Proposed Rule Changes

[eaterfan]

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/18631714/mlb-proposes-scrapping-intentional-walk-raising-strike-zone

2 proposed rule changes are moving the bottom of the zone to the top of the knee from the bottom and allowing teams to just signal an intentional walk instead of throwing the pitches.

I don't like moving the zone. It seems that the justification for it is that umpires call a lot of strikes. The solution is to have umpires be better at their jobs or replace them with robot umps.

I like getting rid of the old fashioned IBB. It just takes time and maybe once a decade someone throws a wild pitch or someone swings at it. 

[Homebrewer]

IBBs really disrupt the flow of a game, not to mention the pitcher's concentration and rhythm.

Give em the base and get on with it.

[Junkballer]

Mound visits are more disruptive than IBBs.  I'm fine with just signaling the IBB but I'd like to see mound visits drastically curtailed, with injury exceptions of course.  In a pro game, signals and strategy should be worked out in advance and why give a pitcher time to gather himself?

[AngelsLakersFan]

2 hours ago, eaterfan said:

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/18631714/mlb-proposes-scrapping-intentional-walk-raising-strike-zone

2 proposed rule changes are moving the bottom of the zone to the top of the knee from the bottom and allowing teams to just signal an intentional walk instead of throwing the pitches.

I don't like moving the zone. It seems that the justification for it is that umpires call a lot of strikes. The solution is to have umpires be better at their jobs or replace them with robot umps.

I like getting rid of the old fashioned IBB. It just takes time and maybe once a decade someone throws a wild pitch or someone swings at it. 

The issue isn't that the umpires are calling balls, strikes. The issue is that the rule book zone is too big, and things like statcast have promoted a more accurate calling of the real strike zone, and it turn more strikes have been called.

[AngelsLakersFan]

43 minutes ago, Junkballer said:

Mound visits are more disruptive than IBBs.  I'm fine with just signaling the IBB but I'd like to see mound visits drastically curtailed, with injury exceptions of course.  In a pro game, signals and strategy should be worked out in advance and why give a pitcher time to gather himself?

I would love to see them eliminate 'timeout' all together. Or at least give teams something like 9 per game. Coaching visits would likely cease if the manager knew it might impact their ability to make substitutions later in the game. Currently there is no cost to 'timeout' so teams are using it at every convenience. Put a limit on it and teams and players will be far more selective when it comes to stopping the game.

[eaterfan]

12 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

The issue isn't that the umpires are calling balls, strikes. The issue is that the rule book zone is too big, and things like statcast have promoted a more accurate calling of the real strike zone, and it turn more strikes have been called.

"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. "

I guess you and I have different interpretations of what "calling strikes on so many pitches below the knees" means. I take the current strike zone to end at the bottom of the knee and not below it. But I could see how below the knees means below the top of the knees. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

12 minutes ago, eaterfan said:

"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. "

I guess you and I have different interpretations of what "calling strikes on so many pitches below the knees" means. I take the current strike zone to end at the bottom of the knee and not below it. But I could see how below the knees means below the top of the knees. 

We agree on where the strike zone is, this might just be a semantic argument. The narrative the last couple of seasons has been that this is a result of statcast and umpires trying to improve their ball/strike scores. When the umpires started to get results back they saw that they were not calling the low strike as often as they should be. As a result umpires adjusted their zone down, in turn this will lead to more missed calls on pitches just below the knee. 

[Blarg]

2 hours ago, Homebrewer said:

IBBs really disrupt the flow of a game, not to mention the pitcher's concentration and rhythm.

Give em the base and get on with it.

Yes,  it usually does affect the pitchers concentration and rhythm and for that reason they should have to throw four wide ones. They want to be dickless wonders and give a free pass so they can avoid a hitter or set up a double play then pay the toll. Use up some arm strength and throw out your mechanics, maybe even balk or toss one at the mascot and unintentionally move some runners, it's the price you pay to be a pussy or letting the manager dictate how much you suck to the crowd. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

2 hours ago, Blarg said:

Yes,  it usually does affect the pitchers concentration and rhythm and for that reason they should have to throw four wide ones. They want to be dickless wonders and give a free pass so they can avoid a hitter or set up a double play then pay the toll. Use up some arm strength and throw out your mechanics, maybe even balk or toss one at the mascot and unintentionally move some runners, it's the price you pay to be a pussy or letting the manager dictate how much you suck to the crowd. 

Do you think we'd see more int. walks if they were to change the rule?

[Blarg]

Nope but I think you'd see less chances for the offense to capitalize on a mistake born from playing in a sportsmanlike manner. Issuing an intentional requires an action to be taken. Removing that action removes the competitiveness and makes the rule a welfare state for the defense.

[ScottT]

I would miss the silly booing by fans that usually occurs because of an intentional walk.

[Tank]

I wouldn't mind if teams had the option of the automatic IBB.

