Article: Possible MLB Rule Changes: Universal DH? Roster size? Anti-tanking?

[IndianaTwin]

 

It doesn't solve all your problems, but reddit streams are a beautiful way to say "screw you" to sports leagues and get to watch your favorite teams.

 

Could you start a "Reddit for Dummies" stream? 

[biggentleben]

 

Pace isn't just a problem of game length. It's also about too frequent periods of inaction. 

 

Then no one should ever watch football. The ball is in play for roughly 7-12 minutes of an average 3 hours on a Sunday. There's more than just the "lack of activity" as any baseball fan knows there's constant activity between pitches going on, just like there is between plays in football.

[biggentleben]

 

Want to end tanking? Put relegation, like in Premier league in soccer. Worst team is out of MLB. (Can play in a lesser league). A variation could be the worst team of the last three years, or something like that. I know owners would never agree to that, but it is a sure way to end the tanking.

 

Nah, teams put enough value into their draft picks that if you threaten the draft picks, international pool money, AND revenue sharing money for teams that don't spend to a certain level, you'd get a pretty universal response.

[biggentleben]

 

With no runners on base, I wouldn't allow them to do this. With runners on, I think I'd require a pickoff throw.

 

This is the case in the minor leagues. You barely notice the pitch clock at all.

 

The extra inning rules, on the other hand....

[RIP BYTO]

The one rule I have always wanted is that ALL players must go through the draft process.  Teams being able to bid on foreign players that have never played for an MLB team is unfair to small market teams.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Then no one should ever watch football. The ball is in play for roughly 7-12 minutes of an average 3 hours on a Sunday. There's more than just the "lack of activity" as any baseball fan knows there's constant activity between pitches going on, just like there is between plays in football.

 

I'm not sure many people would agree with you that the time between plays in football is at all comparable to the time between action in baseball.  

 

If you count a football play vs. an outcome to an at-bat there is FAR more downtime in baseball.  If you're trying to count a football play to the time between pitches....then you're unfairly comparing apples to oranges.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Then no one should ever watch football. The ball is in play for roughly 7-12 minutes of an average 3 hours on a Sunday. There's more than just the "lack of activity" as any baseball fan knows there's constant activity between pitches going on, just like there is between plays in football.

Comparing to football is apples and oranges. It's a whole different experience.

 

Within the context of baseball, there is no "activity" between pitches with no one on base that can't easily fit within 20 seconds.

[TheLeviathan]

 

 I am totally with you.  Everyone wants to see mighty Casey bat whether he hits a home run or strikes out. The raw emotion of that moment, the suspense, the glimmer of hope, beats a pitcher coming to bat.  Yeah, yeah strategy and all that is fine for the mind-numbing numbers people but for shear excitement take the DH.

 

Mighty Casey

 

Thing is, it's not really "strategy".  I can't think of a comparable analogy in another sport, but it'd be like forcing your kicker to play QB for a play and teams punt the play before just to avoid the awfulness of it.  That's what most of the vaunted NL strategy boils down to: how do we give up outs or topsy-turvy our lineup to avoid this awful thing that isn't at all like actual baseball.

[cmoss84]

To help pace of play, lower price of beer.

DH I'm torn. One of my favorite moments at a Twins game was seeing Ervin Santana clear the bases in San Francisco.I enjoy watching pitchers hit. But I also don't mind the idea of 15 more mashers who would have otherwise been out a job.

I wish service time and arbitration would change dramatically. I'm all for a much more incentives and bonuses based contract structuring system.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Want to end tanking? Put relegation, like in Premier league in soccer. Worst team is out of MLB. (Can play in a lesser league). A variation could be the worst team of the last three years, or something like that. I know owners would never agree to that, but it is a sure way to end the tanking.

 

I'm sure tv would keep paying the same...

 

This just isn't realistic at all.

[Mike Sixel]

 

The one rule I have always wanted is that ALL players must go through the draft process.  Teams being able to bid on foreign players that have never played for an MLB team is unfair to small market teams.

 

I'd rather teams had a pool of money to spend, and they can bid using that pool. Drafts are inherently bad for player income.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Then no one should ever watch football. The ball is in play for roughly 7-12 minutes of an average 3 hours on a Sunday. There's more than just the "lack of activity" as any baseball fan knows there's constant activity between pitches going on, just like there is between plays in football.

 

Of course, we get three angles of replays, so it seems like there is action......

