what do the scarlet knight fans think of it?
https://sports.yahoo.com/radical-ne...a-college-basketball-intrigued-143141174.html
https://sports.yahoo.com/radical-ne...a-college-basketball-intrigued-143141174.html
Elam Ending
- Thread starter HallX2
- Start date
interesting for sure..... but it is such a radical change, I doubt it would ever be gone to.
as it is now, end games can get ugly with a few minutes to go, in a close game..... I don't mind the fouling and slow down, if the game is actually pretty close..... it IS annoying when a team is down be quite a bit, and appears out of contention, and still fouls when all appears lost..... but that is the
coaches call.....
I would leave it as is
edit:.... your friends on the Hall board make a couple of good points..... a team could be up 20 with 4 minutes to go, and would and should be on their way to victory, but then would still need 7 more, and lose a game they should have won
also, the team ahead could hit a couple of 3 pointers and get the seven points quickly, well before the usual 4 minutes played, maybe ending the game which would have had 2 minutes for the trailing team to respond.
as it is now, end games can get ugly with a few minutes to go, in a close game..... I don't mind the fouling and slow down, if the game is actually pretty close..... it IS annoying when a team is down be quite a bit, and appears out of contention, and still fouls when all appears lost..... but that is the
coaches call.....
I would leave it as is
edit:.... your friends on the Hall board make a couple of good points..... a team could be up 20 with 4 minutes to go, and would and should be on their way to victory, but then would still need 7 more, and lose a game they should have won
also, the team ahead could hit a couple of 3 pointers and get the seven points quickly, well before the usual 4 minutes played, maybe ending the game which would have had 2 minutes for the trailing team to respond.
Last edited:
the choice of 7 points seems pretty arbitrary. Is it based upon a study of what commonly occurs in terms of scoring during the last 4 minutes?
I agree with the comment about the team that is leading quickly scoring the seven points and having the game end prior to the 40 minutes. It that fair to the team that is trailing? Rutgers mens' basketball fans will well remember how disappointing it can be to have a game end before 40 minutes are up, while the fans of the Rutgers women will remember what it's like to have a game extend beyond 40 minutes without it being overtime!
I agree with the comment about the team that is leading quickly scoring the seven points and having the game end prior to the 40 minutes. It that fair to the team that is trailing? Rutgers mens' basketball fans will well remember how disappointing it can be to have a game end before 40 minutes are up, while the fans of the Rutgers women will remember what it's like to have a game extend beyond 40 minutes without it being overtime!
One strategy would be to rest all of your starters before the 8-minute TV timeout to after the 4-minute TV timeout. Each game essentially becomes a sprint to the finish, so you want your best horses rested for that final stretch.
TV would love this because it guarantees that all games end with a certain timeframe. It would be a TV programmer’s dream come true to have all college games end in less than 2 hours and all NBA games less than 2:30. Also the players’ union will love the idea of no more overtime games.
TV would love this because it guarantees that all games end with a certain timeframe. It would be a TV programmer’s dream come true to have all college games end in less than 2 hours and all NBA games less than 2:30. Also the players’ union will love the idea of no more overtime games.
unless both teams go into a horrible scoring drought.....I have seen many a college game start with neither getting much scoring for quite a while.... a game could drag out also.
This is interesting. It’s akin to playing pickup where sometimes a quick late streak ends the game somewhat abruptly or the game drags on forever because guys can’t score.
7 points in 4 minutes seems about right. It extrapolates into 70 points for a whole game.
And if this rule was ever adopted, of course all scenarios would be fair, because the rules are understood by both teams before the game. It’s fair if the winning teams wins within 30 seconds or a team down 20 scores 21 points in a row to win.
I would like to see this Elam Ending tried more because the constant fouling at the end of the game changes the game play a lot, in my opinion. I don’t believe the intentional fouling is how the last few minutes of the game were designed to be played. Let’s see it play out more before we judge it either way.
I'm a purist in all cases. I don't think MLB should ban shifts (as they are considering) and I don't think the Elam ending is necessary. If players were better foul shooters, defenses wouldn't be so quick to foul them.
Or, how about refs actually call intentional fouls so that the O gets the ball back. The rule exists. Use it.
Or, how about refs actually call intentional fouls so that the O gets the ball back. The rule exists. Use it.
I've read a couple articles on this, and it really seems interesting - I'd definitely watch a tournament that ended this way, but I don't know if I'd be sold on a regular season yet.
Every game ends on a made basket, which is a big plus - and the endgame scenario becomes much more about offense/defense than it does about fouling and time outs/clock management.
Every game ends on a made basket, which is a big plus - and the endgame scenario becomes much more about offense/defense than it does about fouling and time outs/clock management.
hot garbage, IMO
Someone will find a way to game that system
Also, you're turning the 30:00-36:00 or so into basically an end game situation. You want to either extend it to something unmanageable (20+) or down to a low figure. It would really disrupt the flow of the game post halftime, IMO.
