blueclaw wrote:Drew Anderson is pitching for the White Sox. I completely forgot about him.

MoBettle wrote:The thing is, I think a lot of the complaints about the game by the modern generation are common with old school complaints. Like if you could get back to what I imagine as a classic 1950s/1960s style game (2 hours long, starting pitcher working quickly and going close to the whole game, no shifts, guys putting the ball in play, lots of stealing and hit & runs) that seems like both what the old school people want to get back to and a product that would grab the younger generation more than the current one.

It's just a question of how you get there, and I don't see how you do it without real rule changes. At the end of the day, we aren't watching for the rules, we are watching for the game, and the rules dictate the game that we see. We already have allowed the game to change because we refuse to change the rules. Namely, the downside of analytics working is that the analytically correct way to play is also less entertaining for a lot of people. So the only way to get teams to change their behavior is to change the math by changing the rules the way the other sports have done.

The DH seems inevitable, maybe this 7 inning double header stuff is too, but what I really think would help is:

1. A pitch clock (would probably have to be phased in)
2. Limiting the number of pitchers you can use in 9 innings (with various exceptions and related penalties. Like a pitcher doesn't count if he gives up 5 runs or something and if a guy leaves with an injury he can't pitch for X amount of days after that).
3. Getting rid of shifts (in a way that incentivizes putting the ball in play)
4. Making the bases bigger (which might tilt the success rate for stealing bases enough to get teams to steal more)

There's probably a lot more but those are some obvious ones off the top of my head.

CalvinBall wrote:Division standings are wild rn

swishnicholson wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Division standings are wild rn

If the season ended today (always a possibility!) the Phillies would be the second "wild card" team, or whatever they're calling it, right?

Titlehungry wrote:

swishnicholson wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Division standings are wild rn

If the season ended today (always a possibility!) the Phillies would be the second "wild card" team, or whatever they're calling it, right?

Not sure how it works but would they maybe play the Marlins now in the first round lol...

PSUsarge wrote:

MoBettle wrote:He said it’s inevitable in September, wonder if they would start now though. You’re basically taking one or two starts away from Nola and wheeler and giving them to Vinny or Howard.

Right, was just combining that with his recent comments on protecting guys from injury and assuming that’s the direction they’ll go ASAP - which I also think makes complete sense.

PSUsarge wrote:

MoBettle wrote:The thing is, I think a lot of the complaints about the game by the modern generation are common with old school complaints. Like if you could get back to what I imagine as a classic 1950s/1960s style game (2 hours long, starting pitcher working quickly and going close to the whole game, no shifts, guys putting the ball in play, lots of stealing and hit & runs) that seems like both what the old school people want to get back to and a product that would grab the younger generation more than the current one.

It's just a question of how you get there, and I don't see how you do it without real rule changes. At the end of the day, we aren't watching for the rules, we are watching for the game, and the rules dictate the game that we see. We already have allowed the game to change because we refuse to change the rules. Namely, the downside of analytics working is that the analytically correct way to play is also less entertaining for a lot of people. So the only way to get teams to change their behavior is to change the math by changing the rules the way the other sports have done.

The DH seems inevitable, maybe this 7 inning double header stuff is too, but what I really think would help is:

1. A pitch clock (would probably have to be phased in)
2. Limiting the number of pitchers you can use in 9 innings (with various exceptions and related penalties. Like a pitcher doesn't count if he gives up 5 runs or something and if a guy leaves with an injury he can't pitch for X amount of days after that).
3. Getting rid of shifts (in a way that incentivizes putting the ball in play)
4. Making the bases bigger (which might tilt the success rate for stealing bases enough to get teams to steal more)

There's probably a lot more but those are some obvious ones off the top of my head.

Great post. Agree 100%. Long, slow-paced games based on three true outcomes and something like three-six different pitchers per team is not a game anyone, of any generation, wants in comparison to past versions of the game.

PSUsarge wrote:

MoBettle wrote:The thing is, I think a lot of the complaints about the game by the modern generation are common with old school complaints. Like if you could get back to what I imagine as a classic 1950s/1960s style game (2 hours long, starting pitcher working quickly and going close to the whole game, no shifts, guys putting the ball in play, lots of stealing and hit & runs) that seems like both what the old school people want to get back to and a product that would grab the younger generation more than the current one.

It's just a question of how you get there, and I don't see how you do it without real rule changes. At the end of the day, we aren't watching for the rules, we are watching for the game, and the rules dictate the game that we see. We already have allowed the game to change because we refuse to change the rules. Namely, the downside of analytics working is that the analytically correct way to play is also less entertaining for a lot of people. So the only way to get teams to change their behavior is to change the math by changing the rules the way the other sports have done.

The DH seems inevitable, maybe this 7 inning double header stuff is too, but what I really think would help is:

1. A pitch clock (would probably have to be phased in)
2. Limiting the number of pitchers you can use in 9 innings (with various exceptions and related penalties. Like a pitcher doesn't count if he gives up 5 runs or something and if a guy leaves with an injury he can't pitch for X amount of days after that).
3. Getting rid of shifts (in a way that incentivizes putting the ball in play)
4. Making the bases bigger (which might tilt the success rate for stealing bases enough to get teams to steal more)

There's probably a lot more but those are some obvious ones off the top of my head.

Great post. Agree 100%. Long, slow-paced games based on three true outcomes and something like three-six different pitchers per team is not a game anyone, of any generation, wants in comparison to past versions of the game.

PSUsarge wrote:

MoBettle wrote:The thing is, I think a lot of the complaints about the game by the modern generation are common with old school complaints. Like if you could get back to what I imagine as a classic 1950s/1960s style game (2 hours long, starting pitcher working quickly and going close to the whole game, no shifts, guys putting the ball in play, lots of stealing and hit & runs) that seems like both what the old school people want to get back to and a product that would grab the younger generation more than the current one.

It's just a question of how you get there, and I don't see how you do it without real rule changes. At the end of the day, we aren't watching for the rules, we are watching for the game, and the rules dictate the game that we see. We already have allowed the game to change because we refuse to change the rules. Namely, the downside of analytics working is that the analytically correct way to play is also less entertaining for a lot of people. So the only way to get teams to change their behavior is to change the math by changing the rules the way the other sports have done.

The DH seems inevitable, maybe this 7 inning double header stuff is too, but what I really think would help is:

1. A pitch clock (would probably have to be phased in)
2. Limiting the number of pitchers you can use in 9 innings (with various exceptions and related penalties. Like a pitcher doesn't count if he gives up 5 runs or something and if a guy leaves with an injury he can't pitch for X amount of days after that).
3. Getting rid of shifts (in a way that incentivizes putting the ball in play)
4. Making the bases bigger (which might tilt the success rate for stealing bases enough to get teams to steal more)

There's probably a lot more but those are some obvious ones off the top of my head.

Great post. Agree 100%. Long, slow-paced games based on three true outcomes and something like three-six different pitchers per team is not a game anyone, of any generation, wants in comparison to past versions of the game.

BigEd76 wrote:Irvin optioned

blueclaw wrote:How does Austin Davis survive all of this?