New Rules

[G-Fafif]

[G-Fafif]

This is gonna put a dent in the proliferation of hazy Memories threads down the line, with fewer September callups and less shuffling of interchangeable relievers.

[Benjamin Grimm]

https://michaelpaulonline.com/wp-content/uploads/real_time_new_rules_041808.jpg>



They're not clear on when the "27th-player rule" would be in effect. I assume it's on days when doubleheaders are played?

[G-Fafif]

That's my impression.

[Guest 41Forever]

I don't understand what problem they are trying to fix by limiting when position players can pitch. Any idea what sparked that one?

[Benjamin Grimm]

I don't know. It's probably pretty rare that a position player takes the mound in a game that's not lopsided or beyond the ninth inning.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

All this legislation by position is bullshit. And I really wish they'd "tested" the 3-batter rule, of if they did, what the results showed them..



I'm sure every team in the majors will lose 2 or 3 games --and win 2 or 3 -- they wouldn't have otherwise as a result of this thing, but the distribution won't be so neat and there'll be some teams just unlucky that they couldn;t stop the bleeding because the rules prevented them from taking out a guy who was having a bad day. Dumb fucking rule.

[Ceetar]

when I checked when they announced this rule last offseason it was like..4 IP that would qualify.



I hate all these rules with a passion.



I'm not super concerned with length, but the 3 batter minimum is going to make games longer.



I hate designating players as anything other than players. I hope some Belichek like manager spends a dead September getting a reliever 20 games started at LF just so he doesn't count as a pitcher the next season.



Extra player on the roster is fine, I guess I don't hate that. that's fine. I'm fine with the limited sept rosters too.



the expanded options/DL time for pitchers annoys me. Let guys cycle pitchers as they need, whatever. I get it though, they're trying to eliminate LOOGYs which is why the 'pitcher/hitter' designation, it's so they can limit pitchers on the roster but they didn't exactly pare down enough to the point that teams are forced to pitch guys longer than they would otherwise, so it doesn't do anything.

[Frayed Knot]

Managers will now have up to 20 seconds to challenge a replay instead of 30

Still 10 or 15 seconds too many ... but it's a start. Or at least it will be if they decide to, y'know, actually enforce the rule every now and then.



And does it say anything about a change in the number of challenges or does Mattingly still get 8 per game?

[HahnSolo]

Frayed Knot wrote: Managers will now have up to 20 seconds to challenge a replay instead of 30 Still 10 or 15 seconds too many ... but it's a start. Or at least it will be if they decide to, y'know, actually enforce the rule every now and then. And does it say anything about a change in the number of challenges or does Mattingly still get 8 per game?

The whole challenge thing is ridiculous, when, if you are out of challenges, you can still nicely ask the umpires if they'll review it for you--and they do it!

[G-Fafif]

There was an epidemic of position players pitching in 2018 that came off as in-game tanking, which explains the push to clarify their use.

[seawolf17]

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[Fman99]

They're still trying to fix something that's not broke. You want to fix the game, shorten the commercial breaks and launch Joe Buck into outer fucking space.

[metsmarathon]

=Fman99 post_id=31624 time=1581592181 user_id=86]
They're still trying to fix something that's not broke. You want to fix the game, shorten the commercial breaks and launch Joe Buck into outer fucking space.

[nymr83]

Frayed Knot wrote: Managers will now have up to 20 seconds to challenge a replay instead of 30 Still 10 or 15 seconds too many ... but it's a start. Or at least it will be if they decide to, y'know, actually enforce the rule every now and then. And does it say anything about a change in the number of challenges or does Mattingly still get 8 per game? The whole challenge thing is ridiculous, when, if you are out of challenges, you can still nicely ask the umpires if they'll review it for you--and they do it!

In the new XFL football league there are no coaches' challenges, there is a replay official who decides when to stop and take a look. could you have a guy back at MLB headquarters in NY? or maybe just let the umps themselves say "hey that was a bang bang play and i'd like to see that again"?

[nymr83]

Some of these really suck but others are good-



-Three Batter Minimum - More 'David Wright vs scrub lefty'? check. Less mound visits and time wasted on pitching changes? check. While I don't like the artificial constraint on strategy, this one seems like it could have positive effects. Ceetar said he thinks it makes game longer but I'm not buying that, maybe it replaces 5 minutes of pitching change with 5 minutes of an extra at-bat from higher expected offensive output against opposite handed pitching? that is a good trade off.



