Baseball History Comes Alive Now Ranked #2 by Feedspot Among All Internet Baseball History Websites and Blogs!
Guest Submissions from Our Readers Always Welcome!
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 -GL
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 -GL
April 19, 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’s 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 begin to 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 bases 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
Excellent article with some thoughtful and thought-provoking analysis. Cannot help but agree with your take on these things.
Thanks, Drury. I just hate to see baseball turn into something else, but it seems to be on track to do just that.
I feel like many long time fans are traditionalists without being realists. The reality is that baseball is not a sport that the modern fan can watch without fidgeting in their seat for hours and playing with their phone. Sorry, but that’s the reality. I don’t understand why you want so hard to fight change. If we were playing baseball as it was invented batters would be out if you caught the ball on one bounce, or if I pegged you with the ball as you were running to first. Things change, life changes. Tweaks are necessary, sometimes big changes. Pitchers will still be throwing to men with thick wooden sticks who then running around bases. “Saving” the game means adapting to the 21st century. Hitters will try for home runs for many reasons, one being that pitchers are so damn good they can’t very easily hit to all fields, another being that it pays more. BTW: I can recall watching the 1967 Series between the Red Sox and Cardinals and being do disappointed when my gym teacher told me the Cards won Game 7 7-2.
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, John, and I respect it. But I don’t think you can compare the archaic 19th century rules, when the game was still developing, to what is happening today. And, yes, some tweaks are necessary. Unfortunately, today’s younger fans never saw the way the game was played beginning with the many Hall of Fame players who began in the 1950s and the great, route-going pitchers of the late 1960s and 1970s. That game, with dominant starters and great sluggers, and all the real baseball strategies in between, has been all but lost. Much of it is due to analytics which seems to dictate the way the game is played now. If the pitchers are so good today, why aren’t more of them allowed to finish games? Or is it the relievers who are so good. But when four or five of them are paraded into a game, one of them is bound to have a bad day. And if they’re so good, why is swinging for the fences and striking out the only way to try to beat them? When a game has some 20 or more strikeouts by the combined two teams, to me that isn’t exciting baseball. No pitcher is so good that a good hitter can’t make contact and just put the ball in play instead of trying to hit it into the next county Do you think Tony Gwynn or Rod Carew would be swinging for the fences if they played today? And if you watched the 1967 World Series you saw some great pitching performances from Bob Gibson and Jim Lonborg. Was that boring or so bad? I don’t mind tweaks, but don’t make the game something other than baseball, and that seems to be what’s happening. The double-hook rule I mention in my blog is absolutely ridiculous, especially when most fans and players want to see the designated hitter implemented in the National League. And then comes the experimental double-hook rule designed to take it away when the starting pitcher is removed. What needs to be done is to bring back some of the old strategies, some small ball. What’s more exciting than a steal of home or a suicide squeeze. Those are things that have been all but lost.
My suggestion: Each batter gets a maximum of six pitches. Foul balls are strikes, even on strike 3. Batters can step out of the batters box only once during their at bat. Pitchers have 30 seconds upon receiving the ball back from the catcher to place the ball in play again. Let the defense play wherever they want.
The only problem I see with your suggestions, Vic, is that the game you suggest isn’t really baseball, a sport many of us feel is the greatest ever created. Let’s keep the basics and try to fix it in other ways.
Best way to speed up the game without doing violence to baseball history, tradition and the game’s beauty and rhythm is to allow a relievers to come in only at the beginning of an inning, with one exception per game that would allow the manager to bring in a relief pitcher in mid-inning. Otherwise, except for an injury, a pitcher would have to get three outs.
It would be so subtle no one would even notice after a month or so, but would curtail the endless shuffling in of one bullpen artist or another to come in, throw two pitches and be excused, at a cost of 10 minutes time. And since relief pitchers are almost exclusively used in late innings / pressure situations, it would eliminate interrupting the tension that comes with yet another lefty-lefty matchup, and 10 more minutes.
Not a bad idea, Tom. Didn’t they change it this year so that a relief pitcher has to face at least three batters unless he ends the inning? That’s pretty close to what you are suggesting. But I agree that the endless parade of relievers not only slows the game but makes it easier NOT to teach starters how to go deep into games, nor expect them to. It a starting pitcher is sailing along, as Blake Snell was in last year’s World Series, why remove him because analytics says he can’t go through the lineup a third time. Tell that to Bob Gibson, Tom Seaver or Sandy Koufax. The Dodgers were ecstatic when they saw Snell come out and, sure enough, the reliever didn’t have it. Goodbye ballgame and World Series.
Super job in keeping us posted on the rules proposals, Bill. Here’s a quick summary of my thoughts:
(1) Robo umps, out. Agree on training umps on balls and strikes to get better, through film study. Good news-HP umpires doing good work so far!
(2) Agree with Vic on 30 seconds between pitches. Also Bill G. re the charm of the more leisurely sport.
(3) Allow the pitcher three pick off throws, with no penalty. At times, the throws over can be endless. No rule for stepping off the rubber to throw.
(4) Batter can step out twice.
(5) Surprisingly, don’t mind the 7 inning double dips. Concerning extra innings: Same rules through 10 innings. 11th inning, man on first to start. 12th inning and thereafter, free runner on second.
(6) Yes, batters can destroy the shift going the other way; placing, tapping, chopping the ball. Launch angle, home run swing overrated. Level, short stroke will produce more hits and almost as many homers.
(7) Bigger bases? They’re kidding, right?
