Why offense is down

[Parade_Rain]

You don't want to be real. No problem. I'm done with this.

Good, because I've never seen anyone deliberately misrepresent posts as often as you do.

 

[brett05]

Good, because I've never seen anyone deliberately misrepresent posts as often as you do.

Read more? :shrug:

 

[Parade_Rain]

The NBA created rules that opened the lane for the offense (increase scoring). The NFL has clearly handicapped the defense to do what? Increase scoring.

 

[2323]

They need to award a ball to the batter for every throw over by a pitcher. It's absolute nonsense that pitchers are allowed limitless throws over. There needs to be a consequence or some trade off.

 

[Boobaby1]

They need to award a ball to the batter for every throw over by a pitcher. It's absolute nonsense that pitchers are allowed limitless throws over. There needs to be a consequence or some trade off.

Maybe if a pitcher were allowed to throw over to 1B or step off the rubber twice per player on, and after they meet their limit, a balk comes into play? Can you imagine some of the leads that players would get?

It would be interesting to say the least.

 

[brett05]

It would not be baseball. You'd have to say no leaving the base til the ball leaves the pitcher's hand

 

[Parade_Rain]

It would not be baseball. You'd have to say no leaving the base til the ball leaves the pitcher's hand

Just like how football isn't football any longer thanks to the defense not being allowed SC highlight hits, etc. Games change. It's an idea worthy of discussion. It would certainly put more pressure on the defense

 

[brett05]

Just like how football isn't football any longer thanks to the defense not being allowed SC highlight hits, etc. Games change. It's an idea worthy of discussion. It would certainly put more pressure on the defense

It might be worthy of discussion but if a pitcher can't throw to first the game is not major league baseball if players are still allowed to leave the base at their own risk at all times. Nothing to keep the runner honest.

 

[Parade_Rain]

1) The suggestion wasn't that the pitcher couldn't throw to first
2) there is nothing keeping defense honest right now. As someone else posted, there is a solid argument that defensive shifts are responsible for declining offense.

 

[brett05]

1) No the suggestion was to penalize the pitcher for doing so. In essence the same thing.
2) Keeping the defense honest? Not sure what that means.

So offense is declining. Why should it not decline? You say a low scoring game has limited to no appeal and yet games that are almost guaranteed to be a slugfest (See games that EJax starts) aren't as well attended as Arrieta games.

 

[Parade_Rain]

Quit being deliberately obtuse. The suggestion was to limit how many times the pitcher could throw over there. I bet you didn't know that an inside move isn't banished at least at Fed level. I believe OBR is the same. The pitcher has options. You would also see more pitch outs and slide steps.

As for number 2, your response is number 2. The defense has much data on each hitter at this point and where to play them in the field. Pitching and defense have a clear advantage over the hitter/offense at this time. While I don't mind it, the casual viewer who pumps money into MLB as a fan does. The game must at a bare minimum even out. For a better future they need to weigh the offense above defense and move the game along more quickly.

 

[brett05]

Quit being deliberately obtuse. The suggestion was to limit how many times the pitcher could throw over there. I bet you didn't know that an inside move isn't banished at least at Fed level.

At times I don't think we are speaking the same language. What is a Fed?

Let's look at when it was first mentioned about throwing to a base shall we?

They need to award a ball to the batter for every throw over by a pitcher. It's absolute nonsense that pitchers are allowed limitless throws over. There needs to be a consequence or some trade off.

1) No the suggestion was to penalize the pitcher for doing so. In essence the same thing.

What's obtuse about that?

As for number 2, your response is number 2.

I was wrong. you'd be a great mod.

The defense has much data on each hitter at this point and where to play them in the field. Pitching and defense have a clear advantage over the hitter/offense at this time. While I don't mind it, the casual viewer who pumps money into MLB as a fan does. The game must at a bare minimum even out. For a better future they need to weigh the offense above defense and move the game along more quickly.

The pitching and defense has always had an advantage over the hitter. Always will. It's how the game is designed. The defense is going to win 70-75% of the time over the offense.

I'm all for moving the game along more quickly. But that gives the advantage to the pitcher and the defense, not the hitter as you want. Is it wishful thinking or is there a rule that says the pitcher has 20 seconds to pitch? And something in there as well about the batter leaving the box?

 

[Parade_Rain]

At times I don't think we are speaking the same language. What is a Fed?

Next time a patched umpire walks into your place, ask him what Fed and OBR are.

Let's look at when it was first mentioned about throwing to a base shall we?

Let's do.

They need to award a ball to the batter for every throw over by a pitcher. It's absolute nonsense that pitchers are allowed limitless throws over. There needs to be a consequence or some trade off.

