|
I liked the pace of play idea floated on MLB Network today, based off of it being TV poison to watch fat, out of shape non-players walk slowly from the dugout to the mound which leads to more slow walking from the bullpen to the mound right after the umpires just slowly walked to the replay booth. Each team gets a set number of timeouts (I think they mentioned 5 or 6, but I think going up to 8 or even 10 might be fine) that can be used for the following and once expended the only allowable delays are injury delays and manager visits that result in pitching changes: - Replay challenges - Catcher/infield mound visits for any purpose (settle pitcher, change signs, etc) - Pitching coach/manager visits that leave the pitcher in - Injuries, if that time is used for anything beyond the injured player Implement something like this and start gradually introducing a pitch clock and we might not have 4+ hour 9 inning regular season games anymore! bawfuls posted:Three batters or end the inning. Three batters (pinch-hitting for the announced batter at the time of the change counts as two batters), end the inning, or allow two or more runs to score.
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 07:14 |
|
|
LeftistMuslimObama posted:when teams are carrying 11-12 pitchers in the bullpen plus their starting 5 that means almost half your average 40-man roster are bullpen arms or guys who know one bad season starting can turn them into one. that means it's in all pitchers' self interest to make sure fringey bullpen guys are protected, and you aren't going to get jack poo poo done as a union if half of every team's 40 man is not sold on your choices. Not saying it would be an easy thing to pass, but any lost bullpen spot would be an extra spot for the bats who would have just as much reason to want to swing the roster balance their way. I don't think it's something that can be passed for free, but I think it could be on the table if there's anything the PA wants that the owners could negotiate with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
CubsWoo posted:I liked the pace of play idea floated on MLB Network today, based off of it being TV poison to watch fat, out of shape non-players walk slowly from the dugout to the mound which leads to more slow walking from the bullpen to the mound right after the umpires just slowly walked to the replay booth. Timeouts in baseball seems weird and unnatural, but I could see it working similar to how you described. Use one to save the fat manager going out to buy the bullpen guy some more time. Just call your TO or something and take care of it then. and like the NFL, if you lose a challenge you lose a timeout. And a 20 second pitch clock with the parameters I set up earlier. The only thing I can't get around at the moment (because I'm tired and can't be assed to use precious brainpower on it right now) is if the pitcher wanted to buy some time he could throw over to 1st indefinitely, but then if you limit the number of throws over you give the baserunner a big advantage because he could force the limit of pickoff throws then take a bigass lead and steal 2nd easily. I just can't wrap my head around how to make that fair for both sides.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
I agree with this except for tying replay reviews into it. What that means if a team could realistically get five replay reviews if they don't use their time outs for anything else. Imagine having five challenges to throw down in the bottom of the 9th in a one run game: you could almost end up with a Baseball version of hack-a-shaq where the losing team keeps throwing down challenges on every play multiple times in a row for no other purpose than to ice the closer. It's certainly a fringe case I admit, but I don't like the idea of issuing each team more than one challenge to start. Also speaking of replay, another very easy and potentially effective pace of play change would be something the thread has talked about at length: reviews are limited to 20-30 seconds from the time the challenge is issued. If the NY can't find clear and convincing evidence within that timeframe, then it's call stands.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
Your Taint posted:Timeouts in baseball seems weird and unnatural, but I could see it working similar to how you described. Just call them 'interruptions' or whatever, and I wouldn't let you keep it if you win the challenge just because they're multi-functional - you could use all 6 or 10 or whatever on replay challenges if you wanted. Combine that with the a 'New York must rule on the replay within 90 seconds or the call stands' adjustment and some kind of discretion to eject/fine managers for frivolous replay usage. As far as the pitch clock I like the framework, but I would probably start the clock at 30 seconds and lower it over 4 or 5 seasons to a permanent 20 to allow for players who are a decade into their routine to adjust. Make tosses to first add 5 seconds to the clock (up to the max pitch clock time) and the clock starts immediately once the pitcher has the ball back and the only way to fully reset the clock is to either make a delivery to the plate, make an out, or a runner advances to another base. Loosen or eliminate all of these rules for the postseason, though. CubsWoo fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Feb 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
They have all the rules they need to speed up the game in place already, don't they? It's just a matter of encouraging the umpires to start actually enforcing them. Which, given how many grandstanding "look at me" umpires there are running around the league who seem like they'd love nothing more than to command everyone's attention while they unilaterally declare a walk or a strike out to punish someone for taking too much drat time (and then throw out the player and/or manager for objecting), prompts me to wonder what the holdup is there. I'd assume Joe West (or Angel Hernandez) would be happier than a pig in poo poo shouting "BALL 2! BALL 3! BALL 4!" while the pitcher is staring him down over the pitch down the middle that got called Ball 1. Please no more baseball trying to incorporate Football Ideas with timeouts and challenges and bullshit. [Also to this point: Umpires are not obliged to grant time out every time a hitter asks for it. They could/should just start saying "no" more instead of letting guys wander around on the grass after every pitch.]
