Major League Baseball will implement a handful of rule changes at various levels of the minor leagues during the 2026 season. Eric Longenhagen of FanGraphs first reported the slate and those interested in the topic are encouraged to read that post in full.
The most notable is the introduction of the check-swing challenge system in the Triple-A Pacific Coast League, beginning in early May. That allows a batter, pitcher, or catcher to challenge an umpire’s check-swing decision against bat-tracking technology. MLB had tested this rule in the Low-A Florida State League and the Arizona Fall League last year.
A check-swing challenge system requires an objective cutoff point. The threshold is whether the bat head breaks a 45° angle relative to the handle (essentially aligning with the opposite base line). Major League Baseball’s rulebook doesn’t have an official check-swing cutoff, instead leaving it at the umpire’s discretion as to whether the hitter offered.
As Longenhagen demonstrates with video, the 45° threshold is further along than what umpires have generally treated as the cutoff. That led hitters to successfully challenge a lot of calls last year. It appears that’s a deliberate consideration by the league. MLB’s memo notes a slight drop in the Florida State League strikeout rate after the check-swing challenge was implemented, “having a positive impact on balls in play and encouraging more extensive testing at higher levels.” It’s not a huge effect but one that would turn more swinging strikes into balls than vice versa.
The check-swing challenge will only be tested in the Pacific Coast League. In the other half of Triple-A, the International League, MLB will instruct umpires to visually use the 45° degree cutoff but will not give players the right to challenge. That’s seemingly to set up some kind of control group vs. the PCL while encouraging umpires to be more forgiving on check-swing calls generally.
Additionally, there’ll be a slight adjustment to the positioning of the second base bag in the International League. That change, which goes into effect in the second half of the 2026 season, moves the bag a little closer to the pitcher’s mound and reduces the distance from second to the corner bases by roughly nine inches in both directions. As with the previously implemented change to enlarge the bases, it’s designed to encourage more aggressive baserunning.
There are a few more minor tweaks related to pace of play and positioning of base coaches which the FanGraphs post covers in greater detail. There’s also the introduction of a reentry rule for a pulled starting pitcher at the rookie ball levels. Unlike the other rule changes mentioned here, that is not being tested for eventual implementation in MLB. That’s simply designed to avoid overworking young pitchers — most rookie ball players are teenagers — who are struggling to throw strikes, hopefully reducing injury risk.
MLB tests a number of rule adjustments in the minor leagues or independent ball. Some of them like the pitch clock, the ball-strike challenge system, and shift limitations make it to the highest level. Others (e.g. the DH “double-hook,” designated pinch-runners) have not.
The check-swing rule seems to be the one worth most closely following of this year’s group. “We haven’t made a decision about the check-swing thing,” commissioner Rob Manfred told Evan Drellich of The Athletic last June. “We do try to think sequentially about what’s coming. I think we got to get over the hump in terms of either doing (ball-strike challenges) or not doing it before you’d get into the complication of a separate kind of challenge involved in an at-bat, right? You think about them, they’re two different systems operating at the same time. We really got to think that one through.”
Ah, he’s not named in the article, but you can bet this is more tinkering by the commissioner for the sake of tinkering.
He who shall not be named is employed and paid by the owners.
I love a good mystery!
This is lunacy. The rule book does not mention 45 degrees and some subjective rulings make baseball the sport it is. I have no issues with obviously wrong calls but stop tinkering! The shortening of the base paths is just stupid. Some of us actually enjoy played well low scoring games. It was amazing as a child watching Johnny Bench gun everyone out. Just last year, Sox fans got to see Narvaez come out of nowhere and control an opposing team’s running game. While the pitching clock has been great, the pizza box bases and ghost runner rule have got to go.
some subjective rulings make baseball the sport it is.
==================
I don’t understand why. If you have a choice between getting it right and getting it wrong, why wouldn’t you want it to be right?
And since most calls are unlikely to be challenged, you’ll have plenty of opportunities for bad calls in any case.