-26 Man roster - I'm SHOCKED MLB didn't wait to use this as a bargaining chip in the next CBA instead. I have no issue with this.



-MUST carry 28 in September - I like this one a lot. I never liked that teams would have a variable number of guys between 25 and 40 in September and the number of extra scrub relievers available was insane. If the Mets are in a playoff race against the Braves, I wouldn't want to see the 35-man Braves facing the 26-man Marlins either. good rule change.



-13 pitchers - dumb. build your roster how you want. and Ceetar hit the nail on the head here - everyone please welcome our newest "two-way player", the Marlins' best reliever looking like Todd Hundley in left field in September.

[Ceetar]

the roster size is also related to the pitcher use fwiw. Too many pitching changes when you have 35 guys. Most teams are carrying a 8th, 9th, 10th reliever rotated to AAA regularly anyway though, and when you call them up they're going to use them. It's still going to be slow in September with these things.



We'll see how managers use the relievers with the 3 PA thing. I'm interested, but there's a good chance few will really try to game it the way i suggested. I don't know if this pushes the needle, but you will find a lot of managers bringing guys in to issue IBB since that'll help their numbers. just good math? Unless you're the Astros, who don't do that anymore.



Also the damn replay thing. I mean come on. These challenges are literally what lead to the sign stealing thing. And now they're worried it's taking too long. I love replay existing, i think it's important and good to get things right, but the challenge idea is dumb and just get it right. Different rant. But why not put in a 5 second delay to these feeds? Hell 3 may do it. "Here's a live feed of the catcher's signs!", "Hey guys, stop using the live feed to get the opposing teams signs! stop it!" "Man, I can't believe the Astros managed to get the signs."

[Willets Point]

I like replay but I think there should be a 30 second time limit on the time the official takes to review the video. We all know the

that would be immediately overturned if replay existed in the past, and I think it's important to make sure those blown calls don't stand. What we don't need is 5-10 of crime scene investigation to determine if the baserunner's foot was a millimeter off the bag. If the official can see nothing obvious enough to overturn a call in 30 seconds or less, then the call on the field stands.

[Ceetar]

I would like a 'ping them!' button that an umpire can press immediately so that the replay guys can load up all the videos already and perhaps start looking depending on work load, for those 20 seconds while we wait for the challenge. Especially in the playoffs where they should be reviewing every play.

[Willets Point]

=Ceetar post_id=31644 time=1581609668 user_id=102]
I would like a 'ping them!' button that an umpire can press immediately so that the replay guys can load up all the videos already and perhaps start looking depending on work load, for those 20 seconds while we wait for the challenge. Especially in the playoffs where they should be reviewing every play.

[bmfc1]

Agreed. A bad call in the 7th when you've used your challenge is still a bad call which is supposed to be what the system is trying to prevent so have a "fifth umpire" looking at the monitors instead of having a manager throw the challenge flag. This does not apply to Don Mattingly who whines and then the umps decide to review it "on their own".

[nymr83]

Also the damn replay thing. I mean come on. These challenges are literally what lead to the sign stealing thing. And now they're worried it's taking too long. I love replay existing, i think it's important and good to get things right, but the challenge idea is dumb and just get it right. Different rant. But why not put in a 5 second delay to these feeds? Hell 3 may do it. "Here's a live feed of the catcher's signs!", "Hey guys, stop using the live feed to get the opposing teams signs! stop it!" "Man, I can't believe the Astros managed to get the signs."

how about "no fucking in game video" except for MLB employees? if a call doesnt seem "obvious" enough to challenge with the naked eye in real time on the field then lets PLAY BALL and not challenge it.

[Frayed Knot]

Willets Point wrote: I like replay but I think there should be a 30 second time limit on the time the official takes to review the video. We all know the https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVNlvnsQ828obvious https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk6KQ-YaNjkblown https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlDTBDJbNE4calls that would be immediately overturned if replay existed in the past, and I think it's important to make sure those blown calls don't stand. What we don't need is 5-10 of crime scene investigation to determine if the baserunner's foot was a millimeter off the bag. If the official can see nothing obvious enough to overturn a call in 30 seconds or less, then the call on the field stands.

