PDA

View Full Version : Changes in the game



improbus
08-21-2008, 07:59 PM
Now that the Reds are completely out of it, we can stop arguing so much about Dunn and more about non-Reds topics.

What changes would you make to the game? Instant Replay on questionable HR's is a great step. Here are some of my ideas.

1) Bring the DH to the NL. Everybody has a DH except for the NL. Every college team, every high school team, every little league team, EVERYONE. Look, I appreciate the tradition, but two leagues with two different sets of rules might be the dumbest thing in all of sports.

2) Eliminate or adjust the save per Jim Caple's article:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=caple/080805

3) Change the All Star game. They should make the "starters" the "closers" and insert them in the 5th inning, that way the Pirates, Royals, and Orioles aren't deciding home field in the WS.

Revering4Blue
08-21-2008, 08:28 PM
1) Bring the DH to the NL. Everybody has a DH except for the NL. Every college team, every high school team, every little league team, EVERYONE. Look, I appreciate the tradition, but two leagues with two different sets of rules might be the dumbest thing in all of sports.

This is where we differ. I prefer the game just as it is--DH in American league only. I--and I realize that I'm in the minority here--like having two different sets of rules for each league. Remove the DH entirely, and it is no different than AFC/NFC. I do not want MLB emulating the NFL at all. Besides, without the DH, the Reds wouldn't have acquired Rijo for Parker.:D

However, I'd like to see the DH in NL parks during interleague action and pitchers batting in AL parks in afforementioned time.

Revering4Blue
08-21-2008, 08:31 PM
I'd also eliminate the use of aluminum bats in College baseball. As much as I love college football and college basketball, I cannot get into college baseball, which far too often resembles pinball.

RED VAN HOT
08-21-2008, 08:42 PM
1) Bring the DH to the NL. Everybody has a DH except for the NL. Every college team, every high school team, every little league team, EVERYONE. Look, I appreciate the tradition, but two leagues with two different sets of rules might be the dumbest thing in all of sports.

2) Eliminate or adjust the save per Jim Caple's article:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=caple/080805

3) Change the All Star game. They should make the "starters" the "closers" and insert them in the 5th inning, that way the Pirates, Royals, and Orioles aren't deciding home field in the WS.

improbus
08-21-2008, 08:43 PM
4) Change the Amateur Draft. I don't even know where to begin. First, anyone, and I mean ANYONE coming into the big leagues should go through the draft. Japanese players, Latin American Players, and American Players should all come into the game the same way. They can do it in basketball, why can't the do it in baseball? Also, the "signing bonus" issue must be dealt with. Smaller market teams will sometimes shy away from the best available players because they are unsignable, which completely defeats the purpose of the draft.

FlightRick
08-21-2008, 08:44 PM
1) As long as basketball operates under different sets of rules for college, international, and the NBA, and all three seem quite viable and popular, you're going to need better than "multiple sets of rules is stupid" to back this one up. Because maybe it is silly and arbitrary, and maybe it's not, to have the different rules, but it's no more silly or arbitrary than baseball purists rebuking you by pointing out that No-DH is how the game was MEANT to be played. Me, I like the different tone/style, and I'm even a part-time Yankee fan who COULD (if he were a dipstick) argue that forcing pitchers to hit cost us our season. Oh, my aching Wang.

2) I'm for anything that encourages fans to have a more-informed stance on relievers. If that means changing the "Save," so be it, but it could also mean creation of or emphasis on other stats (especially strand rate or runners-allowed-per-appearance or other things that'll cut to the core of REAL "shut-down" closers and guys who skate by on good luck and antiquated rules about who gets blamed for certain runners scoring). Change away!

3) I've heard that idea before (from you?), and my stance is unchanged... there's no difference if obligatory "scrub" all-stars are deciding the game in the 12 inning, or if they do it in the 1st-4th innings. Is it really any more palatable if the starters are held out till the fifth, only to enter a lop-sided 7-1 game? I agree tinkering needs to be done to the ASG Philosophy (it could be as simple as SHRINKING rosters, giving managers less players to screw around with, eliminating the "every team is represented" rule -- with the exception of the host team, who should be represented -- and playing the game much more like a real game of baseball), but turning the opening half of the game over to lesser-lights isn't the way to do it.

