Red Mosquito

wheres the PJ love for Mr Cub???

RIP Mr Banks, was a fun night in Wrigley a few years ago with you and PJ

MadTIGERmaN wrote:wheres the PJ love for Mr Cub???

RIP Mr Banks, was a fun night in Wrigley a few years ago with you and PJ

Sad day. Let's play two!

It would be so Cub for them to win it this year.

RIP Mr Cub. Hopefully his enthusiasm rubs off on this year's team.

Anyone know of a video game where you can play as past teams (say the 1927 Yanks), but it's not just a 'sim' (like Out of the Park). You actually run/swing/etc....

That sounds like the kind of thing that could consume and gradually ruin my life.

I'm so in.

lol

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/25074606

MLB has been looking at ways to improve the pace of play for several months now, and they tested some rule changes in the Arizona Fall League last fall. Among the measures tested were no-pitch intentional walks, a 20-second pitch clock, and forcing batters to keep one foot in the box at all times.

Apparently MLB was pleased with the way things went. According to Fox Sports, MLB is set to announce a set of rule changes on Friday designed to improve the pace of play. Here are the details:

1. Managers must challenge replays from dugout.

2. Batters must keep one foot in box unless an established exception occurs . . .

— Ken Rosenthal (@Ken_Rosenthal) February 20, 2015

3. Play to resume promptly once broadcast returns from commercial break.

— Ken Rosenthal (@Ken_Rosenthal) February 20, 2015

I'd be fine with the no-pitch intentional walk, unless you guaranteed me that someday some ump would lose his mind Enrico-Palazzo style and just start calling everything a strike.

Pitch clocks--get that weak shit out of here.

Simple Torture wrote:I'd be fine with the no-pitch intentional walk, unless you guaranteed me that someday some ump would lose his mind Enrico-Palazzo style and just start calling everything a strike.

Pitch clocks--get that weak shit out of here.

How much time would the one-pitch IBB actually save? 30 seconds per game? A minute?

Just make pitchers pitch within the guidelines that are already in the rulebook and don't let batters step out so much. It should be a fairly simple fix.

There already is a pitch clock!

Instant replay shouldn't be in play until the 7th inning. I understand the argument that a play in the 1st inning means just as much as a play in the 9th, but I can't stand when a game is held up for 3-5 minutes in the 2nd inning to decide a safe/out call at 1B with 2 out and nobody on.

numbers wrote:Instant replay shouldn't be in play until the 7th inning. I understand the argument that a play in the 1st inning means just as much as a play in the 9th, but I can't stand when a game is held up for 3-5 minutes in the 2nd inning to decide a safe/out call at 1B with 2 out and nobody on.

I am all for instant replay at all times. Get the calls right.

If I had my way there would be no instant replay whatsoever, but I know that battle is already lost.

numbers wrote:If I had my way there would be no instant replay whatsoever, but I know that battle is already lost.

as well it should be!

@SkitchP wrote:

numbers wrote:If I had my way there would be no instant replay whatsoever, but I know that battle is already lost.

as well it should be!

It's a bit of a complicated situation. To me, the key is to get the calls right, but the stalling tactics we saw last year were ridiculous. I'm OK with managers having to make a quick decision on whether or not to challenge rather than having someone watch a replay, phoning them from the dugout and pacing around while you wait for confirmation.

If it were something more like hockey where the challenges had nothing to do with the managers or game umpires and were initiated by the replay HQ, I could get more behind it.

philpritchard wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:

numbers wrote:If I had my way there would be no instant replay whatsoever, but I know that battle is already lost.

as well it should be!

It's a bit of a complicated situation. To me, the key is to get the calls right, but the stalling tactics we saw last year were ridiculous. I'm OK with managers having to make a quick decision on whether or not to challenge rather than having someone watch a replay, phoning them from the dugout and pacing around while you wait for confirmation.

This

numbers wrote:If it were something more like hockey where the challenges had nothing to do with the managers or game umpires and were initiated by the replay HQ, I could get more behind it.

I think there should be replay and they should get the calls right, but yeah it should be more like hockey where it is done quickly.

Football could learn from this too.

Hockey seems to be the only sport where replay hasn't lengthened the game and changed the sport significantly, which is what they all should be striving for.

But that's pretty obvious. I think everyone would be in favor of BETTER replay. But as it stands now, getting the call right has more value to me than the couple minutes it takes up, even under the current deeply flawed system.