2023 MLB Rule Changes. Is it the end of the beautiful game?

The only thing that is inevitable in life and sports is change.  While conservative (read old school, traditionalist) fans lament anything not like the last.  There is room for improvement in the game in any sport.  But baseball has traditionally been the slowest to move.  With Commissioner Rob Manfred, that has been accelerated with a hyper focus on reducing game length.  Whether shorter games are a desire for fans is in the eye of the beholder.  While 2023 seems like an anomaly in terms of drastic rule changes we've had a number in recent years and this really is just the latest wave.

The lates includes universal DH starting in 2022, COVID introduced but Commissioner kept extra inning ghost runners to speed up the game (and reduce pitcher wear), three batter minimum for relievers (to reduce game time), and limited mound visits introduced in the last 5 years.  In years past, we've lowered the mound (and standardized), allowed instant replay reviews changes of the play (various states of what's reviewable and how it's initiated to include umpire explanations now), changed interference rules for double players, changed blocking home plate rules, implemented pitcher inspections for grip, changed rules for what players could do for watching in game replays, a lot of things.

Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred has made decisions and many fans aren't happy

But it seems like this year's changes seem to cut at more of the fundamentals of baseball.  Baseball is not supposed to have a clock.  The bases have been the same size for a century.  Defenses being able to position where they want is strategy.  Pitchers throwing to a base when desired is just part of it.  Let's break down the impact of the new rules.  It may not be what you think.   Here is from most impactful to least impactful:

1) Limited throws to first base

• Pitchers are limited to two disengagements (pickoff attempts or step-offs) per plate appearance. However, this limit is reset if a runner or runners advance during the plate appearance.
• If a third pickoff attempt is made, the runner automatically advances one base if the pickoff attempt is not successful.
• The bases, which traditionally have been 15 inches square, will instead be 18 inches square. Home plate is unchanged.

While the throw to first lacked results, it kept runners in check

To me this is the biggest change.  The steal a base you need to take a lead with the peril of a pitcher keeping you close.  After a couple of unsuccessful tries, no longer is that threat in play.  Combined with pitch clock timing and easier bases to get to or from, this fundamentally changes strategy.  Pitchers can also no longer use a "B" move to set up the runner for their "A" move.  The base runner is now apt to take bases at a rate of at least 2 to 1 from prior years (stats will tell).  I grew up in an era in which big time baserunners like Rickey Henderson and Vince Coleman were automatic doubles so that part goes back to the past and an era I enjoy.  But to artificially tilt the table seems unnecessary.  The guise seems to be to limit thrown to first and step offs.  This is a minor contributor to game length.  I think this is the biggest fundamental change of all.

Does Longhorndave (LHD) like this: No

Does LHD think this is good for the game: No

2) Larger bases

• The bases, which traditionally have been 15 inches square, will instead be 18 inches square. Home plate is unchanged.

Much more real estate to be safe

This has some pros and cons.  Start with the pros.  More room at 1B for reduced unnecessary contact between the first baseman receiving a throw and a runner hitting the corner.  Also, more room for a runner to hit the base and stay on, I for one am not a fan of a runner being out for hitting a base before a tag, however being caught with a toe or finger off the bag.  More room for a middle infielder to avoid perilous contact.  Con is six inches closer to a stolen base.  Three inches on getting back on what is now a limited pick off.  Three inches closer on the SB.  Opens the aperture for SB's a lot.  Gas on the fire of more SBs which fundamentally changes everything.

Does LHD like this: No

Does LHD think this is good for the game: Neutral

3) Limited shift

• The four infielders must be within the outer boundary of the infield when the pitcher is on the rubber.
• Infielders may not switch sides. In other words, a team cannot reposition its best defender on the side of the infield the batter is more likely to hit the ball

Student Body Right is no longer allowed

This to me is fool's gold.  The perception that hitters are significantly handicapped by the shift is more legend than reality.  If you ask a player how many hits got taken away by the shift a year they'll answer 20+.  I've heard experts say it's 5 or 6.  That's one a month.  You think every time the ball is hit to the shift OF guy it's a hit.  But the defense might have been there.  Also minus hits against the shift.  Also, pitchers would throw inside into the shift.  Now they are freed to work the outside of the plate.  This will do a bit for BABIP but when balls aren't put in play (historic strikeout levels) is going to be in the noise.  

