Jump to content

is pitch count next???


dumbdumb
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 2595 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

Saves 4 wimpy pitches on the arm. Is pitch count next? The late Dr. Jobe and Andrews should be happy. But, will it put Andrews out of business if this continues.

Raise zone at knees to old American League way of the past. Batters hitting for higher average, means more pitches and longer games when the ball is elevated and less balls beat into the dirt for groundouts although the fielder may muff the ball, on a ball put in play on the ground that would now be let go. Longer games as pitchers try to be 'too fine' all around the zone, and trying to keep the ball in the yard and out of the gaps.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Is this the year baseball raises the strike zone? Is it the year the sport does away with the practice of lobbing four balls toward home plate to issue an intentional walk? Major League Baseball has made formal proposals to the players' union to usher in both of those changes, sources told ESPN.com.

Neither of those innovations can be implemented without approval of the Major League Baseball Players Association. The union is currently in the process of feeling out players on the proposed changes, sources said. For either or both to take effect this season, an agreement would have to be reached "sooner rather than later," said one source, because spring training games begin in just two and a half weeks.

MLB's proposal would raise the lower part of the strike zone to the top of the hitter's knees. Since 1996, the bottom of the zone has been defined as "the hollow beneath the kneecap." But data shows that umpires have been increasingly calling strikes on so many pitches below the knees that, if umpires enforce the redefined strike zone, it would effectively raise the zone by an estimated 2 inches.

Barry Bonds receives an intentional walk in 2007. Kyle Terada/USA TODAY Sports

The change in the intentional-walk rule would end the long-standing practice of requiring the pitcher to toss four soft pitches outside the strike zone. Instead, a team could just signify it wants to issue an intentional walk, and the hitter would be sent directly to first base.

Both proposals are part of MLB's attempts to streamline what commissioner Rob Manfred often refers to as "pace of action." But the two changes would have far different impacts.

Getting rid of the old-fashioned intentional walk would eliminate about a minute of dead time per walk. In an age in which intentional walks actually have been declining -- there were just 932 all last season (or one every 5.2 games) -- that time savings would be minimal. But MLB sees the practice of lobbing four meaningless pitches as antiquated, so eliminating them would serve as much as a statement as it would a practical attempt to speed up the game.

The change in the strike zone, however, could have a much more dramatic effect, MLB believes. Its intent is to produce more balls in play, more baserunners and more action at a time when nearly 30 percent of all hitters either walk or strike out -- the highest rate of "non-action" in the game's history.

 

Neither side is certain yet how players will respond to the new proposals, but sources indicate that the change in the intentional-walk rule is more likely to be approved for this season than the raising of the strike zone. Players have mixed feelings about the redefined strike zone; shrinking the zone helps hitters and hurts pitchers, so if there is a path to a consensus among players, it is difficult for either side to see one developing in the next couple of weeks.

Sources said MLB presented the two proposals to the union in late January, after they were agreed to by both its competition committee and playing-rules committee. If the changes sound familiar, it's because, as ESPN.com reported last May, MLB also felt out the union on both proposals last year, sources said.

However, the players were lukewarm at the time, telling MLB they were open to revisiting the ideas in the future. Now that the two sides have negotiated a new labor deal, they are expected to explore a variety of ideas designed to speed up pace of play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the number of times a catcher's balk is called, a WP/PB is thrown, or a base runner steals on an IBB it has become a component of the game that is not necessary, not practical, and can be removed without impacting the integrity of the game.  I don't think it has hurt any other level of the game where it has been removed.  It won't save a ton of time, but if the play has no value, why keep it except for blindly following tradition simply because that's how it's always been done?

I do worry though that someone would decide that the home run trot is no longer necessary, and proposes to remove it in an effort to speed up the game.

There are far more practical and effective ways of improving the pace of play.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

For the number of times a catcher's balk is called, a WP/PB is thrown, or a base runner steals on an IBB it has become a component of the game that is not necessary, not practical, and can be removed without impacting the integrity of the game.  I don't think it has hurt any other level of the game where it has been removed.  It won't save a ton of time, but if the play has no value, why keep it except for blindly following tradition simply because that's how it's always been done?

I do worry though that someone would decide that the home run trot is no longer necessary, and proposes to remove it in an effort to speed up the game.

There are far more practical and effective ways of improving the pace of play.  

As a point of clarification, there really isn't any such thing as a catcher's balk, since only the pitcher can balk. In the so-called "catcher's balk," it's called such due to the pitcher pitching when the catcher is out of the box.

Regarding the rest of the article, how raising the lower limit of the zone is supposed to produce more balls in play is beyond me, since the smaller the zone, the less frequently the batter will swing, thus decreasing the number of balls in play. I expected we'd see an increase in walks, which would serve the opposite purpose of Manfred's goal.