I’m glad they changed that mound, I’m not sure I want to see scads of 2-1 games like they had in the early Johnny Bench days. Glad they’re taking steps to rein in all the strikeouts. Pitchers are getting bigger and taller every year, more guys throwing 100 plus so yes let’s fight strike outs one step at a time.
Ever since I became a major baseball fan, I took great pride in the sport for the elegance and perfection of the MLB diamond. Considering how some sports have had to “tune” their playing area dimensions – and how others arguably have dimensions that don’t work ideally – baseball’s seem to achieve a remarkable balance of so many outcomes, on top of just being aesthetically appealing.
So leave it to the man who created baserunners out of thin air (violating the longstanding tenant that “all baserunners must be accounted for”) to screw with those dimensions. Ye gods!
About time.
Out of the dozens of things the umpires get wrong, the check swing in not consistently one of them.
It’s always good to not allow umpires decide the game, but I can’t remember a single time I’ve lost sleep because an umpire screwed up the check swing call.
There is no objective rule currently. How could an ump get it right or wrong?
Basically there is a rule of thumb. If the bat crosses home plate, it’s a swing. It’s easy to see and they almost always rule it that way.
Giants fans may disagree. Their season ended in 2021 on a VERY controversial check swing vs the Dodgers.
SeniorEditor. Oh my God! I see your point. How’d they screw that up so badly?
So can we call this the Giant Dodgers rule going forward?
This is long overdue. Lets adopt the 45 degree rule and enforce it. With review.
Vegas, why? Where did 45 degrees come from? The system is not broken so why try to fix it?
1-I agree that this is not a major problem. There aren’t a lot of challenges, and they usually get it right. We might be talking 1-2 strikes per game.
2-OTOH, why not have a rule and why not get it right?
It has happened more so in the 70s that I remember. Some players, especially stars got away with going too far in a check swing. The Yankees seemed to always get the calls in their favor too.
I agree. I feel the check swing is something that doesn’t need this much change. The simplest thing MLB should do is not to leave it to the discretion of the home plate umpire. If the batter/catcher appeals to the 1st/3rd base umpire let that ump make the call. Home plate umpire can make the call but if it’s appealed to the 1st/3rd base umps, let those umps make the call.
We’ve yet to see how lousy in reality this B.S. system this year is going to be. The system where the pitcher just throws until exhausted was not a great move, nor the only two throws to first base. That was all in response to say a Nomar and others fidgeting with gloves and other things while the umpires were standing around indifferent to it. We need less failures and more successes.
Nomar’s notorious “fidget” (usually glove, glove, helmet tap) lasted a whole five seconds, tops. Some guys take longer than that to dig in, even today. The purpose of the limited pickoffs attempts is to speed up the pace of play and improve the running game that was decimated by analytics. Unfortunately the word on the running game hasn’t reached the broadcasters. Few of them even mention baserunners and the cameras almost never show them.
lasted a whole five seconds, tops.
==================
The whole thing was ridiculous. The hitter takes 5 seconds. Then the pitcher shakes off the catcher for 10 seconds, then the hitter has to step out of the box to re-start the process.
Then the pitcher decides to throw over to 1st a couple of times, because you can’t have Papi taking too big a lead. So then the catcher has to make his mandatory trip to the mound.
Funny how something that was always the same suddenly becomes ridiculous. How does that happen?
Limiting throws over to first to two was the best of all the rules changes. There’s nothing more exciting than watching a pitcher throw over to first 8 times in an at bat. Well, watching pitchers bunt is a close second, but we don’t have to see that anymore either.
They speed up the game with a pitch clock (which I don’t love but it has been effective) to the ghost runner (which I despise) and slow it back down again with replay and every challenge known under the sun.
MPH
The pitch clock took something like 30 minutes off of the game. Replay adds something like 3 minutes back.
Still a huge improvement
Doesn’t mean it doesn’t kill the flow of the game. Not that it matters, MLB baseball hasn’t been real baseball in years.
Weird how many of us still live this “real” game…
MPH
“MLB baseball hasn’t been real baseball in years.”.
You mean since they let black people play?
Or since pitchers started pitching overhand?
Or since catching the ball on a bounce wasn’t an out?
