Experimenting in baseball

For many years now, the criticism of baseball has been that the game moves too slowly. Football has physicality and a lot more action than baseball, and basketball and hockey are played at a much higher speed than baseball. Depending on who you ask, this can be viewed as a good thing or a bad thing. Usually, the older generations will say that part of the beauty of the game of baseball is that it is the only major sport we have without a time limit. However, as pro sports leagues now are trying to appeal to younger generations, this is often times viewed as a major reason that the sport is not nearly as popular with young people as opposed to football and basketball.

Football games this past season lasted, on average, three hours and 12 minutes. Hockey games lasted an average of 2:20, and basketball games lasted an average of 2:15. Baseball games lasted 3:05. So, while the average baseball game does not go on for the length of an average football game, the game of baseball has far more periods of inaction, and is still not based on a game clock. Then, in the postseason, when the games matter most, they drag on even longer because of what seem to be constant pitching changes and mound conferences.

When the Chicago Cubs finally won the World Series for the first time in over a century in 2016, Game Seven went on for four and a half hours thanks to multiple pitching changes and substitutions, as well as rain delays. I remember watching the game and feeling as though I was watching something historic, while at the same time just praying that the game would somehow end because I, like many people around the country, just wanted to go to sleep. When the final game of the season is seen as almost a chore to watch, it is obviously not good for the sport, even though the game was actually very exciting. It just took way too long to play, and I would completely understand why many people would just eventually tune out and lose interest because of the unbelievably slow pace.

Another game in that same postseason that was an instant classic was an American League Divisional Series matchup between the Texas Rangers and Toronto Blue Jays. The most memorable part of that game was the seventh inning, that was highlighted by Jose Bautista's monstrous home run and famous bat flip. To baseball fans everywhere, it was one of the most exciting games in recent memory. However, the entire seventh inning lasted a ridiculous 53 minutes of real time. Almost an entire hour for one inning!

As a Diamondbacks fan, I also remember Game Four of the 2001 World Series that the Yankees ended up winning on a Derek Jeter walk-off home run. The game started in October and actually ended in November. It was the first ever baseball game played in the month of November, and went on past midnight on the east coast.

Those two games were unbelievably enthralling, but you cannot deny the fact that their length was a serious problem for the casual fan, and it is likely that all of the casual fans out there watching tuned out before the games ended. Therefore, there has been talk of trying to quicken the pace of the game in recent years, and it seems as though some measures to try to do that will be at the center of collective bargaining talks that will be upcoming between the league and the players.

It was just announced this past week that the Atlantic League, an independent league not officially affiliated with Major League Baseball, but still a fully recognized minor league, will implement a number of new rules changes that MLB will closely monitor in the hopes of possibly eventually adopting in order to improve its own game. Some of the changes have been installed with the hope of speeding up the pace of the game, while others have not, but they do address some things that many people see as problems with the game of baseball today. I thought this was actually a very interesting subject because the game of baseball has been around for so long and remained very much the same. New analytics and ways of thinking have made the modern game much different than the game of not too long ago, and some of these new Atlantic League rules are being used to "improve" the game, at least based on the viewpoint of some people around the game.

In no particular order, here are those changes, and what I feel about each of them...

Robotic Umpires: Baseball is a sport that relies on its officials to be involved constantly in the game, as they affect literally every pitch. While umpires are supposed to all use the same requirements to call balls and strikes, for many years, it has simply been an accepted fact that different umpires had different zones. Some have zones that are higher or wider than others, while some umpires have smaller zones. Since balls and strikes are based only on the calls of the home plate umpire, there is no way to actually challenge their calls, even if they might be wrong.

Many television broadcasts now have on-screen graphics that show what a "true" strike zone for each batter is. By the letter of the law, the strike zone is defined as the space between the letters on the jersey and the top of the knees, and the width is the size of home plate. With the television graphics and tracking technology, we can now get instant shots of whether or not pitches were actually in that "true" strike zone, and we can see how the calls of the umpire actually compare to what should be called a strike and a ball.

The Atlantic League will use similar technology to call balls and strikes, and not rely on the calls of the home plate umpire, so pitches can be judged by an independent piece of equipment that is not subject to change based on the calls of one individual.

On the surface, this seems like a pretty good idea. Having a standard strike zone for each hitter seems much fairer than a zone that may change now and then, from pitch to pitch. However, this still does not account for things other than balls and strikes. Plays on the base paths are probably impossible to judge solely by robots or technology unless some sort of tracking device were installed into each and every player, as well as each and every base, and I am by no means a scientist, but I would venture to guess that something like that could only come at an extremely high cost that leagues would immediately dismiss.

