Here’s What You Think About Those Proposed Changes to Baseball
Last week, Jeff Passan wrote about talks between Major League Baseball and the MLBPA. As part of those talks, both sides proposed a series of changes that would alter the way the game works, both on the field and off of it. I was able to identify ten discrete proposals — some of them well-defined, and some of them a little more vague. Still, there was more than enough information to proceed to a polling post, where I gave the entire FanGraphs audience a chance to weigh in. The proposals are out there. Some of them might be scrapped; some of them might be pursued. What do you think about each? Good idea, or a virtual non-starter?
Whenever I run a polling project, I never actually specify exactly when the polls close. In part, that’s because most people tend to vote right away. In part, that’s because, once enough votes have rolled in, nothing that happens later on meaningfully changes the results. And in part, that’s because every polling project on FanGraphs is completely inconsequential. There are no stakes. Only opinions. So with all of that said, let’s now take a look at the crowdsourced data. I’ve gathered all the information I needed, and I’ve created a couple of plots.
For each of the ten proposals, I included two polls. One was a basic yea-or-nay. The other asked how much you actually cared. You might feel strongly negative about, say, the universal designated hitter, while you might feel weakly positive about, I don’t know, the pitch clock. Ideally I would’ve been able to link each person’s vote in each poll, but that exceeds our polling capabilities, so I’m left with group data. Here’s the first plot of that group data! Approval/disapproval results for all ten proposals:
Using 50% as a cutoff, the FanGraphs audience approves of eight of the ten proposals, as understood. If you were looking for a two-thirds supermajority, however, then we’re at four, and very nearly five approvals. That’s still a pretty high number, reflecting either the progressiveness of the FanGraphs readers, or the need for baseball to implement certain adjustments. Probably, it’s both. It’s usually both.
As for the second plot, here’s the landscape for what I’ve lamely termed the Passion Rating. The polls asked how much you cared about each proposal, from 1 to 5, with 5 being the most and 1 being the least. This plot shows each proposal’s overall average:
There’s only one result below 3.0, and only two results above 3.5. Of the latter, one would make a big immediate difference in the game, and the other would not. In the case of the other, I believe this to be an expression of fear of the slippery slope. For a little further discussion, I’ve broken out the individual proposals and results below. I thank you all for your participation and for your vibrant dialogue below the original post.
1) Three-batter minimum
- Approval: 48%
- Passion Rating: 3.24
This proposal called for a three-batter minimum for pitchers, unless they were to get injured or end the inning. It’s a proposal aimed at reducing the number of mid-inning pitching changes, which can be a drag on the viewers. By a very slight margin, the audience is opposed, with many commenters suggesting a two-batter minimum instead. The rule would have to be written with precision so as not to be open for fake-injury-related abuse. Perhaps an injured pitcher would need to be subsequently placed on the injured list. Or, perhaps no rule at all needs to exist!
2) 20-second pitch clock
- Approval: 70%
- Passion Rating: 3.30
People here are largely in favor of a pitch clock. Especially a pitch clock that might be turned off with runners on base. Granted, the latter condition might defeat the purpose. I think one reason the audience is in favor is because we’ve been told to expect a pitch clock for years. Many of us have just gotten used to it. It’s used in the minors, and most pitchers say they’re okay with it. Still, some big-league pitchers are opposed for seemingly legitimate reasons, like between-pitches rest. And as one commenter pointed out, catchers might just start to take longer to return a pitched ball to the mound. Nothing in baseball will ever be easy.
3) Universal DH
- Approval: 62%
- Passion Rating: 3.97
Bringing the DH to the National League? You might’ve expected this to be 50/50, with AL fans on one side and with NL fans on the other. But either AL fans are overrepresented here, or a chunk of NL fans are willing to go the other way. The fact of the matter is that pitchers are dreadful hitters. The fact of the matter is that pitchers do sometimes get injured trying to hit or run. The fact of the matter is that the DH is used in most baseball leagues in existence. But still, if the DH spread to the NL, there’s presumably no going back. It does change the strategy, and it does mean the end of a specific style of baseball. Unsurprisingly, this proposal finished with the highest Passion Rating.
4) Draft incentives for winning
- Approval: 57%
- Passion Rating: 3.20
This proposal called for successful low-revenue teams to get draft bonuses, and for teams to receive draft penalties in the event they were unsuccessful two years in a row. The proposal is vague as far as I can tell, so we can’t say much as to the specifics. Still, four in seven FanGraphs readers like the idea of incentivizing winning by way of the draft. It’s far from perfect, but I’m guessing the opinion is that it’s better than nothing. The league has already introduced bonus draft rounds, and draft penalties tied to the CBT. More changes wouldn’t be a stretch.
