MLB proposes raising strike zone, automatic intentional walks

[reillymcshane]

Major League Baseball is proposing a change in the strike zone.

 

The proposal would raise the lower part of the strike zone to the top of the hitter's knees - it currently is defined as "the hollow beneath the kneecap."

 

Umpires have been calling pitches below the knees over the past few years, so this would - assuming it's enforced - raise the zone by an estimated 2 inches.

 

The other proposal would be to just signal an intentional walk - and the batter would just head to first base instead of watching four pitches lobbed out of the hitter's reach.

 

All changes must be approved by the players - so this is just a starting process.

 

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/18631714/mlb-proposes-scrapping-intentional-walk-raising-strike-zone

[JosephC]

The strike zone doesn't need to get any smaller. If they want to raise the bottom two inches they should also raise the top two inches. I don't think this rule will result in more balls in play. They may want to get the size of the strike zone to be the size of a postage stamp but that doesn't mean pitchers are going to try to hit that postage stamp with every pitch. Seems to me this will just result in more bases on balls and longer at-bats.

[jerichoholicninja]

Ya I don't know how making the strike zone smaller will result in more balls in play. Smaller strike zone, less pitches batters will swing at, less balls in play.

[reillymcshane]

I guess we'll see what happens.

 

The idea is that pitchers will be forced to throw strikes if they want to avoid walking guys - thus the pitches will be more hittable. That's the theory.

 

I wouldn't be surprised to see more walks and more hits - but who knows.

 

I honestly don't like the strike zone now. It's almost like players have to pull out their five iron the strikes are so low.

[Fear The Chorizo]

The only way I'm for raising the strike zone 2" is if the entire zone is raised 2" and there's a true "high strike" consistently called. I'm indifferent on the intentional walk thing, because it really doesn't save much time during the game - and having to throw those 4 pitches can lead to passed balls or an errant 60mph lob ending up over the plate and enticing a hitter to take a swing.

[FVBrewerFan]

They want more runs, and faster games. So just quietly juice the ball a little? No way you can tell me the ball has been exactly the same for 100 years anyhow. That, and make strike zone a little bigger so you get more swings, quicker ABs. Done.

[MillerParkSouth]

I really wish they would stop tinkering with the game. Is eliminating the 4 pitch IBB really going to speed things up? Keep the DH AL only too while we're at it!

[CheezWizHed]

If you want to add excitement, make the pitcher throw with his weak hand for 4 intentional BBs. Or make the catcher stay in the crouch until the ball is thrown. Force more mistakes that way.

 

I'm not sure if those should be blue or not....

 

But in the NFL, rather than eliminate the extra point, they made it harder and thus made it more interesting.

[And That]

The chance to see the extremely rare instance of a pitcher throwing the ball to the backstop or in the hitting zone during intentional walk pitches makes them mildly exciting. But, I can see the reasoning behind just giving the batter first base. I do wonder if it will change the psychology of the move, though. Just telling a guy to walk to first so the team can pitch to the next guy is a bit different than having to watch all four intentional balls and really think about the move. And teams that already issue a lot of IBBs could save quite a few pitches over the course of a season.

 

But I'm really a one issue guy on changes that need to be made to the game - defensive indifference. Get rid of the ruling. A stolen base is a stolen base.

[645]

But I'm really a one issue guy on changes that need to be made to the game - defensive indifference. Get rid of the ruling. A stolen base is a stolen base.

 

Totally agree. How can they tell if the catcher didn't throw because he didn't cure if the runner took the base or if he didn't throw because he thought he couldn't throw him out.

[NievesNoNO]

How about they just enforce what the rules are instead of changing them. If umpires are calling balls off the bottom of the zone then, they need to be retrained. There is already almost no upper part of the strike zone with the way it's called; you can't barely throw it above the belt anymore and it's a ball. So they want to take away even more from the pitchers?

 

Just reclaiming the WHOLE strike zone would speed up the game. I reaallllyy realllly hate when pro leagues try to modify rules, when in fact the issue they are trying to address has nothing to do with what they are trying to change. Games are longer because they spend a heck of a lot of time between innings and during pitching changes.

 

Shrinking the strike zone will only make the games longer. Players are not suddenly going to make more contact by moving the zone from the bottom of the knee to the top. They actually are contradicting themselves with the proposed changes. How can you say, you wan't faster games but more contact and action?

 

A baseball game doesn't have a time limit. There's a reason. Just let it be.

[FVBrewerFan]

A baseball game doesn't have a time limit. There's a reason. Just let it be.

