# How to improve baseball



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

This is coming from a fan of baseball since the early 80s, with a full understanding of the game and all the rules, and sometime player of baseball in the 80s & 90s. I loved the A's when Canseco and McGuire were there. But I've been a Red Sox fan since the 80s - Wade Boggs, Roger Clemens, Tom Brunansky, Randy Kutcher, Tony Pena, Jeff Reardon, Luis Rivera, Mo Vaughn. Must admit though I'm not up to speed with their current roster, due to not being able to get ANY baseball AT ALL on TV in Sweden.

1. *NO SWING:* any pitch that is on the limits of the strike zone and is debatable, and would normally be ruled a ball after a 10 minute face-off between umpire and coach, should be considered a strike, if it is in within hittable range and the batter did not swing.
2. *SWING* a swing & miss or a check-swing should only be ruled a strike if the pitch was in the strike zone, so a swing & miss or check swing for a an obvious "ball" way outside the strike zone should not be ruled a strike.

*NOT IN THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME*
*3.* no intentional walks allowed - that type of stategy is boring and not within the spirit of the game, also it is unfair on a batter's BA, especially for those big batters that regularly get walked. Fans want to see the big hitters making big hits. 
*4.* no pinch runners allowed. If you can't run between the bases or you're not considered fast enough you shouldn't be hitting in the first place.

*General*
5. any fly ball that first breaks the foul line in the outfield should be considered fair. Retain foul ball for fly balls that break the foul line in the infield.
6. ONLY one extra inning to break a tie. If still a tie, determine the winner by a) total of opposing batters struck out. b) number of walks gained, this would also prevent masked intentional walks as oppsoed to the obvious pitch out intentional walks. Hits is an unfair count and will be low for any team good at scoring grand slams, and triple and double run-ins.

These changes I feel, would speed the game up, make it more exciting, retain more of its purity, and increase urgency amongst players and prevent a lot of timewasting from umpires and coaches over plate calls.

This is a genuine thread. I miss baseball on TV, so the least I can do is think and write about it.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

I love it when every 4 years, Swedes tell baseball players and fans how to improve their game.....


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> I love it when every 4 years, Swedes tell baseball players and fans how to improve their game.....


 You......no....you......no doc...you.... 

BTW, I takeses egg sep shun at beings called a veg table! I's iz a Hibernian!


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

In all seriousness, have you tried to watch anything on mlb.com or on the espn.com app? You might be able to catch the odd game there. 

I do feel your pain, because as an American who loves soccer, I went through similar issues when I moved back from London in 1991, and to a lesser extent when I moved back from Prague in 1996.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

But on a serious note, if anyone can direct me to any good websites that stream matches globally, I would be more than grateful. Many of them only work in the US.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

LOL! We had the same idea simultaneously there my friend. Yea, I tried a few but they don't work from a Euro IP unfortunately.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

How about youtube?

https://gigaom.com/2013/04/29/mlb-youtube-live-stream/


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> I do feel your pain, because as an American who loves soccer, I went through similar issues when I moved back from London in 1991, and to a lesser extent when I moved back from Prague in 1996.


Hey VP, I don't know you do I. Were you US Army? I know an ex-US Army provost officer, who was posted from London to Mannheim, Germany in 91, then back to Charlotte , NC in 96, the same year I moved to Sweden......what a coincidence. His wife was top civilian for US Forces in Mannheim.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> How about youtube?
> 
> https://gigaom.com/2013/04/29/mlb-youtube-live-stream/


Wow! Thanks. I had no idea live streaming was even possible on youtube. It looks perfect as it is intended for Yeurp!  I'll give it a try.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Nope, that isn't me, I was never in the Army. Unless you played lacrosse for the Swedish national team in 94, in which case we probably do know each other. I coached the Czechs in that world championship in Manchester.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Well, if you ever bump into Robert A. Lee and his missus Esther in Charlotte or you already know them, say hello from police officer James from London.


...yea, I know, Robert A. Lee...really? Yep, clearly parents with a sense of humour


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> This is coming from a fan of baseball since the early 80s, with a full understanding of the game and all the rules, and sometime player of baseball in the 80s & 90s. *I loved the A's when Canseco and McGuire were there*. But I've been a Red Sox fan since the 80s - Wade Boggs, Roger Clemens, Tom Brunansky, Randy Kutcher, Tony Pena, Jeff Reardon, Luis Rivera, Mo Vaughn. Must admit though I'm not up to speed with their current roster, due to not being able to get ANY baseball AT ALL on TV in Sweden.
> 
> 1. *NO SWING:* any pitch that is on the limits of the strike zone and is debatable, and would normally be ruled a ball after a 10 minute face-off between umpire and coach, should be considered a strike, if it is in within hittable range and the batter did not swing.
> 2. *SWING* a swing & miss or a check-swing should only be ruled a strike if the pitch was in the strike zone, so a swing & miss or check swing for a an obvious "ball" way outside the strike zone should not be ruled a strike.
> ...


Why not allow steroids? Oh, wait...