5) Potential extra service time
- Approval: 67%
- Passion Rating: 3.30
This proposal called for players to be able to earn extra service time should they play well, make the playoffs, or receive award support. Two-thirds of you are on board. In theory, this would allow the best rookies to reach arbitration and free agency sooner. They’d end up getting more money in their better years. But it might also incentivize non-competitive teams to leave talented rookies down longer. Service-time manipulation does unquestionably need to be addressed. This would by no means solve the whole problem.
6) Two-sport athlete exception
- Approval: 77%
- Passion Rating: 2.53
This proposal called for two-sport athletes to be eligible to receive major-league contracts out of the draft. This is a fun set of results — tied for the highest approval, easily the lowest Passion Rating. You all don’t care much, but you’d still like to see the door opened, so that MLB could try to lure more premium athletes. The Passion Rating is presumably low because this would apply to a very small number of draft-eligible players. The timing of the proposal is not coincidental, with Kyler Murray having just today decided to focus on football. Baseball doesn’t want for that to happen.
7) Single trade deadline
- Approval: 54%
- Passion Rating: 3.04
This proposal called for a single, earlier trade deadline. Instead of having one deadline at the end of July and another deadline at the end of August, this would introduce one single deadline, perhaps even before the All-Star break. A problem, I think, is that this is effectively two proposals in one: moving to a single deadline, and moving that deadline up in the calendar. That’s why the approval margin is narrow. My hunch is that people are on board with having just one deadline, but that they don’t want it to be too early, before more teams have a chance to separate themselves in the standings. There’s no guarantee having an earlier trade deadline would do anything to increase activity or incentivize winning.
8) 26-man rosters
- Approval: 77%
- Passion Rating: 3.49
This is another multi-part proposal in one. It called for an expansion to a 26-man roster, but it also set a September roster limit at 28, and it set a non-September pitcher limit at 12. This is tied for the highest approval rate, at seven out of nine FanGraphs readers. It is interesting to consider this along with the proposed universal DH — you’d be expanding the number of hitters, while reducing, by a large margin, the number of normal pinch-hitting opportunities. Say hello to more platoons? The Dodgers would be thrilled.
9) Mound-height study
- Approval: 67%
- Passion Rating: 3.25
This proposal called for a study of the potential consequences of lowering the mound. As was later reported, it also called for a study of the potential consequences of moving back the mound. Two-thirds of you support the idea, in light of the increasing league-wide strikeout rates and velocities. Of course, it’s easy to support a study when there’s no guarantee of implementation, but then, consider the results from the final proposal below.
10) Extra-innings adjustment
- Approval: 36%
- Passion Rating: 3.80
This proposal called for ending spring-training games after ten innings. It also called for using spring training and the All-Star Game to test beginning every tenth inning with a runner on second base. Two-thirds of you are opposed, with the second-highest Passion Rating. Now, I can’t imagine you collectively care that much about spring training, or the All-Star Game. It’s the fear of the slippery slope — baseball would be trying this with the intention of later applying it to meaningful games. Maybe it would never actually get there. Collectively, you don’t want to even open the door a smidge.
Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.
I think it’d be interesting to see who was passionate about the universal DH. My hunch is that mostly NL fans are passionate about the issue, and that the majority of them oppose introducing the DH. If there are actually a lot of primarily AL fans who are passionate about imposing the DH on the NL, I would suggest that they find better things to care about.
In my case, I’m passionate about there being one consistent rule across both leagues. I used to like the differences between the two leagues, but since interleague play came into being I think it’s high time to just settle on one set of rules.
So lets get rid of interleague play.
Let’s do both!
I still think there is a desire to have at least some minimal interleague play since there are natural rivals…NYM-NYY, BAL-WAS, CLE-CIN, LAA-LAD, KC-STL etc. Maybe make a “Rivalry Week” after the All-Star Break where you play 3&3 home and home series, and that could be the extent of interleague play for each year
People tend to believe that most other people share their same beliefs and passions… and will attempt to rationalize away any evidence that it’s not the case.
This describes me pretty well–I don’t like the DH and ideally, would like to see it abolished in the AL as well. Getting something for nothing is no fun, which is the DH rule (same reason why I think the “start on 2nd” rule in extra innings is so awful too). So I was very against it.
That said, someone in the last article discussed an idea that would have a “pitcher-linked DH”–when the pitcher came out of the game, the DH would have to be replaced too. Now *that* is something I could get behind.
The DH changes the game a lot. I mean, I think it is hard to defend a rule that says a player who is almost obligatorily horrible at hitting should hit. I think it makes no sense. But it is a very specific version of the game, and I think everybody should play by the same rules. Alternatively, why not allow the DH but make [an inane] rule where a position play HAS to pitch at least one inning of the game? If what’s interesting is seeing players do something they’re bad at, this seems more interesting than having all pitchers hit.
I have an idea too – one random fielder is blindfolded in the 3rd, 6th, and 9th innings. The manager has the option to replace him with a player who can see, but then the blindfolded player can’t return to the game. Strategy!
