I agree that more scoring is better for baseball so the ideas to shrink the strike zone, adding a pitch clock and eliminating the shift would lead to more runs which would lead to more interest, imo.
With that said...I'm AGAINST all 3. I think it would be more appealing to a large amount of people who think baseball is boring and I think it would create a bigger fan base and I don't think they'd lose more fans than they'd gain, but I'm not for any of those changes and think the game is fine as is. It would also make games even longer which is what they're trying to fix.
Unfortunately, if I'm correct, baseball would never be the same for me. I hope Manfred stops trying to change the game. It's scary to think he JUST took over and all this talk about changing the game has already surfaced. In his defense, the talk about eliminating the shift was in retaliation to a question about a potential "crazy" change and it wasn't him saying it was something they'd look into but does a pitch clock and now making a smaller strike zone make this game one step closer to eliminating umpires and having the game completely run by robots for the strike zone and safe/out calls? I feel like it's only a matter of time if all this talk comes to fruition.
0
I agree that more scoring is better for baseball so the ideas to shrink the strike zone, adding a pitch clock and eliminating the shift would lead to more runs which would lead to more interest, imo.
With that said...I'm AGAINST all 3. I think it would be more appealing to a large amount of people who think baseball is boring and I think it would create a bigger fan base and I don't think they'd lose more fans than they'd gain, but I'm not for any of those changes and think the game is fine as is. It would also make games even longer which is what they're trying to fix.
Unfortunately, if I'm correct, baseball would never be the same for me. I hope Manfred stops trying to change the game. It's scary to think he JUST took over and all this talk about changing the game has already surfaced. In his defense, the talk about eliminating the shift was in retaliation to a question about a potential "crazy" change and it wasn't him saying it was something they'd look into but does a pitch clock and now making a smaller strike zone make this game one step closer to eliminating umpires and having the game completely run by robots for the strike zone and safe/out calls? I feel like it's only a matter of time if all this talk comes to fruition.
Why would anyone be against a pitch clock? The games needs to be sped up. The batters also take way to long as well. I want to see the games be shorter in length.
0
Why would anyone be against a pitch clock? The games needs to be sped up. The batters also take way to long as well. I want to see the games be shorter in length.
I have no problem with the strike zone returning to the pre 1996 definition. I don't think more scoring equals more excitement in baseball but I am probably in the minority. I have a true appreciation for the nuisances of the game and much prefer a well played, well pitched game than a 10-9 slugfest. A smaller strike zone would not be good for overs, the linesmakers would adjust quickly and have it fine tuned in short order. If anything they might over adjust at first and the unders could be gold. Look at NFL totals, how many 37's do you see now compared to 5, 10, 15 years ago?
A pitch clock is the worst idea ever. I can't imagine many players at all supporting the idea and it is just plain dumb. Let's try having the batters stay in the box like the old days and enforce existing rule 8.04 which is a 12 second time limit to throw a pitch with nobody on base before we start tinkering with the fabric of the game. A guy like Max Scherzer who uses varying lengths of time to hold runners would be neutralized by runners who know when the ball must be delivered to either the base or home. Once they figure out when he is going home they have a gigantic advantage. Dumb Dumb idea.
Hitters can go along ways to eliminating the shift by hitting the ball where the fielders are not positioned. Take the swinging bunt to the side where there is no fielder. Hit the mistake pitch to the vacated areas....
I still don't get why some are just so insistent on shortening the game. The NFL is a 60 minute timed game with often more than 30 seconds between plays that takes 3 hours to complete. Judging by attendance and local tv ratings, many of the paying customers don't seem to mind the length of games. I think the majority of people that complain about the length of games are like the people in the 90's who screamed about the fighting and violence in hockey, they weren't fans and were never going to be, they just wanted to complain.
0
I have no problem with the strike zone returning to the pre 1996 definition. I don't think more scoring equals more excitement in baseball but I am probably in the minority. I have a true appreciation for the nuisances of the game and much prefer a well played, well pitched game than a 10-9 slugfest. A smaller strike zone would not be good for overs, the linesmakers would adjust quickly and have it fine tuned in short order. If anything they might over adjust at first and the unders could be gold. Look at NFL totals, how many 37's do you see now compared to 5, 10, 15 years ago?
A pitch clock is the worst idea ever. I can't imagine many players at all supporting the idea and it is just plain dumb. Let's try having the batters stay in the box like the old days and enforce existing rule 8.04 which is a 12 second time limit to throw a pitch with nobody on base before we start tinkering with the fabric of the game. A guy like Max Scherzer who uses varying lengths of time to hold runners would be neutralized by runners who know when the ball must be delivered to either the base or home. Once they figure out when he is going home they have a gigantic advantage. Dumb Dumb idea.
Hitters can go along ways to eliminating the shift by hitting the ball where the fielders are not positioned. Take the swinging bunt to the side where there is no fielder. Hit the mistake pitch to the vacated areas....
