Let’s Talk About a Bunch of Proposed Changes to Baseball
You’re all a great resource, and I love a good poll. I just polled you on Tuesday! In light of how this offseason has gone, I asked whether you’d prefer an MLB-style offseason, or an NBA-style offseason. Sure, the timing of the poll might’ve somewhat biased the results, but, anyway, thousands of you have voted, and two-thirds of you say you’d prefer an NBA-esque feeding frenzy. Yeah, things would die down almost as quickly as they picked up, but that must be a hell of a high, when all the action happens at once. Baseball could never contend with that.
Now I’m back to poll again, because once more I want to solicit your opinions. MLB and the MLBPA have been talking, and as you can read in this article from Jeff Passan, the two sides have exchanged several proposed changes to the game’s competitive and economic structure. Nothing has actually been agreed to yet, and most of the proposals will remain on paper, but for now, we all get to consider a bunch of ideas. You might find some of them agreeable. You might find some of them disagreeable. That’s why I want to collect information.
As far as I can tell, Passan highlighted ten different proposals. You’ll find them below. Some of them are more vague than others, but we can make do with what we have. For each proposal, I’ll offer a brief explanation. And then there are two polls. The first simply asks whether you approve or disapprove of the proposal, as you understand it. The second asks how much you actually care. Are you very passionate, or is it a struggle to so much as muster an opinion? I look forward to the results from running these in tandem. I’ll probably revisit the data later this week.
Off we go! Thanks in advance for your collective participation.
1) Three-batter minimum
Under this proposal, pitchers would have to face at least three batters in an appearance, unless they get injured, or end the inning. The idea is to try to reduce mid-inning pitching changes, because, from a pace-of-game standpoint, they suck.
2) 20-second pitch clock
Under this proposal, pitchers would have to throw their next pitch within 20 seconds of receiving the baseball. You know about what this one would look like. The sides have discussed whether the clock would be turned off when there are runners on base.
3) Universal DH
Under this proposal, the designated hitter would spread to the National League. That would mean the end of pitchers hitting, and the end of pitchers getting hurt while hitting.
4) Draft incentives for winning
Under this proposal, which is not yet well-defined, low-revenue teams would get better draft picks or bonus pools for having successful seasons. They’ve also discussed penalizing teams in the draft for having consecutive unsuccessful seasons.
5) Potential extra service time
Under this proposal, players could earn “bonus” service-time credit for good performance, playoff appearances, or award recognition. The idea would be to do something to counter obvious service-time manipulation. Ronald Acuna, for example, would presumably get extra service for having gone to the playoffs and won the NL Rookie of the Year, allowing him to reach free agency a year sooner.
6) Two-sport-athlete exception
Under this proposal, teams could offer major-league contracts to two-way players they select in the draft. Teams had previously been prohibited from offering major-league contracts to drafted players, but the idea would be to incentivize talented athletes to stick with baseball.
7) Single trade deadline
Under this proposal, there would be a firm trade deadline in earlier July, before the All-Star break. That would be a deadline for all trades, eliminating the August waiver period.
8) 26-man rosters
Under this proposal, rosters would expand from 25 to 26 players. Along with that, though, September rosters would be limited to 28 players, and non-September rosters could feature a maximum of 12 pitchers.
9) Mound-height study
Under this proposal, the league would see about studying what might happen if they lowered the mound. The idea would be to combat the ever-increasing strikeout rates. (The mound was last lowered between 1968 and 1969.)
10) Extra-innings adjustment
Under this proposal, tied spring-training games would end after ten innings. Additionally, the league would use spring training and the All-Star Game to test the idea of beginning tenth innings with a runner on second base.
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 love the idea of one end-all trade deadline, but don’t quite understand why the proposal is to make it earlier. Is this to increase the number of teams which are buying and competing?
