MLB Announces 2022 Minor League Experimental Rules

[Melissa Berman]

As Minnesota’s very own Bob Dylan said, "The Times They Are A-Changin'," and our national pastime is no exception. But baseball purists take heart, though the new year is bringing some experimental rule changes to Minor League Baseball, many of them are not totally new to the minors, and some are even due for a major league call up in 2023.

Major League Baseball (MLB) recently introduced a host of new and expanded rules it will be trying out during the 2022 Minor League season. A common thread connecting these changes, and others, is MLB's goals of making the game faster and improving player safety. 

Seeing rule trials at the Minor League level is nothing new; MLB has traditionally used its Minor Leagues as a testing ground for on-field rule changes it is considering for future MLB implementation. In the new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), the MLB Players Association and MLB agreed to the defensive position requirement (otherwise known as banning the shift) to implement a pitch clock and to make bases larger effective the 2023 season. Each of these rules was tested and deemed successful at the Minor League Level during the 2021 season- the shift was banned in Double-A, a pitch clock was used in Low-A, and base size was increased at the Triple-A level.

Here is a roundup of the new and expanded rules that baseball fans will see in the Minors in 2022:
1. Expanded pitch clock (all full-season leagues)
2. Expanded use of larger bases (all full-season leagues)
3. Expanded use of the defensive position requirement (Double-A and both Class A levels)
4. Expanded automatic ball-strike system with challenge, otherwise known as “robot umpires” (Triple-A and Low-A Southeast) 

Expanded pitch clock
The amount of time that St. Paul Saints fans spend goofing around with the ushertainers at CHS Field is about to lessen (pro tip- do not let Coach catch you buried in your phone during the game). After being used in various capacities since 2015, the new season will feature pitch clocks being used universally across all Minor League levels, including at CHS Field. When bases are empty, at all full-season levels, pitchers will be required to deliver the pitch within 14 seconds. When runners are on base, pitchers will be given more time, and this time will slightly differ by league: pitchers will be required to deliver the pitch within 19 seconds at Triple-A and 18 seconds at all other levels. 

Hitters will not be allowed to be asleep at the plate either; at all levels, the hitter must be in the batter’s box and attentive to the pitcher with nine seconds left on the timer. MLB’s goal in implementing a pitch clock is to increase the pace of play. In 2021, a pitch clock experiment in Low-A cut game times by 20 minutes using 15-second and 17-second clocks. MLB decided slightly more time was needed when runners were on base and slightly less with bases empty and adjusted the clock times accordingly. 

Additionally, all Minor League pitchers will be limited to two pickoff attempts or step-offs per plate appearance. If a pitcher takes a third, it will effectively function as a balk (sans chicken clucking noises from jeering fans) and allow all baserunners to advance.

Larger bases
The size of first, second, and third base will be increased from 15 inches by 15 inches to 18x18 for all full-season affiliates in 2022. MLB’s stated goal of using the larger bases is to reduce player injuries on the base paths. Larger bases were used in the Arizona Fall League and at the Triple-A level in 2021, and MLB found that they not only reduced injuries but contributed to an increase in stolen base rates due to the slightly shortened base paths and the larger base size making it more difficult to overslide the base. Additionally, the larger bases will be composed of material that is expected to perform better in wet conditions, which will provide runners an easier-to-grip surface to slide into, which furthers MLB's goal of reducing injuries.

Defensive position requirement
In 2021, MLB imposed a limit on defensive shifts at the Double-A level. In 2022, MLB is further expanding this rule. This year, teams in Double-A and both Class A levels will be required to have at least four players on the infield when the pitcher delivers, with two on either side of second base. According to MLB, this restriction on defensive positioning is intended to increase the batting average on balls in play. Defensive shifts have been around for years, but in recent years, MLB shifts have gotten more and more bold, thus leading to these experimental crackdowns. Banning the shift relates to MLB's goal of stimulating offense and increasing in-game excitement. 

Robot umpires
No, this is not a dystopian movie where robots take over the world, it’s baseball in 2022, and robot umpires may soon be coming to an MLB field near you. 

For now, though, MLB’s experiment with an automated balls-and-strikes system (ABS) will remain confined to the Minors.  Previously limited to use in the Low-A Southeast, the system is expanding to also include Triple-A in 2022. The goal is to use technology to improve the accuracy of called balls and strikes and reduce controversy. 

