Sign in to follow this  
fletch44

2020 Rule Changes (3 batter minimum, DH in NL, etc.)

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, FantasyGeek2018 said:

Baseball is only alive for kids today from fantasy and this will be another blow to real baseball fans. Keep the DH in the fake league only

Yes, clearly the only possibly explanation is every single person who wants universal DH isn't a real baseball fan. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AnonymousRob said:

Yes, clearly the only possibly explanation is every single person who wants universal DH isn't a real baseball fan. 

Thank you

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, FantasyGeek2018 said:

Baseball is only alive for kids today from fantasy and this will be another blow to real baseball fans. Keep the DH in the fake league only

 

The Simpsons - Old Man Yells At Cloud - YouTube

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, AnonymousRob said:

Yes, clearly the only possibly explanation is every single person who wants universal DH isn't a real baseball fan. 

Yeah I love coming here and having my baseball fan creds dumped on because I don't like old timey baseball when just a bunch of ill-conditioned, out of shape, chain smoking white guys only played back in the "real days" of baseball.

I mean come on man.  There are people over 50 years old who do NOT remember there not being a DH in baseball.  This isn't some new fad.  The DH is a long time and honored tradition at this point. 

It is a hard position to play well too.  Something that so-called baseball fans that avoided half of all teams over a half century don't even understand.  A DH doesn't just sit like a bump on a log between AB's or he fails.  He has to know when to hit the batting cage and when, in every other year than this, to hit the videos etc.  It's a mentally tough position and one some of the NL batters taking on the role will struggle with some at the beginning.  There were many failed AL batters in the beginning who couldn't handle the challenge.  But go ahead and give up your personal definition of what baseball is if you want.  Me, I'm thrilled the rules will finally be the freaking same and the NL will become interesting again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every anti-DH argument I hear always revolves around the word "should". Pitchers should have to hit, hitters should have to field, that's the way the game should be played, etc.

Are there actually arguments that no DH makes the game better/more entertaining? The DH prolongs careers of great hitters, makes fantasy baseball more fun, helps SP to go deeper into games, eliminates the rally-killing intentional walk to the 8th batter with the .600 OPS, and so on.

Also, why are the anti-DH folks also against the 3-batter minimum? It reduces specialization too. Is it that it doesn't go far enough? Maybe a 27-batter minimum would be better? If your pitcher gets hurt, tough, you forfeit. Bring back the spirit of Old Hoss Radbourn!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, SpartyOn4 said:

Every anti-DH argument I hear always revolves around the word "should". Pitchers should have to hit, hitters should have to field, that's the way the game should be played, etc.

Are there actually arguments that no DH makes the game better/more entertaining? The DH prolongs careers of great hitters, makes fantasy baseball more fun, helps SP to go deeper into games, eliminates the rally-killing intentional walk to the 8th batter with the .600 OPS, and so on.

Also, why are the anti-DH folks also against the 3-batter minimum? It reduces specialization too. Is it that it doesn't go far enough? Maybe a 27-batter minimum would be better? If your pitcher gets hurt, tough, you forfeit. Bring back the spirit of Old Hoss Radbourn!

Quite a few arguments center around the idea the game is better with pitchers hitting because something something more strategy. 

 

Of course they're also against the 3 batter minimum even though the same logic would apply in making the game use more strategy, so I think there's no real argument aside from disliking any change.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully the expanded playoffs don't last.  Do we really need to have the teams like the Brewers in the playoffs?  They have Ryon Healy, Orlando Arcia and Jedd Gyrko as the heart of their lineup again Kershaw.  Someone called Tyrone Taylor in RF.  This is a bad team.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AnonymousRob said:

Quite a few arguments center around the idea the game is better with pitchers hitting because something something more strategy. 

 

I have a confession: I used to be an anti-DH "pitchers are baseball players" purist.  I grew up in an NL city, and I'm guessing most people who grew up watching NL teams are the same way, and that one's position on the issue is heavily influenced by the arguments they read in their local newspaper and heard from their local announcers.  And one of the reasons I cited was the strategic implications of the pitcher spot and having to decide if a single PA is worth having to go to your pen early.  But you know who doesn't give a wet fart about any of that?  Pretty much any fan that the MLB is desperately trying to reach right now to save itself from the demographic disaster it's headed toward if it doesn't find a way to expand its audience.