My one pet idea involves cutting back on inter-league play (which also gets to the issue of AL and NL teams having to play under unfamiliar DH rules, if that's something you dislike, and also makes the ASG more "special" again) and slightly balancing the schedule. Every team is limited to 4 interleague series (1 against a pre-set "rival"; then three others that would rotate around on a much slower basis than they presently do) for 12 games. Every team plays 4 total series (2 home, 2 away; 2 or 3 games each, as required to fit schedule) against every Non-Division League Foe; this would vary from AL to NL and division to division, but would result in between 90-108 games (the AL West would have the most of these; the NL Central the least). That would leave 6 series against each intra-division foe (3 home, 3 away; 2 or 3 games each, as needed) to fill up the schedule.

It's not perfect; it'd work best if we could also contract down to 28 teams and re-align into 8 four-team divisions... but headaches caused by the oversized NL Central and undersized AL West can be worked around for a slightly-more-balanced (but still with intra-divisonal emphasis) schedule. Something like 12 interleague games, ~100 league games, and 50-60 division games just seems more equitable, especially as long as you're going to keep the Wild Card (which makes interleague games a meaningless waste of time, and which greatly enhances the importance of non-division league games).



Rick

RED VAN HOT
08-21-2008, 08:51 PM
Sorry, I hit the send button prematurely.

I too prefer to leave the DH as it is. It is interesting to see how the game has evolved differently in the leagues.

As for closers, I couldn't agree more. There is no such position. Nor is there a position called set up man. The job of all relief pitchers is the same. These two pseudo positions limit managerial choices. I think Dusty would have been well served to use others in "save" situations earlier in the year rather than using Coco day after day and wearing him down.

Orodle
08-21-2008, 11:14 PM
The DH to the NL? c'mon

improbus
08-22-2008, 07:20 AM
Rick, I understand what you are saying about basketball, but they are not quite the same. All those leagues still have the three, they may be at different distances, but they have them. A better equivalent would be if they required Centers in the Western Conference to shoot at least 4 three pointers a game. There are a few who could hit them (like Mehmet Okur), but it would make the game seem like a farce watching Shaq and Chris Kaman shoot threes in the same way that it is a farce to watch Cueto and Volquez hit.

It is a problem because of the World Series. The NL representative often doesn't have a guy worthy of being a DH because they don't need one for 150 games and the AL pitchers may have 3 career At Bats in a few interleague games before coming up in a critical bunting situation. That is an unacceptable situation.

Finally, my cousin pitched for the Expos/Nats for a few years after he was traded from an AL team. He hadn't hit since little league, and even then he hit very little. It was dumb to ask him to hit a 95 MPH fast ball. Realistically, it would be like sending one of us to hit. How does that exhibit baseball at its highest level? How many pitchers get needlessly injured while hitting/running? Wang, my aforementioned cousin who broke his thumb bunting, and many others.

redsbuckeye
08-22-2008, 08:44 AM
1) Bring the DH to the NL. Everybody has a DH except for the NL. Every college team, every high school team, every little league team, EVERYONE. Look, I appreciate the tradition, but two leagues with two different sets of rules might be the dumbest thing in all of sports.

Appeal to majority logical fallacy.

After all, if everyone else jumped off a bridge...

improbus
08-22-2008, 08:55 AM
Appeal to majority logical fallacy.

After all, if everyone else jumped off a bridge...

No one has given me a better reason for NOT having the DH other than tradition and "liking to be different".

redsbuckeye
08-22-2008, 08:56 AM
No one has given me a better reason for NOT having the DH other than tradition and "liking to be different".

No one has given me a better reason for HAVING the DH other than everyone else is doing it and "liking to be the same".

improbus
08-22-2008, 09:09 AM
1) The World Series is a problem. Both teams are forced to change what they did for 150 games. How is there any logic in that?
2) Pitchers are not trained to hit. Even the NL Farm clubs use the DH. Hitters don't have to pitch, why should pitchers have to hit?
3) Potential injuries. The Yanks season might have been ruined by a pitcher running the bases needlessly.
4) In 2007, NL relievers threw over 1400 more innings than their AL counterparts. That is very taxing over a season for no reason.
5) Finally, from a Reds perspective think about this. We all think Dusty stinks, correct? Well, if he had a DH he would have less in game choices to make with his pitchers. Aren't less decisions from Dusty better for the Reds?

redsbuckeye
08-22-2008, 09:35 AM
1) The World Series is a problem. Both teams are forced to change what they did for 150 games. How is there any logic in that?
2) Pitchers are not trained to hit. Even the NL Farm clubs use the DH. Hitters don't have to pitch, why should pitchers have to hit?
3) Potential injuries. The Yanks season might have been ruined by a pitcher running the bases needlessly.
4) In 2007, NL relievers threw over 1400 more innings than their AL counterparts. That is very taxing over a season for no reason.
5) Finally, from a Reds perspective think about this. We all think Dusty stinks, correct? Well, if he had a DH he would have less in game choices to make with his pitchers. Aren't less decisions from Dusty better for the Reds?

