Improving the game
by Travis G on Mar 11, 2010 11:00 AM EST
in Analysis
51 comments
MLB recently held a think-tank meeting to improve the way baseball is played. They concluded that full-on instant replay is the way to go, calling a consistent strike-zone is important (are you sure?), and pitchers and hitters can't take too much time between pitches. While I agree with these, there are a couple that would be easier to implement and improve the game in a far more natural way.
1. Raise the mound
The last 42 years have seen several rule changes, and every one has favored hitters. After 'The Year of the Pitcher' (1968), the rule makers tried to re-balance the game in the following years, but went way too far. They lowered the mound a full five inches (from 15 to 10) in 1969 and added the DH in 1973. In addition, bats got better, ballparks got smaller, and balls got juiced*. By re-raising the mound to a nice, even foot (15 inches is too large a swing in one year - if 12 inches doesn't make an impact, then go to 15) it would allow pitchers to not only get more plane on all their pitches, but would make them more comfortable throwing hittable pitchers (because they would be tougher to hit) and reduce injuries (due to less effort being exerted and throwing fewer pitches). There wouldn't be so much nibbling and we'd get to see more balls put into play (which I find more interesting than strikeouts and walks).
You wouldn't have to impose silly rules like 20 seconds between pitches or batters can't step outside the box. Raising the mound would be an organic way to improve and speed up the game without imposing more rules. The higher mound worked just fine for 66 years before 1969.
MLB wants to have its cake and eat it too. They want all the offense of the past 15 years while reducing the length of games. Sorry MLB, that won't happen until pitchers regain some kind of advantage.
2. Balance the schedule
The Yankees will play 76 regular season games (almost half) against only four teams: the Sox, Rays, Jays and O's. To me, that is boring as hell. Playing 19, even against our biggest rival, is tiresome. Each games loses a bit of luster because we see them so often. And never mind the other three teams in which there's essentially no rivalry to speak of. Do we really have to see the Tampa Bay Rays 19 times a year?!**
To account for all the divisional games, we'll only see teams like the Indians, Tigers and Mariners six times this season. I enjoy seeing different ballparks and different players rather than the same stuff over and over and over. How many damn times do we have to see Kevin Youkilis' chia pet, or listen to that stupid cow-bell?
A balanced schedule would also give us a greater sense of the best teams. The Rays may very well be as good as any non-Yankees-Red Sox team in the AL, but since they have 38 games against them (as opposed to 12 for a non-AL East team), it could conceivably make a 10-win difference.
What changes would you make?
* I remember a great article (that I can't find now) talking about how baseballs aren't necessarily more lively than in the past, but the rules for baseballs are now stricter, keeping them within a smaller range of 'liveliness' (generally on the higher end), while there used to be a wider range, ensuring 'deader' balls would occasionally be used.
** The real reason behind the unbalanced schedule is purely Yankees-Red Sox. Getting that matchup 19 times a year boosts TV ratings (aka, revenue). MLB really doesn't care how the unbalanced schedule affects the other 28 teams, as long as they get the Big Matchup 19 times. They have to enforce the unbalanced schedule for everyone so as not to look biased.
0 recs |
51 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
New rules
1. Pitchers mound up 2 inches= ok, if you think there’s too much hitting. Since the steroid/ amphetamine crackdown, hitting numbers are back closer to historical norms. Mark Teixeira’s homerun total, which was league high last year, would barely have been top 10 in the 90s. Also, with far more international players, pitching quality is probably higher than ever, even though people love to moan about how 30 teams has diluted it.
2. No effort to speed up the game by shortening time between pitches has ever worked. The only solution would be an NFL/ NBA type clock with a buzzer that went off when it hit zero, and I don’t think that there’s much support for that.
3. Balance the schedule? No. The reason we don’t see enough of the Central and West divisions is interleague play. Get rid of that. If the unbalanced schedule is about Yankees- Red Sox (and I don’t know if I agree), then Interleague is about Yankees- Mets.
Maybe you could cut back intra- division to 17 or 16, but I like the unblanced schedule.
4. More instant replay on disputed calls? Yes. The aggrieved team could request it subject to umpire approval or the umpires could agree themselves without a request.
by designatedquitter on Mar 11, 2010 11:12 AM EST reply actions
PS re: unbalanced schedule
Until 1961 expansion, everybody played 22 games against only 7 other teams. Since there were no divisions, every season usually contained 88 of 154 games against non- contenders. The balanced schedule of the 1970s-90s is a relatively recent and short-lived phenomenon.
by designatedquitter on Mar 11, 2010 11:17 AM EST reply actions
The balanced schedule of the 1970s-90s is a relatively recent and short-lived phenomenon.
