Let's Fix MLB ...

[formermav43 4606]

2 minutes ago, TexasHorn01 said:

What would those changes be? If anything that changes to college football have made it much slower with all the replays and reviewing for targeting and all that crap. They aren't concerned at all about game times because they have a built-in rabid fan base tied to these universities.

Seriously? Length of games has been an issue that basically every major sport has attempted to address. Did you miss when college football  adopted the NFL's play clock and out of bounds timing rules rather than having the clock stop for EVERY out of bounds? That was a decade ago. Or how about before that, when they made some really stupid changes like starting the clock on kickoffs and changes of possession - those only lasted a year, I think, but it was in an effort to speed up the game.

That's not to mention the stuff off the field, which both college and the NFL have done, like trying to shorten commercial breaks, replay review lengths, etc. 

There is discussion of this and subtle tweaks made almost every offseason. I guess you just missed all that along with those MAJOR rule changes.

[TornACL 7722]

5 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

That's not to mention the stuff off the field, which both college and the NFL have done, like trying to shorten commercial breaks, replay review lengths, etc. 

 

Wait, what?  Look, the NFL has made token moves towards this....like the stupid picture in picture commercial during change of possession. But make no mistake, the "shortening of the game" shit has nothing to do with shortening of the game, and everything to do with maximizing ad revenue during the allotted television windows.

If it had anything to do with actually improving the game, MLB would cut one 30 second commercial between every half inning. That shit is out of control now, just like in college football. Both MLB and CFB made their own time problem with all the ads, and they refuse to go back to fewer ads (the obvious solution) in order to solve it.

[formermav43 4606]

1 minute ago, TornACL said:

Wait, what?  Look, the NFL has made token moves towards this....like the stupid picture in picture commercial during change of possession. But make no mistake, the "shortening of the game" shit has nothing to do with shortening of the game, and everything to do with maximizing ad revenue during the allotted television windows.

If it had anything to do with actually improving the game, MLB would cut one 30 second commercial between every half inning. That shit is out of control now, just like in college football. Both MLB and CFB made their own time problem with all the ads, and they refuse to go back to fewer ads (the obvious solution) in order to solve it.

It's both. That's why they finally went away from the stupid commercial break following a kickoff, for example.

You're right that they will not go to fewer ads, though.

[TexasHorn01 1]

33 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Seriously? Length of games has been an issue that basically every major sport has attempted to address. Did you miss when college football  adopted the NFL's play clock and out of bounds timing rules rather than having the clock stop for EVERY out of bounds? That was a decade ago. Or how about before that, when they made some really stupid changes like starting the clock on kickoffs and changes of possession - those only lasted a year, I think, but it was in an effort to speed up the game.

That's not to mention the stuff off the field, which both college and the NFL have done, like trying to shorten commercial breaks, replay review lengths, etc. 

There is discussion of this and subtle tweaks made almost every offseason. I guess you just missed all that along with those MAJOR rule changes.

Theyre doing a really shitty job of shortening games with most games going at least 3.75 to 4 hours now

[formermav43 4606]

2 minutes ago, TexasHorn01 said:

Theyre doing a really shitty job of shortening games with most games going at least 3.75 to 4 hours now

No kidding. It's been ticking up steadily for years (though it's more like 3.5 hours on average).

Which is why they are concerned about it and keep trying to find ways to shorten them, contrary to what you said. 

 

[BigOrange1 6471]

1 hour ago, jkates said:

• Shorten the season back to 154 games.
  • Each team plays 2 Sunday doubleheaders (1 home/away) over the season.
  • This allows more rest days and fits the playoffs to be finished in October.
• Robot umps for balls and strikes.
• Make batters stay in the box and enforce the 12-second rule on the pitchers.
• Use social media like the NBA and make clips readily shareable.
• Kill the blackout rules.
• All-Star Game needs to always be on July 4th. 
• Make the DH available to both leagues. Expand rosters to 26.

I could probably list more if I cared to think about it more. I'm sure these aren't super original. 

outside of the bullshit DH thing, i actually like most of these.  

