Manfred's New Changes
 

[url=http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/18631714/mlb-proposes-scrapping-intentional-walk-raising-strike-zone]MLB proposes scrapping intentional walk, raising strike zone[/url]

I just hate the intentional walk BS. Gary Sanchez almost hit a homerun to center field on an intentional walk pitch last year that ended up being a long sacrifice fly. That was pretty exciting. :flex:

I still say this clown Commissioner will be worse for the game than Selig ever was. :mad:

I'm fine with both changes. Why not? Might as well give them a shot.

I'm OK with getting rid of the intentional walk. Shrinking the strike zone not so much

[QUOTE=fulltritty;11929146][url=http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/18631714/mlb-proposes-scrapping-intentional-walk-raising-strike-zone]MLB proposes scrapping intentional walk, raising strike zone[/url]

I just hate the intentional walk BS. Gary Sanchez almost hit a homerun to center field on an intentional walk pitch last year that ended up being a long sacrifice fly. That was pretty exciting. :flex:

I still say this clown Commissioner will be worse for the game than Selig ever was. :mad:[/QUOTE]

Completely agree. Games aren't longer because of intentional walks. Games are longer because of television. Shrinking the strikezone will only make games longer.

Since arriving, Manfred has seemed more concerned about his legacy than anything else.

"Hmmm...hitters can't seem to make contact as often as they used to, so let's shrink the strike zone." - Manfred

Might as well narrow the plate as well.

If 100 pitches means you're done, I'm fine with the intentional walk rule. Scraping those 4 "pitches" might get you another inning.

I don't like the shrinking the strike zone at all, mainly because the Twins pitchers already struggle with the current zone

The more I read about Manfred's "ideas" the more I become convinced he was dropped on his head as a baby.

[QUOTE=enbambam6986;11929400]If 100 pitches means you're done, I'm fine with the intentional walk rule. Scraping those 4 "pitches" might get you another inning.[/QUOTE]

A pitcher only does an intentional walk maybe once every three games id bet. Kind of nonissue

I'm just sick of rule changes to appease the millennials.

Why don't we just play the games in an empty warehouse and allow viewing via cellphone only? Pre-record the games, play the recording at 2x speed, add flashy lights and emojis and boom. Profits.

Get off my lawn.

I think there's a decent chance that the intentional walk rule passes, but I can't see the strike zone shrinking. The MLBPA needs to approve the changes and considering half the players are pitchers, good luck convincing them that there should be a smaller strike zone.

[QUOTE=Peties Army;11929429]A pitcher only does an intentional walk maybe once every three games id bet. Kind of nonissue[/QUOTE]

Mike Axisa of CBSSports ran the numbers yesterday. One intentional walk every ~46 innings in 2016.

[QUOTE=Cheddar;11929852]Mike Axisa of CBSSports ran the numbers yesterday. One intentional walk every ~46 innings in 2016.[/QUOTE]

So about once every 5 games.

We really need to eliminate 4 pitches every 5 games? This is how desperate they are to "speed up" the game? :doh:

someone already started a thread - oh wait it was you :doh:

[url]http://www.blowoutcards.com/forums/baseball/1004878-baseball-possibly-changing-strike-zone-intentional-walks.html[/url]

It 's cosmetic fluffery....if baseball really wants to get serious about speeding up games, it will:

#1 - reduce the length of time between innings (note that each 9-inning game has between 16-17 commercial breaks between innings, each 2:30 seconds long....that's 40-43 minutes right there)

#2 - reduce the number of mid-inning pitching changes, each of which adds 2+ minutes to the length of a game

#3 - eliminate replay challenges for oversliding/coming off the base...you could still allow challenges to see if the runner beat the tag, but once the runner touches the base, he's safe no matter what.

[QUOTE=mfw13;11930039]It 's cosmetic fluffery....if baseball really wants to get serious about speeding up games, it will:

#1 - reduce the length of time between innings (note that each 9-inning game has between 16-17 commercial breaks between innings, each 2:30 seconds long....that's 40-43 minutes right there)

#2 - reduce the number of mid-inning pitching changes, each of which adds 2+ minutes to the length of a game[/QUOTE]

#1 I agree with completely. #2 is still just a terrible idea. There is no reason to change the way the game is played for the sake of a few minutes. The game completely changes if you are 'out' of pitching changes in an innning.

As far as the options in the OP, getting rid of intentional walks has a negligible effect as outlined above. Shrinking the strike zone will do nothing but increase regular walks and scoring, which makes games longer than they already are.

#notmycommissioner

[QUOTE=glen87;11929869]someone already started a thread - oh wait it was you :doh:

[url]http://www.blowoutcards.com/forums/baseball/1004878-baseball-possibly-changing-strike-zone-intentional-walks.html[/url][/QUOTE]

That thread was so May of last year. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=enbambam6986;11929400]If 100 pitches means you're done, I'm fine with the intentional walk rule. Scraping those 4 "pitches" might get you another inning.[/QUOTE]

Four 75 mph throws won't make a difference.

Eliminating the intentional walk would be like eliminating kneel downs in football. Will anything happen? 99% of the time, no. But there's always a chance.

To read this thread and see that some think that this change contributes to Manfred being a worse commissioner than Selig is laughable. Manfred is SO much better.

[QUOTE=notoriousrmb;11929736]I'm just sick of rule changes to appease the millennials.

Why don't we just play the games in an empty warehouse and allow viewing via cellphone only? Pre-record the games, play the recording at 2x speed, add flashy lights and emojis and boom. Profits.

Get off my lawn.[/QUOTE]

With the extra room in the warehouses, you could also put in some safe spaces for fans of the losing team and also gluten-free and soy-based concession stands.

I hate that I'm a millennial :doh:

[QUOTE=Cheddar;11929852]Mike Axisa of CBSSports ran the numbers yesterday. One intentional walk every ~46 innings in 2016.[/QUOTE]

If the average MLB game lasts three hours, and an intentional walk talks two minutes...

You are going to save a bunch of seconds! Hooray for Manfred!

I don't want them to change the intentional walk rule. It's an exciting play when the pitcher launches one and the runners advance. Maybe even steal home. You get pitchers like Jon Lester who can't throw to first for mental reasons. I can see this happening to other pitchers trying to execute the intentional walk. It also can conceivably change the pitchers rhythm just like stepping out and other stall tactics that teams employ. To me, it's an important part of the culture of the game. Like others have said.... how many intentional walks happen per game on average... NOT many so this potential rule change will have almost zero affect in changing the pace of play when averaged out over an entire season.

[QUOTE=no10pin;11930049]There is no reason to change the way the game is played for the sake of a few minutes. The game completely changes if you are 'out' of pitching changes in an innning.[/QUOTE]

Why not? There have been many other changes made to the game for many other reasons (the DH, for example, or teams changing the dimensions of their stadiums). And, in many cases, it's not just a few minutes being saved....often its 5-10 minutes+....

Who's to say that limiting the number of mid-inning pitching changes wouldn't make the game better (perhaps by lessening the R/R and L/L matchups which reduce offense)? After all baseball survived just fine and was quite enjoyable before managers starting obsessively playing the matchup game and using 3-4 relievers to get through a single inning.

At the very worst, limiting mid-inning pitching changes would simply change manager's strategies a bit and force them to think a little bit further ahead. Why assume that that would be a bad thing...