When Does The Lockout End? Answer: March 10th, 2022

[homer]

If they really wanted to change the game they'd move the fences back about 30 feet in every ballpark. Mark Kotsay would have had fun playing CF

[Fear The Chorizo]

Banning the shift is only going to make the 3TO types all the more empowered to not even try to make themselves complete hitters. Get ready for even more Ks as every one-dimensional pull hitter swings himself out of his shoes in every AB.

I wish hitters weren't so reliant on the TTO but as we've seen over the past five years, the shift hasn't deterred them from that route in the slightest bit. Removing the shift isn't a perfect solution but it's better than nothing, as hitters have shown they will not adjust their swing to compensate, there's just too much value in the occasional line drive over going oppo every once in awhile.

 

To me part if that is teams haven't had enough time to change the type of offensive players coming up through the system that are capable of defeating shifts... baseball became a TTO- focused sport by emphasizing power over contact for a decade or longer. Shifting has really been in vogue for the last handful of years - players drafted and developed with the emphasis on power arent going to change their stripes once they are major leaguers overnight - what we have seen is some teams start prioritizing contact hitters a bit more even if it sacrifices some power, and baseball would have eventually evolved to reduce the benefit of shifting if they just left it alone with the type of players coming into the league.

[MrTPlush]

I mean I doubt it entirely outlaws shifting. Just won’t allow 3 guys on one side or a 3B 50 feet in RF. Guessing guys can still stand pretty far back and have a guy essentially up the middle if you want.

[Jopal78]

The NFL and NBA players' unions and ownership groups are able to be happy playing under the salary caps (within reason, since both of those leagues have had lockouts/strikes more frequently the MLB since 1994) they've developed primarily because of the following:

 

NFL does not have fully guaranteed contracts, allowing organizations to make cuts as needed to keep their salary cap in check and also bring in new young talent quickly to rosters pushing 75 players when including the practice squad. The NFL also has college football essentially serving as its minor leagues without the league having to support them at all financially.

 

The NBA has fully guaranteed contracts, however teams have rosters roughly 1/3 of the size of MLB. With a very limited draft pool, expiring contracts are often times much more valuable than the play of the declining veterans who carry them for teams who have to position themselves for multiple years at times in effort to win over superstar free agents or hit on a lottery pick that can change their franchise.

 

MLB doesn't have the luxury with its draft to instantly improve their onfield talent on rookie-level contracts - the draft is set up in a way to develop and help MLB teams 4-6 years after most amateur players are drafted. Many of the top draft picks each year get multi-million dollar signing bonuses and go play in bus leagues for 3-4 years before even sniffing the major leagues. Also, fully guaranteed veteran contracts are prohibitive for most MLB organizations to ink players to once they work through salary arbitration and reach free agency at the peak or even downside of their prime onfield years of production. If the MLBPA wants more league revenue given to their 40-man roster players and also wants the arbitration process to be adjusted (both things I'm in favor of to get younger players paid more), then they need to have reasonable luxury tax threshold limits and/or they need to be willing to have non-guaranteed contracts. MLBPA will never relent on guaranteed contracts, so having a more modest luxury tax threshold than their current ask will continue to provide small-mid market clubs with luxury tax dollars that can be used to pay other players. Having super high luxury tax limits that only a handful of big market clubs ever come close to eclipsing will just consolidate superstar talent on those rosters without providing additional funds for other teams to share and use on their own payrolls. I'm not sure if it already is or how it can be required, but I think one option would be to require any luxury tax $$ given to small-mid market organizations be used for player salaries - and those amounts each team receives would have to be reported so we can all see if an organization is hoarding their other revenue and taking advantage of the luxury tax payments to fund their own roster payrolls instead of using it to increase player salaries beyond what they can afford on their own.

 

Setting a very high luxury tax threshold gets a handful of superstars paid more $, but ultimately reduces the amount of luxury tax dollars funneled directly from big market revenue streams that could be doled out to players across MLB

 

The NFL and NBA have revenue sharing which theoretically puts each team on level footing. In baseball there is some revenue sharing, but not enough to put all the teams on level footing financially. Thus, the MLBPA will not stand for a salary cap because half the teams are not going to be bidding on superstar free agents to begin with, and a cap will only further chill money the rich clubs can spend. I'm sure if the owners would agree to a floor forcing rebuilding clubs to spend over 100 million dollars a year, the salary cap and luxury tax wouldn't be a big deal.

