What does everyone think of the rule changes so far?

[Otto von Ballpark]

With Twins baseball on hold for a second consecutive day, I thought it might be a good time to ask -- what does everyone think of the rule changes so far?

 

1. 3-batter minimum (or end of inning) for pitchers

 

2. Designated Hitter in both leagues

 

3. 7-inning doubleheaders

 

4. Runner starts on second base in extra innings

 

Edit to add:

 

5. Expanded rosters

[Otto von Ballpark]

I often consider myself a bit of a purist / traditionalist about baseball, but surprisingly, I think I like them all!

 

1. 3-batter minimum (or end of inning) for pitchers -- I was against this since it wasn't really going to speed up the game, and it was kind of painful a few weeks ago to watch that game where the Pittsburgh reliever just couldn't find home plate. But I have to admit, it has been refreshing to never see a manager jog out to make a pitching change both before and after a single batter, even if the impact on overall time of game / pace is minimal. (And a couple LOOGY types, Caleb Thielbar and Oliver Pérez, have even looked good facing more batters!)

 

2. Designated Hitter in both leagues -- I have some sentimentality for the no-DH game, but it's also been nice to not see the futile attempts of pitchers hitting.

 

3. 7-inning doubleheaders -- With so many doubleheaders, this was an absolute necessity for 2020. But with 9-inning game times still around 3 hours, I might not mind seeing it continue into 2021 (assuming teams don't abuse it -- a team with a weaker staff might be more likely to postpone a game due to weather so they only have to throw 14 innings rather than 18? Or am I overthinking this?).

 

4. Runner starts on second base in extra innings -- Maybe the most controversial new rule, I didn't like the idea at all (for the majors anyway), but I'll be darned if I don't like this one too! It's exciting, it emphasizes "small ball" and defense at a time when they've been overlooked for other skills, and it just seems kind of natural that if two teams fail to produce a winner after 9 innings, they change up the rules a tiny bit. And a lot of those "epic" 14+ inning games of the past were frankly kind of boring -- a lot of 3 up, 3 down innings. At least now, if a game goes 10+, you know there was some excitement!

[Brock Beauchamp]

1. 3 batter minimum: I like it because I hate putting the game on pause mid-inning more than once to do the reliever shuffle. That kind of thing makes for a bad spectating experience.

 

2. DH in both leagues: Way overdue.

 

3. 7 inning double headers: I don't like it but accept why it's necessary in 2020. I hope it goes away next season. Baseball is meant to be nine innings.

 

4. Runner on second in extra innings: I was completely prepared to hate this to my very core but have found that... I kinda like it. Didn't see that coming.

[T_J]

The only thing I wouldn't want to stick around is the 7 inning games.

 

I've always found it boring to watch pitchers take at bats. I'd rather watch Frank Thomas/ Jim Thome types taking hacks!

I need to see more extra inning games to know how I like the runner at second. The one game I saw was freaking awesome though!!!

I'm surprised we haven't seen teams abuse a phantom injury to a pitcher due to the 3 batter minimum yet. It'll happen soon enough though.

[Shaitan]

 

With Twins baseball on hold for a second consecutive day, I thought it might be a good time to ask -- what does everyone think of the rule changes so far?

 

1. 3-batter minimum (or end of inning) for pitchers

 

2. Designated Hitter in both leagues

 

3. 7-inning doubleheaders

 

4. Runner starts on second base in extra innings

 

1. Surprisingly I like this so far.

2. Meh, I prefer the leagues having different rules. Takes away some of the intrigue in playing a new team.

3. No thank you. I'll take what I can get in 2020, but I don't care for it.

4. Dumb. Totally changes the game.

5. Expanded Rosters - Not a fan of this either. I was a proponent of added 1-2 spots last year, but all it does is lead to bullpen games. Especially with a universal DH, there's less reason to PH.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I'm surprised we haven't seen teams abuse a phantom injury to a pitcher due to the 3 batter minimum yet. It'll happen soon enough though.

I think the expanded rosters have reduced that incentive (and perhaps I should include the expanded rosters among the rule changes!). Teams have enough fresh arms each night that they don’t have to piece things together with shorter appearances — there are enough guys who can pitch an inning or two and take the next day off, generally.

 

And while hypothetically, the desire to switch after 1 batter could arise in a key spot, I think teams and pitchers are getting trained away from even trying it anymore. It’s not like teams are going to have a Ryan O’Rourke on their playoff roster — a guy like that is either going to fail and lose his spot, or he’s going to adapt so that he’s not such a liability after one batter, long before he sniffs the playoff roster.

