Bigger bases making an impact in the minors - likely to appear next season in MLB

[Brock Beauchamp]

I was really skeptical larger bases would make a difference but after most of a season in A through AAA ball (smaller bases still used in rookie ball), the numbers are proving me wrong. Stolen base attempts are up, as are successful steals. While I won't post the entire piece from The Athletic, here is a snippet of the numbers (have to scroll way down to find the text in the article itself):

Stolen base attempts per game

	2021	2022
AAA	1.89	2.37
AA	2.23	2.69
A	3.01	3.15
Rookie	3.39	3.35

Stolen-base percentage

	2021	2022
AAA	75.5	78.0
AA	70.7	77.3
A	76.4	77.3
Rookie	73.7	72.5

https://theathletic.com/3575558/2022/09/08/orioles-rutschman-twins-correa-free-agency/?redirected=1

[igor67]

It certainly seems like management has been eyeing some of these changes in future prospects. Combined with sooner or later moving to automatic balls and strikes catcher defense will be concentrated heavily on throwing arm and blocking where Quero seems to be well thought of already. All those speedy OFer will also see their value increase. Those 80's and 90's teams that had multiple base stealers along with some true specialists were fun to listen to.

[NBBrewFan]

While it appears to have some advantage is it large enough to change most of the teams decisions at the MLB level.  Here are team numbers for Stolen Base % for 2021/2022 (Left) and Stolen Base attempts per game for 2022 (right):

 I'm guessing most teams seeing the slight increase in success in the minor leagues won't change their attempt frequency much if at all.  

[CdrbrgMark]

Another stellar,significant decision by MLB management(BLUE)

[Brock Beauchamp]

1 hour ago, CdrbrgMark said:

Another stellar,significant decision by MLB management(BLUE)

Why the sarcasm, though? Honest question. This is such a small change that it's basically invisible to fans but encourages teams to pursue a more dynamic version of baseball that we generally believe was more fun to watch.

I believe changes like this should be commonplace in MLB, a game that is far too stagnant and mired in tradition, often to the detriment of the modern game being played.

With that said, the change I really care about is the pitch clock and I'm gonna be pissed if it's not here in 2023.

[Samurai Bucky]

Was there any discussion of the double base at first?  I thought that was something that was in the works.

[NBBrewFan]

22 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Why the sarcasm, though? Honest question. This is such a small change that it's basically invisible to fans but encourages teams to pursue a more dynamic version of baseball that we generally believe was more fun to watch.

I believe changes like this should be commonplace in MLB, a game that is far too stagnant and mired in tradition, often to the detriment of the modern game being played.

With that said, the change I really care about is the pitch clock and I'm gonna be pissed if it's not here in 2023.

Amen!  With the already known manipulations like changing the ball which in essence has diminished activity in games we should be happy with any change that brings back the action and reducing the monotonous boring part of the game (PITCH CLOCK FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!!!). If they are going to deaden the ball then reduce the mound or move it back so there are more balls in play that aren't HR. Three batters is just crap as it's been show to hardly make any significant difference.  Pitch clock. Banning the shift? Since batters don't try to defeat it why should MLB come to their rescue.  If batters want to focus only on launch angle, then keep the shift since they don't want to adapt. Pitch clock.  No reason the games need to last more than 3 hours or 3:15 with the current manipulations, if there was 20% more activity then the length isn't as much and issue.  40% more activity - nirvana.

[Brock Beauchamp]

3 hours ago, NBBrewFan said:

Amen!  With the already known manipulations like changing the ball which in essence has diminished activity in games we should be happy with any change that brings back the action and reducing the monotonous boring part of the game (PITCH CLOCK FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!!!). If they are going to deaden the ball then reduce the mound or move it back so there are more balls in play that aren't HR. Three batters is just crap as it's been show to hardly make any significant difference.  Pitch clock. Banning the shift? Since batters don't try to defeat it why should MLB come to their rescue.  If batters want to focus only on launch angle, then keep the shift since they don't want to adapt. Pitch clock.  No reason the games need to last more than 3 hours or 3:15 with the current manipulations, if there was 20% more activity then the length isn't as much and issue.  40% more activity - nirvana.

I'm generally in favor of banning the shift but not beholden to getting rid of it.