 

However, the Dodgers, Yankees, Cubs, Houston, Red Sox, etc. don't want to share all revenue across the game, because their local media money is what allows them to be competitive nearly every year. Meanwhile, the Brewers, Pirates, Royals, Guardians, Athletics, Reds, etc. do not want to be compelled to spend money on the major league payroll in years when they don't have the horses to compete.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Where it's helped is making those types of hitters obsolete. Teams will only put up with players hitting .175 while grounding into the shift every time they don't hit a dinger only so much. I don't have much use for the guy who hits 30 HRs but ends up under .200 with a ton of Ks. That type of player is extremely boring to me, and does nothing to advance the game.

You'll get no argument from me that the current aesthetic of baseball is really bad and, as a Twins fan, watching Max Kepler hit 25 homers while batting .206 is infuriating, especially considering that Max Kepler is wildly athletic. He doesn't have to be that kind of hitter but he is and it's bloody boring to watch on a nightly basis.

 

But I also don't think the shift existing has prevented a bunch of Max Keplers to populate the league because the value of line drives is so high.

 

On the other hand, the shift has caused second base to become an afterthought, with players like Mike Moustakas manning "second base" while spending 50% of their time in shallow right field. And I won't be even a little bit sorry to see that part of baseball go away.

[wallus]

I'm a huge fan of adding pitch clocks. It is painfully obvious watching games and seeing guys that throw with max effort stall to catch their breath.

[DuWayne Steurer]

Teams will still find creative ways to beat the pitch clock.

 

Not a fan of just outright banning the shift. Not at all.

 

Bigger bases doesn't really move the needle, I think. Maybe help avoid an injury here or there.

[Underachiever]

I hope that "banning the shift" means no more softball rover in right field. I have no issues with shifting, but I hate that guy in shallow right.

 

And will a bigger base shorten the distance from 90 feet? That's pretty major.

[Fear The Chorizo]

I hope that "banning the shift" means no more softball rover in right field. I have no issues with shifting, but I hate that guy in shallow right.

 

And will a bigger base shorten the distance from 90 feet? That's pretty major.

 

Highly doubt a bigger base will shorten the distance, as the home plate-facing edges at 1st and 3rd can still be positioned exactly 90' from the plate.

 

My geometry is out of practice - but I think the difficulty in maintaining exactly 90' between the bags gets iffy at 2B - is the rule change to change the bag size at all 3 bases or just 1st? If it's all 3 bases, there might be a slightly shorter distance to and from 2B if they want to keep the bags perfectly aligned - that could be resolved by slightly shifting 2nd back and over a couple inches to preserve 90' from the inside corner of that bag to both 1st and 3rd base, the rest of the base would just appear to be a little off center.

[Jopal78]

I hope that "banning the shift" means no more softball rover in right field. I have no issues with shifting, but I hate that guy in shallow right.

 

And will a bigger base shorten the distance from 90 feet? That's pretty major.

 

Highly doubt a bigger base will shorten the distance, as the home plate-facing edges at 1st and 3rd can still be positioned exactly 90' from the plate.

 

My geometry is out of practice - but I think the difficulty in maintaining exactly 90' between the bags gets iffy at 2B - is the rule change to change the bag size at all 3 bases or just 1st? If it's all 3 bases, there might be a slightly shorter distance to and from 2B if they want to keep the bags perfectly aligned - that could be resolved by slightly shifting 2nd back and over a couple inches to preserve 90' from the inside corner of that bag to both 1st and 3rd base, the rest of the base would just appear to be a little off center.

 

Going from 15 inches to 18 inches in diameter will shorten the distance about half a foot in the aggregate. Not only will it help fielders turn more double plays, it will likely result in more stolen bases and infield hits.

[wntrtxn21]

A very simple rule could be made regarding the shift. Defense must have at least 2 infieldes left of 2B and at least 2 infielders right of 2B until the pitch is delievered. All players must have both feet on the dirt portion of the infield until the pitch is made. Teams could still use a "shift" by moving an outfielder into the rover position or into the infield.

[homer]

I hope that "banning the shift" means no more softball rover in right field. I have no issues with shifting, but I hate that guy in shallow right.

