MLB Rule Changes

[Zephyrs]

http://deadspin.com/baseball-will-test- ... 1641283166

This looks very interesting. I am not in the camp that thinks the game is too long but I do like some of the ideas listed.

[richard_v]

The fact that baseball takes 3+ hours is something that drew me to the game. Also for what it's worth how much time will these measures actually save?

[Leones]

I like the rules about the batter's foot. intentional walk and mound visits. Anything relating to a clock can be left out.

The IBB rule is especially interesting. When it's a playoff game and the reliever might be wearing out he could save some pitches with this rule. Wonder if that may have an impact at some point...

[Rory]

Baseball embraces its clockless nature

That's how I feel about it all.

[Lions]

I'm not sure which ones Deadspin thinks are the no-brainers. Let's go through them:

1. Hitters must keep at least one foot inside the batter's box at all times, barring exceptions like foul balls, wild pitches, or if the umpire grants him time out.
So batters will call timeout between every pitch now? I don't really have a problem with this one, but don't expect it to have a huge impact.

2. Pitchers must throw a pitch within 20 seconds of receiving the ball. Clocks posted in each dugout will count down the 20 seconds.
Current MLB rule:

8.04
When the bases are unoccupied, the pitcher shall deliver the ball to the batter within 12 seconds after he receives the ball. Each time the pitcher delays the game by violating this rule, the umpire shall call “Ball.” The 12-second timing starts when the pitcher is in possession of the ball and the batter is in the box, alert to the pitcher. The timing stops when the pitcher releases the ball.
The intent of this rule is to avoid unnecessary delays. The umpire shall insist that the catcher return the ball promptly to the pitcher, and that the pitcher take his position on the rubber promptly. Obvious delay by the pitcher should instantly be penalized by the umpire.

Anyone ever see this enforced? The 20 second delay actually reduces the requirement for the situation with the bases unoccupied and institutes a requirement for when the bases are occupied. That said, I think this will help somewhat if actually enforced (of which I'm somewhat dubious). Beyond the Box Score did a study in 2010 and found the average pitch time to be a bit slower than 20 seconds, so this one could actually help, particularly with teams and pitchers who are habitually slow. A small improvement over a lot of samples that keeps the game moving is a great idea.

That said... I hate the idea of putting a clock in the dugout. Maybe that's needed initially during a transition phase, but let's get rid of it quickly. The ump should have no trouble keeping track himself.

3. There will be a maximum break between innings of 2:05, with a clock keeping track. Hitters must be in the batter's box by 1:45. If the hitter's not ready, the umpire can call a strike. If the pitcher doesn't throw a pitch by 2:05, the umpire can call a ball.
Technically, this is just formalizing what's already in place. Still, I don't believe for a second that this rule will be universally applied to things like nationally televised prime time games or the postseason, when they'll want to add more commercials in. I believe for postseason games, the current timing is 2:45 between innings.

4. Teams will have a maximum of 2:30 to change pitchers, with the clock starting as soon as the reliever enters the playing field.
I have no idea how long it usually takes to change pitchers, but a time limit seems reasonable. I guess this is one of the no-brainers, although I don't see why it's longer than the 2:05 between innings. How long does it take to get used to the mound? The pitcher should already be warmed up. By making this longer, you incentivize changing pitchers during an inning rather than between them. In reality, we should want a higher percentage of pitcher changes to be moved to in between innings since that's less disruptive to the game, although that doesn't really work strategically. This rule should really be amended to have a shorter time than the in between innings time.

5. Teams are limited to a maximum of three mound visits per game, not including pitching changes. This applies to trips to the mound by managers, coaches, and catchers.
I like this idea, but don't expect it to have much impact. I hope they don't include a clause to adjust it if the game goes to extra innings, which I could see happening.

6. Pitchers no longer have to deliver four balls for an intentional walk. The manager can simply signal to the umpire.
My first reaction to this was that it's awful and pointless. My second reaction was why do I care? Personally, I'd prefer the pitcher have to throw at least one pitch. I'd also want to ensure that intentional walks no longer be allowed to count as a batter faced for the purposes of relievers having to face a minimum of one batter.

What's missing from this list? How about a limit on the number of times you can throw over to first between pitches? I know that favors the running game, but it really can be frustrating when a pitcher does it too many times.

[Coqui]

It ain't broke. Don't fix it.

That being said, as Frank points out, it's not like these are revolutionary changes or anything.

[Borealis]

It ain't broke. Don't fix it.

True, True, True!!!

Lets run one less 30 sec commercial between innings - That'll save nearly 10"... The IBB rule - hate it. Every now and then one goes to the backstop. If anything, make it so the catcher has to stay in the 'box', forcing the IBB to be more a 'pitch around', but still intentional... Three non-pitching change trips? Nah - and no more for extra innings? That feels wrong...

OH!!! and most of all... Can we get rid of replay!?!?!?

[roncollins]

I'm all for shortening game times by removing commercials. Reduce it by 15 seconds per inning per year each year for, say, four seasons, and game time would drop by 15 minutes a game in that span of time.

Like that's ever going to happen.

[Evas]

I don't love all the changes, but I think it is good that they are making a run at it. The issue isn't so much the length of the game itself. It's the idleness and delays. They have gotten more pronounced over the years.

I bet they clocks will be like the strike zone to some extent. There if they need to use it, but if a pitcher takes 22 seconds from time to time I doubt it will enforced.

The intentional walk one I do not like at all. It is eliminating a situation where a mistake can get made with throwing or catching. It saves the pitcher from having to make pitches too. Those things alter the game theory. I don't like that at all.