This was, from the very beginning, the selling point in replay, that it would be 'limited' [as in only used to fix egregious calls] and 'quick' [as in there will be a time limit] and yet in the entire history of replay -- going

back to the '80s w/the NFL -- once put into practice it's rarely been either.

The problem is that once you set 'Getting it Right' as the goal then there becomes no logical end to the lengths you'll go to achieve that, as in why get only some calls right but leave other incorrect because

some artificial time constraint ran out? No one planned, or thought, or wanted MLB to stop the game for two minutes at a time to check whether that runner's foot came off the base by 1/4 inch for 1/4 second,

but as soon as they opened that door there was no way to stop those plays from being included. And while I've long advocated for some sort of delay/embargo on in-house video as a way to at least cut down on

that type of play being challenged, I think MLB is reluctant to go that route because then we at home will see that the call should have been different and the side getting screwed will complain that we've got the

technology but MLB is too stubborn/old-fashioned to use it.

[Willets Point]

'Getting it Right' is like trying to measure all the fractals of a coastline. All those extensive reviews of the base runner's foot ultimately end up being judgement calls and they are going to vary depending on who is watching the video and how much sleep they got the night before. It's time to just shut the door and admit that it's a fool errand to try to get things that happen in the blink of an eye "right."

[Edgy MD]

Well, if the missed call is relatively obvious and the opposing manager doesn't challenge, the game goes on and it's an error on him.



If it's relatively nuanced and and the opposing manager doesn't challenge, the game goes on and we don't have time to review six different angles at super slo-mo. By the time the boys in the van have isolated the play enough to make a definitive correction, we've moved on emotionally and shrugged that, hey, it was a tough call, or maybe we still blame the manager.



Take out the period a team has to pre-review the shots and we have something like a ballgame again.

[Frayed Knot]

Willets Point wrote: 'Getting it Right' is like trying to measure all the fractals of a coastline. All those extensive reviews of the base runner's foot ultimately end up being judgement calls and they are going to vary depending on who is watching the video and how much sleep they got the night before. It's time to just shut the door and admit that it's a fool errand to try to get things that happen in the blink of an eye "right."

Personally I agree with you. But the march of time in the replay era has shown no limit at which it will stop because the reason for implementing it in the first place -- Gotta get it Right!' -- is the reason

to apply it to more and more situations. The NFL swore up and down that they'd NEVER use it for something so minor as adjusting the spot of the ball or to adding/subtracting seconds on the clock - but

now do so for changes less than a yard or clock tweaks as little as two seconds. And when a judgement call (pass interference) went wrong in a playoff game, that condition was added as well.



I've said this before here but I'll repeat because we're on the subject: I think MLB is afraid of two things if they eliminate the whole 'booth' consulting angle

1) that the home team will somehow manage to work out a relay to the bench that the visiting team will not, so if it's going to happen anyway then you might as well standardize how it work

and

2) if only 'naked eye' judgements are permitted then the public will see 'wrong' calls (however infinitesimal) several times per game and MLB will be mocked for living in the 19th for having the ability to correct

calls via technology but choosing not to ... and, make no mistake, there are TV/radio sports guys who will salivate over the idea of mocking baseball for being behind the times.

[metsmarathon]

i was going to type out a feasible technological solution but then i realized i should do a patent search first. or maybe start applying for research grants. but, damn. it would be so simple to detect the ball hitting a glove, a player stepping on a bag, and a gloved ball tagging a runner. it would make game-baseballs slightly more expensive, but i don't think by too, too much. and mlb makes a fuckload of money that they could easily swallow the cost AND make [CROSSOUT]oodles of money[/CROSSOUT] tens of nickels by selling the newfound data.

[Edgy MD]

Yup. Micro-sensors in the glove and on the bases is so doable. Even in the shoes of the players.

[Ceetar]

I'm super pro technology, I'd go all in on that sorta stuff. Make the bases light up green/red for safe/out, same with fair/foul poles. Have the ball/strike count on top of home plate.



People complain about the 'fractionally coming off the bag' stuff, well this would mostly eliminate the 'judgement call' type stuff. The "Is the ball actually in the back of the first baseman's glove", "Did it kick up a little chalk" "Did he just graze a loose piece of uniform on the tag" Some of it wouldn't register, like you might have technically touched the base with the very tip of one cleat point before the ball hit the glove, but it wasn't quite enough to register. But it'd hopefully be pretty uniform and smooth.