumstances an out is not the optimal objective of a plate appearance. Yes, Barry Bonds broke the game, but that should be celebrated, not avoided. Those walks only serve to highlight his greatness.
Even out the American League and the National League. – I’m indifferent.
Resolve the payroll problem. – No. Poorer teams have a greater incentive to innovate, and the richer teams a lesser incentive. Also, I’ve yet to see a plan to do this that doesn’t serve to transfer wealth from labour to management (typically a salary cap’s primary objective).
Condense the playoff schedule. – I agree entirely. I’d also like to see the regular season condensed a bit, too, with some regularly scheduled double-headers.
Resolve the PED problem. – I don’t really see a PED problem.
Take measures to reduce take-out slides and home plate collisions. – I sort of agree. In home plate collisions, often the catcher doesn’t even have the ball, so that’s just interference. Award the runner the base (home plate) a few times and catchers will stop getting in the way when they don’t have the ball. And if they do have the ball, intentionally throwing yourself at them isn’t meaningfully different from A-Rod’s slap on Bronson Arroyo, so just call the runner out every single time he does it. Pretty soon they’ll stop.
For take-out slides at other bases, just write a rule the clearly demarcates what’s allowed and what isn’t. I like the “touched the bag” standard – especially since there’s no real reason why a runner at second couldn’t just run through the bag (and through the fielder) and argue that he didn’t see the fielder touch the bag (which he often doesn’t). Really, the phantom tag is a way bigger problem.
Penalize the HBP. – I don’t have strong feelings on this. I don’t like the 2-base idea for reasons explained above (it would change the game too much), but I would like to see umpires not award the base to players who don’t make a visible effort to get out of the way (and spinning in place does not count). I like the idea of suspending beanball pitchers, though.
I like using semi-colons; they make me feel smart.
by Llewdor on Jan 15, 2010 1:52 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
I like the regularly scheduled double header idea
by Edgar for Pres on Jan 15, 2010 2:03 PM PST up reply actions
God yes, and you'd think everyone would love the idea but the bean counters.
Throw in some more day games and give the fans a bone with an occasional single ticket double header, baseball purists would have to love that.
With the exception of Sundays, I actually hate day games because they're hard to watch if you're stuck at work
and hard to get to on a Saturday if you have to travel
Sunday double header, maybe four a season per team?
Might even help out the schedule with make up games.
I'd even be fine with paying a little extra if it was a scheduled double header.
Never gonna happen though. Nobody but the fans want to see any of that.
by Edgar for Pres on Jan 15, 2010 4:04 PM PST up reply actions
It'd be real nice to shorten the schedule but it'd probably result in teams adding a 6th pitcher to their rotation due to more games in fewer days.
This, to me, would hurt the game. In addition, it will never happen because this would take money away from team revenues. It would lead to less ticket sales and less viewership.
by sirbrianwilson on Jan 15, 2010 4:07 PM PST up reply actions
They're opinions on how he would like the game to be changed. Not assertions.
You can disagree with them, but they cannot be “wrong”.
Is moving the batter's box 1 inch enough?
Bill James’ suggested moving the batter’s box away from the plate one inch every four years, over sixteen years, for a total of 4 inches. Armor has reduced player’s fear of crowding the plate, and zealous enforcement of head-hunting has made pitchers reluctant to pitch inside, and yet players are getting plunked anyway and pitchers have lost the inside of the plate, tilting things in the batters’ favor. This came up in the “Fun Fact” thread regarding the explosion in HBP that nobody noticed).
Of course that would reduce offense, and if chicks dig the long ball and there’s less of those because of better PED enforcement….
I'd be fine with getting rid of armor and not giving a base to a guy who gets hit in the arm
That would probably stop a lot of the plate crowding. If you can’t get your arm out of the way of the pitch then you didn’t try.
by Edgar for Pres on Jan 15, 2010 2:06 PM PST up reply actions
It makes me happy to hear that someone is going golfing today.
Really, it makes my heart sing to think that people in other places are doing things that make them happy instead of having to suffer through a monsoon like us.
by nathaniel dawson on Jan 15, 2010 2:18 PM PST reply actions
Well
Phase in replay and robots.
I agreed to an extend. Right now I only want them to get right what is obviously wrong, and I wouldn’t want to get into ta situation like the NFL where plays are constantly called back. Part of the enjoyment of the game is that we don’t have to wait until minutes after the play to find out whether our team did or did not score.