Does LHD like this: No

Does LHD think this is good for the game: No

4) Pitch clock

• The pitcher must begin his motion to deliver the pitch before the expiration of the pitch timer.
• Pitchers who violate the timer are charged with an automatic ball. Batters who violate the timer are charged with an automatic strike.
• Batters must be in the box and alert to the pitcher by the 8-second mark or else be charged with an automatic strike.

Large counting down digits are here to stay in baseball

If internet anger is to be believed this is the most egregious of them all.  How dare we have a clock in baseball?  How dare we award balls/strikes for violations?  Let me talk you back from the ledge.  Clocks have quietly introduced into the game the past few years between innings (forcing the pitcher to get his butt out to the mound) and for mound visits (reducing the classic stall to get a reliever warmed up).  This pitch clock has been implemented in the minor leagues for a couple of years with no major impacts.  Now, this is a two "step function" change to the game but the reduction in unnecessary game length may be worth the squeeze.  Most of the current length of game delays were simply head play.  Pitcher waiting.  Waiting.  Waiting.  Step off.  I got you batter now you're not ready.  Batter steps out.  Adjust gloves, mental clear.  Make that pitcher wait.  No value for fans.  I'm not a fan of a clock but given other MLB toothless initiatives (like making the batter have a foot in the box with no recourse) this forces a needed element.  I'm not a fan of a clock.  At all.  But am willing to let this play out.  While I expect to see some key ball/strike calls in Spring Training, rest assured after a six-week training of limits players won't push this in key situations after the All-Star Break.  The stakes are too high.  Related, you probably drive 5 MPH over the speed limit.  Right past a cop.  They don't bat an eyelash.  If there was a system that automatically sent you a ticket if you went 1 MPH over and deducted it from your bank account instantly I'm guessing, you'd quickly adjust to go 5 MPH UNDER the speed limit.  Very quickly.  First week you might get caught once or twice.  Won't happen again.  Pitchers are going to be happy they can dig in and get to work.  Batters are most impacted as many use/need that time to clear their head (seems like early they've been the most violations).  They need to adjust to just take the pitch, pause, get back in.  This is where we're at least seeing big gains unlike the other three and it won't be long until this is normalized.

Does LHD like this: No

Does LHD think this is good for the game: Optimistic

What I think the result will be.  Shorter games.  MUCH shorter games.  Disagreement over whether that's good but I'm okay once normalized.  Lots more stolen bases.  Lots more.  Not much in terms of the shift as outlined above.  More eye candy.

In summary, is this a lot of changes, yes.  Have we also seen a number of changes in years prior, also yes.

Phil Naessens Weekly Podcast 5/20/2013

In partnership with Sports-Kings.com - Reading Between the Seams, Check out my weekly guest spot on Phil Naessens show covering baseball news coast to coast:

This week, David and Phil introduce you to Jurickson Profar, discuss injuries to Andy Pettite, Ian Kinsler, Jaime Garcia and David Price, Instant Replay, Reuben's Rockies and the guys begin to look at MLB Commissioner Bud Selig and the legacy he will leave behind when he retires in January 2015.

To download this program to your portable device please right click the link below and select "save as".
Download

The Phil Naessens Show can be heard Monday thru Friday at Max Sports Channels, Ohio Sports Radio Network, Independent Radio LA and Talk Superstation .

Sports statistics provided courtesy of RotoWire.

The Phil Naessens Show Facebook Page can be found here

Intro and Closing Music by Mr. Michael Guerette

The Phil Naessens Show can also be downloaded on Zunes here and Stitcher here. The program is also available at Miro Guide here

Please visit the Phil Naessens Media site here

The Phil Naessens Show is now on itunes. You can subscribe here





Phil is now on twitter and can be found @flashtennis31

Follow Reading Between the Seams on Twitter @rbts_baseball

Umpires make mistakes, we just need to learn to live with it

Umpires like Mike Winters get more calls right than wrong

Fact: Umpires have been blowing calls for decades, just ask Earl Weaver, Leo Durocher, and Ty Cobb.