I'm not sure what you are suggesting about this proposed no-swing rule. Are you saying that you would allow a 10-minute argument (and it is manager, not coach--you have been abroad awhile) over balls and strikes? Not allowed under current rules. A better idea: Use modern technology to call balls and strikes. It exists. It works. It eliminates entirely mistakes by umpires, who get it wrong about 10 percent of the time (read an interesting piece in NYT the other day about All Star pitchers getting benefit of the doubt on balls and strikes--the technology shows that it's more apt to be called a strike if your name is Maddux or Seaver or the like). Using technology would also eliminate arguments over balls and strikes, which has the potential to speed up the game. You can't argue with a machine. Umpires would be the backup plan in event of equipment malfunction.

Very much against your proposed swing rule. You are suggesting that batters be allowed, essentially, to swing away. You think there are time-sucking arguments now, try this.

In fact, I am against all of your proposed rules. I'm not an avid fan, but I like baseball very much as it is now. I think that the rules you propose would cut down on strategy, but I'm not certain on that point. Certainly, the strategy would not be the same as it is now.

I like the idea that a game could, at least in theory, last forever. I do think, however, that beer sales should be resumed after the 11th or 12th inning. By then, everyone's sobered up, and fans who stick around should be rewarded. If it goes past the 18th inning, free cab vouchers! And everyone gets one on the house in the middle of the 21st.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

No, I'm suggesting the opposite, a way needs to be found to avoid face these useless time wasting offs at the plate over contested calls, because often, replays show that the umpire was wrong anyway and that a called ball was indeed a strike or vice versa. The technology you suggest would be a good solution.

Also, I think it not only destroys the flow of play but also denies the public more exciting play, every time a ball flies to the corner post then goes out at the last few feet....boring! Move the flyball foul/fair corner posts in to the edge of the infield.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> No, I'm suggesting the opposite, a way needs to be found to avoid face these useless time wasting offs at the plate over contested calls, because often, replays show that the umpire was wrong anyway and that a called ball was indeed a strike or vice versa. The technology you suggest would be a good solution.
> 
> Also, I think it not only destroys the flow of play but also denies the public more exciting play, *every time a ball flies to the corner post then goes out at the last few feet*....boring! Move the flyball foul/fair corner posts in to the edge of the infield.


I'll go one step further. It seems to me that the technology exists to determine with precision whether a ball is fair or foul and whether, say, the second baseman really did touch the bag when turning the double play and whether the ball reached first base before the runner. I say that umpires should exist to overrule technology based on protests by managers. In short, a manager gets three protests per game to cover situations where he thinks there was an equipment malfunction. There is no reason, in my opinion, that World Series should be decided by an umpire screw-up, or a no-hitter lost for the same reason. Both have happened. And no more arguing. That's just stupid. Develop a zero-tolerance policy for arguing--if you want to pull a Lou Pinella, you will be immediately ejected from the game and suspended for the ensuing game.

Again, I think that the rules are fine. It sure wasn't boring when Carlton Fisk waved the ball fair during the 1975 World Series. Granted, that was a home run ball, but I think that the same dramatics apply on long flies.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

You Weenies think everything should be "fair."

Well it ain't fair.

Sometimes the umpire is wrong, and you get robbed.

It's part of the game.

It's a life lesson.

Learn it.

Live it!!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> You Weenies think everything should be "fair."
> 
> Well it ain't fair.
> 
> ...


They used to say that instant replay would/should never be part of the game. It is now, and the technology that exists now will eventually make umpires largely obsolete. No reason to have seasons decided by blunders.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> They used to say that instant replay would/should never be part of the game.


"They" is still saying it, preaching it, Sonny!!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> "They" is still saying it, preaching it, Sonny!!


And when are they going to figure out that that pesky forward pass has no place in football?


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> This is coming from a fan of baseball since the early 80s, with a full understanding of the game and all the rules, and sometime player of baseball in the 80s & 90s. I loved the A's when Canseco and McGuire were there. But I've been a Red Sox fan since the 80s - Wade Boggs, Roger Clemens, Tom Brunansky, Randy Kutcher, Tony Pena, Jeff Reardon, Luis Rivera, Mo Vaughn. Must admit though I'm not up to speed with their current roster, due to not being able to get ANY baseball AT ALL on TV in Sweden.
> 
> 1. *NO SWING:* any pitch that is on the limits of the strike zone and is debatable, and would normally be ruled a ball after a 10 minute face-off between umpire and coach, should be considered a strike, if it is in within hittable range and the batter did not swing.
> 2. *SWING* a swing & miss or a check-swing should only be ruled a strike if the pitch was in the strike zone, so a swing & miss or check swing for a an obvious "ball" way outside the strike zone should not be ruled a strike.
> ...


Regarding point #1, wouldn't this destroy the strike zone? In addition, once marginal pitches define the strike zone, then how does the umpire handle marginal pitches with this newly created strike zone? Are you simply asking MLB to increase the size of the zone, or are you asking the home plate umpire to call strikes very liberally (and thus wreak havoc on the standard strike zone)?

Re: point #2 - By definition, a missed swing is a strike. Swinging and missing pitches outside the strike zone only to have them called a ball changes the definition of a strike, would irreparably harm use of rising fastballs, sliders, split-finger fastballs, etc. It would invariably increase run scoring, and elongate the game (something you said you wanted to curb).

