Possible new extra inning rule

[Rebbiv]

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/m...-ball-with-joe-torres-approval-224914115.html

The current plan in the minor leagues is to start with a runner on second base in the 10th and every inning thereafter.

I am a baseball purest, so I don't like. But I also don't like the DH, but if you are going to use it, then both leagues should.

 

[manchild98]

At first glance I don't hate it. I'm open to it. I'm not sure it will provide any additional excitement but it would most likely get us to a final score quicker.

For our team we'd probably need 1 or 2 hits just to score that guy. I'm sure most teams would immediately bunt the guy over to 3rd.

 

[Mitchrapp]

I don't like it at all. And I'm with you on the DH as well though I've warmed to the idea over the years.

I hope this never takes affect.

 

[tomdalton22]

Love the DH...hate the idea of starting an inning with a runner on 2nd base.

 

[Mitchrapp]

I still don't like the playoff system. I grew up on 2 divisions in each league, 2 playoff teams each league.

 

[gotime909]

What's next? Starting out with a 1-1 count?

 

[tomdalton22]

maybe go with a HR derby for the tiebreaker!

 

[tigermud]

I really don't think the games are too long right now, stop trying to speed it up any further manfred

 

[tinselwolverine]

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/m...-ball-with-joe-torres-approval-224914115.html

The current plan in the minor leagues is to start with a runner on second base in the 10th and every inning thereafter.

I am a baseball purest, so I don't like. But I also don't like the DH, but if you are going to use it, then both leagues should.

This would actually by much less of a revolutionary change than the DH was; let alone having the DH in only one league and not the other.

The DH or no DH is in play all game; this would only to extra innings.

 

[Rebbiv]

This would actually by much less of a revolutionary change than the DH was; let alone having the DH in only one league and not the other.

The DH or no DH is in play all game; this would only to extra innings.

Sorry, but that is putting it simplistically. Some quick analogies would be to have the NBA go to one on one in overtime, when team defense got you to the overtime to begin with. Having Michael Jordan on your team would have been huge! The DH is a throughout the game item. Having different rules in overtime (3 on 3 in NHL), compared to the rest of the game, for the sake of ending it more quickly tends to favor certain teams. The teams are no longer equal. The rule change gives undue advantage to certain teams.

What's next? We can use metal bats in extra innings? Glove sizes can increase to allow outfielders from jumping over the fence? Pitchers can doctor balls in extra innings. So on and so on.

For over 100 years, MLB played extra innings the same way. Now, someone wants to change it. The DH rule came about for players like Orlando Cepeda who had no knees at the end. He could not play the field, even at 1B.

Finally, teams do not make money in extra innings. Most concessions are closed or closing by 7th inning. They really don't care to have it go 18 innings. Extra innings aside from stadium employee cost, also effects travel (air, hotel, bus, etc). Nope, this is strictly a cost saving move and isn't intended to be for "the good of the game". The DH was not a "cost saving" move and has no comparison to this purposed rule, other than it is a change.

 

[biggunsbob]

1. No on the new extra inning rule.
2. I PERFER DH IN BOTH LEAGUES.
3. I would be OK with pitchers batting in both leagues but either Dh or pitchers it needs to be the same in both leagues.

 

[tinselwolverine]

1. No on the new extra inning rule.
2. I PERFER DH IN BOTH LEAGUES.
3. I would be OK with pitchers batting in both leagues but either Dh or pitchers it needs to be the same in both leagues.

I say, instead of the runner starting the inning on second base, in extra innings the National League should change the base path direction to clockwise, but the American League should continue running counter clockwise during the extra innings.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Sorry, but that is putting it simplistically. Some quick analogies would be to have the NBA go to one on one in overtime, when team defense got you to the overtime to begin with. Having Michael Jordan on your team would have been huge! The DH is a throughout the game item. Having different rules in overtime (3 on 3 in NHL), compared to the rest of the game, for the sake of ending it more quickly tends to favor certain teams. The teams are no longer equal. The rule change gives undue advantage to certain teams.

What's next? We can use metal bats in extra innings? Glove sizes can increase to allow outfielders from jumping over the fence? Pitchers can doctor balls in extra innings. So on and so on.

For over 100 years, MLB played extra innings the same way. Now, someone wants to change it. The DH rule came about for players like Orlando Cepeda who had no knees at the end. He could not play the field, even at 1B.

Finally, teams do not make money in extra innings. Most concessions are closed or closing by 7th inning. They really don't care to have it go 18 innings. Extra innings aside from stadium employee cost, also effects travel (air, hotel, bus, etc). Nope, this is strictly a cost saving move and isn't intended to be for "the good of the game". The DH was not a "cost saving" move and has no comparison to this purposed rule, other than it is a change.

It is simple - the DH changed the game drastically more than the proposed extra innings rule would.

Also, a rule more like your analogy would be, say, only having the pitcher and catcher and one fielder, or maybe two - not the six or seven others - go into the field for extra innings.

