PDA

View Full Version : WBC alters extra-innings format


chisoxfanatic
01-30-2009, 10:38 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/worldclassic2009/news/story?id=3870558

Starting with the 13th inning, they will use the same format that was implemented at the Olympics last year.

Stupid.

october23sp
01-31-2009, 12:13 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/worldclassic2009/news/story?id=3870558

Starting with the 13th inning, they will use the same format that was implemented at the Olympics last year.

Stupid.

Makes something many people think is a joke, a complete joke.

Nellie_Fox
01-31-2009, 02:06 AM
That's not baseball. You have to earn base runners.

chisoxfanatic
01-31-2009, 02:25 AM
That's not baseball. You have to earn base runners.
That's what I'm thinking. I blame Bud Selig.

WhiteSox5187
01-31-2009, 03:59 AM
That's so stupid.

I might be in the minority, but I like the WBC and think that it is a great idea that can grow given time. However as long as Bud "What do you mean March is bad timing to play baseball in Canada?" Selig is in charge of this thing it will struggle.

I also think there needs to be a seperate international baseball body that governs this thing like Fifa.

EuroSox35
01-31-2009, 05:11 AM
Sounds like baseball's version of penalty kicks

I actually can see where they're coming from though (in terms of trying to come up with something), the last thing they want is an AllStar Game situation with a pitcher or two being forced to stretch out (you can argue it's about 20 times worse, since it's just March, and of course winning has no effect on anything in the MLB season), but for the integrity of the game, they'd be better off just stopping the game and continuing the next day or at a later date imo

ode to veeck
01-31-2009, 10:13 AM
maybe it will help people realize that WBC is completely worthless and it will go away soon - the darn season is long enough already

InKennyWeTrust
01-31-2009, 11:51 AM
There are already pitch counts, which isn't "true baseball". I don't see the problem here.

anewman35
01-31-2009, 02:53 PM
I'm sure it's just because of the pitching. Everybody freaks out over overusing pitchers in the WBC, so they have to have some way to prevent 20 inning games.

Nellie_Fox
02-01-2009, 12:52 AM
There are already pitch counts, which isn't "true baseball". I don't see the problem here.Pitch counts are not a rule. They are a "me too" fad, and one that will go away quickly if Nolan Ryan is successful with the way pitchers are going to be handled in Texas.

anewman35
02-01-2009, 02:21 PM
Pitch counts are not a rule. They are a "me too" fad, and one that will go away quickly if Nolan Ryan is successful with the way pitchers are going to be handled in Texas.

He's talking about the WBC, and in the WBC pitch counts ARE a rule.

Eddo144
02-01-2009, 02:46 PM
Pitch counts are not a rule. They are a "me too" fad, and one that will go away quickly if Nolan Ryan is successful with the way pitchers are going to be handled in Texas.
I'm not saying pitch counts are necessary or the right thing, but if Nolan Ryan's idea fails, would you be willing to say that pitch counts are an important thing and not just a fad?

Craig Grebeck
02-01-2009, 03:14 PM
I'm not saying pitch counts are necessary or the right thing, but if Nolan Ryan's idea fails, would you be willing to say that pitch counts are an important thing and not just a fad?
Pitch counts are important. I'd give anything to see the White Sox employ a four man rotation with sensible pitch counts and an emphasis on pitch efficiency. Ah, dreams.

BleacherBandit
02-01-2009, 03:22 PM
Well, let's remember that not all baseball around the world has exactly the same rules as MLB. In the NPB league in Japan, they use a smaller ball and there can be ties! I don't know if I'll watch the WBC, but I'm not pissed at these rules. Who would want to watch a game between the Netherlands and Canada go more than 13 innings?

Eddo144
02-01-2009, 03:25 PM
Pitch counts are important. I'd give anything to see the White Sox employ a four man rotation with sensible pitch counts and an emphasis on pitch efficiency. Ah, dreams.
With the current methods of player development, yes, pitch counts are extremely important, and I anticipate Ryan's tactic to be a disaster.

However, I'm not entirely convinced that, starting from scratch, pitch counts are a necessity. What if, from the time they were twelve, pitchers were not on pitch counts? What would happen?

Unfortunately, there's not a good way to ever know. So, given the current state of things, I too am in favor of pitch counts. And I like the four man rotation idea.