 

And will a bigger base shorten the distance from 90 feet? That's pretty major.

 

Highly doubt a bigger base will shorten the distance, as the home plate-facing edges at 1st and 3rd can still be positioned exactly 90' from the plate.

 

My geometry is out of practice - but I think the difficulty in maintaining exactly 90' between the bags gets iffy at 2B - is the rule change to change the bag size at all 3 bases or just 1st? If it's all 3 bases, there might be a slightly shorter distance to and from 2B if they want to keep the bags perfectly aligned - that could be resolved by slightly shifting 2nd back and over a couple inches to preserve 90' from the inside corner of that bag to both 1st and 3rd base, the rest of the base would just appear to be a little off center.

 

Going from 15 inches to 18 inches in diameter will shorten the distance about half a foot in the aggregate. Not only will it help fielders turn more double plays, it will likely result in more stolen bases and infield hits.

 

Can it lead to more double plays and more infield hits? Seems like it'd be one or the other.

[TURBO]

I thought it was ONLY 1B that was going to be slightly wider to give the runner a wider area to touch, and keep him out of the way of the fielder.

 

If they make all of the bases bigger, I don't understand why they would do that.

[owbc]

I thought it was ONLY 1B that was going to be slightly wider to give the runner a wider area to touch, and keep him out of the way of the fielder.

 

If they make all of the bases bigger, I don't understand why they would do that.

 

They were trying to reduce the distance between 1B and 2B to increase stolen bases. I believe there was also a design change to the base itself (a "ramp" on the edge?) that was supposed to make it easier for runners to stay on the base when sliding. It looks like the base itself resulted in a 33% increase in stolen bases but the step-off and pick-off limitations were more successful at increasing stolen bases.

 

At the Low-A level, where step-offs and pick-off throws are limited, stolen bases per game are up from 0.83 in 2019 (recall that the minor leagues did not play in 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic) all the way to 1.42 so far in 2021.

 

In High-A, where pitchers must step off the rubber before throwing to a base, stolen bases per game are up from 0.80 in 2019 to 1.41 in the early going this season.

 

In Triple-A , where the bases are slightly larger -- 18 square inches, up from 15 square inches -- steals have seen a slight bump from 0.63 in 2019 to 0.83 this season.

 

I think most baseball fans would agree that increasing stolen bases would be a big plus for the game. I also thought the size change was a smart way to do it without altering the gameplay itself.

[JosephC]

Today - Owners: Implementing a pitch clock will cut 20 minutes off the average game length and will make it a better experience for the fans.

 

1 year from now - Owners: Average game time was 2:40 which falls short of the 3-hour window that TV has slotted for us. Let's add 30 seconds between every half inning for more commercials so we can make more money.

 

2 years from now - Players: Hey! You guys are screwing us, we need our cut of that extra commercial money. WWWWAAAAAAHHHHHHH.

 

Meanwhile between now and then another million people completely tune out MLB.

[markedman5]

Get it done folks

 

[logan82]

They want a better experience for fans then move into the current decade and make games more easily available to in market fans over the internet.

[RobDeer 45]

Maybe this has already been addressed but every time I hear more about a pitch clock, I think to myself, half the problem is the batter walking around after each pitch and adjusting their batting gloves. Has that been addressed in the whole pitch clock thing? Should almost let the pitcher throw their next pitch when ever they are ready and the batter needs to adjust to them. Would be wild watching Suter in that type of scenario.

[Underachiever]

Today - Owners: Implementing a pitch clock will cut 20 minutes off the average game length and will make it a better experience for the fans.

 

1 year from now - Owners: Average game time was 2:40 which falls short of the 3-hour window that TV has slotted for us. Let's add 30 seconds between every half inning for more commercials so we can make more money.

 

2 years from now - Players: Hey! You guys are screwing us, we need our cut of that extra commercial money. WWWWAAAAAAHHHHHHH.

 

Meanwhile between now and then another million people completely tune out MLB.

Why would you have a problem with splitting (new) revenue? The players are the product, not petulant babies, as you seem to think. Part of the inequity in the current CBA is exactly that. The players aren't getting their share of new revenue streams. If the owners didn't have to share new and increased revenue that arises in the middle of an agreement, they could sandbag this CBA, agree on dollars, then announce a "new" contract with Netflix or Fubo or something for a billion dollars soon after.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Maybe this has already been addressed but every time I hear more about a pitch clock, I think to myself, half the problem is the batter walking around after each pitch and adjusting their batting gloves. Has that been addressed in the whole pitch clock thing? Should almost let the pitcher throw their next pitch when ever they are ready and the batter needs to adjust to them. Would be wild watching Suter in that type of scenario.