These games are ebb and flow, to arbitrarily end that at a point would kill it.
Someone will find a way to game that system
Also, you're turning the 30:00-36:00 or so into basically an end game situation. You want to either extend it to something unmanageable (20+) or down to a low figure. It would really disrupt the flow of the game post halftime, IMO.
These games are ebb and flow, to arbitrarily end that at a point would kill it.
Don't like it. It takes away the excitement of the buzzer beaters. While I do get frustrated by a parade of fouls and wouldn't be against exploring ways to eliminate, I don't think this is the answer. Person deserves some credit though for thinking outside the box (or the foul lane for this topic).
I do think MLB needs to take a look a rules against the shifts. Baseball is getting to be unwatchable at times. Maybe require two fielders on each side of second base and 4 infielders that to have both feet on the dirt. Saw a 1/2 inning the other day that was the worst. Pitcher both walked the bases loaded and struck out the side. Basically it was a 30-40 minute half inning where nothing happened.
Maybe hit em where they ain’t. Problem solved. Managers are absolute cowards for not demanding hitters take a cheap single by taking advantage of a shift. Mark Teixeira went from a possible Hall Of Famer to a lousy hitter for average by stubbornly refusing to keep infielders honest and punching the ball to the open field every once in a while. If this was football those offensive coordinators would be exploiting this defensive weakness all day but baseball managers won’t do it.
Hit them where they ain’t.... you make it sound so easy. The shift really hurts the game. It’s annoying. In football you have illegal formations. Baseball should do something.
When they essentially vacate one half of the infield it shouldn’t be hard to put the ball in play there. Not asking a guy to hit a line drive. They don’t even try. THAT is maddening. And they don’t try regardless of score or situation.
See, I think it's the opposite. It ups the excitement rather than takes any away by giving every game a "sudden death" feel.
While you don't get a "will he get the shot off or not" element of a buzzer beater, a player's shot is *always* what ends the game - and the scramble to sink that last shot (or prevent it and get your own opportunity) brings more excitement to the end of every game.
One thing it would do is eliminate the concept of overtime completely.
That’s totally false. I see guys try all the time. Again, it’s not easy when pitchers are busting hitters inside with 94-96 mph 2 seam fastballs.
Don’t disagree there are plenty of times batters need to take what they are given.
I love the idea of taking the clock out of the endgame. With the Elam ending, a team is never out of a game.
Sure, but the Elam ending puts that desperation into regular time of every single game. It makes every game sudden death.
Like I said, would totally watch a tournament with this setup to see how it feels live. Not sold on wholesale changes, but it's an intriguing concept.
Are you serious? More government to make more rules?
How about the batter hits the ball where the fielders can’t get it?
Last edited:
Football has illegal shifts/illegal formations. It’s the same thing. Please excuse me if I’m tired of seeing line drives up the middle caught. Again, it’s not as simple as hitting the ball the other way.
Why isn't it?
You should see some of the shifts used in cricket. Way more dramatic (in terms of moving the players around) than in baseball. "Silly mid off" puts a guy about six feet (well, 2 metres) from the batter (striker).
Hit 'em where they ain't or have a seat.
As to Elam, I like the boldness of it. Don't really think it's much of a problem to solve. If you want to make it somewhat less frequent, make all fouls after a certain number (say, 12), be three shots.
The Rutgers uKnighted team had this happen during their one and only game in The Basketball Tournament last year (it was only for the play-in games, not the full tournament like this year). It was... interesting. They were down 13 points when the clock turned off but actually staged a pretty nice comeback and only lost by 3.
College basketball has some endgame problems but this is too drastic a solution for me. I'd rather see them limit timeouts and give teams the option to decline a non-shooting foul and instead inbound the ball with a 20-second shot clock.
College basketball has some endgame problems but this is too drastic a solution for me. I'd rather see them limit timeouts and give teams the option to decline a non-shooting foul and instead inbound the ball with a 20-second shot clock.
Don't like the idea. If you want to change something maybe let the team that got fouled choose their own player to shoot the foul shots.
This would limit the need to constantly change in offense and defense subs, put your best foul shooter on the line for all the shots, might make the team less likely to foul down 10 with 30 seconds left. But I wouldn't change a thing, game goes by quick enough, don't understand the need to speed everything up.
This would limit the need to constantly change in offense and defense subs, put your best foul shooter on the line for all the shots, might make the team less likely to foul down 10 with 30 seconds left. But I wouldn't change a thing, game goes by quick enough, don't understand the need to speed everything up.
I also like the idea of 3 foul shots after 12 team fouls.
Good article on hitting against the shift, from the players' perspective.
Daniel Murphy:
"I heard Joe Maddon say, 'You have three choices: You can try to hit it and beat the shift. That's going to give you a single, but now you're doing something against what you're best at, so the defense wins. You can hit into the shift, and the defense wins. Or you can try not to let the infielders catch the batted ball. No ground balls and no popups. Try to stand on second base.' That's Option C."