 

This sums it up for me, your whole post really. Just call the strike zone according to the rule book, and however long the game is, it is. Crazy to think they believe game will go faster with a smaller zone. Automatic intentional walks are stupid too. Will speed up the game by a minute or so, and changes the rules so a pitcher doesn't have to actually, you know, pitch. That's just weird to me, and it does take away the intrigue of a pitcher air-mailing one over the catcher's head.

 

All the pitching changes is what slows the game down, and nothing can be done about it. Or at least nothing SHOULD be done about that like limiting number of pitching changes, etc. Baseball is simply not a game meant to be "on the clock."

[Bombers]

A baseball game doesn't have a time limit. There's a reason. Just let it be.

 

This sums it up for me, your whole post really. Just call the strike zone according to the rule book, and however long the game is, it is. Crazy to think they believe game will go faster with a smaller zone. Automatic intentional walks are stupid too. Will speed up the game by a minute or so, and changes the rules so a pitcher doesn't have to actually, you know, pitch. That's just weird to me, and it does take away the intrigue of a pitcher air-mailing one over the catcher's head.

 

All the pitching changes is what slows the game down, and nothing can be done about it. Or at least nothing SHOULD be done about that like limiting number of pitching changes, etc. Baseball is simply not a game meant to be "on the clock."

But they actually do have a pace of pay problem. Baseball games have stayed the same forever (9 innings, 6 outs per inning, etc) and look at the difference in game length.

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2015/1/29/7921283/baseball-game-length-visual-analysis

 

They used to play 9 innings in 2:38 minutes in 1980 and now have upped that to 3 hours. In my opinion, that time increase is related to time between pitches. So to me, I don't get caught up in the length of the game, that isn't necessarily my issue. They don't need to cut down the time between innings or skip intentional walks. My issue is the speed at which the game is played. And as I said that speed is the time between pitches. Guys just been given too much time in between pitches and really have unlimited time outs they can take in a MLB game. To me that is where they should focus the issue.

 

So I agree with you that adjusting the strike zone will have a limited impact. A shot clock to throw a pitch is fine in my opinion. It drives me nuts when the pitcher is shaking off pitches and then is allowed to just step off the rubber. Or the batter can step completely out of the box after a pitch. Or the number of "team huddles" they have. Those are the items they need to get rid of. (And we have already discussed those idea's on this board so I won't dive back into them.) But I sit on the side of the fence that MLB has a pace of pay problem which isn't length of game.

 

I also think the NBA has a pace of pay problem but their games are shorter and not much is being made of it. If their games ballooned to a 3 hour average, there would be some fuss. Here is a graph on possessions per game in the NBA. Teams today are all about the half court offense.

http://i.imgur.com/5KxNCau.jpg

[adambr2]

Now baseball is going to run a test in the rookie leagues with a man starting every inning on 2nd starting in the 10th inning to try to expedite extra innings.

 

I'm all for modernization in the game, but that one goes too far IMO. How often does a team have a 15 inning game, once a year? Just leave it be.

[MrTPlush]

Now baseball is going to run a test in the rookie leagues with a man starting every inning on 2nd starting in the 10th inning to try to expedite extra innings.

 

I'm all for modernization in the game, but that one goes too far IMO. How often does a team have a 15 inning game, once a year? Just leave it be.

 

You probably only need to get to the 12th inning to get painful length wise. That right there could be pushing an hour extra of time. I really don't like the idea as I like keeping baseball pretty old school for the most part. Though if I had an elite closer I would be pretty excited as my team would likely be winning a lot of these extra inning games under such a rule.

[AKCheesehead]

Now baseball is going to run a test in the rookie leagues with a man starting every inning on 2nd starting in the 10th inning to try to expedite extra innings.

 

I'm all for modernization in the game, but that one goes too far IMO. How often does a team have a 15 inning game, once a year? Just leave it be.

 

I'm ok with this rule so long as they leave it in rookie leagues, only and forever. Don't try to use this as a gateway to sneak it further along and into MLB. I'm very leary of any change after the way they got the door open a crack with replay and it gained momentum to become the train wreck it is now.

[AKCheesehead]

I did some more reading after my knee-jerk reaction to the extra inning rule idea. BOOOOOooooooo. It is a scheme to implement a new rule in MLB, and personally I think it's a terrible, terrible rule. Once in a while, extra inning games go on for a really long time, and that's one of the many things that makes baseball such an intriguing sport. You just never know what is going to happen. It's been awesome for a long time. Stop trying to get cute. And Joe Torre is on board with this, I would have expected more from him.

[trwi7]

Now baseball is going to run a test in the rookie leagues with a man starting every inning on 2nd starting in the 10th inning to try to expedite extra innings.