[Beau Vine 54443]

1 hour ago, TexasHorn01 said:

What would those changes be?

For one, the clock doesn't stay stopped until the next snap after most incomplete passes any more.  

[Fudge Nuggets 19227]

On 4/1/2018 at 4:13 AM, hornian said:

The only “problem” with baseball is that it’s a rich kid sport for young kids in the US, so that lends to a self selecting group of fans.

Why does it half to be a "rich kid sport" in the US if the Dominican Republic can crank out stars like nobody's business?

[Fudge Nuggets 19227]

On 4/3/2018 at 9:28 PM, TornACL said:

Let's start fixing MLB by fixing this god damn motherfucking MLB At Bat / MLB.tv app.

I signed up through the mlb.com site and have used the app on my computer, Roku, Xbox and iPad / iPhone.  The only time I had an issue was when last year's subscription rolled over to this year and the Roku app was fucked for about four days.  I'm out of the country so blackouts typically don't apply but for some reason last night the Phillies game came up with a message that I was not in an authorized viewing area.  I didn't give a shit because Phillies but that's the first time in over a year that I have received that error.

[Fudge Nuggets 19227]

On 4/3/2018 at 9:55 PM, Beau Vine said:

I guess that's also why the NFL and college football have made changes in the last 20 years to speed up the game?

College football is failing miserably if they are really trying to speed up the game.  I can't speak for the NFL since I don't follow it at all, but college games are getting more unwatchable every year.

[Fudge Nuggets 19227]

On 4/3/2018 at 10:20 PM, jkates said:

• All-Star Game needs to always be on July 4th. 

Yeah... no.  The biggest summer holiday and you are going to have only one game?  

[hornian 5223]

4 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Why does it half to be a "rich kid sport" in the US if the Dominican Republic can crank out stars like nobody's business?

Because we don’t live in the DR. Here in the states it’s morphed into that. If you can’t afford to put your kid in select baseball and pay for your kid to travel to tournaments they are less likely to play when they get to high school where schools have teams. It narrows the available talent. 

[Hank Chinaski 6321]

It seems like people have been discussing baseball's inevitable demise for 25 years. I'm just not seeing it. There is a new generation of "hard core fans" that are not Baby Boomers, and they are shaping the way the game is discussed and consumed now, primarily through technology and analytics. 

[Gut Wagon 8087]

Just now, Hank Chinaski said:

It seems like people have been discussing baseball's inevitable demise for 25 years. I'm just not seeing it. There is a new generation of "hard core fans" that are not Baby Boomers, and they are shaping the way the game is discussed and consumed now, primarily through technology and analytics. 

I burned out so much on MLB with the '94 strike that it took me well over a decade to care much again. I love the game, but as with every other sports played on a major professional level, I enjoy it far more when I focus strictly on the beauty of the athleticism and skill. When I dwell on the fact it's a mega-industry run by folks who see their fans as little more than wallets to be mined, it's not nearly as much fun. But nobody's forcing me or anyone else to follow a given league or team or player.    

[Hank Chinaski 6321]

22 minutes ago, Gut Wagon said:

I burned out so much on MLB with the '94 strike that it took me well over a decade to care much again. I love the game, but as with every other sports played on a major professional level, I enjoy it far more when I focus strictly on the beauty of the athleticism and skill. When I dwell on the fact it's a mega-industry run by folks who see their fans as little more than wallets to be mined, it's not nearly as much fun. But nobody's forcing me or anyone else to follow a given league or team or player.    

Oh yeah, I hear you. But that's every sport. It's the primary reason that my interest in college football has been waning over the last decade. 

[DanRydell 799]

Why does it half to be a "rich kid sport" in the US if the Dominican Republic can crank out stars like nobody's business?

Because the US doesn’t have a bunch of baseball academies kids get sent off to.

[Beau Vine 54443]

1 hour ago, Hank Chinaski said:

It seems like people have been discussing baseball's inevitable demise for 25 years. I'm just not seeing it. There is a new generation of "hard core fans" that are not Baby Boomers, and they are shaping the way the game is discussed and consumed now, primarily through technology and analytics. 