In Triple-A, a home-plate umpire will relay ball or strike calls generated by Hawk-Eye tracking technology, which recalibrates the top and bottom of the strike zone based on each hitter’s height. The human umpire will still make calls like check swings, interference, and plays at the plate. Automated calling begins May 17 in the Triple-A West, now known as the Pacific Coast League, with the Triple-A returning to its historic names in 2022. Throughout the season, it will be used in all Triple-A East (now called the International League) games played in Charlotte. The St. Paul Saints are in the International League and do not play the Charlotte Knights during the regular season.

At the Low-A Southeast level, MLB is exploring an alternate form of ABS calling, otherwise known as a “Challenge System.” Here, human umpires will still make balls and strike calls. However, in select Challenge Games, the pitcher, catcher, and batter can appeal the umpire’s call to the ABS system. Each team will receive three appeals in Challenge Games, with successful appeals retained for future use.

The 2022 Minor League Season will look a little different than fans are used to, but with several of these changes headed to MLB in 2023, it seems time for rules to be standardized across all Minor League affiliates. Time will tell if the robot umpires receive a promotion to the Big Leagues.

Do you think robot umpires will make it to the majors? Should they? Leave a COMMENT below. 

View full article

[Trov]

The robo umps at AAA makes me think they will be going to that at MLB sooner than later.  The challenge system in A ball seems interesting.  I wonder how quickly you would need to decide, and if teams will have their own access to a system to get an idea or if it will just be guess.  It would add to strategy of when to use them.  

For example, would you use them on a 2-0 count when a strike is called but it is important at-bat?  Do you use on a 3-0 count when the "auto" strike is called, with 2 outs and no one on, just to prove a point?  Would you use more as a pitching team, or a hitting team, or would it be very specific to the situation.  I mean of course there are clear cases on a 3-2 count that leads to a bases loaded walk, if it is close you use it, or last outs of games on called third strike or walks that could be last out of game.  

I am interested to see how that plays out, even though, I am much more of a fan of the overall robo umps.  

I am a fan of the pitch counts as well.  It will also lead to gaming the system, having pitchers wait to last second to throw when runner on maybe waiting to throw over at that last second, or quick pitching when all throw over is done.  No more long set motions by pitchers.  

[Melissa Berman]

1 hour ago, Trov said:

The robo umps at AAA makes me think they will be going to that at MLB sooner than later.  The challenge system in A ball seems interesting.  I wonder how quickly you would need to decide, and if teams will have their own access to a system to get an idea or if it will just be guess.  It would add to strategy of when to use them.  

For example, would you use them on a 2-0 count when a strike is called but it is important at-bat?  Do you use on a 3-0 count when the "auto" strike is called, with 2 outs and no one on, just to prove a point?  Would you use more as a pitching team, or a hitting team, or would it be very specific to the situation.  I mean of course there are clear cases on a 3-2 count that leads to a bases loaded walk, if it is close you use it, or last outs of games on called third strike or walks that could be last out of game.  

I am interested to see how that plays out, even though, I am much more of a fan of the overall robo umps.  

I am a fan of the pitch counts as well.  It will also lead to gaming the system, having pitchers wait to last second to throw when runner on maybe waiting to throw over at that last second, or quick pitching when all throw over is done.  No more long set motions by pitchers.  

These are super good points- I didn't even consider the possible strategy involved with the challenge system. I tend to think the robo umps or some sort of electronic will make it to the MLB before too long. Because the actual ball and strike calling robo umps are what are being imposed in AAA, I'm guessing that is what will eventually be called up, though we have seen some rules go straight from other affiliates like AA > the majors (ie banning the shift). I'm definitely on the "baseball purist" side of things, so I think I like the challenge system better- mostly still the same balls and strikes calling we know now (which works most of the time I'd say) with the ability to get rid of the egregious mistake calls using technology. 

Edited March 23, 2022 by Melissa Berman

[The Mad King]

Old guy here who doesn't like any of the rule changes. Get off my lawn! Ok, no, the robot umps can stay...

[mikelink45]

What the heck - just do it.  Rule changes is the rule since the game began.  Just end up with entertaining baseball. 

[bean5302]

Robo umps are bad for the game. They remove controversy and fan engagement. Umpires get things wrong occasionally, but hating the ump is part of the game which gets the fans excited.

How many times have the fans been engaged watching an angry manager trot out of the dugout arguing balls and strikes? How many times have cheers rained down on the field watching a manager get ejected for arguing those calls?

[h2oface]

22 minutes ago, bean5302 said:

Robo umps are bad for the game. They remove controversy and fan engagement. Umpires get things wrong occasionally, but hating the ump is part of the game which gets the fans excited.

How many times have the fans been engaged watching an angry manager trot out of the dugout arguing balls and strikes? How many times have cheers rained down on the field watching a manager get ejected for arguing those calls?

