Off-Topic Forum

I love baseball.

MLB almost lost me when they decided the All-Star game matters.
MLB almost lost me when they decided to move the Brewers to the NL.
MLB almost lost me when they decided to introduce some intermittent interleague play.
MLB almost lost me when they decided to move the Astros to the AL.
MLB almost lost me when they decided to have interleague play all season long.

I understand rules of the game need to evolve. But let's not break the core of the game because it might bring a couple people to a couple games before they leave it again anyway. That's who these rules changes cater to.

You want to speed up the game?

• Less time between innings
• Less time for RPs to throw warmups (they've already been throwing in the bullpen, 3 pitches to get in synch with the C and move on)
• Replay official is already reviewing the play - the play goes under review - have them tell the stadium announcer who broadcasts right there ("The runner is out") - they get no more than 15 seconds AFTER the MGR asks for review. (If it can't be determined in that amount of time, the play stands as called on the field)

And let's face it, what is the shortest MLB game ever? It was still close to 2 hours, and that was before 18 relief pitchers, DH, and TV commercials between innings. And the normal game these days is what? 2:30, 2:45, 3:00??? What will we save? 5 to 10 minutes? Out of almost 3 hours? Big flippin' deal. "Let's kill the strategy of the game to save 10 minutes." Stupid.

Thankfully, I love baseball. I just hope MLB doesn't kill itself.

Anytime the subject of baseball rules changes comes up, I always get reminded of that maverick Charlie O. Finley.  He caused quite a stir with trying to use a "Designated Runner" and orange baseballs.  Bill Veeck gets a thumbs up too for his Chicago White Sox softball uniforms complete with shorts.

Agree with almost all that has been said.  A ball game can be interesting without making changes, simply by enforcing rules already in place and the players, i.e. pitchers keeping the game moving along.  One of the best games I have watched in the last 2 decades was Roy Halladay vs Mark Buehrle.  If anyone ever watched these two pitch, you know that they did not waste time between pitches.  And the batters knew it.  If they were not set in the box quickly, the ball was going to be screaming past them before they could think of swinging. I believe the game I watched was barely over 2 hours.

But still in favour of a DH in both leagues. And yes, get rid of interleague play - hated it from its first game. And align the leagues back the way they were with Milwaukee in the AL and Houston in the NL.  Oh yes, the brain child behind that is now in the HOF.  Idiot.

Agree interleague play needs to go away. 

I don’t want DH rule in both leagues just one. There must be room for both types of pitchers that way. That way a pitcher like Babe Ruth who was a wonderful batter and of course Jim Abbott a one handed pitcher both have a place to be in baseball. 

Where I live I am lucky to get one baseball game a week. What hurts the development of new fans is games are mostly on premium channels. I became a fan of the Braves because when I was a kid one of the channels played every or almost every Braves game. Now the one game a week I get is a different set of two teams so you can’t really build a following. Upside is I do know who the better players are of each team but anyone with box scores could tell you that too probably. 

BradLevi, I agree that Jim Abbott was an inspirational and great person. But to use accommodation as a reason for making rules changes opens up a can of worms. There is nothing wrong with exclusivity - that's a concept that has gotten a bad rap with today's culture. I believe you're actually underestimating Abbott's desire to succeed despite his disability. I think he would have developed some sort of technique to bat, and may have for that matter, and would have still been able to match what many two-handed pitchers do at the plate.

Jim Abbott got 2 hits and 3 RBIs in 24 plate appearances (.095 BA) with Milwaukee in 1999.

MLB is an elite place to play baseball. Let the rec leagues accomodate people with disabilities. MLB should remain elite.

Home plate is 17 inches wide. If a pitcher can't get the ball over the plate, we don't make the plate wider. We hold the pitcher to that standard. If a batter can't hit a fast ball, we don't tell the pitcher to throw slower.

What Jim Abbott did was nothing short of phenomenal and very inspirational. But no one changed the game to cater to him, nor should they. He had to elevate himself to play at that level. If he wasn't good enough, he wouldn't have stuck around.

It's nice to see there are many purists here. About the only proposal that doesn't really irk me is expanding the roster size to 26 and I could even buy into a 28 to 30 daily active roster in September.(call up as many players as you care to) but only 28 to 30 can be on the lineup card for each game.

Interleague -eliminate it totally. Go back to when an Interleague game meant something(World Series) With MLB Network and MLB.com tv packages there are plenty of ways to find games from either league if you really want to find one.

Replay- I like Dan's comment that the replay official should be reviewing the play(they have access to enough technology to see a play that might be called for review before it is asked for) I know it is a central view system(supposedly covering all the games) but there aren't that many close call plays that a small crew watching the monitors couldn't be looking at them as they happen. also the manager should probably have less time to request a replay and the umpires definitely need less time to review and annouce the decision As Dan said if it takes longer than a set time (15 sec. maybe a little more) it should stand as called. If it's not an obvious mistake, move on.

Designated Hitter-  I would be glad to see it gone but it is probably ingrained in the game now, leave it as is but don't expand it.

As I said in my first post (and Dan added nicely in his) let's not cater to a group that is not truely  interested in the game anyway.("Pink Hats" and I use that term in the most disparaging way possible) Most are there to be seen and haven't got a clue about the true beauty of the game(the strategy and history that make it the greatest game.

The reason I brought up Jim Abbott and Babe Ruth was because of the comments about doing away with the designated hitter. I agree no special accommodations were given to Jim. My point was about why I personally wanted to see the leagues each have different rules regarding the use or non-use of the DH rule. 

As for the MLB packages not everyone is born with that silver spoon. 

“Pink Hats,” wow that’s completely offensive view of female sports fans. Here’s a tip. Don’t say that on a first date if you want a second one. 

