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

[gil4]

 

Three-batter minimum

   I would go with a two-batter minimum.
 

Universal designated hitter

  Either way is fine
 

20-second pitch clock

   Definitely. But it has to be balanced between the pitcher and the batter.
 

Mound visits

    Four should be enough.
 

Roster size

   OK. Maximum of 13 pitchers on the roster.
 

Anti-tanking

   Don't know how they would enforce that. Some teams are just bad.

 

I would also ban The Wave.

I would prefer three batter minimum, or after a batter reaches safely (excluding verbal intentional.) 

 

I like universal DH, I'm OK with how it is now, but I don't want to go back to no DH.

 

I like the 20 second pitch clock. They could use some version of the NFHS rule for the batter - must keep one foot in the box unless ____ (there are some exceptions - pitch in dirt, defense makes a play on a runner, swing or bunt attempt takes him out of the box).  Penalty for violating is a strike.

 

I agree on the mound visits. 

 

   I like the 26 roster size and 13 pitcher limit. I'd say allow a minimum of 28, maximum of 30 in September, with no more than half the roster pitchers.
  They would probably need to define who counts as a pitcher (Ohtani, McKay) and spell out a exception for Butera et al, maybe allow position players to pitch after 7 innings when down 10 or after allowing 15, and allow them to pitch in extra innings, maybe 15th inning+. 

 

I wouldn't mind seeing some form of a draft lottery, maybe among the bottom 4 or 5 in each league (8-10 total). I also wouldn't mind a minimum salary threshold to qualify for certain financial benefits.

 

 

 

I like the wave.

 

 

 

[gil4]

 

For those who support the proposed 3 batter minimum -- why 3? Why not 2? That would seemingly address the parade of LOOGYs and ROOGYs just as well, correct?

Two would be an improvement, but I'd prefer to force them to pitch to an inning's worth of batters.  I also suggested allowing a change any time the pitcher allows a baserunner, so the manager can sub for ineffectiveness, but not just constant changes as a strategy.  

 

 

Plus, the real reason: Three is a magic number, and two is not.

 

[Nine of twelve]

I wish I had noticed this thread sooner. Now I have to slog through 7 pages of comments, but before I do that I'll weigh in.

 

Three batter minimum: Never!

Universal DH: Makes sense to me, although I would propose this for fans who insist on two different sets of rules: The visiting team gets to make one roster move with no constraints before every interleague series. If they want to sign a free agent for three days they can do it. If they want to promote a minor leaguer with no loss of options they can do it. This would make it more fair for a team that assembles a roster based on one set of rules but has to play some games under a different set of rules.

20-second pitch clock (and similar batter clock): Yes, but ONLY with the bases empty.

Mound visits: I think six is fine and I could live with five. But there needs to be reasonable allowance for strategizing and going down to four could get in the way of that.

Roster size: An increase to 26 is overdue. Regarding the September limit, it certainly doesn't have to be 40. I think it's reasonable to give managers the opportunity to rest regulars and look at prospects, so maybe 30 or so.

Anti-tanking: The owner of any baseball team that tanks games to move up a spot or two in the draft should fire their GM and manager. Selection order in the baseball draft is just not that critical with the rare exception of the case where one prospective draftee is light years beyond the others.

[DocBauer]

My turn I guess:

 

Three batter minimum: No way. No we're losing strategy and letting some get teed-off on if he doesn't have it. Also slows the game down more.

 

Universal DH: Growing up, I always appreciated the NL game, but not because of pitchers batting! I appreciated the use if speed and defense in parks that usually were larger and seemed to have mkre turf. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to know to pinch hit for a pitcher with runners on base and down a run or two.

 

Ive grown up with the DH and appreciate it. Pitchers are unique in tneir craft the way QB and kickers and goalies are. If the NL wants to keep pitchers hitting, go for it. But when an AL team visits, then use the DH. When a NL team visits, they get to use a DH and their pitcher doesnt have to bat. No advantage to either team...unless you just have a punchless roster. But a AL team is put at a disadvantage when visiting NL teams. I don't care about "universal" I just want things fair when they play.

 

20 second pitch clock: PLEASE! Clock on the pitcher and batter! The constant readjustment of uniform, gloves and jock strap are ridiculous. And whatever happened to "work quick and throw strikes"?

 

Roster size: The game has changed over the years, as have all sports. I've felt for some time baseball needed to move to a 26 or 27 man roster. Gone are tbe days kf a 10 or 11 man staff. Also gone are platoons. More pitchers will lengthen the game? Mmmm...perhaps. More bats off the bench increases excitement and scoring.