Nellie_Fox
02-01-2009, 11:52 PM
I'm not saying pitch counts are necessary or the right thing, but if Nolan Ryan's idea fails, would you be willing to say that pitch counts are an important thing and not just a fad?No. A single failure can be the result of many different variables. Pitchers had long, successful careers for decades, pitching in four-man rotations with no one having any clue of their pitch count. And I don't believe you have to have done it since you were a little kid, either. I think you could get someone's arm accustomed to going longer in one season. I think most of it now is mental: "Uh-oh, I'm at ninety pitches. I must be just about done; skipper will be out here any time now." Then they get pulled no matter how well they're pitching.

khan
02-02-2009, 10:14 AM
Pitchers had long, successful careers for decades, pitching in four-man rotations with no one having any clue of their pitch count.

Sure. And "for decades," there were boatloads of starting middle IF who couldn't hit their way out of a paper bag, too. "For decades," there were more hitters that were desperately out of shape than there are today. "For decades," there were boatloads of hitters that didn't bother to lift a weight or do any cardio or take legal [or illegal] supplements or follow a proper diet regimen or bother to not smoke multiple packs of cigarettes in a day. And "for decades," pitchers' contracts were all of $20k/yr, not the nearly-$20M/yr that some are pulling in today.


No offense, but the world has changed since years ago. Baseball, and every other sport has changed since back then. Old timers who look back fondly at the 4-man rotation w/o pitch counts need to look at a calendar. Its 2009, not 1959.

I posit that the degree of difficulty that pitchers face is far harder today than in the good old days. I posit that the potential financial pitfalls are greater than 30/40/50/60 years ago. For these reasons [and others], a 4-man rotation without pitch counts is a dead idea. [EDIT] 30/40 years ago, old timers [back then] lamented the introduction of closers and bullpen specialists. The argument that "for decades, SPs had no pitch counts and a 4-man rotation" is no different than lamenting the expanding roles of relief pitchers back then.

I WILL, however agree to this point: That a 4-man rotation COULD be workable, with the right mixture of SP talent, pitch counts, durability, and depth/strength of the bullpen.

Eddo144
02-02-2009, 10:52 AM
No. A single failure can be the result of many different variables.
And a single success can be the result of many different variables.

Pitchers had long, successful careers for decades, pitching in four-man rotations with no one having any clue of their pitch count. And I don't believe you have to have done it since you were a little kid, either. I think you could get someone's arm accustomed to going longer in one season.
And in this day and age, pitchers are having long, successful careers pitching in five-man rotations with strict pitch counts.

In fact, Mark Prior is a single example of how not having a pitch count can ruin someone's career.

I think most of it now is mental: "Uh-oh, I'm at ninety pitches. I must be just about done; skipper will be out here any time now." Then they get pulled no matter how well they're pitching.
I doubt pitchers know how many pitches they're at while they're on the mound. I'm sure they're more focused on how to get the next hitter out. If not, they have bigger problems than pitch counts.

Nellie_Fox
02-02-2009, 11:17 AM
I doubt pitchers know how many pitches they're at while they're on the mound. I'm sure they're more focused on how to get the next hitter out. If not, they have bigger problems than pitch counts.Most ballparks have the pitch count displayed electronically somewhere. They know.

jabrch
02-02-2009, 11:29 AM
And a single success can be the result of many different variables.

And others will attempt to replicate a single success while they will avoid trying to replicate a single failure. That's the nature of sports.


In fact, Mark Prior is a single example of how not having a pitch count can ruin someone's career.

There are lots of things Prior could be an example of. I'm not sure how you can conclude that pitch counts ruined Mark Prior.

I doubt pitchers know how many pitches they're at while they're on the mound. I'm sure they're more focused on how to get the next hitter out. If not, they have bigger problems than pitch counts.

Exactly how many? Probably not. But I am sure from sitting in a dugout for a half inning, they see it posted around the park, and they probably even discuss it with a coach as the pitches pile up. I doubt they are on the mound thinking, "I have 85 pitches down - need to stay under 95" - but it would surprise me if at some point they don't have a good clue that they are in that region.

ChiSoxFan81
02-02-2009, 11:34 AM
Lame. Might as well decide it with a HR derby.

Eddo144
02-02-2009, 11:53 AM
And others will attempt to replicate a single success while they will avoid trying to replicate a single failure. That's the nature of sports.
Sadly, yes. Look no further than the NFL, where nearly every team has installed some kind of wildcat formation regardless of their personnel.

There are lots of things Prior could be an example of. I'm not sure how you can conclude that pitch counts ruined Mark Prior.
True, but overuse was the primary culprit in his downfall.

Exactly how many? Probably not. But I am sure from sitting in a dugout for a half inning, they see it posted around the park, and they probably even discuss it with a coach as the pitches pile up. I doubt they are on the mound thinking, "I have 85 pitches down - need to stay under 95" - but it would surprise me if at some point they don't have a good clue that they are in that region.
OK, you're probably right. But shouldn't the pitcher be trying to throw as few pitches as possible anyway?