BSLMichaelWeber, on 12 Mar 2018 - 20:31, said:
I'm trying not to get to into semantics, but yes, it is changing the rule. The rule was purposefully changed a long time ago to lower the strike zone and that has consistently been the rule since. They just didn't change the wording of the rule, but the wording is irrelevant if MLB consciously and universally changed it and has been enforcing a new rule ever since. What MLB communicates the rule to be and enforces is the rule. Or in other words, what the players and umps are told is the rule is the rule. I'm not sure why you or anyone else would get so hung up on the wording in a rulebook when that wording has been irrelevant for decades. But again, I support them changing the language just to avoid this silly conversation, which is literally the only impact that change in the wording would produce.
This is like saying getting rid of the 3 point shot won't change the talent of the player. I mean, yeah, I guess depending on how you define talent, but it will change the results, and in some cases dramatically. That should be rather obvious, no? Most hitters have pretty pronounced strengths and weaknesses in the zone. Some guys can't really handle high heat so they purposefully lay off it, but if forced to swing, their production would be altered significantly.
I feel like you are only pushing back on this because of what your preference is. You also say I have a preference for offense, but that's not true, I have a preference to keep things around where they've been. Anyway, I think what I'm saying is very widely accepted. I don't feel like engaging in something that I feel is so obvious. What I will add is that the increase in homers and especially the record breaking year by McGwire and Sosa were generally credited and has been widely accepted as helping to bring baseball back after the strike. Maybe you'll point to some data that contradicts that, but I'm pretty confident that most people don't want 3 total runs in a game to be the norm (MLB seems to think this too as they have often tried to up the run scoring environment anytime it gets abnormally low). I'm also pretty confident that you know that too. I'm not saying that's what would happen in this case, but just going off what you said you'd like the norm to be. I do think it would have a significant impact on offense, though.
The Strike Zone rule has changed over time....
Here is the rule:
http://mlb.mlb.com/m...es_interest.jsp
And changes over time:
http://mlb.mlb.com/m...strike_zone.jsp
And in this article we see how the strike zone evolved from 2007 to 2013 due to Pitch F/X:
http://www.businessi...ike-zone-2014-9
Yes, enforcing the rule as it exists would have consequences.... but enforcing an existing rule should not equate to changing the rule.
Yes, I get you are for changing the rule, so this 'silly' discussion does not occur.
I get that you are saying that whatever rule can exist, but if it's ignored by implementation... than it doesn't exist. I find that ignoring an existing rule is silly.
As shown above, the wording in the rulebook has had multiple changes.
As long as the current rule exists, that is what should be called.
As shown above, how umpires have been instructed to call games has also had recent changes.
I'm advocating for MLB to instruct Umpires to enforce the rule that exists in their rulebook. That shouldn't be such a foreign notion.
I'd like to see the impact that enforcement had.
For the game as I'd like to see it played, I think it would be mostly positive.
You think the consequences would be dire.
My thoughts are you could adjust again later if need be. (They've adjusted the rule, and how they've asked umps to call games before.)
So, why am I advocating this?
Because MLB says:
- Pace of Play is an issue. They want a quicker moving game (not just length, but pace)
- They want more balls in play, they want more action...
- Millennial engagement is a key going forward, and people's ability to focus is consistently being reduced...
- Baseball has by far the oldest audience demographics, with pace of play often being mentioned as one of the leading reasons why.
I'm all for less trips to the mound, keeping batters in the batters box, a pitch clock, limiting time spent on replays... make those changes.
I don't think anything would do more to address the above issues than a larger strike zone. Pitchers would get ahead on more counts, I believe that will bring about adjustments in approach from hitters. I think that will put more balls in play, and for me... I think the entire product would be better.
If offense was totally blunted to the point where the masses were calling out for more offense.... then you'd could adjust again by rule and implementation.
Players would adjust. They've adjusted their play due to how the game is currently enforced, they'd adjust again.
You say you have a preference to keep things the way they've been. What does that mean?
There was the dead ball era.
There was pre-integration.
There was expansion, and the lowering of the mound.
There was the addition of the DH in the AL.
There was the steroid era.
There was 2014 with 4,200 homers and there was 2017 with 6,100 homers.
The game is constantly changing.
Yes, my preferences are a low scoring environment, with more balls in play, and faster moving games.
MLB says more balls in play, and faster moving games are also priorities of theirs.
I'm saying if those are the true priorities of MLB... here is a way to accomplish that.
McGwire and Sosa in that moment were great for the game. The game had yet to recover from the Strike, and much of the reporting on the game was generally bleak. You had the Incredible Hulk, and a guy with lot of personality lighting things up and chasing Maris.
Chicks love the long ball.
I don't think that equals a 1x1 correlation to the idea that baseball fans are always looking for more offense.
I don't think the game is in better shape coming out of a '17 season where there were 6,100 homers vs. '14 when there were 4,200 homers.
If anything, when everyone is capable of of huge homer totals... it makes it less interesting when someone does.