Kyle Seager:
"It goes back to the question of 'How can I help the team the most?' Am I going to help the team the most over the course of the season hitting weak ground balls to shortstop [for a single]? I'm not a guy who steals a bunch of bases, so you're relying on a few hits to score me. If I try to drive the ball and I hit a double, it only takes one hit to score me. I definitely understand how people can look at it and say, 'Man, just hit a ball to the left side.' But there are a lot of different arguments to it.
Matt Carpenter:
"Think about which hitters teams shift against. They shift on guys who drive the ball. By trying to hit a ground ball to short -- which is the one spot on the infield where you would be able to beat the shift -- that's exactly what they want you to do."
What none of these guys acknowledge is that if you hit a few to the opposite field against the shift, they'll have to abandon the shift. Can't see why the defense shouldn't be allowed to maximize its effectiveness.
But what those guys were trying to get across is that the defense *wants* you to try to hit away from the shift. They want these power line drive hitters to try to hit against their natural strengths and become lower-average single-hitters, who are much more likely to both a) get stranded on base, and b) drive in fewer runs.
It's like forcing a point guard to go to his left hand - sure, he can take what the defense is giving him, but the defense is giving him that for a reason. Namely, it's a way to reduce the effectiveness of that player and limit his ability to make plays and put points on the board.
My point is that they are dead wrong. Any hitter who can decently punch a ball to the opposite field reliably will eliminate the shift against him within about a week. The notion that if you hit a single, the defense wins, is about as dumb a comment as I can imagine. Why not just walk the guy every time he comes up?
Sometimes you want to hit for power, but often, a single is all that is needed.
They don't shift guys when "a single is all that is needed"- it's used situationally.
Putting a shift on and forcing a batter to try to bat against his tendencies and against his strengths makes him a worse batter - and that's what the defense wants. Further forcing him into singles instead of power hits is even better - because when he does connect (likely at a lower average than usual, because he's trying to hit differently than his usual rhythm), it does less damage.
If you can get a guy to hit a single when he would have otherwise hit a double or better, the defense is ahead. Teams only average 7.5-9.5 hits per game, and the average 6-8 left on base per game. If you can keep guys to singles instead of HRs or doubles, you have an advantage.
And "any hitter who can decently punch a ball to the opposite field reliably" doesn't get shifted in the first place.
If it were as cut and dry as you want to make it seem, shifting wouldn't happen at all.
Some guys get shifted on over 80% of the time. What I'm saying is that if you don't want to get shifted on, learn how to hit to the opposite field. The "I can't hit that way so they shouldn't be allowed to shift against me" sounds like "We should all get trophies."
Obviously the shift works, because teams wouldn't do it if it didn't. Batters have to adjust. Should the slider be banned because it is hard to hit? As my kiwi buds say, "Take a concrete pill and harden up."
The guy who saw the most shifts last year was Anthony Rizzo, who saw 370 in 572 at bats (65%). He still hit .273 with 32 HR and 109 RBI.
Clearly with those numbers, he should be looking for more singles against the shift, I guess?
Houston puts the shift on more than any other team... I'm sure it's no big thing to pull singles against the shift when facing Justin Verlander. Why doesn't everyone do that, and then let the next two guys hit singles, too, to get you around the bases?
You want this to be a black and white thing because you don't like the shift - but it's not as simple as you want to make it seem.
? I like the shift. I've been arguing against banning it. That's why I said, "Can't see why the defense shouldn't be allowed to maximize its effectiveness."
The shift is on the rise. See below from NBC Sports:
"A look at which MLB players with at least 100 plate appearances have faced the most defensive shifts this season according to stats compiled through May 23 by mlb.com, which defines a shift as when three or more infielders are on the same side of second base.
Player/Team Pct. PA BA*
Chris Davis/BAL 91.2 171 .154
Joey Gallo/TEX 90.5 185 .197
C. Granderson/TOR 87.4 127 .245
Justin Smoak/TOR 85.5 124 .248
Matt Carpenter/STL 83.8 167 .199"
Some thoughts from Chipper Jones (emphasis added):
"You know, it's a free enterprise. You put those seven guys out there behind the pitcher wherever you want. I would've welcomed a shift because that would've inside-outed the heck out of everything. I would've eaten that shift up. I think it takes a conscious effort by hitters to be able to make the adjustment."
http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/24267936/is-positionless-baseball-mlb-next-big-thing
“Everybody wants to hit the ball in the gap and out of the ballpark now instead of taking the measly single. I think you’ve seen over the last week or two with this ballclub here in Atlanta, heck, a well-timed ground ball could’ve helped them win a ballgame that they didn’t. So a little more attention to the fundamentals would go a long way for a lot of people around the game.”
https://www.ajc.com/sports/baseball...bout-shifts-were-lazy/WvsSSqhCXuW7fK1UzLHMQL/
