[Slugman]

The reason the salary cap works in the NFL is because teams are virtually equal in revenue. In baseball some teams bring in many times the money of other teams. Those wealthy teams will never support a cap that affects only them in a practical sense. And since the players will always be against it, only a united front of ownership could make them accept it. Some great comments in this thread, even the ones I disagree with. One idea about umpires: make them go through extensive training using the robot umps to check their work, and improve it. Or this: human umps, but they are not behind the plate, they are looking at the box the fans see.

[borank]

Maybe the umps can wear a smart watch with a pitch app to consult on borderline pitches. There really needs to be an ump at the plate for foul tips, hit batsmen, catcher interference, plays at the plate, and so forth. Or maybe MLB could add a rule allowing a limited # of appeals on egregious ball/strike calls. I think most pitchers and hitters are okay with umpires unique strike zones as long as they're consistent with their calls.

[Slugman]

Yeah, there would still need to be an ump at the plate. But I’m saying the calls of balls and strikes should be made by a human seeing what the fan sees, the box delineating the strike zone. Then the box becomes a knowledge tool for a human, and not a “robot”.

[Chief Joseph]

[GaliWalker]

The players union will fight a salary cap tooth and nail. FWIW, they tried to find a compromise solution in their revenue sharing approach.

[Chief Joseph]

Yes, I understand that it will likely never happen, even if it would have a more positive outcome than all the other changes combined. Sure there are negatives to a salary cap, but I think there are far more positives. Although I suppose it would be like football where stars would get most of the meat, while the role players would get the leftovers. Every other sport that I can think of has some sort of a time limit, so I think the pitch clock is a good thing, as far as the other changes, no. Like back in the day, the NCAA had no shot clock, and teams like the Tar Heels would run the 4 corners and run minutes off of the clock...boring!

[Pyrites]

Computer called pitches, training umpires. I take it as truism every MILB umpire wants to make MLB. Probably close to true. I assume even if they don’t usually call balls/strikes in the minors I assume they all call them in their mind. In a second or two they get the digital answer in their earpiece. So they are already getting lots and lots of training, six* days a week, all summer long. Twice a week if you’re on a three umpire team. *The minors play almost no games on Monday. Others the Homo sapiens umps call is whether batter went around or not.

[Chief Joseph]

If you ask the average fan if they watch MLB if if not why? The standard answer will nearly always be that "No, baseball is boring". Now to someone with a deeper understanding of the game, who understood the nuances that take place between pitchers, catchers, fielders, and batters and strategic maneuvers by the opposing managers, the game was never really boring. So, that being said, speeding up the game imo is a very good thing. Any other changes, beginning with the DH, I would rather do without. My main gripes with baseball as it has evolved in order. 1. Too much free agency, with big market teams robbing small market teams of their top players. 2. The DH rule...although I have become used to it and like many things has it Pos. and Neg aspects. 3. Inter League Play...I have mixed feelings about this one, although I do think it's good for the game overall. 4. Elimination of the shift....don't like this one, pro hitters can learn to hit to all fields, or bunt to an empty base, no excuses imo. 5. Lack of a salary cap, see #1. 6. Larger bases to promote more stealing...meh, can't see that makes much difference. 7. Not in MLB yet, but Robotic Umps? Hell to the No!!!!!

[Chief Joseph]

O' and one other thing I used to have about baseball...3 outs, 4 commercials, rinse and repeat, but thankfully the DVR solved that issue. Chalk up one for technology. Another gripe I have about nearly all sports is the watered down playoff format, hell might as well let everyone in. Greedy assholes. O' and one more time, I ABSOLUTELY hate the runner on 2nd base in xtra innings thing, what an idiotic implementation! Life is painful for the "Purist". lol Rant over...maybe.

[Slugman]

Keep in mind that eliminating the shift had zero to do with making any players happy. It was 100% to increase offense and base hits for the fans. It is part and parcel with the larger bases, and only two throws over to first base allowed. More hits, more stolen bases. Batting averages were .243 last year, the lowest since 1968. Singles were down to 5.3 per team per game, the third lowest in MLB history. The two that were lower: the two previous years. Baseball was drowning in boredom. Slow moving game, then nothing happening even when someone finally did throw a pitch or swing a bat. Speeding up a boring game by itself was not going to change things. I also never liked the DH. I don’t care about pitchers hitting, I hate someone getting at bats without fielding a position. I learned in Little League that fielding was the work you did to earn a chance to hit. In 1986, the 9th spot in the Mets batting order (pitchers plus some pinch hitters) outhit, for the entire season, the 9th spot for the Red Sox.

