Change to strike zone, intentional walks

[Frayed Knot]

btw, the IW is already an endangered species as the lowest five seasons for IW rates are the most recent five seasons.
I'd like to think that's a result of increased sabermetric use and that we're past the days when fans and broadcasters would argue that walking Bonds EVERY time up was sound strategy.

Only five players were IW'd as many as 15 times in 2016:
Harper = 20
FFF (Freeman) = 18
Votto, Goldschmidt, Papi, & Miggy Cabrera 15 each.

10 years earlier there were 15 players IW'd at least 15 times led by Barry at 38 and Ryan Howard at 37. Two years before that Barry was issued 120

[Edgy MD]

245 Park Avenue
New York, N.Y. 10167
United States of America
(+1) 212-931-7500

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/international/mlbi_contact.jsp

[Frayed Knot]

This back and forth between Manfred and the union is getting a bit testy over any proposed changes says Ken Rosenthal with the players side apparently wanting no part of any change and threatening retaliation if MLB implements changes.

[Manfred] “doesn’t realize the fight he is picking. Four years from now, he will see absolute wrath if he makes the moves himself ... the union is listening to the players, and the players don’t want the changes.” He added that baseball is offering the players nothing in return. Another claimed that “If you try to control the game, you turn us into robots.”
Union chief Tony Clark counters they baseball needs 'to educate the fans as to what goes on during the dead time and explain the nuances of the game'

[Edgy MD]

An executive order, done with no real vetting, and pretending that the public will is on your side because you know what's best.

As if the world wasn't Trumptastic enough. If Manford tweets, "I'll see you in court," I'm pushing the plunger down.

[Frayed Knot]

Edgy MD wrote: An executive order, done with no real vetting, and pretending that the public will is on your side because you know what's best.

I think MLB would push back on the "no real vetting" part.
Commish Manfred was on 'Mike & Mike' this morning where the pace of game stuff was the main topic. Among his claims were that many of these ideas are coming from the fans and that, for instance, most support the idea of the automatic IBB.

Other stuff:
- their evidence is that strike zone has crept downward by 1.7" over the last 8 years, so a rule change to raise it up 2 inches would be nothing more than a way to counteract the drift in recent years since the last time the zone was redefined. And if a side effect of it is that it helps get the ball in play more often during a time where nearly 30% of all ABs end in a K or BB (was fairly recently in the low-20s) so much the better.

- they are always "looking at and reviewing" the amount of commercial time on the broadcasts

- they'll continue to monitor the developments in robo-ump technology. Says it's not quite there yet but within a few years they'll have a major decision to make on it

- the runner on 2nd in extra innings rule was never intended for major league play, only the lowest rungs of the minors where spectators are practically non-existant

[Edgy MD]

Frayed Knot wrote: I think MLB would push back on the "no real vetting" part.

I'd disagree with the commissioner. Have studies been commissioned? Can we see them? Have we experimented with the no-pitch walk rule in the AFL and other less competitive leagues? If this has been developed thoughtfully, why is he trying to ram it down the MLBPA's throat?

Frayed Knot wrote: Commish Manfred was on 'Mike & Mike' this morning where the pace of game stuff was the main topic. Among his claims were that many of these ideas are coming from the fans and that, for instance, most support the idea of the automatic IBB.

You can find sincere fans who'll support any good or bad idea. They're a chauvinistic bunch. If you're willing to pass anecdotes off as data, you can use fan feedback to justify anything. It was fan feedback that was used to back that dumb initiative to link home field advantage in the World Series to the All Star Game.

I mean, he hasn't returned any of the letters I've sent him.

[dinosaur jesus]

Manfred says that most fans support the automatic IBB? I say he's a liar. I don't have any surveys to support me, but I doubt that he does either. Show us the surveys, Rob.

[Guest Rockin' Doc]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Well, looking at Mets games played over the last ten years (beginning with the 2007 season), I found the following numbers: 1,635 games, 950 intentional walks. (Mets batters were intentionally walked 501 times, opposing batters 449 times.) That comes to an average of 0.58 intentional walks per game.

John Cougar Lunchbucke wrote: I saw some estimates that this would save 14 seconds per IW.