Quicken pitcher pace on the mound.
Yes yes yes. Enforce these rules with fascist enthusiasm.
Limit or penalize mid-inning pitching changes.
Terrible idea. I love when teams run out of pitchers.
Penalize intentional walks
I think two bases is too harsh of a penalty. However I could get on board with the penalty for a four ball walk being that all runners advance one base.
Even out the American League and the National League.
God damn this is asinine. The St. Louis Cardinals are lucky that their division is populated by some of the worst run teams in baseball.
Condense the playoff schedule
Selig says he’s on board
Resolve the PED problem.
They should define in the HOF whether or not PED use makes a player intelligible and be done with it.
Penalize the HBP.
I’m for the automatic ejection of any beanball above the neck, or any beanball that was intentional, and the suspension of any manager who has ordered their pitcher to bean a guy. This rule would have to be changed otherwise when team want to IBB a guy they’ll bean him instead.
Also, I think both leagues should be play by the same sets of rules. While I understand the appeal of two different types of baseball, the DH rule puts the NL at a great disadvantage during interleague and World Series games and it’s not fair. While I would prefer the DH be eliminated (because 9 guys should hit and field and also because watching a pitcher hit is loads of fun), I would also accept it’s universal adoption if it meant a uniform rulebook.
I am arguing for the voting criteria the be better defined or at least to make the baseball writers to be not the moral guardians of the game
Poochie, he's pointing out that you used the wrong word
Not sure you meant to use intelligible in your argument about PEDs
by seattle_since_81 on Jan 15, 2010 10:32 PM PST up reply actions
Legalize PED use?
I’m with Poochie – they should decide what they are going to do with the HOF, etc., but legalizing PED use seems like an awful idea. Professional athletes might be able to get prescription steroids but high school athletes will have to get them illegally because they will know it’s the only way they can get to and compete in the pros. The ones that get them illegally will probably also use them incorrectly.
I’d be okay with selective PEDs, I guess, but they’d have to be things like HGH – used for healing, but not skill, and that’s still only if they can find a way to ensure that HGH is used in a non-dangerous way.
...and now I'm here
Also, I'm all for quickening pitcher pace, but I do think the throws probably have to stay.
There can be a rule that you have to throw the ball somewhere in X time though. The reaction would be “what if they just throw to first to get more time” but every time they throw to first, they risk error, so that might help. Not sure though.
...and now I'm here
So basically they have to decide if they're throwing right away?
I’d be okay with that.
...and now I'm here
In my opinion...
The IBB should be eliminated only if the NL adopts the DH—I feel that pitching around someone to get to the pitcher, especially with 2 outs and a guy on third, for example, just makes so much sense you shouldn’t disallow it.
Pitching changes and replay
Pitching changes need to happen faster. I like the idea of no warmup time on the mound. This makes the manager plan ahead better. MLB probably loves the commercial breaks, though, so this will never change.
And I also love the idea of more replay. Especially in cases where the outcomes are totally binary (it was home run or not a home run) it makes sense. It gets tough where the call affected the play downstream…such a third strike call with a guy stealing a base with two outs. If the strike is called and the catcher doesn’t throw to the base…what happens if the strike is reversed? That’s just one example but there are surely more cases like that where a reversal is hard to do fairly.
I love how there are 3x as many comments here than on the article itself.
I think as far as balls and strikes go
you don’t use current technology to overturn those calls. You use the current technology to either replace umpires, or you use it as an aid for umpires. Once it’s called a ball or a strike, there’s no going back.
Fair / foul for non-home runs
If replay were used to determine if balls in play were fair or foul you’d run into the problem of the umpires having to determine what would have happened had a ball that was called foul, turned out to be fair. Then the umps would have to figure out how many bases everyone would have gotten on the play.
There are also out calls made during a play that affect the rest of the play, such as the Ryan Howard trapped ball call in game 2 of the WS last year. Hard to reverse those since you don’t always know what the players on the field would have done if the call had gone the other way.
Interesting article on this subject on Espn.com.
I'm going to market a pitch calling robot to little league and high school teams
You could make a bunch of money at this I bet if you could make it cheap enough. Their umps stink and they don’t want to pay them. Maybe even the minors would jump on board too.