According to Passan’s article: “An earlier trade deadline could force teams to emphasize the first half, which might force them to focus more in the offseason on acquiring players via free agency to improve the likelihood of that rather than allowing them to strike well past the 100-game mark.”
[eyeroll.gif]
That’s just a dumb argument. This is going to make the on field product worse for more of the season, as rebuilding teams will drop out earlier and some fringe teams will be forced to sell earlier than they might’ve.
Before the All-Star game is pretty dumb – so players included in the mid-season classic can be traded to the other league and have to switch all-star rosters? Just keep it at 7/31, no trades after that date.
I didn’t see a specific date mentioned, just “earlier”.
Agree with single deadline but it should be later like 8/15 or something
Disagree, I think one of the most annoying things about baseball is that playoff teams can end up looking completely different from the regular season version via some late-season trade. Like I guess the 7/31 standard deadline isn’t terribly late, but it’s really annoying when the Astros can acquire a Verlander or the Indians can acquire a Josh Donaldson at a point in the season where the regular season games are almost meaningless
The NBA moved to a pre-ASG deadline and the results have been increased trade activity. Whether it is causation or just correlation will be interesting to watch in future years.
The NBA All Star game is also 2/3 of the way through the season. Roughly 55 games played in 82 game season
The number is actually a smidge higher in the NBA- it’s really between 57-60 games. Given 82 game season- it’s in some cases closer to 3/4 of the way thru the season… When the break is over- teams have only 7 weeks left to go in the season.
I think the big reason why the deadline would move prior to the all star game is to prevent situations like what happened last year with Machado. Which is why the NBA actually moved their deadline pre-break as well….
And what was the negative event with Machado? Did his trade rumors really have a negative effect on the game?
That may be, but the NFL moved their trade deadline back and now teams actually make trades.
The trade deadline question is tricky because of how it couples two things. I take that to mean they’re being pitched together, but I have different feelings about consolidating the current deadlines (I’m modestly for that) and moving them up before the ASG (I’m modestly against that).
Don’t understand the pitch clock because pitchers being slow to the plate is a very small part of pace or play problems. Just enforce rules about hitters stepping out. It’s a fundamental and massive change for something that won’t fix much. Many of these issues seem like starts. One deadline. Great but needs to be later. Service time requires a much more fundemantal structural fix I think. Issue is underpaying pretty much all players early in careers. Creating some incentives doesn’t change that.
“Just enforce rules about hitters stepping out.”
Nailed it! Don’t let batters call time and only let batters step out of the box if they are knocked down or injured. And if they aren’t ready when the pitcher throws, tough luck.
Nailed it is right – Nailed what the problem is. The umpires and the league have demonstrated pretty clearly that they have no intention of enforcing those rules; there’s even supposed to be fines now.
I was initially horrified by the idea of a pitch clock, but virtually all reports from actual MiLB games (and the couple I’ve attended as well) back up that it’s not intrusive, and doesn’t interfere with the game. The league seems dead set on it, and I think it’s an easy one for the union to give on.
Also a (admittedly very unscientific) review by Grant Brisbee does suggest that the pitchers slow to the plate is a significant part of the issue: https://www.sbnation.com/a/mlb-2017-season-preview/game-length
I’m sorry, but I can’t get on board with a pitch clock in any context.
It provides the runner to great of an advantage in keying on a pitcher’s timing and getting a better jump.
Why does he deserve that advantage? To potentially speed up the game by a few seconds? The “benefit” just doesn’t come close to offsetting the impact.
The current proposal only applies with empty bases.
Which pretty much negates any time savings.
Oops. Would have helped to read the actual proposal.
Egg, meet face.
Even more than that, I think we should be encouraging pitchers to throw as soon as they are ready, regardless of whether the batter is. There is zero need for batters to check for new signs after every pitch.
Also catchers could just hold the ball longer to give the pitcher time.
