Uh oh... "Experimental rules" in the minors

[Benjamin Grimm]

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/31046691/major-league-baseball-deploy-several-experimental-rules-minor-leagues-seasonhttps://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/31046691/major-league-baseball-deploy-several-experimental-rules-minor-leagues-season



Larger bases. Pitch clocks. Limits on pickoff attempts. There are going be a ridiculous number of stolen bases if they limit pickoff attempts.

[Frayed Knot]

I'd rather they experiment in the minors as opposed to deciding they've got the next great idea and simply implement it in the majors.

Not that I'm going to like all the experiments but I'm willing to consider just about anything.

[kcmets]

Larger bases?? Who sits around and dreams this crap up?



(I didn't read link)

[Benjamin Grimm]

Larger bases will make it easier to steal a base, to bunt for a single and to get infield hits.

[Fman99]

Ugh. Banning certain defensive shifts also being tested.



Just stop. Please. I beg of you. You want to fix baseball? Cheaper beer. Tastier hot dogs. Less Covid. Less scoreboard noise.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

The big base I think are about cutting down on guys getting spiked or collided with, like the double first-base they use in little league.

[dinosaur jesus]

I hate all this so goddamn much. How did we get a commissioner of baseball who doesn't like baseball?

[batmagadanleadoff]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Larger bases will make it easier to steal a base, to bunt for a single and to get infield hits.

I assumed that larger bases were proposed to reduce injuries by allowing the fielder to step on one portion of the base while still leaving more base for the runner. I remember larger, rectangular shaped painted first bases on some of the asphalt or concrete softball fields I played on, growing up.

Edited March 11, 2021 by Guest

[batmagadanleadoff]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Larger bases will make it easier to steal a base, to bunt for a single and to get infield hits. I assumed that larger bases were proposed to reduce injuries by allowing the fielder to step on one portion of the base while still leaving more base for the runner. I remember larger, rectangular shaped painted first bases on some of the asphalt or concrete softball fields I played on, growing up.

What JCL said.

Edited March 11, 2021 by Guest

[batmagadanleadoff]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: There are going be a ridiculous number of stolen bases if they limit pickoff attempts.

Maybe that's what baseball wants. More offense without more HR's. And also, shorter games. /rollseyes

[kcmets]

=Fman99 post_id=57766 time=1615513771 user_id=86]Cheaper beer. Tastier hot dogs. Less Covid. Less scoreboard noise.

[Edgy MD]

The whole "shorter games" has somehow managed to take aim at all the wrong targets every single time.

[Fman99]

=kcmets post_id=57775 time=1615517855 user_id=53]
=Fman99 post_id=57766 time=1615513771 user_id=86]Cheaper beer. Tastier hot dogs. Less Covid. Less scoreboard noise.

[Benjamin Grimm]

In Double A...

"Four infielders will be mandated to have both feet on the infield dirt, preventing the extreme shifts that often see players from the left side of the infield shifted to short right field. Depending on the results, the league said, the second half of the season could see a more extreme version of the rule: two infielders on each side of the second-base bag."

Does "both feet on the infield dirt" also mean that they can't play in for a bunt? Or does it just mean that they're prohibited from positioning themselves on the outfield grass?





The electronic strike zone in the former Florida State League:

"Instead of using a three-dimensional zone that covers the entire plate, it will call balls and strikes based on a two-dimensional plane at the front of the plate."

In "High A" (Brooklyn, I guess):

"Pitchers must step off the rubber before throwing to first base, eliminating a go-to move for many left-handed pitchers that weaponized the pickoff. MLB implemented the rule in the Atlantic League in the second half of 2019 and saw stolen-base attempts jump 70% with a leap in success rate as well. While the stolen base has been disincentivized by teams deeming it not worth the risk, the new rules likely will change that."

In Triple A:

"Bases will be 3 inches longer on each side. Currently, the front edge of first base sits 88 feet, 9 inches from home plate. It will move to 88 feet, 6 inches; the distance between first and second, and second and third, will likewise decrease. The result, MLB said: "a modest impact on the success rate of stolen base attempts and the frequency with which a batter-runner reaches base on ground balls and bunt attempts." MLB also hopes larger bases will allow for fewer injuries on collisions at the bag."