You must be younger than me. 

I'm 50.  When I was a little kid, I was actually really good at soccer, even though I didn't like it that much.  I remember reading articles about how baseball was dying and soccer was going to replace it even back then. 

 

One of the things people writing these articles don't get is that as people get older, they get more interested in baseball. 

I got married 25+ years ago.  My father-in-law had never watched baseball even semi-regularly.  He has probably watched about 80% of all Rangers games over the last decade. 

My best friend in high school hated baseball.  Now, every time we visit him April-September, we go to a baseball game. 

[Beau Vine 54443]

Also, I blew Dr Pepper through my nose reading this Grant Brisbee (National Treasure) column about MLB on Facebook:

https://www.sbnation.com/mlb/2018/4/5/17199544/facebook-mlb-broadcast-mets-phillies
 

 

Not pasting it because the formatting will be ruined.

[sheeeit 129]

Love baseball but agree a few simple changes are needed.  The biggest one for me would be not letting relief pitchers throw warm up pitches from the game mound.  Warm up in the pen and then come right in and pitch.  Late innings get so tiresome sometimes.  

[txhorns 2413]

8 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Love baseball but agree a few simple changes are needed.  The biggest one for me would be not letting relief pitchers throw warm up pitches from the game mound.  Warm up in the pen and then come right in and pitch.  Late innings get so tiresome sometimes.  

The mounds differ and that can effect their landing and mechanics.  They need at least a couple of pitches to adjust.

[Gut Wagon 8087]

9 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Love baseball but agree a few simple changes are needed.  The biggest one for me would be not letting relief pitchers throw warm up pitches from the game mound.  Warm up in the pen and then come right in and pitch.  Late innings get so tiresome sometimes.  

If we put a minimum on pitches thrown/batters faced by a reliever and then didn't let a manage pinch-hit for a pinch-hitter, we could shave what...a solid 2-3 minutes off game time? I'm sure that would matter to someone.  Not to me, though.

[Beau Vine 54443]

Confession time -- I'd love to see some sort of a limit placed on pitching changes during a game.

Every year, the least interesting game of the entire season to me is the All-Star game.  I don't enjoy seeing pitchers completely gas it out for one inning.  My favorite part of baseball is watching pitchers make adjustments, either through multiple times through the order, or facing a righty and then a lefty.

 

I haaaaaaaaaaate one-batter relievers.  Death to them.

 

I'd start with a rule that says that any pitcher who doesn't face at least three batters in a continuous inning is ineligible to pitch the next game.

 

Go ahead and hate on me.

[DanRydell 799]

Confession time -- I'd love to see some sort of a limit placed on pitching changes during a game.
Every year, the least interesting game of the entire season to me is the All-Star game.  I don't enjoy seeing pitchers completely gas it out for one inning.  My favorite part of baseball is watching pitchers make adjustments, either through multiple times through the order, or facing a righty and then a lefty.
 
I haaaaaaaaaaate one-batter relievers.  Death to them.
 
I'd start with a rule that says that any pitcher who doesn't face at least three batters in a continuous inning is ineligible to pitch the next game.
 
Go ahead and hate on me.

I’m all for disincentivizing mid-inning pitching changes. Holding a guy out for one game also doesn’t really punish teams who need to make a mid-inning change due to injury.

[Pig Bellmont 8739]

I’m on board for limiting total # of pitchers that can be used

[sheeeit 129]

2 hours ago, Gut Wagon said:

If we put a minimum on pitches thrown/batters faced by a reliever and then didn't let a manage pinch-hit for a pinch-hitter, we could shave what...a solid 2-3 minutes off game time? I'm sure that would matter to someone.  Not to me, though.

I'm not sure.  But there are certainly games in the late innings where 2 or 3 pitchers are used in a single inning.  Those innings are brutal from a spectator standpoint.  

I get the mound difference but at the major league level surely they can make the bullpen mounds the same as the game mound.  These guys pitch all the time.  I think that is a bad argument.

