All Forums > SimLeague Baseball > MLB > MLB: a bag of a**holes.
5/14/2014 9:33 AM
tec, assuming you don't disagree with anything I said about whiffs, pitchers, hitters and new metrics, what would you think if the commissioner allowed teams to move fences in, essentially changing the 325/400/325 minimums, to increase scoring?

Which, of course, would increase homers.  Maybe even to the dreaded six 60+ homer seasons in a 4 year span.    What would you think?
5/14/2014 9:33 AM
Scenario 1:  One out, guy on second.  Player at bat grounds to second, moving the runner to third with two outs.  Next pitch is wild and the run scores.  Guy at the plate makes an out to end the inning.

Scenario 2: One out, guy on second.  Player at bat whiffs and the runner stays at second.  Next pitch is wild and the runner moves to third.  Guy at the plate makes an out to end the inning.


Is it safe to say that the ground out to second was more productive than the strikeout?
5/14/2014 9:34 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/14/2014 9:33:00 AM (view original):
tec, assuming you don't disagree with anything I said about whiffs, pitchers, hitters and new metrics, what would you think if the commissioner allowed teams to move fences in, essentially changing the 325/400/325 minimums, to increase scoring?

Which, of course, would increase homers.  Maybe even to the dreaded six 60+ homer seasons in a 4 year span.    What would you think?
Mariners did that last season.
5/14/2014 9:34 AM
Though I'm not sure on the new dimensions.
5/14/2014 9:36 AM
Mets moved in some fences too a few years ago.
5/14/2014 9:41 AM
I don't think they were moved in closer than the 325/400/325 minimums.    A few teams have less, Baltimore(warehouse), SF(water), NYY(old dimensions) come to mind, but they were approved by the commissioner's office for the reasons listed.    I'm talking about changing the rules to increase scoring.  I don't see teams using pitchers differently or hitters drastically changing their approach.    Casual fans aren't going to pay to watch two guys play catch.   Something will be done.

What happens if the rule is changed to 300/380/300 and homers reach 'roid era proportions?   Are you PED haters going to be OK with that?
5/14/2014 9:45 AM (edited)
I'll say this about the "an outs an out" argument, but I'm not getting into a conversation about this - the Mets have obviously adopted the "an outs and out" mentality, and there have been plenty of times in the last year or so when the Mets were in situations where a ground ball or a sac fly would have been beneficial, and the Mets struck out.  Drives you insane.  So, yes, generally putting the ball in play and making out has little benefit.  But you can be sure I'd rather the guy who slugs .500 with 100 strikeouts rather than the guy who slugs .500 with 200 strikeouts.  There's a benefit to putting the ball in play.
5/14/2014 9:45 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/14/2014 9:42:00 AM (view original):
I don't think they were moved in closer than the 325/400/325 minimums.    A few teams have less, Baltimore(warehouse), SF(water), NYY(old dimensions) come to mind, but they were approved by the commissioner's office for the reasons listed.    I'm talking about changing the rules to increase scoring.  I don't see teams using pitchers differently or hitters drastically changing their approach.    Casual fans aren't going to pay to watch two guys play catch.   Something will be done.

What happens if the rule is changed to 300/380/300 and homers reach 'roid era proportions?   Are you PED haters going to be OK with that?
I know I was joking about the Mets and Yankee Stadium homers, but I'd prefer to keep the fences where they are rather than move them in more.  Long pop flys that fall into the seats is goofy.  Home runs should be rewarded when a player at least hits a ball hard.
5/14/2014 9:47 AM
That's not really the point.   Less scoring is going to lead to less interest by the casual fan.   That will affect the bottom line.    When that happens, baseball will do something to increase scoring.   It's happened before.

If they allow teams to move fences in, resulting in steroid era homer production, are you going to be OK with it?
5/14/2014 9:51 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/14/2014 9:33:00 AM (view original):
tec, assuming you don't disagree with anything I said about whiffs, pitchers, hitters and new metrics, what would you think if the commissioner allowed teams to move fences in, essentially changing the 325/400/325 minimums, to increase scoring?

Which, of course, would increase homers.  Maybe even to the dreaded six 60+ homer seasons in a 4 year span.    What would you think?
I'm old school.  I appreciate pitching and defense.  I also appreciate smart hitting and creative offense, i.e. base stealing, the well-executed hit and run, etc.  Not an Adam Dunn-like player swinging for the home run when a line drive base hit to RF to score a runner from second is what's needed.

So no, I wouldn't like seeing that happen to increase scoring.  That's dumbing down the game to Xbox and PlayStation standards.

5/14/2014 9:52 AM
No, because it dilutes what a home run is.  Home runs should be rewarded for those who at least hit a ball hard.  

I disagree that baseball is going to put forth rule changes to increase home run totals to steroid era totals.
5/14/2014 9:52 AM
Would you say there are more people like you or more people who like 9-7 games?
5/14/2014 9:53 AM
Posted by burnsy483 on 5/14/2014 9:52:00 AM (view original):
No, because it dilutes what a home run is.  Home runs should be rewarded for those who at least hit a ball hard.  

I disagree that baseball is going to put forth rule changes to increase home run totals to steroid era totals.
I know you're not old enough to remember but you do know that baseball A) lowered the mound and B) added the DH position to increase scoring, right?
5/14/2014 9:54 AM
Posted by burnsy483 on 5/14/2014 9:45:00 AM (view original):
I'll say this about the "an outs an out" argument, but I'm not getting into a conversation about this - the Mets have obviously adopted the "an outs and out" mentality, and there have been plenty of times in the last year or so when the Mets were in situations where a ground ball or a sac fly would have been beneficial, and the Mets struck out.  Drives you insane.  So, yes, generally putting the ball in play and making out has little benefit.  But you can be sure I'd rather the guy who slugs .500 with 100 strikeouts rather than the guy who slugs .500 with 200 strikeouts.  There's a benefit to putting the ball in play.
Agreed.  Runners don't typically advance a base on a strikeout.  They might go from second to third on a grounder to 2B or on a ball hit to deep RF.  And they may score from 3B on a deep fly ball.  None of those happen on strikeouts unless there's a PB involved.
5/14/2014 9:59 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/14/2014 9:52:00 AM (view original):
Would you say there are more people like you or more people who like 9-7 games?
I'm answering for myself. 

Maybe more people would like 9-7 games.  These would be the "casual" fans.  I think the hard-core people who love and appreciate the game will enjoy a well-played 4-3 game more than a 14-12 slugfest.
of 49
All Forums > SimLeague Baseball > MLB > MLB: a bag of a**holes.

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.