 

Reducing the September stinks. It's a special game. Letting guys get their feet wet in September is a staple of the game. Let it stay the way it is.

 

Anti-tanking: Kind of ridiculous. How do you prove it, first of all? If a team is rebuilding and flooding their roster with young talent to build for tomorrow are they truly "tanking"? In the crazy and absolutely impossible to predict world that is MLB, does a higher draft selection truly offer some quick turnaround of success?

 

I believe it was Ashbury who spoke about minimum payroll standards being implemented. If you don't match that, fine, the "left over" unspent payroll goes back in to the general fund to be split up between the league.

 

And BTW, baseball would be a lot healthier if there was a more universal profit sharing split amongst all teams, similar to other sports. The very healthy NFL for example.

[Mike Sixel]

Leftovers go to minor league players, not owners.

[jorgenswest]

I don’t think we need the three batter minimum.

 

The problem is the mound visits and warm up. If you want to change the pitcher, inform the umpire and bring him in. No commercial breaks. No prolonged mound visit as they get ready. No warm ups on the mound. Play baseball.

 

We also need to end the coach visit to the mound. If it is health related go to the umpire and check the pitcher. Otherwise prepare your team so they know what to do during the game. You don’t need a mound visit where the purpose is often to delay the game.

[sweetmusicviola16]

 

Leftovers go to minor league players, not owners.

Yes to this. One of the greatest wrongs in baseball is that minor leaguers are living in poverty to chase their dream. All the while ML players become multi millionaires and owners roll around in Billions.

 

With the travel schedules and the time dedicated to their team it isn't like these guys can go get another job to supplement their incomes either. Or even a part time job. Another 1k a month even wouldn't hurt the owners or MLB players.

[ashbury]

The problem is the mound visits and warm up. If you want to change the pitcher, inform the umpire and bring him in. No commercial breaks. No prolonged mound visit as they get ready. No warm ups on the mound. Play baseball.

Yeah, the second mound visit followed by the tapping of a left or right wrist is kabuki theater whose time has passed. "Which wrist will he motion toward, oh which wrist will he motion toward... oh wait, there's a lefty cleanup hitter in the on-deck circle, maybe I can guess."

[sdangus]

I haven't read all the comments here, so maybe some of these ideas have already been offered up.

 

I would indeed make the DH universal.

 

However, I would make the DH more robust. I would make the position interchangeable just like any other position. In other words, the DH could become the 2B for defense later, and the 2B would become the DH, or a different player could become the DH. Or The DH becomes the 2B, the 2B becomes the 3B and the 3B becomes the DH. 

 

And then, because of that flexibility, I would leave the roster at 25. At least until after this is tested. I would not be opposed to 26 players eventually though.

 

Roster expansions in September do create some roster advantages, but the also ran teams do need to have an opportunity to test their younger players against stronger competition. What's the difference between that and that team fielding a whole team of rookies, because they traded off all the veterans they had at the trade deadline. Teams facing them after the selloff certainly have an advantage over the teams that faced them earlier definitely have an advantage. There is no real solution to this problem that works for all the teams. So leave it alone.

 

Mandating that a team use a pitcher for 3 batters is also a bad idea. Because now you have a team that may have the benefit of having a balance of LH and RH batters in their lineup having a competitive advantage over the other team that now cannot use their pitching staff to combat that. At the same time the hitting team is free to pinch hit against that pitcher without the pitching team being able to counter that. Again, it will make the games less competitve.

I think the better solutions are the ones that just try to take the wasted time out of the games, like not taking forever to make a pitching change. Like the idea of no additional warm up pitches on the mound. And figuring out how to get the pitcher in the game quicker. Make it mandatory to use a golf cart.

 

Tanking is a big issue over nothing. Tanking has been going on for years. Somebody has to be the low man on the totem pole. And while teams may not see a need to spend needless money when they have no real chance of competing, I don't think the plan is to just stick extra money in the pockets of the owners. I am sure those teams would much rather be competing and turning the turn stiles.

Why make a team that is clearly in a rebuild situation sign a couple of players that won't significantly help their situation anyway. Really? They are still not going to change the level of competition. Why not allow those teams to expedite their rebuild and return to competition. Is what Houston and San Diego and Atlanta and the Twins did really that bad? Or the Phillies? Maybe if the Yankees and Dodgers and Red Sox and Cubs and Nationals weren't still able to corner all the best players, there wouldn't be so many teams tanking.