[Cap'n Piranha]

 

1. Surprisingly I like this so far.

2. Meh, I prefer the leagues having different rules. Takes away some of the intrigue in playing a new team.

3. No thank you. I'll take what I can get in 2020, but I don't care for it.

4. Dumb. Totally changes the game.

5. Expanded Rosters - Not a fan of this either. I was a proponent of added 1-2 spots last year, but all it does is lead to bullpen games. Especially with a universal DH, there's less reason to PH.

 

Not a big fan of the "changes the game" argument--the mound distance has been altered multiple times, you used to be able to get a player out by hitting them with a thrown ball, and black players were not allowed in the major leagues.  Changing all of those (particularly the last one) has had a good impact on the game, but all of them undeniably "changed the game".  If a rule change makes the sport better implement it.  If it makes it worse, don't.

[jimbo92107]

I like 'em all, but I would add the electronic strike zone. Suddenly the game would seem fairly rational again. 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

1. 3-batter minimum (or end of inning) for pitchers

 

I don't mind the 3 batter minimum, if for no other reason than it honors baseball's symmetry of threes. But I do prefer and miss the free substitutions, LOOGYs, etc..

 

2. Designated Hitter in both leagues

 

You don't really notice, being in the AL. I always like watching pitchers bat, because they are easy outs, and I like low scoring games. They are quicker, more interesting to me, and don't get out of hand. I think more opinions from NL fans would be helplful.  

 

3. 7-inning doubleheaders

 

No big deal, but no thanks. 

 

What I really cannot stand is the 5-inning tripleheader* the Twins are playing tomorrow.

 

4. Runner starts on second base in extra innings

 

The world didn't end (at least because of that, it didn't). But, hard pass. Hoping they go back to normal next year. No thanks. 

 

 

* joking

[Shaitan]

 

Not a big fan of the "changes the game" argument--the mound distance has been altered multiple times, you used to be able to get a player out by hitting them with a thrown ball, and black players were not allowed in the major leagues.  Changing all of those (particularly the last one) has had a good impact on the game, but all of them undeniably "changed the game".  If a rule change makes the sport better implement it.  If it makes it worse, don't.

Yeah, it's a lazy argument. I wrote that fast.

 

But I really don't like the runner on 2nd to start. You can win a game with two fielder's choice plays. Extra innings are supposed to be dramatic... (To me) Small ball is supposed to be the set-up, not the close. The risk of a sacrifice play is significantly reduced in this scenario.

 

[Otto von Ballpark]

But I really don't like the runner on 2nd to start. You can win a game with two fielder's choice plays. Extra innings are supposed to be dramatic... (To me) Small ball is supposed to be the set-up, not the close. The risk of a sacrifice play is significantly reduced in this scenario.

No, you don’t win the game with two fielder’s choice plays, because the other team could just tie with the same two fielder’s choice plays. It’s not like the old NFL overtime where you just get into field goal range — you’ve got to play defense too.

 

So you play the defense in, you try to cut down a run at the plate, you use your better pitchers because there is already a runner in scoring position, every half inning. You think about pinch running and putting extra pressure on the defense, because odds are, the game’s not going to last until the next dinger.

 

Teams can (and do) have 9 (and now occasionally 7 ) innings to play swing-for-the-fences and eschew contact. Nothing wrong with changing the parameters a bit if that style of play has failed to produce a winner after 9 (7) innings.

[Otto von Ballpark]

I like 'em all, but I would add the electronic strike zone. Suddenly the game would seem fairly rational again.

If we are talking wish lists, I still want to see a pitch clock with no one on base!

[lecroy24fan]

1) Hate it. I've seen a few pitchers this year that needed to come out because they couldn't come near the strike zone. Teams should not be getting a free baserunner because a pitcher can't be removed. And in no way has it sped games up.

 

2) There are maybe 3 pitchers that can hit .250. Maybe. I'm fine with universal DH. 

 

3) OK or this year. Not next year or any other year.

 

4) The worst of the ideas Manfred has come up with that has happened. The one game the Twins had it it still took 3 innings to score. Fake runs are dumb.

 

5) Expanded rosters are fine this year. look at all the injuries that have happened. Due to the odd Summer Camp and crap players bodies just aren't in proper condition. Next year go back to 26.

 

[Otto von Ballpark]

4) The worst of the ideas Manfred has come up with that has happened. The one game the Twins had it it still took 3 innings to score. Fake runs are dumb.

Those were 3 very interesting innings, though! Pinch hitters, pinch runners, stolen bases, plays at the plate. Seems like a reasonable, small concession to de-emphasize HRs and Ks which have otherwise come to dominate the modern game.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Also, if the “fake runs” of the new extra innings seem too arbitrary, that should encourage teams to be more aggressive trying to win in regulation — making the first 9 innings more exciting.

