MLB /Union discussing drastic rules changes

[brett05]

Yes, the Cubs can spend more than the A's, Royals, and Rays.

I'm removing the team names from this. I'm speaking strictly from the rules.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

The AL has a distinct advantage.

Having an extra every day hitter on your team is that advantage. I also don't see how the money aspect comes into play, as the NL would just use that money for pitching as opposed to investing in an immobile position player.

The advantage for NL having a hitting pitcher that hits .170 and an A& pitcher hitting .160 is really moot. The advantage comes with AL's 9th hitter, that is likely a professional hitter that will have a much higher .OPS than an NL's handy bench player.

 

[CSF77]

The AL has a distinct advantage.

Having an extra every day hitter on your team is that advantage. I also don't see how the money aspect comes into play, as the NL would just use that money for pitching as opposed to investing in an immobile position player.

The advantage for NL having a hitting pitcher that hits .170 and an A& pitcher hitting .160 is really moot. The advantage comes with AL's 9th hitter, that is likely a professional hitter that will have a much higher .OPS than an NL's handy bench player.

That is wrong 100%. On avg a AL team has to fund a 10Mil hitter only. Then when they play in NL parks they have to hit with a pitcher who has not faced live pitching for years vs NL pitchers who can place bunts regularly.

Add to it NL play style has more stragity involved. A AL team pushed into it is inexperienced by nature. The pen is easier to manage without dealing with a pitcher hitting.

I see the AL as auto pilot more so than the NL. Pitching changes are based off of pitching vs hitting decisions.

I just see the universal DH as a Union based movement to add 15 roster spots in baseball. The owners were not going to give that up until the next CBA. Let's face it it has more to do with adding jobs vs the game.

 

[Castor76]

That is wrong 100%. On avg a AL team has to fund a 10Mil hitter only. Then when they play in NL parks they have to hit with a pitcher who has not faced live pitching for years vs NL pitchers who can place bunts regularly.

Add to it NL play style has more stragity involved. A AL team pushed into it is inexperienced by nature. The pen is easier to manage without dealing with a pitcher hitting.

I see the AL as auto pilot more so than the NL. Pitching changes are based off of pitching vs hitting decisions.

I just see the universal DH as a Union based movement to add 15 roster spots in baseball. The owners were not going to give that up until the next CBA. Let's face it it has more to do with adding jobs vs the game.

It's not 100% wrong. An NL may be able to allocate their funds in a different way but they also think about their 25 man roster differently. The NL advantages might have been there when inter-league first started, but with the change to 15 AL and 15 NL teams from both sides are playing IL all the time. When an AL team puts together their roster they do so with the DH in mind. NL teams don't so they don't prioritize a DH type guy being there. They'll slap one of their platoon guys in based on SP hand and probably change their line up some.

 

[CSF77]

It's not 100% wrong. An NL may be able to allocate their funds in a different way but they also think about their 25 man roster differently. The NL advantages might have been there when inter-league first started, but with the change to 15 AL and 15 NL teams from both sides are playing IL all the time. When an AL team puts together their roster they do so with the DH in mind. NL teams don't so they don't prioritize a DH type guy being there. They'll slap one of their platoon guys in based on SP hand and probably change their line up some.

A NL team can build like the Cubs. Carry a player like Zobrist that covers many positions. But pushes Schwarber to DH duty. All players are utilized all year and all play those interleague games then go back to rotation. AL loses a hitter at a NL stadium.

So at AL:. AL no advantage. NL gains a hitter.
At NL: AL loses a hitter. NL no advantage.

 

[Castor76]

A NL team can build like the Cubs. Carry a player like Zobrist that covers many positions. But pushes Schwarber to DH duty. All players are utilized all year and all play those interleague games then go back to rotation. AL loses a hitter at a NL stadium.

So at AL:. AL no advantage. NL gains a hitter.
At NL: AL loses a hitter. NL no advantage.

No: AL has their regular lineup in. NL adds a hitter and probably has their line up changed versus normal.

 

[CSF77]

No: AL has their regular lineup in. NL adds a hitter and probably has their line up changed versus normal.

In a AL park. NL adds a hitter.
In a NL park: AL subtracts a hitter.

I'm not sure where your disconnect is. NL holds the advantage in match ups.

You really can't look at it from a total run generation because you are adding 600PA's from a pure hitter over a season. But from a match up perspective the advantage falls on the NL.