Teams that are perennially in the middle of the pack because they were always trying to compete but can't get over the hump are also perennially boring. Teams like the recent Giants, White Sox, the Brewers for many years, the Mets, the Cinncinnati Reds, and so forth. They should have tanked or should have tanked earlier.

Personally, I would rather watch a team that is letting their young players play and develop than one with a bunch of washed up veterans trying to hang on just to force the owner to spend a little money. Wouldn't you?

[Nine of twelve]

I haven't gotten through the whole thread yet as I type this, but I think another factor that affects game length and, to some extent, pace of play is that there are many, many more batters working the count in today's game. Batters are much more willing to take a pitch they know is a strike if they don't think they can do anything with it. I certainly do NOT advocate any changes to the rules to change this, BTW. It is just one of the ways in which the game has evolved.

[USAFChief]

DH: Yes. A thousand times, yes.

 

3 batter minimum: No. A thousand times no. Let the more advantageous strategy dictate moves, not some arbitrary rule. If having pitchers pitch to one hitter proves to be good strategy, so be it. If the "LOOGY" proves over time to be poor strategically, in that it is too damaging to the rest of the pitching staff, and too limiting to the bench, it'll go away on it's own.

 

Time Clock: Yes. And enforce it ruthlessly.

 

28 Man Sept Roster: Yes. This seems like a lot more reasonable adaptation than the current "anyone on the 40 man" farce.

 

26 Man roster vs current 25: No. Reluctanly. On the surface, it sounds like a good idea. But I fear the primary effect will be to benefit the big money teams. They'll be spending millions on the best available option for the 26th man. The Twins (and others) will just take the MLB minimum out of the 25 man roster and use it to fund the 26th man. The Yankees will get Andrew McCutcheon. The Twins will get someone who would be in Rochester.

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

 

26 Man roster vs current 25: No. Reluctanly. On the surface, it sounds like a good idea. But I fear the primary effect will be to benefit the big money teams. They'll be spending millions on the best available option for the 26th man. The Twins (and others) will just take the MLB minimum out of the 25 man roster and use it to fund the 26th man. The Yankees will get Andrew McCutcheon. The Twins will get someone who would be in Rochester.

 

This might be a great argument for the salary cap as well.  

[Mike Sixel]

This might be a great argument for the salary cap as well.

I hate a cap, as you can imagine. All the money just goes to billionaire owners, instead of players. It's not like they will drop prices...

[TheLeviathan]

 

I hate a cap, as you can imagine. All the money just goes to billionaire owners, instead of players. It's not like they will drop prices...

 

Well, I'd prefer to see MLB start sharing all revenues and make a large cap number, but it is probably a pipe dream.  

 

I don't want to see billionaires make out on all the fan's money, but I also hate the fact that the Dodgers or Yankees can pump tens (hundreds) of millions of dollars more into their product than we can.  That advantage is beyond just the 25 man roster, it extends up and down the organizational process of developing talent.

[Mike Sixel]

Well, I'd prefer to see MLB start sharing all revenues and make a large cap number, but it is probably a pipe dream.

 

I don't want to see billionaires make out on all the fan's money, but I also hate the fact that the Dodgers or Yankees can pump tens (hundreds) of millions of dollars more into their product than we can. That advantage is beyond just the 25 man roster, it extends up and down the organizational process of developing talent.

The fix, as you say, is to truly share revenue. But I don't see that happening either. I'm all for inequality if it means players get more. Edited February 11, 2019 by Mike Sixel

[USAFChief]

 

I hate a cap, as you can imagine. All the money just goes to billionaire owners, instead of players. It's not like they will drop prices...

Well, not "all" the money would go to the owners, any more than it does now.

 

And for the sake of a more even playing field, I could care less if a few more dollars end up with owners. Players will still be rich.

[Vanimal46]

The fix, as you say, is to truly share revenue. But I don't see that happening either. I'm all for inequality if it means players get more.

I'm okay with a cap as long as it increases at a similar percentage revenue does year over year. The salary floor is more important to implement so we can put an end to $45 million payrolls (looking at you, Florida teams)

 

Better revenue sharing should be a requirement too... Otherwise this league will continue to be a have vs. have not situation.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

I haven't gotten through the whole thread yet as I type this, but I think another factor that affects game length and, to some extent, pace of play is that there are many, many more batters working the count in today's game. Batters are much more willing to take a pitch they know is a strike if they don't think they can do anything with it. I certainly do NOT advocate any changes to the rules to change this, BTW. It is just one of the ways in which the game has evolved.