But what I don't understand is the concern about the length of a game or the pace of play. There hasn't been any drop off in revenues due to the game times, that I'm aware of. I'd think the longer the game, the more money the teams would make from television air time and advertising. From that perspective, it's in the best interest of MLB to increase the game times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone really say for sure what the result of a smaller strike zone will be?

1. Pitchers will not get the low strike, they'll pitch more above the knees, a more hittable pitch. More balls in play sooner in AB's =  more action, better pace.

2. Smaller strike zone, less strikes, batters take more pitches = slower game,more walks,less action.

I'll elect #3.

3.Pitchers adjust, batters adjust, the net result isn't even noticeable to the average fan...unless you read some sabermetric article that digs into the minutia of how many balls and strikes are being called per game and how many pitches are being swung at compared to years prior.....

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think MLB could speed up the game by providing the team with a yearly incentive inversely proportional to their total game time.  Make it revenue neutral to the league, penalizing the slow teams and rewarding the fast teams. 

I don't think the rules proposals will make a noticeable difference in pace.

The big issue for MLB, IMHO, is the low level of interest from young people.  Starting games late to maximize the TV revenue from adults excludes the next generation of fans.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, ElkOil said:

But what I don't understand is the concern about the length of a game or the pace of play. There hasn't been any drop off in revenues due to the game times, that I'm aware of. I'd think the longer the game, the more money the teams would make from television air time and advertising. From that perspective, it's in the best interest of MLB to increase the game times.

League attendance is down about 7 million people per year since 2007.  Television viewership (including streaming numbers), 2016 World Series aside, has been steadily declining for over a decade.

The general consensus is people would be happier investing their time in a baseball game if the length was closer to 2 hours than 3 hours.   Even with last year's big jump in ratings for the World Series, TV ratings for the last decade are about half of what they were 30 years ago.

And game time has increased by over 30 minutes in that same time frame.  Right, wrong or indifferent they have concluded there's a link.  Others could claim that there's simply more competition on television, so of course ratings will go down.  Which creates the response that they need to find ways to make the game more appealing so people choose MLB over all the other stuff on TV/Internet.   Same thing with attendance.  Bring a family of four, with expensive parking and food/drinks, and it can easily be $300+ afternoon (for not great seats).  There are a LOT of ways a family of four can spend four hours for $300/$400, and many of them are more fun than a baseball game that has more pitcher/catcher conferences than action.

I think an easy way to lop off 20 minutes is to reduce warm up pitches - from 8 to 5, or even 3, for new innings with an existing pitcher.  And from 8 to 5 for a new pitcher.  Reduce player/player conferences.

Or, change how the game is marketed/presented.  It used to be called a pastime.  A lazy afternoon watching a ball game.  Make that appealing again to these supposedly busy people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

League attendance is down about 7 million people per year since 2007.  Television viewership (including streaming numbers), 2016 World Series aside, has been steadily declining for over a decade.

The general consensus is people would be happier investing their time in a baseball game if the length was closer to 2 hours than 3 hours.   Even with last year's big jump in ratings for the World Series, TV ratings for the last decade are about half of what they were 30 years ago.

And game time has increased by over 30 minutes in that same time frame.  Right, wrong or indifferent they have concluded there's a link.  Others could claim that there's simply more competition on television, so of course ratings will go down.  Which creates the response that they need to find ways to make the game more appealing so people choose MLB over all the other stuff on TV/Internet.   Same thing with attendance.  Bring a family of four, with expensive parking and food/drinks, and it can easily be $300+ afternoon (for not great seats).  There are a LOT of ways a family of four can spend four hours for $300/$400, and many of them are more fun than a baseball game that has more pitcher/catcher conferences than action.

I think an easy way to lop off 20 minutes is to reduce warm up pitches - from 8 to 5, or even 3, for new innings with an existing pitcher.  And from 8 to 5 for a new pitcher.  Reduce player/player conferences.

Or, change how the game is marketed/presented.  It used to be called a pastime.  A lazy afternoon watching a ball game.  Make that appealing again to these supposedly busy people.

Good stats but the notion of reducing the returning pitcher predatory throws to speed up the game immediately hits a solid NO GO wall... that being the advertisers who want that 2 - 3 minute break every half inning for their commercials. You can reduce the throws but then the pitcher is just going to be standing there for 2 minutes.