 

[Castor76]

In a AL park. NL adds a hitter.
In a NL park: AL subtracts a hitter.

I'm not sure where your disconnect is. NL holds the advantage in match ups.

You really can't look at it from a total run generation because you are adding 600PA's from a pure hitter over a season. But from a match up perspective the advantage falls on the NL.

You don't seem to place much value on stability.

 

[CSF77]

You don't seem to place much value on stability.

What I value is a rotation that provides constant off days. The major league schedule is a grind where a team may see 2 days off in a 30 day span. Especially if they are adding games on from previous rain outs. I believe that was a major factor in their demise last year.

I prefer using Zo to rotate when the roster is full. If they had a universal DH then the DH would never be used as a permanent hitter. It would be used for hitting days and a team would carry a player like Zo who can play multi positions. That way the DH would be used to rest players with out impacting the line up.

The current method used is bad for baseball.

 

[brett05]

It's not 100% wrong. An NL may be able to allocate their funds in a different way but they also think about their 25 man roster differently. The NL advantages might have been there when inter-league first started, but with the change to 15 AL and 15 NL teams from both sides are playing IL all the time. When an AL team puts together their roster they do so with the DH in mind. NL teams don't so they don't prioritize a DH type guy being there. They'll slap one of their platoon guys in based on SP hand and probably change their line up some.

True, but no more games than before the 15/15 split

 

[fatbeard]

It's about money and fans second. Those commercials help us pay less.

No they don't. MLB advertising revenue is higher than it's ever been, yet ballparks are more expensive than ever, by any metric--tickets, concessions, etc.

And they would provide you with an example. So if you wouldn't mind, show me what you would like to see?

I can't give you an example because what you asserted is not provable, which was my central point. Again, what I'd like to see is some objective evidence that the AL is disadvantaged in interleague matchups.

 

[anotheridiot]

The money they make from commercials on tv is the reason the networks dont get behind this shorten the game crap. They dont get free commercials in extra innings.

 

[brett05]

No they don't. MLB advertising revenue is higher than it's ever been, yet ballparks are more expensive than ever, by any metric--tickets, concessions, etc.

And we'd pay even more if it weren't for the advertising.

I can't give you an example because what you asserted is not provable, which was my central point. Again, what I'd like to see is some objective evidence that the AL is disadvantaged in interleague matchups.

I offered facts and you rejected them. Your rejection does not change the facts. If you can't tell me what would you accept I can't fulfill your request.

 

[chibears55]

Commercial stuff can be easily worked out by just doing a side by side box during brief warmups or when there a timeout ( mound visit, reviews, etc.) and then charging more to the ones that get full screen throughout the games

 

[fatbeard]

And we'd pay even more if it weren't for the advertising.

Look, I hate to break this to you, but the $14 you're paying for a beer at the ballpark isn't to cover operating costs due to lack of advertising money. It's cute that you think you're not being gouged, though.

I offered facts and you rejected them. Your rejection does not change the facts. If you can't tell me what would you accept I can't fulfill your request.

Your facts were specious claims that lacked key context. Let's take them one by one:

1) The AL has to budget for a DH, the NL does not

This would matter if baseball had a hard cap where one league had to budget for another "position player" type salary under the same cap but the other league didn't. And so out the window with this "fact".

2) The NL gets to have a better lineup in the AL parks by replacing their pitcher. The AL receives no advantage when playing in the AL parks.

This ends up as a wash because the NL just puts a platoon/replacement-value player as the DH since no NL team carries a full-time DH. So while technically the NL gets to "upgrade" their lineup when playing in an AL park, the NL's upgrade is always less valuable than the full-time DH that the AL trots out on a regular basis. Another "fact" for the trashcan.

3) The AL loses a member of their lineup in NL parks. The NL suffers no disadvantage.

The AL doesn't lose a member of its lineup; they're not playing with 8 men. They replace their DH with their pitcher and the pitcher has to bat--which is the same situation the NL faces during regular play. Another wash.

4) Finances that the NL does not have to use on a DH gets to be used elsewhere.

The Office of Redundancy Office thinks this sounds a lot like "fact one". Baseball is not a hard cap sport, and while the NL doesn't have to pay a DH, they also lose out on a DH's production for all but a handful of games each season.

5) The AL has to cover for every position that an NL team has to and a DH.

