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

[thebruce44]

On 9/9/2022 at 3:40 PM, nate82 said:

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

So can they just take a lead that is like 1/3rd of the way down the line? Basically, not be advancing, but go as far as they can so that they could still get back to first before a ball could get routed to 2B then 1B. I feel like we are going to see a lot of ump opinion on what constitutes advancing towards the next base unless I am misunderstanding the rule.

[UpandIn]

2 hours ago, thebruce44 said:

So can they just take a lead that is like 1/3rd of the way down the line? Basically, not be advancing, but go as far as they can so that they could still get back to first before a ball could get routed to 2B then 1B. I feel like we are going to see a lot of ump opinion on what constitutes advancing towards the next base unless I am misunderstanding the rule.

The way I understand it, just taking your lead doesn't constitute advancing toward second. 

Advancing toward second is taking off and starting to attempt to steal. But if a guy is 30 feet off the bad, then it's a pretty easy solution. Step off and run toward him. You'll get the out and then there are no issues. 

[UpandIn]

9 hours ago, dlk9s said:

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.

None of that would be the same. A catchers ability to frame pitches would be irrelevant, and I think you're taking something away from pitchers that's ALWAYS been there. Pitchers consistently hit their spots, they do get an extra inch or two on the outside. 

5 hours ago, owbc said:

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. 

Rigth...but you wouldn't be getting that call from an ump if you're getting automatic balls and strikes.

We're talking about these robo-umps where they automatically call balls and strikes. And I disagree that pitchers who hit their spots just outside the zone don't still get the strike calls like they did in the mid 90s, but I do believe umps are generally exceptional at what they do...so I don't think it's a big problem. 

I just don't want to eliminate umpires from the game entirely...and that's effectively what you're doing here. Or you're well on your way to doing so.  

[nate82]

1 hour ago, UpandIn said:

None of that would be the same. A catchers ability to frame pitches would be irrelevant, and I think you're taking something away from pitchers that's ALWAYS been there. Pitchers consistently hit their spots, they do get an extra inch or two on the outside. 

Rigth...but you wouldn't be getting that call from an ump if you're getting automatic balls and strikes.

We're talking about these robo-umps where they automatically call balls and strikes. And I disagree that pitchers who hit their spots just outside the zone don't still get the strike calls like they did in the mid 90s, but I do believe umps are generally exceptional at what they do...so I don't think it's a big problem. 

I just don't want to eliminate umpires from the game entirely...and that's effectively what you're doing here. Or you're well on your way to doing so.  

There is still an umpire in tennis even with all of the technical advancements that have been used there.  I really don't understand why MLB hasn't put in a tennis like system for fair and foul balls.  Other than a money excuse it should be fairly easy for MLB to do this.  

Roboumps needs to happen at some point and you still need umpires to call safe and out plays.  So the umpire is not going anywhere.  A system where balls and strikes are relayed to the umpire that are on the border of the strike zone would be perfect IMHO.  The strike zone needs to be called consistently from game to game and the only way to do that is to put in an automated strike zone.  Without it all we get are horrible umpires making horrible calls.  These are not 1-2 inches off the strike zone that they are calling.  These are completely unhittable balls and the best a hitter can hope for is either a ball off the end of the bat that finds its way for a single or fouling the ball off which they shouldn't have to be swinging at anyways.  

If a pitcher hits their spot and it is a strike then it should be a strike rewarding a pitcher for hitting their spots and the pitch being out of the strike zone being called a strike is just dumb.  

[dlk9s]

14 hours ago, UpandIn said:

None of that would be the same. A catchers ability to frame pitches would be irrelevant, and I think you're taking something away from pitchers that's ALWAYS been there. Pitchers consistently hit their spots, they do get an extra inch or two on the outside. 

But why do you want that? Why do you want pitches that are not over the plate called strikes? Why do you want the catcher to be able to the trick the ump into a strike call? Would you really be happy if Yelich struck out with two outs in the 9th inning of the World Series, down by 1, because the ump gave a pitcher a strike on a pitch that was two inches off the plate just because that pitcher had been "hitting his spots?"

[owbc]

On 9/13/2022 at 8:22 AM, dlk9s said:

But why do you want that? Why do you want pitches that are not over the plate called strikes? Why do you want the catcher to be able to the trick the ump into a strike call? Would you really be happy if Yelich struck out with two outs in the 9th inning of the World Series, down by 1, because the ump gave a pitcher a strike on a pitch that was two inches off the plate just because that pitcher had been "hitting his spots?"

Guys with elite command of the strike zone like Yelich will thrive with robotic balls/strikes. 

Think of how many defensive swings there are in MLB because the pitch was "too close to take". How many strikeouts happen because the hitter was forced to expand their strike zone to compensate for inconsistent umpiring?

[brewcrewdue80]

If we can solve pitch calling within 10secs by challenging it-hitter,catcher, or pitchers Only- I am fully for that. 3 challenges though is too few. But then again it was said if successful you keep. There's  nothing more frustrating than a clear strike 3 called a ball or a 3-x pitch called a strike.  Maybe just pitchers and hitters and not so much catchers challenging.  The stats for hitting when ahead vs behind on a count is drastic and the ability to turn a count from 1-2 to 2-1 will definitely increase offense marginally.

Edit add- Just thought that umpire crews for playoff games-WS could be determined by those with the least overturned challenge calls. This provides incentive for umps to call games best they can. I'd assume they are paid extra for each postseason game worked.