Tick Tock Jeurys

[duan]

The video challenge thing drives me bonkers, the 'hover' while we all wait for a replay is very irritating. In cricket they have 15 seconds to decide. It's never a manager in the stands but the men on the field. They get pretty good at judging themselves when it's worth a crack. They know really bad ones. You might allow a first/third base coach to signal as well, only because there can often only be one batter (in cricket there's always two).

[Centerfield]

Frayed Knot wrote: Not to pick on Familia who, at least as far as I know, isn't particularly slow in delivering pitches (at least for a reliever) ... but I just couldn't resist the pun.

Been meaning to ask. I don't get the pun.

[Edgy MD]

Yup. Whoosh. Right over my head. Every morning, I'm "OHHH, now I ... still don't get it."

[Benjamin Grimm]

I thought I was the only one! Maybe we can start a support group or something.

[Frayed Knot]

[fimg=300:2xomheni]https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--Rx5BrPBp--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/1482712341109124933.jpg[/fimg:2xomheni]

[Ceetar]

feels like a stretch

[dgwphotography]

Am I glad I wasn't the only one who didn't get it.

That's just brilliant

[Edgy MD]

Confession: Never seen The Silence of the Lambs, and never really had any particular interest.

[Frayed Knot]

Ceetar wrote: feels like a stretch

Aw c'mon, it sort of rhymes!

[Edgy MD]

Depending on which of the four commonly used pronunciations for "Jeurys" you are working with.

[Edgy MD]

By the way, the more I think of these rule changes, the more I think they're attacking the wrong part of the game.

A runner on second: no quick trip to the mound to change the signs? A bunt situation: no meetings at the mound to discuss defensive alignment?

[Frayed Knot]

Edgy MD wrote: By the way, the more I think of these rule changes, the more I think they're attacking the wrong part of the game. A runner on second: no quick trip to the mound to change the signs? A bunt situation: no meetings at the mound to discuss defensive alignment?

Those types of delays should count against the maximum of six, meaning that they'd be disallowed late in the game if a catcher -- maybe one whose name rhymes with Mary Manchez -- felt it necessary
to make four separate 1st inning visits in order to 'get on the same page' with his pitcher.

Like I said earlier: Favor the prepared! Just say no to increased committee meetings.

[Vic Sage]

i don't mind the change; i just think that, with all the exceptions to it, and without any enforcement mechanism, it's pointless. Nor does it get to the heart of the issue. If you want to increase the pace of play, the single difference from previous eras isn't stepping out of the box, or mound visits for strategy, or pitchers going for a stroll between pitches, or even long commercial breaks. Nor is it desensitization to increased violence in the media or a breakdown of moral authority. It's the consequence of player specialization. It's the unintended consequence of managing a game with more information at your disposal. Its the "3 reliever" innings and "6 pitcher" games, the "pinch-hitter for the pinch-hitter" ABs. Its also about the increased offense from smaller parks, bigger players and juiced balls. The more offense, the longer the game. The more personnel changes, the longer the game.

They won't be able to get the genie back in the bottle without some structural changes, but there are things they could do without changing the rules of the game at all. It would involve raising the mound, pushing back the fences, and/or deadening the balls to get offense back in balance, and it would require the reduction of the "active" roster size (e.g., 20 players selected to "dress" for each game [including no more than 5 relievers], while still carrying 25+ on the ML roster). Either that, or require any reliever to face at least 3 batters and any PHer must actually get an AB. This way, the roster would have to carry fewer specialists and more generalists. LOOGYies and ROOGYies would go bye-bye, requiring relievers to face RHBs and LHBs, and starters would have to pitch deeper into games. Then, if you want to throw in limits on mound visits and shorter commercial breaks, that's gravy. You wouldn't even need a pitch clock, just umpires willing to keep the game moving by handing out strikes and balls to pitchers and hitters if they're causing undo delay. Games would be 2 hours (2.5 hours, max).

You know, make it baseball again.

But offense sells tickets and i think the roster size flexibility would be expensive to negotiate with the MLBPA, so none of that will happen. But the pace of play is not really going to get dealt with in any meaningful way until they do.

[Frayed Knot]

... Its also about the increased offense from smaller parks, bigger players and juiced balls. The more offense, the longer the game ... [and] offense sells tickets

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, 30 years ago (1987) games had slightly higher (0.7) plate appearances per game and again slightly more offense (0.16 R/G) yet were 24 minutes shorter on average, so it's tough to blame juiced balls and shorter fences.
Part of the difference is certainly between inning commercial time (it hasn't changed recently but it is longer now than during the Reagan era) and part is likely pitches/AB (not sure accurate data exists for that but I'm betting it's higher now).
But the remainder can be mostly blamed on the increase in mid-inning pitches changes, endless 'time-outs' for strategy/replay/etc, and just plain dawdling around, aka: Dead Time.

* I'd prefer NOT to see rules or roster changes limiting when/how often you can switch pitchers, although I am disappointed that a no-additional-warmups for in-inning changes was included here.
To me that's the easiest and most meaningful change they could make and it would knock at least a full minute off for each and that's nothing but dead time right there.
The relievers union seems to be dead-set against it still claiming that bullpen mounds aren't the same as the real one. Well y'know what then? Bring them up to par! It can't be that difficult.
And if it's still too frightening for relievers to come in "cold" well then that's one more factor a manager has to consider when he wants to make multiple changes during an inning.