Regarding point #3, an intentional walk is a strategic maneuver; nothing innately wrong with it. I suppose MLB could simply allow a team to effectuate the intentional walk verbally, but then you lose the possibility of a wild pitch. As to your other point, bases on balls have no effect on a hitter's batting average.

Point #4 is a similar issue. Pinch running is another strategic maneuver, forcing managers to make choices re: speed vs. power, etc. Has no effect on game longevity, either. I don't like any attempt to make a sport less cerebral; in baseball, it's one of the many charms of the game.

Your point #5 is puzzling; often times batted balls will break foul and wind up in the seats. How would a fielder make a play on such a ball? Why bother to have an outfield foul line at all? In addition, this will greatly increase judgment calls by umpires, and add far too much advantage to the team batting. This will also serve to greatly increase the time of a game, in direct opposition to your stated goal of "speeding up the game."

Most of point #6 is unintelligible; perhaps you could clarify? In addition, baseball does not need gimmicks to decide which side was victorious; players do that on the field.

There may be ways of improving the game, but I don't believe any of the ideas above will do that, or achieve any of your stated goals. They would, I believe, ruin the game - again, _pace_ your intention of "retaining purity."


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

I think that baseball is currently doing a nice job with the quality/speed of the game. I do think that they could make some improvements off the field in terms of revenue sharing, free agency rules, etc.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> This is coming from a fan of baseball since the early 80s, with a full understanding of the game and all the rules, and sometime player of baseball in the 80s & 90s. I loved the A's when Canseco and McGuire were there. But I've been a Red Sox fan since the 80s - Wade Boggs, Roger Clemens, Tom Brunansky, Randy Kutcher, Tony Pena, Jeff Reardon, Luis Rivera, Mo Vaughn. Must admit though I'm not up to speed with their current roster, due to not being able to get ANY baseball AT ALL on TV in Sweden.
> 
> 1. *NO SWING:* any pitch that is on the limits of the strike zone and is debatable, and would normally be ruled a ball after a 10 minute face-off between umpire and coach, should be considered a strike, if it is in within hittable range and the batter did not swing.
> 2. *SWING* a swing & miss or a check-swing should only be ruled a strike if the pitch was in the strike zone, so a swing & miss or check swing for a an obvious "ball" way outside the strike zone should not be ruled a strike.
> ...


Okay, I took some time and read, and re-read this. I think that we may have some differences in jargon/language as a lot of this makes no sense to someone who has spent time around baseball. I've played baseball nearly all of my life, and coached a USSSA team for a while. I can now say that I had a few players that I coached from the ages of 9-16 that have been signed by Major League clubs. I will try and argue, or agree with each point you have made.

I may use some terms that are not understood by people who have never played the sport, or even to most casual observers.
In baseball, one does not call an them "umpires" they are most commonly referred to as "blues" they are usually wearing a blue shirt of some variation.

1) We already have this. It is called the strike zone. Within a hitters reach is considered from the knees to the bottom of the letters on a players uniform, and the width of the plate. Have you ever heard the term "paint the black"? this is in reference to the strike zone, if you were to be able to outline the strike zone, then any pitch that would touch the black even if just by a millimeter would be called a strike. Also, arguments are incredibly fun, case in point: 
(graphic language)





2) again we already have this. If the batter checks and swings then it is up to the "blue" to decide whether the pitch was a ball or a strike. You may also see a catcher point down the line to a blue that can call whether the batter swung, or if he checked his swing. Here is a great little video showing a check swing. I couldn't find a video of a "safe" check swing, but the way I understand it is, that if your bat passes through the front half of the plate you swung, or if you were able to pull your bat back before it got across the back half of the plate you checked your swing. At that point it would be up to the blue to call a ball or a strike.

*Not in the spirit of the game*
3) I agree intentional walks are boring and can add to the length of the game, but these really can play a huge factor in the game, and should not be taken out. Take the following into consideration. It is the bottom of the 9th the score is 3-2 there are 2 out and you have runners on 1st, and 2nd. The opposing team has their number 4 batter up at the plate, and he's gone 2fer3 today, with a long fly out, and their number 5 batter is on deck who has gone 0fer looking at 3rd strike calls all day. You have an open bag why not take the bat out of the number 4 batter and take your chances with the guy who hasn't swung at anything all day. The opposing manager can then decide to pull his number 5 batter, and put a guy at the plate who really knows how to bunt, and they run a sacrifice squeeze. Why not? you are either going to tie the game, and give yourself another inning, or you are going to lose the game. This is the fun of baseball!

4) I completely understand where you are coming from, but there are two players on every team that rely on their legs for the entirety of the game even more so, than anyone else on the field. The pitcher, and the catcher. This is in order to preserve their legs, and their careers. I bet you didn't know that pitching has just as much to do with your legs, as it does your arm.