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
I think timeouts or limiting mound visits is unnecessary. Pace of play rules have cut out most of time wasting by batters, and something similar could be done for pitchers, hopefully without adding a clock. The worst thing now is mangers stalling for time while they wait for someone in the clubhouse to watch a replay before deciding whether or not to challenge. I would give managers two challenges per game / first 6 innings, but he would have 10 seconds to initiate a challenge after the ump makes a call. Make a challenge or don't. We don't need to have a review to decide if we're having a review.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
WienerDog posted:I think timeouts or limiting mound visits is unnecessary. Pace of play rules have cut out most of time wasting by batters, and something similar could be done for pitchers, hopefully without adding a clock. Agreed. Though I think the small and finite number of challenges allowed encourages teams to take all that time deciding whether to use it or not. I'd let teams have more challenges (they basically do, anyway, since they can always request more and the umpires generally grant these requests even when not obligated to) so they can be more flippant/impulsive about calling for them. Ideally they should be more of a snap decision in "NO WAY THAT GUY WAS SAFE BY A MILE!" situations that will lead to clear (way less than 90 seconds) overturns, or last out of the game "nothing to lose, gently caress it" hope spots anyway. I'd also consider not allowing the whole clubhouse consultant element. Manager should make the call himself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 05:07
|
|
|
Mister Perky posted:Agreed. Though I think the small and finite number of challenges allowed encourages teams to take all that time deciding whether to use it or not. yeah, the problematic replays are the ones where the tv people spend like 3 minutes trying to find the correct angle and frame to see if a guy was out by a millimeter. the manager should have to request it immediately and if the replay umpire can't figure out an answer within 1 minute they should say "call stands" and move on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
God the offseason is horrific
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 07:16
|
|
|
TheChaosPath posted:God the offseason is horrific It's almost over!
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 07:53
|
|
|
Hey Baseball Jerks! I made a NPB thread. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3809099&pagenumber=1#lastpost
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 08:17
|
|
|
 Get better at Google St. Louis social media intern. Probably want to find a different stock image of a baseball.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
Dexo posted:
I hope this was secretly intentional.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
Assuming it was real, it's been taken down so probably not intentional.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
What am I looking for there? I thought maybe it was the wrong commish signature, but nope.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:What am I looking for there? Cubs logo on bottom of the ball.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Maybe I'm dumb but I'm not seeing the problem. Edit: beat
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:What am I looking for there?  Its a Cubs baseball.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
I think they just secretly love us. Kind of like how we secretly love them. The Cubs/Cards rivalry is one of those spices of life that makes baseball interesting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
http://m.mlb.com/news/article/215352966/mlbtv-for-2017-available-now/ MLB.tv is live $112.99 for premium, $87.99 for the single team plan. With premium you get access to all the WBC games which is cool.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
Sydin posted:I think they just secretly love us. Kind of like how we secretly love them. The Cubs/Cards rivalry is one of those spices of life that makes baseball interesting. I don't hate the organization all that much. They are a quality organization and a blueprint to follow. Their fans are hot garbage though(present company excluded of course).
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
The Pussy Boss posted:http://m.mlb.com/news/article/215352966/mlbtv-for-2017-available-now/ That's a price drop isn't it? I think it was like $129.99 last year.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
The Pussy Boss posted:http://m.mlb.com/news/article/215352966/mlbtv-for-2017-available-now/ Also note that audio feeds for every team is still only 20 bucks and never blocked and radio is the best.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Popete posted:That's a price drop isn't it? I think it was like $129.99 last year. Yeah I'm pretty sure it's been more in previous years. Is MLB.tv the only way to watch WBC stuff?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
surprised that ball doesn't have an Astros logo on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
Inspector_666 posted:Yeah I'm pretty sure it's been more in previous years. Is MLB.tv the only way to watch WBC stuff? quote:MLB Network is the exclusive English-language network and ESPN Deportes is the exclusive Spanish-language network of the World Baseball Classic. Each will air all games of the 2017 WBC in the United States.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
Poque posted:surprised that ball doesn't have an Astros logo on it. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Hm, I can watch MLB Network streaming with my cable login, that's nice. I may not actually bother with MLB.tv this year, which would be a first.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
How badly does MLB.tv clamp down on account sharing? My roommate and I are considering splitting an account and while we're normally in the same place, there may be a few times we'd both be streaming at the same time in different states.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
Sydin posted:How badly does MLB.tv clamp down on account sharing? My roommate and I are considering splitting an account and while we're normally in the same place, there may be a few times we'd both be streaming at the same time in different states. Well this website does the MLB.tv share everywhere. I usually split it with 4 total randos all throughout the US and it's never been a problem!