That's really what this is about to me.  On the one side, a relatively low-stakes strategy game more like tic-tac-toe than it is chess.  On the other side, a public that is generally indifferent to baseball that wants to see some action when they do tune in. If baseball doesn't get more fans watching, it won't exist in a few decades when the olds die off.  This doesn't mean you blindly accept any change that increases interest, but it does mean that the bar for evidence that a change is bad is very high, and the burden of proof on those that want to cling to tradition.  And the arguments against the DH don't come close to clearing that bar.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The strategy of pulling the pitcher for a pinch hitter is overstated. It's not compelling strategy. It's barely strategic. It doesn't make the game better. It's just something a certain group of people are use to and want to preserve because they've always had it.

 

How about the strategy of identifying good hitters and deploying them properly? As a fan of an NL team, sure is nice to have a shot to score runs at the bottom of the lineup now instead of tunning out because theres 2 outs, the 8th hitter is up and after that the pitcher is hitting.

Edited by brockpapersizer
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, tonycpsu said:

 

I have a confession: I used to be an anti-DH "pitchers are baseball players" purist.  I grew up in an NL city, and I'm guessing most people who grew up watching NL teams are the same way, and that one's position on the issue is heavily influenced by the arguments they read in their local newspaper and heard from their local announcers.  And one of the reasons I cited was the strategic implications of the pitcher spot and having to decide if a single PA is worth having to go to your pen early.  But you know who doesn't give a wet fart about any of that?  Pretty much any fan that the MLB is desperately trying to reach right now to save itself from the demographic disaster it's headed toward if it doesn't find a way to expand its audience.

That's really what this is about to me.  On the one side, a relatively low-stakes strategy game more like tic-tac-toe than it is chess.  On the other side, a public that is generally indifferent to baseball that wants to see some action when they do tune in. If baseball doesn't get more fans watching, it won't exist in a few decades when the olds die off.  This doesn't mean you blindly accept any change that increases interest, but it does mean that the bar for evidence that a change is bad is very high, and the burden of proof on those that want to cling to tradition.  And the arguments against the DH don't come close to clearing that bar.

 

Baseball won't go away...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one rule-change I've always thought would be a good idea, that I don't think is even a notion at this point, is a "# of pitcher minimum" in a nine inning game.

 

Speeding up the game and marketing the game to millennials is one thing. But the starting pitcher is dying. An "opener" or a "bullpen" game was a cool idea when it was first implemented. But it's killing the starting pitcher, which has always been a staple of the sport.

 

My proposal: Teams are only allowed to use 4 pitchers (or 5, I'm not set on a specific #) in a nine-inning game. You pull your pitcher after 5 innings, let alone 2 or 3 there, and there are consequences. Make it an advantage for a team when its starting pitcher goes 8 and 2/3 innings. Then you can mix and match to your heart's content to get the last four outs. But if your pitcher can only eke out 5 innings then, well, as opposed to having a cadre of relievers you can deploy over the next 4 innings, then you've got a tougher road ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, My Dinner With Andre said:

The one rule-change I've always thought would be a good idea, that I don't think is even a notion at this point, is a "# of pitcher minimum" in a nine inning game.

 

Speeding up the game and marketing the game to millennials is one thing. But the starting pitcher is dying. An "opener" or a "bullpen" game was a cool idea when it was first implemented. But it's killing the starting pitcher, which has always been a staple of the sport.

 

My proposal: Teams are only allowed to use 4 pitchers (or 5, I'm not set on a specific #) in a nine-inning game. You pull your pitcher after 5 innings, let alone 2 or 3 there, and there are consequences. Make it an advantage for a team when its starting pitcher goes 8 and 2/3 innings. Then you can mix and match to your heart's content to get the last four outs. But if your pitcher can only eke out 5 innings then, well, as opposed to having a cadre of relievers you can deploy over the next 4 innings, then you've got a tougher road ahead.