1) I don't really see a problem with this. I don't feel the value of the game is affected at all. IOW, so what?
2) More comparison of different styles.
3) More comparison of different styles (and spotty at best, how many NL pitchers get hurt running the bases?).
4) More comparison of different styles.
5) Dusty would still stink. Otherwise I don't see an issue with having to make more decisions. IOW, so what?

improbus
08-22-2008, 10:04 AM
Having pitchers hit made more sense when they were raised hitting. Before the DH every pitcher grew up hitting and so every pitcher knew how to hit and bunt to a certain degree. So far in 2008, pitchers are hitting .138 with a .352 OPS. How does that benefit the game? There is an entire generation of ballplayers raised as DH's who cannot play in the NL. Imagine how much better team defense could be if the Reds could have DH'd Dunn, the Phillies Burrell, and the Astros Lee?

Just because the game was designed with pitchers hitting doesn't mean it was right. Basketball was improved with the 3 point line. Football was improved with the forward pass, and baseball was improved with the DH.

redsbuckeye
08-22-2008, 10:15 AM
Having pitchers hit made more sense when they were raised hitting. Before the DH every pitcher grew up hitting and so every pitcher knew how to hit and bunt to a certain degree. So far in 2008, pitchers are hitting .138 with a .352 OPS. How does that benefit the game? There is an entire generation of ballplayers raised as DH's who cannot play in the NL. Imagine how much better team defense could be if the Reds could have DH'd Dunn, the Phillies Burrell, and the Astros Lee?

Just because the game was designed with pitchers hitting doesn't mean it was right. Basketball was improved with the 3 point line. Football was improved with the forward pass, and baseball was improved with the DH.

Seems you just admitted the DH created an incentive for pitcher to not have to learn hitting. That's rather odd.

As for the other games, you're talking about changes that radically altered the mechanics of the game (especially football). The mechanics of baseball are still the same, the DH is just a slight change in personnel.

I don't see how the DH has improved the game at all. Sure hit helped attendance in the American League for a few years, but that interest seems to have waned a good deal and now attendance falls back to market norms.

bounty37h
08-22-2008, 10:45 AM
4) Change the Amateur Draft. I don't even know where to begin. First, anyone, and I mean ANYONE coming into the big leagues should go through the draft. Japanese players, Latin American Players, and American Players should all come into the game the same way. They can do it in basketball, why can't the do it in baseball? Also, the "signing bonus" issue must be dealt with. Smaller market teams will sometimes shy away from the best available players because they are unsignable, which completely defeats the purpose of the draft.

:beerme::thumbup::jump::notworthy

improbus
08-22-2008, 10:48 AM
Think about this also. How would Reds recent history have been different with the DH. How would it have helped Junior to DH? Would the Reds have been more likely to keep Dunn if he didn't have to play LF? How would Wily Mo's development have changed with regular at bats at DH early in his career instead of sitting?

bounty37h
08-22-2008, 11:04 AM
No one has given me a better reason for NOT having the DH other than tradition and "liking to be different".

Maybe thats the only reason we want or need for not wanting/having a DH in the NL. My reason is simple, I just dont like it and dont want it-might not be the answer your looking for, but seems the answer people have. Its only a created "position", and I do use that term lightly, that keeps aged out ex-baseball players in the game.

bounty37h
08-22-2008, 11:05 AM
No one has given me a better reason for NOT having the DH other than tradition and "liking to be different".

you havent provided a reason why the nl should have it, other then cause the al does.

improbus
08-22-2008, 11:08 AM
Maybe thats the only reason we want or need for not wanting/having a DH in the NL. My reason is simple, I just dont like it and dont want it-might not be the answer your looking for, but seems the answer people have. Its only a created "position", and I do use that term lightly, that keeps aged out ex-baseball players in the game.
So.....you're saying that you would rather watch Josh Fogg hit than David Ortiz?

bounty37h
08-22-2008, 11:08 AM
1) The World Series is a problem. Both teams are forced to change what they did for 150 games. How is there any logic in that?
2) Pitchers are not trained to hit. Even the NL Farm clubs use the DH. Hitters don't have to pitch, why should pitchers have to hit?
3) Potential injuries. The Yanks season might have been ruined by a pitcher running the bases needlessly.
4) In 2007, NL relievers threw over 1400 more innings than their AL counterparts. That is very taxing over a season for no reason.
5) Finally, from a Reds perspective think about this. We all think Dusty stinks, correct? Well, if he had a DH he would have less in game choices to make with his pitchers. Aren't less decisions from Dusty better for the Reds?