There is also things like home run calls and fielders catching balls that may or may not have hit the ground. Because ball parks are not all standardized, there will always be questionable calls of whether or not batted balls clear a wall and are a home run. Plus, there always seems to be odd and unforeseen plays every once in a while where a fan may or may not interfere with a player trying to make a catch, and I think that would be impossible for a robotic umpire to decide.

I do like using technology like this for deciding whether or not balls are fair or foul, as tennis and soccer use very similar technology, and the calls are decided correctly and almost instantly. Umpires are usually actually very good at deciphering whether or not balls are fair or foul, but technology like this could be used to make every call correct, and I think doing that can only be good for the game.

Maybe some day we will see a robotic strike zone, but I would think that the end game of using that technology would be to eliminate the need for umpires completely, but I can't see how that could ever be possible because of plays like I mentioned before on the base paths and in the field that I think will always need to be judged by actual people, no matter how advanced technology eventually becomes.

Add what I am sure would be an idea that would not be accepted by the professional association of umpires, and I don't see games called entirely by robotic technology ever happening. Maybe it can be used for some aspects as an independent arbiter, but I think it is impossible for it to be the lone judge.

Banning the shift: Shifting defenders is not an idea that is as new as many people would think, because its use actually dates back many years thanks to all-time great hitters like Ted Williams. The difference now though, is that shifting fielders is much more common, and many shifts are now very exaggerated, with vast parts of the field often left wide open based on the tendencies of some hitters.

The idea really began to become more widespread when Barry Bonds was breaking home run records, but with an advanced reliance on analytics and data, it is not just reserved for the best hitters in the league, it is now used in some form for almost every hitter in the game. While some hitters have much greater tendencies to hit the ball in certain directions, it is not uncommon to see fielders positioned differently from batter to batter now. Many of the shifts now are not extreme, but there are also many cases where there are quite extreme shifts.

The rule that will be implemented by the Atlantic League will state that there have to be two infielders on either side of second base during every pitch of the game. This will take away these extreme shifts that some people hate.

In my opinion, this is a bad idea. There are reasons that teams shift their fielders from hitter to hitter. They don't just do it randomly, they do it based on concrete data that suggests certain hitters are more likely to hit the ball to certain places, and if that means moving an extra fielder to combat that, then I don't see why that should be viewed as a problem.

In some ways, this is the same as the intentional foul in basketball. Often times teams foul certain players in certain situations because they are bad free throw shooters. Does it slow the game down? Yes. But does it make sense? I believe that it certainly does, and the case is the same here. No one is forcing hitters to try to pull the ball and hit it 500 feet for a home run on every swing, but if they continue to try to do that, then why should the defense not be allowed to adjust to try to stop it?

I feel like this is a pretty dumb idea, but I actually think that the idea does have some traction, and it could possibly be installed eventually by Major League Baseball, which I would disagree with.

Three batter minimum for relief pitchers: Mound visits and pitching changes are often viewed as one of the main reasons that baseball games often times seem to take forever. If you are watching on television and you get an inning with multiple pitching changes, it sometimes seems like you are watching commercials more than the actual game, and I totally understand how this drives some people crazy.

I never knew the actual numbers here, but last season there were actually over 2,000 (yes, that is 2,000 and not 200) instances of a pitcher facing two or fewer hitters at any point in a game. When you look at that number, it is actually pretty shocking, and you truly get hit with just how often this happens and how it does in fact do nothing but slow down the pace of the game, even if some fans aren't too worried about that.

Again though, teams don't just do this without reason, they do it with the goal in mind of getting batters out. Some hitters have quite different splits when facing right handed pitchers instead of left handed pitchers, so it is understandable that in order to raise the chance of retiring any given batter, you want to play to their biggest weaknesses.

Installing a minimum number of batters that every pitcher would have to face would definitely lessen the trips to the mound and parade of relievers coming in from the bullpen, but I'm still not a huge fan of doing this. I certainly am not a fan of an ever-growing reliance on bullpens, especially in the postseason now, so installing this rule would definitely somewhat change that. However, I think that these pitching changes are made with a larger goal in mind, and I personally am able to overlook some innings that last much longer than others because of multiple pitching changes.

I do understand how some people view sometimes constant pitching changes as a bore and a burden on the game though, so I think we could eventually see MLB implement a rule similar to this.

Changing the distance between the mound to home plate: This rule will add two feet between home plate and the pitching rubber, changing it from 60 feet, 6 inches to 62 feet, 6 inches.

The distance between the rubber and the plate has been the same since 1893, so this would obviously be quite a drastic change, even if two feet does not seem like much. Also, the height of the mound has actually varied throughout the history of the sport, so maybe this change would not be as groundbreaking as it might seem.