I would like to see no extra warmup pitches for relievers and I would also like a limit on visits to the mound.  One only.

I do love the general tempo of baseball.  But the spot relievers and coaching visits have harmed that rhythm imo.

[Gut Wagon 8087]

Fair assessment. Sort of like "icing" the kicker. I think sometimes it's ordered the league, so they can try to jam in another sitcom promo.

[Beau Vine 54443]

2 hours ago, sheeeit said:

I do love the general tempo of baseball.  But the spot relievers and coaching visits have harmed that rhythm imo.

I think it's true in any sport -- the more the coach gets involved in the game, the worse it is for the enjoyment of the game.

See basketball, especially.

[UncleCharlie 334]

Shrink MLB back to 24 or 28 teams.  Go back to 2 divisions in each league.  Division winners make the playoffs.  

It's entertainment now.  Teams don't hate each other enough.  Diluted the game far too much for the mighty dollar.

[DanRydell 799]

Shrink MLB back to 24 or 28 teams.  Go back to 2 divisions in each league.  Division winners make the playoffs.  
It's entertainment now.  Teams don't hate each other enough.  Diluted the game far too much for the mighty dollar.

Your solution to fix MLB is to make it less popular and less profitable?

[UncleCharlie 334]

Your solution to fix MLB is to make it less popular and less profitable?

Do you understand supply/demand?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

[jkates 316]

On 4/14/2018 at 11:02 AM, UncleCharlie said:

Do you understand supply/demand?
 

 

I don't know about him, but it's pretty clear that you don't understand the demand side of this equation. The demand is there. The $$$ speaks loudly. 

[UncleCharlie 334]

http://www.espn.com/mlb/attendance

Yeah, about that demand.  You could strengthen the game dramatically by going back to 24, but I'll give you 28.

Miami, Oakland and Tampa Bay don't deserve teams.  Only reason they are viable is that the owners are getting an equal share of an increasing tv revenue pie.  

I just hate watching a sport where 20% of the players on the field should be in the minors.  Rarely in the last 10 years will I sit down and watch a full regular season game and even in the playoffs and WS its hard to get through 9 innings.  

[txhorns 2413]

If you are struggling to even watch the playoffs then baseball is just not for you.  

[Beau Vine 54443]

57 minutes ago, UncleCharlie said:

http://www.espn.com/mlb/attendance

Yeah, about that demand.  You could strengthen the game dramatically by going back to 24, but I'll give you 28.

Miami, Oakland and Tampa Bay don't deserve teams.  Only reason they are viable is that the owners are getting an equal share of an increasing tv revenue pie.  

I just hate watching a sport where 20% of the players on the field should be in the minors.  Rarely in the last 10 years will I sit down and watch a full regular season game and even in the playoffs and WS its hard to get through 9 innings.  

If you hate watching baseball, then you should probably quit posting in, you know, a baseball forum.

[Beau Vine 54443]

David Samson wants to fix MLB.  You might remember David Samson as the assclown lackey who was president of the Marlins only because Jeff Loria was his father-in-law.  For some reason, Jayson Stark wrote a column about his ideas:

— Once in a game, and only in the ninth inning, a team could do what the Angels did in the scenario we sketched out earlier – send up its best player to hit in any situation if it’s trailing, even if that player had already hit in that inning.

— To DH or not DH? That would be a question decided by the home team every day before the game – in the AL and the NL. If it’s MadBum Night, the pitcher obviously hits. But if it’s a Wei-Yin Chen start (2 for 62, with 24 whiffs), what better time for an NL game to feature the DH?

— Or how about a Designated Fielder? Samson thinks that’s worth a try, too. Does your team have an Alcides Escobar kind of guy, whose bat doesn’t match his leatherwork? Or maybe a backup catcher who hits .153 but has a special rapport with your ace starter? Perfect candidates for a Designated Fielder – also the home team’s decision.

— A two-pickoff-throw limit – for any runner at any base? That’s another of Samson’s proposals. Would it speed up the game? Would it be likely to make baserunning a bigger part of the action every night? He would say: Yes and yes.

