Jump to content

Providing independent coverage of the Minnesota Twins.
Subscribe to Twins Daily Email
Photo

Nightengale: Changes

  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#21 ashburyjohn

ashburyjohn

    Haighters gonna Haight

  • Twins Mods
  • 19,584 posts
  • LocationNatick, MA

Posted 27 June 2018 - 09:16 AM

It got Price and Sale out of the game and gave the Twins a better chance of winning (and got them the win against Sale)

I thought my wording clearly would exclude guys like these two. And Boston's bullpen is pretty good. You pick your poison, with that team.

 

And I also took pains to say I agree with the general rule you stated, implying it is optimal on average.

 

Results against one guy, such as Colon, don't necessarily sway me much. And the Twins are overall swinging the bat so poorly, that I don't know if any particular tactic will help. Colon consumed only 82 pitches in his 7 innings, facing 28 batters, so maybe the Twins were trying the go-after-him tactic at times, and simply failed. The next pitcher the Rangers ran out there had a larger ratio of 22 pitches for just 4 batters, for whatever that's worth - different batting tactics, or simply a different pitcher with different style, I dunno.

 

Texas batters went with the standard tactic, against a very good starting pitcher, resulting in 132 pitches for 31 batters in the entire game, and yet also failed. :)

 

Back (somewhat) to the thread topic: with so few pitches from one side of the box score, at least, I see that the game was completed in a crisp 2:21. In this day and age, I consider that a good thing for the sport.

If jail and prison are synonymous, why aren't jailer and prisoner?


#22 Tomj14

Tomj14

    Chattanooga Lookouts

  • Members
  • 529 posts

Posted 27 June 2018 - 09:53 AM

 

 

Back (somewhat) to the thread topic: with so few pitches from one side of the box score, at least, I see that the game was completed in a crisp 2:21. In this day and age, I consider that a good thing for the sport.

Sorry didn't mean to come off as argumentative. I think quicker games are better for baseball in general, my real point was until baseball gets away from the 100 pitch limit, games are going to be "boring" with the Homer, K, walk outcome.

Because with advanced analytics it is all about probability (like shifts) and winning, not about making the game better to watch. IMO

  • ashburyjohn likes this

#23 lukeduke1980

lukeduke1980

    Ft Myers

  • Members
  • 342 posts

Posted 27 June 2018 - 10:04 AM

 

Or, it would incentivize pitchers to throw strikes more frequently, leading to more contact and a faster game pace.

TR and Rick Anderson can co-write the rule book!


#24 Ebby Calvin Laloosh

Ebby Calvin Laloosh

    Elizabethton

  • Members
  • 28 posts
  • LocationPDX

Posted 27 June 2018 - 11:47 AM

How about enforcing the rules already there (batters stay in the box) and moving the fences back? Keeping guys in the box MIGHT shave a few minutes from a game and seems so easy and obvious. And it's a rule already.

 

Guys are bigger and stronger than ever and seem to be hitting the ball farther (I have no data to back that up but it seems to be the case). Move the fences back to a point where the top 10-15% of power hitters can reach it if they get a hold of one. Where that point it, I don't know but with all the data being collected it shouldn't be hard to figure out. I'm not arguing for every field to have the same dimensions, keep the quirks, just move the fences back. Everybody else stops swinging for the fences because they can't reach it. More line drives turn into doubles and triples, which are far more entertaining than strikeouts and walks.

 

Admittedly, I haven't thought this out completely, but it seems pretty easy. Maybe it's too expensive to remodel all the stadiums. Not sure what it does to OF defense, but it should would skyrocket Buxton's value, even if he never hits. There could be a whole host of other things I haven't considered too.

 

Thoughts?


#25 Nine of twelve

Nine of twelve

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Members
  • 1,140 posts
  • LocationEarth, for the time being

Posted 27 June 2018 - 12:34 PM

The goal of any changes (IMHO) should be to have more batted balls playable by fielders. In other words, decrease the number of walks, strikeouts, and home runs.

I've said this before, but:

1.) Enlarge the strike zone. This forces batters to swing more often and earlier in the count, and also means fewer hard hit balls. However, this would also mean more K's unless you also...

2.) Lower the mound. This helps to counteract the effects of a larger strike zone by making pitches easier to make contact with.

3.) Soften the baseball. Similar effect to moving fences back but this would actually be feasible.

Do not make changes to the number of balls needed for a BB. Do not limit shifts. Do not limit pitching changes. I could live with a pitch clock but only with the bases empty. Same with a similar rule for batters, but only with the bases empty.

  • USAFChief likes this

#26 Mike Sixel

Mike Sixel

    Now living in Oregon

  • Members
  • 26,980 posts

Posted 27 June 2018 - 01:11 PM

there is some evidence lowering the mound will cause more pitcher injuries, and for pitchers to tire faster (meaning more pitching changes)......though I don't know how much that is true or not....

There's always next year, or the next, or maybe by the time I'm Chief's age, I guess....


#27 Nine of twelve

Nine of twelve

    Rochester Red Wings

  • Members
  • 1,140 posts
  • LocationEarth, for the time being

Posted 27 June 2018 - 03:33 PM

 

there is some evidence lowering the mound will cause more pitcher injuries, and for pitchers to tire faster (meaning more pitching changes)......though I don't know how much that is true or not....

This is a good point. I hadn't thought about it and it would make sense for that to be true, especially during the first season as pitchers become acclimated to the change.


#28 jkcarew

jkcarew

    Chattanooga Lookouts

  • Members
  • 636 posts

Posted 28 June 2018 - 10:27 AM

I wish this generation of ball-parks would have been built with larger dimensions.It's a good example of the law of unintended consequences.There was a deliberate movement, heading into the 90's (when the current generation of ball parks started to pop up) to promote the HR.

 

But what has happened is that lead-off hitters, and no. 2 hitters...and 7, 8, and 9 hitters...all physical/agility profiles can reach the fence and justify the launch, walk, or K approach.If a larger number of 'less strong' players couldn't reach the fence as readily, I think we'd see more players deploy a contact/put-the-ball-in-play approach.And of course, you'd have the natural outcome of more base hits falling in as outfielders have more territory behind them to cover.I do think there may be possibilities to 'soften' the ball (or at least reverse any trend to keep making more lively)...but the outcome would not be quite the same or impactful as it would be if the outfields were simply larger.

  • Mike Sixel and Platoon like this