MiLB Rule Changes AKA What the Actual Fuck

[Frayed Knot]

seawolf17 wrote: If you've ever seen [crossout]minor[/crossout] major league middle relievers, you'd know why. Every [crossout]Ducks[/crossout] Mets game, for example, gets through the first six innings in an hour and then grinds to a halt.

[G-Fafif]

Edgy MD wrote: . Keep baseball boring![/bigpurple].

Amen.

[Valadius]

Minor league baseball has already been cheapened by the explosion of stupid nicknames in the last few years. That said, this is dumb.

[Frayed Knot]

seawolf17 wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: I don't care. It's a minor league rule change and the # of minor league games I watch every year is about zero. I predict this rule won't make it to MLB. You're right - there's no way this gets past the union. But still, it's stupid at any professional level.

My concern is that it started as an idea only for Rookie-level games and before it even appeared there it gets extended to all minor league levels.
So while I suspect it's not destined for the majors, I'm not going to believe that simply by taking baseball's word for it.




Using the runner-on-2nd in extras during the WBC was more about sticking to the limited amount of time they had for those games.

[nymr83]

Edgy MD wrote: . Keep baseball boring! .

You what is boring? Bunts and intentional walks. I was reading yesterday that when they tried this previously (the Pacific Association did it last year) it led to a sac bunt followed by an intentional walk to setup the double play.

Screw that.

[Edgy MD]

Yes, that will happen regularly. Until somebody gets the idea to bypass those two plays and start every extra inning with runners on first on third and one out.

[Benjamin Grimm]

How about with two outs, the bases loaded, and a 3-2 count?

[nymr83]

why don't they just play "home run derby" to decide it? any pitcher or coach on your own team can pitch to any batter of your choice. 20 pitches. most HRs wins.

[MFS62]

Nymr83 wrote: why don't they just play "home run derby" to decide it? any pitcher or coach on your own team can pitch to any batter of your choice. 20 pitches. most HRs wins.

Then the Mets would win the pennant easily. They specialize in bases empty homers.
Later

[seawolf17]

A Boy Named Seo wrote: I went to a double-header last year in AAA and both games were scheduled for 7 innings. If they're already doing it, they should just do it.

They do that for doubleheaders - they've been doing that for a few years. Makes sense.

[Chad ochoseis]

I doubt they'll be longer. I'm fairly certain that the math will show that they'll be shorter. I agree. I'd bet that it's likelier that one team rather than both can score the new rule baserunner. Plus, some games will end when the home team's first batter drives in the winning run. This new setup should promote sac bunting, especially for the home team when the visitors couldn't score in their extra inning half. Sac bunting makes sense in a sudden death situation when there's a runner on second with no outs.

I'm in a mathy mood, so I went ahead and did some calculations. According to this nice website (https://gregstoll.dyndns.org/~gregstoll/baseball/runsperinning.html), the probability of scoring a run the way adults do, with an inning that begins with none on and none out, is 26%. With none out and a runner on second, it's about 62%. Making a few simplifying assumptions, you can go from there to an average of 2.60 extra innings playing real baseball and 2.12 extra innings playing with a runner starting on second and none out. So it's a little quicker to start with a runner on second.

I did not do any calculations assuming a home run derby, coach pitch, or tee ball.

I have yet to hear any actual baseball fan come out in favor of this. Extra innings mean more baseball, and what baseball fan doesn't love more baseball? The problem - if there is one - is that there's less baseball per minute than there used to be, not that extra inning games go on for too long.

Edgy MD wrote: The 20-second pitch clock was already established in the minors last season. They are reducing it to 15 when there are no runners on base. And they've certainly curtailed mound visit length and frequency, both at the major and minor-league levels. Aggressively and, to my thinking, counter-productively. Have those shortened games? What do the numbers show?

Yeah, by about 10 minutes. https://www.milb.com/milb/news/toolshed-time-of-game-down-across-board/c-127176290

[Frayed Knot]

What I like about the pitch clock in the minors is the idea that it will spawn a generation of players who will never develop the time-consuming tics and routines that they'll then bring to the big leagues.
If guys get used to throwing a pitch within 15 seconds, or not doing a yoga routine outside the batter's box between each pitch, then there will (at least theoretically) not be a need for a ML pitch clock.


When Antonio Bastardo was asked why he pitched so deliberately his response was that he tried going faster but couldn't. Well the next generation's Bastardo would never make it to the majors under these
rules and I have no problem with that. And Philly's Odubel Herrera takes a stroll after each pitch because obviously no one ever told him that he couldn't. But Odubel v-2.0 would be forced to adapt or die
as well and no one will ever be forced to watch his antics.

[Zvon]

I doubt they'll be longer. I'm fairly certain that the math will show that they'll be shorter. I agree. I'd bet that it's likelier that one team rather than both can score the new rule baserunner. Plus, some games will end when the home team's first batter drives in the winning run. This new setup should promote sac bunting, especially for the home team when the visitors couldn't score in their extra inning half. Sac bunting makes sense in a sudden death situation when there's a runner on second with no outs. I'm in a mathy mood, so I went ahead and did some calculations. According to this nice website (https://gregstoll.dyndns.org/~gregstoll/baseball/runsperinning.html), the probability of scoring a run the way adults do, with an inning that begins with none on and none out, is 26%. With none out and a runner on second, it's about 62%. Making a few simplifying assumptions, you can go from there to an average of 2.60 extra innings playing real baseball and 2.12 extra innings playing with a runner starting on second and none out. So it's a little quicker to start with a runner on second. I did not do any calculations assuming a home run derby, coach pitch, or tee ball. I have yet to hear any actual baseball fan come out in favor of this. Extra innings mean more baseball, and what baseball fan doesn't love more baseball? The problem - if there is one - is that there's less baseball per minute than there used to be, not that extra inning games go on for too long. Edgy MD wrote: The 20-second pitch clock was already established in the minors last season. They are reducing it to 15 when there are no runners on base. And they've certainly curtailed mound visit length and frequency, both at the major and minor-league levels. Aggressively and, to my thinking, counter-productively. Have those shortened games? What do the numbers show? Yeah, by about 10 minutes. https://www.milb.com/milb/news/toolshed-time-of-game-down-across-board/c-127176290

"The way adults do", lolol.

If they are gonna screw things up, the HR derby, to me, would be more palatable. But I'd protest that as well.

[Chad ochoseis]

I was really hoping that there would be a case for the DH slowing games down by artificially creating offense. But fivethirtyeight says no. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-the-dh-rule-bane-of-baseball-purists-slowing-the-game-down/

[G-Fafif]

They start testing the runner on second rule (and all the others) at the major league level today.

[MFS62]

G-Fafif wrote: They start testing the runner on second rule (and all the others) at the major league level today.

WTF? This was supposed to be a one year test in the minor leagues.
Outrageous!

Later

[Benjamin Grimm]

I wonder what today's date is?