I still don't get why some are just so insistent on shortening the game. The NFL is a 60 minute timed game with often more than 30 seconds between plays that takes 3 hours to complete. Judging by attendance and local tv ratings, many of the paying customers don't seem to mind the length of games. I think the majority of people that complain about the length of games are like the people in the 90's who screamed about the fighting and violence in hockey, they weren't fans and were never going to be, they just wanted to complain.
I don't think they should do a darn thing with the strike zone other than enforce it as written. Playing, coaching and managing the two words I never wanted to hear from an umpire were "my zone" as though it was negotiable and he could adjust it to his liking. Unfortunately there has always been a lot of that and it is still prevalent. Some guys want a majority of the ball over the black stripe, others will call a strike on anything that even grazes the black stripe. The technology everyone loves can be used to straighten out the umps and make the zone much more consistent from ump to ump than it currently stands. Another thing the hitters could concentrate on (since it is their problem) is contact hitting, putting the ball in play, instead of attempting to jack one out every time up.
As for Manfred: You guys are getting in his face very quickly considering all he has done is throw some ideas out there to see if they would float. He has no authority to change anything without a majority approval of the owners. Really, that is all he is doing, throwing ideas out there to see what kind of backlash he gets. The grand old game is NOT going to see revolutionary changes one right on the heels of the last. Manfred has been arrested, tried, convicted and someone is making a noose before the man has done anything at all. Calm down.
Now and then even a BLIND squirrel can find an acorn
0
I don't think they should do a darn thing with the strike zone other than enforce it as written. Playing, coaching and managing the two words I never wanted to hear from an umpire were "my zone" as though it was negotiable and he could adjust it to his liking. Unfortunately there has always been a lot of that and it is still prevalent. Some guys want a majority of the ball over the black stripe, others will call a strike on anything that even grazes the black stripe. The technology everyone loves can be used to straighten out the umps and make the zone much more consistent from ump to ump than it currently stands. Another thing the hitters could concentrate on (since it is their problem) is contact hitting, putting the ball in play, instead of attempting to jack one out every time up.
As for Manfred: You guys are getting in his face very quickly considering all he has done is throw some ideas out there to see if they would float. He has no authority to change anything without a majority approval of the owners. Really, that is all he is doing, throwing ideas out there to see what kind of backlash he gets. The grand old game is NOT going to see revolutionary changes one right on the heels of the last. Manfred has been arrested, tried, convicted and someone is making a noose before the man has done anything at all. Calm down.
I have no problem with the strike zone returning to the pre 1996 definition. I don't think more scoring equals more excitement in baseball but I am probably in the minority. I have a true appreciation for the nuisances of the game and much prefer a well played, well pitched game than a 10-9 slugfest. A smaller strike zone would not be good for overs, the linesmakers would adjust quickly and have it fine tuned in short order. If anything they might over adjust at first and the unders could be gold. Look at NFL totals, how many 37's do you see now compared to 5, 10, 15 years ago?
A pitch clock is the worst idea ever. I can't imagine many players at all supporting the idea and it is just plain dumb. Let's try having the batters stay in the box like the old days and enforce existing rule 8.04 which is a 12 second time limit to throw a pitch with nobody on base before we start tinkering with the fabric of the game. A guy like Max Scherzer who uses varying lengths of time to hold runners would be neutralized by runners who know when the ball must be delivered to either the base or home. Once they figure out when he is going home they have a gigantic advantage. Dumb Dumb idea.
Hitters can go along ways to eliminating the shift by hitting the ball where the fielders are not positioned. Take the swinging bunt to the side where there is no fielder. Hit the mistake pitch to the vacated areas....
I still don't get why some are just so insistent on shortening the game. The NFL is a 60 minute timed game with often more than 30 seconds between plays that takes 3 hours to complete. Judging by attendance and local tv ratings, many of the paying customers don't seem to mind the length of games. I think the majority of people that complain about the length of games are like the people in the 90's who screamed about the fighting and violence in hockey, they weren't fans and were never going to be, they just wanted to complain.
Mike I been a fan of baseball for over 20 years and have always thought the mlb games were too long and there are too many games. I love baseball but the players take way to long to play. Hitters step out the batters box every pitch and the games could be played at a faster pace.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Tigermike1975:
I have no problem with the strike zone returning to the pre 1996 definition. I don't think more scoring equals more excitement in baseball but I am probably in the minority. I have a true appreciation for the nuisances of the game and much prefer a well played, well pitched game than a 10-9 slugfest. A smaller strike zone would not be good for overs, the linesmakers would adjust quickly and have it fine tuned in short order. If anything they might over adjust at first and the unders could be gold. Look at NFL totals, how many 37's do you see now compared to 5, 10, 15 years ago?