* Replay I've certainly harped on enough. No one who was for it envisioned it being employed for when the runner's spikes come off the base by a 1/4 inch for a 1/4 second but they were stupid not to realize that "limited' replay is like trying to stay only slightly pregnant and that it's virtually impossible NOT to include EVERY case where there's so called 'clear visual evidence'. Did they not observe that last four decades of the NFL?!?
The shorter (10/15 second) decision limit that would eliminate most if not all of those 'minor' challenges has been mentioned here often and I agree. I think though that MLB is afraid of two things:
1) that the home team would rig up some sort of information system (lights/smoke signals) that would give them the advantage over the visiting squad in decision making
2) that the public is still going to see the bang-bang play which went unchallenged due to uncertainty was called incorrectly which will in turn lead to a backlash of fans and media calling baseball a bunch of dinosaurs for sticking their heads in the sand like the 19th century do-do birds they are (and, let's face it, most talking heads don't need much provocation to go that route anyway).

* And finally the general dead time just needs better enforcement. The bottom line needs to be: Get in the box - Stay in the box; Get on the rubber - throw the fucking pitch!
Here I suspect MLB is either wary of handing over too much power to the umps ("Hey Blue, no one came here to watch you, you fat shit!!") or the umps themselves are reluctant to play the heavy.
Hopefully the clock rules that have now been in place in the minors for the last three(?) seasons are breeding players who now won't come up to the big leagues with nine different tics, four superstitions, plus a yoga routine before they feel comfortable enough to hit/pitch. It'll take a few years but maybe that will eliminate the need for a clock.

[Ceetar]

I have no problem with them figuring out if a guy came a 1/4" off the bag. rules are rules.

Though I'd still rather they go to a tech solution.

[Edgy MD]

I think the single biggest difference is the manager pretending to be hustling out onto the field, but really trying to look like he's jogging when actually moving slower than walking, eventually reaching the ump and pretending to advocate for his team, but actually just stalling as he waits for his bench coach on the phone to give him a thumbs up or thumbs down.

That's not only low-cal action, it detracts from the high-cal action of a close, exciting play, it's full of fraud, and is against the spirit of the whole replay thingie. If you don't think he blew the call based on your own eyes and your own instincts, then you implicitly accept it, and let's get on with the game.

If you do think he blew it based on your own eyes and instincts, then great, you're making a protest while putting your reputation on the line, matching wits with the ump.

Also, enough with making the tubby umps jog over to the well where Radar O'Reilly is waiting with a set of 1970s headsets. Put a bluetooth on the crew chief and let him chat Soho right where he is. Coaches can't visit the mound, but we're having dramatic moments ruined with umpire jogging exhibitions? Get out of here with that garbage.

The tech solution will come, but it is not this day.

[nymr83]

I'm not sure how much time would really be saved by stopping the "fake reviews" but I'd take any, because I just don't like them.

I dread the NFL-style 10 minute replays with 50 camera angles and talking heads analyzing them.

you should have ten second from the completion of the play to challenge. otherwise, you are done.

oh, and now that we have replay you can either challenge or shut up. leaving the dugout to argue the umpires' subjective call should be an automatic ejection. you can argue the [u:pmaw9cnt]rule[/u:pmaw9cnt] only (ie - "Hey umpire - the ground rules say a ball stick under that fence is a double, you gotta send that runner back to second")

[Edgy MD]

Arguing, while making me embarrassed that I've paid good money to watch a team run by a mental case, is a lot more fun than watching a guy standing around pretending to talk philosophy while waiting for his coach to signal him.

[Frayed Knot]

Ceetar wrote: I have no problem with them figuring out if a guy came a 1/4" off the bag. rules are rules.

As Edgy says, if they see it with their own eyes to the point where they're convinced enough to risk one of their challenges, then, sure, go for it.
But if it first requires stalling for the better part of a minute so some team bureaucrat can examine two different feeds and six different angles like it's the Zapruder film before they even commit to asking
the umpires to then ask New York, then I'd prefer no replay rule at all.

[dgwphotography]

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: if you want to shorten games, call the full chest to knees strike zone.

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: Ceetar wrote: I have no problem with them figuring out if a guy came a 1/4" off the bag. rules are rules. As Edgy says, if they see it with their own eyes to the point where they're convinced enough to risk one of their challenges, then, sure, go for it. But if it first requires stalling for the better part of a minute so some team bureaucrat can examine two different feeds and six different angles like it's the Zapruder film before they even commit to asking the umpires to then ask New York, then I'd prefer no replay rule at all.

well yes, don't stall the game. no delay to see if you want to challenge. just keep going. get the ball back to the pitcher and throw a pitch.

Nymr83 wrote: oh, and now that we have replay you can either challenge or shut up. leaving the dugout to argue the umpires' subjective call should be an automatic ejection. you can argue the rule only (ie - "Hey umpire - the ground rules say a ball stick under that fence is a double, you gotta send that runner back to second")

there shouldn't be subjective calls. This is why we need to clean up the check swing and balk rules, but that's a different argument.