Boy do I hope this never happens.
I wholeheartedly agree. It's long past time that MLB moved to electronic monitoring of Strikes & Balls.The problem with the umpires is primarily in two areas; bad calls on the field and calling balls & strikes. Since managers have been allowed to challenge umpire calls the overturned call rate has averaged around 50%. Thank about that, 50%! If they want to fix it then start by getting rid of the bums, like Joe West (and others). As for balls & strikes maybe it's time for MLB to start experimenting with the electronic strike zone. Umpires who line up on the outside shoulder of the catcher can't see the outside pitch on the other side of the plate, they just can't so instead they make the call based entirely on where the catcher frames the catch. So much so that framing the catch has become a factor in rating catchers, a rather large factor. The MLB Network spent a considerable amount of time discussing the Framing abilities of various catchers, on one show last week, and how it's factoring into any given catcher's contract offer. That tells you that MLB knows it's a problem and yet year after year MLB does nothing about the umpires behind the plate. If MLB is serious about speeding up the game they can accomplish it without actually changing the game itself by focusing on the umpires. An electronic strike zone alone would speed the game up by quite a bit. Placing a runner at 2nd to start every half inning in extra innings games isn't speeding up the game, it's corrupting it.
Actually they need to keep the DH. With the pitcher's spot in the lineup there are too many pinch hitters, pinch runners, and pitching changes in the NL that actually slow the game down.If they really want to reduce the length of extra innings games, just end the game in a tie if no one wins in the 10th. There's enough games in the season that they can stand a few ties.
The real rule they need to tackle is getting rid of the DH.
I'm not a fan of the DH, as it reduces the strategy towards the end of the game. For example, do you pull a hot pitcher in order to use a pitch hitter. Makes things more exciting to watch in the late innings.Actually they need to keep the DH. With the pitcher's spot in the lineup there are too many pinch hitters, pinch runners, and pitching changes in the NL that actually slow the game down.
On both these points I agree.As for the extra innings proposal, recent stats show that only about 9% of games go into extra innings. Why put such a drastic change into such a small number of games?
There's things like extra commercial time, replay reviews, batters stepping out of the box, pitcher/catcher meetings that can be addressed.....
Nah, you'll always have pitcher injuries, so then pitchers would feign injuries to get around a limit. If you run out of pitchers, that's on you. That's like the recent talk of eliminating the defensive infield 'shift'. You can't legislate where players play, so just hit it where they ain't.....If you really want to shorten the length of games, limit the number of pitchers you can use. Five pitching changes in one inning? Really?
Good point. So limit the number of pitchers you can carry on your 25-man roster from game to game, say 10. You can have more pitchers above this limit but some would have to sit out like hockey's "healthy scratches."Nah, you'll always have pitcher injuries, so then pitchers would feign injuries to get around a limit. If you run out of pitchers, that's on you. That's like the recent talk of eliminating the defensive infield 'shift'. You can't legislate where players play, so just hit it where they ain't.....
They did put in a rule for intentional walks to just walk to first base with no pitches thrown. I like that rule.
This could happen too, if the pitch isn't far enough off the plate....I remember in the 1972 World Series an Oakland A's pitcher struck out a Cincinnati Reds batter on an apparent intentional walk. I also remember uncounted wild pitches on intentional walks. It's taking something away from the game to save a couple of seconds.