A pitch clock is the worst idea ever. I can't imagine many players at all supporting the idea and it is just plain dumb. Let's try having the batters stay in the box like the old days and enforce existing rule 8.04 which is a 12 second time limit to throw a pitch with nobody on base before we start tinkering with the fabric of the game. A guy like Max Scherzer who uses varying lengths of time to hold runners would be neutralized by runners who know when the ball must be delivered to either the base or home. Once they figure out when he is going home they have a gigantic advantage. Dumb Dumb idea.
Hitters can go along ways to eliminating the shift by hitting the ball where the fielders are not positioned. Take the swinging bunt to the side where there is no fielder. Hit the mistake pitch to the vacated areas....
I still don't get why some are just so insistent on shortening the game. The NFL is a 60 minute timed game with often more than 30 seconds between plays that takes 3 hours to complete. Judging by attendance and local tv ratings, many of the paying customers don't seem to mind the length of games. I think the majority of people that complain about the length of games are like the people in the 90's who screamed about the fighting and violence in hockey, they weren't fans and were never going to be, they just wanted to complain.
Mike I been a fan of baseball for over 20 years and have always thought the mlb games were too long and there are too many games. I love baseball but the players take way to long to play. Hitters step out the batters box every pitch and the games could be played at a faster pace.
Yeah I don't question your fan hood at all Kevin, which is why I used the word majority. I think you are in the minority on the length of games as far as diehard fans and paying customers go, just as I suspect I am in the minority in not wanting or caring for more scoring....
0
Yeah I don't question your fan hood at all Kevin, which is why I used the word majority. I think you are in the minority on the length of games as far as diehard fans and paying customers go, just as I suspect I am in the minority in not wanting or caring for more scoring....
The hitters out of the box every pitch adjusting their over abundance of body armor and the Velcro on both gloves does irritate me at times as well. Get in the box and hit.
0
The hitters out of the box every pitch adjusting their over abundance of body armor and the Velcro on both gloves does irritate me at times as well. Get in the box and hit.
Yeah I don't question your fan hood at all Kevin, which is why I used the word majority. I think you are in the minority on the length of games as far as diehard fans and paying customers go, just as I suspect I am in the minority in not wanting or caring for more scoring....
I don't care for more scoring either I like watching two great pitchers go at it. The end of the game is exciting when a team gets that final run in a one run ball game.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Tigermike1975:
Yeah I don't question your fan hood at all Kevin, which is why I used the word majority. I think you are in the minority on the length of games as far as diehard fans and paying customers go, just as I suspect I am in the minority in not wanting or caring for more scoring....
I don't care for more scoring either I like watching two great pitchers go at it. The end of the game is exciting when a team gets that final run in a one run ball game.
You guys are amazing -- thank you for your nuanced and informative information about the strike zone issue and the deeper ramifications for MLB for not only this strike zone issue, but other proposed changes as well.
I'm learning a lot by reading your posts, so please do keep on sharing your useful POVs (Points Of View) that reflect a lot of the deeper nuances of the fine game of pro baseball.
0
You guys are amazing -- thank you for your nuanced and informative information about the strike zone issue and the deeper ramifications for MLB for not only this strike zone issue, but other proposed changes as well.
I'm learning a lot by reading your posts, so please do keep on sharing your useful POVs (Points Of View) that reflect a lot of the deeper nuances of the fine game of pro baseball.
I wish to reiterate that the information, facts and tidbits about baseball that you guys (and other knowledgeable fans of baseball) share in your posts are of enormous value to people who are learning the game, like I am.
I am reading as many of your posts (and of others) that I can to gain deeper appreciation/respect for the deeper nuances of the game -- most of which have direct bearings on the outcomes in the games that affect our betting investments that each of us make on "The Show."
So, please don't think that your posts are wasted -- they are not, as (I hope) newbies and earnest students of the game would read your posts, and if they are paying attention, note what you say and follow up with Internet searches on new terms, new information, new facts that were heretofore unknown to the newbies/students of the game prior to reading your posts.
So, I would encourage each of you (and more astute, experienced students of the game) to share as much as you can in your posts on the nuances and aspects of The Show.
0
Sparky, kevmode, Tigermike, Key Element~
I wish to reiterate that the information, facts and tidbits about baseball that you guys (and other knowledgeable fans of baseball) share in your posts are of enormous value to people who are learning the game, like I am.
I am reading as many of your posts (and of others) that I can to gain deeper appreciation/respect for the deeper nuances of the game -- most of which have direct bearings on the outcomes in the games that affect our betting investments that each of us make on "The Show."
So, please don't think that your posts are wasted -- they are not, as (I hope) newbies and earnest students of the game would read your posts, and if they are paying attention, note what you say and follow up with Internet searches on new terms, new information, new facts that were heretofore unknown to the newbies/students of the game prior to reading your posts.
So, I would encourage each of you (and more astute, experienced students of the game) to share as much as you can in your posts on the nuances and aspects of The Show.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