I think it’s a big problem. Some pitchers take like 30 seconds in between pitches
Too much downtime
One thing still on the board is the DL list going back to 15 days….
there’s a number between 0 and 60 that’s correct, i have no idea how to come to that number. were teams abusing it more at 10 than 15? is it just a starting pitcher issue?
teams were totally abusing it more at 10 than 15. as much a relief pitcher issue as a starting pitcher issue. team would have a long game where they used everyone and guy would come up with a bogus injury and get sent to dl. complicating it was that a guy that was just optioned 2 days ago would be the replacement.
I am not sure if “teams” were abusing it, but the Dodgers sure as hell were.
others started to copycat.
Again, why is using it considered abuse?
because the players were really not injured, just trying to keep fresh arms in the pen at all times…
You could say they were using it more, but ‘abusing’ it is more debatable. I don’t see a problem with using it to their heart’s content.
why is this a problem?
because teams would not have to field a normal traditional bullpen but instead have a lot more 1 inning guys. Have a heavy usage day, place 1-2 guys on the dl and you have a similar bullpen with different guys the next day, fresh and ready to go.
This is partially why we’ve seen such a spike in position players pitching quite frankly as well…. Instead of long relief pitchers pitching, teams are having position players pitch- since they don’t have long relievers.
The Brewers used it a lot but they also had a good share of long-inning relievers as well.
…and why is this a problem?
At the very least, we know there will be no more “10-day DL” this season.
…because, assuming no further changes, it’s being renamed to the “10-day Injured List” instead.
saw the union propose 10 day injured list still remaining for position players, but 15 days for pitchers. Seems like a proposal that should work for both sides.
The one I care the most about is the universal DH, and I’ve been hoping it would be on the way for twenty years now , and have been arguing with people that think it takes away strategy from the game. I don’t care about so called strategic manueving because the more the managers actually manage usually it doesn’t end up going well because most are bad at in game managing. I also can’t take watching pitchers hit because even the good hitting pitchers like Syndergaard strike out 50% of the time, and the vast majority of pitchers are beyond inept at hitting, and just embarrass themselves and hurt the team in key spots at times. Selfishly, bringing the dh would help my team as Peter Alonso wouldn’t have to play the field and playing time would open up for McNeil.
Sorry I worded that badly I meant Alonso dhing due to his defense.
The DH does take a lot of strategy out of the game, especially when it comes to leaving a pitcher in or taking him out for a PH.
If you have a DH, won’t that mean the starter might stay in a bit longer when his lineup spot is coming up, so fewer pitching changes?
Fewer pitching changes only saves time when the changes occur in the middle of the inning, so you’d only recover the time for a portion of the saved changes.
But, swapping the pitcher for a DH increases offense, which adds time, so whatever you saved in the last part, you lose some/most/all of it (or possibly make the game longer).
I posted in another forum– checked 2018 and the median* game length was 179 minutes for both games with and without the DH, so I suspect the two roughly balance out.
*if Play Index had an data export option (maybe it does and I don’t know about it?) I would have done the average, but median is what I could do quickly.
I enjoy the contrast that one league having a DH and the other not having one creates. I think that the NL and AL have been becoming too similar of late.
I’m completely against the DH, but not because of strategy.
My argument against it is that I believe the game was invented to be played 9 vs 9. That is baseball in its purest form. Player value is defined by the sum of all of their parts, and any deficiency should be viewed as such. When I was in little league, we’d replace our worst hitter, who was rarely the pitcher, with a DH. That’s how utilizing the DH feels to me – little league. Papering over a flawed skill set, that has in this case been actively ignored and underdeveloped.
I also don’t see uniformity between leagues as any kind of imperative, and don’t quite understand why people go to this well so strongly. If there’s some evidence to support that AL pitchers are more likely to be hurt as hitters or running the bases than NL pitchers, then maybe I’ll change my stance. But absent that, I don’t see how it much matters whether or not the two leagues play under different rules in this context. If anything, I see it as a charming quirk that doesn’t have a true corollary in other sports.