Where is a lot of the time wasted? Well we can get through 7 innings relatively quickly and then for the next 2 innings we get to watch pitcher change after pitcher change after pitcher change... all with 2-4 minute commercial breaks just to drag out those 2 innings... with all those changes suddenly those 2 innings run maybe an extra hour? You want to speed up the pace require the incoming F1 to be ready to go unless removed for EJ or injury. 2-3 throws to acclimate to the bump and lets go. Reduce the dead time to 60-90 seconds... that would speed up the game somewhat since most likely in a tight game this pitcher is going to be in the game for 1 batter and then the crazy cycle starts again.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mudisfun said:

Good stats but the notion of reducing the returning pitcher predatory throws to speed up the game immediately hits a solid NO GO wall... that being the advertisers who want that 2 - 3 minute break every half inning for their commercials. You can reduce the throws but then the pitcher is just going to be standing there for 2 minutes.

 

 

And that is probably the single biggest reason games are 30 minutes longer than they were 30 years ago.

NHL and NFL sponsors have found ways to advertise while the game is going on, I see no reason MLB advertisers can't do the same.  It's their call really - an extra few commercial spots are all wonderful if people are actually watching.

In this age of streaming media, and DVR's, the 30 second commercial spot is less and less effective.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

League attendance is down about 7 million people per year since 2007.  Television viewership (including streaming numbers), 2016 World Series aside, has been steadily declining for over a decade.

The general consensus is people would be happier investing their time in a baseball game if the length was closer to 2 hours than 3 hours.   Even with last year's big jump in ratings for the World Series, TV ratings for the last decade are about half of what they were 30 years ago.

And game time has increased by over 30 minutes in that same time frame.  Right, wrong or indifferent they have concluded there's a link.  Others could claim that there's simply more competition on television, so of course ratings will go down.  Which creates the response that they need to find ways to make the game more appealing so people choose MLB over all the other stuff on TV/Internet.   Same thing with attendance.  Bring a family of four, with expensive parking and food/drinks, and it can easily be $300+ afternoon (for not great seats).  There are a LOT of ways a family of four can spend four hours for $300/$400, and many of them are more fun than a baseball game that has more pitcher/catcher conferences than action.

I think an easy way to lop off 20 minutes is to reduce warm up pitches - from 8 to 5, or even 3, for new innings with an existing pitcher.  And from 8 to 5 for a new pitcher.  Reduce player/player conferences.

Or, change how the game is marketed/presented.  It used to be called a pastime.  A lazy afternoon watching a ball game.  Make that appealing again to these supposedly busy people.

1) I agree about the financial cost of going to a game and how that would drive people away. I'm a Red Sox fan that lives in NJ and I won't spend the money to see them play the Yankees, Orioles or even Phillies simply because I don't have the money to spend even though my girlfriend and I would love to go. Simply put we have better, more important things to spend $200-$400 on. That being said I do spend about $130 on the MLB.TV package every year because I still want to watch my team.

2) Like it or not I think warm up pitchers are going to be seen as a safety issue for the pitchers and will be kept. Do they need to take all 8 or all 5? Probably not. I've worked the dish and had F1's tell F2 going down after the 3rd pitch cause he was feeling good about it and didn't want to waste any more pitches. Then there are guys who simply won't start an inning unless they take all the pitches. To each his own.

3) You are onto something there especially with people living lives that go a million miles an hour. There is nothing more relaxing for me than  turning on the TV (PS4 actually), opening an adult beverage and watching a game for 3-4 hours. It's a great way to decompress. I think with things like fantasy football and the like, where games are watched to see how players across multiple teams perform as much as they're watched for support of your favorite team, baseball needs people to focus on the relaxing experience more than the "lack of action."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LittleBlue said:

1) I agree about the financial cost of going to a game and how that would drive people away. I'm a Red Sox fan that lives in NJ and I won't spend the money to see them play the Yankees, Orioles or even Phillies simply because I don't have the money to spend even though my girlfriend and I would love to go. Simply put we have better, more important things to spend $200-$400 on. That being said I do spend about $130 on the MLB.TV package every year because I still want to watch my team.

2) Like it or not I think warm up pitchers are going to be seen as a safety issue for the pitchers and will be kept. Do they need to take all 8 or all 5? Probably not. I've worked the dish and had F1's tell F2 going down after the 3rd pitch cause he was feeling good about it and didn't want to waste any more pitches. Then there are guys who simply won't start an inning unless they take all the pitches. To each his own.

3) You are onto something there especially with people living lives that go a million miles an hour. There is nothing more relaxing for me than  turning on the TV (PS4 actually), opening an adult beverage and watching a game for 3-4 hours. It's a great way to decompress. I think with things like fantasy football and the like, where games are watched to see how players across multiple teams perform as much as they're watched for support of your favorite team, baseball needs people to focus on the relaxing experience more than the "lack of action."

$112 for MLB TV this year.  YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!   And if I read correctly, possible not as I'm originally from Missouri, the World Baseball Classic will be aired as well as spring training games.  I wonder how many of the families attending game really understand the game?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

Right, wrong or indifferent they have concluded there's a link.  

