https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/he...201839440.html
So making pitchers keep the ball up = more dingers and action, not necessarily speeding up the game.
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/he...201839440.html
So making pitchers keep the ball up = more dingers and action, not necessarily speeding up the game.
and starting every extra inning with a man on 2B. Interesting..... will have to give this some thought but as a 20 inning game survivor, I don't think I'd be wholly against it.
https://sports.yahoo.com/news/mlb-pl...224914115.html
Starting an inning with a gimme runner is possibly the worst idea in the history of human civilization. And yes, I am including the invention of both the Snuggie and the selfie stick. A slapstick sitcom set inside Buchenwald would be a better idea and probably even piss off fewer people.
These kind of gimmicks should be avoided like the plague. What is next ? A home run hitting contest after 12 innings ? Look to speed the game up in other ways , but stay away from this kind of thing.
I think it would be much better to have the two Managers play Russian Roulette to decide things. Fans would stay to watch that.
"Hating the Yankees like it's a religion since 94'" RIP Mike.
"It's also a simple and indisputable fact that WAR isn't the be-all end-all in valuations, especially in real life. Wanna know why? Because an ace in run-prevention for 120 innings means more often than not, a sub-standard pitcher covering for the rest of the IP that pitcher fails to provide. You can't see value in a vacuum when a player does not provide full-time production."
I'm okay with the auto IBB, but that's minor.
Just speed up the time between pitches and enforce it.
Maybe try to cut down on the time between RP'ers somehow.
I'd like to restrict how many RP'ers you can use, but that seems too extreme and changes the game too much. That's where much of the "wasted time" comes from.
Changes are coming. It's not us they're worried about losing, it's the younger generation raised on internet and smartphones.
But they're NOT losing their audience. Baseball is making more money than it EVER has.
What we have here is executives guessing themselves into an early grave and making panic moves as a result. They're afraid that their fortunes are tied into an older generation and that as the years go on demographics will shift against them. They're ignoring the fact that baseball is the sport with THE greatest historical legacy of any major sport in North America, and only lost its primacy because of the strikes in the 90's followed by the idiocy of the league looking the other way vis-a-vis steroids in an effort to build the league's image back up afterward, which backfired explosively in the early 2000s.
Just give us baseball, cut the BS, and people will not only watch, but disillusioned fans (and their kids) will come back. All they need to do is cut the bullcrap they themselves keep trying to insert into the game. They seem constitutionally incapable of reaching that solution though..
Fortunately we have enough older execs that have seen generation shifts before that I have my doubts any truly radical changes will be made. A few more strikes called at the letters however is probably a good thing, since that's, you know, the actual strike zone, and I have no idea why umpires were allowed to reduce the strike zone to belt-to-knees as it is.
If history tells us anything, the path to redeption for any bad baseball team is marked with a deep rotation of durable starters, a world class defense in both infield and outfield, a lineup that can generate runs in more than one way, a bullpen that won't steal defeat from the jaws of victory, and a top end catcher to hold the whole package together. These are the conditions by which victory is achieved, anything that does not accomplish these objectives is a waste of resources.