Regardless of Orlando Cepada's knees or anything about extra inning concession sales or the rationale for this proposed rule change, it doesn't come anywhere near the magnitude that the DH changed the game.

You're comparing apples and oranges - I'm talking about the scope of the impact of the way the DH changed the game compared to this how this extra innings rule would change the scope of the impact. You're comparing the rationale behind both - which is a fine separate discussion, sure; and it makes sense to me that your point is likely right on the nose - but it isn't pertinent at all to the point I was making.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Go back to 1 division per league. I'm be up to that change.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Go back to 1 division per league. I'm be up to that change.

One division per league would be the same as no divisions. Just one league per league.

Like it was until 1969.

From, like 1875, or whatever.

 

[Mitchrapp]

One division per league would be the same as no divisions. Just one league per league.

Like it was until 1969.

From, like 1875, or whatever.

You know what I meant :tup:

Let them fight it out. Play as many games vs Boston or Houston that we do vs Chicago. Winner takes all and goes to the WS. At first adding WC teams were suppose to be a money maker.. But how much have they helped? Baseball: 23% in 1985 ? 16% in 2014. I believe before the season this year it was closer to 13%.

 

[Rebbiv]

It is simple - the DH changed the game drastically more than the proposed extra innings rule would.

Also, a rule more like your analogy would be, say, only having the pitcher and catcher and one fielder, or maybe two - not the six or seven others - go into the field for extra innings.

Regardless of Orlando Cepada's knees or anything about extra inning concession sales or the rationale for this proposed rule change, it doesn't come anywhere near the magnitude that the DH changed the game.

You're comparing apples and oranges - I'm talking about the scope of the impact of the way the DH changed the game compared to this how this extra innings rule would change the scope of the impact. You're comparing the rationale behind both - which is a fine separate discussion, sure; and it makes sense to me that your point is likely right on the nose - but it isn't pertinent at all to the point I was making.

I never said that the DH didn't affect the game and I already stated I didn't like the change. Follow the bouncing ball. Or in this case, the bold.

The DH was applied to both teams from the start of the game. Initially, it helped teams who had players like Cepeda and Kaline on their roster. But as of today, no team has a clear advantage because of that rule.

The extra inning rule is not from the start of the game and clearly helps certain teams/team types. It might not be as blatant as one on one in basketball, but that analogy does the same thing. Where the DH isn't even in this discussion, for many reasons, but for the fact it is applied from the start of the game. Which was my counter to your original post.

 

[Rebbiv]

You know what I meant :tup:

Let them fight it out. Play as many games vs Boston or Houston that we do vs Chicago. Winner takes all and goes to the WS. At first adding WC teams were suppose to be a money maker.. But how much have they helped? Baseball: 23% in 1985 – 16% in 2014. I believe before the season this year it was closer to 13%.

So are you purposing we go back to 16 teams?

1960 = 16 teams (1 divisions per league, 8 teams per)

1965 = 20 teams (1 division per league)

1970 = 24 teams (2 divisions per league)

1975 = 24 teams (2 divisions per league)

1980 = 26 teams (2 divisions per league)

1985 = 26 teams (2 divisions per league)

1990 = 26 teams (2 divisions per league)

1995 = 28 teams (3 divisions per league)

2000 = 30 teams (3 divisions per league)


Wild Card came because of the 3 division leagues and to not give a bye week in the playoffs. 2012 was the start of the 2nd wild card and that certainly was used to generate more money.

Regardless of all of this, I certainly agree teams should have a "balanced" schedule. I also don't like the "limited" inter-league schedule. Either do away with inter-league or include a "balanced" inter-league schedule. If DET plays CHC 4 games, all AL teams should be playing them 4 games.

The fact that the playoffs can go into the first week of November is absurd. Go back to 154-game schedule and start the playoffs in mid-September if you are keeping this format. I could careless about the 2 wild card team format. It is a 1-game play in game and not really a "playoff" game.

 

[tomdalton22]

I never said that the DH didn't affect the game and I already stated I didn't like the change. Follow the bouncing ball. Or in this case, the bold.

The DH was applied to both teams from the start of the game. Initially, it helped teams who had players like Cepeda and Kaline on their roster. But as of today, no team has a clear advantage because of that rule.

The extra inning rule is not from the start of the game and clearly helps certain teams/team types. It might not be as blatant as one on one in basketball, but that analogy does the same thing. Where the DH isn't even in this discussion, for many reasons, but for the fact it is applied from the start of the game. Which was my counter to your original post.

It depends on how they implement the "man on 2nd rule". What if they just put the guy that is supposed to be up in first in the inning on 2nd base? Essentially, every inning would start with a lead off double. That really wouldn't be giving one team a competitive advantage that they didn't already have.

 

[Rebbiv]

It depends on how they implement the "man on 2nd rule". What if they just put the guy that is supposed to be up in first in the inning on 2nd base? Essentially, every inning would start with a lead off double. That really wouldn't be giving one team a competitive advantage that they didn't already have.

LOL. What is the difference?