Sorry but the evolution of pitching usage is upon us and you’re just going to have to get use to it.

 

A team already has an advantage if their starter can go 7-8 innings. That will never change.

If you reduce pitchers to 4-5 in a game , that’s not really going to stop teams from having bullpen games. Also I imagine we’d see some fake injuries to preserve more pitchers used.

 

I don’t hate starters. I like pitchers who can go many innings. It’s more of the pitcher who aren’t able to see going to be supplanted more and teams are learning much more efficient bullpen usage. That’s only going to accelerate.

The numbers just bare out that not many pitchers are able to successfully go through a lineup three times as we once thought. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/1/2020 at 5:31 PM, SpartyOn4 said:

Every anti-DH argument I hear always revolves around the word "should". Pitchers should have to hit, hitters should have to field, that's the way the game should be played, etc.

Are there actually arguments that no DH makes the game better/more entertaining? The DH prolongs careers of great hitters, makes fantasy baseball more fun, helps SP to go deeper into games, eliminates the rally-killing intentional walk to the 8th batter with the .600 OPS, and so on.

Also, why are the anti-DH folks also against the 3-batter minimum? It reduces specialization too. Is it that it doesn't go far enough? Maybe a 27-batter minimum would be better? If your pitcher gets hurt, tough, you forfeit. Bring back the spirit of Old Hoss Radbourn!

I've always found NL baseball to be more entertaining to watch. I have a hard time watching the constant NYY-BOS games they put on Sunday night baseball, as the strategical part of baseball seems more watered down in the AL. Unfortunately it seems the NL is slowly trending in that direction as well over the last few years, but I'd much rather watch a lower scoring game where runs are "manufactured" over a HR derby, and lower scoring games seem to be more common in pre-DH NL games. I don't personally have anything against the DH from a baseball purist perspective, as I think guys like Ortiz and Nelly should be first ballot HOF'ers, I just don't want AB's to continue to trend into all or nothing events. I'd prefer the sport move towards a more contact/ball in play geared game rather than who hits more HR's. I've honestly never understood the appeal of HR's actually, if you've seen one, you've seen them all.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mavsfan23 said:

I don't personally have anything against the DH from a baseball purist perspective, as I think guys like Ortiz and Nelly should be first ballot HOF'ers, I just don't want AB's to continue to trend into all or nothing events.

 

Batters changing their approach is for the most part a response to the rise in defensive shifting and the fact that pitchers are throwing harder. I don't think there's any meaningful connection between the institution of DHs and the trend toward fewer balls in play and "three true outcome" play.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, tonycpsu said:

Batters changing their approach is for the most part a response to the rise in defensive shifting and the fact that pitchers are throwing harder. I don't think there's any meaningful connection between the institution of DHs and the trend toward fewer balls in play and "three true outcome" play.

Totally agree.  The DH has been around for nearly 50 years now.  It is only in the last handful of years that the elevate the ball and go for it all to defeat the modern shifts has happened.  DH-ing has zero to do with the three true outcome crap.  Period. 

To get rid of the three true outcome boring play that is helping destroy baseball you have to find a way to limit defensive shifts.  Which I do see coming sooner than later because those shifts are what is destroying baseball.  The suggestions of having to keep at least two infielders on both sides of second base and other ideas have been coming to the fore more and more.  I'm sure that soon the pressure will force a change.  Can't come soon enough.

If you look at past great DHs like Edgar and Big Papi they hit .300.  Ortiz hated the shifts that were starting to come in at the end of his career.  He said he was losing singles and doubles because of them and they cut into his batting average that he was proud of.  The softball-like shallow right fielder aka the former second basemen cost him dearly.  He tried going opposite field but it messed up his swing and timing more than he could afford.  It's the endless shifts that force great hitters, whether a DH or a third basement or whatever, to play the elevate the ball and go for it all game.  They never wanted it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mavsfan23 said:

I've always found NL baseball to be more entertaining to watch. I have a hard time watching the constant NYY-BOS games they put on Sunday night baseball, as the strategical part of baseball seems more watered down in the AL. Unfortunately it seems the NL is slowly trending in that direction as well over the last few years, but I'd much rather watch a lower scoring game where runs are "manufactured" over a HR derby, and lower scoring games seem to be more common in pre-DH NL games.