*General*
5)This to me makes absolutely no sense, and I have no idea what you are trying to say. I will say this though. The first rule in baseball is to hit the ball safely in between the lines. 
6) ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! baseball is not soccer. there is no reason to end a game just because it's getting to long. We wouldn't have historical games like the following: The first one is my favorite 2005 National League Division Series 18 innings, Roger Clemens pitched out of the bullpen for the 2nd time in his career! it was 6-1 in the 8th inning! longest post season game in history, up to that point!

The second one is the classic 2004 ALCS game in which the Red Sox turned the game around and wound up winning the World Series.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

Apparently we are only allowed to post 1 video per post.

This video speaks to point #2 the check swing


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

This one speak to point #6

I couldn't find a video that would work, so here is the write-up about the 2005 NLDS 18 inning game in ESPNS top 25 games of the decade.

https://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=games/decade/2005astrosbraves


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

This one also speaks to #6


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

Thank you Dmontez for your insightful reply and clips. 

I've only been a fan of baseball for about five and a half decades, and first played it about 5 decades ago. I know I am still a babe, as far as understanding the the nuances and finer points of the game. 
In all respect, Earl, I believe you have yet to understand much of the small details, both of rules and play, that make baseball such an exceptional game. I'd suggest immersing yourself in the game for at least a couple more decades, and enjoying the abundance of revelations that will surely present themselves. If you can find a way to listen to or view broadcasts by one of the truly superb American broadcast teams (many are terrible) and do so on a regular basis, you should find a treasure trove of insight.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

I just realized I never answered the question, of how to improve Baseball.

It is my opinion that not much can be done to improve the game. There are a few things I don't love about the game.

Homeruns, they are "sexy" you may remember the mid 90's commercials with Greg Maddux, and Tom Glavine "chicks dig the longball" but to me a homerun, defies the object of the game. Ask any pitcher and they will tell you, they would rather give up 1 home run, than 2 doubles. 1 home run is a mistake from a pitcher he shakes it off and gets back in the game. 2 doubles means you are doing something wrong. Rallies almost always start from a single, or a double. I would like to see someone figure out what happens after a homerun, compared to what happens after a double, or two consecutive hits.

Steroids, I have lost all respect for players who have tested positive for steroids.

Showboating, this is something that irks me to no end. If you hit a homerun you run the bases you go back into the dugout and you wait for your turn again. If you watch the ball leave the park, and Cadillac around the bases I would fully expect to get plunked on your next at bat.




No, just no. This type of behavior should not be allowed in any sport. If I were the kids coach, I would have sat him after that display, and made sure he knew that it was not okay. When I was coaching my kids were not allowed to meet the batter at the plate after a homerun. I always told them to act as if they had been there before.

Collisions, this year the MLB has decided to ban collisions at the plate. This to me takes away a lot of competitiveness. You are going to have a lot of runners on 3rd not taking a chance to score because they have to be careful about how they slide.

In conclusion I wholeheartedly believe that Baseball is the last, and only pure sport around. Baseball is the thinking man's sport. You cannot be a dumb jock and have any kind of chances in Baseball, you can't run out the clock, you can't foul someone just to waste time. Each team has the exact same amount of opportunities, and it goes until one is victorious. You don't see player running into other players and pretending that the other punched them. It is also the hardest sport there is. The object of the game is to use a cylindrical tube to squarely contact a sphere. You can get a Major league baseball player to play basketball, or football and he will be able to compete. The same cannot be said the other way around.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Dmontez said:


> I just realized I never answered the question, of how to improve Baseball.
> 
> It is my opinion that not much can be done to improve the game. There are a few things I don't love about the game.
> 
> ...


First off, what's up with a coach tying the kid's shoe for him? That's ridiculous. Does he have a recliner in front of his locker as well? I not only would have sat him (and immediately), I would have sat him until he contacted every member of the opposing team and apologized. And not via text or email. Either face to face or by telephone. I also would have made him apologize to his teammates. And if the coach wouldn't do that (he did, after all, tie the little ignoramus's shoe), then the league should have. Call it contempt of baseball--he holds the key to his cell, it is called an apology.

I agree with you about collisions at the plate. Why did they ban them? Did their skirts get in the way?

Disagree about baseball being the hardest sport. Professional cycling is the most difficult sport, in my opinion. It is beyond arduous--no one ever had a lick of fun DURING the Tour de France--and it is also a mind game. The tactics are extremely complex, and you have to be able to think things through while exhausted. Granted, coaches can help somewhat (I, for one, think it would be better if they banned radios and limited contact with team cars), but riders are sometimes on their own when deciding how, when and if to react to something done by a competitor, and timing is everything. It is not just aerobics.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Regarding the toughest sport, today's stage was Exhibit A for the case that pro cycling is the hardest. Contador rode nine miles after a freak crash (apparently, his frame snapped) before abandoning the race. Turns out he has a fractured tibia that will require surgery. Kind of like Jack Youngblood playing with a broken leg.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Baseball? This is the game also known as 'rounders' and played, in England, exclusively by little girls?


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> Regarding the toughest sport, today's stage was Exhibit A for the case that pro cycling is the hardest. Contador rode nine miles after a freak crash (apparently, his frame snapped) before abandoning the race. Turns out he has a fractured tibia that will require surgery. Kind of like Jack Youngblood playing with a broken leg.