Fact: Umpires will continue to miss calls, probably several over the course of every game in baseball

Fact: Fans, players, owners deserve the best system in place to treat all fairly and honestly each and every game.

Based upon these three facts, I build the case why expanded instant replay is wrong for Major League Baseball.  I build this argument on these six tenets:

1) Even with instant replay reviews, humans have to interpret the video and still get it wrong.  Case in point, the Cleveland Indians controversial win against the Oakland A's this past week.  One would think that a slowed down video replay of the ball clearly hitting the railing above the yellow line would have led to an overturn, and one would be wrong.  I'd like to think this is a one-in-a-million scenario.  But how many NFL replays have you seen where it sure seemed like the fumble happened before the knee was down, but the ref comes out from under the hood and utters those magical words "the play stands as called"?  Or inconclusive evidence on a ball breaking the plane to the endzone? 

Fact: Instant replay reviews are still subject to human error

2) There is no "right size" for what plays fall under review or not.  As of now, it's home run only.  So by default a scoring play is in question.  However, there are more scoring plays such as tags at home plate, or even a force play at first on a double play in which a run scores.  So currently we only have a subset of scoring plays under review.  But the bigger picture is, every play in baseball could lead to a run.  Each ball/strike call changes the complexion of the at bat.  Every play that leads to a runner on base (or not) could be the difference between a no run inning, or a 4 or 5 run inning.

Fact: To fairly implement instant replay, every single call would have to be subject to a review

3) Umpires actually do get the calls right about 98% - 99% of the time.  It's the 1% they don't get right that make headlines.  The Jim Joyce call to derail Armando Galarraga's perfect game bid, the Don Denkinger call in the 1985 World Series, the missed call by outfield umpire Rich Garcia when Jeffrey Maier interfered with a fly ball over Tony Tarasco's head in a playoff game.  These exceptions are fun to talk about, and will literally go down in baseball lore.  But to implement an expanded replay review system for these exceptions will erode the ebb and flow of the game.  Umpires get right the majority of  about 200 pitches that aren't in play, 51-54 "out" calls per game, another few dozen safe calls per game, even foul balls, etc.

Fact: Umpires get almost all the calls right, and for the most part, act in the best interest of fairness.

4) Judgment calls would be no more clear with replay review than otherwise.  I'm talking about infield fly rule (which played a major factor in the 2012 Wild Card game), fan interference on a ball near the wall (think about Steve Bartman), or the lefty balk move (exactly where is that mythical 45 degree line).

Fact: Some calls just aren't reviewable no matter how many camera angles you have.

5) Some unwritten rules are applied (and accepted) and we don't want those reviewed.  For instance, the middle infielder leaping off the bag a split second early at second base to turn two (on a throw that didn't pull him off).  A middle infielder muffing the ball on the same turn which is ruled an out and drop on the next throw.  The 3-0 fastball that's kind of close to the plate but given to the pitcher to continue the at bat.  These are things that are accepted and generally good for the game.

Fact: Expanded instant replay reviews could have an unintended consequence of forcing accepted calls into a review state

6) Replay reviews take time.  In a game that struggles to keep a 3 hour pace (to the point that umpires are timed for their games, pitchers are told to hurry it up, etc.), more replays could really bog down the fan experience.  Any fan who attends a game in which a review takes place has been annoyed at the minute or three delay for sometimes a meaningless call, or one that should have been done right the first time.  Then sometimes isn't overturned anyway.

Fact: Expanded instant replay reviews would add ~5 minutes per game on average

Baseball has made it through 107 seasons ending in World Series, there is no reason to start now.  Especially for the 1% of calls that are actually missed, a fraction of that egregiously.  Only a rare few actually affect the outcome of the game.  And for those, there was always room for the team to overcome it.  We don't even know if the Oakland A's home run, which would have tied it up, would have changed the outcome.  Nor the Tarasco catch, nor the Denkinger call.  But they happened, become stuff of legend, and we move on.  If anything, the game could benefit by a more thorough review of the humans who are in the umpiring uniforms, not augmenting them with machines to make up for their shortcomings.

