MLB Coach Fined for Wearing Apple Watch During Game

[IJ Reilly]

Guess we just disagree. Hope they don’t change the game. Too many changes already. Hate instant replay. Bad calls happen. I must admit I hate it less if it helps my team Like the way it has been played since I was 10 years old

I have mixed feelings about the instant replay. It would be more workable if the amount of time for review was more limited, to perhaps a minute, or two (at the most). If the video umpires can't find persuasive evidence of a missed call in that amount of time, the on-field call should stand.

 

[gixxerfool]

That is just ridiculous, what happens if she forgets her ID, she can't go to the bathroom the entire day? And who cares if she is in there the entire lunch period? Sorry, that is too much of a nanny state to me and I would be complaining loud and clear to the school about that one.

If she forgets it, detention. It’s not about lunch. It’s about a student wandering the halls for no reason. It keeps them responsible and accountable at an age where that isn’t even a thought in most kids minds. I don’t disagree completely, but kids need structure at this age. They can be susceptible to a lot of things they shouldn’t be. If making them use the bathroom in a timely manner is the worst they can do, the. So be it.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Bloody nonsense. MLB is more profitable than ever.

I don't see how you can be much of a fan if you think pitching coaches are calling the pitches. That doesn't happen now and would be not be an improvement if it was started, if for no other reason than pitchers and catchers would still have to communicate on the pitch type and location.
[doublepost=1507568098][/doublepost]

You are now mixing up two issues. Game length is not really driven by the relaying of signs, it is driven by the increasing specialization in pitching and the number of pitching changes that entails. It is also driven, especially in the postseason, by the length of the commercial breaks demanded by the broadcasters. So if you want to talk about "disrespecting the fans' time," then go after that instead of monkeying around with the fundamentals of the game. Umpires could also enforce the rule that the batter has to keep one foot in the batter's box between pitches. Some of them still go for little strolls. A pitch clock is also a possibility.

Also, catchers visit the mound for more than just signing issues. A good catcher knows when his pitcher needs one.

And yes, I did point out reasons other than "tradition" for not monkeying with this aspect if the game, though I think tradition is a pretty good argument all by itself in favor of not making wholesale changes to the game.

I didn't say coaches call the pitches today. I know they don't. I'm looking at it from a problem-solution standpoint. The problem is: pitchers and catchers need to synched up, with regard to pitch type and location, without the batter finding out. There are many possible solutions. One way is to have the catcher call the pitches and use arcane sign language to communicate it to the pitcher. Another way is to have a third person suggest pitches to both the pitcher and catcher, getting a simple nod in approval. Both have downsides. I'm sure if we brainstormed, we could come up with a dozen more ways to solve this problem, and I'm sure most would be better than the the silly hand signals. I thought they were dumb when I played as a kid, and I think they're still dumb.

In terms of game speed - I agree about the commercial breaks. However, there is no changing that. You said MLB is more profitable than ever: this is why. Viewership is down, but profits are up. It means they're milking the remaining fans for more.

If I had a magic baseband wand, I would make a rule prohibiting coaches or the catcher from visit the mound mid-batter. Once the first pitch to a batter is thrown - no more interruptions until that batter is out or on base. I would also enforce the batter's box rule. I'm not a fan of the pitch clock idea yet, but it should be tested in some lower leagues.

With regard to tradition, a mentor I respect a lot told me: If tradition or "this is the way we've always done it" is the leading reason someone gives for resisting a change, then that change is certainly needed. The context was process, but I think it applies broadly.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I didn't say coaches call the pitches today. I know they don't. I'm looking at it from a problem-solution standpoint. The problem is: pitchers and catchers need to synched up, with regard to pitch type and location, without the batter finding out. There are many possible solutions. One way is to have the catcher call the pitches and use arcane sign language to communicate it to the pitcher. Another way is to have a third person suggest pitches to both the pitcher and catcher, getting a simple nod in approval. Both have downsides. I'm sure if we brainstormed, we could come up with a dozen more ways to solve this problem, and I'm sure most would be better than the the silly hand signals. I thought they were dumb when I played as a kid, and I think they're still dumb.

In terms of game speed - I agree about the commercial breaks. However, there is no changing that. You said MLB is more profitable than ever: this is why. Viewership is down, but profits are up. It means they're milking the remaining fans for more.

If I had a magic baseband wand, I would make a rule prohibiting coaches or the catcher from visit the mound mid-batter. Once the first pitch to a batter is thrown - no more interruptions until that batter is out or on base. I would also enforce the batter's box rule. I'm not a fan of the pitch clock idea yet, but it should be tested in some lower leagues.

With regard to tradition, a mentor I respect a lot told me: If tradition or "this is the way we've always done it" is the leading reason someone gives for resisting a change, then that change is certainly needed. The context was process, but I think it applies broadly.

Again, you can use words such as arcane, dumb, and silly, to describe signaling, but none of that means a thing beyond what you, personally, think of it. I doubt more than a handful in the game or among the fans of the game would agree with this or any of the other arbitrary changes you think are so essential for the survival of the game have any real merit.

 

[Phonephreak]

Uh... yes it does. More efficient, without any other tradeoffs, pretty much does always mean better. So far nobody has actually said why my proposal is bad, other than "tradition."

There you go. Tradition.

 

[IJ Reilly]

There you go. Tradition.

Or to avoid the loaded terminology, "because that's the way the game is played." One of the ways the game is played is the catcher has to be one of the best-informed players on the field. It is not a coincidence that the top catchers have often been among the game's most intelligent ballplayers. Take that element out of the game and now the catcher is basically a guy with a big glove and a mask.