— If you hate the idea of minor-league games that put a runner on second base to start every extra inning, you’ll definitely need an antacid for Samson’s companion plan – to combat blowouts by allowing every team that gives up a crooked number in one half-inning to start the next half-inning with a runner on second. He’ll explain!

— And finally, he sees one more way baseball could mirror the other sports – with a nightly “halftime.” That would dictate shorter between-inning breaks to keep the flow moving, but also a 12-minute “halftime” in midgame that could be used for entertainment, pizza-stand runs, selling ad time, etc. You know that drill.

Edited May 16, 2018 by Beau Vine

[Beau Vine 54443]

Here are the details:

Quote

“These are things that could help make the game better and more exciting for a new generation of fans who demand excitement in small doses and 30-second clips,” he said. “And that’s an issue. The way people are digesting baseball in those little clips hurts attendance and hurts ratings.”

So what he’s aspiring to create, he said, is a sport that will “get people involved in the experience” of going to a baseball game, not just luring them there once with Dollar Dog Night. And that means trying stuff that’s not just different but dramatically different. So how different is it all? Let’s run through his big ideas.

THE 9^TH INNING WILD CARD AT-BAT

There is an epic moment from the 2003 World Series that is stuck in Samson’s memory bank. It happened in the final inning of the final game of that World Series. As he watched Josh Beckett eliminate the mighty Yankees at Yankee Stadium that night, Samson’s eyes stopped at the sight of Derek Jeter – because you know what Jeter wasn’t doing in that moment? He wasn’t playing. Or hitting. Or even fiddling with a bat in the dugout.

“I looked at Derek Jeter, leaning on the rail, and he was watching the game – the same way I was,” Samson said. “And I was totally struck by that. I thought, ‘What a crazy game. It’s Game 6. His team is about to be eliminated. It had one last chance. And their best player was doing what the team president (of the opposition) was doing. Watching.’”

Most people in the game would have seen that and said, “Well, that’s baseball.” What David Samson thought to himself, however, was: Why are we just accepting that? Why can’t we change it?

He reflects on what makes the other sports so magnetic in moments like that. It couldn’t be clearer. What sells crunch time in the NBA finals? The ball is in the hands of LeBron or some megastar like him. What force pulls you into the final minute of the Super Bowl? Tom Brady has one last opportunity to drive the Patriots up the field.

Now think about baseball. Nobody sees the downside of having the World Series come down to the 7-8-9 hitters in the ninth? All right, maybe there’s someone out there who does. But this is the first we’ve heard of anyone trying to address it.

“This came up in the competition committee, but only as an outlier,” Samson said. “Impossible. Never could happen. Let’s dismiss it before we dive into it. It wasn’t originally my idea, but I loved it. I couldn’t get any conversation generated about it, and I was very serious about it from the moment I heard it.”

Before you write it off as crazy, do Samson a favor. Try to envision the scene as Aaron Judge hops up the dugout steps in that spot. Or Bryce Harper. Or José Altuve. It’s the equivalent of giving LeBron the ball – except with a whole new strategic debate attached.

“The level of excitement would be staggering,” Samson said. “And you’d get something the NBA doesn’t get, because in the NBA, you expect that if the game is tied at the end, LeBron is getting the ball. But in baseball, imagine the conversation. Imagine the strategy. When will you pull the trigger on that one wild-card at-bat you’d have? It would be unbelievable.”

HOME TEAM PICKS THE DH RULE

What fueled this idea, Samson said, is his concern that the home team doesn’t have enough of a home-field advantage in baseball, compared with the other sports. Sure, it’s cool that the home team gets to bat last. But if you want to give it a whole ’nother sort of advantage, why not give it a chance to choose the rules it wants to play by that day?

“Every game,” he said, “we’d let the home team decide if it wants to use the DH or not. Maybe the other team has a big-time DH you want to get out of the lineup, and that puts them at a big disadvantage. Maybe you have a pitcher who can really hit…But my idea was, what can we do to make the home team’s advantage stronger?”