The fact that pitchers are ineffective hitters, to me, is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. We stop developing their ability to hit once they show the slightest bit of promise at higher levels, never require them to practice it, and are surprised that they’re completely noncompetitive? I place that blame on professional / higher-level baseball.
The union argument is the least effective to me. Why should we stop at pitchers? I get that there is a stark difference, but catchers are, generally speaking, ineffective hitters. Why shouldn’t they also get a DH. Their position certainly takes a significant physical toll which impacts players abilities to compete offensively. And at that rate, 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!
I get that pitching is hard. Very hard. It requires lots of dedication and focus to perfect the craft, and I completely respect that. I just don’t think that it should be used as an excuse for not being able to compete in all aspects of the game. But, this is just my opinion.
I also voted on this as either a 2-3, because I recognize that the cat is out of the bag. We’re never losing the DH in the AL, so it only has one direction to go. I just hope it doesn’t go any further once the NL has it.
My argument for eliminating the DH hinges on one point you make — that pitchers don’t hit anywhere else in US pro ball. I’m actually agnostic about pitchers hitting vs the DH, but I find it ridiculous that NL pitchers go through their entire minor league apprenticeship without hitting, then are expected to swing the bat against the best pitchers in the world. So I’d say either have pitchers hit throughout the minors, or go to universal DH in the majors.
Pitchers DO hit in the minors. Your argument is simply false. Look at any NL SP’s minor league stats, and you’ll see he probably has at least a few dozen minor league plate appearances.
Not enough. The rule in the minors, IIRC, is that pitchers only hit if both teams are NL affiliates. If either is AL, there is a DH.
But that wasn’t his point. His argument was that “pitchers don’t hit anywhere else in US pro ball” and “NL pitchers go through their entire minor league apprenticeship without hitting”
The rule is actually only at AA and AAA. It would make a lot more sense if NL pitchers facing other NL teams would bat their pitchers at ALL MiLB levels not just the highest two.
So I get this is a fairly subjective topic, but it all comes down to relative value for me.
Teams have unilaterally decided that pitching is so valuable and so specialized that they are willing to punt a lineup spot entirely in favor of having better pitchers in the game. They are willing to assign separate values to pitchers and pay them 9 figure contracts for their ability to pitch.
Any value a pitcher delivers beyond his pitching is just a bonus. John Lester got 9 figures to pitch, he’s certainly not helping out anywhere else.
I get your argument about a slippery slope, especially with many teams de-emphasizing hitting for their catchers. Many teams are essentially paying catchers to be great fielders and average hitting is somewhat of a bonus. And maybe people start to wonder why we even let catchers hit when their ability to field is much more important.
However, relatively speaking a catcher’s defense is still far less valuable than pitching. Great defensive catchers, with no hitting ability are paid maybe what a decent middle reliever makes? Maybe one day a catcher’s full value on defense can be quantified and maybe defense is much more valuable than we thought. Maybe Jeff Mathis actually deserved $20M a year for his framing and pitch calling talents, but I wouldn’t bet on it. And heck if robot umps become a thing catchers would actually lose a lot of their defensive value.
I personally would prefer to take away the injury risk that comes with pitchers hitting. Jimmy Nelson had no business putting his career in danger by being forced to perform actions that have very little impact on his value as a baseball player.
Sure Sandy Leon is a terrible hitter and tough to watch night to night, but if Sandy Leon dove back into first base and tore his rotator cuff you wouldn’t hear people complaining that Sandy Leon shouldn’t be running the bases since we pay him to catch.
This isn’t in any way a serious proposal, but I do think it would be awesome to see what an entire team of specialists would look like. All those 80 SS that get weeded out because they can’t hit? All those sluggers with no position? 9 hitters, 9 fielders, let’s go.
