View Full Version : Jayson Stark: Changes needed to intentional-walk rule and other fun changes!
Carissa
02-04-03, 01:28 PM
Changes needed to intentional-walk rule
http://msn.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/stark_jayson/1503730.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jayson Stark
ESPN.com
One thing you need to remember in life is this:
The rules are the rules -- unless somebody changes them.
Well, if ever there were a case to change any rule in sports, that rule would be the intentional-walk rule. And the man we would hire as chief lobbyist is Barry Bonds.
It isn't so much that Bonds was intentionally walked 68 times last year. (And remember, before Barry came along, only one other player in history -- Willie McCovey -- had ever been intentionally walked 40 times in a season.) It isn't even so much that just 10 other active players have accumulated as many intentional walks in their careers as Bonds has just in the past three years (125).
No, we would build our case simply around the events of this past October -- during which The Greatest Player of His Times had almost as many intentional walks (13) as hits (16).
After that World Series, many people in baseball were scratching their heads trying to figure out why a Series featuring the most magnetic player in the whole sport got its lowest TV ratings since -- what? -- 1908?
OK, obviously, there were lots of reasons for that -- some of them having to do with A) bed time, B) the absence of any Angels fans from the portion of civilization we know as "Not Orange County" and C) people can be such idiots, they don't know a great sporting event from the World Tortoise Racing Championships.
But that aside, what was the biggest gripe from folks who were "casual baseball fans" (translation: wouldn't know Lance Berkman from Lance Armstrong)?
Think it had anything to do with the fact that they kept turning on their sets to watch the magical confrontation between Barry Bonds and some defenseless Angels pitcher -- and instead saw Bonds get intentionally walked in the first inning every darned night? Happened pretty much as regularly as the National Anthem. In the pre-Barry era, no player since at least 1955 had ever been intentionally walked in the first inning of a World Series game with first base occupied, according to the Elias Sports Bureau. Then the Angels accorded that honor to our man Bonds three times in four games.
Of course, you can't blame them. When they pitched to him, the baseballs kept landing on Space Mountain.
But suppose there were a new rule that made it more difficult for teams to walk Bonds intentionally -- or anybody else? Or escalated the cost of doing that to something more risky than, say, taking their chances on Benito Santiago?
We've heard a lot of suggestions over the last month. But these are the only three that make any sense whatsoever:
1. A limit of one intentional walk per player per game
2. On an intentional walk, every runner gets to move up a base
3. The hitter can decline the intentional walk, as if it were, oh, a holding penalty
All of those options would create fascinating strategic scenarios. And they would undoubtedly result in more chances for Bonds -- and everyone else -- to swing the bat.
Which would be great.
If they work.
But would they? We posed these scenarios to two of the great thinkers in baseball -- Cardinals manager Tony La Russa and Bud Selig's executive vice president for baseball operations, Sandy Alderson.
It's safe to say they were intrigued.
It's also safe to say they didn't feel an urge to run to the rules committee demanding immediate implementation.
"First of all," Alderson said, "I don't totally agree that those intentional walks (in the World Series) created some kind of black hole of excitement. As I was watching those games, to me, there was a lot going on.
"You were always thinking about what happened with (Kenny) Lofton, what happened with (Rich) Aurilia and (Jeff) Kent, about what was going on ahead of Bonds. Obviously, it deprived people of the opportunity to see Bonds swing the bat. On the other hand, it created a lot of interesting strategic considerations, which I think most baseball fans would appreciate." No one, of course, appreciates a good strategic consideration more than a manager. But La Russa, whose team walked Bonds 10 times in only 21 trips during the NLCS, wasn't so sure he wanted to appreciate these particular considerations.
"I'm a great believer," he said, "that if you identify a problem and you're creative about finding an alternative potential solution, there's nothing wrong with being inventive. But ... (and didn't you just know that "but" was roaring around this bend) ... to me, it would have to be something really, really significant to mess with the rules."
Well, clearly, the problem is significant. But is there a solution that makes sense? Let's examine these three, solution by solution:
1. One intentional walk per player per game
This was a suggestion advocated by Giants owner Peter Magowan during the World Series: Just legislate a limit to how many times a team could hold up those four fingers every night. Sounds easy, right? Uh, not so easy.
"The biggest hole in that one," La Russa said, "is, you can walk a guy intentionally in an unintentional way. Just have the catcher sit out there and throw four sinkers in the dirt."
No one knows how many of Bonds' 130 "unintentional" walks last year were oozing with intent. But it was closer to 100 than zero. And most of them were so obvious, Darren Baker could have seen them coming. But "clearly," Alderson said, "there's an enforcement issue, having to distinguish between intentional and unintentional."
OK, so we'll chalk this one up to: Swell idea. Well-intentioned. But essentially impractical, unworkable and unenforceable. So let's move onto ...
2. On an intentional walk, every runner gets to move up a base
With this idea, you have similar enforcement issues. And teams could still evade it with those four sinkers in the dirt. But we bet it would make the classic intentional walk, as we know it now, all but obsolete. After all, would a team be willing to pay this stiff a price for the privilege of walking someone like Bonds with first base open?
