Jump to content

IdahoBert

2019-2020 OFFSEASON DISCUSSION THREAD

Recommended Posts

On 6/19/2020 at 10:48 AM, Yoda said:

Rose - I don't mind seeing him get in. We have no knowledge of him influencing the results of games, that I know of. 

Doesn’t matter. Pete Rose placed bets on games in which he had a duty to perform. Rule 21 is clear: anyone who does this is declared permanently ineligible, first offense. Pete knew this, because it has been posted on every clubhouse wall for the better part of the past 100 years.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, RandyMarsh said:

Of course with all that said, it's not like steroids is some magic drug that instantly turns you into Incredible Hulk.  

More to the point, there is no evidence that taking steroids makes you a better baseball player, regardless that baseball players take it because they believe it makes them better at baseball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tiger337 said:

So, the latest new innovation is that every inning after the ninth inning is going to start with a runner on second base.  

After the ninth? Wow. Seems excessive. I could see doing so after the tenth.

I guess tie games are on the table, too, after a certain number of innings? I assume twelve will be the certain number. I saw a tie game in Japan when I went. It seemed that the teams were just going through the motions for the last three innings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, chasfh said:

After the ninth? Wow. Seems excessive. I could see doing so after the tenth.

I guess tie games are on the table, too, after a certain number of innings? I assume twelve will be the certain number. I saw a tie game in Japan when I went. It seemed that the teams were just going through the motions for the last three innings.

Games lasting longer than 12 innings are fairly unusual, so I am not sure what the point is.  This doesn't address the overall length of game issue.  I suppose if you are at a game like that, you might just want to get it done so you can go home with a result.  There is no guarantee that this is going to end the game sooner though.  Both teams would get the opportunity to start with a runner at second.  So, they both might score a run.   Or maybe neither will be successful.   Has anyone done a simulation to determine how much this would help?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is a solution in search of a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im not adverse to changing some rules to speed up the game, but this isnt going to do that for a vast majority of games.

its SOOOOO baseball to do this and think theyre doing something positive.  the game cant get out of its own way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Buddha said:

im not adverse to changing some rules to speed up the game, but this isnt going to do that for a vast majority of games.

its SOOOOO baseball to do this and think theyre doing something positive.  the game cant get out of its own way.

As you said, enforcing the rules would fix most of the problem with pace of play.  Make the pitchers pitch and the batters bat.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

Both teams would get the opportunity to start with a runner at second.  So, they both might score a run.   Or maybe neither will be successful.   Has anyone done a simulation to determine how much this would help?   

well they have data from the minors last season. But you are correct, I followed a good number of MiLB games last season and both or neither runners scoring in an inning happened a LOT.  Extra inning games come down to pitchers being on their game or not. If they are, they are going to survive that man on 2nd. If they are not, they will give up runs anyway. So the whole approach is coming from the wrong direction. It's pitching - and running out of it - that dominates extra inning outcomes. 

Again, baseball management demonstrating they don't really understand the first thing about the mechanics of their own game. 'effin depresssing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IdahoBert said:

The owners are desperate. Before long they’ll be offering lap dances from topless cheerleaders to get people in the park.

In

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tiger337 said:

I am waiting for Shelton and Biggs to come here and tell us that this is is no big deal and doesn't change the game.  Biggs will tell us how much shootouts have improved the game of hockey.    

False on both counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

False on both counts.

Good!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

As you said, enforcing the rules would fix most of the problem with pace of play.  Make the pitchers pitch and the batters bat.  

Minimizing pitching changes inside of innings is the biggest time save opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

Good!  

I should say I don't mind the shootout in hockey.  I just don't think it a big benefit over simply ending the game in a tie, but whatever.  Once in a while there is an insane shoot out goal, which is cool.  But it isn't enough to make me care either way.

Playing 3 v 3 in OT is something I did not support until I saw it implemented.  Non-stop end-to-end action in a way I did not appreciate until I saw it and I think the NHL absolutely got that right.  As much as Gary Bettman gets grief, which I get, most of the rule changes to the game under his watch are net positive -> more entertaining hockey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

I should say I don't mind the shootout in hockey.  I just don't think it a big benefit over simply ending the game in a tie, but whatever.  Once in a while there is an insane shoot out goal, which is cool.

