Printable View
Watching a bit of AA ball on television, and they have a strange rule that I've never heard of. When in extra innings, they put a runner on second base to start the inning. How long has that rule been in effect? Seems more like tee ball to me than professional baseball.
Wow. Never knew that. It does seem "t-ball" ish....,,,
I believe they started that rule either this year or a couple of years ago. I think it was one of the pace of play enhancements to make the game more enjoyable to fans. I'm not a big fan of it.
The minors are being used as guinea pigs for proposed rule changes to mlb. Once they decide to go to the electronic umpire calling balls and strikes, they'll use the minor leagues to work out any issues.
It's a rule in MLB too. It's to speed up the game.
Originated in softball. Been doing it there forever.
The game I'm watching (Trash Pandas vs Tennessee Smokies) is now in the bottom of the 13th. The Smokies have gone through 7 pitchers, and have put a catcher in. He throws a 59 mph ball (apparently the other relievers were out because of pitch count) - game just ended in a walk-off home run on the slow pitcher. Final score 12-8.
Not sure the rule sped the game up. Each team scored just about every time, so doesn't seem like anything gained. Hopefull it's just an experiment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd4State
Dang - they're getting soft. Friend told me the other day that Atlanta was going to play a double-header, but they were 7 inning games. They don't even do that in college ball (maybe in special circumstances). They just need to play the game as intended.
I'm curious to see how moving the mound back a foot works in their experiments later this summer.
61' 6" is an absolute no-brainer in my opinion. And heavily suspend pitchers using substances that hugely increase spin-rates
I suspect that'll make a huge difference. Never thought much about it but if asked I would have assumed the pitcher's mound was the intersection of lines between 1st and 3rd, and home plate and 2nd. Hope they don't change the basepath length - 90 feet is perfect for a lot of close plays. They're screwing with the game too much, I think. It's not like changing the 3-point line and other changes in basketball - that's a no-brainer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rex54
Analytics has absolutely ruined sports in many ways. The front offices are smart though so the game needs to incentivize balls in play. Move the mound back, police foreign substances ruthlessly, ban the infield shift.Quote:
Originally Posted by RocketDawg
Been for 2 seasons in AA Ball/ It does make it more interesting though and you do get alot of plays at the plate. I like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by RocketDawg
That's a red line that will kill baseball forever. I don't like the man-on-second-in-extras rule, but banning the shift would be 1,000 times worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rex54
Learn to spray all over the field, or even just to bunt well, and you'll never get shifted on.
However, moving back the mound makes sense. Putting the pitching rubber at the exact center of the basepaths seems so logical that I bet most people assume that that's where it is already.
"You have to have two infielders on either side of these lines when the ball is pitched" is not some drastic phenomena. I'd much rather have than than the man-on-2nd in extra innings gimmick.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quaoarsking
As a good liberal, do you not feel that left handed hitters are severely discriminated against and certainly financially hurt because of the shift incentives?
banning the infield shift would be stupid. You can line up on D however you want. Moving the mound back a foot would be a good move. Putting someone on base that hasnt earned it is bullshit.
Everything about this post is correct. I think it's extremely bad territory to start telling teams how they can line up defensively. I think we should limit the number of defensive backs a football team puts on the field because teams are having too much trouble passing the football. Doesn't that sound stupid?Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach34
And putting a free runner on 2nd is complete garbage. I hate that. I'm not a huge fan of the mound move, but baseball as we know it now is ugly. Homers and strikeouts. That's about all you get.
Rob Manfred is ruining the game. Can't stand the guy.
No, I feel that right-handed hitters are discriminated against because they have to run an extra step to get to first base**Quote:
Originally Posted by Rex54
Ted Williams could beat the shift. Modern players can man up and do so too.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-conte...hift1013-1.jpg
I agree. He needs to be fired. He's trying to change too much at the same time. And a lot of it is unnecessary. Like what we're talking about with the runner on second. Others have talked about moving the mound back. He also wants to make the bases bigger, put the DH in the National League, and then the seven inning doubleheaders are trash. Then you have the double hook rule where you take out your DH if you make a pitching change. And then there is the three batter minimum for relief pitchers now. And it's always about "pace of the game."Quote:
Originally Posted by Commercecomet24
What I think the biggest problem is with baseball right now is the lack of offense. And I think that goes back to the philosophy of pulling everything. Somehow along the way some of these hitting coaches started to convince people that it was OK to strike out a ton because if you could hit 20 home runs a year while hitting .215 with 200K's you could make 3 million. I think what I would try to do is have private hitting instructors get MLB certified where they have to go to a class for a week or two to learn from pro coaches how to teach hitting and how to teach hitters to use the whole field and then have MLB evaluate their teaching every other year or so to keep the certification. Once you do that it will decrease shifts and create more offense naturally over time. I'd also create a Willie Mays award which awards the best player statistically OPS and most SB to encourage players to become more well rounded.