Consider the ramifications: Walking him with a man on second and less than two outs would move a runner to third who had the ability to score without a hit. Would it be worth that risk?
And would anybody ever intentionally walk him with men on second and third -- an automatic decision now -- if the price would be actually giving up a run? Obviously, the answer would be: Almost never. So this is one idea with enough teeth to accomplish at least part of our mission. But is it too radical?
"The question is: Does it change the game too much?" La Russa ruminated. "I think so. But it's worth thinking about. Every time you take the bat out of Barry's hands, you're taking some of the entertainment out of our game. I had personal experience with this, with Mark (McGwire)."
But the problem is, baseball is more than just an "entertainment" experience. It's a competitive experience. It's not Six Flags with balls and bats. It's about winning a flag.
"When he gets on base, he creates an opportunity for them to score," La Russa said. "He's not making an out. He's creating an opportunity for them to score a run and win a ball game.
"If you start paying attention to the entertainment value of one player and start messing with the game, you're really messing with the most important reason we're out there. When we're playing in San Francisco, we're there for the Cardinals to beat the Giants. We're not there for the Barry Show."
We still like this idea in theory. Unfortunately, all it would do is produce a lot more "unintentional" walks. Of course, as Baseball America's Alan Schwarz has proposed, we could always expand the concept and count all four-pitch walks as effectively being "intentional." But we'll concede that that's an even trickier concept. So let's think about ...
3. The hitter can decline the intentional walk
We can't find anyone with serious interest in this proposal. And you can see why. If we're working on speeding up the game, then any idea that would create the possibility for a 92-pitch at-bat wouldn't seem to fit the tenor of the times.
Still, just as the NBA contemplates whether there's an antidote for those equally unwatchable Hack A Shaq attacks, why wouldn't baseball at least consider this -- or any serious -- plan to give its star players more chances to do what they do best?
"If we're talking Hack A Shaq," Alderson said, "you have to think about it this way: Is it better for the game for Shaq to be as dominant as he can -- and should you change the rules to make that more likely? Or should it be survival of the fittest, and clubs have to be creative in finding a better way to attack Shaq? The way it stands now, his responsibility is to become a better free-throw shooter. That would stop it.
"And the way it stands now, the best solution with Bonds is just to find a better guy to hit behind him. And not just in the fifth spot, but in the fifth and sixth spot. That's how you make teams pitch to him. You don't have to change the rules."
The Giants, in fact, have spent their winter doing just that, adding Ray Durham, Edgardo Alfonzo, Jose Cruz and Marquis Grissom to deepen their lineup all around Bonds. And that's fine. That's what they could do about it, and they did it.
But the question remains: Is there anything the sport needs to do about it, to make sure that fans paying to watch one game a year -- or turning on a World Series game to see if they can reignite their fading baseball passions -- don't walk away grumbling about investing three hours to watch the great Barry Bonds take one swing all night?
"I don't disagree in a general sense," Alderson said. "On the other hand, if you took a vote of all fans who follow Major League Baseball and you asked them if there should be a limit on, say, the number of times Barry Bonds ought to be intentionally walked, I bet you'd get an overwhelming "no" vote. It sounds like special-interest legislation to me."
OK, maybe it is. But you can also make a case it's in everybody's best interest.
Jayson Stark is a senior writer for ESPN.com.
Carissa
02-04-03, 01:29 PM
here's the others!!
Get your rule changes!
http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/stark_jayson/1503508.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jayson Stark
ESPN.com
Over in the world of helmets and clipping penalties, the NFL changes some kind of rule -- or two -- every single offseason. Baseball, on the other hand, continues to operate under essentially the same rules it used in 1926, give or take a DH.
Well, we're all for stability -- but Babe Ruth is dead. So we've spent the last week polling two dozen players, general managers, scouts, agents and broadcasters to see if there are any baseball rules they would like to see changed, updated or amended with three sticks of dynamite.
We now present the best of what they proposed. But the good news is, you also get to vote in our SportsNation poll.
JAYSON STARK'S TOP 20
1. Use instant replay
White Sox GM Kenny Williams says he would love to "give our manager one of those little challenge flags." OK, baseball can't use replay for everything. Nobody wants to wait 10 minutes to confirm a foul tip. But replay would work great to decide whether balls are fair or foul, out of the park or off the wall. And why not? Nobody uses long division if they have a calculator handy. Technology marches on. Use it.
2. Stay in the box
Why have a batter's box if we're going to let hitters march around between pitches as if they're in the Rose Bowl Parade? We'd allow a hitter to step out once per at-bat to regroup -- but that's it. Other than that, the hitter has to keep one foot in the box for the entire at-bat, or it's an automatic strike. And if both feet are in, the pitcher had better be ready to pitch, or it's an automatic ball.