Totally disagree. I hate the bogus arguing. It has always just looked stupid to me, and a waste of time. I feel the robo ball/strike is the most important rule change, for many reasons previously stated over and over (not on this thread). Ghost wins, ghost runners, and base size I hate. Pitch clock I support. Limited throws to fist will not last. I also like two fielders on each side of second.

[Tiantwindup]

I am very curious to see how the rule changes affect the perceived values of specific players when/if implemented in majors. For instance, Kepler is viewed as someone who is hurt significantly by the shift and is pretty fast. Do the shift and (slightly) shorter base paths increase his value?  Does Jeffers lose value as his framing ability gets nullified by a robo ump?  Does the FO trade for someone who fits potential new rules better, taking the risk that those rules are implemented?

[TopGunn#22]

These are great points, and until we see some of these (or all of them) at the Major League level it's hard to accurately guess how they might affect the game, much less specific players.  But I believe change IS coming.  MLB needs to find some way to speed up the pace of the game without artificially making it SEEM unnaturally "sped up."  

[Trov]

10 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Robo umps are bad for the game. They remove controversy and fan engagement. Umpires get things wrong occasionally, but hating the ump is part of the game which gets the fans excited.

How many times have the fans been engaged watching an angry manager trot out of the dugout arguing balls and strikes? How many times have cheers rained down on the field watching a manager get ejected for arguing those calls?

I personally have never been entertained by a manager or player throwing a tantrum.  Umpires get balls and strikes wrong way too often.  They put in replay to fix the calls they get wrong on the field, save for a few cases, but yet to fix the call they get wrong most, because it is hard to get right.  Umps may be about 90% on the ball strike call, and even if you think 90% is good enough, they are actually around 50% on close calls.  So they get the easy calls right 100%, but it is basically a coin flip on the boarder line calls.  What makes it even worse, they will adjust what they call based on the circumstances.  If the count is 0-2, and the pitch is close the ump is more likely to call a ball, just like if 3-0 they are more likely to call a strike.  Also, if they just called it one way and a similar pitch location they will call it the other way, again if boarder line. 

To say having bad calls be made is part of the game and what is entertaining about it, to me means you do not like the game because you do not care about the players making the difference, but you want the umps to get people angry.  

[Karbo]

3 hours ago, Tiantwindup said:

I am very curious to see how the rule changes affect the perceived values of specific players when/if implemented in majors. For instance, Kepler is viewed as someone who is hurt significantly by the shift and is pretty fast. Do the shift and (slightly) shorter base paths increase his value?  Does Jeffers lose value as his framing ability gets nullified by a robo ump?  Does the FO trade for someone who fits potential new rules better, taking the risk that those rules are implemented?

great points

[Otaknam]

12 hours ago, bean5302 said:

Robo umps are bad for the game. They remove controversy and fan engagement. Umpires get things wrong occasionally, but hating the ump is part of the game which gets the fans excited.

How many times have the fans been engaged watching an angry manager trot out of the dugout arguing balls and strikes? How many times have cheers rained down on the field watching a manager get ejected for arguing those calls?

Really? Robot umps are bad for the game because there will be fewer angry managers arguing with umpires and fans won’t have someone to hate? That’s a hockey mentality where fans get lathered over violence on the ice. I hope that despising umpires is way down on the list of the reasons to go to a game for most of us. 

[Melissa Berman]

16 hours ago, The Mad King said:

Old guy here who doesn't like any of the rule changes. Get off my lawn! Ok, no, the robot umps can stay...

Hey, I feel similarly lol. I think the challenge form of the robo umps is a cool idea. Having the robo umps call *all* the balls and strikes. in my mind, isn't necessary. Just get rid of the egregious calls and I'm happy 

[Alex Schieferdecker]

The pitch clock may be a good addition, but the real problem with the timing of pitches is that batters are allowed to step out of the box too often. Umpires refuse to enforce rules that are already on the books about stepping out of the box. Enforce those rules and the problem is largely solved.

As for banning shifts, I've yet to hear a single good argument for why baseball will benefit from giving left handed pull hitters a couple extra hits a year. Banning the shift is a classic reactionary move, it makes no sense. Why try to prevent smart teams from getting an edge? Why punish players who have the ability to hit to all fields?

[ashbury]

I for one welcome our new robot overlords.

[Melissa Berman]

30 minutes ago, ashbury said:

I for one welcome our new robot overlords.

Laughed out loud ?

[ashbury]

16 minutes ago, Melissa Berman said:

Laughed out loud ?