Follow me on Twitter @lhd_on_sports

Instant Replay usage

I think anybody who watches a sporting event on TV expects instant replay to be a big part of their watching experience, but I'm here to tell you, I have some issues with its current usage. Specifically, overuse. No doubt. Particularly in the arena of baseball and football, which happen to be my favored sports.

But first some history. The first authorized broadcast of the innovative and game changing broadcast technique was December 7, 1963 for the Army/Navy game. Replays had been played during the broadcast before, but only during halftime or after the game. The "instant" was a game changer. The announcer felt compelled to tell the audience "Army did not score again, ladies and gentlemen, that was a replay..."

It would be irreverent to not frame that particular game in context, originally scheduled for November 30, the game was postponed after the tragic assassination of John Kennedy on the 22nd. President Kennedy had taken a particular interest in Navy that year, and its Heisman trophy winning QB Roger Staubach. He'd performed the coin toss the year before and hadn't missed the game in the first two years of his presidency.

Navy was #2 at the time with one loss to Southern Methodist (32-28). Odd, SMU ended the year 4-6, and played in a bowl game (Sun Bowl). The 28 points were the most scored against the Ponies, so their was that.

But I digress.

My issue with replay stems from football and baseball. The production teams seem to feel the need to fill the time between plays/pitches with a replay of the previous action, even if uninteresting. That, in and of itself, is okay. But there are two crucial points of these sports that are being lost:

Baseball - TV broadcasts (particularly national) seem to feel the only action in a game starts with the release of the pitch. THIS IS FALSE. When the pitcher toes the rubber, that action is in play. The batter is eyeing the defense, a runner is leading off, the pitcher is running through the pitch selection (which is extremely non-trivial). But TV broadcasts seem to want to show replay up to the point that the pitcher is through the windup. This has a secondary effect as well. I, as the viewer of baseball, get my anticipation up based upon the cadence of the windup. You get up for the delivery, back off for the taken pitch, back up, etc. Instead we usually get the following:

Batter fouls ball off
Replay shows batter taking hack at ball in slo mo replay
2nd Replay shows pitcher delivering pitch (maybe focusing on location)
Cut back to next pitch, which is already being delivered.

Football - Again, TV seems to think that the time between plays is time the audience is bored and must be shown something else. Too many times, they cut back from multiple replays of a 3 yard run just in time to show the snap (or worse, play has started). Wrong, I love to see the players running on/off, the players getting the call, organizing, etc.

In my opinion, replay is cleared:
From the end of the baseball pitch action until the pitcher is on the rubber.
From the end of a football play until the team is in the huddle.

These get extended until the pitch is delivered or the QB takes the snap. And part of those games strategy takes place during those crucial times.

I find that in the NBA and NHL, not as much of a problem. I submit that the equivalent of showing replay during the pitcher on the rubber or team the huddle is like showing a basketball replay when the point guard is at the top of the key. No action, right? Nobody is scoring. Of course not, the whole play is being set up. And you never know when the alley oop is coming.

Same with hockey. You NEVER see replay when the puck is live, not even when held behind own goal and setting up a play.

MLB and NFL (and college football) should take note. Just because the pitch isn't in play doesn't mean action isn't happening. Half of a football play is the formation and too many times we cut back to the snap and I don't even know what personnel is in, who was in motion, etc. College is also bad because so many teams run hurry up, and I'll see at the end of the play that the team is lining up VERY quickly, but the broadcast cuts away and shows me a coach reaction to a play or the play itself and I'm SCREAMING to get me back so I can see if the defense is reacting fast enough and/or what formation the offense has.

And for what. Usually to see a replay of a tipped incomplete pass, a 2 yard run, a fouled pitch, a groundout to shortstop, or even a throw to first base.

Stop the madness. Only show replay on really good plays or plays drawing into question what happened.

A whole other blog could be written for how fans have DVR and can watch what they want if they have questions.

And a blog after that for why they show fans at the game instead of the action.

And a third blog for ANY interview done during the game. Baseball and football most guilty, how many times are we watching some interview of a non player in which the ball is hammered into the corner or a big turnover takes place.

It's not that hard, show the game, just the action, only show replay/inteverview/etc. when there is a timeout or before the huddle break. I want to watch the game, stop the overproduction!