Are you sure about number 2, I thought it was the home teams affiliation that they followed-at leat it was a few years ago. Did htey change that in recent years, it does seem to me there may have been a change to that rule, but I am not sure?
Also, number 3, isnt the dude a professional athlete???? Running to first and injuring yourself is a freak thing, should he not have to run and cover the bag now too when in the field, so he doesnt get hurt?

improbus
08-22-2008, 11:13 AM
The Bats use a DH.

bounty37h
08-22-2008, 11:14 AM
Having pitchers hit made more sense when they were raised hitting. Before the DH every pitcher grew up hitting and so every pitcher knew how to hit and bunt to a certain degree. So far in 2008, pitchers are hitting .138 with a .352 OPS. How does that benefit the game? There is an entire generation of ballplayers raised as DH's who cannot play in the NL. Imagine how much better team defense could be if the Reds could have DH'd Dunn, the Phillies Burrell, and the Astros Lee?

Just because the game was designed with pitchers hitting doesn't mean it was right. Basketball was improved with the 3 point line. Football was improved with the forward pass, and baseball was improved with the DH.

Geez, I know it must seem I am picking on you, but I am not, I promise :) But, your comment of basketball adding the 3 is just opinion, I dont agree, I think it made it worse, change does not always mean its right.

redsbuckeye
08-22-2008, 11:17 AM
So.....you're saying that you would rather watch Josh Fogg hit than David Ortiz?

I don't know what bounty is saying, but I'm saying I'd rather see Josh Fogg hit than have some rule that allows teams with pitchers who's stats fall below an arbitrarily picked line of production so that they may bat David Ortiz instead of Fogg.

Let's do it for fielding too, where are all the designated fielders?

bounty37h
08-22-2008, 11:17 AM
So.....you're saying that you would rather watch Josh Fogg hit than David Ortiz?

What I am saying is I have no idea what kind of baseball player David Ortiz is, I know he can knock the crap out of a ball, but I have only seen him play baseball a few times-does he even own a glove anymore?

improbus
08-22-2008, 11:25 AM
So you preferred basketball when guards didn't matter very much? Before the 3, only two teams won the title without their Center being dominant, the Sonics in '79 and the Warriors with Rick Barry. That's it. Since then, both Pistons teams, Jordan's Bulls, and this years Celtics teams all won without dominant big men. I would call that an improvement.

bounty37h
08-22-2008, 11:35 AM
I dont like that a team can make the same number of shots-lets say they each score their first 13 possesions- only one team might make them with one foot 2 inches further back, and can then be up 13 points. I dont dislike the 3, but I dont know that I like it either-its just there IMO. I do hate when teams like dook come out and just jack 3's all the time, have a crappy FG%, but can win cause thier shots are worth more then the others. I dont know about your NBA analogy, I cant stand theNBA game and dont watch it at all-it bores me to death. College games, which is good basketball to me and I love, have to have dominating inside and outside game, a complete team effort.

improbus
08-22-2008, 11:36 AM
What I am saying is I have no idea what kind of baseball player David Ortiz is, I know he can knock the crap out of a ball, but I have only seen him play baseball a few times-does he even own a glove anymore?

So you want to take one of the most exciting, charismatic, and clutch players in the game because he's not a great fielder and replace him with a guy that hits .100?
Also, it makes no sense to question Ortiz' "ballplaying ability" by examining his fielding or lack thereof and simultaneously put a pitcher in the same situation with regards to hitting. A pitchers ability to hit has little to do with his value to the team. A good pitcher who hits well is rare (like CC and Zambrano), but more often than not they cannot hit. Why should it matter whether Johann Santana can hit? I want my pitchers working on their changeup, not on their bunting abilities. Likewise, there are few hitters who are a huge liability on offense, and those that are generally become DH's.

