THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Why not 4-on-3?  If you’re concerned about chippy play, that would be a good start to help curb it.  Right now, teams score on something like 17% or 20% of powerplays, or something like that.  4-on-3 would probably bump it up to 25% or more.  So presumably as the cost of penalties increases, the stickwork would decrease.

Hockey announcers are great, in my opinion.  I think it is by far the hardest sport to give play-by-play on.  And miking the players would be a little weird when you start hearing Russian, grunts, and anatomical suggestions.

I find 4-on-3 (and 5-on-3) not very hockey-like.  I agree that the effect of the penalty would be greater.

When you only have 3 defenders, each of them is very exposed.  And, they look like they are flopping or simply trying to stay alive while the offensive players make them squirm.  With 5-on-4, there seems to be more balance, like it’s a fairer fight.

Yes, I love hockey announcers, at least the play-by-play guy.  The color guy I can do without most of the time, but he’s pretty good too.  I just mean that if you agree to mike the players, you’ll have to reduce the talking time of one of the two announcers and it’s got to be the color guy.

I have a suggestion....

http://Www.firejoemorgan.com

Well, for MLB, the 5 things I would like to see changed are:

1. A challenge-based replay system, similar to the NFL.

I absolute hate it when I hear people say “human error is part of the game, I don’t care if the umpires get a call wrong occasionally.” F that. If a player hits a ball over a fence, he should be rewrded for it. If an infielder guns down a runner at first, he should be rewarded for it.

I also hate when people say “It will make the game SOOOOO long.” Oh really? I suppose that when there’s a questionable call, it takes no time at all for the umps to huddle around, discuss it, make the call, then have the other manager run out and argue the call for a few minutes? That doesn’t take up a lot of time?

That’s why I think the NFL system is good. If the manager thinks he’s been wronged, he can challenge the play. Otherwise, he can’t come out to argue, or else he’s subject to ejection and/or a fine/suspension. And, managers will be selective about what plays they want reviewed, since they have a limited number.

Only MLB is so obtuse that it has an example of a perfectly fine system in another sport, but they do not adopt it for their own game

2. Take the power to vote for MVP awards and the Hall of Fame away from writers.

Baseball writers in general have proven themselves to be stubborn traditionalists, and yet they also try to out-think themselves when voting for these awards, using flawed logic.

They continue to overvalue flawed statistics like RBIs, batting average, and win-loss record. They make arbitrary rules like “The MVP has to come from a playoff team”, “A pitcher can’t be MVP”, and “Foreign players can’t be rookie of the year”. They use flawed logic like “A Yankee or a Red Sox player can’t be MVP because the rest of the team is so good, they’d still be good without him”.

I know things like MVP awards and the Hall of Fame are a little trivial, but people really care about these things, especially the players involved. Voting should be placed in more capable hands.

3. Institute a salary floor

If we are going to have revenue sharing, teams like the Marlins should not be able to just pocket the money that the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Dodgers, and others pay them. If you get revenue sharing money, you need to spend all of that money, as well as some of your own. Thus, you’re at least making a concerted effort to field a competitive team, and not just trying to turn a profit.

4. Non-guaranteed contracts

Once again, the NFL has it right. You don’t produce, you don’t get paid. We could get rid of the Carl Pavanos of the world this way.

Obviously, the MLBPA would fight this tooth and nail, but it’s what I would want to see as a fan.

5. Optional DH

If I remember correctly, Mr. Tango is a big proponent of this suggestion. Home team manager gets to choose. Thus, an AL team with a good hitting pitcher can force the opposing pitcher to hit, or you can force a big slugger with a poor glove to play the field. It would add another level of strategy, an interesting one at that, to the game.

I’m sure I can think of more, but those are the 5 that immediately came to mind

/4: Non-guaranteed contracts - that was something the MLBPA feared in the early days, but the owners weren’t smart enough to throw it out there.

I don’t think this would have the desired effect.  The Dodgers, e.g., have used short-term but higher AAV contracts on riskier players.  It has not really been to their benefit.  And I think you’d run into a lot of situations where pitchers would end up suing their former teams for injuries.

It would have the benefit of getting young players fair market value for their services though.  Ryan Howard signed for $230k in 2001 (arguably FMV), and then earned just $1.8M despite hitting 139 MLB HRs before he was eligible for arbitration.  His arb award was of course $10M for 2008.  What contract would he have been due in 2004 after he hit 48 home runs at AA/AAA/MLB?

And what about the draft itself?  Some people estimate Pedro Alvarez would get a $15-$20M contract if he were a free agent (compared to $6M bonus from the Pirates...)

1. Electronic Strike Zone - increase the accuracy of a pitch F/X type system and let it call balls and strikes.  Let the home plate ump over rule on the pitch that bounces before home plate and manages to pass through the zone still.

2. Use the same system to verify checked swings, or atleast let the hitter appeal to the ump with the better view.

3. More aggressive instant replay system.  Similar to the NFL, but i think a fifth ump that is not on the field will make the call.

4. Tango’s DH rule, I like it.

5. Institute a salary floor as previously suggested, much like hockey does.

Here is an idea that i love, but likely most people would hate.  Since it is completely impractical of course the point is moot, but here it is anyway: Get rid of the outfield fences altogether and make all home runs be of the “inside the park” (so to speak) variety.  Who doesn’t want to see Big Papi huff around the bases while Ichiro chases down his 550 foot bomb to the gap?  I’d like to see more of a premium placed on speed and defense, and this seems one way to achieve that.

Yeah, non-guaranteed contracts, even do something like if you have 4 years, and $40m left on the contract and you get released, you get $5m in year 1, $2.5m in year 2, 1.25m in year 3, just something to help teams get out of those stupid contracts.

Also, let young players be eligible for arbitration immediately. (Rookies are still unproven and will still get the minimum), cut service time to FA to like 4 years or something.

The NHL lets you buyout the player’s contract at two-thirds remaining salary.  Every year, a few players gets bought out even at such a high price.  The players invariably sign a new contract at about 1/3 or 1/2 the original contract, so they end up with the same value anyway.

I would just make it a flat 50% buyout.

***

The NHL has free agency after 7 years or 27 years old, whichever comes first.  Sidney Crosby would have been eligible for free agency at age 25.  I think the NBA has 4 years?

I’d support an age 27 cutoff in MLB, for the Ryan Howards of the world.  I’d force min salary of 1MM.

For MLB:
-- 4 divisions instead of six, with an initial post-season challenge round in which each second place team who ends the regular season within 6 games of first place gets up to seven games head to head to catch the first place team and get into the LCS; MVPs and All-Stars would be selected on a division rather than league basis
--A small penalty for pitcher throws to first base (e.g, every third unsuccesful throw during a PA adds one ball to the batter’s count)
--A penalty for four-pitch walks (e.g, unforced base runners move up too)
--Reform bat design rules to get more balls in play, fewer HRs/Ks/BBs
--pace MLBPA, a “soft” salary cap (i.e, teams retain certain rights to exceed the cap to re-sign their own free agents)that increases with overall league revenue

I love the idea of electronic ball/strike calls but doubt the reliable tech is available yet.  As to the DH, I’d reform it so that it was available in both leagues but only for one AB per game (i.e., a “DH” could bat twice per game without playing on defense—once as a DH and once as a PH); managers would have to choose when to use their one DH opportunity.

BTW, there are non-guaranteed contracts in MLB—the terminology used is “team options”