At the end of the day, the shift brings no entertainment value to me, especially on television. And if it decreases entertainment (balls in play for hits) while bringing no entertainment in return (less defensive action, lazy throws from short right field), get rid of it. This game has become too bloody boring and I want to see more action, however we get there (within reason).

[Baldkin]

The game is boring because contact is down and time between pitches is ridiculous when nothing happens. 

 

It's not boring when Suter pitches. 

[nate82]

I am not sure why anyone would complain about bigger bases it is a minor change to the game with some big benefits entertainment wise.

I don’t like the banning of the shifts.

I would like to see the ball changed.  Make it slightly bigger and heavier.  I believe this would help both pitchers and batters.  More balls in play and less crazy break and spin rates.  Though pitch velocity should increase which should help the pitchers with the loss in spin rate.  It should also put less pressure on the elbow.

The pitch clock is a must both hitters and pitchers can slow the game down to an absolute crawl.  I hated watching Braun bat 3-minutes to get into the box.  After the first pitch another minute to readjust everything from his cup to his batting gloves. 5-minutes later and something finally happens only for this routine to start up again.

I would like to see the 3-batter rule removed for a reliever also.  It hasn’t sped the game up at all it has actually gotten worse since this rule has been established.

[owbc]

I applaud MLB for thoroughly vetting these changes in the minor leagues before implementing them. Rave reviews have been coming in from fans who have watched MiLB games this year. 
 

I’ve heard that the pitch clock is causing some indirect changes to hitting — less strikeouts, more contact early in counts. It will be interesting to see if that translates to the big leagues. 

[Team Canada]

The other factor with steals called out in a similar ESPN piece about the coming changes is the limit in how many times you can throw over or step off (only twice per batter).

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/34551173/a-15-second-pitch-clock-end-shift-need-know-mlb-2023-rule-changes

[igor67]

That combined with the pitch clock leads to some noticeable advantages for the runner. As a pitcher you really need to hold on to that second pick-off attempt until deep in the AB or you are really leaving the door open. As written if you used your 2 throws super early there would be little stopping you from a huge lead off second if you already stole it within the same AB. We need a Rickey Henderson quote on this, something to the effect of how he'd have stolen 200 bases under those rules..

[wntrtxn21]

6 hours ago, igor67 said:

That combined with the pitch clock leads to some noticeable advantages for the runner. As a pitcher you really need to hold on to that second pick-off attempt until deep in the AB or you are really leaving the door open. As written if you used your 2 throws super early there would be little stopping you from a huge lead off second if you already stole it within the same AB. We need a Rickey Henderson quote on this, something to the effect of how he'd have stolen 200 bases under those rules..

If a pitcher failed on his 2 attempts at a pickoff, wouldn't the runner just start running to the next base as soon as the pitcher stepped on the rubber? There would be no way to stop the runner since the pitcher couldn't throw over or a balk would be called. The pitcher couldn't quick pitch because he wouldn't come to a complete stop in the stretch and that's also a balk. 

[nate82]

35 minutes ago, wntrtxn21 said:

If a pitcher failed on his 2 attempts at a pickoff, wouldn't the runner just start running to the next base as soon as the pitcher stepped on the rubber? There would be no way to stop the runner since the pitcher couldn't throw over or a balk would be called. The pitcher couldn't quick pitch because he wouldn't come to a complete stop in the stretch and that's also a balk. 

If the base runner is advancing towards the next base the pitcher can throw over and if the runner is out they are out no balk.  
 

https://sports.yahoo.com/mlb-adding-new-rules-for-2023-including-pitch-clock-and-limits-on-the-infield-shift-164603647.html?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAEO4Dq-QzfV_cDLef93ItELzh9BRPn6PACrqVmo58kPCY2ahNX0pOUz4PeGXAcw3PG6CkxmFyptGcFDxVAXutZurq8uVTAOsySoGg7b1AWTXRjT4h2IHPezY_Lawwve3ptBb0uvBKo4QFdZjjSS4DWnTcePuR_fMbMvJ7wFoxezc

[UpandIn]

On 9/8/2022 at 12:06 PM, NBBrewFan said:

While it appears to have some advantage is it large enough to change most of the teams decisions at the MLB level.  Here are team numbers for Stolen Base % for 2021/2022 (Left) and Stolen Base attempts per game for 2022 (right):

 I'm guessing most teams seeing the slight increase in success in the minor leagues won't change their attempt frequency much if at all.  

