Baseball History Comes Alive Now Ranked #2 by Feedspot Among All Internet Baseball History Websites and Blogs!
Guest Submissions from Our Readers Always Welcome!
THE BASEBALL HISTORY COMES ALIVE BLOG
Please note: As we compose new blog entries, we will now send each one out to all our subscribers as we post them. Here’s a link to see the entire Blog Archives
March 16, 2021
New Blog Topic: MLB EXPERIMENTING WITH MORE RULE CHANGES
Well, they’re at it again. While Major League Baseball continues to be fixated on speeding up the game, they’re also finally taking heed about the lack of action caused by fewer balls being put in play during a ballgame. It was announced just recently that several potential rule changes would be tried this year at various levels of the minor leagues. Whether any of these potential rule changes will be implemented at the Major League level is still a matter of conjecture. So let’s take a look and see what you think. Of course, as always, I’ll give you my opinion, as well.
The first one takes on the oft-debated situation of infield shifts. At the beginning of the Double-A season, all four infielders will be required to have both feet on the infield dirt. That would eliminate an infielder playing in short right field in a radical shift against a southpaw swingers. MLB also said that, depending on the results, the second half of the Double-A season could mandate two infielders on each side of the second base bag, in effect, making the shift illegal. The explanation was simple. “These restrictions on defensive positioning are intended to increase the batting average on balls in play,” said an MLB spokesman.
So there it is, an admission the sports needs more offense and more balls in play. Even Red Sox manager Alex Cora stated what many of us have also thought about the game today. Said Cora, “As an industry, and I lived it last year just watching from afar, there are certain days it’s tough to watch. Strikeouts, walks, and homers. Especially in the regular season.” Both the Yankees manager, Aaron Boone, and first baseman Luke Voit, said they were bothered by the possibility of legislating against the shift. Voit feels it’s up to the hitters to adjust to it.
I agree with him. Instead of teaching young hitters about launch angles why not teach them to shorten their swings, make contact and learn to hit the other way. Other sports allow teams to be creative on defense. NFL defenses have a variety of different formations to stop offenses. The NBA now allows both zone and man-to-man defense. Why should baseball go the other way and restrict defensive strategies? Way back in the 19th century, Willie Keeler’s philosophy was “Hit ’em where they ain’t.” It worked then and would work now. Dropping a bunt, punching the ball to the opposite field, or hitting it hard the other way might quickly make shifts obsolete. Remember, a radical shift leaves large swaths of the field unprotected. Good hitters should be able to take advantage of that.
Another innovation will be tried in the low-A Southeast League. In “select games” balls and strikes will be called by ABS, an automated ball-strike system. In other
words, robot umps. A form of this was tried before in the Arizona Fall League and Independent Atlantic League. But instead of a three-dimensional zone covering the entire plate, this ABS will call balls and strikes based on a two-dimensional plane at the front of the plate.
We’ve all noticed that in recent years the plate umpires seem to miss a great deal of calls, some of them very obvious. But is the answer really robot umps, even if they get every single call correct? Wouldn’t something like that begin to make baseball resemble a video game? Not to mention taking the human element out of it. I hate to say missed calls are part of the game, but in reality, they are. And
baseball should be played and officiated by men, not computers or machines. Wouldn’t a better answer be to train the umpires better and let the best ball-strike umps among them always handle the plate?
In another low-A league, there will be an experiment with a 15-second pitch clock. This has been discussed and considered in the past, but the 15-second clock is the shortest one yet. This is yet another effort to speed up the game. I guess the pitchers could adjust to it, or most of them anyway, but wouldn’t MLB speed up the game more by teaching and allowing starters to go deep and even finish, instead of parading eight, ten, and sometimes 12 pitchers in a single game? Look at the time that takes. And hasn’t baseball always bragged about being the only sport without a clock? Why start changing that now?
There will also be some experiments with the pickoff move. In another low-A league pitchers will be allowed to try a pickoff or to step off the rubber just twice during an at-bat. If they do it a third time and fail to pick the runner off, then a balk will be called. There are also thoughts to allow just one pickoff attempt. This seems like apples and oranges. How many pitchers today throw to first repeatedly during the same at-bat? I can’t remember too many. They seem few and far between.
In high-A ball, there will be a rule requiring pitchers to step off the rubber before throwing to first, eliminating the quick throw many lefties use to try picking off the runner. This was tried in the second half of 2019 in the Atlantic League and supposedly stolen base attempts jumped 70 percent, and the success rate was up as well. This is interesting since analytics has said the stolen base attempt isn’t worth the risk of giving up an out. Could an anti-analytics trend be on the way? Wouldn’t that be nice.
The final change that will be tried – and this is kind of strange – will be larger bases in Triple-A. Not that much larger. The bases will be three inches longer on each side. With those bases, the distance between home plate and the edge of first base will be reduced from 88 feet, 9 inches to 88 feet, 6 inches. MLB feels this small edge will help the success rate on steals and with runners trying to beat out slow hit balls or bunts. They also feel it might decrease collisions at the bag that result in injuries. I’m kind of neutral on this one. It seems like a relatively minor change but again shows that MLB is looking to increase offense.