Top of the 9th, 3-3. Machado is at 3rd for the Padres and leading off the bottom half of the inning:
But wait, what is this? Machado is blindfolded. and now Wil Myers is coming to third while the third base coach and batter chat.
Perfect response to the anti-DH “strategy” argument. We want to watch the best athletes in the world showcase the skills that they are best at. Adding pointless rules that do the opposite in the name of “strategy” is a terrible idea.
I don’t watch baseball to see the “best athletes in the world showcase the skills”. I watch/play baseball to see the game itself executed efficiently. Baseball is a highly cerebral game that requires forethought & multiple levels of strategy. Baseball+DH is for morons who like mascots & fireworks.
I’d rather see pitchers take their ABs than roll with some aging fatass that can’t even field a position. If players want ABs, then they must play a position on the field. Simple.
For me, this. The DH is Little League, and it’s not about strategy to me.
I made this point on the original post, but why should we stop at pitchers? Catchers stink at hitting. Give ’em a DH! 12 Catchers with at least 200 ABs were above league average according to wRC+. There were more (13) that were 30% worse than league average.
Beyond batting futility, they can’t run the bases as a group at all. Only nine of 50 Catchers put up even a positive BsR, with only one (JT Realmuto) above 1.2.
The assertion that people that are anti-DH are motivated by watching players do things that they are bad at is unfortunately just completely missing our point. If the idea is that we should want to see more specialized players only performing actions that they exceed in, then, as I said on the original post –
“Why can’t we move to a model closer to football? You can have nine defenders comprised of the Billy Hamiltons and Rey Ordonez’s of the world, and stack lineups full of David Ortiz’s and JD Martinez’s. More jobs. Better offense. Better defense. BETTER PRODUCT. Right? Logic!”
Mike Trout could just focus on hitting. What a world! He wouldn’t get hurt running into walls or sliding head first. You could have nine DR’s for your nine DH’s (but only one assigned per – that’s fair)!
I’m for player value being based on the sum of their parts. I don’t want to paper over deficiencies.
That’s fine, but my point was about the “strategy” argument, which you aren’t making. So there was no need to respond. I am fully aware that there is more than one potential for people to dislike the DH. If you like strategy, you should like rules that create meaningful strategy without diminishing the athleticism on the field. Otherwise you might as well support Jon’s facetious “blindfold” rule.
If you are so interested in the best athletes doing the skills they are the best at, why not allow for designated fielders for those who can’t read the ball off the bat? Or designated runners for the slower batters. Then we can see 9 elite fielders AND 9 elite hitters every game, and there will be room on the rosters for people who can’t field or hit, they’re just SUPERDUPER FAST. Who doesn’t want to see a SUPERDUPERFAST guy running around the bases? Isn’t that what sports are all about?
They are not obligated to be horrible hitters, and they weren’t always horrible. Go check out the Play Index on Baseball Reference and look at how pitchers hit in the late 60s and early 70s.
Catfish Hunter hit .350 in 1971 in 103 ABs. Good for an OPS+ of 120. Eat your heart out Madison Bumgarner.
The DH has created a self-fulfilling prophecy. If pitchers worked on hitting, they wouldn’t be horrible.
We are well, well, well past the point where anyone can reasonably pretend that pitcher is “just another position” and “if they put in more practice, they would be competent hitters” and “it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy that pitchers are bad hitters!” No, they wouldn’t and no it’s not. Hitting requires elite physiological attributes and skills that a tiny percentage of humans have, and pitching requires a completely different set of elite physiological attributes and skills. There is no correlation between the two other than general athleticism.
That you had to point to a single, 103-AB season as an exception proves my point.
And no, this does not create a slippery slope argument to creating designated hitters for other positions as well, since the entire history of baseball has demonstrated that every position other than pitcher can be fielded by competent hitters. So everyone can get out of here with that nonsense.
Yes, I agree that the cat is out of the bag. It doesn’t mean that I have to like it. I’m not saying that Pitcher is “just another position”, but not every spot in the lineup needs to be filled by a league average hitter. Just look at 80% of the regular Catchers in the league, or half of the SS, or many CFs.
I do absolutely see pitchers’ inability to hit as a self-fulfilling prophecy. I gave one example, but there are of course many others in the years preceding the DH. Pitchers at one time could hit relatively competently, and some were even above league average (in small samples).
And you’re making the slippery slope argument in your first paragraph. There is no correlation between batting ability and baserunning ability, or batting ability and defensive ability, other than “general athleticism”. We acknowledge these skills individually in how we calculate player value. Why should batters with “elite physiological attributes” be forced to work on aspects of their game which have no correlation to their ability to hit a baseball?
As I said in a separate comment, “Catchers stink at hitting. 12 Catchers with at least 200 ABs were above league average according to wRC+. There were more (13) that were 30% worse than league average.”
Competence is relative. Catchers are more competent than Pitchers currently, but once Pitchers are removed from the pool, and they become the least competent (by far), maybe we’ll start asking the question as to whether or not they should have a DH too. We know the union would be all for it.