 

I'm piggybacking on this comment. I think batters are just better than they used to be. Maybe pitchers don't throw many more pitches in a game than yesteryear (I don't have any data at my fingertips) but I think the game is just better, and a little more thought needs to go into those pitches. An extra few seconds for each pitch doesn't hurt an at-bat, but it sure adds up by the end of the game.  

 

I think the best way to speed up the game is to empower younger umpires to keep the game moving, and consider that when promoting them through the levels. Younger players will be accustomed to a slightly faster pace as they themselves are promoted. Nothing like an umpire pointing at the pitcher to get the batter's attention (or vise versa). I think it's already in the rule book that a ball or strike can be called for delay of game.

 

That's to say nothing of when runners are on base. I am against any rule limiting throws to first, and I'm not sure how you would prohibit a pitcher from stepping off the rubber and resetting, which slows the game down.

 

All that said, the pitch clock isn't really the eyesore I was afraid it would be, so that can stay. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm okay with a cap as long as it increases at a similar percentage revenue does year over year. The salary floor is more important to implement so we can put an end to $45 million payrolls (looking at you, Florida teams)

Better revenue sharing should be a requirement too... Otherwise this league will continue to be a have vs. have not situation.

 

Absolutely has to be tied to revenue, for sure.  And a cap floor as well.

 

But something has to be done about the spending disparity.  The argument is that any given year small market teams succeed, but over the long haul it's a massive advantage to a few markets.

[sdangus]

A couple more points to add. On tanking, let's look at last year as a perfect example. The 2 worst records in baseball were the Baltimore Orioles and the Kansas City Royals.

 

Yet both of those teams definitely started their seasons fully intending to compete. The Orioles signed a few high dollar free agents and held on to Machado and a few others that they could have gotten bigger trade haul from before the season. Kansas City brought back Moustakis and Escobar, and held on to Duffy. They tried. Now you want to take away their high draft picks?

 

And then, nobody tried to tank more than Miami but they will pick fourth. So you want to put them in a draft lottery and give them a chance at number one anyway. I say leave it alone. Trying to play God with rules only makes things worse.

 

As far as this thing about the players deserving bigger paychecks just because of higher revenues, I say foul. That's just a ploy that agents use to fill their pockets. How come we don't despise Scott Boras for his billions as much as we do the owners for theirs.

 

It would be far more fair to distribute that extra revenue to the people working in the office, scouts traveling the country, ticket takers, hot dog vendors, yes to more for minor leaguers, the trainers, minor league coaches. 

 

Why don't we take the players salaries above a certain amount and redistribute that to all those people. Then we will find out what the players' version of fair really is, won't we?

 

Just food for thought.

[jorgenswest]

On the 3 batter minimum...

 

I have been trying to find a game from last season stuck in my memory for being killed by pitcher changes the last 3 innings. 

 

June 3: Cleveland at Minnesota.

 

Twins are losing 4-3 as we enter the bottom of the 7th.

 

Starter Mike Clevenger faced 1 batter. 

Tyler Olson faced one batter

Neil Ramirez faced one batter

Oliver Perez cam in and finished the inning

 

The Twins took the lead 5-4 for anyone who somehow kept following the game through all of the stoppages. The Indians had two other pitchers this game that faced 2 or fewer batters. The Twins had one. Four other relievers were used in the game. 

 

Nine relievers. 25 batters faced. 16 outs. Killed the flow of the game. 

 

While this game had 5 occurrences of a pitcher facing two or fewer batters, it wasn't the most. It might be typical of a close game that otherwise should be the kind of game that brings people to the ballpark. Last year I found 2293 occurrences of a pitcher facing two or less batters. In 1988 there were 1006.

 

Baseball can help here. 

 

• Make it a 3 batter minimum or
• Allow only 1 mid inning pitcher change per inning or
• No more coach mounds visits of any kind or
• No warms on mound for relievers.

 

They have options. The very best games of the year are being killed by constant interruptions from the 7th inning on. Do something.

 

[Blake]

Universal DH? Absolutely not.

 

Might as well make all ball parks the same so that ground rules become meaningless.

 

Pitch clock? Eh.

 

Want to speed up games? Stop running 3 minutes of commercials between half innings. 

 

3x18 = 54 minutes of commercials.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Universal DH? Absolutely not.

 

Might as well make all ball parks the same so that ground rules become meaningless.

 

Pitch clock? Eh.

 

Want to speed up games? Stop running 3 minutes of commercials between half innings. 

 

3x18 = 54 minutes of commercials.

 

DH and parks the same? those are apples and lumber, I don't get that comparison at all.

[Rosterman]

I would like to see the one expanded roster spot (or let's say 28 players with 25 set for each game, maximum number of pitchers on the roster).