As the poster noted, that’s because the schedule before 1961 was already balanced – 22 games versus each team. Before Divisions, there was nothing to unbalance.
Unless you play games against each other
how will rivalries develop?
You want a rivalry with the Rays. Play a lot of games against them, so that one team or other dominating the season series breaks the other’s playoff hopes. Or play a string of see-saw games like the Yanks and Red Sox seemed to every game from 2003-2005.
"Have faith in the Yankees, my son. Think of the great DiMaggio."
I wouldn’t toy with the height of the mound. You just don’t know what effect it’s going to have and how drastic the changes would be. I know, I know, “only” raising it 2 inches doesn’t seem like a big deal, and it may not be, but I’d rather not go down that road.
I’m not sure how I feel about the unbalanced schedule. On the one hand, it does suck for teams like the Rays, Orioles, or A’s who are stuck in divisions with teams that routinely spend far more than they do. On the other hand, it usually means late-season matchups between teams competing for the division title. The Tigers and Twins played each other 7 times in September/October last year, while the Dodgers played two series against both the Rockies and Giants in the last quarter of the season. That’s a good thing.
I think, on the whole, the pros of the unbalanced schedule outweigh the cons.
MLB was in panic mode
after the Year of the Pitcher. Offense is what puts fannies in the seats and because of the change in the strike zone earlier in the ’60’s, offense was dying. If the rules were not changed in 1969 I have a feeling that the umpires would have adjusted the strike zone anyway as they did in the late ’70’s and early 80’s without a rule change until after the fact. That had just as much impact on the game as the 1969 pitching changes.
like i said
MLB wants to keep the offense of the last 15 years but reduce the length of games. how can this be done?
yes, MLB did panic. they should correct their past mistakes.
(and actually, attendance went down from 1968-69.)
Get rid of interleague play
That would be the best solution to the schedule problem (as well as the use/non-use of DH issues that arise). See Wang, C.M.
More in division games means lower travel costs, too. A minor consideration, but I don’t think Yanks-Red Sox is the pure reason.
"Have faith in the Yankees, my son. Think of the great DiMaggio."
1. Raise the mound. Listening to Ronster has really convinced me of this: raising the mound would save careers. If it reduces strain on the pitcher’s shoulder, it’s a good thing.
2. Instant replay. Give each manager 1 appeal each game to an umpire in the booth (who is also the official scorer). It would also speed up the game, because managers wouldn’t be able to come out to argue every bang-bang play. The ump says, “Do you want to use your appeal” and the manager either shuts up or says yes.
3. Give teams more flexibility to move divisions. The Blue Jays missed their window to contend because they were buried in the East. There should be a process by which teams should be allowed to change divisions- pay a transfer fee, work out a deal with another club. The Royals agree to move to the East for 5 years while they rebuild (lots of first round draft picks if you’re getting crushed by the Yanks, BoSox and Rays) and the Jays move to the Central for 5 years. East, West and Central is only 15 years old. It’s changed before, it should change again.
"Have faith in the Yankees, my son. Think of the great DiMaggio."
I don’t like the changing division idea. What if the Red Sox decided to move to the central or west so they wouldn’t have to compete with the Yankees for the division anymore? That would take away one of the biggest drama elements of the season.
Fair point. But it sets up a more likely postseason matchup.
And I don’t see the difference between Yanks Red Sox locked in as East and Central champs vs East and Wild Card. It just changes the calculus for the other teams, forces them to improve to make the postseason.
I honestly believe that competition produces hire quality from competent clubs (Rays, Jays as prime examples).
"Have faith in the Yankees, my son. Think of the great DiMaggio."
Making a mountain out of a mole hill ...
I’ve been yapping about the mound being raised for 3 years on PA … Thanks, Jscape. I also like the instant replay idea. But I don’t like the idea of teams moving divisionally. The futility of the Pirates, Royals and a few other teams has little to do with the division they play in. It has to do with lousy ownership, poor front offices and bad decision making.
Allowing a team to move to another division that’s easier to compete in allows the futility to continue.
Here’s my thoughts. Teams finishing last more than two straight years lose their first pick. Teams receiving monies from big ticket teams must put 100% of that money into the team. Failure to do so results in forfeiture of the funds.
Finally, teams that can’t seem to get it right (Pirates, Royals), go on a list for contraction considerations.