 

But, sit at a game? Awful for pace of play......

[Mike Sixel]

Fangraphs has a poll up, if anyone wants to vote.....

[Thrylos]

 

Fangraphs has a poll up, if anyone wants to vote.....

 

Link here, if you are interested:

 

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/lets-talk-about-a-bunch-of-proposed-changes-to-baseball/

 

 

[BD57]

are you going to pair "No pinch-hitting" with "3 batter minimum"?

[Guest]

 

While it might seem that way, it's not so. Pitching changes are not responsible for the bulk of slowdowns or increased game length. It's simply extra idle time between pitches that is adding up:

 

https://www.sbnation.com/a/mlb-2017-season-preview/game-length

 

Edit to add: one can still be opposed to pitching changes and modern SP/RP usage, of course, on aesthetic grounds. But it's not really a primary driver of pace or game length issues.

(If this has already been mentioned since this comment was posted, I apologize for being repetitive.)

 

To be clear, the sbnation article focused on two games played years apart, neither of which included a bunch of mid-inning pitching changes. As the author himself points out ("That’s it. That’s the secret. It isn’t just the commercials. It isn’t just the left-handed pitchers coming in to face one batter, even though that absolutely makes a huge difference in the games when that does happen"), the primary difference between THOSE SPECIFIC GAMES was the time between pitches, but that doesn't mean that games that DO include mid-inning pitching changes wouldn't ALSO cause significant pace of play issues.

 

I'm actually ok with all of the proposed changes.

 

I didn't like shot clock proposals a year ago, but I've seen nothing that indicates they were a problem. 

 

I've been for adopting the DH across baseball for a long time. Pitchers can't hit. Period. It's boring to watch them try. 

 

I'm also fine with the 3-batter minimum... with some exceptions. End of inning nullifies it. Any pinch hitter sent up also allows the defending manager to make a corresponding pitching change.

 

If a pitcher has to leave the game due to "injury" before he's thrown to 3 batters, that's fine - but, by rule, that team can't use that pitcher for the next 2 (or maybe even 3) games. If you want to replace him on your roster, fine, put him on the DL.

 

Sure, add a spot or two to active rosters. But also limit the size of the pitching staff so that additional spot isn't used for yet another RP.

 

And, yes, limit September rosters to 28. I know we like to see prospects get a shot in September, but this one issue is huge where equity of scheduling comes into play. If you're contending for a postseason spot and the team you're contending with has a September schedule of full of non-contenders using AA-AAA players, that is not equitable. If you limit the roster to 28, then at least no team is going to trot out a whole lineup full of minor leaguers most of the month of September.

[Guest]

 

Anti-Tanking - Of the teams that didn’t make the playoffs, the team with the best record gets first overall pick. Descend through the picks until you get to the worst-record team. The remaining picks in the first round are awarded to the playoff teams in the same order as today. Dissuades tanking. Helps fringe teams get over the hump.
 

I actually like this proposal as well as, or better than, anything else I've seen. Might also make GMs think twice about getting rid of their stars at mid-season because they might want to compete with the other also-rans late in the year.

[Guest]

 

I know that the players would like to impose penalties to teams with a bad record, but I suspect that the league would counter with hard salary caps and floors, and they will not like it a bit.  

Those things have to go together.

That's clearly the case for anything that has to be included in the CBA. But the players gave the Commissioner the authority to unilaterally adopt changes in certain circumstances and anyone should have known how that would wind up turning out.

 

So the Commissioner will get to implement SOME of the owner-preferred changes without having to give corresponding concessions to the union on other issues to get them. By the time the next CBA is negotiated, the status quo will have shifted.

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

I actually like this proposal as well as, or better than, anything else I've seen. Might also make GMs think twice about getting rid of their stars at mid-season because they might want to compete with the other also-rans late in the year.

Reducing one way to add more talent, by trade.

[biggentleben]

 

Of course, we get three angles of replays, so it seems like there is action......

 

But, sit at a game? Awful for pace of play......

 

That's just it. There's plenty of moving and shifting going on between pitches, even with no one on base, but between plays in football, it's a constant loop of the last play. With baseball, the coverage immediately cuts off replay the moment the pitcher goes into motion, so unless they know they have a moment, they don't throw a replay up.

[Mike Sixel]

Moving and shifting in baseball is more boring than football. Plus, you can't really see it.