I am talking about sports, not who exercises the best.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Shaver said:


> Baseball? This is the game also known as 'rounders' and played, in England, exclusively by little girls?


Ouch! Now Shaver my dear boy, there is no need to constantly remind our colonial cousins at every opportunity that with the exception of basketball/netball, Europeans invented all the ball sports they play


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

DMontez, than you for all your informative replies. However, I'm not sure I made my main point clear enough about the strike zone. See my reply to 32R&R, I think there are too many disputed plate calls and too much time wasted over them. Technology might be the way to go.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

I've had to think long and hard about this one, but here are my first suggestions. 
Have the people dress properly, plain white shirts and trousers would be an improvement. Or cream. With pullovers if it's a bit chilly.
Stop this silly throwing nonsense. Have the people who throw the ball bowl properly, overarm, and then we can call them bowlers, because they bowl, rather than calling them a variety of jug, which makes no sense.
Stop this "base" nonsense. Have an end where the bowler stands and the end where the man with the bat stands, and make it 22 yards between them. Put some stumps in at each end as well, to give the bowler something to aim at. If he hits them then the man with the bat, let’s call him the batsman is, out, thus getting rid of the three balls nonsense, and the having to throw the ball at the right height. Have the batsman run from his stumps to the bowler’s stumps to score, with a batsman running from the other end at the same time, carrying their bats rather than the throwing the bat nonsense which could be dangerous to other players. Let’s change the shape of the bat whilst we’re at it, making it broader and flatter, and hold it underarm, to enable the batsman to defend his stumps, or “wicket”, more effectively.
Let’s have each bowler bowl six times, taking turns, and change over ends every six bowls. Let’s call that an “over”. 
We’ll stick with two umpires, have one next to the bowler and one beside the batsman where he can see what's going on, rather than behind him where he can't.
We’ll probably need some intervals during play, one at midday which we’ll call “lunch”, then another one later in the afternoon; let’s call that break “tea”, because the players can have some tea then, probably with scones.
That will probably do for now, these changes would certainly improve baseball significantly for the better.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Dmontez said:


> I am talking about sports, not who exercises the best.


Anyone who would say this does not understand professional cycling. Tactics are a huge part of the sport--there is at least as much strategy involved as there is in baseball, and, arguably, more. Plus, they are better athletes. You can't chew tobacco during events and go out drinking after races.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

I'm confident that abolishing the DH as well as replay would greatly improve the baseball experience.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I'm confident that abolishing the DH as well as reply would greatly improve the baseball experience.


Amen on abolishing the DH. I presume you meant "replay," not "reply"-- if so, I'm against that.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

32RR, I was really just joshing around, and I guess not as many people watched the greatness that is Kenny Powers as I thought.






Seriously though, you cannot take a cyclist, and throw him into even an amateur league game and he do "ok" he will look silly. The same goes for basketball, and football players, unless they played multiple sports in high school and or college, and baseball being one of them, when they step out on to the field they will make themselves look silly, but if you flip the script and put a baseball player into a game of really anything he will be able to compete.



32rollandrock said:


> Anyone who would say this does not understand professional cycling. Tactics are a huge part of the sport--there is at least as much strategy involved as there is in baseball, and, arguably, more. Plus, they are better athletes. You can't chew tobacco during events and go out drinking after races.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

Chouan said:


> I've had to think long and hard about this one, but here are my first suggestions.
> Have the people dress properly, plain white shirts and trousers would be an improvement. Or cream. With pullovers if it's a bit chilly.
> Stop this silly throwing nonsense. Have the people who throw the ball bowl properly, overarm, and then we can call them bowlers, because they bowl, rather than calling them a variety of jug, which makes no sense.
> Stop this "base" nonsense. Have an end where the bowler stands and the end where the man with the bat stands, and make it 22 yards between them. Put some stumps in at each end as well, to give the bowler something to aim at. If he hits them then the man with the bat, let's call him the batsman is, out, thus getting rid of the three balls nonsense, and the having to throw the ball at the right height. Have the batsman run from his stumps to the bowler's stumps to score, with a batsman running from the other end at the same time, carrying their bats rather than the throwing the bat nonsense which could be dangerous to other players. Let's change the shape of the bat whilst we're at it, making it broader and flatter, and hold it underarm, to enable the batsman to defend his stumps, or "wicket", more effectively.
> ...


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

As the video I posted of Earl Weaver famously arguing shows, that not only is it part of the game it adds a bit of fun for the fans.

You know what I think would make the game go a bit faster, and more enjoyable for the fans, specifically when watching on TV is to shorten the length of commercial breaks, and in late innings when bringing in new pitchers usually for only one batter, lets not cut to commercials. It's generally about a 4-5 pitch warmup, let us see what is going on around the field instead of showing us what cars we should be yearning for.



Earl of Ormonde said:


> DMontez, than you for all your informative replies. However, I'm not sure I made my main point clear enough about the strike zone. See my reply to 32R&R, I think there are too many disputed plate calls and too much time wasted over them. Technology might be the way to go.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Dmontez said:


> 32RR, I was really just joshing around, and I guess not as many people watched the greatness that is Kenny Powers as I thought.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And Mo Vaughn could ride in the Tour? Could Joe Torre manage a cycling team? No.