I want to weigh in on this topic, but my reply is not directed at ANYONE or their posts here. I have read every single reply in this thread, but I have also followed baseball closely for 30+ years. These are my own personal opinions:

*DH: Keep it in the AL and leave it out of the NL. I didn't like the DH rule originally, but it's been in the AL for so long now that I think of it as part of history. Plus, it's prolonged the careers of many fantastic players who wouldn't have been able to play as long due to injuries suffered at their positions. First basemen take a beating playing that position and many of them have to settle for DH when their knees give out on them in some way. Outfielders suffer the same problems with having to cover so much ground in their careers. If you are a hitter in the NL and can't run down a ball anymore, go DH in the AL. If you are a pitcher in the NL and can't hit a ball, go to the AL. A pitcher that can hit the ball is a prime asset in the NL! I love seeing how teams try to use the pitcher at the plate on offense and defense.

*Interleague Play: I like having that for some games in a certain part of the schedule but not scattered throughout the season. It's fun to see 2 teams from the same city or state battle a couple of times each season b/c the chances of them meeting in the WS is rare. Yankees/Mets = Fun; Cubs/White Sox = Fun; Dodgers/Angels = Fun; A's/Giants = Fun; Rangers/Astros = was fun until they moved the Astros to the AL; Marlins/Rays = has never been more boring than now!

*A batter count for pitchers and limited mound visits: LOVE these ideas! I hate wasting a bunch of time through several pitcher changes late in a game where each pitcher faces one batter and then there's another pitching change. I've always hated that! Not only is time wasted with a mound visit and pitcher change, but the network/station airing the game takes time to add more commercials. Get rid of that whole waste of time. The mound visit is usually just to give the next pitcher a bit more warm-up time.

*Mound change: Leave it alone! Change nothing!

*Replay/Shift/Extra Innings = Leave them alone too. The shift is part of the game and a good defense. Replay needs to be done fast and MLB is so much faster than the NFL (and even faster than the NCAA) in most cases. Do not change a thing about extra innings. That's when a game gets really fun and strategic! I don't care about time much once they hit 12 innings or so, as long as there is action.

There's a secondary thought on the extra innings thing though. On TV, those suck and you just want the game to be over already. But when you are in the stands, it's different. Due to my location of at least a 6-hour drive to the 2 closest stadiums (that I still haven't been to yet), I LOVED every minute of the 2013 STL Cardinals vs. Pittsburgh Pirates 14-inning game that took just over 5 hours to complete. I was there in the stands and it couldn't have been a better experience for my first (and so far ONLY) live Cardinals game. It was my 2nd MLB game, but the 1st Cardinals game and in Busch Stadium at that. The 2nd closer pitcher got the hit that scored the winning run! I'll never forget that game and I wouldn't want to see it done any other way. Both teams were battling for a playoff spot in late-August. That win helped the Cards eventually win the division and make it all the way to the WS before losing to the Red Sox (again).

I read through everyone's posts and I guess I am the odd man out.  I like the DH rule, but it has been around my whole life and wish it would be brought to the NL, mostly because as a fan of an NL team I feel like every time we play an AL team we are at a distinct disadvantage.  The AL has someone set to be a DH, who is used to getting up cold and going to bat every few innings.  The NL teams usually has some bench player that they put in the DH  spot who isn't used to that situation.  Also the NL has to have someone that can play the field, having a person just around that can only hit isn't in the best interest of the team.  If you look at the interleague play the AL has won more interleague games in 17 of 22 years and there is only one rule difference.  Either expand it or delete it so where everyone plays under the same rules.  At this point I can't see getting rid of it, so the only option is to expand, in my opinion.  

Someone mentioned something about where does it end, should we have a DH for weak hitting SS and CFs and such and I actually will say I heard someone years ago make this proposal and it sounded good to me and would let pitchers, such as Ohtani or Ruth hit and would give the manager some strategy.  You get one DH per game but you can use him in the place of anyone, so if you want to DH for the SS when Ohtani is pitching then you can.  

As for the speed of games, games don't seem too long to me, I enjoy them.  The only things I would shorten are commercial breaks and when a pitcher throws over to first base several times in a row.  

Expanded rosters don't matter to me.  Put 50 players on the bench.  What does it matter?  There are always several people that don't make it into the game anyways, unless it is an 18 inning game. 

Don't mess with the fundamentals of the game, the mound height, shifts, strike zones, and making pitchers pitch to a certain amount of players.  Mound height, shifts and strike zones aren't the problems, it is the notion in player's heads and analytics that says trying to hit the ball 400 ft. every time is better than getting on base and moving players over.  The forcing of pitchers to pitch to a certain amount of hitters makes no sense.  I understand people hate seeing a lefty come in for one guy, then a righty come on, it takes up lots of time and is sometimes annoying but can you imagine the first time a pitcher comes in and immediately walks the first two batters and the manager is told he can't replace that pitcher.  It is going to cause too many problems.

Replay is annoying but at this point I don't know how to fix it.  We as fans see every angle of a play and expect someone in real time to make a call that we watch over and over again to see the nuance.  If an umpire misses a call we as fans get furious so there has to be a way to check them to protect the ump and the fan but as of yet I have not seen a perfect/fast way to do this so we have an imperfect system.

As a baseball fan, it is very sad to me that we are having to have discussions based on trying to keep fans, while other sports are growing without seeming to try.  I don't know the solution but I know baseball needs updates to appeal to a younger crowd.  When I was a kid baseball was king and now if you watch ESPN you can go hours without hearing a single baseball topic and during the middle of their offseasons basketball and football are still the number one topics on many programs.