Just one of the many services I offer this site.

[bean5302]

5 hours ago, Otaknam said:

Really? Robot umps are bad for the game because there will be fewer angry managers arguing with umpires and fans won’t have someone to hate? That’s a hockey mentality where fans get lathered over violence on the ice. I hope that despising umpires is way down on the list of the reasons to go to a game for most of us. 

Yes. It's exactly the same general concept as fans cheering for fights in hockey, which I dislike... yet it's extremely popular. Though there is an enormous difference between a physical fist fight which can end careers and cause serious injury or death and a manager kicking dirt over a plate or offering to buy an umpire a lifetime subscription to Lens Crafters. A manager arguing balls and strikes amps up the crowd and the team. It's a fact and it's often considered an endearing trait for a manager.

Fan and crowd engagement is important. Regardless of what a few people on this board like, the manager getting tossed or the crowd commiserating together over a bad call is fan engagement and baseball desperately needs more fan engagement.

[Cap'n Piranha]

4 hours ago, Alex Schieferdecker said:

The pitch clock may be a good addition, but the real problem with the timing of pitches is that batters are allowed to step out of the box too often. Umpires refuse to enforce rules that are already on the books about stepping out of the box. Enforce those rules and the problem is largely solved.

As for banning shifts, I've yet to hear a single good argument for why baseball will benefit from giving left handed pull hitters a couple extra hits a year. Banning the shift is a classic reactionary move, it makes no sense. Why try to prevent smart teams from getting an edge? Why punish players who have the ability to hit to all fields?

Agree, banning the shift won't actually result in more interesting baseball (unless your idea of exciting baseball is weak grounders dribbling 20 ft into the outfield), as lefties will continue to sell out for loft and power--there's even less disincentive to do that if the shift is banned.

Further, banning the shift might not actually ban the shift.  Teams might still play the 1B and 3B where they currently do with the shift legal, and have the 2B and SS motion into traditional shift positions as soon as the pitcher starts his windup--if the SS is positioned literally 1 inch to the left of second base, and the 2B is literally one inch off the outfield grass, they would still be "banned shift compliant".

If MLB truly wants more baserunners, and more action on the bases, the only way that happens is if the HR is devalued--I would propose one of the three ways below;

1. Each team has a max number of out-of-the-park HRs they can hit, whether in a game or in a season.  After that, out-of-the-park HRs are outs.
2. The number of runs scored on an out-of-the-park HR is always 1, but all bases are emptied all the same--that is, if the bases are loaded, and an out-of-the-park HR is hit, only one run is scored, and all runners are taken away.
3. Every out-of-the-park HR creates the same number of outs as runs scored.  This means that all grandslams and 3R HRs always end the half inning, 2R HRs end the inning unless there are no outs, and solo HRs create one out.

[ashbury]

15 hours ago, Cap'n Piranha said:

Agree, banning the shift won't actually result in more interesting baseball (unless your idea of exciting baseball is weak grounders dribbling 20 ft into the outfield), as lefties will continue to sell out for loft and power--there's even less disincentive to do that if the shift is banned.

Further, banning the shift might not actually ban the shift.  Teams might still play the 1B and 3B where they currently do with the shift legal, and have the 2B and SS motion into traditional shift positions as soon as the pitcher starts his windup--if the SS is positioned literally 1 inch to the left of second base, and the 2B is literally one inch off the outfield grass, they would still be "banned shift compliant".

If MLB truly wants more baserunners, and more action on the bases, the only way that happens is if the HR is devalued--I would propose one of the three ways below;

1. Each team has a max number of out-of-the-park HRs they can hit, whether in a game or in a season.  After that, out-of-the-park HRs are outs.
2. The number of runs scored on an out-of-the-park HR is always 1, but all bases are emptied all the same--that is, if the bases are loaded, and an out-of-the-park HR is hit, only one run is scored, and all runners are taken away.
3. Every out-of-the-park HR creates the same number of outs as runs scored.  This means that all grandslams and 3R HRs always end the half inning, 2R HRs end the inning unless there are no outs, and solo HRs create one out.

Babe Ruth exposed a flaw in the rules. My solution is that any ball hit over the fence and lands out of play is simply a foul ball, and the plate appearance goes on. Will never be adopted of course but it should have been added to the rules as soon as fences became prevalent.

[Shaitan]

So what is the penalty if an infielder is "out of position" and has a foot on the grass? 

I'm neutral on a lot of these but HATE the anti-shift rule. Shy of drawing "position boxes" in the dirt, this seems like a rule for the sake of rules.