The game changes
this is total overkill
Doesn’t mean it doesn’t kill the flow of the game.
================
IMO, the flow of the game is 100x better. It was sheer torture watching Pedey play with his gloves for 5 minutes, or having Buchholz shake off the catcher 5-6 times, or watching Sanchez visit the mound 1-2 each inning.
Now I get to pay attention. You throw a pitch, you get the ball back, and you throw another pitch.
Between the ABS and now this, why not just hire a judge to sit behind home plate and arbitrate every decision. You could make it a TV judge or something because this is all turning into a circus anyway.
That would make Rockies games interesting for once.
Don’t need ABS to see that one was a swing and a miss.
A judge behind home plate to arbitrate every decision… something like an umpire?
Umpire do not arbitrate every decision, they make the decision in the first place.
Do we need a challenge system in place for everything?
YES. Get the calls right.
Actually no. If we have all this technology that can more accurately determine calls better than a human eye, why not use it? Get the calls right, and just go straight to the tech with as little room for error as possible.
Actually, you are changing the game in unpredictable ways.
BSLA
“Actually, you are changing the game in unpredictable ways.”
And that’s ok
Why is that okay?
Why isn’t it okay?
Why is it not okay to change the game in unpredictable ways is too complicated for you to understand?
BSLA
“Why is it not okay to change the game in unpredictable ways is too complicated for you to understand”
Or is it too complicated for you to support?
Think back to like 6th grade. When you learned to support an assertion. There’s a reason you learned how to do that
Here’s a more college-level form of argument: show how changes you are advocating for the game will produce predictable results, and what those results will be. It’s called a hypothesis. There’s a reason they are used in science.
BSLA
You’re aware that these changes are tested in the minor leagues correct?
And you can’t articulate why you’re against them except for some vague idea that something bad could happen.
np
“Why isn’t it okay?”
Because change is scary. Oooooh
Do we really need a calculator to make sure my numbers are right? Can’t we live with the fact that occasionally 2+2=5? Can’t we live with a little subjectivity?
One more step to eliminating homeplate umpires ruling balls and strikes.
But please bring back cheap bleacher tickets where kids can go with their friends to a game with their allowance money.
Realistically, I don’t see why pretty much everything isn’t already challengable or be determined by technology. We have the tech, why not use it? There really isn’t a good reason not to.
Except for the good reasons not to.
Like what? If there is an option where calls can be as percise as possible, by giving the umpires the technological assistance, why not use it?
Well, for one, it turns the sport into a video game. Which, I realize, some might like. But the more important reason is the game ends up in the land of unintended consequences. An ABS would change the game a lot more than most fans realize, and not because it would make it more “fair.” It would really only make it different than it has been for 150 years. Not better, just different.
You’re using technology to make this outdated comment
What are some of these unintended consequences you think a full ABS would bring?
ABS based on the rulebook strike zone almost doubles walk rates for some pitcher/catcher combos, plus makes many heavily breaking pitches that clip front/back of plate but have never been strikes to naked eye become strikes.
A full ABS baseball is a game with more walks and more strikeouts and less balls in play.
In fact, ABS doesn’t use the rulebook strike zone (it uses a 2D zone) because some pitches clip a 3D strikezone with a massive break for a fraction of second, but have never been called strikes by humans because they are out of zone 99% of time.
BSLA
Which are?
Wow, really?
Pitching is largely, if not mostly, about deception. The kinds of tricks that fool batters are the same as the ones that fool umpires: changes in velocity, break, location, and sequence. Some pitchers vary their arm angles to add another level of deception.
So, here is one example of where we can expect changes. If we’ve watched the game much, we know that pitchers often don’t get the call on a curveball that touches the top of the zone. The reason is obvious, yes? This pitch fools the eye of both the batter and the umpire, but because it often isn’t called a strike, those pitches are used mostly for setups. Fully automate the strike zone and expect to see that pitch thrown a lot more.
We can debate whether this is bad or good. But my point is, the game will change in unexpected ways, and in ways that are not necessarily better for it, just different.