In an era where very few teams have a Nelson Cruz or Victor Martinez, almost full-time DHs who play the field as little as possible, this idea actually might have less impact than in the past. But Samson would spice up the drama by allowing the home team to keep its choice secret until the exchange of the lineup cards. So the road team would actually have to prepare two different lineups, one for each set of rules.

And in the meantime, he would pair this concept with …

THE DESIGNATED FIELDER

We’ve already explained this idea. But in essence, it would create a lineup with two DHs – one hitting for the pitcher, another for the Designated Fielder.

“I just feel like it’s a fun concept that helps with action,” Samson said. “And it’s lack of action that’s hurting the game. It’s just one more idea to try to have more people in the game with the ability to put the ball in play.”

THE TWO-PICKOFF LIMIT

This is an area that the competition committee once explored extensively to streamline pace of play. But it mostly talked about a four-pickoff limit, not two, before the whole notion died.

“The reason it was dismissed,” Samson said, “was that, with any number we chose, the impact on the game was that no one would ever get to within one (pickoff) of the limit, because once you got one away, everyone would know – the runner included – that you wouldn’t throw over anymore. So he would be able to take larger leads. And I said, ‘What’s wrong with that?’”

The more he thought about it, the more he thought that unleashing the running game is a jolt of energy the sport could use. So his goal with this proposal was to pretty much eliminate all pickoff throws. By setting a limit of two, “it was really like zero,” for the reasons we just laid out.

If the result is that runners can take longer leads because they have virtually no fear of being picked off, he wondered, why is that inherently a bad thing for the game? It could mean more base-stealing (which is at an all-time low). It could mean more runners going first to third on singles. It could mean closer plays at second on what are now routine force-outs.

Yes, it penalizes the defense. But in the bigger picture, with the rise of shifting, the defense is now at a greater advantage – in virtually all other respects – than ever before.

“So this is not even about the stolen base,” Samson said, “as much as it’s about putting the game in motion. And that’s exciting.”

THE CROOKED NUMBER RULE

We’re not sure how many folks out there are on board with any of this. We’re guessing there aren’t many of you. But if there is anyone left who loves it all so far, there’s an excellent chance this is where you’ll be leaping off this roaring train ride up the slopes of Mount Innovation.

Samson’s proposal would go like this: Any time you allow a team to put up a crooked number of any size or shape (in other words, two runs or more) in any half-inning, your hitters would start the next half-inning with a rally already in progress. Runner on second. Nobody out.

Before you yell “Blasphemy,” at least listen to his logic. His thinking is that nothing is less entertaining than a blowout. So theoretically this is an idea that could keep the game interesting, even after a team starts to blow it open.

“Ask yourself this,” Samson said. “What makes people leave the ballpark? It’s when you give up five runs and a 3-0 game becomes an 8-0 game… So what this does is give a team the ability to score runs after giving up runs.”

When we objected to the whole concept of penalizing a team for scoring runs, Samson responded: “It’s not unfair. They only get one runner on second, whether you scored eight runs or two. And if the other team scores two runs, then you get a man on second yourself.”

But the real selling point, he said, is that “it’s must-see TV. There’s stuff happening. You don’t have to worry about starting a rally. You’ve got a rally as soon as you come to bat. It keeps people watching.”

Of course, it wouldn’t just keep people watching. It also would keep people screaming – about gimmicking up the sport to tweak ratings or sell a few more hot dogs. But Samson said he’s ready for all the screaming and all the criticism that he has no doubt these deep-thinking ideas will inspire. Heck, he can probably already hear it.

“Look, any time you say something different than most people say or you think something different than most people think, you’re susceptible to criticism,” he said. “I’ve been down that road for 18 years. I’ve never shied away from that.”

Hey, it’s a good thing. Does he expect people to agree with all of this? How could he? Does he expect the sport to act on any of this? It never did when he was actually working inside baseball. Why would people in the sport listen to him now?

“For me,” Samson said, “my issue with the game is a lack of desire to change. Rob (Manfred) has done an unbelievable job of trying to start that process. But too many people in the game are too worried about making significant changes from what’s been done in the past. They’re so busy wanting to save baseball as the National Pastime that they’re missing the fact that they’re in danger of losing it as the National Pastime.”