[Pyrites]

I haven’t seen numbers yet. The non-shift almost shift seems to stop a lot of line drives and grounders still. You don’t get that player in shallow field catching those can of corns. My favorite shift play was runner slides into 2nd, safe. Short stop with ball standing behind him. Third not covered. Runner takes off for third. Safe. Oops.

[borank]

[Slugman]

In 1968, Carl Yastremski won the AL batting title with a .301 average. No other player hit over .290. In 1969, Rod Carew hit .332, the next five were all over .300, and the 10th best AL average was .293. Wow.

[CC]

I pretty much agree with this guy (below). I'll just add that the main reason they are making all these changes is that baseball has become relatively less popular, especially re NFL, and they think these changes will bring fans back. But they won't; take shortening the game. Before these changes MLB and NFL average game times were basically the same, and the proportion of game time when the "ball is in play" is actually larger in MLB games. The reason football is now more popular is that it is a much better fit to our national psyche, as George Carlin pointed out in his famous "baseball and football" routine. New Rules JONATHAN V. LAST MAR 30 We are now in Year 2 of the MLB’s attempt to destroy the game. And these rich motherforkers are bastardizing the game. Let’s talk about it. There are four major changes to the rules this year: A clock for pitchers which requires them to pitch on a time schedule. Pitchers are limited to two pick-off attempts per at-bat. The bases have been made larger. Infielders have required zones of play to prevent defensive shifts. All of these are terrible. Pitch clock: The idea behind the pitch clock is that baseball games are too long and baseball owners are forever worried about how The Kids don’t care about baseball anymore. And God help me, the pitch clock is actually popular so far. It has shortened games by about 20 minutes, total. Maybe you like that. Maybe you’re the kind of person who prefers it when Grand Slam finals are over in straight sets. Or would be happier if Taylor Swift played fewer songs at her concerts. Or wishes your local pizza joint made smaller pies. That’s fine. I’m not going to kink-shame you. But I am here to tell you that there is precisely no one in America who didn’t like watching baseball at 3-hour-run times who is going to became a baseball fan now that games are 2 hours and 40 minutes. This change isn’t going to make baseball more popular. What it will do is create a bunch of sh##ty outcomes where games are decided by pitch clock violations. Tell me: Would you be at peace with a World Series game ending because a batter with 2 strikes and 2 outs in the bottom of the 9th stepped into the box with 7 seconds left on the pitch clock instead of 8 seconds left? Because that is the world the pitch clock has made possible. And I’m going to be honest: I hope it happens. Because these sickos who get off on having less baseball in their lives deserve it. Pickoff attempts / bigger bases: Baseball is desperate for more scoring because the owners think that scoring is what attracts people to the game. That’s why they’ve limited pickoff attempts and made the bases bigger: They want baserunners to get into scoring position more often. And they’re going to get their wish. Look at Ronald Acuna practically jogging to second on opening day after the pitcher threw to first for the second time in an attempt to hold him: Watch @ronaldacunajr24 take advantage of the new "two disengagements" rule for his first stolen base of the season 👀 [https://twitter.com/BravesOnBally/status/1641573220993101825?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email] The entire art of base-stealing is about to change as the goal for runners becomes inducing pick-off attempts so that they can then take what are essentially free bases. Because after a second pick-off attempt, the pitcher isn’t even allowed to step off the rubber.¹ Even Vlad Jr. can steal second in that scenario. A reminder: This rule is limited to two pick-offs per at bat. At bats can go on for a long time. So the longer the at-bat, the more likely it is the runner will get to second. And the bases? Making them bigger is effectively shortening the base paths. We might as well throw out every stolen base record right now.² The Shift: Defensive shifts—moving infielders and outfielders out of their normal positions to align with where a batter is most likely to hit the ball—have been around for almost a century. But over the last 15 years or so, the shift went from a novelty to a staple of the game. Because it works. The shift is deployed so often and so effectively that it has had measurable effects. Here’s a bit from an excellent 2021 piece on the shift by Matt Williams: It may seem obvious that the shift was designed to neutralize pull heavy hitters, but it has evolved into a precision defensive tactic that can take away quality batted balls that were once considered automatic base hits. It's amazing how far production on ground balls up the middle has suffered in recent seasons: 2014: .344 avg 2015: .312 avg 2016: .337 avg 2017: .304 avg 2018: .302 avg 2019: .299 avg 2020: .254 avg 2021: .236 avg The shift has taken off to the point where routine base hits have become routine outs. In past seasons, the video below shows a sure-fire base hit by Jose Ramirez up the middle. However, instead of the baseball reaching the outfield, Reds shortstop Kyle Farmer fields the ball cleanly standing readily several feet to the right of second base. [https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F4b81e745-4a76-47b2-b38d-9ca5db0f6723_640x480.gif?