Maybe if a pitcher were allowed to throw over to 1B or step off the rubber twice per player on, and after they meet their limit, a balk comes into play? Can you imagine some of the leads that players would get?

It would be interesting to say the least.

What's obtuse about that?

Neither poster provided absolutes. They presented arbitrary points worthy of discussion, as opposed to how you represented them.

I was wrong. you'd be a great mod.

It shouldn't have taken you this long to figure that out.

The pitching and defense has always had an advantage over the hitter. Always will. It's how the game is designed. The defense is going to win 70-75% of the time over the offense.

No kidding. Except that even in the late 60's baseball recognized something needed to be done. Not only did they drop the mound 5", but the AL instituted the DH... Hmmm... If I've read your posts correctly over time, you are in favor of the NL adopting the DH.

I'm all for moving the game along more quickly. But that gives the advantage to the pitcher and the defense, not the hitter as you want.

No. It doesn't. Simply instituting a rules change somewhere along the lines of what 2323 and boobaby1 suggest would move the game along to the viewer by creating more action within the game.

Is it wishful thinking or is there a rule that says the pitcher has 20 seconds to pitch?

Yes. They have 12 seconds. From OBR-

8.04
When the bases are unoccupied, the pitcher shall deliver the ball to the batter within 12 seconds after he receives the ball. Each time the pitcher delays the game by violating this rule, the umpire shall call “Ball.” The 12-second timing starts when the pitcher is in possession of the ball and the batter is in the box, alert to the pitcher. The timing stops when the pitcher releases the ball.
The intent of this rule is to avoid unnecessary delays. The umpire shall insist that the catcher return the ball promptly to the pitcher, and that the pitcher take his position on the rubber promptly. Obvious delay by the pitcher should instantly be penalized by the umpire.

And something in there as well about the batter leaving the box?

1 foot in with exceptions of course.

 

[brett05]

Next time a patched umpire walks into your place, ask him what Fed and OBR are.

I know OBR, even a google search turned up empty on FED. But hey, don't help conversation. Hinder it as much as possible. :smh:

Let's do.



Neither poster provided absolutes. They presented arbitrary points worthy of discussion, as opposed to how you represented them.

Please look up what first means. You posted two comments and clearly one is first. 2323 did leave the option of something other than zero tosses over as an alternative to his initial which is penalize immediately. Either way it's bad to do it without putting a restraint on the baserunner.

It shouldn't have taken you this long to figure that out.

You are right. I gave you way too much credit. My bad.

No kidding. Except that even in the late 60's baseball recognized something needed to be done. Not only did they drop the mound 5", but the AL instituted the DH... Hmmm... If I've read your posts correctly over time, you are in favor of the NL adopting the DH.

Just too easy...nvm...Anyway Yes I want the DH in the NL. I don't want Steve Lyons to pitch nor Carlos Zambrano to bat unless it's an emergency situation. The players need to stick to what they do best. Pitchers pitch, Hitters bat. Hate the DH? Add a fielder or make the lineup 8 instead of 9. Wait, that's a bit of crazy talk right there. I blame you for it

No. It doesn't. Simply instituting a rules change somewhere along the lines of what 2323 and boobaby1 suggest would move the game along to the viewer by creating more action within the game.

More runs means longer game. Less runs, shorter game. Not rocket science. The game has more "action" but in no ways does it shorten play which is a bigger concern to the casual fan. They don't want 3.5 hour games. Find a way for ten runs in 2 hours and your casual fan might be placated.

Yes. They have 12 seconds. From OBR-


1 foot in with exceptions of course.

Thanks.
Enforcing just these rules speed the game up. Doesn't add more offense and does sharpen the defense/pitching It does speed the game up though.

 

[Parade_Rain]

I know OBR, even a google search turned up empty on FED. But hey, don't help conversation. Hinder it as much as possible. :smh:

You couldn't google Fed baseball rules? Yikes. NFHS = HS baseball rules. ex of differences - http://www.stevetheump.com/nfhs_pro_rules_dif.htm

Please look up what first means. You posted two comments and clearly one is first. 2323 did leave the option of something other than zero tosses over as an alternative to his initial which is penalize immediately. Either way it's bad to do it without putting a restraint on the baserunner.

Wrong. He even used the word "or" and also "some tradeoff".

You are right. I gave you way too much credit. My bad.

Boo. :tongue:

Just too easy...nvm...Anyway Yes I want the DH in the NL. I don't want Steve Lyons to pitch nor Carlos Zambrano to bat unless it's an emergency situation. The players need to stick to what they do best. Pitchers pitch, Hitters bat. Hate the DH? Add a fielder or make the lineup 8 instead of 9. Wait, that's a bit of crazy talk right there. I blame you for it

So, IOW, you want to help the offense out. :slap:

More runs means longer game. Less runs, shorter game. Not rocket science. The game has more "action" but in no ways does it shorten play which is a bigger concern to the casual fan.