I think the goal here is to allow hitters an extra few instants to adjust to pitches, with the hope of possibly more scoring coming from that. However, because many hitters now are so focused on trying to hit home runs, I would say that mindset would probably still not change. Maybe a few extra instants would cause offense to increase because these are professional hitters, and any extra edge they can get only helps them.

One thing about this though, is I think eventually this distance would have to change on every baseball field throughout the world, whether it is one played on by professionals, or one played on by elementary school kids, because I don't think you could use this distance only in professional ball, while keeping the original distance in college, high school, and youth baseball.

I am not really a fan of this change, and if I had to bet on whether or not it would be instituted by MLB any time soon, I would probably bet that it would not occur.

Those are the changes that really headline what the Atlantic League will be doing in the upcoming season, but there are also a couple other possible changes to the game that I would like to talk about since we are already on the topic.

Pitch clock: A pitch clock of 20 seconds is already being used in some minor leagues, and it has actually been used in some major league spring training games this season.

The time seems to be 20 seconds that would be allowed between pitches, and the onus would not be on only the pitcher to resume play in that time, but on the batter as well, with the penalty being either a ball or strike depending on who causes the delay. Some current major league players have spoken out against a pitch clock, with Max Scherzer being the most recent to do so in a very loud manner.

Baseball players are usually creatures of habit, and we have seen many players in the past like Nomar Garciaparra and Derek Jeter go through what some might view as a maddening routine after each and every pitch, as well as many pitchers go through their own routines. Yet, in the games that the clocks have been used this spring, most players have said that they didn't even notice them, and it played little to no part at all in the action.

A rule was instituted not long ago that required umpires to go out to the mound to shorten mound visits by coaches and managers, and while we do see it occur multiple times each game, the rules are very loosely enforced and penalties are pretty much never levied. I think eventually this would be the case with a pitch clock as well. I can't see any way that a buzzer would go off like a shot clock in basketball, so I think the rule would be more like the serve clock in tennis, where it counts down but really doesn't impact the action at all.

I think eventually these clocks will be installed by Major League Baseball, but I also don't believe they will affect the game at all, and eventually players and fans will get used to it and not even notice the clocks at all.

Universal Designated Hitter: This is something that seems will almost certainly exist in the very near future. Baseball is the only sport where a rule like this only plays a part in half of the games, which is actually pretty odd, but it has been in existence so long that it really isn't thought about much. American League fans are used to the DH, and National League fans are used to pitchers hitting. Supporters of the DH point to the very low batting averages of pitchers, and say that most of the time, their at bats are pretty much just a glorified strikeout, with the best possible outcome being a sacrifice bunt. Sure, there are some pitchers that are somewhat respectable hitters relative to most other pitchers, but the majority of pitchers are pretty much a guaranteed out.

Proponents of the National League style point to strategy as the number one reason they don't like a designated hitter, and I used to be of that mindset, but the more you think about it, the more senseless that point of view actually sounds. When was the last time you saw a crowd get up and cheer for a successful sacrifice bunt and double switch? The answer is probably never.

Sure, older players who are often well past their prime and out of shape do hang on a year or two extra as a DH after they are unable to hold down a position in the field, but is that really hurting anyone? No, it isn't. Like I said, I think it is almost a guarantee that in the very near future every team will be using a designated hitter, and I really don't see any reason to be ardently against that happening.

Like a modern baseball game, I think this post has gone on for more than enough time, but I think that this is an interesting topic, and I am glad to see Major League Baseball at least trying to see how some tweaks to their game might help. Using a small minor league to do that will not impact the game at the highest level, but it will at least be able to be used as a barometer to measure how future changes could be introduced to help improve their product on the field.

Many times, people are resistant to change, especially when it comes to things that they love, and I certainly think I fall into that category when it comes to some sports. However, in the long run, I think these changes would only be made to make the game better and more enjoyable for both players and fans, so I can't fault MLB for at least attempting to enhance its game.

Daily Giants Update: The Giants dealt Olivier Vernon and a draft pick to the Browns yesterday for Kevin Zeitler and a draft pick in a move to strengthen the offensive line and get rid of a player who was being paid a lot that might be leaving soon anyway. I certainly like the move, and it seems like the offensive line, which has been a problem for way too long, might actually be getting close to at least league-average. Vernon had a few productive years with the team, but the upcoming draft class is deep on defensive line talent this year, and hopefully the team can find a replacement for him that will be much cheaper, yet still provide similar production.

Daily Rangers Update: In a season that has been filled with tough and close losses, the Rangers suffered another one in a shootout against Detroit on Thursday night. They will play the New Jersey Devils tonight.

Daily NBA Update: The Warriors are still better than everyone. Aside from that, the soap opera that is the rest of the league continues to be both bafflingly popular with many, yet also unbelievably infuriating for me.