[twinbythebay]

3-batter minimum and universal DH: I hope both of these are here to stay. The 3-batter rule actually requires a lot more strategic thinking in my mind than just bringing in a guy for one batter. Also, I've never enjoyed watching pitchers hit (with the glorious exception of Big Sexy).

 

7-inning doubleheaders: I'm fine with them this season, but the rule kind of has a little league feel to me so I hope this one doesn't stick around beyond 2020.

 

Runner on 2nd in extra innings: I was convinced that this was a stupid, awful rule, but I don't hate it as much as I thought I would. I'm okay with it sticking around in future seasons, but I would prefer if they played at least the 10th inning without the rule, possibly the 11th as well, but then have it apply from the 12th inning and beyond.

 

Expanded rosters: Not really sure, don't have strong feelings one way or another.

[twinbythebay]

 

Those were 3 very interesting innings, though! Pinch hitters, pinch runners, stolen bases, plays at the plate. Seems like a reasonable, small concession to de-emphasize HRs and Ks which have otherwise come to dominate the modern game.

That was the funnest game of the season so far!

[DocBauer]

1] 3 batter minimum: Of course, it's not quite that simple as a pitcher can also finish an inning. I don't know that I've seen many examples yet where it grossly affected a game. Of course, the Twins have a great pen so my perspective may be skewed. I do like not having multiple delays from multiple pitching moves mid inning. The game does seem to flow better.

 

Come to think of it, while you do PH here and there, batters often have to adjust during the game to different pitchers. Maybe this is a natural change to the game.

 

2] DH: I've wanted this for years. It will be more interesting going forward when NL teams find their true DH hitters. Never liked pitchers flailing/failing. There isn't a lot of great strategy in asking someone to sacrifice because they have little to no chance of being productive at the plate. Double switch? You deplete your bench and delay the inevitable.

 

3] 7 inning double headers: I accept it for 2020 but don't like it. Milb is still more about development than just winning. And milb is about long bus rides and not 1st class travel and 1st class hotels. MLB also allows for an extra player to be added. (Perhaps it should be 2)? 7 inning double headers for 2020 only.

 

4] Runner on 2B for extra innings: Hate it. See all the reasons above in regard to milb having the rule. But this is MLB! It messes with the integrity of the game, IMO. However, I'm willing to listen for the 12th inning on. But the game should be played as normal for at least a couple of innings.

 

5] Expanded rosters: I loved the idea of a 26 man roster, but support a 27 man roster more. The biggest reason is pitching. There aren't enough good arms to be had for 30 teams and I despise a 3 man bench to carry extra arms. Very glad MLB was smart enough to keep the roster at 28 for the rest of this season.

 

*6] Limited "September" expanded roster: Not even sure how this plays out for 2020. But restricting call ups to just a couple of guys goes beyond short-sighted to blatantly idiotic. The powers that be seemed to believe the integrity of the stretch run would be adversely affected by poor teams playing prospects against a team engaged in a late season playoff drive. Think about that for a moment and let it sink in. A good team playing a bad team and the bad team is playing prospects they want to get a look at makes the bad team worse? So that really makes it that much easier for the good team to beat an already bad team? How does the bad team get better for the future if they don't look at prospects? What if those prospects actually play well and make the bad team better and more interesting to watch? What about good teams also wanting to look at upcoming talent and rest players for a quality post season?

 

Rambling, but I've made my point. This rule change has to be gone immediately.

[lecroy24fan]

 

*6] Limited "September" expanded roster: Not even sure how this plays out for 2020. 

 

The rosters are at 28 for the rest of the season.

[Shaitan]

 

1) And in no way has it sped games up.

I definitely think this is an important, interesting detail.

 

I don't mind the rule, but I also don't think it's achieving what it set out to do.

[Nine of twelve]

1.) I don't like rules that arbitrarily reduce the ability of the manager and players to strategize. Therefore I am not in favor of the 3-batter minimum. And for the same reason I am not in favor of the mound visit maximum either.

2.) I'm in favor of either universal DH or no DH. The biggest problem with DH being present in only one league is that visiting teams are at a greater than usual disadvantage in interleague games. Teams build their rosters based on one set of rules but have to play by different rules in those games. This is especially inequitable in the World Series. If forced to choose I'd opt for universal DH.

3.) This is fine for the 2020 season. It's just exhibition baseball anyway, so who cares?

4.) This is just silly. It doesn't shorten games because the two teams still have equal chances at scoring just as they would without this rule. It begs the question: if it's so good in extra innings why not do it in every inning?

5.) See 3. For 2021 I think the roster size should be 26 as was to have been the case this season. There should be no restriction on the number of pitchers a team carries. Let each team manage their roster as they see fit.

[Dantes929]

Fine with all of them.   Would have liked to see the electronic strike zone.  Seems like a good year to try it out.