To me, that doesn’t seem like a good or bad change, but what is a good change is that the call is correct much more often than it currently is. The ultimate end goal should be to get the most accurate call as possible without sacrificing the identity of the game, and it doesn’t really seem like any of these changes would drastically change the identity of baseball in the Untied States.
The ultimate goal in my book is enjoyment of the game. The funny/sad part of this discussion is that it takes place with so little context or sense of the game’s history. Baseball has not needed any of these changes for 150 years, so why now? The answer, I guess, is marketing baseball to the short attention spans of the video game generation. This is a tragedy, IMO, because it focuses so much attention on outcomes over the beauty of the game itself. The more baseball becomes like a machine, and more mechanical, the less enjoyable it is to watch. It’s art that some are trying to turn into a science.
Well during the late-1800s, when baseball first started, pitchers had to throw under-handed, and batters could request if they wanted the pitch high/low. I’m sure sone baseball fans were not happy that was changing. Then in 1920, the spitball was completley banned. A pitch a non-insigificant amount of pitchers were using just suddenly outlawed. I’m sure there were a ton of fans then calling it ridiclous. In 1935, MLB started having night games. In 1959, MLB began having mininum ballpark dimensions. Then in 1969, MLB lowered the mound. Then in the 1970s, free agency and the DH became a thing. In 2014, challenges finally became a thing in baseball. Ovbiously in 2023, the pitch clock and other sets of rules were implemented, and attendance per game hasn’t just recovered from COVID seasons, but has surpassed some pre-COVID seasons.
Whether you like it or not, but baseball, like most sports, is ever-changing. New rules are being implemented every few years, new technology is being used. Crossing your arms, planting your feet and going “Well things shouldn’t change” is how things don’t grow and adapt.
In most cases, the rule changes make the game better and more enjoyable. I don’t enjoy when a player is screwed over when an umpire makes a bad call. I don’t think many fans enjoy when umpires make bad calls.
Also, I don’t get what beauty and art from the game is being taken away from giving umpires the technical assist on calls. Have you ever went “Wow, that’s so awesome the umpire missed that call,” because I haven’t. It’s like a construction crew refusing to use tools from post-World War II because that’s when real art in building design was made.
I may not be young but I can report I was not watching baseball in the 1800s. If you don’t get any else I am saying about the game, then I have nothing further I can discuss with you on the subject.
If you want to call catcher framing a form of art, fair enough. I was a huge proponent of catcher framing, and I still think it’s an important skill. I didn’t want an ABS because of it. But let’s be honest; catcher framing isn’t built on a stable foundation. The idea of catcher framing is tricking umpires, and making them call where the ball ends up in the catcher’s mitt, rather than if/where it crosses homeplate (where they should be making the call).
You were the one who brought up baseball’s 150+ year history: “Baseball has not needed any of these changes for 150 years,” even though baseball has changed a lot in those 150 years. 150 years ago was 1876. The point I’m trying to make is that baseball has always been changing throughout all of our lives and since the inception of the game. Changes have been happening since the 1800s, the 1950s, and the 2010s. We can’t be acting like changes 10, 30, 50, 100+ years ago were good, but changes now are bad.
BSLA
“If you don’t get any else I am saying about the game, then I have nothing further I can discuss with you on the subject.”
I’m not even on your lawn
Yeah well don’t even think of getting on it!
I brought up the long history of the game for the simple reason that a lot of what many contemporary fans think is tremendously and ridiculously wrong with the game today has been a huge part of it over this entire time. Today’s fans did not invent complaining about officiating, and it is certainly not worse than it ever was. In fact, I suspect that it’s a lot better today than it was historically. This is where the lack of perspective comes in.
Note that this point has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the game has been altered in other ways. The largest changes in the game recently are due to the impacts of analytics. You might notice that these changes have been made to the rules in order to return gameplay closer to what it was before analytics, if with limited success. But that is their purpose, for the most part.
So, I am not acting like anything.
BSLA
“You might notice that these changes have been made to the rules in order to return gameplay closer to what it was before analytics:
Then what are you complaining about?