In a world where change has to be approved by a three-fourths vote of 30 owners (i.e., 23 votes) and then has to be negotiated with the players’ union, there are already built-in obstacles to clear that are taller than the Green Monster. But one of these days, Samson believes, baseball needs to summon the will to make the kind of significant changes the other sports make on a regular basis.

“What baseball needs,” he said, “is 23 (owners) who realize that change is inevitable and who also have the courage to be wrong. What’s wrong with making real change and then realizing, three or four years down the road, that it didn’t happen the way you thought and fans aren’t happy, so you change back or adjust back? Baseball is very worried about never being wrong.”

 

[DaysOff 7975]

David Samson wants to fix MLB.  You might remember David Samson as the assclown lackey who was president of the Marlins only because his Jeff Loria was his father-in-law.  For some reason, Jayson Stark wrote a column about his ideas:

— Once in a game, and only in the ninth inning, a team could do what the Angels did in the scenario we sketched out earlier – send up its best player to hit in any situation if it’s trailing, even if that player had already hit in that inning.

— To DH or not DH? That would be a question decided by the home team every day before the game – in the AL and the NL. If it’s MadBum Night, the pitcher obviously hits. But if it’s a Wei-Yin Chen start (2 for 62, with 24 whiffs), what better time for an NL game to feature the DH?

— Or how about a Designated Fielder? Samson thinks that’s worth a try, too. Does your team have an Alcides Escobar kind of guy, whose bat doesn’t match his leatherwork? Or maybe a backup catcher who hits .153 but has a special rapport with your ace starter? Perfect candidates for a Designated Fielder – also the home team’s decision.

— A two-pickoff-throw limit – for any runner at any base? That’s another of Samson’s proposals. Would it speed up the game? Would it be likely to make baserunning a bigger part of the action every night? He would say: Yes and yes.

— If you hate the idea of minor-league games that put a runner on second base to start every extra inning, you’ll definitely need an antacid for Samson’s companion plan – to combat blowouts by allowing every team that gives up a crooked number in one half-inning to start the next half-inning with a runner on second. He’ll explain!

— And finally, he sees one more way baseball could mirror the other sports – with a nightly “halftime.” That would dictate shorter between-inning breaks to keep the flow moving, but also a 12-minute “halftime” in midgame that could be used for entertainment, pizza-stand runs, selling ad time, etc. You know that drill.

What in the flying millenial fuck did I just read.

[txhorns 2413]

The only thing that would make baseball better is Emily Ratajkowski stripping on top of the dugout between innings.

[Seasick Sailor 3747]

15 minutes ago, DaysOff said:

46 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

David Samson wants to fix MLB.  You might remember David Samson as the assclown lackey who was president of the Marlins only because his Jeff Loria was his father-in-law.  For some reason, Jayson Stark wrote a column about his ideas:

— Once in a game, and only in the ninth inning, a team could do what the Angels did in the scenario we sketched out earlier – send up its best player to hit in any situation if it’s trailing, even if that player had already hit in that inning.

— To DH or not DH? That would be a question decided by the home team every day before the game – in the AL and the NL. If it’s MadBum Night, the pitcher obviously hits. But if it’s a Wei-Yin Chen start (2 for 62, with 24 whiffs), what better time for an NL game to feature the DH?

— Or how about a Designated Fielder? Samson thinks that’s worth a try, too. Does your team have an Alcides Escobar kind of guy, whose bat doesn’t match his leatherwork? Or maybe a backup catcher who hits .153 but has a special rapport with your ace starter? Perfect candidates for a Designated Fielder – also the home team’s decision.

— A two-pickoff-throw limit – for any runner at any base? That’s another of Samson’s proposals. Would it speed up the game? Would it be likely to make baserunning a bigger part of the action every night? He would say: Yes and yes.

— If you hate the idea of minor-league games that put a runner on second base to start every extra inning, you’ll definitely need an antacid for Samson’s companion plan – to combat blowouts by allowing every team that gives up a crooked number in one half-inning to start the next half-inning with a runner on second. He’ll explain!