"Baseball is the background music of my life." -George Will
These comments are just my
personal opinions. One can take my opinions and about a $1.50 and get a cup of coffee.
1. Raise the mound works for me. Both because it will make for more effective pitching and probably reduce arm injuries.
2. I happen to like interleague play. Always playing the Mets is merely done for financial reasons. I like playing other National League teams occasionally for the variety.
Unbalanced or balanced schedule I’m basically neutral. Kinda leaning toward a more balanced schedule.
3. Get rid of the DH. I know many here cannot remember when the AL played without a DH. but believe me it did work. I’m a baseball purist enough to believe that one of the defining characteristics of the game is that every player has to play both offense and defense. The DH removes this from the game. I always describe the DH as the spawn of Satan or Charles Finley—take your pick.
"I don't want one of those guys who'll drive in two but let in three every game." Casey Stengel
by tnredneckyankeesfan on Mar 11, 2010 12:37 PM EST reply actions
Good point about inter league. The ‘regional rivals’ are something that would be easy to change. It should be AL division vs NL division.
"Have faith in the Yankees, my son. Think of the great DiMaggio."
every player has to play both offense and defense
Ever hear of a LOOGY? Set-up guy? Closer? It is just not so that every player has to play both offense and defense. The American league uses a “pure” DH and the National league uses a series of pinch hitters. The strategy aspects are a little different under the two sets of rules but both work. The DH idea actually dates back to the ’20s and the National league which considered it but did not adapt it.
Some things that would help
1. Sure, move the mound up 2 inches, that doesn’t seem like a huge deal to me.
2. Move a team from the NL Central to the AL West
3. Either get rid of the DH in the AL or add it to the NL
4. Have interleague series being played all season long.
It’s dumb that there is an unequal number of teams in some of the divisions. You have a higher chance of making the playoffs if you’re in the AL West because you have fewer teams to compete against, and the opposite is true in the NL Central. Move one team to the AL West to balance all the divisions, make the rules for both leagues exactly the same, and have interleague series being played all year to take care of the odd number of teams in each league problem. Baseball is the only sport that is so weird about teams in the opposite leagues playing each other. Also, each team should have at least one series against every team in the opposite league. That way we get to see every team each year.
Off topic
Did you ever get the email to join the PA-CBSSports.com league?
"Have faith in the Yankees, my son. Think of the great DiMaggio."
Raising the mound would reduce arm injuries?
How do we know this? It seems logical? Many facts are counterintuitive. I’m not aware of any evidence that raising the mound would reduce injuries. In the short term, it might increase injuries, as it would change the pitchers’ balance and limb angles due to the steeper incline. This is all speculation.
Based on the changes from lowering the mound in the late 60s it is probably safe to infer that pitch velocities would increase somewhat, but how that translates into fewer injuries escapes me.
by designatedquitter on Mar 11, 2010 1:34 PM EST reply actions
it’s harder to hit pitches that are coming from above you. pitchers wouldn’t have to throw as hard to get people out, plus they would throw fewer pitches because there would be a decrease in offense, so there would be less strain on their arms.
Do you really think they would throw softer to hit the same velocity?
They would throw just as hard, and use gravity/ downward angle for extra velocity. This is exactly what I meant by speculation and intuitive logic. The number of pitches required correlates to strikes. Throwing harder doesn’t mean more strikes, and even if it does, it may change the game in ways not foreseen- more stealing, bunting, hit and run, pitches taken, or whatever. There are too many unintended consequences to say that more velocity equals fewer pitches. The change in mechanics could bring on more injuries, and medium hard throwers could get hurt trying to become really hard throwers. I understand your argument, I just think that there are too many unforseeable consequences to claim reduced injuries.
by designatedquitter on Mar 11, 2010 3:11 PM EST up reply actions
i dont know if velocity would increase
that’s not why i mentioned the idea. it’s more about a greater downward plane on the ball. that in itself would be tougher on hitters, allowing pitchers to throw more pitches in the zone. fewer pitches means less stress on pitchers’ arms.
Injuries ...
Throwing from an downward angle is demonstratively easier on a pitcher’s shoulder than throwing with velocity from a flat surface. Raising the mound would not increase velocity.
I have a number of medical resources and studies that indicate injuries would decline if the mound were to incline. I’d be happy to send them to you if you drop me an email with your address:
rodejo22@yahoo.com
"Baseball is the background music of my life." -George Will
Has anyone done a study
of pitcher injuries for the years on either side of 1969? If there was a large upswing in 1969 & 1970 then the argument that raising the mound would lower injuries may hold water.