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
MLB.tv was 109.99 last year so it's up 3 bucks but down from the pre-lawsuit amount I think. PECOTA has their predictions up for 2017 with win numbers and current Sportsbook pennant odds: AL East: Red Sox (89-73, #3 seed, 5:2) Rays (83-79, tie-WC2, 50:1) Blue Jays (80-82, 10:1) Yankees (79-83, 10:1) Orioles (71-91, 20:1) AL Central: Indians (91-71, #2 seed, 7:2) Tigers (77-85, 15:1) Twins (77-85, 65:1) White Sox (75-87, 50:1) Royals (70-92, 20:1) AL West: Astros (92-70, #1 seed, 7:1) Mariners (85-77, WC1, 15:1) Rangers (83-79, tie-WC2, 12:1) Angels (77-85, 40:1) Athletics (74-88, 60:1) NL East: Mets (86-76, #3 seed, 15:2) Nationals (85-77, WC1, 5:1) Marlins (76-86, 30:1) Braves (75-87, 60:1) Phillies (72-90, 60:1) NL Central: Cubs (88-74, #2 seed, 9:5) Pirates (80-82, 25:1) Cardinals (75-87, 12:1) Brewers (74-88, 100:1) Reds (72-90, 100:1) NL West: Dodgers (97-65, #1 seed, 6:1) Giants (84-78, WC2, 6:1) Diamondbacks (76-86, 60:1) Rockies (73-89, 25:1) Padres (68-94, 100:1)
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Yearly reminder that PECOTA is pretty bad
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
How the hell does PECOTA get only 88 wins for the Cubs??
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:How the hell does PECOTA get only 88 wins for the Cubs?? If I remember right, their prediction last year was about the same. Sydin posted:How badly does MLB.tv clamp down on account sharing? My roommate and I are considering splitting an account and while we're normally in the same place, there may be a few times we'd both be streaming at the same time in different states. From what I remember hearing, the only times people got busted was when someone on a mobile app was using a GPS spoofer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:How the hell does PECOTA get only 88 wins for the Cubs?? I mean it also says the Pirates are going to play better ball than the Cards, and that the Cards will play sub .500 while only performing one game better than the Brewers, which 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:How the hell does PECOTA get only 88 wins for the Cubs?? Yeah 88 wins seems a bit low, seeing as how the Cubs won 103 games last year and that was still 4 games below their pythag. Fowler is the only player with a WAR above 2 that the Cubs lost during the offseason, Heyward probably isn't going to have a worse season than last year, and they'll get Schwarber back. Almora, Schwarber, Russell, Baez, Edwards, Contreras, and Bryant are all 24 or younger, so you have to imagine they're only going to improve.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/MLB/status/829061619531411457 I would be way more excited about this if they didn't have Holliday already. This means less ABs for Austin out of the Austin/Bird/Judge triumverate which probably isn't a big deal in the long run, but still makes me sad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:How the hell does PECOTA get only 88 wins for the Cubs?? Also they have the Cubs projected for 91. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/fantasy/dc/
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 07:14 |
|
|
bawfuls posted:How the hell does PECOTA get only 88 wins for the Cubs?? Pitcher regression, defensive regression, not being one of the luckiest teams in MLB history when it comes to injuries (especially to the starting staff) and teams figuring out Contreras, Schwarber, Almora etc. Fangraphs also has their projection out: AL East: Red Sox (92-70, #1 seed) Blue Jays (84-78, Tie-WC1) Rays (82-80) Yankees (82-80) Orioles (79-83) AL Central: Indians (91-71, #2 seed) Tigers (83-79) Royals (78-84) Twins (74-88) White Sox (70-92) AL East: Astros (90-72, #3 seed) Angels (84-78, Tie-WC1) Rangers (83-79) Mariners (83-79) Athletics (77-85) NL East: Nationals (90-72, #3 seed) Mets (84-78, Tie-WC2) Marlins (79-83) Braves (74-88) Phillies (71-91) NL Central: Cubs (94-68, #2 seed) Cardinals (84-78, Tie-WC2) Pirates (82-80) Reds (70-92) Brewers (68-94) NL West: Dodgers (95-67, #1 seed) Giants (87-75, WC1) Rockies (79-83) Diamondbacks (77-85) Padres (66-96)
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2017 21:41
|
|