“The fact that pitchers are ineffective hitters, to me, is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. We stop developing their ability to hit once they show the slightest bit of promise at higher levels, never require them to practice it, and are surprised that they’re completely noncompetitive? I place that blame on professional / higher-level baseball.”
Agree with most of your post, but not this. I don’t think the reason is that teams stop working on hitting as much as the skills to be a hitter and the skills to be a pitcher are different. As we get better and better at selecting players for their pitching specific skills, it becomes less and less likely that they also have above average skills to be a hitter.
My (unsubstantiated) theory is that typical pitcher offense is about what you’d get if you stuck most any physically fit person through the minors. IE take a legendary basketball player in the middle of his midlife crisis and stick him in the minors and you’ll likely get a batting line that roughly resembles a pitcher.
I’m kind of hoping that you, Mr. Oozy Albies, applied for that open writers job here on Fangraphs.
Somewhere, Dre Russ and DJ Bravo shake their heads at the sad pitchers who can’t figure out how to hit. Hell, Rahkeem Cornwall makes David Ortiz look small and skinny and he can both bat and deliver the ball.
And really, I don’t know if you are thinking enough about the selfishness. Look at the rest of the NL East. Camargo is a better hitter than both Alonso and McNeil, so it doesn’t help you vis-a-vis the Braves. The Marlins are irrelevant. It might encourage the Nats to re-sign Harper. And wow, Hoskins looks good at DH, too.
You must be a Braves fan
The only true “All-rounder” of baseball prefers to play in the American League so that they can DH on days that they *don’t* pitch, rather than have to bat on the days that they do. Did we see Ohtani sign in the AL or the NL? I like cricket too but the sports are really not comparable in this regard.
It’s probably because of elbows. Throwing whether in the field or on the mound uses the same muscles, and teams do not want to have them get hurt fielding. Bowling and throwing, on the other hand, use different muscles. That being said, Ohtani is a more than competent outfielder; it’s not like he can’t play in the field, they just don’t want him to do so.
Someday maybe we will figure out how to better protect elbows, but until that happens, I’d rather watch the best pitchers in the world pitch and the best hitters in the world hit. The rare few unicorns that can do both should simply do so on different days.
I really do enjoy watching pitchers hit. I even like the strategy that the NL must deal with in later innings, and all the purity, blah, blah, blah.
But mostly I enjoy watching pitchers hit.
Maybe it’s a grass-is-greener thing but as an NL teams fan (I assume from your handle that you’re an AL fan), I can’t stand watching pitchers hit. The strategy that annoys me most? Runners on, two outs, #8 hitter up at the plate. Intentional walk to get to the pitcher, pitcher makes a predictably feeble out. It happens all the time and while it may be effective strategy, it’s dreadful to watch.
Yet “big slow .260 hitter whose only job is to swing” is fun?
Yes. A million times yes. Give me Lucas Duda hitting over Syndergaard hitting every single time. One is a near-automatic out, the other is just slow. How is that even a question?
Syndergaard drops bombs tho
Instead of a universal DH, how about a universal “starter-linked” DH? You would get to use a DH, but only as long as the starting pitcher remained in the game. Once you go to the bullpen, the DH is lost and the relief pitcher takes his spot in the batting order.
The goal of this is to restore the value of the starting pitcher. If that’s a priority for baseball, this might be the simplest way to make that happen.
This would be a compromise I could try and get behind.
I’d like them to allow you to DH for any player instead of just the pitcher.
…enter the rise of the defensive wizard!
@cowdisciple I think that would be a great addition to the “starter-linked” DH. Instead of batting for an Ohtani, Greinke, or MadBum, you can DH for your banjo-hitting C or SS. But, once the starting pitcher is gone, so is the DH, and your “defensive wizard” would take the DH’s spot in the batting order.
Is it not? Serious question..
Yep. Already the rule. Sort of sad that people don’t know this.
Thought so. Thank you. Fangraphs: Better than Google.
Wait, I don’t understand, what is the rule in question?