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email] I don’t like the shift. Nobody likes the shift. As such, there have been two basic lines of attack against it. The first is the insistence that hitters need to learn how to go the opposite way. This is easier said than done, because pitchers have a great deal of data on how to pitch to hitters specifically to induce shift balls. In a very real way, the shift is a function of not just data about where hitters hit, but how they handle different pitches. It is made possible by the explosion of data collection around the at-bat. The second line of attack has been to legislate against it. That’s what the MLB did this year. But legislating has a cost. Here is a bedrock truth about sport: Sports are defined by their rules. But all rules are arbitrary. Why is the rim set at 10 feet? Why is the pitcher’s mound 60 feet and 6 inches? Where are there 22 men on a football field? A sport should have just enough rules to define itself, but no more. Adding rules means adding arbitrary factors, which means diluting the essence of the game. You start by saying, “The wide receiver must catch the ball in-bounds.” But eventually you wind up with the NFL’s Article 7 attempt to describe what a “catch” is. Here’s the NFL’s 2022 Rule Book: A player is in possession when he is inbounds and has control of the ball with his hands or arms. To gain possession of a loose ball that has been caught, intercepted, or recovered, a player (a) must have complete control of the ball with his hands or arms and (b) have both feet or any other part of his body, other than his hands, completely on the ground inbounds, and, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, perform any act common to the game (e.g., tuck the ball away, extend it forward, take an additional step, turn upfield, or avoid or ward off an opponent). It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so. This rule applies in the field of play, at the sideline, and in the end zone. Notes: (1) Movement of the ball does not automatically result in loss of control. (2) If a player who has completed the first two, but not the third requirement for possession, contacts the ground and loses control of the ball, there is no possession if the ball hits the ground before he regains control, or if he regains control out of bounds. If a player would have caught, intercepted, or recovered a ball inbounds, but is carried out of bounds, player possession will be granted (8-1-3-Note 5). The terms catch, intercept, recover, advance, and fumble denote player possession (as distinguished from touching or muffing). A catch is made when a player inbounds secures possession of a pass, kick, or fumble that is in flight. An interception is made when an opponent who is inbounds catches a forward or backward pass or a fumble that has not touched the ground. Notes: (1) It is a catch, or an interception, if, in the process of attempting to possess the ball, a player secures control of the ball prior to it touching the ground, and that control is maintained during and after the ball has touched the ground. (2) In the field of play, if a catch or interception has been completed, and the ball comes loose before the player is down by contact, it is a fumble, and the ball remains alive. It is also a fumble if the action occurs in the end zone of the player who caught the loose ball. If the action occurs in the opponent’s end zone, it is a touchdown or a touchback. (3) If there is any question by the covering official(s) as to whether a forward pass is complete, intercepted, or incomplete, it always will be ruled incomplete. A recovery is made when a player inbounds secures possession of a loose ball after it has touched the ground. If a Loose Ball is controlled simultaneously by two opponents, and both players retain it, it is simultaneous possession, and the ball belongs to the team last in possession, or to the receiving team when there has been a Free Kick, Scrimmage Kick, or Fair Catch Kick. It is not simultaneous possession if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control. That’s 521 words to explain what it means to catch a football because of all of the NFL’s arbitrary rules. Ahhh, the poetry of sports. The more rules you add to a sport, the further you are taken away from the game. Which is why new rules should be instituted only when there is no other remedy to the problem. (The Infield Fly rule is a fair example of this; there’s no other way to keep fielders from deliberately misplaying pop-ups in order to force double-plays.) So I appreciate baseball’s desire to stop the shift. The problem is that we didn’t need this rule to stop. All we needed to do was take a stand against Big Data. Baseball has always been the most data-driven team sport. But the shift didn’t become a problem until technology allowed the collection of massive amounts of in-game data. Stadiums are packed with high-speed, ultra high-definition cameras backed by heavy computing power, which makes it possible to track not just bunts, hits, and steals, but everything from launch angles to spin-rates. Baseball could have simply outlawed this level of data collection. And here’s the thing: Everyone in baseball—including the owners and the commissioner—knows that these analytics are a problem. Here’s the Athletic reporting over the weekend: Rob Manfred got a phone call. It was “one of our more senior owners,” as the commissioner put it, and they began talking about the