Big 12 CCG

[FearlessF]

Luis - in the hall of fame with a .262 avg and .313 OBP

[longhorn320]

Luis - in the hall of fame with a .262 avg and .313 OBP

Fox also in the Hall of Fame with a .288 avg

[CWSooner]

I've always watched, enjoyed, and respected both leagues

Once the Mick retired, the AL was dead to me.
I exaggerate.  I renewed my Yankee fandom when I got to see a few Yankees games during the Catfish Hunter-Reggie Jackson era.
THEN the AL was dead to me.

[BrownCounty]

Nostalgia.  It's killing baseball.

But by the same token, I will allow that knee-jerk whims are killing football.

So you can't win.

But baseball has the opportunity to add so many more elements of strategy and complexity that would liven up the game.

Pitching changes?  Limit 2 per game.

Foul balls?  3rd foul and you're out.

4 balls?  Pffft.  3 balls should be a walk.  (although that would screw up Little League nationwide)

Standard depth ballparks.

In case of tie, play 1 extra inning.  If it's still a tie, it's a tie.

Cut back from 162 to 81 games (for starters).  A baseball game needs to be more than a family picnic with $12 beer and $8 nachos.  It needs to mean something.  You wanna know why concessions sell less at Bama vs. Auburn?  Because people didn't go there to eat.  It's a game and it matters dammit.  1/162 of a baseball season is meaningless.

Baseball has proven that quantity is better than quality.  162 games?  More ching-ching.  Bad for guys like me who want more drama and significance with each game, each inning, each pitch, each swing of the bat... it should all mean more.

Good for nostalgia farts.

The shame is that baseball is actually a better game than football, and with some changes, could once again overtake football as America's favorite spectator sport.  But it won't happen.

Just put us to sleep and count our money.

[longhorn320]

For the most part I like Baseball just the way it is

I dont like the DH rule however

I also dont like the fact that the winner of the All Star game no longer determines home field advantage 

in the WS

[FearlessF]

the All-Star game should not determine anything

[longhorn320]

the All-Star game should not determine anything

thats why I dont watch it
at least there was some interest in the turnout
now theres none

[BrownCounty]

I also dont like the fact that the winner of the All Star game no longer determines home field advantage

I didn't even know they changed this.

[Shiner]

We are a largely baseball-centric family... some of these ideas I like, at least in concept.

First and foremost is the season should be reduced.  162 games is too many... and that's something I've been preaching for years.  It will never change of course, because baseball is more tradition driven than any other sport... by a mile.  But nevertheless, the season is too long.  Even cutting down to 120 games would be a huge improvement.

Limiting pitching changes would be interesting.  Never considered that... though I'm not sure 2 would be enough.  I'd suggest at least 3.

3rd foul ball and you're out?  uh.... no.  No changes there.

3 balls for a walk?  Again.... no.  There is nothing wrong the rules around an AB.

No ties in baseball.... that is just sacrilege.  You play til you have a winner.

The winner of the all star game determining home field advantage in the WS was the dumbest idea ever in sports.

As for the DH rules... I don't really have a strong opinion on this one.  I've always been an AL guy, as a fan of the Rangers.... but I can see both sides of it.  From a purists point of view, I can see why many hate the idea of a DH.... On the otherhand, as discussed earlier... pitchers generally suck as hitters.  They usually see about 3 pitches then have a seat.  It's a waste of everyone's time.. and it effectively creates an 8 man lineup.  I think that's silly, so the idea of the DH to at least get you 9 legitimate hitters has merit.  

Something else I'd like to have considered is limiting the number of pitchers on MLB rosters.  I suppose this drives to a similar end as limiting pitching changes.  These days, teams are lucky to get 5 full innings out of their starters... they pull them early... then go to short relievers... long relievers... closers.... etc.  It's all too specialized.  I'd like to see a limited number of pitchers on a team, forcing teams to pitch their pitchers 1) longer in games and 2) more games per year.  5 man rotations aren't necessary.... we're treating pitchers like snowflakes.  Yeah... I get that velocities have gone up and movement has increased, but c'mon... man up and pitch.  

[BrownCounty]

Remember playing kickball in grade school?

You know, basically baseball except you rolled and kicked the ball.  Great game wasn't it?

Professional kickball.  Someone should start it.  It's time for a new sport.

[CousinFreddie]

The game is fine.  It doesn’t need to be the number 1 sport in this country of a lot of varied interests, and nothing personal intended mind you but I don’t care if BC loses interest and never watches another game.

I can live with the DH.  The all star game is fun to watch, and it shouldn’t be linked to the WS.  The team that won the most games should have home field advantage - pretty simple.

I’d love to see pitchers going for more complete games etc but we’re in the post Bill James era and the managers are going to keep playing the best percentages, and that leads to specialization.

It does burn them though.  I attended game 5 of the 2016 NLDS (Wash v LA), and the Nats had been leading all game. Scherzer had the boys in blue iced.  But the in the 7th he gave up a solo homer and LA got their first run.  He still had his stuff but Dusty decided to pull him, and it proved fatal as the reliever (can’t remember who) couldn’t contain LA like MS had been doing and gave up three more (Turner hit a mammoth double) and LA win that deciding 5th game 4-3.  

At the same time I can think of a lot of times where they didn’t pulled soon enough - for example this years NLDS with the Nats up Dusty put in Scherzer on two days rest and the Cubs rocked him, gaining the lead back and then some.  It was clear MS did not have it this time but Dusty left him in until the Nats found themselves 3 down and ended up losing the game 9-8.

And Dusty?  He is no longer the Washington manager!

So it goes both ways.  The game is fine.  It’ll kept being played roughly the same long after all of us are pushing up daisies, and will continue to be one of the main sports not only have the US but also several countries of northern Latin America and of east Asia.

[BrownCounty]

The game is fine.  It’ll kept being played roughly the same long after all of us are pushing up daisies, and will continue to be one of the main sports not only have the US but also several countries of northern Latin America and of east Asia.

Well with all the things they could have changed, they bring in instant replay - probably the worse option.

That's right, let's stop the already standstill baseball game and watch instant replay for 5 minutes.  Brilliant.

[CousinFreddie]

Well with all the things they could have changed, they bring in instant replay - probably the worse option.

That's right, let's stop the already standstill baseball game and watch instant replay for 5 minutes.  Brilliant.

It drags football and basketball too.  I could go either way on it - human error was always part of the game.  
We won’t go back on this either as everyone has too much technology at their fingertips to just leave it up to the real-time calls by the refs/umps.
Oh well.

[BrownCounty]

The thing about instant replay is that it is used to overturn a ruling on the field.

What's the terminology?  "Conclusive evidence" or something?  I forget the exact wording.

But let's go back to football for a second.  The problem with "conclusive" evidence is that there is no time limit in which to seek it out.  If you can't overturn a call within 2 minutes of review, then forget it!!  Move on.  It's not "conclusive" enough.

What am I missing?