jonriv wrote:Why should we change the rules for 2-3% of the pitching population Who says leaping is the natural motion. Why can't players learn to play within in the rules-since almost all do?
Mark H wrote:PDad wrote:Mark H wrote:1. Any pitcher hitter imbalances are easily addressed with rubber distance changes.
The point of stripping the rules down to where they're dominant was to remove their incentive to violate the rules. If they're not dominating within the rules, they will push the rules to give themselves a competitive advantage..
Not entirely sure I follow. Maybe you could reword it.
Competitors will push period.
Write the rules the way pitchers naturally want to throw. Let athletes perform a natural athletic motion. If a competitive imbalance results, move the rubber back.
jonriv wrote:Why should we change the rules for 2-3% of the pitching population Who says leaping is the natural motion. Why can't players learn to play within in the rules-since almost all do?
UmpSteve wrote:jonriv wrote:Why should we change the rules for 2-3% of the pitching population Who says leaping is the natural motion. Why can't players learn to play within in the rules-since almost all do?
Apparently they should change because Mark H. thinks so. He has been dismissive of any other thought, no matter how it is expressed.
PDad wrote:Mark H wrote:PDad wrote:Mark H wrote:1. Any pitcher hitter imbalances are easily addressed with rubber distance changes.
The point of stripping the rules down to where they're dominant was to remove their incentive to violate the rules. If they're not dominating within the rules, they will push the rules to give themselves a competitive advantage..
Not entirely sure I follow. Maybe you could reword it.
Competitors will push period.
Write the rules the way pitchers naturally want to throw. Let athletes perform a natural athletic motion. If a competitive imbalance results, move the rubber back.
You again use the notion of "natural" despite not clarifying it after the last time. A possible definition is what someone that's never seen a FP pitcher (e.g. a toddler or an aborigine living in the wild) would do if asked to hit a target by throwing underhand, however I doubt that's what you mean, It's not like they're required to do a cartwheel while pitching.
Competitive pitchers "want" to be successful and consequently will try whatever makes them more successful - including stretching the rules as far as they can. They have an incentive to improve their performance if they're not dominating, especially if they're unsuccessful. They also have an incentive to cheat if they're not dominating within the rules and the net result is a benefit due to inconsistent enforcement.
Consistent enforcement is an important aspect of any rule. You wouldn't have your issue of IP's being called in the WCWS if they were called consistently for the entire season. It would be even better if IP's were called consistently from early JO ball, however I expect college coaches would adapt their training, and ultimately their recruiting, if they knew 5-6 months in advance it would be consistent for their entire season. Even so, I also expect coaches intending to compete now in the WCWS would make sure their pitchers are effective with a legal delivery..
PDad wrote:Regarding changing the pitching distance to resolve an imbalance, I'm curious how you determine the amount so you get it right the first time instead of going through an iterative process.
PDad wrote:They also have an incentive to cheat if they're not dominating within the rules and the net result is a benefit due to inconsistent enforcement
Mark H wrote:OK. But is the leap rule good for the sport in the long run?
Mark H wrote:PDad wrote:Regarding changing the pitching distance to resolve an imbalance, I'm curious how you determine the amount so you get it right the first time instead of going through an iterative process.
Same way they decided to move it to 43.
PDad wrote:Mark H wrote:OK. But is the leap rule good for the sport in the long run?
We've already discussed that and it's pointless to rehash it.?
PDad wrote:Mark H wrote:PDad wrote:Regarding changing the pitching distance to resolve an imbalance, I'm curious how you determine the amount so you get it right the first time instead of going through an iterative process.
Same way they decided to move it to 43.
Okay, how was that done?