[jorgenswest]

My interest is anything that improves pace of play and adds generates debate about in game strategy. I also want to see great play from skilled players.

 

Going outside the box I suggest trying...

 

1) eliminate DH

2) in its place allow all starters one re-entry during the game

3) instead of 3 batters no longer allow warm up pitches for a reliever entering mid inning.

4) add the 26th spot

 

I think the re-entry will be generate strategic talk all game. When do you bat for pitcher? Do you put in a pinch runner defender for Sanó? Follow with a debate when to re-enter Sanó.

 

Teams will have a need for a deeper bench of position players. Their value to the team will be greater than LOOGYs and reduce the number of mid inning changes. It will also bring back platooning.

 

As for the relievers with out warm ups, the time when bullpen mounds were non existent or very poor has long since gone by. Want to change your pitcher? Great. Bring him in and let him go. No commercial. I don’t think we need a mound meeting for this either. Just go tell the home plate umpire.

 

The re-entry is radical but no more radical than the DH was in the 70s.

 

This will lead to better baseball and fewer empty moments in the game. Let’s argue about whether or not to use that pinch hitter for the pitcher with two outs and a runner on second. Let’s argue about how to use that speedy outfielder with great range and no power. I don’t know if it will shorten the game but I do believe the time in the game will be much better spent.

Edited February 7, 2019 by jorgenswest

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

That's just it. There's plenty of moving and shifting going on between pitches, even with no one on base,

No, there isn't? Between batters, sure. But not between pitches with no one on base, generally. It's not like fielders regularly get repositioned once the count goes to 1-0 or something.

 

Even with runners on base, movement and shifting is pretty limited between pitches, unless it's a SB situation -- and that's generally done right before the pitch, or during the pitch, not constantly during the 30 seconds leading up to the pitch.

[Guest]

 

Reducing one way to add more talent, by trade.

Maybe. Or maybe just driving up the price.

 

Given that the Twins have been FAR more frequently 'sellers' at the deadline than 'buyers,' that would possibly be a good thing.

[biggentleben]

 

No, there isn't? Between batters, sure. But not between pitches with no one on base, generally. It's not like fielders regularly get repositioned once the count goes to 1-0 or something.

 

Even with runners on base, movement and shifting is pretty limited between pitches, unless it's a SB situation -- and that's generally done right before the pitch, or during the pitch, not constantly during the 30 seconds leading up to the pitch.

 

I was taught to watch how a catcher is leaning or a fielder is moving as the pitch is delivered. Every play, there are tons of little things going on to watch that indicate what is about to happen. Same with football. Tony Romo's no genius, it's simply watching indicators that make things fairly predictable. Part of the fun of the game is trying to guess ahead of the action. When you start looking for that, there's a LOT of movement between every pitch.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

(If this has already been mentioned since this comment was posted, I apologize for being repetitive.)

 

To be clear, the sbnation article focused on two games played years apart, neither of which included a bunch of mid-inning pitching changes. As the author himself points out ("That’s it. That’s the secret. It isn’t just the commercials. It isn’t just the left-handed pitchers coming in to face one batter, even though that absolutely makes a huge difference in the games when that does happen"), the primary difference between THOSE SPECIFIC GAMES was the time between pitches, but that doesn't mean that games that DO include mid-inning pitching changes wouldn't ALSO cause significant pace of play issues.

Here's another way to look at it:

 

Pitching changes are up, but not enough to explain much of the time of game increase. Here's some breakdown:

 

http://tangotiger.com/index.php/site/comments/are-there-more-mid-inning-relief-changes-these-days#4

 

An extra 2.2 mid-inning pitching changes per game (combined, both teams) between 1984 and 2013. On average, they probably only explain about 5 minutes of the 23 minute time of game increase between those two years (up to 30 minutes by 2018).

 

I still understand how they are annoying when they happen, although -- they don't happen excessively every game, or even for more than an inning or two when they do happen. I guess there are multiple perspectives on the pace problem: some folks think the game moving at X speed, then shifting down to Y speed for an inning, is bad. But I actually don't mind that, particularly when it is connected to actual strategy -- I can at least ponder and discuss the strategic implications of pitching changes during the 1-2 minutes it takes to happen.

 

Personally, I'm more concerned that the X standard pace of the majority of the game is unnecessarily slow to begin with, as compared to the Z standard pace used previously throughout MLB history, and still used at all other levels of play. There's no strategic implications to discuss about MLB batters adjusting their gloves or MLB pitchers circling the mound, certainly not for 30-45 seconds between every pitch for the whole game.