Worse than that, they cannot run the bases at all as a group. Why make them? With some little research, I could probably make the argument that Catchers are relatively worse at baserunning than Pitchers are at hitting. Once they reach base they should be allowed to be replaced by free baserunners, softball style.
Listen, I get it’s not going away in the AL. I get it’s coming in the NL. I don’t like it. And I hope that it doesn’t go any further, because, whether or not you buy the arguments today for expanding focused specialization, they very easily can be made. All we have to do is draw on the logic that brought us the DH in the first place.
I put out the starter-linked DH idea as an alternative to the universal DH, partly because I’m not a fan of the DH overall. But the bigger reason for a starter-linked DH is slowing the trend of taking more and more innings away from starting pitchers, and giving them to a parade of hard-throwing, high-spin rate relievers.
If we reach the point where all pitchers go a max of 3 innings (or one time through the order) so they can pitch with max effort on every pitch, I’m afraid that:
(1) the aging curve of the typical MLB pitcher will resemble that of the typical NFL running back today
(2) strikeouts will only continue to rise, possibly leading to
(3) rules being put in place to make it harder for pitchers (lower or more distant mound, smaller strike zone), which could worsen pitchers’ aging curve even more.
There are other benefits to introducing the starter-linked DH, but preserving some career longevity for pitchers is the main one.
I’m a high effort fantasy guy. I make a high ROI every single year, simply because I am logged on more than most. I Love the opener/bulk guy thing since it makes it nearly impossible for a guy with a 9-5 to compete.
Lol, as a guy with a 9-5 (more like 7-6), it’s the logged-on guys like you that made me have to give up fantasy ball.
Yeah, I’m definitely an NL guy… not a fan of the DH at all, but I could get behind the idea of linking the DH to the SPer. That may be an interesting way to deal with this on several levels.
That would not only add some managing – if you don’t want to remove the DH, you might extend the SPer a batter or 2 longer than you would otherwise. But removing the SPer means you have to use another player to hit in the DH spot or bat the pitcher… all decisions that come into play.
In addition, without having the DH to continue to bat for the P, that might be another element that limits the amount pitching changes we’d see even after the SPer comes out. But this combined with maybe a 2 batter minimum and a limit of 12 pitchers a team can carry on the active roster at any one time together might bring down the number of pitching changes in a game.
Another alternative if you don’t want to remove the DH: you could move the DH to an on-field position right before you replace your SPer. From that point forward, pitchers would be scheduled to bat in the lineup spot of the position player who got pulled for the DH.
For example, say the Red Sox have J.D. Martinez as the DH in the starting lineup. When they want to replace the starting pitcher, they could bring Martinez to play LF, and pull Benintendi. At that point, Benintendi’s spot in the lineup would be taken by the new relief pitcher. So it’s a tradeoff for the manager to weigh…Martinez’s bat and glove vs. Benintendi’s.
Over-complication?
I’m an NL fan and I’m passionate that there should be universal DH. Watching pitchers flail at the plate is one of my absolute least favorite things about seeing my team play. AL baseball is vastly more enjoyable.
Point of view. In general, I like the strategies involved in navigating through the P slot. I dislike watching nearly every batter get on his heels and swing for the fences. I find the AL style to generally reflect that approach and I find the current version rather boring.
Plus a few pitchers can handle themselves at the plate or have their bunting down which adds an extra differentiation when comparing their skill or game management strategy.
Both leagues have similar hitters, I haven’t really noticed there being more “swing for the fences” guys in one league or the other. But while the Red Sox get to trot JD Martinez out there every game, I’m stuck watching a 2 out rally go hit-hit-IBB the 8th hitter-pitcher makes feeble contact or Ks to end the inning. It happens frequently and it’s dreadful to watch.
I’ve long argued against expanding the DH. But recent pitcher-hitting performances (something like 125/143/148 last year) coupled with frequent pitching changes (far fewer actual strategic conundrums) changed the calculus for me.
With the current minor leagues using the DH, its no surprise that the when rookie NL pitcher is called up they have such low batting avgs. Change that rule for the minor league clubs and we might see some increase in batting efficiency at the pitcher spot.
Exactly this for me too.
Same initial hypothesis I had about the opposed vote representing a majority of that highly passionate group. I wonder how granular this data is. Is this something we can see? I would love to know.
I’m more of an A.L. guy, but I feel very strongly that the National League should not adopt the Designated Hitter and I would prefer if the American League abolished it as well. I understand frustrations with pitchers flailing helplessly at the plate, but why shouldn’t that rationale also apply to poor hitting shortstops? Something about a guy who only comes off the bench to hit has always bugged me. If pitchers hitting is that much of a problem, I would prefer to go with eight man lineups that exclude the position entirely.
Pitchers hit 125/143/148 last year. The best hitting pitcher (Bumgarner) last year had a wRC+ of 53. The worst hitting regular SS A Escobar) last year was at 60.