Due respect, but I suspect that you know nothing about professional stage racing. It is not a matter of simply hopping on a bicycle and the strongest man wins. Lance Armstrong (and for the record I always detested the alleged man) found that out the hard way early in his career. Physically, he was among the strongest in the peleton, but he was also a complete idiot when it came to understanding the sport, and so he kept losing until he figured out that you have to pick your spots, rely on and work with your teammates and get inside the heads of your rivals. It is a team sport, every bit as much as baseball is, probably moreso, and that is why Eddy "The Cannibal" Merckx (whom I presume you have never heard of) stood virtually alone in terms of being able to dominate without a strong team supporting him. That's why he is considered the Michael Jordan of pro racing.

In baseball, you only have to worry about one person at a time. It's pitcher versus batter, fielder versus runner. In cycling, you have to consider ten or so teams simultaneously, each of which has an agenda that can potentially affect your own. You also have to consider the route for today and the route for tomorrow and the route for the day after that and how the terrain plays to, or against, your strengths as well as the strengths and weaknesses of ten other teams. Note, again, I said teams, not riders. It is, most assuredly, a team sport.

Your analogy, I think, falls short. Strap ice skates onto a baseball player, put him in a hockey game, even an amateur one, and guess what? He will look silly. I have heard this thing about baseball being the toughest sport, that hitting a baseball is the single most difficult thing to do in the world of sports, and I think that's a bunch of claptrap invented by Americans who are so sold on baseball that they can't see the forest. You could say the same thing about golf. Put someone who has never played golf into a tournament and he's going to look like an idiot. That proves nothing.

It's been a long time, but I have played baseball, and I have seen plenty of games. I have also raced bicycles, and I have seen plenty of races. I think, due respect, that that makes me better qualified to form an opinion on which sport is more difficult because I know more about both sports than you and others who are saying that baseball is harder. It's kind of like someone who dismisses the Cowboy Junkies without ever having heard any of their music. It is an uninformed opinion.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

Okay 32RR, This is my biggest problem with the interchange, and the main reason I TRY to stay out of it as much as possible. I have an opinion, as do you. I will not change your mind and you will not change mine. Before I go I will respond to you, but I will leave it after this as I do not want this to get like the heated political debates with name calling and general childish behavior.

I know absolutely ZERO about pro cycling, and have absolutely no desire to learn a single thing about it. In fact I do not consider "professional stage racing" a sport. I would say at best it's a hobby, and there are some very fortunate people that get paid to enjoy their hobby.

When you say that in baseball you have to worry about 1 person at a time. That shows me just how ignorant you are to anything that has to do with baseball.
You may have played baseball, and seen plenty of games, but you sir do not know baseball.

Okay, I will give you that a baseball player going onto an ice rink will likely fall many times, but give a baseball player a field hockey stick, or a lacrosse stick and he will be able to compete. put a baseball player into a cycling group, and he will likely compete. As a matter of fact many baseball players use cycling as exercise. Nolan Ryan was once asked how he celebrated after his 7th no hitter, his answer was something along the lines of he rode more miles than he usually does after his spot in the rotation because he was getting older and needed to work harder to be able to go further into games. It is incredibly important for pitchers especially to work their legs out after throwing 9 innings.

I will go ahead and say that you are not better qualified on baseball than I am of pro stage racing.

I will not change your mind, and you will not change my mind.

If we can let's get back into the original spirit of this thread, how can baseball be improved?



32rollandrock said:


> And Mo Vaughn could ride in the Tour? Could Joe Torre manage a cycling team? No.
> 
> Due respect, but I suspect that you know nothing about professional stage racing. It is not a matter of simply hopping on a bicycle and the strongest man wins. Lance Armstrong (and for the record I always detested the alleged man) found that out the hard way early in his career. Physically, he was among the strongest in the peleton, but he was also a complete idiot when it came to understanding the sport, and so he kept losing until he figured out that you have to pick your spots, rely on and work with your teammates and get inside the heads of your rivals. It is a team sport, every bit as much as baseball is, probably moreso, and that is why Eddy "The Cannibal" Merckx (whom I presume you have never heard of) stood virtually alone in terms of being able to dominate without a strong team supporting him. That's why he is considered the Michael Jordan of pro racing.
> 
> ...


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

Dmontez, with the great respect I have found for your knowledge of the game of baseball, it pains me to see you diminish yourself so. 
You really should have left it at:



Dmontez said:


> I know absolutely ZERO about pro cycling,


(For the record, 32roll, while perhaps not as versed as yourself in the finer points of baseball, is far more knowledgeable about the game than your admitted... and correctly so... ZERO knowledge about pro cycling.)

Why argue about a subject one knows nothing about???


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Dmontez said:


>


"Legal to throw at the batter" What is the presenter talking about? All your Youtube clip shows is that a chosen baseball player can hit a cricket ball more easily than a chosen cricketer can. How many balls would a baseball player face during a match? How many balls could a cricketer face during a match? Several of the balls that your baseball player hit during the clip would have seen him easily taken by the slips!
In any case the thread was asking how Baseball could be improved. Your clip doesn't really negate any of my improvements.....