I agree that officating is the best it’s ever been. It’s pretty much a known fact umpires are better at calling balls/strikes than ever before. Last year, pitches inside the zone were called a ball just 2.1% of the time, compared to 4.4% of the time when pitch tracking first started in 2008. Pitches outside the zone were called a strike just 1.6% of the time, compared to 4.2% in 2008. Pretty much only about 6% of calls were wrong in 2025 compared to 8.6% in 2008. However, that doesn’t mean things can’t be better. Using the automated ABS would probably cut that down from about 6% to below 2-3%, maybe even more.
Um, what? Is this the place where you try to make me repeat everything I already said?
BSLA
Yes
But this time with some substance behind it.
“Don’t change things to try to make them like they were when baseball was better because something unknown might happen” is
1) your argument as I understand it
2) a pretty poor argument
If I’ve misunderstood it, try to spell your argument out better
That’s right, umpires watch video replays. They also want to up their game because it isn’t easy to be promoted to the majors. In fact, it’s a very long, hard road. Nearly every fan loves to hate on umpires (a tradition as old as baseball), but it’s also true that umpires spend a lot more time in the minors than ballplayers do. This doesn’t mean every umpire who is promoted to major leagues is great, just like it doesn’t mean that every player who makes it to the majors is great. But they sure weren’t found in the parking lot of the nearest Home Depot, as you might think to hear some tell it.
If you can read The Athletic, I highly recommend this story:
nytimes.com/athletic/7122786/2026/03/17/mlb-catche…
They talk to catchers about the added layer of knowledge the pitch challenge system adds to their game. Some believe catchers will experiment with faking bad frames in order to get a batter to waste a challenge, among other possible outcomes. The story includes this line near the end: “But there is general agreement that it’s too early to predict every consequence of the new technology.”
I only read this story today, but this is exactly what I argued before: Changes made to the game come with unpredictable consequences. So, be careful what you wish for. You might get it.
BSLA
Ok?
This was your first post after being asked to explain what the “good reasons” not to use technology were
“Well, for one, it turns the sport into a video game. Which, I realize, some might like. But the more important reason is the game ends up in the land of unintended consequences. An ABS would change the game a lot more than most fans realize, and not because it would make it more “fair.” It would really only make it different than it has been for 150 years. Not better, just different.”
Ok. It does not turn the sport into a video game. That doesn’t even mean anything.
And then because some unknown things MIGHT happen? One of which is the catcher trying to trick the batter?
Why do you think that that is a good reason not to try technology?
You’ve just stated how difficult it is to be an umpire. Which is one of the big reasons to use this technology. To help them make the right call.
Either way, I don’t think we should not make changes with the fear of a potential unintended consequence. Standing idol and doing nothing if you have a solution to a potential problem because you may not be able to predict every consequence isn’t a good enough reason not to at least try to implement it imo. If you can implement a fully automated strikezone, where there is a <1% chance of the call being wrong, I think you do it. I don't think this drastically changes the identity of baseball or Major League Baseball, and the consequences can always be dealt with later if they are truly that drastic.
I’m not going to lie to you; the thought of a rule change bringing about a bad unintended consequence is a scary thought. It would ovbiously be bad for the game. However, there’s plenty of good news. MLB hasn’t made a rule change that has hurt the game in a truly horrible manner. The game is growing in popularity again, and this is the most exciting product MLB has had on the field in a long time. MLB’s rule book is not the Ten Commandments. They’re not set in stone. If there ever was a rule change that was truly and majorly detrimental to the game, it can be changed, new rules can be added, and old ones can be taken out.
Ultimatley, I don’t see the potential unintended consequences as large enough of a worry to not change how balls/strikes are called. If we were scared of the unintended consequences of every change, nothing would ever change.
My idea is too extreme, but I’d just get rid of check swing so you either swing or don’t even take bat off shoulder.
I’ve always wanted it you be, if you flinch, you swung. That won’t work in the current pitching velocity and break world, but why are we making the role more forgiving here? Why not if the bat crosses 90 with the plate.
