MLB to experiment starting runner at 2B in extras in the minors (rookie league)
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
I understand what they are trying to do, but I don't like it either. I'm okay with the 18 inning game.
Bad idea.
It is not only a gimmick but it only seems to further the advantage for the home team, especially assuming they get out of the inning not giving up a run. The road team has an incentive to not give up outs and try to get to two or more runs (because one hit gets that person in anyway, and if you only get one it is too easy to tie in the bottom of the inning on the sacrifices, so you really need to shoot for two).
And then, again, If the road team fails the home team is a couple of sacrifices away.
It is not only a gimmick but it only seems to further the advantage for the home team, especially assuming they get out of the inning not giving up a run. The road team has an incentive to not give up outs and try to get to two or more runs (because one hit gets that person in anyway, and if you only get one it is too easy to tie in the bottom of the inning on the sacrifices, so you really need to shoot for two).
And then, again, If the road team fails the home team is a couple of sacrifices away.
How can someone who played/ has a life in baseball think this was a good idea?
Also, on some level I get the pace of play thing, but I also think once you're in extra innings everyone is on the same page that that goes out the window. What does this really solve, and how does it even solve it?
Also, on some level I get the pace of play thing, but I also think once you're in extra innings everyone is on the same page that that goes out the window. What does this really solve, and how does it even solve it?
What's next? They go to an HR Derby if it's still tied after 11? Blech....I'd rather have ties. And I'd reallyreallyreallyreally hate it if they went to allowing ties.
The reality is keeping pitchers healthy is hard, it's gotten a lot harder, and nobody's really sure how to do it right in the first place. It's in nobodies best interest for years of solid team-building to get tossed to the wayside by a couple years of bad injury luck, and the beloved 18-inning games are brutal outliers that blow workload management plans to hell for days if not weeks. I don't love the rule but it's absolutely time to figure out how to put a cap on extra innings.
The quotes from Torre hurt my brain.
“It’s baseball. I’m just trying to get back to that, where this is the game that people come to watch. It doesn’t mean you’re going to score. You’re just trying to play baseball.”
By making a new rule that's completely antithetical to long standing baseball rules you're getting back to baseball?
It doesn't mean you're going to score? Ok!
You're just trying to play baseball? As opposed to what happens from April to October which isn't baseball, I guess.
“It’s baseball. I’m just trying to get back to that, where this is the game that people come to watch. It doesn’t mean you’re going to score. You’re just trying to play baseball.”
By making a new rule that's completely antithetical to long standing baseball rules you're getting back to baseball?
It doesn't mean you're going to score? Ok!
You're just trying to play baseball? As opposed to what happens from April to October which isn't baseball, I guess.
How many 18 inning games are there a year in all of baseball, less than 5?
If this is the issue, pass a rule to allow a team to call up an additional pitcher the next day for every three extra innings, so a 12 inning game, 26 man roster the next day if they want, 15 innings, 27 man roster, etc. Just off the top of my head, that would be better than this silliness.
NO NO NO NO NO.
Baseball has the perfect overtime scenario. No coin flips, no confusing scoring scenarios, just play until someone lead after an inning.
A guy on 2nd, bunted over to 3rd, sac fly or groundnut scores him, where is the excitement in that?
Baseball has the perfect overtime scenario. No coin flips, no confusing scoring scenarios, just play until someone lead after an inning.
A guy on 2nd, bunted over to 3rd, sac fly or groundnut scores him, where is the excitement in that?
Exactly, just approve the 26th roster spot already. i know owners are cheap, but this will allow a 6 man rotation for teams that want to use it. There's your fewer innings, not saving 1 or 2 once a month for the rare 10 or 11 inning game
Setting aside how stupid the proposal is and taking it on its merits, does the "free" runner get credited with a run scored in his personal stats? Does that runner scoring count as an earned or unearned run against the pitcher?
For a game that reveres its statistics, this would seem to do some harm.
For a game that reveres its statistics, this would seem to do some harm.
I got some dumb ideas for extra innings:
- Have 4 outs in an inning
- Reduce the # of balls for a walk to 3 and strikes for a strikeout to 2
- Do the second base thing but only have 2 outs in an inning
- Only let teams field 8 players instead of the typical 9.
- Remove the ability for the coach to go to the pitchers mound without taking the pitcher out
- Have 4 outs in an inning
- Reduce the # of balls for a walk to 3 and strikes for a strikeout to 2
- Do the second base thing but only have 2 outs in an inning
- Only let teams field 8 players instead of the typical 9.
- Remove the ability for the coach to go to the pitchers mound without taking the pitcher out
As far as horrible ideas go, the tie would be the best. It would be interesting how 2 points for a win 1 point for a tie system would play out.
I'd rather they didn't, but it's better than the proposed idea.
I'd rather they didn't, but it's better than the proposed idea.
Changing strike outs to 2 strikes and walks to 3 balls is actually the LEAST radical of all these ideas, including the dumb extra-innings runner-on-second thing. At least in old-timey baseball, the number of balls and strikes causing a walk/strikeout varied somewhat from league to league and over the early years.
This is one of the dumbest posts I've ever seen here. A few extra innings here or there does not put that much more strain on arms, besides maybe the long reliever whose job is to go 4+ innings in this situation. Any pitcher can blow his elbow out within the first 10 pitches, you never fucking know.
This is fucking baseball, you do not change the integrity of the sport with this bullshit "fix".
This would be a great idea. In fact, if they really want to increase pace of play, just go to 3 balls and 2 strikes from the get go. That would really make the games snappy.
Fuck you, Torre. It is fun. It's fucking awesome.
