LOCKOUT '22: When will we see baseball again?

[buddha]

8 minutes ago, oblong said:

I don't mind that either but I'm not sure it would address the issue much.  I always understood its things like more foul balls, more strikeouts, walks, etc.  Did those things go up over the years?  

Here's a study I found:

https://sabr.org/journal/article/time-between-pitches-cause-of-long-games/

 

well, i want it at 15 seconds...that's an extra 10-12 minutes a game.  lol.

and the point of getting rid of the shift, large bases, etc, is to get the ball in play more which would hopefully reduce the number of walks and foul balls.

when teams came to the conclusion that the most effecient way to win was to take pitches, walk, and hit home runs, the game became immesurably slower.  if they can make it easier to win another way thst involves speed, putting the ball in play, and running, then maybe it will change.

[chasfh]

This is a great gesture and kudos to Players for coming up with it, but also, a tacit admission that this is going to go on for a long while.

 

 

[chasfh]

 

 

[oblong]

Chris Ilitch is offering his employees 50% off a hot and ready after they buy the first one at regular price.  Those with more than 3 years seniority also get a free crazy sauce if they buy the bread.

 

[CMRivdogs]

You West Michigan folks really need to patronize these guys this season...

 

[gehringer_2]

57 minutes ago, buddha said:

well, i want it at 15 seconds...that's an extra 10-12 minutes a game.  lol.

I absolutely do not believe that data. It doesn't line up with my own observations with a DVR at all.  And the fact is that it defies logic. The games are more than an hour longer than they used to be, so where it the hour? A big part is more total pitches thrown, then add 5 pitching changes a game and that is maybe 30 min tops.

Then I would argue from my own DVR experience timing it that the real time between pitches is closer to 25 sec. If you actually got that to 15 then you have 10 sec times 240 pitches which is your other 40 min. 

[Longgone]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

they can "believe" it all they want, i dont think theyre correct.  and it doesnt do anything to create a floor where teams like the pirates or rays have to pay salaries.

look, this current system is a great deal for the owners now that they've finally figured out how to manipulate it properly.  the players seem to have this visceral reaction to a "salary cap" of any kind.  as long as it comes with a revenue split % and forces more revenue sharing with the owners they should take it.

and i hate salary caps in principal but it would solve a lot of this nonsense.

An artificial floor makes no sense, unless you believe the myth that owners don't care about winning, only profit, so they have to be forced to spend. No, the problem is Baseball has a very fundamental parity issue that can't be denied. Teams will only avoid the cycle of tear down and rebuild when the competitive disparity is narrowed.

No other league has ever required a floor, because teams tend to max out salaries when parity exists, and all teams have similar resources for team building.

A hard cap that is low enough to be sustainable by the smaller markets will never be agreed upon by the players. One high enough to maintain the players at a fair share of revenues can't happen unless there is massive revenue sharing and the owners won't agree to that. 

So you're kind of stuck with the CBT, where you only approach parity with a lower ceiling and higher penalties, so you can see where Ilitch is coming from. A higher ceiling and lesser penalties just perpetrates the disparity.

[Tiger337]

1 hour ago, oblong said:

I don't mind that either but I'm not sure it would address the issue much.  I always understood its things like more foul balls, more strikeouts, walks, etc.  Did those things go up over the years?  

Here's a study I found:

https://sabr.org/journal/article/time-between-pitches-cause-of-long-games/

 

Interesting study.  I had thought time  between pitches would be more.  Time between batters seems like something could be fixed.  Too many strikeouts is a big problem which is not as easy to fix.  I think they could do it by deadening the ball...but casual fans dig the longball, so it won't happen.  Walks are not up significantly.  I don't know about foul balls.  

[bobrob2004]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

well, i want it at 15 seconds...that's an extra 10-12 minutes a game.  lol.

and the point of getting rid of the shift, large bases, etc, is to get the ball in play more which would hopefully reduce the number of walks and foul balls.

when teams came to the conclusion that the most effecient way to win was to take pitches, walk, and hit home runs, the game became immesurably slower.  if they can make it easier to win another way thst involves speed, putting the ball in play, and running, then maybe it will change.

I'm confused about what eliminating the shift will do.  Are you trying to increase the offense?  Do you think pitchers have too much of an advantage? 

I don't see how not shifting will speed up the game, unless you believe it takes too long for players to get in position between batters.  

[chasfh]

13 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Interesting study.  I had thought time  between pitches would be more.  Time between batters seems like something could be fixed.  Too many strikeouts is a big problem which is not as easy to fix.  I think they could do it by deadening the ball...but casual fans dig the longball, so it won't happen.  Walks are not up significantly.  I don't know about foul balls.  