[Zephyrs]

I don't love all the changes, but I think it is good that they are making a run at it. The issue isn't so much the length of the game itself. It's the idleness and delays. They have gotten more pronounced over the years.

This is how I feel. I really get aggravated at excessive stepping out of the batter's box. I would also love to see a limit on throwing over to the base to hold the runner - 4 tries and the runner should be awarded the next base. Stolen bases are exciting. The end result would improve the game IMO.

[roncollins]

The real drivers of excess game time are commercials and pitcher changes. I suppose one could limit warm-up pitches for relievers to 2 or 3, but many of these other things are small tweaks at best.

[Arroyos]

The real drivers of excess game time are commercials and pitcher changes.

I agree with Ron. If the number and length of commercials were limited, the game would move much faster. But since tv is paying the bill for those inflated MLB salaries, that ain't gonna happen.

However, baseball could limit the number of pitcher changes. Say one per inning until the 8th or 9th. Make those specialist relievers actually throw to a couple batters. In fact, let's just eliminate those damn specialist relievers. They are suppressing run scoring, and they slow the game way down. New Rule: a pitcher must remain in the game until he retires the side or gives up a run. That would both speed up the game and increase run production. WIN/WIN!

All the rules involving clocks are stupid. They've never been enforced and probably never will. Watching a clock is antithetical to baseball.

Now as for throwing over to first, I think that is one of baseball's most exciting plays. I love the duel between pitcher and runner, the gamble of throwing over to first (there are so many wild throws a season!), the excitement when the runner takes that extra half step AFTER a throw over. That's drama. I want to keep it.

The very first MLB game I ever attended was at brand new Dodger Stadium during the 1962 season, when Maury Wills stole 104 bases. The stadium was electric whenever he got on base. And every time the pitcher threw over to first to try to stop Wills, the excitement and tension grew. Maury stole two bases that day, both after protracted battles with the pitcher, and those were the two most exciting moments of the game.

[Zephyrs]

Bob, I could not disagree with you more on the throws to fist being exciting. There are a small number of pitchers who have a good snap throw that might be considered exciting but the vast majority make a weak toss for no reason other than to keep the runner close. Bill James made the recommendation many years ago to give the pitcher 4 tries and then award the base. Base stealing is very exciting. I like it more than the home run. Speed is fun to watch. Endless tosses to first, not so much.

[Arroyos]

Bob, I could not disagree with you more on the throws to fist being exciting. There are a small number of pitchers who have a good snap throw that might be considered exciting but the vast majority make a weak toss for no reason other than to keep the runner close. Bill James made the recommendation many years ago to give the pitcher 4 tries and then award the base. Base stealing is very exciting. I like it more than the home run. Speed is fun to watch. Endless tosses to first, not so much.

I understand, Scott. This is one of the few things I disagree with Bill James on, but I can't help it, I love the drama.

The last ballgame I attended this summer was at Petco Park, Giants v Padres. Late in the game, the Padres brought in a new young reliever called up from the minors. Guy must have been no more than 5' 9" tall. Right hander. Threw a wicked slider.

He walked the first Giant, Gregor Blanco, if memory serves. Then he went to work. A soft toss to first. A hard toss. A soft toss, then a pitch home. Another soft toss to first. Blanco was beginning to read him, so he was stretching his lead. Half step more, then a full step.

The young right hander fired two or three times to first, right on the money, first baseman catching the ball at the edge of the bag. Perfect tosses, but Blanco's hand was on the bag a split second before the ball arrived. It was electric.

The Padres called for a pitchout, but Blanco wasn't going.

When the first baseman returned the ball to the young pitcher, he was standing on the edge of the circle of the mound nearest first base. The moment he got the ball he whipped it back to first and nearly caught Blanco taking his first step off the bag. I've never seen that before. What a move! But Blanco got back in time, and when he dusted himself off, he yelled something at the rookie pitcher and the pitcher said something back.

Everyone knew what was going to happen next. Even the pitcher. But could he prevent it?

He came set and looked at Blanco a long time. Blanco didn't move, stayed crouched in his position, left hand pointing back to first. The pitcher stepped off, Blanco retreated. Pitcher came set again, Blanco inched closer to second, and they stared at each other. The pitcher stepped off and whipped the ball to first, but Blanco was gone, en route to second. The first baseman had to dig the throw out of the dirt (it would have been perfect if Blanco had dived back to the bag), then throw over Blanco on his way to second. The first baseman's throw was a few feet wide of second base, the shortstop reached for it and by the time he applied the tag, Blanco had slid past second, grabbing it with his right hand.

The Giants came off the bench in a huge roar. Half the crowd roared with them (at Petco, half the crowd always seems to pull for the Giants). Blanco bounced up and did one of those salutes to the bench Angel Pagan made their hallmark, then he yelled something at the young pitcher. The rookie lost it. He walked the next two batters and had to be pulled.

Why? Because he'd lost the duel with the baserunner. A duel which a new rule like Bill James proposes would have ended after just 4 tosses. I would hate to lose that drama.

[Denny]

One of the advantages to a game that's been played for over a century is that all the problems have pretty well been ironed out by now, so the rules don't require much tinkering.

To that end, I'm with Bob on the throws to first. The most excitement is the way it is today; it should be left the way it is.

As for the suggested changes in the article, the only one that seems to have the slightest merit to me is the initial one about the batter having to keep a foot inside the box--but as Frank says, I can't imagine that it would have more than a very minor impact on the length of games. The real delay is, as noted, due to television, and any real time savings would have to come from there.