This happened to the Red Sox and I still thought it was awesome.
This was my question.
Generally speaking though, I think this is a worthy experiment. I don't love the idea, but I don't hate it. The reaction here is way over the top. I'm sure lots of people thought the NFL was good enough with just the regular old PAT, but I'm kinda glad we have two point conversions after this weekend.
Ok in saying that, and in the face of Joe Torre's inane bullshit, there's a thing organisations do sometimes which could apply here. When you have people complaining about something, you set up committees even if you actually don't think it's a thing. Then you allow the committee to come up with something stupid and agree to implement it at the very minimum level to prove it doesn't work.
MLB could very well be simply acting to show they can act.
It's what I'm hoping.
MLB could very well be simply acting to show they can act.
It's what I'm hoping.
Reasonable, that's... oh, wait...
Oh, here's the Moondog we all know. Nothing like a bland dismissal of every single person who disagrees with him. At least there wasn't a logic crime in this one justifying his ignorant respo... oh... wait...
Yep, there it is. False equivalence, the refuge of the poorly constructed argument.
And, as with every other logical fallacy, it shouldn't even be acknowledged. I hope proceeding posters don't take this troll bait.
I mentioned the 3-2 thing not because I like the idea, just to note that baseball hasn't always been played with 4 balls and 3 strikes. In fact, here in Michigan (maybe elsewhere) some Catholic school leagues play with a 1-1 count to start an at bat. I've coached scrimmages where we've done that, precisely to speed the games up, get batters swinging and save pitcher arms.
But now that I think about it, it might not be such a bad idea for the MLB. Sure, purist will scream, but hear me out. The weekend before the Super Bowl, my son and I watched the Sept. 30, 1967, game between the Red Sox and the Twins. It was supposedly the first color TV broadcast of a baseball game. Anyway, what was interesting was how different the game was played then. It was a lot faster, for one thing. Batters swung at first-pitch strikes nearly every time. They were hacking. Starting off with a 1-1 count gets batter hacking. It might make game play more like it was 50 years ago.
Not only that, but baseball fans love it. It happens so infrequently in a sport with so many games (itself a feature, not a bug) that when you see it, it's fun and can come to represent many great things about following a baseball team for a full season.
But yeah, JA's roster flexibility approach is the solution to the supposed pressing issue of "18 inning games destroying pitchers."
Also help me out--how does this change anything? If the run expectancy for each team is "x" going into each extra inning without the fake baserunner, how is it not just "x+1" for both teams with it? Understanding some teams will have a Dave Roberts, and others won't--is it that when you increase the chance that runs are scored, you're decreasing the chance that the score is a tie at the end of an inning? Genuinely curious.
In addition to the earned/unearned run question, I also wonder how it's determined which runner is placed on second. Is there a designated runner? The would-be first batter due up? The guy who made the last out the previous inning?
They used to do this in women's Olympic softball in extra innings since it is so hard to score runs, and there it was the batter scheduled ninth starts on second each inning
I am clearly in the minority here, but I dislike extra-inning games and hate the really long ones with a passion. They become wearisome attrition exercises and mess up pitching staffs for days afterward. I get why this particular proposal is drawing scorn, though I don't hate it as much as most of you. But I think the problem is real, and I'm glad they're thinking about ways to address it.
I might be in favor of a 12-inning cap, with any game that doesn't have a winner after 12 ending as a tie and not counting in the standings (though the players' individual stats for that game would still count). This would make ties fairly rare, but still get rid of the ridiculous, staff-shredding marathons.
I might be in favor of a 12-inning cap, with any game that doesn't have a winner after 12 ending as a tie and not counting in the standings (though the players' individual stats for that game would still count). This would make ties fairly rare, but still get rid of the ridiculous, staff-shredding marathons.
This highlights the problem with the idea--who cares? They'll arbitrarily pick something, and it will be as specious and essentially meaningless as the rule itself.
I kind of don't get this mentality though--there are 162 games in a season. Some are fucking boring because your team loses 18-0 and never had a chance. Others are boring because your team basically ends it in the 3rd inning. How many games a summer does your team typically play in games that last more than 12 innings--five, tops? Probably not even that many. If it isn't for you--turn it off and read who won in the morning. Your wearisome attrition exercise is my pleasant break-from-the-norm-for-a-day free-for-all. And a simple "you can add another pitcher to the roster for five games for every three extra innings played" (or whatever) rule fixes the staff-shredding.
What is the "problem" that is so real?
This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen proposed in baseball. I've typically been in favor of the changes they've made, but this is ridiculously moronic.
I like this idea a lot. And it certainly wouldn't cost the teams much.
Total games played in 2016 for all teams combined with x innings:
12 - 32
13 - 18
14 - 5
15 or more- 8
Total = 63 or about 2 per team per year.
I agree this is an overreaction to a problem that's really not much of a problem. Just implement JA's idea above and be done with it.
Expand rosters. Don't do this. It's an abomination. And I'm not surprised to hear Torre is behind it.
Joe Posnanski's take, which made me reconsider (or, at least, make me think that baseball has to appeal to other audiences besides me)
http://joeposnanski.com/extra-innings/
http://joeposnanski.com/extra-innings/
I agree 100% with this.
How about limiting the number of pick-off attempts per at-bat or per inning?
Why not equate a catcher's visit to the mound with a manager's visit?
Enforce the rule that a batter "must" remain in the batter's box.
So much we can do before "this" nonsense is considered.
Boy, if you thought late-inning bullpen micromanagement was fun before, just wait until Joe Maddon sees a man in scoring position to start the inning.
Each of those games has 2 teams, so it would be around 4 per team per year, if I'm reading correctly.