This isn't necessarily true in the context of a mean or average. What happens if the pitcher is only allowed several throws over, then you get more pitchouts (more defensive strategy/guessing) and more runners over to second base. It doesn't require monster hitters and small ball is even more attractive.

They don't want 3.5 hour games. Find a way for ten runs in 2 hours and your casual fan might be placated.

The past few seasons, NFL games have averaged roughly 3:12 or so. It begs the question why a televised football game of that length doesn't bore the viewers, yet a baseball game of that length isn't usually desirable. For starters, the way a football game is produced and the views of plays/player positions and how each play was successful is completely different. That doesn't even involve more run production.

Thanks.
Enforcing just these rules speed the game up. Doesn't add more offense and does sharpen the defense/pitching It does speed the game up though.

I think you would be hard-pressed to find a pitcher with no runners on who can't pitch in 12 seconds. OTOH, the game's afoot once a runner is on base. That is where the game really slows down.

 

[brett05]

You couldn't google Fed baseball rules? Yikes. NFHS = HS baseball rules. ex of differences - http://www.stevetheump.com/nfhs_pro_rules_dif.htm

How I was supposed to get that this is rules of high school from this post of yours "I bet you didn't know that an inside move isn't banished at least at Fed level. "

Really? I appreciate the compliment but the conversations you have in your head I am not privy too. Why your own sentence could have been talking about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_League

Wrong. He even used the word "or" and also "some tradeoff".
Boo. :tongue:

So in other words you missed his first sentence.

So, IOW, you want to help the offense out. :slap:

I have never said I am against anything that helps a hitter and only in favor of things that help the pitchers/defense.

This isn't necessarily true in the context of a mean or average. What happens if the pitcher is only allowed several throws over, then you get more pitchouts (more defensive strategy/guessing) and more runners over to second base. It doesn't require monster hitters and small ball is even more attractive.

You get rock n sock baseball. The hitter is in a hitting count with pitch outs. It would get worse not better on the time scale with hitters hitting in favorable counts and nothing to keep runners attached to the base they are on.

The past few seasons, NFL games have averaged roughly 3:12 or so. It begs the question why a televised football game of that length doesn't bore the viewers, yet a baseball game of that length isn't usually desirable. For starters, the way a football game is produced and the views of plays/player positions and how each play was successful is completely different. That doesn't even involve more run production.

Football owns a majority of it's popularity to gambling. Even they have said as much.

I think you would be hard-pressed to find a pitcher with no runners on who can't pitch in 12 seconds. OTOH, the game's afoot once a runner is on base. That is where the game really slows down.

I'd say it's less than 50% that a pitcher pitches that fast with no one on. I wonder if anyone has done an official study.

 

[Parade_Rain]

How I was supposed to get that this is rules of high school from this post of yours "I bet you didn't know that an inside move isn't banished at least at Fed level. "

Really? I appreciate the compliment but the conversations you have in your head I am not privy too. Why your own sentence could have been talking about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_League

I see from other threads I'm not the only one today on this forum who isn't going the extra mile to do your research for you.

So in other words you missed his first sentence.

So IOW you only read partial posts so it allows you to take them out of context. Sweet!

I have never said I am against anything that helps a hitter and only in favor of things that help the pitchers/defense.

No. You are only on record here as wanting a larger strikes zone and the mound raised back up. You are on record here to help pitching/defense by keeping the batter in the box and getting him in stance even more quickly. The only thing you've stated that could possibly be pro-offense is a DH in the NL. The NL and the great majority of its fans do not want the DH. What you are against, it seems, is any idea that isn't your own.

You get rock n sock baseball. The hitter is in a hitting count with pitch outs. It would get worse not better on the time scale with hitters hitting in favorable counts and nothing to keep runners attached to the base they are on.

It moves the game along.

Football owns a majority of it's popularity to gambling. Even they have said as much.

Yes. I'm sure that female audience they've been cultivating and growing is because of gambling. What you posted is also another one of your famous strawmen.

I'd say it's less than 50% that a pitcher pitches that fast with no one on. I wonder if anyone has done an official study.

It's a lot more than 50%. It's not just the 12 seconds that matter, but also whether or not the batter is ready to go in the eyes of the umpire. So there is a combination of rule 6.02 and 8.04 involved.

 

[brett05]

Oh boy..the pot is at it again....

I see from other threads I'm not the only one today on this forum who isn't going the extra mile to do your research for you.

Nothing wrong with company for you.