I'd imagine you're right. BUT, I do think the particular group of players the Brewers have coming up will have a pretty significant impact on how many stolen bases we attempt. Mitchell, Wiemer, Ruiz, Turang, Frelick...all guys who should be 20+ SB a year type guys(obviously some more than others). 

 

One more rule change that annoys the hell out of me is players sliding into 2nd or 3rd. The pop slide, or just sliding over it and they come off the bag for a SPLIT second, the ump can't see it, but it goes to review. That should never have been reviewable. It's not what replay was meant for...IMO. 

[UpandIn]

On 9/8/2022 at 11:11 AM, igor67 said:

It certainly seems like management has been eyeing some of these changes in future prospects. Combined with sooner or later moving to automatic balls and strikes catcher defense will be concentrated heavily on throwing arm and blocking where Quero seems to be well thought of already. All those speedy OFer will also see their value increase. Those 80's and 90's teams that had multiple base stealers along with some true specialists were fun to listen to.

I really hope the robo umps never actually materialize. That's just a bad idea IMO.

As for management...I think they do a good job, but I think we might be giving them too much credit on this one. Blocking the ball and pop times have always been the top priority for a catcher. That Jefferson Quero excels in those area's, it's just a bonus.

I think the front office saw the inconsistency associated with all or nothing, high K rate guys and they've adjusted accordingly there. We've drafted toolsy guys the last several years before Stearns got here as well. Monte Harrison, the trade for guys like Brinson. 

Tyler Black also gets overlooked, but Frelick, Mitchell, Turang and Hiura...they're all guys who were projected to go higher, are guys with good hit tools who don't strike out a ton(or didn't project to with respect to Hiura). 

Is that making a concerted effort to combat the low BA, high K rate inconsistent nature of the Brewers offense, AND some foresight, or is it just opportunistic drafting?

Probably a little of the both. The REAL problem with the Brewers front office is they didn't leave Burnes and Woodruff in the minors for a couple more years. That truly lacked foresight!

[NBBrewFan]

11 hours ago, UpandIn said:

I really hope the robo umps never actually materialize. That's just a bad idea IMO.

I have mixed feelings, but without a change to the current system I think there will be a push for auto strike zone calls.  I don't want to see them increase game times by adding in challenges, but do something in a "free market" way.  Hit the umpires in the pocketbook if they are bad at strike/ball calls.  Do something like keep 60% of their salary fixed with 40% of their salary based on where they are on the percentage for correct calls.  Umps that are near the bottom only get 50% (or less) of that 40% of their salary, while those with the best percentage actually get more than 100% of their 40%.  If they are losing money they will start doing a better job.  Also, base their promotions (especially when they add new umps) on their accuracy of calling balls/strikes.  While not as perfect as a roboump, it would incentivize umpires to get better and sometimes money is the best incentivizer, it would keep the historic system in place and it should lead to better accuracy.

[owbc]

The ball/strike challenge system that is being tested in the Low-A Southeast league is getting rave reviews. I have a feeling that will end up in MLB as opposed to a full robotic system. The players have to challenge immediately (dugout not allowed to challenge), the umpire makes a signal, and the pitch track plays on the scoreboard. Takes about 15 seconds. After 3 missed challenges you lose the ability to challenge so it adds a strategy element while keeping the art of pitch framing around. And I can already see fun that fans will have roasting players who lose silly challenges. 

[NBBrewFan]

1 hour ago, owbc said:

The players have to challenge immediately (dugout not allowed to challenge), the umpire makes a signal, and the pitch track plays on the scoreboard. Takes about 15 seconds.

Does the call appear on the scoreboard with the pitch track or is it still up to the ump to interpret the pitch track?  

[owbc]

4 hours ago, NBBrewFan said:

Does the call appear on the scoreboard with the pitch track or is it still up to the ump to interpret the pitch track?  

Call with pitch track. Similar to how it is done in Tennis. 

[wiguy94]

On 9/9/2022 at 11:27 PM, UpandIn said:

I really hope the robo umps never actually materialize. That's just a bad idea IMO.

As for management...I think they do a good job, but I think we might be giving them too much credit on this one. Blocking the ball and pop times have always been the top priority for a catcher. That Jefferson Quero excels in those area's, it's just a bonus.