[Edgy MD]

Looking forward to them switching from live pitching to a tee in extra innings.

[kcmets]

Right, and defensive indifference is mandatory after nine innings.

[seawolf17]

STOP. CHANGING. THE FUCKING. GAME.

[MFS62]

=seawolf17 post_id=57793 time=1615567250 user_id=91]
STOP. CHANGING. THE FUCKING. GAME.

[Willets Point]

REVERT TO THE KNICKERBOCKER RULES!!!



(I kid)

[Ceetar]

fucking Manfred.

[nymr83]

STOP. CHANGING. THE FUCKING. GAME.

I don't agree. By all means, try things out in the minors and lets see if a consensus can be found after seeing some of these changes in motion.



If a base that is 18"-18" and is reportedly lower to the ground actually does help prevent injuries, how many people are really going to be against it?



Electronic strike zone? YES PLEASE - although I don't like the report i read that they are adjusting it to mimic what umpires have been calling rather than the rulebook strikezone. if the rulebook strikezone isn't working, agree to changes in the rulebook.



I'm not a fan of all the proposed rules about defensive positioning - but sure, lets see how it goes in Low-A.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=nymr83 post_id=57811 time=1615578220 user_id=54]


I'm not a fan of all the proposed rules about defensive positioning - but sure, lets see how it goes in Low-A.

[Benjamin Grimm]

You can still circumvent the rule by playing your leftfielder in short right field against a left-handed pull hitter.

[dinosaur jesus]

The problem with these ideas isn't that you shouldn't be messing with the game. There's been messing all along, often much more radical than anything that's being proposed here. Changing the number of balls and strikes, letting the pitchers throw overhand, moving the pitching distance back, counting a foul ball as a strike--I probably would have hated all of those at the time, but I guess I'm okay with them now. The problem here is, first, that they're coming all at once. It's too much. And second, that they don't really have anything to do with baseball. Every sport has a basic logic, determined by the rules and by an evolving understanding of how to play the game. And the rules and the understanding tend to move together. Allowing overhand pitching, for instance, came about because pitchers were already throwing overhand, and a decision had to be made whether to enforce the rule or to recognize that the game had changed. The foul strike came about because hitters were abusing the spirit of the rule by repeatedly fouling pitches off without penalty. But these ideas come from outside that logic. They feel like they've been brought in from a completely different sport. They're like drunk poker rules—jacks beat queens on Maundy Thursday, and so on. And they don't address the one serious problem with baseball today, which is that the games take too damn long to play. The pitch clock seems to, but it's mostly just a gimmick brought in from football or basketball to make the game seem more efficient. It's not efficient; it's baseball, which doesn't run on clock logic. If the pitchers are dawdling, then instruct the umpires not to call them on it. If the batters are stepping out of the box and calling time too much, then instruct the umpires not let them. And the one proposal that seems to stand up for baseball tradition, banning extreme shifts, is the dumbest of all. Shifts are completely within the logic of the game; they exploit something that's been there all along but rarely utilized. They're fun as hell to watch. And they work, which turns out to be the real problem with them. What's wrong with these people?



Screed over.

[batmagadanleadoff]

dinosaur jesus wrote: The problem with these ideas isn't that you shouldn't be messing with the game. There's been messing all along, often much more radical than anything that's being proposed here.... And the one proposal that seems to stand up for baseball tradition, banning extreme shifts, is the dumbest of all. Shifts are completely within the logic of the game; they exploit something that's been there all along but rarely utilized. They're fun as hell to watch. And they work, which turns out to be the real problem with them. What's wrong with these people? Screed over.

I've highlighed the beginning and end of your post. On the one hand, I tend to agree with both excerpted points, very much so. But then I wonder if those points contradict each other. Why are shifts completely within the logic of the game? And why does shift equal baseball tradition? Isn't that mainly arbitrary? What if defenders were barred ever since the beginning of baseball - by official rule - from straying from their designated fielding areas? What if defensive shifts were prohibited ever since the beginning of baseball? Wouldn't we now be attacking new proposed rules permitting defensive shifts as some radical and uncalled for tinkering -- a gimmick?