number of employees who work on, well, numbers. “You know, I don’t know what this analytics thing is, but I have, like, 75 guys,” the owner told him. “What I want to do is, I would spend a week in the analytics department. I was going to figure out what the hell these guys do.” “So, how’d it go?” the commissioner asked. “Well, you know, I got a lot of smart guys down there,” the owner said, “but I am absolutely convinced that analytics is an arms race to nowhere.” Manfred told that story to laughter Wednesday during an executive luncheon hosted by the Paley Media Council in New York. And he chose to tell it because he agrees with the sentiment. “It’s become one of my favorite lines because I think it’s actually true,” Manfred said. So they know that Big Data is a problem. And they could solve this problem by banning the collection of much (though not all) of this data. But they won’t. Because making a rule about cameras would have bound the owners in what they could and could not do. And would have also sacrificed that So instead, the MLB invented a rule about where defenders have to stand. Let the players and the umps deal with it. And if it doesn’t work out—or if it creates unintended consequences—they’ll make up another rule. That’s what MLB did last season with the “Manfred Man.” Concerned with having the occasional game go into extra innings, the MLB dictated that beginning in the 10th inning, each team starts with a runner on second base. The idea is to juice scoring and bring the games to a swifter conclusion. A thought experiment: If the Manfred Man is okay in the 10th inning, why not have it in the 7th? Wouldn’t that lead to more scoring and thus make the game more exciting? If this idea sounds crazy to you, then explain to me why it’s not crazy to do it in the 10th inning? And the Manfred Man was the least objectionable change baseball instituted last year. Much worse was the three-batter minimum for pitchers. Baseball is full of high-leverage moments—a situation in which recording one of the 27 outs required to complete a game is more important than a replacement-level out. In such moments, a manager could elect to bring in a specialist—a pitcher whose job it was to get one specific batter out. The king of the high-leverage moment was Paul Assenmacher, a lefty who, for 14 years, made his living by stepping in and getting his team out of a jam. Last year, as part of MLB’s quest to shorten the game, baseball decreed that relief pitchers now have to face a minimum of three batters (or reach the end of an inning) before they can themselves be relieved. Did this rule have anything to do with baseball as a game? No. It was—again—an arbitrary creation intended to help the business of baseball at a margin so small that it will have zero effect on baseball as a business. What it has an effect on is the nature of baseball itself. Minimum batters, like pitch clocks and Manfred Men are constructs which exist contrary to the essential nature of baseball: Which is that it is the only team sport without a clock. That it is defined by rigidly consistent parameters—90 feet between bases, three strikes and you’re out—but that everything else outside those parameters develops organically. I have no patience people who argue that baseball needs to be “more exciting.” This is like a husband telling his wife that, after 148 years of marriage, he needs sex to be more exciting, so he’s going to start wearing a rubber dinosaur costume during their love play. I’m sorry, but at that point, the problem isn’t something that can be tweaked. If you need excitement, then you should watch basketball, which is a great sport defined by constant action. No tweak to baseball’s rules is going to make it exciting enough for you. What the rule changes will do is dilute baseball’s unique appeal as a sport: A pastoral atmosphere of repose set in relief against the exquisite tension between being and becoming. Also: Precedent matters. Changing one rule makes it easier to implement the next change. Those 17-pitch at bats are so boring. Why not have foul balls count as the third strike? That’ll speed the game up. Or maybe, if the game is tied after 9 innings, baseball should go to a home-run derby to decide the outcome? Just like penalty kicks in soccer! Neither of these are any crazier or more arbitrary than the two pick-off attempt limit or the Manfred Man. Baseball is being vandalized by the robber-barons who own it. And it’s a crying shame. Now go. Get off my lawn.

[Chief Joseph]

Wow, I definitely agree with the guy, I hope it doesn't get as bad as he thinks that it will. Baseball is rich in tradition and these and previous (most) changes will likely continue to do so. As he said, say goodbye to base stealing records, like when HR records were destroyed due to rampant steroid use. I still think the root of the problem is greed, owners paying exorbitant salaries, no cap, no team continuity due to so much free agency, fans like continuity with team rosters, I least I do, although obviously some changes are good. High ticket prices and one can hardly watch a game now without PPV. I think speeding up the game some is a good idea, but I think they have went to far with the changes. I suppose only time will tell. "No tweak to baseball’s rules is going to make it exciting enough for you. What the rule changes will do is dilute baseball’s unique appeal as a sport: A pastoral atmosphere of repose set in relief against the exquisite tension between being and becoming.". "Baseball is being vandalized by the robber-barons who own it. And it’s a crying shame.".