Man, Rickey would have stolen 200 bases in 82 if they had that pick off limitation, I remember times where they tried picking him off 10-12 times in a row...

I've been watching minor league games here and I am a big fan of the pitch clock and how it helps the pace of the game.The players have obviously adjusted to it very well.Very fan friendly.What I probably hate more than anything is the batter stepping out and adjusting his batting gloves every pitch for no good reason.In the minors now,if a batter does it,he does it quickly and he doesn't seem bothered by the time constraint.

I will never like a three batter minimum rule for relievers. I don't like the automatic runner at second in extra innings. It's too much. It's like putt putt golf, or baseball with Legos...it doesn't feel real. Enjoy the intrigue that the game offers...

I don't like the ghost runner, but I can live with it if it's later in the game. Start it in the 12th or 13th. The way it is now is like if the NHL went right to a shootout after regulation. You need that "OT" period in there, at least.

This opinion will get me ripped to pieces but I'd prefer ties to the ghost runner. Starting an inning with a runner on base is so gimmicky, if you're that concerned with time of game, just end the game after nine innings. The ghost runner fundamentally changes the basic premise of the sport.

Most people hate ties for some reason but they lead to very interesting strategic decisions, do you play conservatively for the tie or aggressively for the win while also increasing your chances of losing? College football used to have spots like this all the time (granted I'm not old enough to have really seen them in action, I've only read about them), now there's a super gimmicky overtime format. NHL regular season overtime rules are terrible, the point for an overtime loss has incentivized both teams to turtle and play for overtime late in regulation. The tie was a longtime part of the NHL and was eliminated by a misguided attempt to attract a younger audience. NFL overtime has always been heavily slanted towards the winner of the coin toss, the rules are changing constantly for it and I don't even know what it is now without looking it up. Most regular season overtimes are terrible (besides basketball where there are so many points scored a short OT period makes sense), let everyone go home earlier and normalize ties.

I don't hate ties, they're just boring. When people go to a sporting competition, they want to see a winner. I agree with you on the gimmicky nature of overtimes, but at the same time, as a fan, I'd rather see a winner than walk away from a game feeling like there's no resolution.

A team rallying late to force a tie from a nearly impossible position is very exciting, obviously you would prefer to rally for the win but it beats the hell out of losing. There have been countless extremely dramatic ties that are regarded as classic games in college football 1994 and earlier.

There need to be winners over the course of a season or in the playoffs but for one game a tie for me is preferable over a gimmicky format that only somewhat resembles the sport played during regulation.

I dont like ties in baseball....doesnt go with the uniform. Sorry, couldnt resist.

My opinion is most of the rules are not effective in speeding up the game. If the strike zone was actually called properly, it would be larger and game would move because you wouldnt have the focus on 10 pitch ABs that really add nothing. Get up there, if it is a good pitch, go after it, stop looking for walks, that is like a charging soldier just looking to not get shot vs. eliminating the enemy position.

I DO like the ghost runner. Teams should want to Win but nothing is gained by Winning in 20 innings vs. 10/11 vs. both teams destroying their pen for a few days or requiring a roster move. That solves nothing. I would love see stats on the average extra inning game length since the rule was started, theoretically it shoudl be shorter.

I disagree with the argument that the hitters will adjust and hit to the opposite field...we've had heavy shifting now for what, 10 years or so, and it doesn't seem like anyone is adjusting. I don't know if it's stubbornness, or just the fact that it's really difficult to go to the opposite field against pitchers working the top of the strike zone at 98 mph. How many years do we wait before we admit that hitters aren't adjusting?

It's a deliberate strategy to swing with a pull uppercut, teams have so much data now and they've concluded hits with a higher launch angle are more productive over the long term than trying to slap the ball the other way. And like you said, it's much harder to make contact against modern pitchers, I don't think a hit and run or other small ball strategy is gonna be too effective against guys throwing 99 with movement. If you took today's pitchers and put them in the 1970s and 80s against teams attempting small ball slap hitting, you'd see a bit of a decline in strikeouts but also a huge decline in home runs and an overall decline in runs scored. The best chance of scoring against a lot of these guys is by taking it out of the ballpark. I've got a lot of criticisms of modern front offices for their penny-pinching tactics but they're not stupid, if teaching your hitters to go to the opposite field was a winning strategy someone would be doing it.

Posted by 06gsp on 9/21/2022 7:13:00 PM (view original):
It's a deliberate strategy to swing with a pull uppercut, teams have so much data now and they've concluded hits with a higher launch angle are more productive over the long term than trying to slap the ball the other way. And like you said, it's much harder to make contact against modern pitchers, I don't think a hit and run or other small ball strategy is gonna be too effective against guys throwing 99 with movement. If you took today's pitchers and put them in the 1970s and 80s against teams attempting small ball slap hitting, you'd see a bit of a decline in strikeouts but also a huge decline in home runs and an overall decline in runs scored. The best chance of scoring against a lot of these guys is by taking it out of the ballpark. I've got a lot of criticisms of modern front offices for their penny-pinching tactics but they're not stupid, if teaching your hitters to go to the opposite field was a winning strategy someone would be doing it.

It really depends on the hitter. Do you think a hitter like Tony Gwynn wouldn't have value in today's game because he doesn't hit HRs? I'm not an analytics expert, but it just seems logical that having your 1, 2 and 9 hitters (at very least) being higher average/OBP guys who excel more at getting on base than they do hitting HRs, to set up your big power guys, would be beneficial. As a hitter, I'd rather be a .270/.340/.425 guy with 10 HRs, than a .217/.315/.460 guy with 27 HRs.

The problem with today's game is that even the smallest guys seem to be taught to swing for the fences, when there appears to be very little payoff with their lack of power. Look at a guy like Rougned Odor. You can't tell me a hitter with his build should be constantly trying to hit bombs. He's had a couple 30 HR seasons in his career, but he's only topped 100 in OPS+ twice in 9 seasons (and never higher than 107). He's also hit under .210 in 5 of his 9 seasons. I don't buy any analytics that tell me that's best approach for a player like him.