3. Establish visiting hours
Some managers and pitching coaches spend more time on the mound every night than their starting pitcher. Enough already! Padres GM Kevin Towers proposes a limit of five visits per game by managers and coaches (not counting injury visits when accompanied by a trainer). If a game goes extra innings, everybody gets two extra visits. And there should be a one-minute limit to any visit. Are we the only ones who watch some of these interminable mound conventions and think about the wedding-gift mound scene from Bull Durham?
4. Toughen up the save rule
All saves are not created equal. So naturally, we got a bunch of suggestions aimed at pampered closers. Our favorites: Relievers shouldn't get a save unless they face the tying run. And relievers shouldn't get a win if they blow a save. But nobody should ever again be allowed to earn a "save" in a 26-7 game.
5. Ban the fake-to-third, throw-to-first move
If it were up to us, we'd wipe out the balk rule entirely, since 50 percent of all balks are essentially examples of umpires trying to demonstrate how smart and attentive they are. But if we're going to keep it, then please make that horrendous fake-to-third, throw-to-first pickoff move a balk. We don't care if the pitcher is on the rubber, off the rubber or lying in a deck chair. That move deceives runners more than all but about six balk calls we've ever seen.
6. Three pickoffs and you're done
Speaking of pickoffs, two of our poll-ees suggested that pickoff throws be limited to three per runner, per base. Think of the dramatic possibilities after a pitcher had used up his second move. Would he dare use up that (gasp) third throw, knowing it would be an invitation to the runner to take a 40-foot lead on the next pitch? Or were those first two throws a set-up, daring that runner to guess there's no way he'd make that third move -- and get picked off? Sounds like fun to us.
7. Five for fighting
Hockey and football teams are allowed to deactivate players for a specific game. So here's a baseball variation suggested by one club official who prefers to remain nameless: Limit a team to five relief pitchers per nine-inning game. Obviously, all limits are off in extra innings, but this could be a change that works for everybody: It would be a guaranteed night off for that tireless right-hander who had already pitched three straight days. And it would spare us the thrill of the in-and-out bullpen parade -- left, right, left, right ... oops, we're out of pitchers.
8. It takes two
In the same vein, Brewers GM Doug Melvin suggests that when no one is on base, a relief pitcher should have to face a minimum of two hitters instead of just one. Nothing worse than a 1-2-3 seventh inning featuring three different relievers.
9. Let's not see you in September
Our buddy Peter Gammons rants about this every year, and he's right: Why do teams play with a 25-man roster all year and then, in the most important month -- September -- get to expand the roster to 40? If September provides a club with the opportunity to check out a Francisco Rodriguez or a Brandon Phillips, fine. If it allows a team to add a backup catcher or extra bullpen arm, no problem. But when it's hard to tell the Tigers' active roster from the Lions' active roster, that's going too far. Shrink that September roster to 30 -- tops.
10. Unify the numbers
Once upon a time, baseball had two separate and distinct leagues. They had their own offices. They never played each other. For a while, they even had their own rules. But now -- in an age of interleague play, one umpiring workforce and no league offices -- it's time to consolidate the stats. Was there anything more ridiculous last September than those scoreboards, newspapers and official stat sheets showing Bartolo Colon's record as 10-4 (his record just as an Expo), when everybody knew he was 20-8? If a player gets traded from one league to the other in midseason, count all his stats -- not just the stats in the new league. While we're at it, can we retroactively give Mark McGwire that 1997 home run title he should have won (when he led the major leagues with 58, but made the mistake of hitting 34 of them in Oakland before getting traded to the Cardinals in July)?
11. Waive the waiver system
As long as we're on this subject, another constructive proposal by Doug Melvin would make the waiver system more like the draft. Now, if a player gets placed on waivers by an AL team, all the other AL teams have to pass on claiming him before even the worst team in the NL gets a shot at him. If we're striving for competitive balance in an interleague age, shouldn't that system be trashed? Give teams an opportunity to claim a player according to their record -- worst teams first, regardless of league. Or alternate leagues like the draft. But to give the Yankees first shot at a player who could legitimately help the Pirates is absurd.
12. Erase the runner's box
A bunch of players grumbled about the continued existence of that "runner's box" along the last 45 feet of the first-base line. In theory, the runner is supposed to stay within the lane of those two lines. In reality, said Astros catcher Brad Ausmus, "if the runner stays in the runner's box, he can't actually ever legally touch first base." Plus, said Texas' Doug Glanville, that lane "is in foul territory. So as a right-handed batter, you have to run across the field to get foul, then loop back to touch the base, which is in fair territory." If it's interference, it's interference. Do we really need that line to establish whether it is or isn't? And let those right-handed hitters cut across the grass to get to the line while we're at it.
13. Define the true meaning of sacrifice
Marlins utility dynamo Andy Fox wonders why hitters don't get a sacrifice when they hit a ground ball to the right side to move a runner -- or when they hit a ground ball with the infield back to score a run. Good question. We've seen scorers give sacs to guys who clearly were bunting for a hit. So why wouldn't they have the discretion to give "sacs" to guys who obviously are hitting a ball to the right side to advance a runner?
