MLB Off-Topic

[Blzer]

Quote: Originally Posted by l3ulvl

I always thought the wider strike zone would induce more offense by making guys swing more, as opposed to the smaller zone leading to guys taking more pitches, but maybe I'm confusing offense with action

Considering BABIP probably reduces significantly more when the ball is not pitched within the legitimate strike zone, I have a hard time believing this would ever be the case.

Forget the fact that BABIP is also significantly reduced when the batter is behind in the count as opposed to when ahead.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Quote: Originally Posted by l3ulvl

I always thought the wider strike zone would induce more offense by making guys swing more, as opposed to the smaller zone leading to guys taking more pitches, but maybe I'm confusing offense with action

Swinging at crap isn't going to help unless it's Vlad Guerrero. Making the strike zone bigger simply makes the pitcher's job easier and tilts the advantage to pitching. Offense goes down exactly as we've seen over the past decade+.

[kehlis]

Yea a wider strike zone might create more swings but would also equate to more bad contact (and thusly more outs).

[l3ulvl]

Did you guys read the rest of my post where I admitted confusing offense with action?

[kehlis]

Quote: Originally Posted by l3ulvl

Did you guys read the rest of my post where I admitted confusing offense with action?

Just commenting on it man and to be fair you didn't really admit to it, you said maybe you were confusing the two.

[l3ulvl]

Quote: Originally Posted by kehlis

Just commenting on it man and to be fair you didn't really admit to it, you said maybe you were confusing the two.

Fair enough, and now that I think about it I was thinking of my strategy of speeding up the game more than creating offense got myself crossed up

[kehlis]

Quote: Originally Posted by l3ulvl

Fair enough, and now that I think about it I was thinking of my strategy of speeding up the game more than creating offense got myself crossed up

You're 100% correct in that. Correctly calling the strike zone would speed up the game and with the concentration on that aspect right now it would probably be a good idea.

I don't think the upper half of the strike zone should extend to the letters the way it's laid out but I think they can still improve in some avenues.

[Money99]

Quote: Originally Posted by TripleCrown9

Yeah, ok, not AL/NL neutral. But this year was neutral for every team except Cincinnati, next year is neutral for every team except San Diego. The All-Star Game is a neutral site for players from 29 of the 30 teams.

I was thinking more along the lines of the game being played in a non-MLB location, ie Montreal, Vegas, Dominican, etc...

Quote: Originally Posted by Perfect Zero

Having been to the 2011 World Series, I have to say that a neutral site championship would be the stupidest move in the history of the game. Hosting the World Series rewards local sponsors and season ticket holders with preferred games. Sometimes Manfred looks like a great commissioner, and other times he makes me pine for Selig. Rob, don't screw with the game to the point that it becomes pro football...

To play devils advocate, I don't think there's anything wrong with at least discussing anything and everything.
Unlike the NHL where any change considered is met with pitchforks, torches and mob justice, I don't mind if aleague/commissioner is willing to look at anything and every thing to see if a particular change could help improve the game.
I highly doubt some of these topics will ever be implemented - especially a neutral site WS game.
They're probably just kicking the tires.

It's never good to stay stagnant and always believe your game is perfect.
That's been the NHL's model for a while and it hasn't worked.