4 hours ago, Tnetennba said:

Stupid

Did they announce this to dump unpopular info the day after the Super Bowl when nobody is paying attention or to actually protect the health of pitching staffs?

I agree with others saying it's pretty stupid to start on 2b...

Why 2b?

Why not 3b? Why not 1b? Who made the statement that it needs to be 2b?

2b just makes it a sacrifice, sacrifice, score run. Other team, sac, sac, score.

1b would put an emphasis on steals, on hits. 

Putting the guy on 2b is the problem to me. I don't love the rule in general, but I've grown to learn to live with it - it is pretty exciting, but it's just kinda silly to do 2b instead of 1b. 

I'd rather end in ties than continue with this rule

2 hours ago, Eminor3rd said:

I’m in the minority, but I love this rule. I don’t see how it detracts from the game in any way, and it helps to make witnessing the end of games more accessible. I haven’t seen any downsides whatsoever; the only reason to dislike it is to dislike change in general. 

I like it except can the Sox actually move runners over. 

I think the extra inning phantom runner is the dumbest MLB rule in my lifetime. 

2 hours ago, Eminor3rd said:

I’m in the minority, but I love this rule. I don’t see how it detracts from the game in any way, and it helps to make witnessing the end of games more accessible. I haven’t seen any downsides whatsoever; the only reason to dislike it is to dislike change in general. 

exactly.

6 hours ago, Tnetennba said:

Stupid

That sucks.

6 hours ago, Squirmin' for Yermin said:

It was awesome.  Absolutely loved it.  Game is too slow, and takes too long.  This adds instant action

Then they should do it for all 9 innings. 

6 hours ago, Squirmin' for Yermin said:

My argument is they already had 9 innings to win the "old way", and weren't able to

Then implement a tie....inventing a rule where a guy is put on 2nd is just dumb.

Soon to be announced....the first round of the playoffs will be pitcher's hand out....because it's a long season and people are tired.

When you scout a pitcher you have to get his Ghost Run Average. 

23 minutes ago, wegner said:

Then implement a tie....inventing a rule where a guy is put on 2nd is just dumb.

I don’t mind it, but I do think ties would be cool as well. 

Use of position players as pitchers also was tightened by the committee. They will be limited to extra innings, when a player’s team is losing by eight or more runs or is winning by 10 or more runs in the ninth inning. Last year, a position player could pitch only in extra innings or if his team was losing or winning by six or more runs.

4 minutes ago, T R U said:

I don’t mind it, but I do think ties would be cool as well. 

I am not opposed to ties, conceptually, but as someone who watches a lot of NPB games/has become an invested fan in a team, I can tell you that ties FEEL absolutely terrible every time, to me. I hate them. It makes it feel like the whole game was a waste of time.

27 minutes ago, pcq said:

When you scout a pitcher you have to get his Ghost Run Average. 

In that case, Crochet will never win an arbitration decision.

3 hours ago, iWiN4PreP said:

I agree with others saying it's pretty stupid to start on 2b...

Why 2b?

Why not 3b? Why not 1b? Who made the statement that it needs to be 2b?

2b just makes it a sacrifice, sacrifice, score run. Other team, sac, sac, score.

1b would put an emphasis on steals, on hits. 

Putting the guy on 2b is the problem to me. I don't love the rule in general, but I've grown to learn to live with it - it is pretty exciting, but it's just kinda silly to do 2b instead of 1b. 

Why not put runners on 1st and 2nd?

That would be a lot more interesting strategically and make games even less likely to end in a tie.

Or runners on 1st and 3rd.

Just now, caulfield12 said:

Why not put runners on 1st and 2nd?

That would be a lot more interesting strategically and make games even less likely to end in a tie.

Or runners on 1st and 3rd.

Or let's just make it bases loaded, lol.

Preface this with the fact i've had a few, but what regular season tie games, and only use this sh*it in the playoffs?

7 hours ago, Squirmin' for Yermin said:

It was awesome.  Absolutely loved it.  Game is too slow, and takes too long.  This adds instant action

If the games take to long they should just go to 7 innings. That would really save the pitchers. 

9 hours ago, Eminor3rd said:

I’m in the minority, but I love this rule. I don’t see how it detracts from the game in any way, and it helps to make witnessing the end of games more accessible. I haven’t seen any downsides whatsoever; the only reason to dislike it is to dislike change in general. 