14. Dump the designated pinch-runner
If we're trying to speed up the game and make it more athletic, why defeat both purposes by allowing some half-crippled pinch-hitter to pinch-hit in a blowout, then have to pinch-run for him? Another cool Doug Melvin idea would ban pinch-running for a pinch-hitter -- unless he represents the tying or go-ahead run. Besides moving the game along, it would force managers to save certain hitters for certain situations, knowing they couldn't get them out of the game if they reached base. Strategy: good. One-dimensional hitters: bad. That's our motto.
15. But add the designated fielder
Doug Melvin (who obviously needs his own column) also proposes adding a minimum-salaried 26th roster spot for a "designated fielder." This guy would make the minimum -- but would never be allowed to bat (all season). Unlike the DH, the DF wouldn't play the whole game in the field. He would be a defensive specialist who would go into a game late and occupy a lineup spot -- except that when his turn came up, you'd have to pinch-hit for him. So he'd be the defensive equivalent of the closer. He'd just move around a lot more.
16. Ban all body armor
Baseball did a great job last year of cracking down on all those hitters heading for the plate in football pads. But it's time to go further. Unless a guy has had a broken bone in his hand or arm within the past five years, or a deep bruise (authenticated by the surgeon general) within the past 30 days, no armor whatsoever should be permitted for any hitter. Sorry, Barry. Even you.
17. Invent the "team" error
When a 40-foot pop-up lands in the infield between four different men wearing the finest gloves money can buy, don't you just hate it when that's scored a (chuckle) "hit?" When a routine fly ball in the alley drops between two outfielders who forgot to call it, doesn't it curdle your blood when the hitter gets a (gasp) "double?" Absurd! If a ball should be caught, it should be caught. And if it isn't, it's an error -- even if it's a "team" error. Case closed.
18. Enforce the batter's box
This, technically, isn't a rule "change." But explain to us again why some hitters are allowed to rub out the back line of the batter's box and camp out practically in the catcher's lap. We don't get it. If we're not going to enforce that batter's box, why waste the chalk? And on a similar note, if a hitter wants to stand so close to the plate that his elbows are actually in the strike zone, he forfeits the right to take his base if he gets drilled. And the umpire would announce that before the pitch.
19. The phantom must go
There's nothing more "phantom" these days than the "phantom" tag of second base on a double play. Two different club executives grumbled that middle infielders are now allowed to roam farther and farther off the bag while "turning" two. So we risk hearing from the heavily funded Shortstop Lobby by proposing: No more phantom tags. If you don't touch the base, you don't get the out.
20. No more Saturday night games
A prominent GM who prefers not to get fined says it's time for all weekend games to be played in the afternoon, to make this sport as kid-friendly as possible. Since we work for a network that seems to enjoy Sunday nights, we'll make an allowance for one national TV game every week. But that's it. The same GM wants no night games starting after 7 p.m., and no postseason games starting later than 8 p.m. sharp -- all in the name of re-infusing kids with the love of baseball. Yeah, there would be short-term money lost. But we would make it back when the next generation pours through the turnstiles. We promise, Bud.
FIVE MORE FOR FUN
1. No more out-of-the-baseline rule
Retired first-base magician Rico Brogna proposes there should be no such thing as a runner going out of the baseline. Let him run anywhere on the field if he wants. Imagine that crowd roaring as the runner on first runs around the outfield while the runner who was on second attempts to score. Imagine the drama as the team in the field tries to decide whether it's worth chasing the runner and conceding the run or getting the out. It could be baseball's version of the Stanford Band Play.
2. Farm out the Brewers
The last labor deal should have had a minimum payroll to force lousy teams to try to get better. But since it didn't, one GM had an idea that's guaranteed to work: The team with the worst record in baseball every year gets sent to Triple-A. We're assuming some team from Triple-A -- or at least the Northern League -- would have to be promoted to the big leagues to fill out the divisions, but we're willing to negotiate. Now that would get their attention at Miller Park, huh?
3. No win, no welfare
Or here's a variation on that same theme, from an anonymous agent: If a team has three consecutive losing seasons, it loses 50 percent of its revenue-sharing payout and all of its welfare check from the luxury-tax pool until it gets above .500 again. That might force the Pirates, Brewers and Tigers into Chapter 11. But if it didn't, we bet it would sure speed up their rebuilding programs.
4. Get the fans in the game -- literally
One final Rico Brogna proposal: Make fan interference legal. Fans couldn't actually leave the stands, of course. And any nets, traps or other contraptions not fitting the definition of "baseball glove" would be prohibited. But otherwise, make fans feel like more a part of the action than ever before (and boost sales of those front-row seats) by giving them the right to field any ball, fair or foul, that shows up near their seat. What sport has ever been fan-friendlier than that?
5. Ban Thunder Stix
One club executive pleaded with us to get baseball to outlaw the pre-game dispensing of any giveaway item which, if waved, banged or pounded, could cause significant permanent hearing loss. And after living through last October in Anaheim, our only possible response to that is: Huh? What's that? Say again?
Jayson Stark is a senior writer for ESPN.com.