[SlappyUtilityMIF]

can't wait for the increased ERA's!!!!!!! ...... 

[Oz27]

10 hours ago, eaterfan said:

 

I don't like moving the zone. It seems that the justification for it is that umpires call a lot of strikes. The solution is to have umpires be better at their jobs or replace them with robot umps.

I want robot umps but there is real merit in changing the zone. We need more balls in play to generate interest in the sport. We're also in serious danger of seeing offense just collapsing. The only thing stopping the run environment falling to a 1960s-style level is the home run spike that began in mid 2015. Since nobody has been able to determine why everyone started hitting more homers, there is every chance that whatever causing it could disappear as quickly as it arrived.

[arch stanton]

942 intentional walks last season out of more than 15,000 total walks. Those 4 wide pitches aren't the answer to speeding up the game.

[Tank]

49 minutes ago, Oz27 said:

I want robot umps but there is real merit in changing the zone. We need more balls in play to generate interest in the sport. We're also in serious danger of seeing offense just collapsing. The only thing stopping the run environment falling to a 1960s-style level is the home run spike that began in mid 2015. Since nobody has been able to determine why everyone started hitting more homers, there is every chance that whatever causing it could disappear as quickly as it arrived.

global warming!

except when Pujols is hitting at the big A, and then it's his own personal marine layer.

[NachoPop]

1 hour ago, arch stanton said:

942 intentional walks last season out of more than 15,000 total walks. Those 4 wide pitches aren't the answer to speeding up the game.

Is speeding up the game the reason for the change? 

As far as I'm concerned they should ban IBB's all together. People are there to see a pitcher take on a batter, not pick and choose who best suits them. Don't get me wrong, i can appreciate the stratergy but at least make them work a little for it.

[arch stanton]

56 minutes ago, NachoPop said:

Is speeding up the game the reason for the change? 

As far as I'm concerned they should ban IBB's all together. People are there to see a pitcher take on a batter, not pick and choose who best suits them. Don't get me wrong, i can appreciate the stratergy but at least make them work a little for it.

How do you ban it?

[Docwaukee]

1 hour ago, Oz27 said:

I want robot umps but there is real merit in changing the zone. We need more balls in play to generate interest in the sport. We're also in serious danger of seeing offense just collapsing. The only thing stopping the run environment falling to a 1960s-style level is the home run spike that began in mid 2015. Since nobody has been able to determine why everyone started hitting more homers, there is every chance that whatever causing it could disappear as quickly as it arrived.

personally, I think it's that merely putting a ball in play has lost a lot of it's perceived value and that the strikeout isn't considered such a horrible thing as it used to be.  Guys just aren't afraid to K and their approach is to make hard contact.  Hr and K rates are way up.  If players are going to swing, they are going to swing hard.  I feel like that's an approach taught at a very young age.  

I am totally indifferent about the intentional walk thing.  

Not a fan of strike zone adjustments.  I'd rather see greater accountability for the umps.  I see a lot of difficulty in trying to get a computer to call balls and strikes.  It would mean that the computer would have to account for a different zone for every player.    

[NachoPop]

11 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

How do you ban it?

They can't. Not really. Making it easier to do just seems counter productive to me. 

[Blarg]

4 hours ago, arch stanton said:

942 intentional walks last season out of more than 15,000 total walks. Those 4 wide pitches aren't the answer to speeding up the game.

Without looking it up I'm inclined to believe it is much more prevalent in the NL without the DH. 

[Blarg]

2 hours ago, arch stanton said:

How do you ban it?

You don't but you could make it a two base play if the defense chooses to not pitch to a batter. We could call it the Productive (Tr)Out rule. 

[arch stanton]

2 hours ago, Blarg said:

Without looking it up I'm inclined to believe it is much more prevalent in the NL without the DH. 

Almost 2 to 1 more in NL. And when you consider that the majority of games don't even involve an IBB it seems like a very NFL thing to do that distorts the rule book with crap that attempts to interpret intent and doesn't make any real improvement

[gotbeer]

IBB.  Not a fan.  Now correct me if I'm wrong.  But if you throw IBB's, it counts against the pitch count.  In the world we live in today, the pitch count is like gold.  Strategy wise.  Say you got a batter that hits .250 but is an OBP machine and works the count.  So with 2 outs, nobody on.  Why waste 8 pitches on him when you can waste 0, give him first, and get the next batter out on 3 pitches.  Net save of 5 pitches, which could extend him another 1/3 inning.

Changing the strike zone.  Personally, I'd like to see them go away from knee caps and belts, and go to a fixed zone of so many inches above the plate on both upper and lower.  This would make the transition to computers so much easier, because it is a fixed zone for all batters.  The current zone is near impossible because every player is different.  Do you make the zone when they are standing?  When they are addressing the pitch?  When they are swinging?  Because all three are different.  And that's why when you watch a game, you see the pitch track and what was pitched is way way off. 

[Troll Daddy]

A fixed zone, really?