 

I'm all for modernization in the game, but that one goes too far IMO. How often does a team have a 15 inning game, once a year? Just leave it be.

 

Not even sure how that would speed up the game since teams are going to have the same chance of having the runner from 2nd score. The only thing this will do is give the first batter a lot of sacrifice bunts to get the runner to 3rd with 1 out and trying to guarantee the team a run.

[FVBrewerFan]

Clearly meant as a test for mlb. In rookie leagues they could just call it a tie after 9 or 10 innings, what does it matter at that level. This stuff is getting into nascar level craziness, where the rules change every year in a failed attempt to garner interest.

[MrTPlush]

The idea behind the extra inning rule makes a lot of sense(still don't want it myself) when you look at it. Have you ever seen how many people bail out on a game when it goes to extras...either on TV or at the ballpark? No good my friend. It is late and people don't want to sit around wondering when a game might end. May take 10 minutes or 3 hours to complete it. Adding such a rule would probably end most games after a single inning. Which would hopefully keep fans more interested as a player is already starting out on 2nd base. I think it would shorten extra inning games by a good margin and probably keep more people tuned in till the last pitch.

 

That being said...no...I still wouldn't support it.

[Patrick425]

How about they just enforce what the rules are instead of changing them. If umpires are calling balls off the bottom of the zone then, they need to be retrained.

 

Exactly! The strike zone is defined pretty clearly in the rule book. Why are umpires continuously allowed to ignore it? I thought part of the job of umpires was to ensure that games are being played per the rules.

 

The runner on 2nd for extra innings is something they do all the time in youth baseball. Especially in tournaments. It's called the California Rule. It's a lot more necessary in youth baseball as many times you are fighting against daylight. In tournaments they are usually using the same diamonds to play back to back games all day long and need to make sure that games don't drag out too long.

[jerichoholicninja]

This extra inning nonsense is trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. I've never once seen argument that baseball games are too long because of extra innings. What percentage of MLB games go more than 10 innings? I'd guess about 2% meaning implementing this in the majors will have zero meaningful impact.

[Patrick425]

How about they just enforce what the rules are instead of changing them. If umpires are calling balls off the bottom of the zone then, they need to be retrained.

 

Exactly! The strike zone is defined pretty clearly in the rule book. Why are umpires continuously allowed to ignore it? I thought part of the job of umpires was to ensure that games are being played per the rules.

 

The runner on 2nd for extra innings is something they do all the time in youth baseball. Especially in tournaments. It's called the California Rule. It's a lot more necessary in youth baseball as many times you are fighting against daylight. In tournaments they are usually using the same diamonds to play back to back games all day long and need to make sure that games don't drag out too long.

 

Sorry to quote myself, but after a discussion with my son about this same topic and then doing a little research I found this on the MLB web site regarding the last two changes to the strike zone:

 

1996 - The Strike Zone is expanded on the lower end, moving from the top of the knees to the bottom of the knees.

 

1988 - "The Strike Zone is that area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the top of the knees. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball."

 

I didn't realize that they had moved the strike zone below the knees in 1996. So, if the only rule change regarding the zone is to move it back up above the knees, I don't have a problem with that. I think below the knees is too low. What I have a problem with is that they don't call the upper part of the zone correctly. For most umpires, anything more than an inch or two above the belt is a ball, and by the definition from 1988 (that carried forward to the change in 96), the top of the zone should be about 3 or 4 inches higher than that for most hitters.

[adambr2]

This extra inning nonsense is trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. I've never once seen argument that baseball games are too long because of extra innings. What percentage of MLB games go more than 10 innings? I'd guess about 2% meaning implementing this in the majors will have zero meaningful impact.

 

And the very few that go that long, it's fun. It's fun seeing a game in the 18th wondering how long it will go, it's fun seeing managers try to manage these games and see if they can squeeze an inning or two out of a position player. I still remember being 9 years old and listening to Willie Randolph hit a walkoff single for the Brewers in the 19th to beat the White Sox. Yeah , it sucks for the team for a couple of days and some of the fans aren't going to be able to stick it out, but c'mon, it happens once in a blue moon and that's what makes it fun when it does.

[JohnBriggs12]

I've been a fan of Joe Torre since he played for the Braves back in the day, but I think he's getting senile. Putting runners on base? There's nothing wrong with the fundamentals of the game. How about cutting the time between innings?

 

I've been a baseball fan a long time. I was at the 25 inning game over two days in 1984 in Chicago. I saw Gaylord Perry pitch 15 innings against the Brewers in 1974, get taken out in favor of ex-Brewer Ken Sanders in the 16th, who promptly surrendered a walk-off HR to Bobby Coluccio. That's one of my favorite games of all time.