Yeah, I think the characterization of pitchers as all flailing can be a bit overblown.
Milwaukee gave a combined 138 plate appearances to Nate Orf and Eric Sogord. They hit .095 with .238 OPS and .134/.406 , respectively.
In comparison, Suter hit .192/ .669 in 32 appearances. Chacin led MIlwaukee in PA for a pitcher and while he only hit .161/ .382 he also got 9 sacs in those appearances compared to Sogord+Orf’s 1.
I pay to watch professional hitters face professional pitchers. I don’t pay to watch an amateur hitter face a professional pitcher.
I pay to watch professional baserunners run professional basepaths. I don’t want to batterymates or corner infielders running the basepaths, they should have permanent designated runners. /s
I’m an NL fan passionate about adding the DH. I dislike the DH, but I dislike the leagues being different more. I want them with the same rule set, and honestly, the benefit of “the strategy” is seldom relevant. It mostly just meas seeing free outs multiple times a game, and that’s boring.
I was an AL fan (Twins) and have all sorts of rational arguments against pitchers batting, but I switched to an NL team (the Nats) 8 years ago and I can’t see going back to being a fan of an AL team—I just find the NL games so much more interesting. I think part of it is that I can’t really be a couch batter or pitcher, but I can be a couch manager, and there is so much more going on in an NL game from a manager’s perspective in a very true to the sport and authentic way. It’s also so much fun to see Max Scherzer try to pretend he’s not super happy and fail to play it cool every time he slaps a hit. His smile is so authentic and you can’t help but smile when you see him on first jawing it up with the firstbaseman as if he were a regular customer.
Tbf Scherzer is an ok hitter by now.
I’m 32 and I have been watching baseball since I was 5. I don’t honestly care about the DH either way, I think I voted against (Portland closest AL ), but what surprises me the most is people who are a fan of a league. Is that actually a thing? NL fans? AL Fans? I apologize if I am late to this.
Maybe people in one-league-only fantasy leagues?
I think it has more to do with “your team”. For example, A’s fans might be more in favor of a DH, while Cubs fans might be more in favor of no-DH—just because that’s what you’re used to. The Astros and the Brewers fans screw this all up because of the league-switching thing, but that’s what I think we’re alluding to.
I’m an NL fan who doesn’t really like the DH. However, it’s pretty ridiculous to think *every* league in the world allows a designated hitter except *half* of one league. The DH is never going away. NL fans who don’t embrace it might as well just stop following baseball. It’s going to happen.
Or, you know, follow the NPB Central league.
It would be interesting to see how the Passion Ratings differed between approving and disapproving voters, particularly with regard to the universal DH.
There are 6 items that effect on field play.
1 item is pitch clock, which is – I think – a reasonable proxy for “shorten games”. The crowd voted for this measure.
The 5 other measures were voted on in a way that would one way or another lengthen games.
Weird.
Prob bc no one really cares about the length of the game but rather what occurs during it. Watching pitching changes and pitchers stepping off the mound all game is tiresome.
The 3-batter minimum might not shorten much, but it definitely wouldn’t Len lengthen games
Hard to say. I checked just one team and perhaps not representative, but the Mets (and their opponents) combined for somewhere between 25 and 125 pitching changes in the middle of innings (whether the pitcher did not face three batters*. I wasn’t willing to dig into the game logs to figure out where in that range it was, so we have a wide range.
But, it is a range that is less than one occurrence per game and possibly as little as just 1-2 times per week. So, there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of possible time savings there. With this rule, I think we should expect some better match-ups from the offenses perspective, which presumably will add some amount of offense, which will presumably add some amount of time.
Whether this will partially balance, fully balance or outweigh the savings entirely, I suppose is up for debate, so I don’t think we can say, “definitely wouldn’t lengthen games”
My guess for the Universal DH:
NL fans were split down the middle but with very high passion both ways
AL fans were pretty much in favor but with middling passion
Ends up with a solid majority in favor and high average passion overall
A lot more people don’t identify as single-league fans than you think.
This. This is what shocked me. My dad is in his 60’s and I asked him about single league fans and he said it mostly went away when he was in his late 20’s early 30’s. I can’t imagine that many people my dads age are replying on forums. I am welcome to being wrong.
I don’t watch AL baseball at all unless my NL team is playing interleague. Yankees/RedSox games are boring slogs.
Its not single league fans, its single team fans and if your team in NL, you often prefer NL style.
I’d like to hear from the scrambled egg-brains who don’t want to limit pitching changes
I suspect people now don’t want to limit pitching changes, simply because you posted an affirmation of limiting pitching changes.
To scramble your little egghead, that’s why.
I don’t want to limit them because it’s impossible to implement something that would (a) pull someone out of the game if they were hurt, and also (b) wouldn’t be totally abused because of that loophole. If we could figure that out, then I think that could be an interesting rule.