The above are exhibits A and B in the case against the intelligence of the sporting press. About 95 percent of these suggestions are either unworkable or would actually make the situation worse. The remaining five percent are aimed at dealing with miniscule problems that no one notices anyway.
My favorite line in the Bonds piece is this "Well, clearly, the problem is significant."
Well, no, Jason, actually the problem isn't significiant. Hell, it's not even a problem.
Carissa
02-04-03, 01:43 PM
Get your rule changes!
http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/stark_jayson/1503508.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Jayson Stark
5. Ban Thunder Stix
One club executive pleaded with us to get baseball to outlaw the pre-game dispensing of any giveaway item which, if waved, banged or pounded, could cause significant permanent hearing loss. And after living through last October in Anaheim, our only possible response to that is: Huh? What's that? Say again?
I think this is my favorite proposed rule change. :D
ROFLMAO :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Most of those rule changes sound ludicrus.:barf: I really wonder about the intelligence of some people. I mean do they actually try to think when they come up with these things?
The game is fine just how it is.
C. Bellinger
02-04-03, 02:19 PM
Perhaps Stark would like a game called "NBA basketball." It's a game with a clock and little strategy, something he seems to approve of.
I mean, a "DESIGNATED FIELDER?!" Limiting the amount of times a manager can talk to the pitcher? The goofy 3-pickoff rule? Now allowing a pinch runner for a pinch hitter?
On Baseball Primer, someone joked that the unnamed source giving all of these ideas was a Milwaukee Brewers exec who wanted to speed up games so he can get home earlier.
C. Bellinger
02-04-03, 02:21 PM
I saw Bonds go nuts in the World Series by the way. I believe he hit quite a few homers.
Bozidar
02-04-03, 02:53 PM
yes, ban the IBB, take barry's armor away, and watch the beanings begin..
great ideas, jason..
Bozidar
02-04-03, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Spiker
My favorite line in the Bonds piece is this "Well, clearly, the problem is significant."
Well, no, Jason, actually the problem isn't significiant. Hell, it's not even a problem. My thoughts, to a T!!
DiMaggio5CF
02-04-03, 03:50 PM
There is no need to change the rule of intentional walks.
So Barry Bonds gets too many intentional walks, huh? And we're going to limit the number of times that he gets walked intentionally, are we?
Maybe it's unfair that Barry gets walked so many times, but maybe it's unfair that the Giants get to have Barry Bonds. Each team should have a Barry Bonds, and then we will do away with the intentional walk.
What's that, you don't like that Barry-for-every-team rule? You're right, the Giants are the ones that paid for Barry, so they should get sole use of his services. Very true. But an intentional walk has a price. When you intentionally walk someone, he doesn't sit down and the next guy stands up. There is a price to pay for walking someone. The Giants are willing to pay for Bonds, so they get to have Bonds. And if the opposing teams are willing to deal with the consequences of walking Bonds, then they should have the right to do so.
But why does Bonds get walked so many times anyway? Well, because he hits so many homeruns, of course. So it seems to me like a logical equation. Homeruns = Intentional Walks. So if you're now going to limit the number of intentional walks, you have to balance the equation by limiting the number of homers that Barry hits. But nobody's interested in limiting that, are they?
All of these rules are being contemplated to help just one player. And that player, by the way, happens to be the most dominant offensive player in the game today. He doesn't need any help.
People are saying how it is so unfair that Barry gets walked so often. But you're talking about changing the entire strategy of the game for one player. If that's not unfair, I don't know what is. That's the definition of unfair.
And this all comes, by the way, in an era dominated by offense, where twenty homeruns is no longer a high achievement, when people are clamoring for changes to help the pitchers.
And, if you still want to lower Barry's walk totals, how about this one? Before going all-out to try to pass a No-Intentional-Walk Rule, why don't you enforce the No-Steroid-Use Rule. Now that would solve the problem.
DiMaggio5CF
02-04-03, 04:32 PM
The Designated Fielder rule is perhaps one of the dumbest suggestions I've ever heard. Carry a guy who can never hit. Ever.
His purpose is solely defense. But if he comes up to hit, you have to pinch hit for him. At least make the rule that, if he does come up to hit, the guy he replaced can come back in for him, thus ending his day.
But this position could not go to a youngster trying to break into the major leauges. What team in their right mind is going to take a young prospect and put him in a role where he will not get an at bat all season.
It would have to be an aging veteran facing retirement to accept this role. But even then, they'd be better off signing a minor league deal with another team.
162 games. Zero at-bats. Bad idea.
Those "Farm out the Brewers" and "No win, No welfare" rules are retarded as well.
Sending the worst team to AAA. Who was smoking what when they came up with that idea?
And recalling a AAA team to replace the major league team. It would either have to be that franchise's AAA team (which is not going to be better than the Major League team, which sort of defeats the whole purpose), or another franchise's AAA team, which is just plain stupid.
Why the hell would the Yankees play the Columbus Clippers in a regular season game? And if the Yankees have a game against the Royals the same night that the Clippers have a game against the Red Sox, don't you think that the Yankees would send every Major League player with options left to Columbus?