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Dmontez said:


> Okay 32RR, This is my biggest problem with the interchange, and the main reason I TRY to stay out of it as much as possible. I have an opinion, as do you. I will not change your mind and you will not change mine. Before I go I will respond to you, but I will leave it after this as I do not want this to get like the heated political debates with name calling and general childish behavior.
> 
> I know absolutely ZERO about pro cycling, and have absolutely no desire to learn a single thing about it. In fact I do not consider "professional stage racing" a sport. I would say at best it's a hobby, and there are some very fortunate people that get paid to enjoy their hobby.
> 
> ...


by by this argument it would appear that you wouldn't consider any form of athletics as a sport, just as pastimes or hobbies.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Dmontez said:


> Okay 32RR, This is my biggest problem with the interchange, and the main reason I TRY to stay out of it as much as possible. I have an opinion, as do you. I will not change your mind and you will not change mine. Before I go I will respond to you, but I will leave it after this as I do not want this to get like the heated political debates with name calling and general childish behavior.
> 
> I know absolutely ZERO about pro cycling, and have absolutely no desire to learn a single thing about it. In fact I do not consider "professional stage racing" a sport. I would say at best it's a hobby, and there are some very fortunate people that get paid to enjoy their hobby.
> 
> ...


I apologize for the tone. It was too harsh.

This said, comparing riding a bicycle outside the realm of racing (and by this I mean at the professional level) is akin to comparing a carnival game wherein the contestant attempts to knock over milk jugs with a softball to pitching in the major leagues (that's not a perfect analogy--knocking those jugs over might in fact be harder, but it'll serve for now). They are completely different things. Most third graders can ride bicycles. Most third graders can also toss baseballs and swing peewee-sized bats. Does that make a third grader qualified to compete in either baseball or cycling? Arguably, a third grader would be better able to handle baseball than cycling. Kids have lots of energy and will swing and throw and swing and throw and swing and throw for a long time. They are not so keen on sustained climbs up 12-percent grades.

What you're not seeing here is the mental part of cycling. There is as much strategy as in a chess game. A baseball player would embarrass himself in a bicycle race. For one thing, he'd probably either fall or panic and go way off the back in the first mile--it takes nerve and a deft touch to ride in a pack the way cyclists do, and they do that because a rider in a slipstream expends 30 percent less energy than the leading rider. The sport largely revolves around figuring out ways to expend less energy than anyone else while everyone else is figuring out ways to spend less energy than you. There is also courage. Sure, it takes balls to stand in the batter's box and face a 90-mph pitch. But try descending the Alps on rain-slicked narrow roads at 50-plus mph on a 17-pound bicycle. Could Nolan Ryan or Babe Ruth do that? There is also heart. There are few things more beautiful in the world of sports than to see a long solo breakaway succeed and the lone rider come home ahead of the peleton. It doesn't happen very often, but it is possible for one person to beat 200, and that's an amazing feat.

If you think that professional stage racing is a hobby, try it. It goes something like this: Today we're going to ride 140 miles, tomorrow we're going to ride 110 miles, the next day, we're going to ride 130 miles and go over two mountain passes while we're at it, with the finish line being at the top of a nine-mile climb that averages 15 percent, and we're going to keep at this until we ride 2,000 miles or so over the course of three weeks. That's the reality. It isn't fun, and the racing season lasts from March until October, with no time off the bike during the winter because you have to stay in shape. Traditionally, a lot of pro cyclists in Europe, like a lot of professional athletes in the United States, have grown up poor and used cycling as a path to a better life. It was never a hobby for them. It was a job, and the vast majority have no chance of ever winning because they are there to help someone else win. They don't enjoy it so much as they endure it.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Chouan said:


> by by this argument it would appear that you wouldn't consider any form of athletics as a sport, just as pastimes or hobbies.


I would be tempted to label baseball a past time or game as opposed to a sport (Babe Ruth and David Wells were as much athletes as John Daly), but it does require strength, hand-eye coordination, speed and, vitally, the outcome is decided objectively by the participants. Neither figure skating nor diving nor gymnastics nor synchronized swimming (blechh) are sports in the same sense. When judges decide outcomes, the event in question is not, or should not be regarded as, a sport--curling is more a sport than figure skating. This is why I favor replacing baseball umpires to the extent possible with infallible technology. The only reason that people say that umpires and bad calls are part of the game is that, for so long, there was no alternative. Now, there are alternatives to umpires that are far less prone to error (not to mention going on strike) than umpires, and so we should use those alternatives. Technology has proven that 10 percent of ball-strike calls are wrong. Why should we tolerate that kind of error rate in any sport?


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

> Technology has proven that 10 percent of ball-strike calls are wrong. Why should we tolerate that kind of error rate in any sport?


