How about instead of 4 balls and 3 strikes baseball went to 3 balls and 2 strikes? For one thing, it would shorten the game, which I’m in favor of. It would almost certainly eliminate 75% of the bullpen, which I’m also in favor of.
Just thought I’d post a link to the discussion on The Book Blog because it’s something I’d never thought of, but now that I have, I’m a fan of it.
Obstructed View Forum
Obstructed View is a blog created solely for entertainment and informational purposes. It is not affiliated with the Chicago Cubs or Major League Baseball in any way. The opinions on Obstructed View are not endorsed by the Chicago Cubs or Major League Baseball and do not represent their views.
Copyright © 2012 Obstructed View
stercus ad temere intempestivo temporibus
Ah, I thought this was because you were remarking on the small occurrences of 3-ball walks lately. Not only can’t umpires gauge the strike zone, they can’t even keep track of balls and strikes.
Pretty much the only argument against this
This is how our softball league works (dying laughing). You start off with 1 ball and 1 strike and if you foul the ball off when you have 2 strikes, the next time you do it counts as a strike
[quote name=WaLi]This is how our softball league works (dying laughing). You start off with 1 ball and 1 strike and if you foul the ball off when you have 2 strikes, the next time you do it counts as a strike[/quote]
Yeah, but if you can’t hit a slow-pitch fair, you deserve to get yourself out faster (dying laughing)
I usually hit it on the ground though so it’s a race to first base.
I also like the idea of striking out after the 2nd foul on the last strike.
Games would be so much faster this way.
Most people find baseball to be a very boring game and that’s why they don’t pay attention. Compared to football and basketball it is certainly boring. This would improve the action on the field.
[quote name=mb21]I also like the idea of striking out after the 2nd foul on the last strike.
Games would be so much faster this way.[/quote]
I think allowing the batter to protect the plate with two strikes is kind of fundamental to why I like certain players. They just make pitchers work. But I’m weird like that.
I know what everyone “loves” about baseball is the lack of a clock, but what if you implemented a clock? You could do something like with rain delays: you have to play at least 5 innings (maybe lengthen it to 6 to have 2 full times through the order), but 6-9 are only time permitting. The game clocks in at 2 hours or 6 innings max.
[quote name=josh]I know what everyone “loves” about baseball is the lack of a clock, but what if you implemented a clock? You could do something like with rain delays: you have to play at least 5 innings (maybe lengthen it to 6 to have 2 full times through the order), but 6-9 are only time permitting. The game clocks in at 2 hours or 6 innings max.[/quote]
That could be interesting. I like the idea of playing six full, and then the rest of the game is basically done within 30-60 minutes no matter where they end up in terms of innings (whether the visitors or the home team is up). That’s a really good idea.
Interesting, Josh. I’m going to give that some thought and see what I can come up with as far as how a game might be played. Love the idea.
[quote name=josh]I know what everyone “loves” about baseball is the lack of a clock, but what if you implemented a clock? You could do something like with rain delays: you have to play at least 5 innings (maybe lengthen it to 6 to have 2 full times through the order), but 6-9 are only time permitting. The game clocks in at 2 hours or 6 innings max.[/quote]I don’t like this at all. The team with the lead is going to take their time. The reason people find baseball boring is less about the length of the games than the lulls in the action; this addresses the latter, but not the former (and may make the problem worse).
Anyway, about the 3-balls, 2-strikes rule change, I don’t like it, either. I want to see more balls in play, not fewer. I want to see fielders vs. runners, not the three true outcomes. It would probably also lead to decreased offense, which would necessitate another rule change to balance it out (which may also have unintended outcomes necessitating further rule changes). Same goes for the rule of striking out on a foul ball (which would also lead to more takes, defensive swings with 2 strikes, and other boring outcomes).
[quote name=ACT]I don’t like this at all. The team with the lead is going to take their time. The reason people find baseball boring is less about the length of the games than the lulls in the action; this addresses the latter, but not the former (and may make the problem worse).[/quote]Seems like you could address this with a pitch clock. Basketball has a shot clock. Football has a play clock. No more batter steps out to wipe his bat off and adjust his batting gloves for the four millionth time. Actually, maybe the pitch clock is a good idea just in general.