And the "No win, No welfare" is exactly the same stupid idea that the much-criticized Florida government for "improving" schools. A team does poorly, so it gets no revenue-sharing money. That'll show 'em. And now they're going to get better by going out and signing free agents with -- oh, wait, you took their money away. So they'll get worse, and they'll lose more money, and they'll get worse, so they'll lose more money. See an end to the cycle?
Why don't you just put in a rule that the revenue sharing money has to be put back into the team, like everyone (including Yankee fans) has been asking for?
You take money from the Yankees to give to the bad teams so they can get better, but then you don't give the money to the bad teams because they're bad. You cried and whined until you got the votes to steal from the Yankees, now at least do what you said you were going to do with it.
If you rob from the rich and give to the poor, you're Robin Hood. If you rob from the rich and give to no one, you're a crook.
Let's see, what else is there?
Ah, the "Ban the Body Armor" Rule. Again, instead of enforcing an existing rule, they're trying to create a totally unnecessary one.
Body armor is there for a reason. Batters have to stand there and face people throwing very hard baseballs at them at very fast speeds. Those balls hurt and can cause significant damage.
We made wearing a helmet a rule, and now we're trying to go backward. Baseball's a game, and no one should get hurt. Wearing as much gear as you want is totally fine.
But the rule is that, in order to be awarded first base, you must make an attempt to get out of the way of the ball.
If a batter stands there and takes a pitch, call it a ball instead of giving him first base. And if the pitch hits the batter in the strike zone, it's a strike.
Players should be allowed to wear gear. All you have to do to solve this problem is enforce the rules.
I would also like to comment on Rico Brogna's "No more out-of-the-baseline" Rule. What's humorous to me is that the reasoning for this rule is exactly why it shouldn't be a rule.
"Let him run anywhere on the field if he wants. Imagine that crowd roaring as the runner on first runs around the outfield while the runner who was on second attempts to score. Imagine the drama as the team in the field tries to decide whether it's worth chasing the runner and conceding the run or getting the out. It could be baseball's version of the Stanford Band Play."
A fielder chasing a runner into deep right field is absolutely retarded. Even if you eliminate the "out of the baseline" rule, it still violates the "mockery of the game" rule.
And it also contradicts the main point for some of Stark's other suggestions. They're so worried about shortening game times, but how long would a diamond chase take?
And that brings me to another point. I hate these rules aimed at shortening the time of games. The only people who I hear complaining that games are too long are casual baseball fans, who -- as Stark points out -- "wouldn't know Lance Berkman from Lance Armstrong."
Who cares about them? They haven't taken the time to understand the game, but use the "the game's too long" excuse instead of revealing their own ignorance.
Shortening the game isn't going to draw in a whole new audience. Don't get obsessed with something that really doesn't matter. Give the true fans what they want (like lower ticket prices, perhaps?) and then watch your revenues soar.
And by the way, allowing fans to reach onto the field of play at any time is not making the game "fan-friendly," Mr. Brogna.
There is a game being played. True fans are there to observe the game and do not want to interfere with it. Fans can keep balls hit into the seats. They shouldn't be allowed to interfere with balls in play.
Other suggestions that I dislike are "three pickoffs and you're done," "five for fighting," and "it takes two."
However, I do feel compelled to say that there are a few rules on that list that I do like, mainly for the reasons stated in Stark's article. Among these are creating a "team" error, and eliminating the phantom tag at second base on potential double plays.
deranged2005
02-04-03, 04:40 PM
I agree with most of the 2nd article Car posted, except for a few points.
They saw a closer who blows a save shouldn't get a win. But then who does? The starting pither??
Originally posted by DiMaggio5CF
And that brings me to another point. I hate these rules aimed at shortening the time of games. The only people who I hear complaining that games are too long are casual baseball fans, who -- as Stark points out -- "wouldn't know Lance Berkman from Lance Armstrong."
Who cares about them? They haven't taken the time to understand the game, but use the "the game's too long" excuse instead of revealing their own ignorance.
Shortening the game isn't going to draw in a whole new audience. Don't get obsessed with something that really doesn't matter. Give the true fans what they want (like lower ticket prices, perhaps?) and then watch your revenues soar.
And by the way, allowing fans to reach onto the field of play at any time is not making the game "fan-friendly," Mr. Brogna.
There is a game being played. True fans are there to observe the game and do not want to interfere with it. Fans can keep balls hit into the seats. They shouldn't be allowed to interfere with balls in play.
These are the two that got to me, DiMag. The shortening the game crap has been going on for a while now and I truly believe the impetus is coming strictly from the press who have to sit up their press boxes and wait for the final out before they can go out and drink beer. The casual fan doesn't give a damn about how long the game goes, he just goes home when he gets bored and those of us who love the games wish they would never end sometimes. In any case, we're talking about cutting out at most 10-15 minutes, like that's going to make a bit of difference.