I just reviewed an article for the Fall BRJ about the effect of increased foul balls on additional time of game, and the author's conclusion was, basically none.

[chasfh]

1 minute ago, bobrob2004 said:

I'm confused about what eliminating the shift will do.  Are you trying to increase the offense?  Do you think pitchers have too much of an advantage? 

I don't see how not shifting will speed up the game, unless you believe it takes too long for players to get in position between batters.  

Sometimes between pitches, too. On lots of shifts, players go into a dramatically different configuration for two-strike counts.

[bobrob2004]

3 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Sometimes between pitches, too. On lots of shifts, players go into a dramatically different configuration for two-strike counts.

Fair point. A pitcher's strategy could change after 2 strikes, the bunt is eliminated, going for a strikeout instead of a groundball, etc.  It would be interested if any studies show how much time could be saved with no shifts. 

Also, how would it be enforced?  Would it be a strict area where the players can't roam out of or more of a suggestion like the coaching boxes?  What would be the penalty if a player goes out of their zone?  

[HeyAbbott]

3 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

exactly - but players are in a fantasy world if they think that will happen. It's been decades and it hasn't yet, and the team payroll disparity only gets bigger. The mid/samll market teams are not going to lose money to compete, they will find a way to keep expenses low enough so that the fan base that accepts them as they are can keep them alive. That is what has been happening, and what will continue to happen, unless and until the team disparity on the *REVENUE* side is addressed.

The players appear to operating under the oldest canard about pro sports, which is that just because a small market team is owned by someone whose net worth is equal that of a large market team, that owner is going to be willing to spend out his non-team revenue to compete. These guys didn't get to be billionaires by being financially stupid. They do not and will not ever subsidize their teams with their other income. Mike Ilitch may have been the closest case ever and even there it lasted less than maybe 7 years out of 100+ of the team's history.

One can be worth billions, but one still has to convert it to liquid holdings. If you have new billions of net worth in say, real estate holdings due to market increases, that doesn't mean its convertible to cash, altough they can and will be-- at some point in time.

[buddha]

10 minutes ago, bobrob2004 said:

I'm confused about what eliminating the shift will do.  Are you trying to increase the offense?  Do you think pitchers have too much of an advantage? 

I don't see how not shifting will speed up the game, unless you believe it takes too long for players to get in position between batters.  

im sort of ambivalent on the shift.  i dont like it, but i can see thats its all part of modern strategy.

i think the theory if the elimination of the shift is that if you do it, more balls hit will result in more base hits.

[buddha]

44 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I absolutely do not believe that data. It doesn't line up with my own observations with a DVR at all.  And the fact is that it defies logic. The games are more than an hour longer than they used to be, so where it the hour? A big part is more total pitches thrown, then add 5 pitching changes a game and that is maybe 30 min tops.

Then I would argue from my own DVR experience timing it that the real time between pitches is closer to 25 sec. If you actually got that to 15 then you have 10 sec times 240 pitches which is your other 40 min. 

in the games ive watched it is definitely more than 20 seconds from when the catcher gets the ball to when the next pitch is thrown.  at least it is when i count.

i know i always bring this up (not that anyone pays attention) but if you go back and watch games from the 70s it is remarkable how fast they move.

[gehringer_2]

Just now, buddha said:

im sort of ambivalent on the shift.  i dont like it, but i can see thats its all part of modern strategy.

i think the theory if the elimination of the shift is that if you do it, more balls hit will result in more base hits.

I hate the idea - the standard positions evolved as the best way to make outs against hitters at the time. If the hitters change their approach, the fielders should have the same right. Besides, giving pull hitters more advantage is not going to create as much interesting baseball on the bases as getting RID of some of the pull hitters would. 

[bobrob2004]

1 minute ago, buddha said:

im sort of ambivalent on the shift.  i dont like it, but i can see thats its all part of modern strategy.

i think the theory if the elimination of the shift is that if you do it, more balls hit will result in more base hits.

So it would be similar to lowering the mound in 1969?  

[chasfh]

7 minutes ago, bobrob2004 said:

Fair point. A pitcher's strategy could change after 2 strikes, the bunt is eliminated, going for a strikeout instead of a groundball, etc.  It would be interested if any studies show how much time could be saved with no shifts. 

Also, how would it be enforced?  Would it be a strict area where the players can't roam out of or more of a suggestion like the coaching boxes?  What would be the penalty if a player goes out of their zone?  