More good news Sunday. Mets beat Rockies 2-1 at Coors. Time-a mere 2:38. Exciting. Fewer strikeouts. Runner thrown out trying to steal to end the game. Ball hit the opposite way to the fence but caught. That’s a homer in ’19. They’re saying the ball is traveling maybe five feet less now. Progress!
Hello again, my friend. Let’s see what we have here. Totally agree with point number one. No robo umps. Do that and baseball will start to look like a video game. The 30-seconds between pitches is reasonable, forcing the real slow workers to speed it up. But don’t shorten it to 15 or 20 seconds. That could throw many pitchers out of their rhythm. You don’t see many pitchers throw to first five or six times, but three is a solid number. And stepping off the rubber will make a successful pickoff very difficult to near impossible. I notice that batters sometimes just step out with one foot, but I have to laugh when they have to adjust the batting gloves after every pitch.
I still don’t see a real reason for the seven-inning doubleheaders. I guess they worry about length. Do you know if a day/night doubleheader will also relegate both games to seven innings. That I would definitely be against. The runner on second to begin the tenth inning has always rubbed me the wrong way. To me, that isn’t baseball. Maybe a runner on first to start the 12th inning. Otherwise, let them play.
Of course good hitters should be able to destroy the shift. Many today just don’t know how and everyone is trying to hit a home run. Maybe someday they’ll wake up to this. With the bases the only thing they have to do is to take the slippery sheen off of them. They do that to preserve the base for a sale. I believe they change them several times a game and then sell them as ballgame-used bases. Awful.
Don’t know the home run stats so far this year and whether the allegedly deadened ball is helping. But isn’t that Mets/Rockies game the one Marcus Stroman pitched? He works fast and was extremely economical that day. Also gets a lot of ground balls instead of strikeouts. That definitely helps speed up the game.
You didn’t mention the double-hook rule. How ridiculous is that one?
Bill
Thanks for taking time to answer all comments, Bill.
The “double hook rule” is supposed to incentivize teams to keep the starting pitcher in the game longer (which is what we want to happen). Thus, more value will be placed on starting pitchers who can go deeper. Also, it calls for more strategy once both starting pitcher and DH are removed. Give them E for effort on this–not totally against it but doubt the rule will make it to the Bigs.
Mixed emotions on the DH in the senior circuit. Believe pitchers don’t have to be such terrible hitters. Let them take more batting practice. Just practising making contact and perfecting bunting skills would make a real difference.
The Mets usually have better hitting pitchers (Syndergaard, deGrom). This gives them an advantage when the other team usually has an automatic out in the 9th hole. I like when my pitcher has an easy out in the opposing line-up.
Yes, Stroman pitched that gem in Colorado. But no homers and well under three hours in that hitter’s paradise is significant.
Hey Bill.
I wouldn’t mind if there was no DH and the game was played the way it used to be. But the DH is here to stay and it’s inevitable that it will come to the National League in the next year or two. It would have been there this year if MLB didn’t try to blackmail the players by coupling it with expanded playoffs. It just seems that after all these years it will be standardized and now they’re experimenting with a rule that will take it away, possibly as early as the first or second inning. But what manager will leave a struggling starter in to take his lumps just to keep the DH in the game? Why not start working with pitchers early on and teaching them how to go deep into games instead of telling them they can’t go through a lineup a third time. Doesn’t make any sense to me.
Bill, I appreciate your response and I think it’s great you are taking the time to seriously consider all the responses here. Have you listened to Theo Epstein’s interview on The Athletic podcast from a couple weeks ago? He has a ton of interesting ideas. Changes won’t necessarily change the game to something worse. Some tinkering might bring it back to where you like it. For instance, if you move the fences out 10-20 feet, or soften the ball (apparently that’s being done), then homers are much less likely. Hitters will be forced to play more “small ball,” beat the shift, etc. I don’t know how we’ll get back to the pitching duels of old – that will happen only if pitching speed is not a big advantage. Will moving the mound back a foot or two help with that? These are interesting thoughts designed to return to game to something more interesting than watching homers and strikeouts. (Remember when the mound was lowered in 1968? That seemed to work.) Thanks again for your interest in the history of the game and for running this site.
Hi again John:
Always enjoy these discussions, especially those about the modern game which many from my generation, longtime fans, now find boring and bereft of much baseball strategy . Didn’t hear the Epstein interview but have read some of his comments and he seems to realize that things have to somewhat change. Moving the fences out probably isn’t feasible in some of the ballparks, or maybe would simply cost too much for the owners, but the ball was definitely juiced the last couple of years. I remember during the steroid era someone saying they were tired of seeing a seemingly punch and judy hitter reaching for an outside pitch and sending it over the fence. Saw a lot of that the last couple of years. If they have really deadened the ball that will help a lot. Haven’t seen any stats yet about homers being down but I’m sure they’ll appear one of these days. If hitters and the coaches stop listening to analytics telling everyone to hit home runs, they might start teaching hitters to make contact and go the other way instead of always taking the big swing. I like to compare today’s home run and strikeout game to the shoot the three and dunk game basketball has become. Much of the beauty of both sports has been lost. They lowered the mound after the 1968 season which I’m sure you know was dubbed “The Year of the Pitcher.” Maybe it helped, but the great pitchers of that era continued to win. The ’68 season may well have been a fluke. I also think moving the mound back will lead to more pitching injuries because these guys have thrown from one distance their whole professional lives. I don’t think these radical changes would be necessary or even considered if the game was still played the right way and some of the old strategies returned. That’s what most of us loved about the game. But it’s fun looking at all these experiments and suggestions for change. Thanks again for writing.
Bill