Changes
The only logical changes to the game that would not completely change the game would be
DH in the NL and Instant Replay
Raising the mound is pointless. Im not a pitcher but Im sure it will change their mechanics.
Also i feel as if the amount of scoring is at a reasonable amount.
I like the amount of times we play our division rivals. This makes the game interesting. I dont want to play the redsox the same amount of times as I play the royals.
Or- leave the mound where it is, lower the batter's box.
by designatedquitter on Mar 11, 2010 3:35 PM EST reply actions
Get rid of the Mets and the Red Sox.
Send the Pirates to the AL East and force them to spend money (maybe get Wilpon to buy them)
Swap the rest of the AL East for a few others so the Orioles and Jays can contend.
Boom.
Wait…
Master of the squeegee
Raising the mound
Raising the mound would be good for the game, but what draws fans is home runs and RBI’s, and especially now when attendance is down, this is the wrong time to take away from that.
Raise the mound
Raise the mound
It’ll regain the actual look of a Hill again, as it once was in my youth while watching the Yankee pitchers of yore pitch.
I agree..
to 12 inches only, not back to 15.
by Great Gatsby on Mar 12, 2010 9:59 AM EST up reply actions
Rotate divisions
Allow Baltimore, TB, and Toronto to rotate with the five AL Central teams so that every year, three of the eight teams are with the Yanks and Sox and the other five escape them.
Changes to make...
Raise the mound.
Get rid of pitchers hitting.
Get rid of inter-league play.
Still unbalanced, but not as much.
……..and here’s a crazy one. How about re-shuffling ALL divisions every year based on W-L records and always putting the best teams in the same division? This can allow lesser teams to battle it out against each other and possibly have better records to get them into the playoffs and increase fan interest thus getting more fannies in the seats, which in turn can help finance the team to keep getting better.
The better teams would be in exciting games vs other very good and great teams in the division (plus it would be set up to have the better divisions play each other more than playing the lesser divisions). By the time playoffs come around you can have the rounds set up for the lesser teams to get past the better teams in a 7 game series in order to advance. If the lesser teams have really improved, then every once in awhile we should see some great Cinderella stories, plus we’d always have the better teams battling too.
I don’t like putting the best records together, because it takes away the incentive to build a top team to earn the big playoff money. Better to sign a squad of 1 year deals, win the loser division, then let them go and save up the money while you take a losing season in the ‘tough’ division.
"Have faith in the Yankees, my son. Think of the great DiMaggio."
getting rid of DH - NOOOOOO
The one reason why I do not want to get rid of the DH is, I think today the pitcher hitting is an automatic out. It is not exciting at all. Please don’t tell me how a nice succesful sac bunt which happens once very other day is exciting. The game is so specilaized that pitchers don’t hit and can’t hit. The NL should add the DH.
It ruins rallies and it simply boring!
We'll just have to
agree to disagree about the merits of the DH. I will say ths about the DH-or any other change to add offense to the game- don’t be surprised when games take 5 hours to play and have scores that resemble a slow pitch softball game. The game is moved along by making outs. Perhaps there are some of us for whom an automatic out that kills a rally is a good thing,
"I don't want one of those guys who'll drive in two but let in three every game." Casey Stengel
by tnredneckyankeesfan on Mar 12, 2010 10:03 AM EST up reply actions
Modify the DH rule
Give each team the option to either
A. start the game with a DH but lose it as soon as the starting pitcher is removed.
or
B. Start the game without the DH and use it from the 7th inning on.
good pitchers would still hit, good old DH will still play, more pinch hitters and double switches will occur, more young players will get ABs, more strategy , more of a need to get innings out of a starter. It’s win win win for everyone.
by steelerwheeler on Mar 12, 2010 10:20 AM EST up reply actions
The average NL pitcher hit .138/.179/.176 last year, and the average NL pinch hitter “hit” .230/.320/.362. I’m a die-hard baseball fan, but I’m not purist. Watching pitchers hit is completely boring. Pinch-hitters and defensive replacements are almost always, by definition, inferior players who aren’t good enough to start regularly. Why would you want to see more of them?
I think slightly longer games are a reasonable price to pay in exchange for giving a greater number of at-bats to hitters who can actually hit.
That’s just terrible. Terrible.
2 Year experiment...
I would like to see a two year experiment in interleague games. When the AL plays in a National League Park, have the DH, so NL fans get a better idea of AL baseball,
and conversely, vice-versa.