Is there an echo in here? 1, 4, and 5 are all the same fundamental argument stated different ways. And since I've already debunked 1 and 4, I'll let them stand in here.

So, in summary, none of your "facts" were objective data (they really weren't even "facts", either). I'm telling you what I want, which is objective data, and you don't seem to understand that objective data means objective data.

 

[brett05]

Look, I hate to break this to you, but the $14 you're paying for a beer at the ballpark isn't to cover operating costs due to lack of advertising money. It's cute that you think you're not being gouged, though.

What's even cuter is your cutting edge commentary on us economics.

Your facts were specious claims that lacked key context. Let's take them one by one:

So you say

This would matter if baseball had a hard cap where one league had to budget for another "position player" type salary under the same cap but the other league didn't. And so out the window with this "fact".

All it would do is make the fact easier for you to see.

This ends up as a wash because the NL just puts a platoon/replacement-value player as the DH since no NL team carries a full-time DH. So while technically the NL gets to "upgrade" their lineup when playing in an AL park, the NL's upgrade is always less valuable than the full-time DH that the AL trots out on a regular basis. Another "fact" for the trashcan.

So the fact is the NL has a gain when the AL has none and they still get to use the players they spent the DH money on.

The AL doesn't lose a member of its lineup; they're not playing with 8 men. They replace their DH with their pitcher and the pitcher has to bat--which is the same situation the NL faces during regular play. Another wash.

No one would argue that the AL does not lose a member of their everyday lineup when playing in an NL park. You are at best trolling.

The Office of Redundancy Office thinks this sounds a lot like "fact one". Baseball is not a hard cap sport, and while the NL doesn't have to pay a DH, they also lose out on a DH's production for all but a handful of games each season.

Maybe yes, maybe no. They could pocket the money that they budgeted for as well.

Is there an echo in here? 1, 4, and 5 are all the same fundamental argument stated different ways. And since I've already debunked 1 and 4, I'll let them stand in here.

So, in summary, none of your "facts" were objective data (they really weren't even "facts", either). I'm telling you what I want, which is objective data, and you don't seem to understand that objective data means objective data.

Just because you deny the facts does not change the facts at all.

You're definitely trolling. Touche

 

[CSF77]

I don't see the money issue as being a game breaker. At most you let a aged vet absorb those AB'S. Plenty of those 1 dimensions that will take a 5 mil or less.

I see it as using a roster spot for a tree stump that can't not field a position as the issue. You are better off having a player like Zo DH where he can move to 2B and Baez can move to 3B while Bryant DH's that game because he is on a 17 day run and could use a few lite days in a pen chase where you can't afford to lose his production.

If baseball took that stance where the DH is not for a bat only player. But there has to be x-amound of games playing a real position. The universal DH would becomes a easier Sale

Owners typically don't want to spend on a player that can't even play 1B well.

 

[CubsFaninMN]

Hmm, official announcement today of using the Atlantic League to test various of the more out-there rule change proposals for game play. For instance, the bases (except for home plate) will be bigger (18 vs. 15 sq. in.), the shift will be banned, the electronic strike zone will be used, and the weirdest, for the second half of their season only, the mounds will be moved back two feet, to 62.5 feet from the plate.

Gotta wonder how that will go down, changing the distance to the plate halfway through the season. And consider, once you build up a mound at the new distance, especially at a park with artificial turf, you can't share that park with any other baseball teams. The mound can't be moved between games all that easily.

-Doug

 

[anotheridiot]

so it sounds like pace of play is not attempting to shorten games, just keep the action going.

I wish they would add a senior umpire in the booth. Take 15 umpires who should not be on the field anymore and leave them in the press box for instant overturns of bad calls. I am seeing all these are offensive minded rules. I dont think the electronic zone is a push, since it will force the pitcher to throw more strikes.

 

[CubsFaninMN]

so it sounds like pace of play is not attempting to shorten games, just keep the action going.

I wish they would add a senior umpire in the booth. Take 15 umpires who should not be on the field anymore and leave them in the press box for instant overturns of bad calls. I am seeing all these are offensive minded rules. I dont think the electronic zone is a push, since it will force the pitcher to throw more strikes.

Well, some of the other things they'll be trying are *no* mound visits, except for changing pitchers or in case of injury, and a minimum of three batters faced by any reliever. About the only suggestion we heard earlier that isn't being tried, it appears, is the thing of starting extra innings with the other team automatically having a runner on 2nd.

-Doug