I’ve heard many times over the years people calling baseball the greatest game ever invented, as well as the most perfect game of them all. My major gripe is with new rules that will change the game from the baseball we know and love. Putting a runner on second to start the 10th inning is the perfect example. To me, that isn’t baseball. Nor would robot umps be. Outlawing infield shifts would take some of the strategy and creativity out of the game. Let baseball remain a game of adjustments on the field and maybe, just maybe, it will return to the game it used to be and not the one Alex Cora and so many others have said is boring and difficult to watch.
Bill Gutman
As always, we enjoy reading your comments
Here’s a link to see the entire Blog Archives
Hi Bill, I am with you all the way on not legislating against the shift and that players should adjust. After all they are major-leaguers. I am not as bothered by robot umps and have doubts that better umpire training would yield more consistent results. Human error is what it is. The larger bases are fine and apparently they are also less slippery – something rarely mentioned is how slippery bases get in general and in particular if there is any kind of wet weather. As for the anti-Andy Pettitte pickoff rule – that’s a really interesting one and I for one am glad it is being tested again. More stolen base attempts would be a good thing IMO. Of course I hear Tim McCarver in the back of my head saying ‘Speed slows down the game’ since more pickoff throws would likely ensue and the idea of limiting pickoff throw is just dumb. Great post!
I for one look for “all” these rule changes to make there way to MLB.. as soon as possible…especially eliminating the shift, and a robo ump calling balls and strikes!
Pat you and I agree on the shift. It’s really hurting the game. Watch for my rebuttal to Bill Gutman coming in a day or two.
I can’t wait for this rebuttal.
I certainly respect your opinion, Patrick. But then it begs the question, where does it all end? The runner on second to start an extra innings, in my opinion, has already diminished the game a bit. It isn’t baseball. I won’t be here to see it, but it wouldn’t surprise me that in 50 years the game will look entirely different from what it always was and even what it is today.
Hey Mark. We’re pretty much on the same page with these experimental rules. As for the robot umps, I guess it depends on how it’s done. I know one way that has been discussed is having the home plate ump back there getting the robot calls in an earpiece and then signaling ball or strike. That wouldn’t be too intrusive, but don’t know how the umpire’s union would feel about it. The replay rule, which obviously slows down the game, was put in to correct obviously bad calls. Now it’s used to see if a runner took his foot a half inch off the bag while the defender still had his glove on him. That’s a bit much. I’m well aware of the slippery bases. The reason they’re made that way is because they change the bases every couple of innings and then put the ones they remove from the game up for sale. Couldn’t do that will a canvas base or one less durable. And when it rains they are dangerous. The Bryce Harper injury was a perfect example several years ago. I guess I’m just old school and against legislating too many aspects of a game that has worked very well for more than a century. Don’t make it something less than real baseball. Thanks for your comments.
Thanks Bill. I am always looking for ways to connect old-school to the present and very much appreciate your views and opinions (and Gary’s too!). As a kid who grew up watching baseball first in 60s I like all of us know changes will come and some we will like and others, well not so much.
As long as the changes don’t make the game something other than baseball. That’s my concern. Many have said over the years that baseball is the perfect game and the best game ever invented. I just hope it isn’t ruined in the name of money and to please fans who know little to nothing about how the game used to be played.
Hello Bill,
You and I are old enough to remember 8-man football; even 6-man in some really small schools. If the lords of baseball are truly bent on taking a nearly-perfect sport and rendering it unrecognizable before wrecking it totally, I suggest they adopt a long-overdue rule change reducing the defense to five: catcher, pitcher, two infielders and a guy in center. That should spark up base hits and run-scoring just a bit. To be fair, the offense should have only five guys in the lineup too, and naturally (as a “rule”) they would be the best hitters on the team. As a consequence, even more hits, and more runs. Now we may getting somewhere, but to reduce the risk that the national pastime will still bear a vague and distant resemblance to the game we once knew and loved, I submit these changes should be just the beginning. Your fertile imagination and the bright blue sky above are the only real limits on this deal.
For example, I have never understood the called third strike. That should be eliminated, without fanfare or further ado. So as not to pump up the number of ultra-boring walks too much, the backward “K” can now be treated as a non-pitch. As though it were thrown during a timeout or something. Another thing: The bases have long been way too far apart. I’m not sure what Alexander Cartwright was drinking, but eighty feet should just about do it. Let the boys run wild. Worth a shot anyway.
Extra-inning games? Not good. Give the captains a quick go at “paper/scissors/rock,” and then it’s winner-take-all. Late ballgames, like any form of managerial strategizing, have become a complete drag. Cue the fireworks and the speedy parking valet.
I don’t know, Bill. These are just a few light-bulbs from off the top. We could keep raiding a limitless storehouse of additional ways to alter, camouflage and ruin the game of baseball, but that would take time, and I for one cannot spare another micro-second just now. Gotta run! You carry on from here.