Pitcher would have to go on DL if taken out in violation of the rule. Pretty simple to enforce
Are you going to ignore an injury that is significant enough to warrant pulling the player, but does not impact their ability to pitch in future games?
Yes. Of course.
Yes. That is the penalty
The opportunity to fake injuries already exists (pitcher gets lit up and the manager has no one up warming yet), but it rarely occurs. I suspect the same thing would happen with this rule. American athletes generally are not OK with routinely faking injury.
I don’t like rules that change the actual gameplay. I want my team to be able to go to a lefty to get the big out with men on base late in the game. I similarly want my team’s manager to be able to stick fielders wherever on the field in order to get the out. I would much rather explore any and all options to speed up the game around the margins before we entertain a rule change like this.
Agreed, and there’s already MLB Rule 5.07c:
When the bases are unoccupied, the pitcher shall deliver the ball to
the batter within 12 seconds after he receives the ball. Each time
the pitcher delays the game by violating this rule, the umpire shall
call “Ball.”
That’s in the rulebook NOW! A 20 second pitch clock is simply saying we’re going to enforce something 8 seconds slower than the actual rule. I can’t see how that one is at all controversial.
There’s also paragraph four of 4.05b which states that a batter needs to stay in the box. Enforce this rule and some version of 5.07c and you speed the game up plenty without needing any other rules changes.
It seems like baseball could just say, “no on-field warm-up pitches when entering the game mid-inning.” I don’t care how many pitchers enter the game during a half-inning, but I really don’t care to watch them warm up for three minutes when they’ve already thrown 40 pitches in the bullpen. Field-goal kickers and free-throw shooters don’t get to practice on the field mid-game–why do pitchers?
Because every mound is different, and pitching at full force on a mound you’re not familiar with can result in injury, not to mention wildness. For the same reason, field goal kickers always check out the plant area before the kick, and often try one or two practice kicks (without the ball) to make sure they know exactly where they can safely plant their foot.
I hate 62% of you.
Thank goodness I only hate 36%.
Re: lowering the mound
Are we trying to shorten games or increase offense? It seems to me that the two goals are at odds.
To the extent that high-scoring games tend to last longer than low-scoring games, sure. But of course we have plenty of historical evidence that high-scoring games can be much shorter than even today’s low-scoring games. Quicker, more exciting games seems to be the takeaway here.
I’d be interested to see a study of lowering the mound a little, but absolutely not in moving it back. I’d also like to see a historical study of what happened the last time the mound was lowered, i.e. what kind of pitches/pitchers were hurt the least/most by the change.
A two-batter minimum appeals more to me than a three-batter minimum. Of course, one would have to write the rules in such a way to prevent teams from noticeably exploiting the rules, but I do believe it is a worthwhile option to explore.
Making up moronic rules like a 2 or 3 batter minimum is insane. Next thing you know they aren’t going to allow “DESIGNATED” starting pitchers to just go 1 inning.
What if MLB were to ask players if they’d be willing to participate in a steroid experiment. Among the willing, 100 players are chosen at random (assuming 100 are willing). 50 players are given placebo, 50 are given steroids. Other controls (diet, training regimen) could be standardized to the extent people think it matters. The experiment lasts a year, player identities are not revealed. Maybe this study runs 5 years with no players allowed to participate in consecutive years. We get a baseline estimate of pre-and -post steroid performance. Is this interesting or not?
As an idea, yeah sure. But I’m not even gonna spend the energy trying to think of all the logistics because there’s no chance that A) it ever actually ever happens, or B) if it were to happen, the results of the experiment being made available to the public.
I am an AL fan. I don’t ever need to see another pitcher holding a bat. I would be more passionate about this issue than any other.
I would also be passionate of not even going down the road of putting runners on base in extra innings. That idea is just plain batsheet crazy, and I want no part of it. Might as well flip a coin to pick the game winner.
I am okay with some of the measures proposed to improve the pace of play, but if they would just not let batters call time out except in case of injury, and don’t let managers take time to watch the TV to see if they want to challenge a call, that might do it right there. I am especially okay with fewer pitching changes.
If anything, I would like more interleague play. We don’t need 19 games against any team, division or not.
The extra innings adjustment was also a multi part proposal.
I guarantee you that games ending after 10th inning as tied in itself would have a much higher approval.
I would of cared less, as the runner on 2nd is bat shit crazy, but I hate the idea of games ending early. I just want more baseball. Don’t ever end the games. I personally wish games were longer, but I feel I am in the minority.
I wish there was a way to know how the 36% who voted to put a man on 2B in extras broke down between “I’m fine with it as long as it’s just spring training” and “I think it’s a good idea in general.”
(And then also if the people in the latter group could be banned from watching or talking about baseball for life.)
I almost voted for that one before I realized I was voting for putting a man on second base in extras; the idea of cutting off extras at a certain point in the regular season has some appeal for me, which was what I originally thought it referred to. Possible others misread it too.