As a former LL coach I second the motion
LL umps take a ton of heat from the benches too. And once you get people used to them, they would eventually find their way to the minors, then the majors.
Here are a few of mine:
1. Expand the AL. Put one more team in NY, and add another AL team wherever (Puerto Rico, DR?).
2. Eliminate the draft, and the team control period. If the open market will get Strasburg $50 million plus, than he should be allowed to sign with whoever will pay him the most money.
3. Keep profit sharing, but use it to reward teams who sign homegrown talent to long term deals.
4. This one I’m not sure how to do: Baseball needs a World Cup type season with the best players in the world AND baseball realistic season length: 100+ games. I don’t know how you would deal with compensation for teams and players – especially the players who didn’t make the cut for their country.
by Manzanillos Cup on Jan 15, 2010 4:27 PM PST reply actions
Eliminating the draft and team control would obliterate competitive balance
by Graham MacAree on Jan 15, 2010 8:16 PM PST up reply actions
#3 was meant to address this - MLB would subsidize teams looking to keep their talent.
But I understand that it wouldn’t be nearly that simple. Small markets would have trouble acquiring that talent in the first place.
I think something has to be done to a system that discriminates young players based on their age and country of origin.
by Manzanillos Cup on Jan 15, 2010 8:53 PM PST up reply actions
Just make the draft an international one with hard slotting
It’s a much neater solution, at least in my opinion
by Graham MacAree on Jan 15, 2010 9:36 PM PST up reply actions
Note, since there seems to be some understanding
I do not want to limit pitchers to one pickoff. I think additional pickoffs should simply be penalized.
One idea I read somewhere
was to have a line somewhere, say at 10 feet from the bag. If the runner takes a lead beyond that line, the pitcher is perfectly allowed to attempt a pickoff. Otherwise, a pickoff attempt results in a ball called.
I'm pretty sure this rule was proposed by the tbs graphics department
by Poochie on Jan 15, 2010 4:57 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Pitcher gets three 'free' pickoffs,
then each successive pickoff counts as a ball in the current hitter’s count? It doesn’t eliminate the pickoff as a piece of the arsenal throughout most of the at bat, and it allows the pitcher to at least keep baserunners reasonably honest.
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
I don't really want to see this put into affect
but I think it would be kind of interesting to have 10 players in the field like softball rules. This would allow one guy to basically be a rover on defense to play closer against groundball players and farther back against flyball hitters. It would probably stifle offense so you would need another rule to balance it out and it would probably ruin the game. It would make coaching a lot more important which would be kind of interesting.
I think just adding replay would be enough for me
I don’t see a realistic way of penalizing pitchers for pickoff throws that won’t result in a greater advantage for the baserunner. If you know he can only exercise so many pickoff attempts that gives you the ability to make a huge jump at the start of the pitcher’s movement you normally would be a little hesitant to make.
A comment about the mid-inning pitching change
Something that I have thought was quite strange was the fact that they go from throwing warm up pitches in the bullpen to throwing more warm up pitches when they make it out to the mound. Did their arm cool off too much while they were walking from the bullpen to the mound? I’ve never really understood the point of it except to have more time for commercials during the broadcast. The worst is when a pitcher comes in and faces one batter. He ends up throwing more warm up pitches than actual pitchers to a batter. Get rid of that and it pretty much adds about 2 minutes (typical commercial break) for every pitching change.
by seattle_since_81 on Jan 15, 2010 10:40 PM PST reply actions
Presumably it's because the mounds in the bullpen and in the infield can be different
But something does have to be done to, at the very least, make pitching changes a little faster.
by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 15, 2010 11:08 PM PST up reply actions
Interesting, I had never heard that reason before
I wonder how much a difference it makes. Wouldn’t the teams want to make the mounds as close as possible so that it wouldn’t take long for the adjustment period? I can see how they would be different due to the bullpen mounds having a two rubber set up.
by seattle_since_81 on Jan 15, 2010 11:15 PM PST up reply actions
There's also the matter of the infield mound just being in a different setting
A few warm-up pitches, in theory, make the pitcher a little more comfortable. But the excess is unnecessary.
by Jeff Sullivan on Jan 15, 2010 11:41 PM PST up reply actions

by 















