Nothing to see here, move on.
keets
Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
0
keets
Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
keets
Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
4 is baffling
They are all baffling! Do away with all of these and allow free substitution! And on days starting with "T" you can bring someone of your choosing in from the stands to play 1st or 3rd and days starting with "S" you have to bring someone in from the stands of the other teams choosing to play SS or catcher. On Fridays every player on both teams have to play 1 inning at each position. If it goes extra innings the managers have to arm wrestle on the pitchers mound to determine the outcome unless it goes past midnight then the "S" rules go into effect.
Is #2 mis typed or am I reading it wrong? 28 players from 40? That’s extreme
Sounds like madness to me, tinkering with the game for inexplicable reasons that only a lunatic in an insane asylum could fully understand.
But what do I know, I'm only a lemming fan.
Keets, how does number four speed up the game? Extremely rare that a position play takes the mound.
ya number 2 is good it was 40 , that was insane that had to change ,
I'd like to see a number 6 , during the season players will not be allowed to play fortnite
Let's try number 5 then. Please explain how that will speed up the game.
None of these changes will speed up the game in anything but an infinitesimal amount;
Number one; seems particularly stupid. If you put a guy out there to start an inning and he can't get anyone out, what then?
Number two; might help a _ little_ from Sept 1 on, but not much. I always liked to get a glimpse of some of the guys we might be seeing in the future. Also a good way to heal up position players for the playoffs, by being able to rest them.
Number three; Not really worth discussing.
Number four; see number three.
Number five; see numbers three and four.
MLB has no intention of increasing the pace of games or shortening them. This would result in a decrease of the infamous "revenue stream" shorter games means less commercials means they can charge less for their "product", fan enjoyment does not factor in.
MLB cares NOTHING about the enjoyment of the fans. NOTHING! I am not shouting because I am angry, I have dropped cable/satellite because I refuse to pay for the games AND still have to watch commercials. I follow the best I can online with "Gameday", yet they still make me watch a few advertisements. If they start putting too many in, I'll stop watching completely.
If and when the revenue drops enough for it to significantly effect the equation, you might see something happen that actually improves the enjoyment of watching this once watchable game.
Simply make the pitcher THROW THE BALL! If he takes too long, call a "ball" if the batter doesn't get his a$$ in the batters box, call a "strike". Seems to me this would positively effect every at bat in every game.
There, that wasn't so hard was it?
The proposed rule changes are intended to affect the pace of play in aggregate, not specifically during each game. The idea is to hopefully tilt the game back towards quality starting pitching, and to limit the excessive number of pitching changes that occur each game, throughout the course of the season.
Roster spots for pitchers will now be limited, and teams will have to adjust from the current ruse of using the 10 day IL to stash "hurt" pitchers (those without options) to open an extra roster spot, and practice of liberally shuttling pitchers with options back and forth from AAA to the majors and back again in order to always have a bevy of fresh arms in the bullpen, as they'll have to stay on IL or down on the farm a little longer before they can be added back to the roster. I'm not saying that it will work as intended, just explaining the thought behind the rules, as I interpret them.
It will likely create unintended consequences, as well. It remains to be seen if this will then produce more arm injuries, as starting pitchers will in theory be expected to go deeper into games, and the bullpen guys will be used with less rest and with a new requirement to face multiple batters. Scoring will probably go up even more, as managers won't be able to match up as well with the relievers, and pitchers may have to dial back the velocity a bit to pace themselves. We will see.
one pitcher must pitch a whole game every game, If that sounds harsh I'll allow 162 roster spots for starting pitchers. The bullpen is going to be converted to extra seating.
Was it an internet prank?
Not by the OP, the OP perhaps just copied and pasted it unknowingly.
No prank:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2019/03/14/mlb-new-rule-changes-roster-3-batter-minimum/3157226002/
Published 9:10 a.m. ET March 14, 2019 | Updated 5:32 p.m. ET March 14, 2019
Then again I just noticed the date of the article, so not sure what to believe.
Phillies suck anyway so who gives a chit, right?
I see two things that will make that tough to accomplish by "tweaking" the rules; first, pitchers are being held to pitch counts and secondly there aren't too many quality starting pitchers. The answer is to require a pitcher to stay in the game if he is getting hammered and/or can't find the strike zone? Ridiculous.
I get that there is some logic here, but does any fan really care if a team is using the DL improperly?
Yes we will. I for one, don't see managers keeping their starters in longer. It seems to me that the "long reliever" has disappeared from the game, once the starter is removed I am seeing a new pitcher come in at the start of each inning quite often.
I just don't see any of this doing anything very significant. I am VERY curious as to the part of rule #1 that requires a guy to stay in the game unless sick or injured.
Or is this all just an internet joke?
I like the rule changes for the most part.
1) The minimum number of batters is designed to get rid of mid-inning pitching changes. I'm OK with that. Since they're not going to speed up the actual process of changing a picture (which should take no more than 60 seconds), reducing the number of changes is a good alternative.
2) Cutting the 40-man down to 28 is designed to level the playing field money-wise. The problem isn't teams having 40 guys, it's teams like Miami sticking with only 25. So there's an imbalance. Don't know that this is the right solution. Seems like a better solution would be to put a 35-man minimum/40-man maximum in effect.
3) The position player thing is in response to teams essentially tanking games that are potentially winnable. It also punishes teams for sucking.
There's other changes too - shortening the TV timeouts, reducing the number of pitchers on the roster, and others. Those are all good ideas.
Don't forget them nets.
Gotta have them nets.
Yea, let's keep bastardizing the game some more. 🙄
<<< Pitchers will be required to face a minimum of three batters in a game beginning in 2020. >>>
This is an abomination. Almost hard to believe.
Ahh but what do I know, I'm only a lemming fan.
> @bronco2078 said:
And if he can't fish the game he has to be banned from MLB for life.
Fungo bats and super balls.
Fans will love those 1,000 feet home runs.
Talk about excitement.
Yea! 🤩
he can only play in one game a year under my regime , and I expect them to bleed out through the elbow right there on the mound.
No reason to waste time formally banning corpses
Have the roster expense could be spared if the ball is served up on a tee.
whats this giant text thing , on my phone its not that big , I like it though , it lends extra importance to my insightful commentary