Offense sells
Good luck with making that rule work for bunts, or for any other purpose, really. The general “rule” (because no rule currently exists) is whether the batter could have put the ball in play had he made contact. Careful what rule you’d like to see because yours might turn the game into something closer to cricket.
to
“I’ve always wanted it you be, if you flinch, you swung.”
I’m the opposite. The rule is something like “attempted to bat the ball”. If you stop your swing you didn’t attempt to bat the ball. Not a swing
This just shows the Major league baseball really doesn’t have a lot of faith in their own umpires. I don’t have a problem with it because it’s only gonna be one time possibly two times a game. Maybe it’ll create umpires with a little bit more focus just out of embarrassment.
A completely silly argument.
ML
“This just shows the Major league baseball really doesn’t have a lot of faith in their own umpires”
Or
That realize it’s a super hard job and check swings are super subjective and they just want to make their job easier and make the rule more objective
Both but getting it right as the main thing
I have faith in umpires. Just not C.B. Bucknor.
How about if the bat enters the strike zone, it’s a swing. I mean, if the ball enters the strike zone, it’s a strike. So why not be consistent?
I realize that’s tricky because you can swing completely out of the strike zone.
But the 44 degree angle not being a swing?
I’ve been a fan so long that I remember when Pythagoras led the league in triples.
The strike zone is deeeep though. It’s a 3D cubelike shape, not a flat square like General Zod got trapped in in Superman II.
It’s a non-regular pentagonal prism. But technically if a pitch enters it anywhere, that pitch is a strike. So my premise is to do the same with the bat. If it enters the strike zone, it’s a swing. Both of these things can be EASILY done with technology. The only “difficulty” is measuring the height of the aforementioned prism. That height should be fixed beforehand for each batter, again easily accomplished. Then the powers that be, as silly as they are, can bicker over exactly where the zone starts and ends on the batter’s body. If it can be tweaked, they will tweak it. Because THAT’s how more people will watch baseball.
Strike zone change!!!!! Details at 11.
Why don’t we just scrap live players and replace them with AI representation on television. This would save money, everything would be accurate, and more like Fehrenheit 451. In reality, MLB is trying it’s best to remove the human factor, the ability for players, managers, and umps that make mistakes. It is ok to get it wrong and live by the error someone makes. That is real life.
This.
CCC
“Why don’t we just scrap live players and replace them with AI representation on television”
What absurd point so these people think they are making
Do they not see a difference between playing a sport and officiating it?
Life is a game. Baseball is real.
This I hope will be for the last time. The game has changed. It’s not the same game as it was 30, 40, 50 years ago. The players are bigger, faster, stronger than they were then. Computers and analysis have changed the way the game is played. Increase velocity has increased strike outs, but shortened pitcher stamina. Strikeouts are here to stay as helps get kids through the minors
I’m waiting for the historic new check swing rule during a golden at-bat with a ghost runner on base. What a great time to be a fan. Not.
If you are a purest you should love this change – all these called swings are a product of the last 20 years – check swings were much more liberal traditionally.
People who prefer the Traditional Game should oppose all of these idiotic rules that are turning the game into more like a Video Game & away from the Traditional Game & you are not a Traditional Baseball Fan
RM
Nope. I’m not a TBF. F tradition. Almost always
F the People who hates the Traditional Game of Baseball & let all of you fools stick with the Video Game & leave the Real Game alone
Muted
45 degrees is an absurd standard and a terrible band.
98 degrees is clearly a swing
My question is, why do we even need umpires?
Good question. I dont think anyone goes to watch them. A guy like Angel Hernandez was a menace.
Tennis got rid of line judges and presto no more arguing over line calls and every call is 100% accurate. The focus is on the players, where it should be.
I was going to bring up the tennis tech. The challenge system I want to see would be foul line sensors. Fair foul is a tough call too and there is a clear rule. Yet I haven’t heard of any testing of a fair/foul challenge.
If you move second base closer to the mound, the catcher’s throw is shorter too
I like the 45 degree rule and re-entry for minor league pitchers.
The check swing has been arbitrary forever. Time to fix it. And might as well use technology. Having an ump standing down at the corner bases 90 ft away and trying to judge a bat moving very quickly is all but impossible.