 

That said, I wouldn't mind efforts to speed relief pitching. Although I'd probably try less invasive adjustments first, before I'd change substitution rules.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I was taught to watch how a catcher is leaning or a fielder is moving as the pitch is delivered.

*as the pitch is delivered*

 

That's not the 30-45 seconds that players are taking between pitches. The catcher isn't leaning the moment he throws the ball back to the pitcher. Fielders aren't moving during that time either.

 

 

All I want, and all the pitch clock is purporting to do, is to trim those 30-45 second gaps down to 20 seconds or less. Virtually nothing will change from a strategic perspective, and in fact it will be easier for fans to pay attention to the little things that happen right before/during/after a pitch -- because you know they're going to happen within the next 20 seconds. Not some longer time that varies based on each batter's glove routine, etc.

 

And that trimming will add up, to significantly swifter games.

 

[SydneyTwinsFan]

Great discussion here. My own takes:

 

Eliminate the DH. I'm a bit torn as I like the point of difference between leagues, but on balance I'd rather see proper batters hit than pitchers flailing away. 

 

26 man roster. OK as long as pitchers are capped at 13. I thought about having a 27/28 man roster of which 24 are active for a given game. On the one hand it would provide flexibility if a position player is a bit dinged up but not needing a DL stint, or provides an active arm to replace the previous day's starter (who is effectively redundant), but I think it would probably just lead to an excess of relief pitchers being rostered and would eliminate or minimise the impact of burning through a whole relief corps in the first game of a series (I like that occasionally the starter is under pressure to go deep because the bullpen is gassed from a blowout the night before).

 

Pitch clock. Seems like a no-brainer, although I do wonder how much time it would really shave off a game.

 

Anti-tanking. Hard to enforce I think and if a single-season salary floor was imposed that would potentially just encourage mediocrity at the expense of a well thought out rebuilding strategy ie force a team to spend an extra $20m to win 72 rather than 66 games, while impacting their ability to spend that $20m to be more competitive the following year. (note - the Twins are an example of teams that DON'T seem to carry forward savings for the benefit of future years, but maybe not all teams act this way?). Maybe enforcing a salary floor (% of revenue?) over a rolling 3-year period would allow for some flexibility and rebuilding.

[Twodogs]

Get rid of the DH and you'd speed up the game.

[Guest]

 

Here's another way to look at it:

 

Pitching changes are up, but not enough to explain much of the time of game increase. Here's some breakdown:

 

http://tangotiger.com/index.php/site/comments/are-there-more-mid-inning-relief-changes-these-days#4

 

An extra 2.2 mid-inning pitching changes per game (combined, both teams) between 1984 and 2013. On average, they probably only explain about 5 minutes of the 23 minute time of game increase between those two years (up to 30 minutes by 2018).

 

I still understand how they are annoying when they happen, although -- they don't happen excessively every game, or even for more than an inning or two when they do happen. I guess there are multiple perspectives on the pace problem: some folks think the game moving at X speed, then shifting down to Y speed for an inning, is bad. But I actually don't mind that, particularly when it is connected to actual strategy -- I can at least ponder and discuss the strategic implications of pitching changes during the 1-2 minutes it takes to happen.

 

Personally, I'm more concerned that the X standard pace of the majority of the game is unnecessarily slow to begin with, as compared to the Z standard pace used previously throughout MLB history, and still used at all other levels of play. There's no strategic implications to discuss about MLB batters adjusting their gloves or MLB pitchers circling the mound, certainly not for 30-45 seconds between every pitch for the whole game.

 

That said, I wouldn't mind efforts to speed relief pitching. Although I'd probably try less invasive adjustments first, before I'd change substitution rules.

I do understand that. But it's not the average "2.2 mid inning changes per game" game that drives me nuts. It's the games on the high end of the spectrum. The innings that take a half hour because there were several changes. 

 

And yes, maybe it's only, on average, 5 minutes of idle time. But, again, when you have twice the average number of mid-inning changes, that's twice the added minutes of idle time. Anyway, that's kind of the point, almost every factor only accounts for 5-10 minutes of the increase. 

 

By all means, limit the batters stepping out (though I don't think it's the glove adjustments really causing the problem... it just looks annoying) and enforce a limit on time to throw a pitch. But eliminating any ONE factor is only going to do so much.