Cheers,
Michael
Hey Michael. I guess we could all come up with some crazy rules and variations that will help ruin the game. They’re on their way now. Why not just hold a home run derby at the end of nine innings, tantamount to a hockey or soccer shootout. Since MLB and young fans love the home run, why the hell not? They can say it excites the crowd and maybe everyone will root for a tie game to see the home run derby instead of root, root, root for the home team. Or they could change the lyrics of the song to, “Root, root, root for tie game, without a home run derby it’s a shame.” Oh well, we can all dream.
Bill
I think we should go back and adopt the “Massachusetts rules” where you could throw the ball at the runner to get him out.
If you want to put action back on the game, let’s go and “soak” the runner….😁
Now there’s a novel idea, Paul. Sounds like a version of dodge ball.
How about requiring middle infielders to have their shoelaces tied together?
Brings a whole new meaning to the term, “tie goes to the runner”.!
That would definitely result in more offense, Tom. They have to learn to take real baby steps.
Glad to see the “Incredible Keedy” is back and in rare form. His zany sense of humor is certainly out there.
Agree with Bill G. on most of the points in his enlightening article. However, limiting the pick-off throws to first would be welcome. Many times the constant tosses to the initial sack seem endless to me.
Don’t like seeing a bullet hit in the hole to right field only to be fielded on the outfield grass and converted into a routine out. But agree the answer is to adjust by tapping the ball the other way, with the batter often cruising into second base. Guarantee if more hitters would “smarten up” the obnoxious shift would soon be history.
The robo ump has flaws, which would show up all too quickly (so say the experts). Disagree with Mark about better ball/strike training being useless. As I suggested in a previous post, have the umpiring crew sit in front of a jumbo TV screen and call the pitches according to the official strike zone, while real pitchers and hitters do their thing, would help tremendously. Only the best get behind the plate.
Human error being part of the game is valid. But all to often HP umps make up their own strike zone and have prejudices depending on who’s pitching or who’s batting. And the myriad missed calls decide ball games!
You’re certain right about missed calls possibly altering the result of some games, Bill. I don’t know the answer. If better training doesn’t help, what will? Like I said, maybe grade the umpires on their ball/strike calls and then let only the best ones work the plate. I still don’t see how an umpire crouching between the catcher and hitter can call pitches on the outside of the plate. Remember what they used to say about the legendary umpire, Bill Klem. He never called one wrong. How true can that be? Too bad there aren’t films or videos from those days. Maybe they could learn something from the early umps. I don’t recall constant complains about the calls back in the 1950s and ’60s, but I’m sure there were some.
Know what you mean about a ball fielded in short right, but it’s the hitters falling into that trap. They know what can happen so find a way to beat it. Baseball has always been a game of adjustments. So adjust.
Bill
Provocative discussion is a good thing Bill S.! I should have clarified that in no way do I want nor do I forsee a MLB future with no human umpires on the field. Umpires in baseball have a long and storied history that is worth preserving. (Not so much the case in tennis BTW which has benefitted from electronic line calling at the expense of having more colorful players both good and bad). Technology can aid and should aid the human umpire. Exactly how that can work is the big question!
I’m all for technology helping the umpires behind the plate, Mark. But, as you say, the trick is to integrate the right combination of live umps with some form of technology.
How about the intensive big screen film training combined with a challenge, replay system? The better prepared arbitrators will make less mistakes. But each team can challenge two ball strike calls per game-with no more than one in an inning.
The replay strike zone box will determine whether the call was accurate or must be overruled. The crew chief will review and make the call.
What do you think?
Bill S. I do see value in improved training of umpires although I do wonder about how different the results might be. With the speed of today’s pitches and break it’s more difficult than ever for a human to judge. And teaching them to use the system when it does not agree with their ‘call’ should be part of that training. That noted, something as you suggest that has limited application (one or two ball/strike calls per game would be a possible start), would be better than what is the case now!
Yes, the ball does move at warp speed, Mark. But I’m convinced you and I could make more consistently accurate calls than some the redoubtable men in blue behind the plate.
But let’s be fair, a certain percentage are outstanding. If they could just improve some of the other umpire’s ball/strike calls and weed out the really bad ones, that would be huge.
That is indeed more than a fair point I will concede!
Bill & Mark. Know what you’re both saying. Maybe the most unobtrusive way to do it would be to incorporate the technology into an earpiece worn by the home plate ump. He would get an electronic signal immediately if the pitch is a ball or strike and it would appear that he’s making the call. If the home plate just stands there while an electronic call is made, the game will lose something for sure.
Bill G
Bill G., I too worry about the game losing something if it makes the umpire into a human robot. A limited review policy as Bill S. suggested might be a toe in the water and hopefully in turn the umpires overall measured performance would improve. At least today umpire ‘performance’ on balls and strikes really can be measured with a high degree of accuracy. What baseball looked like 30 years ago, today and what it will look 30 years from now will all be different whether we like it or not!