For the extra innings cap in exhibition, managers can already end those games by mutual agreement or forfeit. It’s a non issue.
For universal DH, I’m coming around on the idea. Part of the fun of baseball is watching our favorite players have long and productive careers, spanning many stages of a fan’s life or even generational gaps, but too many star hitters are exiting baseball in their early 30s. I’d like a few more jobs for the best of them to stick around.
You guys are massively overrating what 5 extra inning games a year does to you. All studies show that more games = better for physical health.
8.7% of games since 2012 have gone to extra innings, so that’s actually about 14 extra innings games per team, not 5.
I have what I think is a better idea for limiting mid-inning pitching changes, rather than the proposed “3-batter minimum.”
Limit teams to 2 mid-inning pitching changes during the first 9 innings (teams get 1 or 2 more for extra innings). More direct.
The problem with that is… there are going to be some endless and unbelievably ugly innings.
I’d much rather see a limit one mid-inning pitching change unless there is an injury that results in the use of the IL.
Can we all just agree that legalizing steroids is the answer to all of this? Buncha guys who can’t wipe their asses, but can hit 50+ dingers. Those were the days…
The rule that has the best chance to be implemented is the universal DH. Chien-ming Wang, Jimmy Nelson, Masahiro Tanaka and the teams involved would probably support the idea. It is this aspect, asking pitchers to do something that they are not trained for, and that is not hitting at which they are bad enough, but running the bases, where they are awful, that should decide the issue. Everybody coddles pitchers, to the point of absurdity, yet allows them to risk their careers doing something they are actually much worse at than swinging a bat. Let us not forget that AL pitchers still have to make an appearance at the plate in interleague games. Wang’s virtual career ending injury and Tanaka’s long stint on the DL came in just such situations. Pitching is a skill unto itself and it is better for the game to have hitters hit and run and field and let pitchers pitch.
I don’t get the down votes for the above. Pitchers are paid to pitch. There’s just no good reason for pitchers to be hitting/base running when teams have already decided that pitching is so specialized and so valuable that they punt a line up spot for it every game and are willing to pay 9 figures for that specific skill.
Either make a line up eight slots or adopt a universal DH. But don’t force Jimmy Nelson and other pitchers to put their careers and future earnings at risk doing something that has no real impact on their future compensation.
And let’s be honest the players union wants the universal DH with expanded rosters to create more jobs for vets. We won’t see shorter lineups.
I mean, they are also paid to hit? It is not like any pitcher signed a contract saying he would be excluded from the rules. And you bring up two pitchers who were both good hitters in Asia fyi.
They are ‘technically’ paid to hit since they are paid to play under the rules of the game. But pitchers are not – or very rarely if you prefer – compensated based on their hitting skills. Their value is almost entirely tied to their ability to pitch. (2-way players are a separate case here).
If a pitcher is a good enough hitter to perform at the major league level then go ahead and use him as a pinch hitter like a position player being used for mop-up duty. It could actually be *additional* incentive in a contract for a pitcher to get guaranteed at bats. But given the way the game has evolved and how separate pitching and hitting have become it’s more of a safety risk than ever for pitchers to step in the batters box or run the bases.
I’m not saying that watching a pitcher like Bartolo Colon or John Lester luck into a home run isn’t exciting. But for me it’s not worth the injury risk.
Not really. They were never signed to a large contract to hit or run the bases and to risk them in such situations is foolish. Think of it in a context of another sport, Let us take hockey for example. Goaltenders are on the ice strictly for one purpose, to put all their effort into preventing the other team from scoring. They were put on the roster for only that purpose and are never asked to do more. Pitchers are virtually the same. They are strictly defenders, placed on the roster to put all their effort into preventing the other team from scoring. An occasional base hit is hardly enough reason to place them in situations that might interfere with that sole purpose.
So you are saying that P are not baseball players? Everyone else has to field and hit, why would P be different. Makes zero sense, ban the DH .
Since the DH is a thing that exists, why do people keep making this argument? It doesn’t “make zero sense”, the arguments for the DH are clear and have been explained ad nauseum. Pitching is completely different skill set than hitting, and requires vastly more practice than the basics of fielding a regular position. Training regimens for pitching are completely different than for other hitting.
I strongly dislike when people pretend not to understand the basics of what they are arguing against. You should know this perfectly well, these aren’t new arguments. Covering your ears and repeating “every fielder should hit!” just shows that you haven’t studied the issue and have no clue what you’re talking about.
Bryce Harper wasn’t trained in the art of not running into walls, but then he learned. These guys can learn, too. If they can’t, tough shit. Baseball isn’t for everyone.
In the original survey, the DH question was characterized as “the end of pitchers hitting, and the end of pitchers getting hurt while hitting”. As there was no corresponding “the end of late-inning bullpen/bench strategy” or “no more competitive edge for good-hitting pitchers” or “once and for all giving Jose Oquendo’s roster spot to Dave Kingman”, the polling result probably reflects the bias of the poll’s author at some level.