— And finally, he sees one more way baseball could mirror the other sports – with a nightly “halftime.” That would dictate shorter between-inning breaks to keep the flow moving, but also a 12-minute “halftime” in midgame that could be used for entertainment, pizza-stand runs, selling ad time, etc. You know that drill.

What in the flying millenial fuck did I just read.

Holy shit those are bad ideas.

[Beau Vine 54443]

I would love to see that little assclown telling Clayton Kershaw that he's not going to know if there's a DH or not until the home team manager turns in the lineup card at the plate.  

[Huckleberry 33100]

The DH is a terrible rule partially because it's half-assed. Either stick to the design of the game (if you want to hit then you have to play the field) or else go full platoon. Stop with the stupid single position platoon shit. As I've said multiple times, I hate the DH. The fact that players and managers figured out that one position added so much more defensive value that their offensive contribution was negligible is just the way the strategy works out. But if it's really about having the best in the world do what they do then platoon EVERY position. Some players will be awesome enough to both hit and play the field still. But everywhere else just let the best fielders field and the best hitters hit if that's what you want.

[Helobious 9466]

10 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

The DH is a terrible rule partially because it's half-assed. Either stick to the design of the game (if you want to hit then you have to play the field) or else go full platoon. Stop with the stupid single position platoon shit. As I've said multiple times, I hate the DH. The fact that players and managers figured out that one position added so much more defensive value that their offensive contribution was negligible is just the way the strategy works out. But if it's really about having the best in the world do what they do then platoon EVERY position. Some players will be awesome enough to both hit and play the field still. But everywhere else just let the best fielders field and the best hitters hit if that's what you want.

Pretty sure the original "design of the game" included no people of color being allowed to play, no helmets or protective netting, etc. Why shouldn't the game go back to all those things too, if it's authenticity you're seeking? No one wants to see a fucking .150 hitting pitcher go up there and flail at pitches every day. 

[Tyler Durden 132]

Great comparison there Helobious.  The DH blows goats without or without making a stupid comparison to Jackie Robinson.  

[Huckleberry 33100]

The best part about this particular kind of terrible Helobious post is that he actually thinks he made a good point. He genuinely doesn't realize how terrible that "logic" was.

[DaysOff 7975]

Stupid yankee American League fuck. Just waiting for Vic's take now.

[Helobious 9466]

So no one cares to refute my point? If we should go back to the DH to stay true to the origins of the game, why be half-ass about going that direction? Why not go all out with the original rules? 

[txhorns 2413]

3 minutes ago, Helobious said:

So no one cares to refute my point? If we should go back to the DH to stay true to the origins of the game, why be half-ass about going that direction? Why not go all out with the original rules? 

You're arguing against civil rights and player/fan safety, those have nothing to do with the rules of the game. 

[VivaNaranja 466]

9 minutes ago, Helobious said:

So no one cares to refute my point? If we should go back to the DH to stay true to the origins of the game, why be half-ass about going that direction? Why not go all out with the original rules? 

There has never been a rule banning helmets or blacks from baseball

Edited May 16, 2018 by VivaNaranja

[Helobious 9466]

2 minutes ago, txhorns said:

You're arguing against civil rights and player/fan safety, those have nothing to do with the rules of the game. 

Thanks for actually responding.

Still, the larger point is that I see no way getting rid of the DH makes the game better. Look at OPS or almost any other batting stat by position, you’ll notice one position lags outrageously behind the others. I don’t see how giving pitchers more at bats makes the game any better. It’ll also decrease the quality of pitching (the most specialized of the defensive positions, it’s dumb to act like it’s no different from 2B or right field) because pitchers will have to devote more time to hitting training.

[Helobious 9466]

8 minutes ago, VivaNaranja said:

There has never been a rule banning helmets or blacks from baseball

Don’t be obtuse, we’re clearly talking about the MLB only. Many leagues had written or unwritten rules that prohibited the signing of black players, including the MLB.