It is better for an offense to hit for power and XBH than to slap the ball around and amass singles. That is part of the change across baseball. But what has also happened is that pitching has become much better and far more specialized. Pitchers are throwing much harder, with much more spin, and bullpens are much deeper than they ever have been. And you're seeing more unfavorable L/L and R/R matchups as hitters. Even with all of that, runs scored have not dipped, even as K's have skyrocketed and shifts are now common. Why? Because it actually is true that hitting for more power is better, even if it does come with increased K's, and to offset the increase in K's, you need to make your contact count.
None of this is a result of bad teachers or hitters that just don't care. Everyone is simply dealing with the reality of increasing talent and teaching tools. Hitting right now is much harder than it's ever been.
I disagree with this premise. There is causation in this that is hurting the game. One being is what is working at MLB trickle downs to dads and ?hitting coaches? of 8-12 year olds and that creates a ton of bad swings and approaches at the plate. I hear it and see it all the time with other lessons going on around me at the field. I also hear the frustration of the kid that hit a double over the weekend but K?d 8 times and the parent is up their ass about the K. That?s the swing you are teaching them parents. You are losing good potential players because mentally at the plate it destroys their love for the game. Kids want to make contact over striking out 100 times out of a 100.Quote:
Originally Posted by smootness
The other issue is this, there are only so many players with actual power potential...but everybody else can train to be good contact hitters. There are more players that could have good contact skills actually training to increase power that won?t ever come. Why take a kid that makes great contact and change their swing to where the best they will do is hit some doubles, fly / line out a lot more because they hit to OF depth now and triple their K?s, trying to bomb something.
Learn the absolutes of what makes a great swing, work on reading and timing the pitcher and then timing the speed of the ball, work on reading spin, and mental approach of what actually works at the plate. As they grow and learn to square up the ball you can make adjustments to play into their ability for power but you hear it even in MLB telecast about how many guys struggle with learning to stay inside the ball and drive everything back to the middle of the pitch location.
And what exactly would be wrong in having a team of Tony Gywnn?s? Why is that not a big standard for players. I also beat the ever living crap out of teams if I have 9 of those vs what you are trying to do offensively.
Bunting beats the shift and will kill it for the most part but one of the biggest problem is the analytics against bunting do not factor in that 1) those numbers are for MLB grown men where they never applied shifts in the equation and 2) it still works very well in lower levels of ball...exponentially works better the lower you go. But it?s not taught at all or what is taught is wrong and trash. And the player gets to try it in soft BP for 3-5 pitches. That?s it. Then they hit 175 balls in the cage. You want to bunt better which would change the analytics about it as well, you have to actually bunt a ton and go live just like you do for hitting. It will work in lower levels if you teach and practice actual bunting. I mean sac bunting (not squaring up in a goofy position while the pitcher and catcher are looking in the dugout for a sign and the defense is being changed because you squared around 10 min early), drag bunt, push bunt, slash...you do that about 10 straight times and the shift suddenly is not seen near as much.
ETA. All of this is coming from a guy who takes analytics seriously and applies it but the game is not pure analytics either and it has flaws. And as a coach it’s your job to know how to beat analytic driven teams as well.
One of the best posts, I've ever read on here. You nailed it brother. In my 20+ years of coaching, I've watched the game evolve to where to many coaches are teaching nothing to hitters but try to hit hrs and pitchers nothing but throw hard. I've had this same discussion recently with a retired mlb player who runs a baseball academy now. Fundamentals are not being taught, especially at the younger levels.Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Clark?
I think they should speed up the pace of the game, but the way to do that is not to change a bunch of rules, but to speed up the pace of the game. Put pitchers on a clock. The tweet with the two pitchers side by side from like the 80's and now was enlightening. Get pitchers pitching at a reasonable speed first and then see if anything else needs to be done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd4State
It amazes me that we have almost eliminated hitting as an art. Charley Lau is rolling over in his grave.Quote:
Originally Posted by Commercecomet24
And while you have the pitcher on a clock, you need the hitter on one too. Too much time spent adjusting cups and batting gloves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnson85
Another easy way to speed up the pace of play is to eliminate commercials in TV coverage. Going from 3 minutes to 2 minutes between innings a couple of years ago helped. But, they need to just eliminate that and do split screen adds or handle like MLS/EPL. Same for pitching changes. And when you make change, drop warm ups to 5 pitches so they get a feel of the mound - they just warmed up in the pen, they don't need 10 more pitches.
Very good post. Because pitching is so far ahead "swing hard in case you hit it" provides the optimal results. Moving the mound back and banning the shift moves the incentives towards line drives and balls in play, not "teaching approaches". Banning the substances that massively increase spin rate is a mustQuote:
Originally Posted by smootness
I absolutely love the idea of a universal DH but you lose the DH spot when your THIRD pitcher enters the game.