Complete & Utter BS
We need a rule regarding batting stance. Some have a wide stance and some have a more closed stance. Everything should be the same.
And size, too. No batters under 5-10 or over 6-3.
Soon, baseball will be perfect.
>the 45° threshold
Is way too much. (There are videos.)
This is clearly an attempt to boost offence.
Disagree – at 45% there is virtually no chance of putting the ball in play. Watch some video from the 50’s to 80’s – swings were called far less often and it forced pitchers to throw strikes
It’s not 45%, it is 45° (degrees). Very big difference.
@tuck You’re actually agreeing with him. Fewer called strikes is an attempt to boost offense
back between the 50’s & 80’s there were less catchers asking to check with the 1st or 3rd Base Umpires on swings & even through the 90’s there was less requests to check with those Umpires
Excessive Ks on minimal check swings, especially as compared to 40 years ago, has been my least favorite part of baseball for years. Have never understood why it is subject to replay. More important though is the change of the standards, cause I think 1/3 of the call swings should be eliminated.
More players are asking to check with the 1st base or 3rd base Umpires than they did 40 years ago
This guy can’t go a single season without changing the rules. Soon MLB will be like the NFL, with countless game stoppages examining the minutiae of every play in the neverending but futile quest for absolute perfect fairness.
This is so unnecessary.
“check-swing challenge”
Please file under Rules That Don’t Need Changing
Or, under Rules That Don’t Exist.
Great to finally see a definition on check swing, it won’t help hitters a ton but some extra leeway isn’t a bad thing, closer to the old standards where check swings were rarely called. Fewer disengagements is a decent rule to encourage more steals, but I’m definitely not a fan of shifting second base to create an oblong diamond, sounds unnecessarily difficult for 2B/SS in exchange for more steals, or more likely faster first-to-third times. Counting pitchcom issues as a mound visit is also probably best since everyone was faking technical issues for free timeouts lol.
If you cut a sector out of circle and form it into a cone, there’s an angle that yields a cone with maximum volume. 360 degrees minus that angle should be the angle that causes tha batter to have a swinging strike. That way you can market ice cream at the ball game while passing some silly new rule for America’s Pasttime. And you can use calculus to solve the problem because everyone loves to use the word calculus. It makes them sound smart and will attract more fans to baseball.
I’ve been mentioning this for years. Tired of umpire interpretation of what is or isn’t a check swing and Superstars getting booted out of a game for arguing. Bryce Harper is a good example
Players don’t deserve special treatment just because they are considered superstars, They should have to follow the Rules just like the bench warmer & if they say any of the magic words then they should be tossed out. Bryce Harper thinks he should be treated special even though he is no better than any other player. He’s nothing more than a spoiled Rotten brat
RM
“Bryce Harper thinks he should be treated special even though he is no better than any other player.”
Citation requested
Yes I said that Bryce Harper thinks he deserves special treatment
Angel Hernandez….. need I say anything more?
You already said too much. His lawyers will be handing you some paperwork shortly.
MLB is turning into a video game ffs
gloves
No. It isn’t
It would be nice to get rid of incompetent umpires who make half $1 million a year making lots of bad calls
Since we know Manfred reads this, how about changing the hit by pitch rule to include the body, not merely the loose fabric of a uniform? And make the call reviewable as to whether the ball hit the players body and did they attempt to get out of the way?
I have always thought (and I have no idea if anyone agrees) that an attempt should be deemed a swing once the bat moves beyond being parallel with the rear if he plate. Clean contact with the ball with a bat parallel with the back line of the plate will put the ball in fair territory, so it’s a logical demarcation line.
Ohtani could hit a ball to the wall on a 45degree check swing
MLB should give up on playing the Real Game of Baseball & just go to all Video Game Baseball because that is what they are on a very fast path to end the Real Game of Baseball. Rob Manfred is 100% working to destroy the REAL Game of Baseball & he can’t destroy it fast enough
No. He’s not
What a ridiculous thing to say
Yes he is & thanks for letting everyone know that you prefer the Video Game of Baseball than the Real Game itself