Personally, I wouldn't enforce it at all. The shift was an organic solution to a particular opportunity, so I think there should be a similar opportunity created that would basically eliminate the need for the shift.

That opportunity is deadening the ball.

[buddha]

3 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I hate the idea - the standard positions evolved as the best way to make outs against hitters at the time. If the hitters change their approach, the fielders should have the same right. Besides, giving pull hitters more advantage is not going to create as much interesting baseball on the bases as getting RID of some of the pull hitters would. 

i understand.  im ambivalent about it.

i do get a little annoyed by people saying "what do you expect a hitter to do?"  ummmm...adapt?  hit the ball the other way?  bunt?  this comment used to elicit a lot of "do you know how hard it is to hit the ball the other way" posts but i think most of those people didnt make it to the new site.

[casimir]

19 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Sometimes between pitches, too. On lots of shifts, players go into a dramatically different configuration for two-strike counts.

I hadn’t thought about defenses moving their shift on certain counts with a pitch clock in play, but if they want to risk guys moving around when the pitch is thrown, that’s on them.

[gehringer_2]

Just now, buddha said:

do you know how hard it is to hit the ball the other way" posts but i think most of those people didnt make it to the new site

LOL! 

[casimir]

12 minutes ago, bobrob2004 said:

Fair point. A pitcher's strategy could change after 2 strikes, the bunt is eliminated, going for a strikeout instead of a groundball, etc.  It would be interested if any studies show how much time could be saved with no shifts. 

Also, how would it be enforced?  Would it be a strict area where the players can't roam out of or more of a suggestion like the coaching boxes?  What would be the penalty if a player goes out of their zone?  

Bunts?  Haha….. how quaint.😆

[buddha]

1 minute ago, chasfh said:

Personally, I wouldn't enforce it at all. The shift was an organic solution to a particular opportunity, so I think there should be a similar opportunity created that would basically eliminate the need for the shift.

That opportunity is deadening the ball.

i think if you deadened the ball you will kill the offense.  the pitchers are too good now.  they throw too hard with too much spin.

i know the argument will be that you think they wont throw as hard becsuse they wont need to strike people out as much and that they wont get tired and will be able to go into games longer, but i dont think that will happen.  i think baseball is figuring out that the real key is preventing hitters from seeing pitchers too many times.  they'll still throw hard and strike you out and managers will still pull them quickly and use the bullpen a lot.  i think that's just the way the league is going.

but i could be wrong!

[gehringer_2]

11 minutes ago, buddha said:

i think if you deadened the ball you will kill the offense.  the pitchers are too good now.  they throw too hard with too much spin.

i know the argument will be that you think they wont throw as hard becsuse they wont need to strike people out as much and that they wont get tired and will be able to go into games longer, but i dont think that will happen.  i think baseball is figuring out that the real key is preventing hitters from seeing pitchers too many times.  they'll still throw hard and strike you out and managers will still pull them quickly and use the bullpen a lot.  i think that's just the way the league is going.

but i could be wrong!

i think there is something to the idea that hitters at not able to see pitchers enough. I noted somewhere a few days ago that in the pre-expansion era you saw each other team 22 times! With the good starters going every 4th day that means you saw each hard to hit starter for 20 AB every year. That's a huge advantage for hitters in terms of being able to stay in an AB and put a ball in play. So moving to a scheme were no batter sees a pitcher more than twice in a game would be the conscious extension of the effect that has happened over the years incidentally. But I don't see any easy in-game rules that would work, you basically would have to limit pitcher numbers on the roster. So you do that in conjunction with the deader ball? You might have to limit transfers back and forth from the minors in some additional way to prevent skirting the purpose of the rule.

I don't like that either but I'd accept it before banning the shift. And of course the possible unintended consequence is your burn out more pitchers.

Edited March 4, 2022 by gehringer_2

[Tiger337]

25 minutes ago, buddha said:

i think if you deadened the ball you will kill the offense.  the pitchers are too good now.  they throw too hard with too much spin.

i know the argument will be that you think they wont throw as hard becsuse they wont need to strike people out as much and that they wont get tired and will be able to go into games longer, but i dont think that will happen.  i think baseball is figuring out that the real key is preventing hitters from seeing pitchers too many times.  they'll still throw hard and strike you out and managers will still pull them quickly and use the bullpen a lot.  i think that's just the way the league is going.

but i could be wrong!

Are there enough good pitchers where you can keep having them throw fewer and fewer innings?  In theory, you'd get max results if each pitcher pitched all out for an inning, but the number of major league quality pitchers is limited.  There are already a lot of crappy relievers in the game.