So IOW you only read partial posts so it allows you to take them out of context. Sweet!

Mind as well continue to feed you. You need to learn about writing styles/skills.

No. You are only on record here as wanting a larger strikes zone

To the rule book, yes.

and the mound raised back up.

No, up a couple of inches.

You are on record here to help pitching/defense by keeping the batter in the box and getting him in stance even more quickly.

To Speed the game up.

The only thing you've stated that could possibly be pro-offense is a DH in the NL.

possibly? LOL

The NL and the great majority of its fans do not want the DH.

The owners don't want to increase payroll. And the majority of baseball players/fans would want it across the board.

What you are against, it seems, is any idea that isn't your own.

hyperbole at its finest


It moves the game along.

Yes. I'm sure that female audience they've been cultivating and growing is because of gambling. What you posted is also another one of your famous strawmen.

Sorry Scarecrow. By a female no less. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...otball-is-a-multibillion-dollar-business.html

"The recent NFL referee lockout turned Sunday games into chaotic affairs, and threatened to upend a financial juggernaut. The NFL is a $9.5 billion annual business , after all. Analysts questioned whether fans would tune in to watch endless, poorly officiated messes. But the capricious calls also wreaked havoc on corollary businesses that depend on the smooth functioning of the NFL, like sports betting and Fantasy Football. Both are huge behind-the-scenes money making industries that are driven by fans, responsible for increased game viewership and largely unheralded by the NFL. "

"“The NFL knows a meaningful part of their fan base is interested because they can bet on the games. And if they can’t they would be far less interested in getting tickets, going to games and buying merchandise,” says Finn."

"“Fantasy sports players will watch twice as much of their sport as other self-identified sports fans,” Charchian says. “A fan of the Jets will just watch a Jets game but a fantasy player will watch the Jets game and then switch over to other games. And he will watch the Thursday night game, which no one seems to watch.”"

It's a lot more than 50%. It's not just the 12 seconds that matter, but also whether or not the batter is ready to go in the eyes of the umpire. So there is a combination of rule 6.02 and 8.04 involved.

Without a study I have no desire to share a toilet with ya on this one.

 

[brett05]

Get rid of the humidor in Coors Field. It changes the makeup of the ball which promotes lower scoring. Why should they do that? You don't want a ball flying out of the park? Don't have a team a mile above sea level.

 

[Parade_Rain]

Mind as well continue to feed you. You need to learn about writing styles/skills.

I'm checking your post and reading that you continued on with your strawman and argued it even more emphatically.

To the rule book, yes.

But the zone you posted isn't exactly what the rule book says.

No, up a couple of inches.

Aids the pitcher, who needs no additional help. You've even stated the game has always been skewed against the hitter. oops!

To Speed the game up.

Good. We don't need to adjust batting gloves after every pitch.

possibly? LOL

But more offense doesn't speed the game up, according to you.

The owners don't want to increase payroll. And the majority of baseball players/fans would want it across the board.

Of course players want it. It keeps ones who are too fat, too old or too slow to keep a fielding position in the game longer.

hyperbole at its finest

But it's often your MO.

Sorry Scarecrow. By a female no less. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...otball-is-a-multibillion-dollar-business.html

"The recent NFL referee lockout turned Sunday games into chaotic affairs, and threatened to upend a financial juggernaut. The NFL is a $9.5 billion annual business , after all. Analysts questioned whether fans would tune in to watch endless, poorly officiated messes. But the capricious calls also wreaked havoc on corollary businesses that depend on the smooth functioning of the NFL, like sports betting and Fantasy Football. Both are huge behind-the-scenes money making industries that are driven by fans, responsible for increased game viewership and largely unheralded by the NFL. "

"“The NFL knows a meaningful part of their fan base is interested because they can bet on the games. And if they can’t they would be far less interested in getting tickets, going to games and buying merchandise,” says Finn."

"“Fantasy sports players will watch twice as much of their sport as other self-identified sports fans,” Charchian says. “A fan of the Jets will just watch a Jets game but a fantasy player will watch the Jets game and then switch over to other games. And he will watch the Thursday night game, which no one seems to watch.”"

LOL. This is the big strawman you just supported by more of the same. I suggested to you that the video production of baseball was not on par with the video production of football. You subsequently posted something about gambling and football. Now let's address what you posted regarding the "majority" is this-"Football owns a majority of it's popularity to gambling. Even they have said as much." No. That is not what the NFL has said and that is not what your links that you have quoted say. "A meaningful part of their fan base" does not equal "majority". I'm leaving the rest of that huge, fat strawman alone, but I did address the word "majority".

Without a study I have no desire to share a toilet with ya on this one.

Study? What I posted should indicate to you why it is very difficult to study in the first place.