I'm not a fan of the launch angle era. Not because the premise behind it isn't ok, but I get tired of watching the shift eat up guys that are basically just pulling the ball. Go hit .220 with 20 HRs and you're an all star now. It's bad baseball. The idea you should never bunt is bullshit too. HRs are cool, but hitting into the shift the whole game sucks.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Cooterpoot again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cooterpoot
Been in international rules for yearsQuote:
Originally Posted by RocketDawg
https://www.si.com/mlb/2021/04/08/ml...nd%20no%20outs.
MLB does it and the 7 inning double header rule during the regular season only. Both were put in for the pandemic and may not stick around but from this article those guys loved it.
Saying 'what would be wrong with a team of Tony Gwynn's?' is like asking 'what would be wrong with a team of Barry Bonds?' Tony Gwynn was a freak of nature in his ability to hit. You don't teach that. If a guy can hit like Tony Gwynn, I promise no one is going to tell him to swing for the fences more and K more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Clark?
And you act like everyone is out there hitting .220 with 40 bombs. There are plenty of really good hitters out there who have a good approach, make consistent contact, and know what they're doing, just as many as there ever were. My main point is that the change is at the very least not only a change in approach. Part of the change in approach was necessitated by an increase in pitching quality. Pitchers are now much harder to hit, on average, than they've ever been. Hitters didn't just decide to start striking out more; it's actually harder to hit a pitched baseball now because pitchers are better and more specialized. So to combat that, they even more need their contact to count.
Guys are still trying to decrease K's and make more contact, but they're more focused on the kind of contact they're making than they've been before, which is a positive change. Craig Counsell didn't strike out as much as hitters today...great. He also made weak contact, so he still didn't have great BAs and did little damage when he hit the ball. He was able to get on base, so he was useful in some ways but was negligible as a hitter. Dansby Swanson is a guy who is somewhat similar in today's game - he K's more, but he makes better contact, so his BA is pretty similar, and even though he doesn't walk as much, the additional damage he does when he makes contact makes him a slightly better hitter than Counsell was.
Smootness made a 30+ on the ACT, that I can predict.
You missed the entire point of the Gwynn analogy. He could have chosen and if he was being taught like a lot of kids today, he would be a .260-.275 hitter trying to add another 10-15 hr. He had more power but would have had to make changes to his swing to achieve that. He loved hitting and squaring up the ball by staying on plane and driving it where it’s pitched. That is getting harder and harder to find being taught. That would also drive down the shift being used. During BP and games as well one of his favorite things to do is to square up a ball so well on time that he knocks the spin off the ball.Quote:
Originally Posted by smootness
Pitchers are harder to hit, no question. But what my issue is not an adult making a change during their pro career to the big league level because that is what the organization wants and most are fairly advanced as a starting point. As I said it’s what that it is being taught down through the younger ages and is losing potential really good hitters from the game. I see and hear it from dads and supposed hitting coaches all the time while I’m out there, that everyone has to be working strictly for max power swings. And that is an incorrect as can be and bad mechanics for these to generate the power that many are being pushed to achieve.
Furthermore, what swing mechanics would actually work better for these harder throwers is a shorter simple compact swing that is designed for line drives to the pitch location. It works and there are those who are starting to simplify swings at higher levels of travel because the contact to power ratio was too skewed in the negative. But that also takes the player (and parent) buying in that instead of what they were trying to accomplish developing bad swing mechanics, which led to bad AB’s, which led to frustration for the player...etc.
Learn the CORRECT absolutes in swing mechanics first. Once the player is advanced as a hitter and gets older, then you can see what power they have and adjust to play to that more
And my argument in relation to Gwynn is that he 100% would not have been a .265 hitter had he been taught like kids today. He was an otherworldly hitter. Sure, if he was specifically trying to add loft and power, his average likely would have dipped. But it wouldn't have dipped much. Because his eye, reaction time, and hand-eye coordination skills were all truly elite. It wouldn't have mattered what he was trying to do at the plate, he would have done it at an elite level. That was my point and why I brought up Barry Bonds. I could use Barry Bonds to support the idea that adding power is a good strategy because he was an all-time great hitter and destroyed the ball, but that would be a bad argument because Barry Bonds could have also been Tony Gwynn if he had wanted to. Some guys are just elite and will be elite no matter what. It's not like no one tries to stay on plane and be a contact hitter who sprays singles. You see them in HS and college, and some in the pros; but part of the problem is that it is becoming harder to square balls up and spray it where you want because pitchers are so good. So if it's going to be hard to hit it no matter what, you might as well try to do some damage when you get a hold of one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Clark?
You may have a point about younger kids, but that's on youth coaches, it's not on baseball as a whole or guys at the MLB level. They're doing what is in their best interest to do.
Banning the shift because the shift is just too hard for some hitters to deal with would be as ridiculous as banning curveballs because they're just too hard for some hitters to deal with.
If defenses lose the absolute right to put their 7 fielders ANYWHERE on the field, it's not baseball anymore.