That, Sir, is part of the tradition, nuance and color of baseball: for a pitcher (and catcher) to know any given ump's strike zone, and to work it. 
It is of course hoped that any unfairness will be applied equally to all teams over the course of a season, and that all will work out (more or less) in the end.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Checkerboard 13 said:


> That, Sir, is part of the tradition, nuance and color of baseball: for a pitcher (and catcher) to know any given ump's strike zone, and to work it.
> It is of course hoped that any unfairness will be applied equally to all teams over the course of a season, and that all will work out (more or less) in the end.


I was mistaken--it's worse than I thought. Turns out that umps call a strike nearly 20 percent of the time that a ball is out of the zone. And the zone is not applied equally. Umps play favorites according to a scientific study of nearly 760,000 pitches thrown during more than 300,000 at bats in the course of nearly 5,000 games: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/08/...all-strike-calls-favor-all-star-pitchers.html

Players also cannot be judged on statistics. Everyone knows that intangibles--bat speed, pop, level head--are what's important. Everybody knows, of course, but Billy Beane. His way of thinking has, rightly, taken over the game, usurping a way of thinking that had dominated for a century. Same thing is going to happen with umpires. Within ten years, the game will be speeded up and arguments will seem quaint, thanks to technology, and fans will be the happier. Baseball is one of the few sports outside of racing (running, cycling, horse, motorcycle, auto--it doesn't matter) where it is absolutely black-and-white, which is part of its allure. The runner either beat the tag or he did not. The ball was either foul or it was not. There is no interpretation along the lines of, was that a blocking foul or a charge, did the linebacker grab the face mask or did it just look that way. In a sport based on absolutes, it's silly to allow human error to unnecessarily muck things up. They've done away with human error in other sports where technology has allowed improvement in accuracy. It defies logic, I think, to believe that baseball (where instant replay has made inroads) will not do the same.

An existential baseball question: If you had to do one or the other, would you eliminate the DH or replace umpires with infallible technology? I'd get rid of the DH in a heartbeat because it bastardizes the game in a way that accurate calls do not. And besides, umpires are bastards.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

At the risk of beating a dead horse...

For those who haven't seen it, and for those who may not care a wit about pro cycling, today's TDF stage is worth watching. One of the most courageous performances in any sport I have ever seen...by someone who finished last. Andrew Talansky, an American who had hopes for the podium, has crashed so badly and often in this year's race that he could not remove his own jersey after Monday's stage--his entire back is road rashed. After a rest day on Tuesday, he got back on the bike today. It was a reverse time trial of sorts as he was soon left by the field. If you finish too far behind the winner of a stage, you are out of the race, so his was a lonely and painful race against time. No one paid any attention to who won today's stage. Talansky was the hero. At one point, he dismounted to abandon--the cameras were on him and he looked ready to cry--but he got back on the bike and gritted it out. You don't have to care about bicycle racing to be touched--very much worth watching. Two written accounts:

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/17/...-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well

https://velonews.competitor.com/2014/07/news/rider-fire_336730


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> I would be tempted to label baseball a past time or game as opposed to a sport (Babe Ruth and David Wells were as much athletes as John Daly), but it does require strength, hand-eye coordination, speed and, vitally, the outcome is decided objectively by the participants. Neither figure skating nor diving nor gymnastics nor synchronized swimming (blechh) are sports in the same sense. When judges decide outcomes, the event in question is not, or should not be regarded as, a sport--curling is more a sport than figure skating. This is why I favor replacing baseball umpires to the extent possible with infallible technology. The only reason that people say that umpires and bad calls are part of the game is that, for so long, there was no alternative. Now, there are alternatives to umpires that are far less prone to error (not to mention going on strike) than umpires, and so we should use those alternatives. Technology has proven that 10 percent of ball-strike calls are wrong. Why should we tolerate that kind of error rate in any sport?


They're certainly in use in cricket to ascertain LBWs and to make clear whether a ball has just touched the bat, thus enabling a catch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snickometer and more generally, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umpire_Decision_Review_System . The argument against this stuff is that only first class games can offer it, making other games less "fair" as it were.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Chouan said:


> They're certainly in use in cricket to ascertain LBWs and to make clear whether a ball has just touched the bat, thus enabling a catch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snickometer and more generally, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umpire_Decision_Review_System . The argument against this stuff is that only first class games can offer it, making other games less "fair" as it were.


Give it awhile. Even small high schools in the U.S. now have artificial turf. I can get a digital surveillance camera that would have been the envy of James Bond 25 years ago for less than $100.


----------



## dwebber18 (Jun 5, 2008)

Ok, so to be honest I have not read most of the lengthy posts. However, as a life long baseball player and college pitcher I dont agree with changing pitching and balls and strikes as suggested by the OP. As a pitcher I have a strategy each at bat. Sometimes that involves intentionally throwing balls as well as throwing a pitch to generate a swing. However that pitch will more often than not be a ball by design. If I could not get a called strike on no swing or get a ball called on a swing when the pitch is out of the zone that would kill me. Since I have never been a power pitcher and rely on junk those changes would put me out of business. I dont typically throw many balls so when I do its on purpose and I am trying to make the hitter swing at a pitch to miss or not hit well. That's just my take from a 25 year(and counting) career as a ball player.


----------



## racebannon (Aug 17, 2014)

Red Soxs SUCK!


----------