And the business about allowing fans to interfere with balls in play. That's a good idea. We need to encourage more slobs with drinking problems to load up on about a dozen Buds and wreck havoc. Can you imagine Jason Giambi going after a foul play near the stands in Fenway? "Well, sports fans there goes the Yankees $100 million investment to the ground with a stab wound. Isn't baseball a lot more fun now with the new fan friendly rules?"
Everytime I see one of these columns, I'm reminded of something Joe Torre said a while back about interleague play: "They more they try to fix baseball, the more they screw it up."
I agree with limiting the number of times a batter can step out of the batter's box? What, one pitch and he forgot the signals? Boy, some of these guys must be almost as dumb as basketball players!
Adopting this rule would speed up the game a bit without altering its fundamental strategy or the fundamental way it's played. It would just cut out an abuse, which is a good thing.
Now if we could just do something about 7 pitchers per game. Maybe Doug Melvin is on to something.
SorianoFanHFW
02-10-03, 05:02 PM
The intentional walk is as American as apple pie. Why would we want to get rid of it? Here are some good reasons:
1. Pitchers would just start hitting people
2. Pitchers can just throw crap like usual
3. Or they can throw wild in the air if no one is on.
When you walk someone, you run the risk of having someone score them.
And another thing, why get rid of body armor. You're a hitter, and a pitcher throws a 98 MPH cutter at your nuts, so you move and it breaks your elbow. What the hell! Pitchers should stop throwing so damn inside! I don't care if someone comes walking in with shining armor...have fun swinging a bat. If offesnive statisitcs are overly inflated, you can just raise the mound...an illegally raised mound helped Koufax...well that and his awesome stuff. When it comes down to it, baseball players should be put into risk when they don't have to be. If a pitcher wants to hit someone in the head, ass, back, whatever, good let him. It s HBP, and the hitter should be allowed to defend himself.
Now what should be limited is the growing of baseball gloves. at first, the glove was a glove...you know, the things you put on in cold days. Now we have kenny lofton running around in the outfield with a laundry basket on his hand! There should be some sort of regulation concerning glove size. Sure, this would inflate offensive statistics, but it wouldn't increase homeruns, and we could see people hitting like Keeler and Joe Jackson again.
backstop20
02-10-03, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by SorianoFanHFW
Now what should be limited is the growing of baseball gloves. at first, the glove was a glove...you know, the things you put on in cold days. Now we have kenny lofton running around in the outfield with a laundry basket on his hand! There should be some sort of regulation concerning glove size. Sure, this would inflate offensive statistics, but it wouldn't increase homeruns, and we could see people hitting like Keeler and Joe Jackson again.
http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/baseball_basics/mlb_basics_objectives.jsp
1.12
The catcher may wear a leather mitt not more than thirty eight inches in circumference, nor more than fifteen and one half inches from top to bottom. Such limits shall include all lacing and any leather band or facing attached to the outer edge of the mitt. The space between the thumb section and the finger section of the mitt shall not exceed six inches at the top of the mitt and four inches at the base of the thumb crotch. The web shall measure not more than seven inches across the top or more than six inches from its top to the base of the thumb crotch. The web may be either a lacing or lacing through leather tunnels, or a center piece of leather which may be an extension of the palm, connected to the mitt with lacing and constructed so that it will not exceed any of the above mentioned measurements.
1.13
The first baseman may wear a leather glove or mitt not more than twelve inches long from top to bottom and not more than eight inches wide across the palm, measured from the base of the thumb crotch to the outer edge of the mitt. The space between the thumb section and the finger section of the mitt shall not exceed four inches at the top of the mitt and three and one half inches at the base of the thumb crotch. The mitt shall be constructed so that this space is permanently fixed and cannot be enlarged, extended, widened, or deepened by the use of any materials or process whatever. The web of the mitt shall measure not more than five inches from its top to the base of the thumb crotch. The web may be either a lacing, lacing through leather tunnels, or a center piece of leather which may be an extension of the palm connected to the mitt with lacing and constructed so that it will not exceed the above mentioned measurements. The webbing shall not be constructed of wound or wrapped lacing or deepened to make a net type of trap. The glove may be of any weight.
1.14
Each fielder, other than the first baseman or catcher, may use or wear a leather glove. The measurements covering size of glove shall be made by measuring front side or ball receiving side of glove. The tool or measuring tape shall be placed to contact the surface or feature of item being measured and follow all contours in the process. The glove shall not measure more than 12'' from the tip of any one of the 4 fingers, through the ball pocket to the bottom edge or heel of glove. The glove shall not measure more than 7 3/4'' wide, measured from the inside seam at base of first finger, along base of other fingers, to the outside edge of little finger edge of glove. The space or area between the thumb and first finger, called crotch, may be filled with leather webbing or back stop. The webbing may be constructed of two plies of standard leather to close the crotch area entirely, or it may be constructed of a series of tunnels made of leather, or a series of panels of leather, or of lacing leather thongs. The webbing may not be constructed of wound or wrapped lacing to make a net type of trap. When webbing is made to cover entire crotch area, the webbing can be constructed so as to be flexible. When constructed of a series of sections, they must be joined together. These sections may not be so constructed to allow depression to be developed by curvatures in the section sides. The webbing shall be made to control the size of the crotch opening. The crotch opening shall measure not more than 4 1/2'' at the top, not more than 5 3/4'' deep, and shall be 3 1/2'' wide at its bottom. The opening of crotch shall not be more than 4 1/2'' at any point below its top. The webbing shall be secured at each side, and at top and bottom of crotch. The attachment to be made with leather lacing, these connections to be secured. If they stretch or become loose, they shall be adjusted to their proper condition. The glove can be of any weight.
