I absolutely love the 3-guy reliever rule.  Finally there is overwhelming necessity for thinking and strategy in baseball.

I had no idea what to expect, but so far it just seems more fun.  
 

What do you think?

I like it. 

Like it too.  

Agreed.  This rule is a keeper.

I hate it. While I don't like having to sit through 4 pitching changes in an inning, I also don't like the idea of telling a coach he can't bring in a guy because the dude on the mound hasn't faced enough batters. Also, I find the "3 batter" minimum to be such an arbitrary number, why not just say a guy has to complete the inning he starts, no pitching changes outside of injury.

1 minute ago, Whiterat29 said:

I hate it. While I don't like having to sit through 4 pitching changes in an inning, I also don't like the idea of telling a coach he can't bring in a guy because the dude on the mound hasn't faced enough batters. Also, I find the "3 batter" minimum to be such an arbitrary number, why not just say a guy has to complete the inning he starts, no pitching changes outside of injury.

You're complaining about arbitrary numbers in a sport divided into nine innings of 3 outs each where 3 strikes is an out but 4 balls is a walk? 

Bad rule, but I’ll trade the 3-batter rule for embracing starting pitching. So the rule would be if you start a game, you’re ineligible to pitch the next four days after. 

3 minutes ago, flavum said:

Bad rule, but I’ll trade the 3-batter rule for embracing starting pitching. So the rule would be if you start a game, you’re ineligible to pitch the next four days after. 

If we're making trades, let's try to get rid of the runner on 2nd in extra innings, which I'm sure will be pushed for in the next CBA

5 minutes ago, Jose Abreu said:

If we're making trades, let's try to get rid of the runner on 2nd in extra innings, which I'm sure will be pushed for in the next CBA

Haven’t watched one yet but that seems kinda cool too?

45 minutes ago, gusguyman said:

You're complaining about arbitrary numbers in a sport divided into nine innings of 3 outs each where 3 strikes is an out but 4 balls is a walk? 

I get it, baseball is not the metric system of sports, but it's a dumb rule.

4 hours ago, Jerksticks said:

I absolutely love the 3-guy reliever rule.  Finally there is overwhelming necessity for thinking and strategy in baseball.

I had no idea what to expect, but so far it just seems more fun.  
 

What do you think?

I like it. I think it actually adds to the strategic thinking.  Managers can no longer just bring in a pitcher for a lefty matchup, that's easy. They now need to think, "who is the best pitcher to face the next 3 guys." It may not always be the easy lefty matchup.

4 hours ago, Whiterat29 said:

I hate it. While I don't like having to sit through 4 pitching changes in an inning, I also don't like the idea of telling a coach he can't bring in a guy because the dude on the mound hasn't faced enough batters. Also, I find the "3 batter" minimum to be such an arbitrary number, why not just say a guy has to complete the inning he starts, no pitching changes outside of injury.

Actually that is part of the rule, you still can bring in a lefty with two outs to finish the inning but if he doesn't get the out he has to continue pitching.

The rule states 3 outs OR until the end of an inning.

 

http://m.mlb.com/glossary/rules/three-batter-minimum#:~:text=In an effort to reduce,exceptions for injuries and illnesses.

So pitchers can pitch less than 3 batters if they are brought in with outs but they need to get the out then.

Edited August 5, 20205 yr by Dominikk85

I wasn't really a fan of the LOOGY, so I like the 3 batter rule. Also, I hope universal DH is here to stay.

Universal DH - Awesome, should have been done years ago.

3-batting minimum - I hate it, but I don't vehemently hate it where it ruins the game IMO. The goal with this rule was to speed up the game, and IMO, that's ridiculous. I don't think it accomplishes that goal sufficiently well enough to demand the rule change. I also think others posting about 'more strategy' with this rule are misguided too. There's as much (or more) strategy in picking/choosing relievers for certain batters compared to this. 

Extra innings rule (start on 2b) - Complete abomination of baseball and the game. I vehemently hate this. 

7-inning double headers - Silly, but not the end of the world, especially for this season

Things that I'd like to see:

League Realignment and team Expansion - Not really a rule change, but if this pandemic teaches us anything about baseball, it's the leagues should be realigned IMO. Some good baseball cities (portland? Las vegas? others) around that deserve a team too and could make it more balanced.

Robotic umpires - We should not have the issues that we currently have with real life umpires. Their horrid.

 

Baseball was originally a play until someone scored a specific number of runs. So this nine inning thing is against the tradition. Even after putting in the nine inning rule they allowed ties, so playing until there is a winner is against the traditions. I would propose one change. Start the 10th regular, the 11th with a runner on 1st, then the 12th with a runner on second and call it a tie after the 12th. 

And forget DH for the pitcher. Have an offense and a defense like football. No need to play both ends like basketball. Let's go full on specialty*

*only a slight exaggeration. I would enjoy watching, but I doubt we'll ever get to that. 