[Frayed Knot]

My objection to the shift-ban is that for every part of extra ground the defense is covering by using a shift (extreme or otherwise) they are, by definition, leaving other

parts of the field Less covered and it's up to the offense to exploit That. But hitters have decided to hit with one form of offense [pull, launch angle] and

don't want to be bothered with another, and mgmt doesn't seem to want to find or use all-field/contact type of players. The hitters and the teams that do that won't

find themselves facing extreme shifts.

[dinosaur jesus]

dinosaur jesus wrote: The problem with these ideas isn't that you shouldn't be messing with the game. There's been messing all along, often much more radical than anything that's being proposed here.... And the one proposal that seems to stand up for baseball tradition, banning extreme shifts, is the dumbest of all. Shifts are completely within the logic of the game; they exploit something that's been there all along but rarely utilized. They're fun as hell to watch. And they work, which turns out to be the real problem with them. What's wrong with these people? Screed over. I've highlighed the beginning and end of your post. On the one hand, I tend to agree with both excerpted points, very much so. But then I wonder if those points contradict each other. Why are shifts completely within the logic of the game? And why does shift equal baseball tradition? Isn't that mainly arbitrary? What if defenders were barred ever since the beginning of baseball - by official rule - from straying from their designated fielding areas? What if defensive shifts were prohibited ever since the beginning of baseball? Wouldn't we now be attacking new proposed rules permitting defensive shifts as some radical and uncalled for tinkering -- a gimmick?

Yeah, I'm probably not being completely logical here. If they'd banned shifts from the beginning, I'm sure I wouldn't think twice about it. But I don't think they would have; I doubt it would have occurred to anyone to do that. And there is a sort of precedent in baseball history. When second basemen started playing halfway to first, and shortstops halfway to third, it's possible there was some grumbling from the traditionalists. But I imagine most people thought it was just a smart way to deploy your fielders, placing them where the ball was most likely to be hit. And that's all a shift does. That's what I mean by the logic of the game--the hitter tries to hit 'em where they ain't, the fielders try to be where the ball is most likely to go. The thought that shifts are unfair comes from the idea that there's such a thing as a third baseman or a second baseman. There isn't. Those are only conventional names. I just don't see the logic of saying that because someone usually plays near third base, and you call him a third basemen, he can't be allowed to move to the other side of second once in a while.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Frayed Knot wrote: My objection to the shift-ban is that for every part of extra ground the defense is covering by using a shift (extreme or otherwise) they are, by definition, leaving other parts of the field Less covered and it's up to the offense to exploit That. But hitters have decided to hit with one form of offense [pull, launch angle] and don't want to be bothered with another, and mgmt doesn't seem to want to find or use all-field/contact type of players. The hitters and the teams that do that won't find themselves facing extreme shifts.

Yeah, that's where I'm at too. The shift is frustrating to me, as a fan. (When did it start, by the way? I know that some teams shifted against Ted Williams, but the earliest Met I recall being "victimized" by the shift is Carlos Delgado. Does that sound right?) I'd rather see the shift go away because of players exploiting the open part of the field. I recall Lucas Duda doing it sometimes. I wish Michael Conforto, for example, would just go the opposite way once or twice a game and take an easy double or two. That would certainly stop the shift.

[Willets Point]

The minor leagues would be a good place for batters to experiment with hitting against the shift.

[Ceetar]

banning shifts is inane and one of those things that actively turns me off.



Baseball doesn't even _really_ have defensive players. The guy designated as 'RF' can play between third and the pitcher if he wants, on one pitch, and then hang out with his buddy in LF the next one. It's a group of 9 guys defending, with some rules focused around the battery, because without them you'd literally break the game. It's why double switches are (still, for another season or so) a thing. The batting order is immutable, but because you can always have the RFer pitch, it works.



I know we've mostly ignored that for a while, and officially designated fielders, which is why double switches don't violate the "must pitch to one batter" rule and that rule about designated players as "hitters or pitchers" doesn't break it either.



But it breaks the fluidity of baseball. You've got 9 guys out there, put them wherever. You've got 12 pitchers, use 'em whenever.



Hit it where they ain't and stand where they hit it. That's just logical baseball stuff and I don't know why you'd try to change it. Might as well ban 70mph squibs through the infield because it wasn't fair that you didn't hit it at a guy.