Comments on: A Rule Change

By: lotus49

lotus49 — Wed, 06 May 2009 22:06:33 +0000

One of the most attractive aspects of baseball is the very small number of rule changes over the years and for this reason I would oppose almost any change in the rules.

However, I hate intentional walks too. The whole idea of being too scared to face a particular batter offends me. It is just running from a difficult challenge which does not sit well with the overtly combative nature of baseball.

So although I don’t think the rules should be changed we should shame them into stopping.

By: Nick

Nick — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 02:25:31 +0000

Seems to me the intentional walk represents the “game” aspect of the sport just like 3 strikes is an out, 4 balls is a walk, a ball bouncing over the wall is a ground-rule double. Inherently people want to see the “athletic” aspect of the game more than the game aspect. We are ok with teams winning on athletic superiority but we loath teams that win on a gimmick or a quirk in the rules (the Tom Brady tuck rule comes to mind even though I despise the Raiders), but with all games its going to happen regardless. Sports with no “game” aspect are called track and field and they are no fun to watch.

By: Hitandrun

Hitandrun — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 18:58:06 +0000

A different idea I used to kick around while watching Barry Bonds walked multiple times in a game it that a batter should be awarded two bases if he is walked a second time in a game. This would apply whether the walks were intentional or not. Three bases if walked a third time, etc. It leaves the IBB as a manager’s tool, but limits what he can do with it and makes them pitch to the big boys and the mid-level players, too.

By: Blaine

Blaine — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 18:53:06 +0000

“If a pitcher was wild, threw four straight balls, the batter would still get the option to turn down the walk. I suspect the hitter would almost never turn down the walk…”
Why?
Any intelligent manager would instruct his hitter NOT to take the walk, simply on the odds that he earns a free walk into scoring position. Especially if we’re talking about an NL team. But, since we’re filandering w/ the rules anyway, why not let ALL the pitchers sit and watch their teammates swing the bat?

By: Mark W.

Mark W. — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 21:18:38 +0000

David in NYC: The Wilpon’s probably had to auction off the “Met-Head mobile” to raise some cash since the Madoff disaster…

By: per14

per14 — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 21:15:59 +0000

“T.S. Eliot an American is roughly the same as calling Michael Jordan (born in Brooklyn) a New Yorker â€” technically true, but not what most people would mean by either term.”

I disagree. Eliot wasn’t a British citizen until he was about 35 or 40 and he said in many places that he considered America the emotional source of his poetry. Jordan moved to Carolina when he was a small child. He probably has no memory of NYC. If, hypothetically, Jordan lived in NYC until he was 18 and later said that his revolutionary game was based on the NY-style basketball he learned growing up, wouldn’t that change our perception of Jordan?

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying he’s not British. He’s both. But anyway, Joe lists Prufrock in the poll, so I suppose he considers Eliot an American. Although, maybe he was just trying to invite this very discussion.

By: David in NYC

David in NYC — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 20:52:37 +0000

Josh and Mark –

Yes, MLBPA has the right to approve or disapprove anything that affects “playing conditions”. Obviously, our proposed rule changes would fall into that category.

As for roster sizes: many years ago, I took a “course” (really a series of bullshit sessions) at the New School in NYC called “Sports in the City”. Each week, we had a guest speaker; one of them was Donald Fehr (then Marvin Miller’s right-hand man). During the Q&A, I asked him about getting rid of the DH; he said he (read MLBPA) was opposed to it because DHs would lose their jobs. When I asked him if he would still be opposed if roster sizes were increased to 26 to accommodate the DHs, he was still opposed. So much for that thought.

I do think the MLBPA would approve the return of vehicles to transport relievers from the bullpen, since it would remove the enormous burden of having to walk the 100 yards or so to the mound.

In fact, IIRC, it was the rule at one time that relievers HAD to ride to the mound to speed up play. The Yankees used a car (originally a convertible — you can imagine how long that lasted in Yankee Stadium) provided by a sponsor (Toyota?), while the Mets used a golf cart tricked up with an enormous Mr. Met head over the seats. I wonder what happened to that.

By: Mark W.

Mark W. — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 20:04:48 +0000

Yes, I do think the MLBPA has the right to approve rule changes. Maybe to speed up the process more clubs could provide the car or buggy to shuttle the reliever to the main mound a few seconds faster. I always enjoyed seeing relievers in Cleveland in the ’60s ride in a speedy convertible from the bullpens behind the outfield fence to the infield!

By: Josh in DC

Josh in DC — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 19:16:00 +0000

Mark W.: As long as they don’t shrink the sizes of the rosters (and I’m not advocating that they should), there’s no reason most players would put up a fight. Some would — there’s a LOOGY on most teams, so you’re talking about 30 players. But if it were part of a larger package (including the no-leaving-the-batters-box addendum) I think even the pitchers would go along.

Incidentally, does the Players Association get a say on rule changes?

By: Mark W.

Mark W. — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:59:54 +0000

David in NYC: You are absolutely correct about watching pitcher after pitcher walk in from the bullpen in the same 1/2 inning and comparing that to the free throw shooting contests that now decide most close basketball games. BORING!!

However, changing the rule in MLB may be next to impossible…You know that those MLB relievers love their 1/3 of an inning role and the MLBPA will stick by them 110%.