Jack McKeon started pushing for that in 2003 or 2004. I really like the idea.
"Have faith in the Yankees, my son. Think of the great DiMaggio."
Games are too long and boring
I love watching the games but I can’t do it without a DVR. The batter pitcher matchup is way too slow. 90 seconds to throw 6 pitches to a batter (clock stops on contact/foul ball, stolen base attempt). Throw to first, grab the rosin bag, talk to the catcher do whatever you want but if you haven’t delivered 6 pitches by :90 the batter gets awarded a ball. +:30 for every 2 pitches after the initial 6. Batter can step out once per game for no good reason, do it again and get awarded a strike.
Mid-inning pitching changes suck. so, modify the DH rule…change pitchers mid-inning and lose your DH. Do it again and next 2 batter gets a ball, do it again and next 2 batters get 2 bals, etc.
BTW, MLB, 10-4 games are far more boring than 3-1, no one wants to stay tuned in to a blowout especially if your team is on the losing end. Make the strike join electronic with a standard width and bottom height, adjust the top height every week or so to make the average score in that park 8.0 runs per game.
1-ump on the field for continuing plays, everything gets looked at by replay.
by steelerwheeler on Mar 12, 2010 10:12 AM EST reply actions
pitching mound
The 15" mound did not work well in the 1960s. Bob Gibson’s and Sandy Koufax’s numbers were aided by that height, and offense plummeted then. Remember when Yaz was the only .300 hitter, and barely so? I know that Tim McCarver (who caught Gibson) wants the 15" mound back, but it helped impair the game. The New York Times magazine had a satire in which the league leader had a .121 average and most games went into extra innings before anyone scored. Comebacks are stirring, but they become rare when the pitcher has a greater advantage than now. Do not forget that the 15" mound helped compensate for bandboxes like Shibe Park and Ebbetts Field. I don’t think we are going to return to that sized ballpark, where a 15" mound might have been fair.
i didn't say 15"
i said 12", only a 2" difference.
btw, why did it take 66 years for the 15" mound to become a problem? it began in 1903, offense spiked in the 20s, 30s and 50s, then dropped in the 60s. it wasn’t because of the mound, which was the same for decades before then. i dont know the answer, but i do know MLB completely overcompensated.
Moving teams around en masse from division to division is crazy unworkable.
It’s tough enough to draw up a schedule now- teams are already complaining about cross- country flights, 2 game series, and day games after night games on the road. The idea of rivalries goes right out the window if teams keep switching divisions. Also, rotating teams around greatly increases travel costs. Suppose Oakland and Seattle rotate into the East- do you really want to stay up to 1:30 a.m. to see 19 games? Do the Yankees want to make 3 (or more) road trips to the west coast? I think not.
Finally, when you selfishly put the teams you want to see in the Yankees division, what do you call the division that gets stuck with the teams you don’t want? The American League Crap Division?
by designatedquitter on Mar 12, 2010 12:59 PM EST reply actions
yeah
this idea i heard on MLBN is ridiculous. teams would change divisions every year?!
ok, let’s say that’s the plan: which teams would it be? how would MLB choose? what would be the point?
it would be SO much easier to just eliminate the divisions and play a balanced schedule. then every team, from the lowly Royals to the mighty Yankees would play every team the same amount. no complaining that certain teams get tougher or easier schedules. comparing the Rays WP to the Twins wouldn’t be apples and oranges anymore.
and if we’re going to go with a ‘winner’ and ‘loser’ division, why not do something like the EPL? have the top 15 teams from last year play each other in one division all year. the top 4-8 teams make the playoffs. the bottom 5 teams get relegated to the ‘loser’ division (where no one makes the playoffs. but if you need playoffs, have the winners go to the premier division). the top 5 (or champs) from the loser division make the premier division the next season. not only would that ensure competitive balance by making the best teams play each other all year, but would also make the loser division exciting by seeing who can get promoted to play with the big boys AND make the bottom teams of the premier division play hard all year to avoid relegation.
its great as a natural check and balance. if Team X decides to drop its spending one year and goes in the tank, they can play other poor teams and still maintain a decent record. but if they decide to increase spending, they’ll have to play against the top competition.
anyway, that’s how it works in Europe.
Interleague Play
Get rid of it if you balance the schedule. It can make a difference in wildcard chase if a National league team had to play the Yankees and the Red Sox and their wild card rival got to play the Royals and the Indians.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