I think the front office saw the inconsistency associated with all or nothing, high K rate guys and they've adjusted accordingly there. We've drafted toolsy guys the last several years before Stearns got here as well. Monte Harrison, the trade for guys like Brinson. 

Tyler Black also gets overlooked, but Frelick, Mitchell, Turang and Hiura...they're all guys who were projected to go higher, are guys with good hit tools who don't strike out a ton(or didn't project to with respect to Hiura). 

Is that making a concerted effort to combat the low BA, high K rate inconsistent nature of the Brewers offense, AND some foresight, or is it just opportunistic drafting?

Probably a little of the both. The REAL problem with the Brewers front office is they didn't leave Burnes and Woodruff in the minors for a couple more years. That truly lacked foresight!

The Charlotte Knights hosted our Nashville Sounds this weekend and Charlotte is one of the testing teams for ball/strike challenges. I actually very much liked the system. Each team gets three challenges. You only lose a challenge if it is unsuccessful. The pitcher/catcher/batter are the only people who can challenge calls. The actual challenges only took about 10 seconds. Just overall a good system. I would love if this system was adopted for the MLB next year.

[UpandIn]

5 hours ago, wiguy94 said:

The Charlotte Knights hosted our Nashville Sounds this weekend and Charlotte is one of the testing teams for ball/strike challenges. I actually very much liked the system. Each team gets three challenges. You only lose a challenge if it is unsuccessful. The pitcher/catcher/batter are the only people who can challenge calls. The actual challenges only took about 10 seconds. Just overall a good system. I would love if this system was adopted for the MLB next year.

Yeah, I get some people like it. I just don't. It's taking out a core Tennent of the game. That pitcher setting a hitting up, pitching him outside, outside, dotting the corner like the mid 90's Braves would do and then go just another inch or 2 outside, hitting the glove perfectly and the catching framing it perfectly. The art of pitching, not just striking guys out(which is going to be even more significant with the rule changes IMO for the pitcher and contact more essential for the offense post-switch).

Also, far as I understand, they're still working out kinks on the "robo ump." The zone is basically just below the numbers and the knees...in your stance. So the zone for a 6' hitter standing straight up in theory should be different than the zone for a hitter like...Phil Plantier for the exaggerated example, but even Yount got into a pretty good crouch. Yet their zones are no different than a Christian Yelich who stands pretty much straight up. 

I hope it's not adopted, but I understand why some people want it adopted.

 

 

Maybe if we could just do the Robo Ump when Angel Hernandez is behind the plate. I'd be on board. He alone would have me down for just eliminating all umps together. But aside from him, I'd just prefer they not mess with the balls and the strikes...the pct of bad calls is infinitesimally small relative to most fans perceptions and as I said, I like the pitcher being rewarded for getting that call when he hits his spot perfectly after setting a batter up all at bat.

[dlk9s]

3 hours ago, UpandIn said:

Yeah, I get some people like it. I just don't. It's taking out a core Tennent of the game. That pitcher setting a hitting up, pitching him outside, outside, dotting the corner like the mid 90's Braves would do and then go just another inch or 2 outside, hitting the glove perfectly and the catching framing it perfectly.

All that would be the same except that pitchers wouldn't be able to get away with balls called as strikes as frequently. I don't understand why anyone would actively want balls and strikes to be called incorrectly.

[owbc]

7 hours ago, UpandIn said:

Yeah, I get some people like it. I just don't. It's taking out a core Tennent of the game. That pitcher setting a hitting up, pitching him outside, outside, dotting the corner like the mid 90's Braves would do and then go just another inch or 2 outside, hitting the glove perfectly and the catching framing it perfectly. The art of pitching, not just striking guys out(which is going to be even more significant with the rule changes IMO for the pitcher and contact more essential for the offense post-switch).

That's a big reason why I like the idea of a challenge system. You're not going to want to risk burning your challenges on close pitches unless it's a high leverage situation. So if the catcher frames it and gets a favorable call from the umpire, it's likely to go unchallenged. 

The framing like you describe from the Maddux era is already gone. Umpires are better than ever and most blown calls are random. 

My biggest concern with the challenge system is the potential for cheating. With only the pitcher/catcher/batter able to challenge, there's a strong incentive to do something similar to the Astros and signal whether there should be a challenge or not using a secret signal. 

Another plus is that hitters who have the best eye at the plate are often the ones who get burned the most by bad umpiring. So I think it will increase offense, which is a good thing.