Playing 3 v 3 in OT is something I did not support until I saw it implemented.  Non-stop end-to-end action in a way I did not appreciate until I saw it.

I don't have any opinion on shootouts because I haven't been a hockey fan for so long.  However, I do not like how they do overtimes in either the NFL or NCAA football.  I would rather they just keep playing and alternatively I think there is no shame in games ending in ties.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regular season overtime hockey has 5 minutes of 3 v 3, and if nobody scores in the 5 minutes, then they have a shootout until a team wins.

Playoff hockey is 5 v 5 OT, 20 min periods, until someone scores.  Sometimes those games go into double or triple(!) OT.

EDIT: Prior to the shootout being implemented, they simply played 5 min of OT (5 v 5) in the regular season, and if nobody scored, the game ended in a tie.  As I intimated before, going from 5v5 hockey to 3v3 hockey in OT was the big improvement for me.  Having a shootout provided nobody scores 3 v 3 doesn't really move the needle for me either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, chasfh said:

Doesn’t matter. Pete Rose placed bets on games in which he had a duty to perform. Rule 21 is clear: anyone who does this is declared permanently ineligible, first offense. Pete knew this, because it has been posted on every clubhouse wall for the better part of the past 100 years.

Yes, I know what the rule is and why he was banned. I'm giving an opinion that I think he should be in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Buddha said:

this is a solution in search of a problem.

Seems to be Manfred's specialty.

Hey, how about they just split each MLB team up into 4 mini teams.  Schedule 40 game days.  Have each game day be a 5 on 5 wiffle ball game among the 4 mini teams of the 2 opponents.  That way they can get to 160 games, a more realistic standings from a W-L perspective, and the owners only have to pay out 40-50 days worth of salaries.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yoda said:

Yes, I know what the rule is and why he was banned. I'm giving an opinion that I think he should be in. 

Now that MLB has partnered with a gambling organization, you may have a point.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, tiger337 said:

So, the latest new innovation is that every inning after the ninth inning is going to start with a runner on second base.  

They’ve been doing this in the minors for the past couple of years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get wanting to do that after say 12 or 13 innings cause by that point teams have almost exhausted their pitching so the game needs to end ASAP but doing it after 9 innings seems unnecessary.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Minimizing pitching changes inside of innings is the biggest time save opportunity.

and doing signing electronically. One of the worst drags in the game is when batteries start into double, triple and quadruple sign sequences and waive-offs once they suspect their signs are being read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching classic games on MLB network over the past few weeks and another thing I noticed that they didn't do much back then compared to today is the constant changing of balls.  Even a ball in the dirt the catcher would just catch, throw back to the pitcher and things would continue as usual.   

Now the catcher checks the ball, gives it to the ump, ump switches it out, throws it to pitcher, pitcher inspects new ball, rubs it to try to get a better grip then either gives his approval and uses it or often times throws it back to the ump for another new ball.  This seemingly happens dozens of times a game.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, chasfh said:

More to the point, there is no evidence that taking steroids makes you a better baseball player, regardless that baseball players take it because they believe it makes them better at baseball.

There is a plethora of evidence. No, it doesn't enhance baseball skills, but it can greatly improve speed, strength, bat speed, especially as you age, all which give an unfair, unnatural advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, RandyMarsh said:

Watching classic games on MLB network over the past few weeks and another thing I noticed that they didn't do much back then compared to today is the constant changing of balls.  Even a ball in the dirt the catcher would just catch, throw back to the pitcher and things would continue as usual.   

Now the catcher checks the ball, gives it to the ump, ump switches it out, throws it to pitcher, pitcher inspects new ball, rubs it to try to get a better grip then either gives his approval and uses it or often times throws it back to the ump for another new ball.  This seemingly happens dozens of times a game.  

heck, it happens dozens of times PER AT BAT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Motown Sports Blog



  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      96,733
    • Total Posts
      2,998,272
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
×
×
  • Create New...