 

Yup...  The Braves victory in extra-innings over the Reds that was 1-0 was EONS better than the Yankees-Indians game that took almost five hours...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, posty said:

 

Yup...  The Braves victory in extra-innings over the Reds that was 1-0 was EONS better than the Yankees-Indians game that took almost five hours...

Agreed! And both had a DH 😎

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, posty said:

 

Yup...  The Braves victory in extra-innings over the Reds that was 1-0 was EONS better than the Yankees-Indians game that took almost five hours...

 

Well posty, you remind me of C. Thomas Howell in Red Dawn; just one little guy standing there taking on that giant helicopter.   It’s a pretty tough battle arguing over preferences because to each his own, but I thought I’d show you some solidarity because I feel the same way you do.   I guess it likens us to old men yelling at the clouds who favor chain-smoking unconditioned guys or whatever it was I read upstream.   I wonder if thirty years from now when more changes are being made some of the other guys will become the old men yelling at the clouds.   “Dammit!   Players should be 100% human!   Having cyborgs might be more entertaining but it screws up the game!”

Actually that might be interesting if it was just the home run derby.  At any rate I’m with you posty!

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mbc1999 said:

 

Well posty, you remind me of C. Thomas Howell in Red Dawn; just one little guy standing there taking on that giant helicopter.   It’s a pretty tough battle arguing over preferences because to each his own, but I thought I’d show you some solidarity because I feel the same way you do.   I guess it likens us to old men yelling at the clouds who favor chain-smoking unconditioned guys or whatever it was I read upstream.   I wonder if thirty years from now when more changes are being made some of the other guys will become the old men yelling at the clouds.   “Dammit!   Players should be 100% human!   Having cyborgs might be more entertaining but it screws up the game!”

Actually that might be interesting if it was just the home run derby.  At any rate I’m with you posty!

 

:lol: at the C. Thomas Howell scene...  That is a really good description...

:lol: at cyborgs as well...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we want small ball to return, Manfred is going to have to ban shifts and implement rules making it easier to steal. It's not the DH that is causing the lack of small ball, and anyone who argues that as the reason loses a lot of credibility in my eyes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of rule changes to attract millennials.. when will baseball finally get cheerleaders?

 

6C119277-072E-48AD-ACF2-30D4DEF9407E.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, AnonymousRob said:

If we want small ball to return, Manfred is going to have to ban shifts and implement rules making it easier to steal. It's not the DH that is causing the lack of small ball, and anyone who argues that as the reason loses a lot of credibility in my eyes.

Would be easier to not paying contracts that are based partially on HR. Pay off OBP and other metrics that smallball favors. Players would change for the bigger contracts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/3/2020 at 6:45 PM, Backdoor Slider said:

Agreed! And both had a DH 😎

 

Yeah the 1-for-10 that game for the DH was "thrilling"...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, posty said:

 

Yeah the 1-for-10 that game for the DH was "thrilling"...

They were pretending they were elite pitching hitters. Trying to fit in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/4/2020 at 11:26 AM, AnonymousRob said:

If we want small ball to return, Manfred is going to have to ban shifts and implement rules making it easier to steal. It's not the DH that is causing the lack of small ball, and anyone who argues that as the reason loses a lot of credibility in my eyes.

 

I believe it was teams recognizing that unless a player can steal at >70% success it wasn't worth it in terms of run expectancy. Having data on hitters spray charts brought about the shift. Data for starting pitchers the third time through the order is why so many only go 5-6 IP now.

It's all this info that teams didn't have before that's changed the game and pushed it towards the 3 outcomes (BB, K, HR). And I agree that this has probably been a negative impact on MLB popularity. 

Will be interesting to see if MLB feels they need new rules like banning shifts to make up for this or will they allow players and the league time to adjust on their own.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this