So, this pointless rule change will speed up Mets games by 6-8 seconds per game. Wow, what will I do with all this free time.

[batmagadanleadoff]

dinosaur jesus wrote: Manfred says that most fans support the automatic IBB? I say he's a liar. I don't have any surveys to support me, but I doubt that he does either. Show us the surveys, Rob.

That's a page right out of the Bud Selig playbook where, I swear, it seems like Selig claimed he had a fan poll to support every single idiotic idea that ever came up during his reign. Radical realignment? Yeah, the fans want it. No radical realignment but instead, just the Brewers shift into the National League? The fans want that, too. We took a poll. (Yeah, sure you did.)

[Fman99]

Edgy MD wrote: This is so hamfisted.

[Edgy MD]

Here's a thing: If you walk, jog to first. Don't stand there taking off your elbow pad, and then your shinguard. Go to first and get undressed when you get there.

[Zvon]

Edgy MD wrote: Here's a thing: If you walk, jog to first. Don't stand there taking off your elbow pad, and then your shinguard. Go to first and get undressed when you get there.

Maybe they should start to get undressed while the pitcher is tossing the 4 balls.

This rule change is simply ridiculous. And I'm with Kong. If they bring the DH in, I'm out.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I'm not advocating this, and I realize that even by suggesting it here, I'm taking a very very slight risk that someone at MLB will see it and enact it.

But to really speed up the pace of the game, they can enact the Little League rule about taking a lead off the base: Runners have to keep their foot on the base until the pitcher releases the ball. While that would virtually eliminate the stolen base (and the balk!), it would totally eliminate the need for pitchers to throw over to first base. I think that there are two things in the game that are tedious: A pitching change (and commercial break) after the previous pitcher has faced one batter and when a pitcher keeps throwing the ball to first base.

[Ceetar]

I put the odds at 22% that DH accompanies expansion in the next 5 or so years.

too late for David Wright unfortunately.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Ceetar wrote: I put the odds at 22% that DH accompanies expansion in the next 5 or so years.

I hope that they wait until after I'm dead. (And I'm hoping that's a lot more than five years from now!)

[Ceetar]

Someone tweeted recently about how no one complains about automatic icing anymore. Leaving aside that one prevents the skirting of rules and one codifies it, I suspect IBBs will be the same 3 years from now.

[Guest 41Forever]

I'm not advocating this, and I realize that even by suggesting it here, I'm taking a very very slight risk that someone at MLB will see it and enact it. But to really speed up the pace of the game, they can enact the Little League rule about taking a lead off the base: Runners have to keep their foot on the base until the pitcher releases the ball. While that would virtually eliminate the stolen base (and the balk!), it would totally eliminate the need for pitchers to throw over to first base. I think that there are two things in the game that are tedious: A pitching change (and commercial break) after the previous pitcher has faced one batter and when a pitcher keeps throwing the ball to first base.

I'd love to see the percentage of pickoff throws to actual pickoffs. And how many times is that throw never even close to catching the batter, but just to let the batter know that the pitcher knows he's over there.

[Ceetar]

41Forever wrote: I'd love to see the percentage of pickoff throws to actual pickoffs. And how many times is that throw never even close to catching the batter, but just to let the batter know that the pitcher knows he's over there.

so hard to quantify too. The runner taking a lead that's one step shorter could be the diff between going first to third or not.

[Frayed Knot]

Ceetar wrote: Someone tweeted recently about how no one complains about automatic icing anymore. Leaving aside that one prevents the skirting of rules and one codifies it, I suspect IBBs will be the same 3 years from now.

Banning the contested icing rule was mostly a player safety thing as the NHL decided it didn't want two flying players trying to beat each other into the corner simply to determine where the face-off would be.
Automating the IBB serves no purpose other than the supposed time saved which is really no time at all.

If we want to make cross-sport comparisons (which are usually pretty meaningless anyway) the better equivalent might be if the NFL had decided that since the PAT was near-automatic anyway they should instead make a touchdown into 7 points and save the time it takes to first change up nearly all 22 personnel on the field on then to officially tack-on the almost always predetermined point. In a rare display of inventiveness I think the NFL actually made the right call on that one as moving the try back both sliced a chunk off the near-guaranteed success rate at the same time it made the 2-point try more attractive (most coaches are still too chicken to go for two except when forced to but that's a whole separate problem).
The auto-IBB just takes a strategy that the team almost never screws up and removes the almost part. But hey, it'll save 6 seconds/game.