 

That has been addressed in previous rules to try and keep batters in the box - it used to be much worse than it currently is.

 

Also, Braun is still retired so him not hitting 4-5 times a game for one team has actually lowered the average gametime leaguewide by a couple minutes from what it otherwise should have been

 

Recent years, it's predominantly been the pitchers driving the slow time between pitches with their own routines, and hitters have had that lag time to do their own theatrics in and out of the box. My personal gripe is relievers who only pitch from the set, yet seemingly take forever and a day to actually come set and deliver a pitch with nobody on base. Kenley Jansen (by far not the only one, but a great example) has some weird way of coming set that is almost like a quadruple clutch to reinforce keeping his front side closed - having a pitch clock in place will hopefully keep a consistent pace in game action, and I think we'll see it benefit the late innings the most to induce many relievers to actually deliver the damn pitch already.

[Underachiever]

Maybe this has already been addressed but every time I hear more about a pitch clock, I think to myself, half the problem is the batter walking around after each pitch and adjusting their batting gloves. Has that been addressed in the whole pitch clock thing? Should almost let the pitcher throw their next pitch when ever they are ready and the batter needs to adjust to them. Would be wild watching Suter in that type of scenario.

I guess I assume that the pitch clock goes both ways. It's actually a "ready for play" clock that both the batter and pitcher need to abide by. At least it's that way in my head. Back in the seventies, Mike Hargrove was called the Human Rain Delay for his routine. He would be speedy compared to the Ryan Brauns of the world. Daniel Vogelbach steps out and has an entire conversation with himself between pitches.

[Fear The Chorizo]

The players are the product

 

Ultimately, the games are the product. Great players enhance the product and make it more marketable, but at the end of the day TV contracts are tied to broadcasting games, not reality shows revolving around players.

 

This lockout/work stoppage is hurting the product, for both the players that play the games and the owners who own the organizations across MLB that put on the games and manage everything else that goes into it.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

MLB has set today as a deadline in order to get in a full 162-game season. Apparently they'd tack the games already cancelled at the beginning of the season on to the end of the schedule, and start the playoffs roughly a week and a half later. The Competitive Balance Tax seems to be the biggest sticking point now. MLB has offered an increase in the threshold to trigger the tax, but not significant enough to get the MLBPA to sign off.

 

If they come to an agreement today, players would report to Spring Training on Friday. I don't have a ton of optimism, but I am hoping they can finally put things to bed today. Because if they don't, we could be in for a long, baseball-less spring.

[Jopal78]

MLB has set today as a deadline in order to get in a full 162-game season. Apparently they'd tack the games already cancelled at the beginning of the season on to the end of the schedule, and start the playoffs roughly a week and a half later. The Competitive Balance Tax seems to be the biggest sticking point now. MLB has offered an increase in the threshold to trigger the tax, but not significant enough to get the MLBPA to sign off.

 

If they come to an agreement today, players would report to Spring Training on Friday. I don't have a ton of optimism, but I am hoping they can finally put things to bed today. Because if they don't, we could be in for a long, baseball-less spring.

 

If they actually came to an agreement and reporting day was Friday there are still a ton of players unsigned who would be left behind as they wait for the best deal.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

MLB has set today as a deadline in order to get in a full 162-game season. Apparently they'd tack the games already cancelled at the beginning of the season on to the end of the schedule, and start the playoffs roughly a week and a half later. The Competitive Balance Tax seems to be the biggest sticking point now. MLB has offered an increase in the threshold to trigger the tax, but not significant enough to get the MLBPA to sign off.

 

If they come to an agreement today, players would report to Spring Training on Friday. I don't have a ton of optimism, but I am hoping they can finally put things to bed today. Because if they don't, we could be in for a long, baseball-less spring.

 

If they actually came to an agreement and reporting day was Friday there are still a ton of players unsigned who would be left behind as they wait for the best deal.

 

Yep, it would be a free agent feeding frenzy. Situation would be very similar to the first couple days of NFL free agency.