6 minutes ago, Texsox said:

Baseball was originally a play until someone scored a specific number of runs. So this nine inning thing is against the tradition. Even after putting in the nine inning rule they allowed ties, so playing until there is a winner is against the traditions. I would propose one change. Start the 10th regular, the 11th with a runner on 1st, then the 12th with a runner on second and call it a tie after the 12th. 

And forget DH for the pitcher. Have an offense and a defense like football. No need to play both ends like basketball. Let's go full on specialty*

*only a slight exaggeration. I would enjoy watching, but I doubt we'll ever get to that. 

Bruh, I keep seeing you promote this 'tradition' of baseball playing until a specific number of runs. That was 1856. That is completely irrelevant to the game. Baseball is 9 innings, that's the tradition. 

With that being said, I am significantly happier with your designed extra inning rules than the current immediately put someone on second base BS. 

 

Just now, iWiN4PreP said:

Bruh, I keep seeing you promote this 'tradition' of baseball playing until a specific number of runs. That was 1856. That is completely irrelevant to the game. Baseball is 9 innings, that's the tradition. 

With that being said, I am significantly happier with your designed extra inning rules than the current immediately put someone on second base BS. 

 

If baseball is nine inning let's allow ties. It's not like there is a small sample size and the standings will be close. 

And clinging to tradition is why football and basketball zoomed past baseball and made it the third most popular sport in America. 

Just now, Texsox said:

If baseball is nine inning let's allow ties. It's not like there is a small sample size and the standings will be close. 

And clinging to tradition is why football and basketball zoomed past baseball and made it the third most popular sport in America. 

You'd have no problem getting me to agree with ties. If every game ended after 9 innings tie or not, that's 100% fine with me. That is fair and helps the issue of making sure games don't go on forever. I might actually like that better than going into extra innings.

 

2 hours ago, iWiN4PreP said:

Universal DH - Awesome, should have been done years ago.

3-batting minimum - I hate it, but I don't vehemently hate it where it ruins the game IMO. The goal with this rule was to speed up the game, and IMO, that's ridiculous. I don't think it accomplishes that goal sufficiently well enough to demand the rule change. I also think others posting about 'more strategy' with this rule are misguided too. There's as much (or more) strategy in picking/choosing relievers for certain batters compared to this. 

Extra innings rule (start on 2b) - Complete abomination of baseball and the game. I vehemently hate this. 

7-inning double headers - Silly, but not the end of the world, especially for this season

Things that I'd like to see:

League Realignment and team Expansion - Not really a rule change, but if this pandemic teaches us anything about baseball, it's the leagues should be realigned IMO. Some good baseball cities (portland? Las vegas? others) around that deserve a team too and could make it more balanced.

Robotic umpires - We should not have the issues that we currently have with real life umpires. Their horrid.

 

What strategy is there in a "LH comes up I'll put a LHP in, next hitter is RH so I'll change to RHP."  I takes much more thought into which pitcher is best for the next 3 hitters. It could be LHP or RHP regardless of who is the next hitter up.

LOVE it. End of games have drama, strategy and move at a great pace without all the stoppage. Live this would be incredible and think it will translate so well in the playoffs. 

It's official.  I hate the man on 2nd in extras.  

I also reserve the right to change that opinion based on the next Sox extra inning game.

I kinda hated the idea of the extra innings rule at first, but it rewards teams that can execute baseball fundamentals, so I am fine with it.

 

Looking around the league though, three outcome baseball made scoring a runner from 2nd with no outs more difficult than it should.

Edited August 10, 20205 yr by GermanSoxFan

On ‎8‎/‎5‎/‎2020 at 8:17 AM, Dam8610 said:

I wasn't really a fan of the LOOGY, so I like the 3 batter rule. Also, I hope universal DH is here to stay.

Agreed 100%. I hate that a guy comes up and it's automatically deemed he can't get the opposite handed batter out. That's what the game has become.

13 hours ago, wegner said:

It's official.  I hate the man on 2nd in extras.  

I also reserve the right to change that opinion based on the next Sox extra inning game.

I understand why it should exist for this season (I would take it away in the post-season however). I just wish that it wasn't until say the 13th inning so you don't have those long games. Give each team 3 changes to win it before adding the runner.

I do like the 3 inning rule. Honestly, I'd be fine with 8 inning games. They need to do something to speed this shit up.

 

Robotic umps is my #1 request. People see how difficult it is to call a game for umpires. Calling balls and strikes isn't easy. It really bugs me when a pitcher misses his spot but throws a clear strike, but it isn't called a strike because the catcher was set up on the other side of the plate. It happens so damn often. There needs to be more consistency. 

Edited August 10, 20205 yr by Yearnin' for Yermin