 

You should be able to use a pitcher for one pitch or one batter. Three minimum, no. If they are bad, you need to get them out rather than walk the bases loaded.

 

Universal DH? Or never ever have a pitcher bat or play in the field. How about that, too.

 

No adjustments of batting gloves once you step to the plate.

 

Let's eliminate stolen bases. All the time wasted staring the runner back to the base!

 

 

[Blake]

 

DH and parks the same? those are apples and lumber, I don't get that comparison at all.

DH and no DH are ground rules, from where I sit. 

 

If the move is to homogenize the leagues, might as well go all out and homogenize the parks too.

[Squirrel]

 

DH and no DH are ground rules, from where I sit. 

 

If the move is to homogenize the leagues, might as well go all out and homogenize the parks too.

As long as there is interleague play, I'm all for the DH in both leagues. If they want to keep the differences between leagues, then keep them separate until the WS. I think it's ridiculous for teams to be expected to play many games a season under different rules. So ... either make it the same game or keep it separated until the WS. But the DH is likely coming to the NL. It's the only way the Bryce Harper contract makes any sense, imo.

 

I still fail to see how that has anything to do with making the parks the same. Okay, so you make one part of the game homogenous, so now you want to make every aspect homogenous, because, that's what follows?

 

 

[ashbury]

 

As long as there is interleague play, I'm all for the DH in both leagues. If they want to keep the differences between leagues, then keep them separate until the WS. I think it's ridiculous for teams to be expected to play many games a season under different rules. So ... either make it the same game or keep it separated until the WS. But the DH is likely coming to the NL. It's the only way the Bryce Harper contract makes any sense, imo.

 

I still fail to see how that has anything to do with making the parks the same. Okay, so you make one part of the game homogenous, so now you want to make every aspect homogenous, because, that's what follows?

Wouldn't it be fun if some parks had the pitcher's mound 60'6" from home plate, some parks had it 63', and others had it 59'?

 

Conversely, we could ban the change-up.

[Thegrin]

Universal designated hitter ?  Fine.  Change the rule about moving or substituting the DH. Let the DH move to the field, if necessary and let a new player bat as DH.  Make no pretense about letting pitchers hit. Who wants to watch all those automatic outs. The occasional hit does not justify the automatic out in the 9th hole.

 

The Mound visit rule has not shortened the game at all.  Put a clock on all mound visits and if they don't go over a certain amount of time, allow as many as a team feels they need.  Just make them short.

 

No to the 3 batter rule.  If a player plans to replace a pitcher after one batter, let the 2nd pitcher be ready immediately and go to the mound as soon as the batter has had his turn at bat. No mound meetings. No fooling around. Just get to it and do it.

 

Of course rosters should be expanded to 26. but 13 of them must be players and ONLY 13 may be pitchers.

 

Keep using the 20 second pitch clock in the minors until everyone is sure that all the bugs have been worked out.

 

[Blake]

 

As long as there is interleague play, I'm all for the DH in both leagues. If they want to keep the differences between leagues, then keep them separate until the WS. I think it's ridiculous for teams to be expected to play many games a season under different rules. So ... either make it the same game or keep it separated until the WS. But the DH is likely coming to the NL. It's the only way the Bryce Harper contract makes any sense, imo.

 

I still fail to see how that has anything to do with making the parks the same. Okay, so you make one part of the game homogenous, so now you want to make every aspect homogenous, because, that's what follows?

Yeesh, can't a guy be a curmudgeon on this site?

 

Oh, and get off my lawn!

 

 

But yeah, I think you've got a point about getting rid of interleague play when it comes to the DH.

 

I don't mind some changes but I'm dead set against the universal DH, though I think pitchers swinging a bat borders on silly at times.

 

I guess I worry that MLB is going to do to baseball what the NFL has done to football. (NFL might as well not even draft running back any more, because passing is what the rules are designed to encourage)

 

The preceding opinion is worth about what you'd expect. Maybe less.

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

 

Yeesh, can't a guy be a curmudgeon on this site?

 

Oh, and get off my lawn!

 

 

But yeah, I think you've got a point about getting rid of interleague play when it comes to the DH.

 

I don't mind some changes but I'm dead set against the universal DH, though I think pitchers swinging a bat borders on silly at times.

 

I guess I worry that MLB is going to do to baseball what the NFL has done to football. (NFL might as well not even draft running back any more, because passing is what the rules are designed to encourage)

 

The preceding opinion is worth about what you'd expect. Maybe less.

 

I love your passion, even if we disagree on the DH.......