It puts the home team at an immediate disadvantage. The road team gets to hit with a tie score and generally, less pressure in the top half of the inning. Whereas in most instances, the home team will be playing for a tie, and a more pressure filled half inning. 

There have been some quality baseball games I've watched where when this rule takes effect the whole tone of the game changes. Well pitched or defensively sound games go sideways and it detracts from the games integrity. There are many downsides if you choose to examine it. 

Could MLB introduce a runner on 2nd every innings to help the Whites Sox?

6 hours ago, TheBooneLoganEra said:

It puts the home team at an immediate disadvantage. The road team gets to hit with a tie score and generally, less pressure in the top half of the inning. Whereas in most instances, the home team will be playing for a tie, and a more pressure filled half inning. 

There have been some quality baseball games I've watched where when this rule takes effect the whole tone of the game changes. Well pitched or defensively sound games go sideways and it detracts from the games integrity. There are many downsides if you choose to examine it. 

That's assuming the road team scores....as they still have the advantage of knowing exactly how many runs they need.

That said, there are a lot of games where they end up in the front of the pen eventually and give up massive crooked innings or just give up 3-4-5 and the home team is sunk psychologically.

From 1957 to 2007 in MLB, home teams won 54% of games but just 52% of extra inning games, for example.

 

Thought this Quora comment from 2020 season was pretty prophetic...

 

"I think it’s yet one more terrible idea by commissioner Rob Manfred, a person who clearly does not really understand, appreciate, or care about the game of baseball.

All he seems to care about is speeding up the game, simplifying it, and homogenizing its unique characteristics to make it more convenient and less interesting, partly for financial reasons I presume, and based on the “crackpot” theory that more young fans will flock to the sport if it can become more like other sports that take less time, involve faster-paced scoring, and have less complex rules.

I don’t think butchering the game with the kinds of “innovations” he’s mostly been proposing are going to improve the game in any way, nor attract new and younger fans. Instead, the changes are just frustrating existing fans and devaluing the game for those who truly understand and love it

I guess I can kind of understand the rationale of trying to speed up the conclusion of extra-inning games in a shortened season. But just starting with a runner on second who didn’t earn his way on there seems so artificial and arbitrary.

Why not have the catchers just arm wrestle for the win after the 11th inning? Or shorten innings after the 10th or 11th to just two outs each.

I don’t think this shortened season should count as a regular baseball season anyway. There won’t be enough games to determine meaningul division leaders and playoff winners. I think instead it should be played as a special “exhibition season” which will have its own playoffs and championship series at the end. However the results should forever be listed separately, as a different class if achievements during an oddball special case season, rather than pretending that AL and NL pennants and a World Series trophy earned this year count the same as those earned in any other regular season.

From this point of view, if they want to use some cockamamie special rule to shorten extra inning games just this year, I guess it’s not the absolute worst option. But I’m pretty sure if they do it will just be used as a “back door” way to shove the same “innovation” down everyone’s throats in an upcoming regular season as a permanent change.

I’m not one of those people who say nothing about baseball can ever change. It’s changed before and will change again. But a lot of Manfred’s ideas for “improving the game” to give it broader appeal are just idiotic “time-savers” that dilute the game and introduce more randomness to the outcomes, without yielding appreciable benefits of any kind."

 

Edited February 14, 20233 yr by caulfield12

Do people enjoy the college football overtime rules (ball starts on 35, first team to score more than the other, going back to back, wins).  This is the exact same thing, but in baseball form.

33 minutes ago, Squirmin' for Yermin said:

Do people enjoy the college football overtime rules (ball starts on 35, first team to score more than the other, going back to back, wins).  This is the exact same thing, but in baseball form.

That's a bit more dramatic because the result is faster (like penalty kicks in soccer) and still more dramatic, especially when you have to go for two.

Not to mention all the additional head injuries from playing even longer games or getting injured when excessively tired.

43 minutes ago, Squirmin' for Yermin said:

Do people enjoy the college football overtime rules (ball starts on 35, first team to score more than the other, going back to back, wins).  This is the exact same thing, but in baseball form.

Nah. I dislike when the rules of a game change in overtime.