superred
08-22-2008, 11:44 AM
So you preferred basketball when guards didn't matter very much? Before the 3, only two teams won the title without their Center being dominant, the Sonics in '79 and the Warriors with Rick Barry. That's it. Since then, both Pistons teams, Jordan's Bulls, and this years Celtics teams all won without dominant big men. I would call that an improvement.

i know this isnt the point, but isnt kg a dominate big man:confused:

improbus
08-22-2008, 11:47 AM
i know this isnt the point, but isnt kg a dominate big man:confused:

Sorry, I meant to say Center.

bounty37h
08-22-2008, 11:53 AM
So you want to take one of the most exciting, charismatic, and clutch players in the game because he's not a great fielder and replace him with a guy that hits .100?
Also, it makes no sense to question Ortiz' "ballplaying ability" by examining his fielding or lack thereof and simultaneously put a pitcher in the same situation with regards to hitting. A pitchers ability to hit has little to do with his value to the team. A good pitcher who hits well is rare (like CC and Zambrano), but more often than not they cannot hit. Why should it matter whether Johann Santana can hit? I want my pitchers working on their changeup, not on their bunting abilities. Likewise, there are few hitters who are a huge liability on offense, and those that are generally become DH's.

Yup, pretty much what I am saying-to a degree, because I also know while I am watching Fogg hit for us, I know that their pitcher is also hitting for them, a fair even trade-off in that spot. Using the DH allows a team to take a "half-baseball" player and exploit his strength, while avoiding and hiding his weakness, which I dont like. That same pitcher might stink with the bat in his hands, but he is taking the field and doing his thing there-a complete effort. I just think if a player hits, he needs to take the field too.

improbus
08-22-2008, 12:02 PM
Yup, pretty much what I am saying-to a degree, because I also know while I am watching Fogg hit for us, I know that their pitcher is also hitting for them, a fair even trade-off in that spot. Using the DH allows a team to take a "half-baseball" player and exploit his strength, while avoiding and hiding his weakness, which I dont like. That same pitcher might stink with the bat in his hands, but he is taking the field and doing his thing there-a complete effort. I just think if a player hits, he needs to take the field too.

But the other team gets the DH too, so I'm not sure if I buy that argument either. I understand wanting to have hitters in the field, trust me, I was a slick fielder but couldn't hit to save my life. But, there is an entire generation of ballplayers who are only trained to hit. The system of development in baseball is set up to produce a large number of hitters who can't field and an entire generation of pitchers who haven't EVER had to hit (unless they happened to be good at it and play the field on their off days). Then, those players get to the big leagues, the highest level of the sport on earth, and we say that we don't have room for the hitters because they have to field and the pitchers have to do something they've never done. I don't care about the way it used to be or even the way it was meant to be. This is the way it IS, and that is what matters. I don't see this as a matter of choice, I see it as yet another case of baseball's dysfunctional methodology.

bounty37h
08-22-2008, 12:51 PM
But the other team gets the DH too, so I'm not sure if I buy that argument either. I understand wanting to have hitters in the field, trust me, I was a slick fielder but couldn't hit to save my life. But, there is an entire generation of ballplayers who are only trained to hit. The system of development in baseball is set up to produce a large number of hitters who can't field and an entire generation of pitchers who haven't EVER had to hit (unless they happened to be good at it and play the field on their off days). Then, those players get to the big leagues, the highest level of the sport on earth, and we say that we don't have room for the hitters because they have to field and the pitchers have to do something they've never done. I don't care about the way it used to be or even the way it was meant to be. This is the way it IS, and that is what matters. I don't see this as a matter of choice, I see it as yet another case of baseball's dysfunctional methodology.

I think its the same for both sides, so really just comes down to preference or opinion. For every arguement you just presented (and they are good, I see both sides, again, its just my preference). Isn't the problem then, according to your point above, that kids arent being taught the fundamentals of baseball, making the situation and game worse as time goes on, in the long run? If it has had this much negative effect in 30 years of DH, what would the next 30 do?

DannyB
08-22-2008, 05:41 PM
A salary cap or something like it would be a good start.

improbus
08-23-2008, 09:39 AM
A salary cap or something like it would be a good start.
While I would love to see it, it will never happen. The inequity in the local TV deals is huge. Plus, we complain about the spending of the Yankees and Red Sox, but with Revenue Sharing the Yankees lost $50 million dollars in 2006 while the Pirates, Rays, and Royals all earned more than $20 million. The "small-market" teams might work under some financial constraints, but they definitely could do more financially.