1.15
(a) The pitcher's glove shall be uniform in color, including all stitching, lacing and webbing. The pitcher's glove may not be white or gray.
(b) No pitcher shall attach to his glove any foreign material of a color different from the glove.
SorianoFanHFW
02-10-03, 07:20 PM
thanks for the corrections
The IBB changes aren't workable. However, several of the other proposed changes are worth a good look. The game rules should be tweaked now and then where it makes sense.
I'd like to see them put in a rule that you can't IBB someone with first base occupied. If a catcher wants to call four in the dirt, that's fine...but every time a ball goes 59 feet, you risk a WP... I agree with limiting the amount of times a player can step out of the box. If not, then give the umps a set of brass balls...if the pitcher is ready to pitch and the batter isn't in the box, he can pitch...and the results (ball or strike) count. A player can step out as long as the pitcher is getting the signs. But when he comes set, you better be ready, Knobby! ;)
Bozidar
02-11-03, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by Big_E
I'd like to see them put in a rule that you can't IBB someone with first base occupied. If a catcher wants to call four in the dirt, that's fine...but every time a ball goes 59 feet, you risk a WP... Bean him. I'd do it every time, as a pitcher. 4 in the dirt? no way.. nail the sucker, make him pay for the silly rule change.
Originally posted by SorianoFanHFW
If offesnive statisitcs are overly inflated, you can just raise the mound.
Exactly. This is my favorite reform proposal. After 1968, the mound was lowered from 15" to 10". Raising it back to 15", or even to 12 or 13, would put more movement on the ball and help teh pitchers immensely.
This would also have the effect of speeding up the game, for two reasons:
1. Pitchers would throw more strikes;
2. As a result, they woudl stay in longer, meaning there would be fewer pitching changes, which take time.
Originally posted by Timmer
Exactly. This is my favorite reform proposal. After 1968, the mound was lowered from 15" to 10". Raising it back to 15", or even to 12 or 13, would put more movement on the ball and help teh pitchers immensely.
This would also have the effect of speeding up the game, for two reasons:
1. Pitchers would throw more strikes;
2. As a result, they woudl stay in longer, meaning there would be fewer pitching changes, which take time.
I would tend to agree with this proposal, with my only concern is the argument that some advance that the higher mounds would cause more pitcher injuries. I don't know. I kind of like the game as it is. And the fact is that offense was down considerably last season. Let's wait and see whether the new drug testing rules will actually encourage some players (no names) to play it straight.
SorianoFanHFW
02-11-03, 06:25 PM
how would more injuries occur?
Hitman23
02-11-03, 07:35 PM
3. No win, no welfare
Or here's a variation on that same theme, from an anonymous agent: If a team has three consecutive losing seasons, it loses 50 percent of its revenue-sharing payout and all of its welfare check from the luxury-tax pool until it gets above .500 again. That might force the Pirates, Brewers and Tigers into Chapter 11. But if it didn't, we bet it would sure speed up their rebuilding programs.
Boy do I love this idea. :D
Regarding the intentional walk thing, I don't think it needs to be changed. If you want to give a guy a base, give him a base. As far as them saying it's just as easy to throw four pitches in the dirt to avoid an intentional walk, I think that is absurd. Who the hell is going to throw four straight pitches in the dirt with a guy on second or third and risk it being misplayed by the catcher?
Great articles Carissa, as usual. :)
on edit: and now that I read everyone else's comments I see that my point was already covered by Big E. :lol:
Originally posted by SorianoFanHFW
how would more injuries occur?
The theory is that by raising the mound you would also have to make the slope from the rubber to the front of the mound steeper. That, according to the theory, would put additional stress on the knee of the landing leg, as well as the groin and hamstring. I have no idea whether the theory is correct. I'm not sure whether there is any problem out there sufficient enough to take a chance that the theory is correct, because I personally think the health of pitchers is a much bigger problem in baseball than whether the puny sportswriters who love Barry Bonds' big muscles are getting off as much as they would desire. And for all they deny it, that's what this is all about.
Originally posted by Thorn
ROFLMAO :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Most of those rule changes sound ludicrus.:barf: I really wonder about the intelligence of some people. I mean do they actually try to think when they come up with these things?
The game is fine just how it is.
How do you justify the fantom tag at 2nd on the DP?
Originally posted by litho
How do you justify the fantom tag at 2nd on the DP?
This is one of those problems, and I do consider it a problem, that exists because the umpires don't enforce the current rules. A memo from Czar Selig should correct the problem instantly, though the umpires don't have any more respect for him than the rest of us.
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.7 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
0