My point is this only works if they're right. If they're wrong, these efforts are simply a waste and an exercise in futility... or busy work intended to give the rules committee something to do. I was pondering if there was, in fact, a correlation between longer game times and loss of revenues. So to say that regardless of that they're floating these rules, avoids addressing my question. Your points are worth consideration, even though they're made without citation. Even if they're all true, there's no proof beyond a supposition that these rule changes will positively affect them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, umpstu said:

I wonder how many of the families attending game really understand the game?

You'll have to be more specific on an umpire forum, because we question whether or not players and coaches really understand the game. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, umpstu said:

  I wonder how many of the families attending game really understand the game?

I'm not sure if it's true anymore, but there was a time, for many spectators, that attending a baseball game had very little to do with the game itself.  Sitting in the bleachers with dad, with a hot dog and Coke/beer, enjoying the sun, and sure, cheering if the home team won/scored, but I know lots of people who would leave ball games not knowing the score, or who even won.

Remember that video of all those sorority girls looking at their phones, texting each other - oblivious to the game...

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, umpstu said:

$112 for MLB TV this year.  YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!   And if I read correctly, possible not as I'm originally from Missouri, the World Baseball Classic will be aired as well as spring training games.  I wonder how many of the families attending game really understand the game?

Yep the WBC will be aired live as well as 300 spring training games. I don't know how many spring training games you watch but in years past it seemed that they never aired too many. For a baseball fan you can't get a much better deal than $112 for the year. Compare that to over $250 for the NFL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, beerguy55 said:

I'm not sure if it's true anymore, but there was a time, for many spectators, that attending a baseball game had very little to do with the game itself.

I would posit that's still the case.

Let's face it, unless you're into the minutiae of the game (yes, I know what forum I'm on, and I know this just excluded most of us, but I'm talking about the public at-large), baseball is long periods of boredom punctuated by short periods of excitement. Going to a baseball game is a social event. You eat a hot dog and drink a soda (barley-soda, if you're of the appropriate age) and chat with your friends while the pitch-catch-swing routine is going on. Then when somebody actually hits the ball, everybody looks up and cheers (or boos), and gets into the game. Then its back to the socializing again.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/8/2017 at 6:40 AM, beerguy55 said:

I'm not sure if it's true anymore, but there was a time, for many spectators, that attending a baseball game had very little to do with the game itself.  Sitting in the bleachers with dad, with a hot dog and Coke/beer, enjoying the sun, and sure, cheering if the home team won/scored, but I know lots of people who would leave ball games not knowing the score, or who even won.

Remember that video of all those sorority girls looking at their phones, texting each other - oblivious to the game...

 

Good post. I say the same things to friends when discussing this topic. How many of the world's issues have been solved during conversations at the park.  Should they lay a bunt down? Why did they bring this guy in?  That was a great hit and run.  Damn he missed the cutoff.  There are so many intricate parts to baseball that just go over peoples heads and it is great to watch a game.  I can never remember a time at the park that I didn't enjoy. 1 hour or 5 hours. It's baseball. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
$112 for MLB TV this year.  YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!   And if I read correctly, possible not as I'm originally from Missouri, the World Baseball Classic will be aired as well as spring training games.  I wonder how many of the families attending game really understand the game?


I got it free last year because I'm a T-Mobile customer. Hope they do it again this year.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Tue Feb 07 2017 at 8:15 PM, umpstu said:

I wonder how many of the families attending game really understand the game?

If you are talking WBC, I would gather quite a few. Now they probably won't or don't careabout the minutiae of the game. In particular, what we do. But they do know baseball.

Look at the locations of many of these teams. A lot of them are baseball first. Every other sport second. Places like Cuba, Japan, DR, Puerto Rico, Mexico (ok that is probably soccer but my statement still holds water), etc.

On Wed Feb 08 2017 at 11:58 AM, kylehutson said:

barley-soda, if you're of the appropriate age

Or a wheat one. There are a couple ballparks here on the west coast (San Francisco, San Diego, and Seattle... I'm looking right at you) that probably give the barley version a run for its money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BT_Blue said:

If you are talking WBC, I would gather quite a few. Now they probably won't or don't careabout the minutiae of the game. In particular, what we do. But they do know baseball.

Look at the locations of many of these teams. A lot of them are baseball first. Every other sport second. Places like Cuba, Japan, DR, Puerto Rico, Mexico (ok that is probably soccer but my statement still holds water), etc.

Or a wheat one. There are a couple ballparks here on the west coast (San Francisco, San Diego, and Seattle... I'm looking right at you) that probably give the barley version a run for its money.

Baseball in America.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...