[MFS62]

If they want to speed up the game, why not just enforce a rule that is already on the books? According to this NYT article, there is a rule that limits the time between pitches to 20 seconds. IIRC Charlie Finley installed such a clock at Municipal Stadium in KC when his A's played there. MLB made him take it down. It was one of the ideas mentioned in the article, but at least he had ideas.
http://www.nytimes.com/1986/05/20/sports/scouting-the-pastime-according-to-charlie-o.html
I wonder if the rule is still on the books, but is ignored?

Later

[Frayed Knot]

MFS62 wrote: I wonder if the rule is still on the books, but is ignored?

Yes, and yes.

[HahnSolo]

I had one of my few little league coaching disagreements about the automatic intentional walk. Well, kinda. The real argument was about pitch counts. Anyhow it was late in the game, and the other coach wanted to walk one of my better hitters (come on man, it's little league) with a guy on base. Now generally I'd be OK with it...an intentional walk is not as easy for an 11-yo to execute on the mound as you'd think. But I told the ump if I agreed to that, then the pitcher would still have to get the "four balls" added to his pitch count. The other coach balked saying that since he wasn't actually throwing the pitches they shouldn't count. I said well if that's the case then I want him to throw the four "intentional" balls. Eventually he gave in, they walked our guy without throwing the pitches and the kid had four pitches added to his count. What pissed me off later was that his strategy worked, we didn't score and the game ended in a tie.

I felt dirty arguing about it but I justified it by thinking the other coach was being the bigger dick.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Well, the four-pitch IW is officially in the rear view mirror....

[Edgy MD]

This is about precedent. It is less about moving along the pace of play and more about pushing something unilaterally on the union that really the union has no big reason to object to, in order to establish primacy over the union with regard to playing rules, so they have the license to push further rules further on down the line.

It stinks like hot steaming poo.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I didn't know if that meant that they had established the rule, or given up on it.

Apparently, it's the former. I found this on CBS Sports' web site:

• The start of a no-pitch intentional walk, allowing the defensive team’s manager to signal a decision to the home plate umpire to intentionally walk the batter. Following the signal of the manager’s intention, the umpire will immediately award first base to the batter.
  
  A 30-second limit for a manager to decide whether to challenge a play and invoke replay review.
  
  When a manager has exhausted his challenges for the game, Crew Chiefs may now invoke replay review for non-home run calls beginning in the eighth inning instead of the seventh inning.
  
  A conditional two-minute guideline for Replay Officials to render a decision on a replay review, allowing various exceptions.
  
  A prohibition on the use of any markers on the field that could create a tangible reference system for fielders.
  
  An addition to Rule 5.07 formalizes an umpire interpretation by stipulating that a pitcher may not take a second step toward home plate with either foot or otherwise reset his pivot foot in his delivery of the pitch. If there is at least one runner on base, then such an action will be called as a balk under Rule 6.02(a). If the bases are unoccupied, then it will be considered an illegal pitch under Rule 6.02(.
  
  An amendment to Rule 5.03 requires base coaches to position themselves behind the line of the coach’s box closest to home plate and the front line that runs parallel to the foul line prior to each pitch. Once a ball is put in play, a base coach is allowed to leave the coach’s box to signal a player so long as the coach does not interfere with play.

The new intentional walk rule, which will allow free passes without any pitches being thrown, has been much discussed , and now it’s official. As well, the 30-second rule on manager challenges has been an anticipated step, as is the limit on how long replay officials can take.

On Thursday, MLB and the MLBPA announced a number of new rule changes for the 2017 season. Here are those seven changes:

I'm not sure I understand this one:

A prohibition on the use of any markers on the field that could create a tangible reference system for fielders.

Are they saying that you can't put an X on the field to show your center fielder where to stand? Has anyone been putting tangible reference system markers on the field? Has anyone expressed a desire to do so? Where did this come from?

[Ceetar]

It came from the Mets probably

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/los-angeles-dodgers-outfielder-new-york-mets-complaint-defense-laser-markers-ken-rosenthal-052816

[Edgy MD]

I bet there's a good story behind that one.