These posts are really fun, and make me want to see more data! I’d be interested to see the distribution of the “level of caring” votes for two main reasons. First, to distinguish the case of everyone cares a bit from the case of some people care a lot, and some not at all. An equal number of 1s and 5s can’t be distinguished from lots of 3s without that.
The second is more because I’m interested in how people tend to answer questions like these. Based on how I felt answering the questions, I’d guess that people tended to vote near the middle of the scale (3) for issues they cared little about, even though the instructions clearly said to vote 1 in that case. My personal instinct in answering the questions was to avoid an extreme rating (1) if I didn’t care much about the proposed change.
I wonder how similar the overall conclusions would look if the scale was 1 = strongly oppose, 3 = don’t care, 5 = strongly in favor. Anyhow, designing surveys seems really hard, and pretty interesting.
The rule changes baseball needs to implement right away are the ones that will speed up the game: the pitch clock, no timeouts for the batter, restricting catcher-pitcher conferences to one per inning, and whatever leads to far, far fewer late-inning pitching changes.
I honestly wonder about the thought process of people voting for additional service time. I’m sure that most people can agree that players who haven’t reached free agency yet are underpaid, it’s pretty much a universal fact. However, in the comments of the poll I pointed out how this would hurt small budget teams that rely on drafting prospects, developing prospects, reaping the rewards of those prospects becoming productive MLB players, and then trading those now productive MLB players for more prospects if they can’t keep them long term. These are teams like the Indians, Rays, Pirates, and A’s. There can be no mistaking that this would basically make MLB a pay to win sport with no hard limits on spending.
My suggestion would be that MLB itself provides bonuses for pre-free agent players based on statistical performance, and each team can nominate one of their pre-free agent players to receive additional bonuses. Since this money would be coming from MLB itself, this doesn’t hurt the small market teams at all, but still rewards the players by giving them a boost to their pay when they perform well.
With you in the first paragraph. But the second is lunacy.
How so? MLB is a very profitable organization, why couldn’t it kick in what would amount to a petty sum of cash to reward pre-free agent players? These are the guys who will be the future of the sport, so invest in them! Teams are worried about their bottom lines individually, MLB is worried about the bottom line of the sport. Wouldn’t the sport be at least marginally better off if the younger players were happier, or had incentive to play harder?
It wouldn’t have to be millions of dollars for each player (and remember, those players would have to reach certain performance levels), but it’s a hell of a lot better than making the teams pay more to get less out of their players. This, combined with a proper tax on income rather than spending, a spending hard cap, and better methods of managing wealth distribution would make the sport better overall as teams could remain competitive for longer and their non-competitive floors would be higher and the players would potentially be happier.
Has MLB ever actually polled its fans on these topics? Sadly, I suspect not.
I think MLB would be wise to leave the mound alone. We’re at a long-term low in terms of young pitching talent (try to name a single pitcher under 25 whom you are genuinely excited about). The college crop currently looks very weak as well.
MLB did enough damage with juicing the ball. Focus of pace of play, not artificial increases in offense.
I’d agree with you if you were talking about the distance of the mound, but the height has been changed a few times in the past, let it change again. There are a few prospects that look really good, and I personally am really excited for Julio Urias to come back from his injury, I’m excited to see how Shane Bieber develops, and Severino is electric.
Sixto and Kopech
Great article as always Jeff. Just wanted to mention your first poll was on a scale of 0-100 in increments of 10% and your 2nd poll was 1-5 in increments of 20%. I feel most people responded to the second poll in a much more predictable way since the voters choices was limited in half. 1-10 scale for the 2nd poll would have been the best correlating ratio to go with to match the polls.
Not trying to be a A-hole or anything. Just wanted to point out the suggestion for the next correlating polls 😉
Love your work man. Big fan!!
The three (or even two) batter rule would arguably lead to MORE pitching changes instead of fewer. If a manager has a pitcher with two outs in an inning (and no one on base) and knows that the opposing teams heart of the lineup is two or three batters from coming up, he very likely will burn one of a relief pitcher’s required batters for the last out of the previous inning in order to give him bullpen flexibility in the next inning.
I want more fights
It’s just stupid for pitchers to hit in half the games. Like half the NBA playing 4 v 4 in the 4th quarter.
Universal DH? that would be a big mistake. If the NL goes to a DH, then I’m out… I f*cking HATE the DH – worst rule/idea in baseball. The DH turns a chess match into checkers… any moron can manage in a DH league. Haven’t we dumbed-down enough already?
I’d like to remind everyone that FanGraphs favored the four-pitch IBB by a rate of 69:31. How many people miss it, and would go back now?
I wonder how, or if WAR will be reinterpreted in light of some of these rule changes. Given the original purpose of enabling intergenerational player comparison, it going to be interesting.