At this point I'm guessing we only see about 80 games.

We're wasting time on "larger bases", then allowing shift restriction but no robo umps??

Ag_07 said:

---

At this point I'm guessing we only see about 80 games.

---

I'd say anywhere from 90-120 games is my guess

Is it April 1st?

Banning shifts will piss me off. All the sudden the Yankees getting Gallo for a bag of peanuts would be a huge get.

Eh he'll still strike out a ton

Finally don't have to see Tucker, Brantley and Yordan hit rockets into right only to get thrown out by a 2nd basemen

Love the reporting here. /Sarcasm

There are no piecemeal agreements, there might be concessions built on further movement from the owners.

So basically the MLBPA and owners are only agreeing on things that don't really matter in terms of starting this season (aka the money aspect)

I am completely floored by why players or owners want a bigger base. A wider plate makes it harder to hit and only benefits pitchers and by a significant margin. A bigger base only benefits hitters but it's an infinitesimal benefit.

Lol how can their be a rule stating where fielders nees to stand? What about not allowing a 5th infielder or playing 4 outfielders.

Mathguy64 said:

---

I am completely floored by why players or owners want a bigger base. A wider plate makes it harder to hit and only benefits pitchers and by a significant margin. A bigger base only benefits hitters but it's an infinitesimal benefit.

---

To me this limits injuries. Guys won't get spiked as often on those close plays

I have no problem with the orange base. In fact I think it's a nice improvement and would do it yesterday. It forces runners to run outside the field. But I wonder if that's what they mean.

From what I've seen, that is what they mean by bigger bases.

But that could be spec as well

How can you possibly ban the shift? Are they going to start dictating how deep an outfielder can play? I don't like the shift, but it's weird to see them take away a strategy.

My guess is infielders have to start on the dirt. No playing in the outfield

Mathguy64 said:

---

I am completely floored by why players or owners want a bigger base. A wider plate makes it harder to hit and only benefits pitchers and by a significant margin. A bigger base only benefits hitters but it's an infinitesimal benefit.

---

Don't think the plate will get bigger. See AAA last season where this new rule was tested out.

tjack16 said:

---

Mathguy64 said:

---

I am completely floored by why players or owners want a bigger base. A wider plate makes it harder to hit and only benefits pitchers and by a significant margin. A bigger base only benefits hitters but it's an infinitesimal benefit.

---

To me this limits injuries. Guys won't get spiked as often on those close plays

---

Is it just for 1B? That's all that makes sense to me.

The more I've looked into it, the more I realize people don't know what they actually mean. My guess is either extended first base, or the bases are a couple of inches bigger all around because that's what they were experimenting in the minors last year with.

I'm guessing if they made each base a couple of inches bigger and did not tell anybody, the average fan would not pick up on it

Mathguy64 said:

---

I have no problem with the orange base. In fact I think it's a nice improvement and would do it yesterday. It forces runners to run outside the field. But I wonder if that's what they mean.

---

I thought I remembered from about two years ago when they were going to try bigger bases in the minors it was increasing the base from 15" to something slightly larger. Which could then obviously shorten the distance between bases and could entice and incentivize more action on the bases, either stealing or attempting to turn singles into doubles etc.

I don't hate it. It would be unnoticeable to any fan and would likely increase the amount of action and gameplay.

I don't think the larger bases are that big of a deal. AFAIK, they aren't changing the size off home plate and the size of the bases is negligible.

FYI:




The design makes the "popping off" the base decrease.

Quote:

---

"The current base, if you don't hit the front of it and stop, you're going through it," Chris Marinak, MLB's chief operations and strategy officer, told The Post on Thursday in a telephone interview. "And this base is a little more forgiving in the sense that, if you hit the front of it, hopefully there's more catch on the base. You can actually stop on the bag without popping off. Certainly that's one of the ideas behind it."

"Guys really come into the bag hard," Marinak said. "They're trying to steal bases. They're more athletic than they were certainly 75 years ago, or whenever that (base) was designed."

---

https://nypost.com/2021/03/19/new-mlb-rule-could-do-away-with-one-of-baseballs-most-annoying-quirks/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPSportsTwitter&utm_medium=SocialFlow&sr_share=twitter

Completely agree

A 1% increase in stolen base successes doesn't even move the needle. There were 2200 SB and 700 CS least season across the majors. So whoopie doo. You get 20 more SB successes during the entire 162 game season across the entire league. That's one extra success every 250 games played. Stat geeks everywhere will rejoice with the increase in that metric.

Maybe they should find something more vital to fix.

a 3" increase is not solely for stealing bases... it gives much more space for plays at second and plays at first to protect players.

But, what is the trickle down effect, when do younger fields see the bases adjusted etc

Apparently MLB can implement these rule changes unilaterally with a years notice, so these will be in effect in 2024 for sure.

The players agreeing to allow that in 2023 does not seem like a major concession. So as has been the case since the beginning, the money is the only issue.

Banking the shift is absurd. How can you make a rule stating where players have to be positioned?

Ags #1 said:

---

Banking the shift is absurd. How can you make a rule stating where players have to be positioned?

---

Very easily. Look at every sport.

I dont think there should be "left/right" shift bans, but I would 100% be on board with keeping infielders in the infield and outfields in the outfield.

It it improves the amount of balls in play it would improve gameplay. Any rule change should be made with improving gameplay in mind, and I think thats what that would do.

Ags #1 said:

---

Banking the shift is absurd. How can you make a rule stating where players have to be positioned?

---

Football does it with illegal motions, down field linemen on pass plays, and too many men in the backfield.

Mathguy64 said:

---

tjack16 said:

---

Ags #1 said:

---

Banking the shift is absurd. How can you make a rule stating where players have to be positioned?

---

Football does it with illegal motions, down field linemen on pass plays, and too many men in the backfield.

---

But football down tell a defense they cant line up 8 in the box or prohibit them from playing cover 2 or cover 4.

---

What is the penalty going to be for violating the shifting rules? A stern warning?