There was a rule put in place back in my yoot stating the batter could only carry one extra pair of gloves, so he could presumably switch from batting gloves to sliding gloves if he wanted, once he reached base.

It turned out there was one player (I forget who) in the league who thought it would be a cool way to troll the opposition by tucking half a dozen gloves in each back pocket, heels in, with the fingers hanging out, so he his ass could be symbolically waiving "bye-bye" to defenders as he rounded the bases after a homer. This guy was clearly working much harder on his showboating than his hitting, because he had, like, eight career homeruns, but he managed to get his own rule put on the books, and that's something.

[Frayed Knot]

On Thursday, MLB and the MLBPA announced a number of new rule changes for the 2017 season. Here are those seven changes:

The start of a no-pitch intentional walk, allowing the defensive team’s manager to signal a decision to the home plate umpire to intentionally walk the batter. Following the signal of the manager’s intention, the umpire will immediately award first base to the batter.
-- We've pretty well discussed this already. To me it serves no purpose other than to make it look like something is being done about pace of game by catering to those who were crying for this change since the days when games were 30 minutes shorter.



A 30-second limit for a manager to decide whether to challenge a play and invoke replay review.
-- The idea is to prevent the dance where the manager holds up the game while deciding whether to hold up the game further by asking for a review. But since the entire (stated) purpose of replay was to correct the egregiously incorrect calls, I don't see a problem in demanding a decision within 10 seconds.



When a manager has exhausted his challenges for the game, Crew Chiefs may now invoke replay review for non-home run calls beginning in the eighth inning instead of the seventh inning.
-- a manager out of challenges now has a slightly smaller safety net where the umps can bail him out. I call it the 'Mattingly Corollary'.



A conditional two-minute guideline for Replay Officials to render a decision on a replay review, allowing various exceptions.
-- Ahh yes, the old "conditional" limit. MLB hasn't publicized what those limits are but, as the NFL has shown us for going on four decades now, unless there's a strict cap on how long the reviews can take they're going to take until the umps/refs think they have the required proof.



A prohibition on the use of any markers on the field that could create a tangible reference system for fielders.
-- I didn't even know this was a thing, but I approve of it anyway.



An addition to Rule 5.07 formalizes an umpire interpretation by stipulating that a pitcher may not take a second step toward home plate with either foot or otherwise reset his pivot foot in his delivery of the pitch. If there is at least one runner on base, then such an action will be called as a balk under Rule 6.02(a). If the bases are unoccupied, then it will be considered an illegal pitch under Rule 6.02(.
-- could be dubbed as the Carter Capps and/or Jordan Walden rule for those pitchers who combine their pitching motion with their triple jump workouts. Not sure exactly how it'll be determined what's legit and what isn't but at least they're acknowledging that it's an issue which needs addressing.




An amendment to Rule 5.03 requires base coaches to position themselves behind the line of the coach’s box closest to home plate and the front line that runs parallel to the foul line prior to each pitch. Once a ball is put in play, a base coach is allowed to leave the coach’s box to signal a player so long as the coach does not interfere with play.
-- Yeah, whatever. The late Doug 'The Lord' Harvey was a stickler for rules like these. Not sure anyone of today's 'Blue Crew' will bother.

Edited March 2, 2017 by Guest

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: An addition to Rule 5.07 formalizes an umpire interpretation by stipulating that a pitcher may not take a second step toward home plate with either foot or otherwise reset his pivot foot in his delivery of the pitch. If there is at least one runner on base, then such an action will be called as a balk under Rule 6.02(a). If the bases are unoccupied, then it will be considered an illegal pitch under Rule 6.02(. -- could be dubbed as the Carter Capps and/or Jordan Whelan rule for those pitchers who combine their pitching motion with their triple jump workouts. Not sure exactly how it'll be determined what's legit and what isn't but at least they're acknowledging that it's an issue which needs addressing.

post on Fangraphs with some quotes about how maybe it won't actually affect Capps, but I guess we'll see.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/mlb-has-clarified-its-carter-capps-position/

[Frayed Knot]

Even that second video in the link of the more modified version of Capps's delivery doesn't look like it should be legal to me.