In high school baseball, the DH is allowed to take the batting spot of any one fielder, not necessarily the pitcher. This is emphatically not the case in college, minor league, and AL ball, which all stipulate that the DH can only be used for the pitcher’s spot.
There is a further quirk in college, where if you let the pitcher bat for himself and then make a pitching change, you’re allowed to leave the old pitcher in the game to “DH” for the new pitcher, because the NCAA isn’t already enough of a joke.
That is the Appointed Hitter concept.
Considered and rejected in the 70’s.
(There was also the designated runner.)
It resurfaces from time to time but the gap between even the weakest “defensive wiz” and the vast majority of pitchers is too big and the few “good hitting” pitchers are too few for a league-wide rule.
The biggest knock being that nothing prevents the starting pitcher from hitting. The DH isn’t mandatory, strictly speaking. Merely allowed.
I also think they need to make some kind of AL DH adjustment that the pitcher is allowed to hit. I for one would welcome some sort of Tampa Bay platooning pitchers with a defensive sub and two guys who can pitch idea. Now I also voted for 3 batter rule, but could you imagine a game where Ohtani and McKay both start and rotate based on batter handedness. Would at least be fun to see (once or twice).
Starting pitchers are already allowed to hit.
They’re just bad at it so AL teams don’t handicap themselves by trying to make them hit. They were bad even when they spent their entire careers hitting. Remember, pitchers only hit every fifth day and hitting requires a certain regularity. You see this in the “performance” of young players who aren’t given regular ABs.
And with starter innings declining those two ABs to MadBum or whoever are best given to an aging slugger or bat only guy. Or used to rotate position players, which is a more common use of the DH these days.
I wrote a set of rules that works essentially just like that.
https://www.talkingchop.com/2018/4/20/17261626/changing-one-thing-in-baseball-a-better-set-of-rules-for-the-dh?_ga=2.174669541.677268032.1549458627-1161952324.1497547291
This is not a bad idea.
I am a fan of the ‘compromise’ ideas. It’d be a shame to lose all the tradition, strategy and simplicity of pitchers batting altogether.
I would love to see them implement the ‘duel substitution’ rule, to allow teams to pinch hit for pitchers while keeping them in the game, or maintain an effective DH by removing pitchers. Even going to 8 man lineups would be far preferable than going to a universal DH.
For #10 I fully support ending spring training games after 10 innings. I’m fine ending the all-Star game after 10 innings. I’m fine even letting regular season games end tied after 10 innings. Would adamantly never want to see an extra inning runner introduced.
I actually said this as well, without the ending games tied thing. I hate the idea of that.
I kind of thought they already did end spring training games after 10 innings. Maybe just the ones in the earlier part of spring?
This, and it made answering the poll impossible. I voted ‘NO’ because the ‘experiment’ eventually leading to real major league games having free baseball neutered by runners starting on second would suuuuuuuuuuuck.
I would vote ‘YES’ to spring training games ending after 10 innings, and I would even vote yes to minor league games utilizing the second base runner in extras, but please don’t ever bring it to the Show.
12 innings maximum in the regular season. A tie is fine. I’m European – it’s NBD. To the death during play-offs.
I want to give this a thousand upvotes. Ties, no problem. Extra runner in extra innings, no way.
Yeah no extra baserunners ever. I’m also fine with ties in the regular season but instead of an inning limit, before the bottom of any extra inning when the score is tied, let the home team decide whether to bat or to concede the tie.
Interesting but…
…no, it lends itself to mischief.
Especially on getaway days in the middle of homestands.
Consider: Cubs at Brewers. Next up for the Brewers, the Marlins at home. Cubs scheduled to go to LA or Washington. Play to the death, make them burn the pen or a starter. Then take the tie.
Or:
Home team has day off next, visiting team doesn’t.
It needs to be all or nothing. Play to a win, a tie, or continue it later.
My own preference is suspend after 12 and resume later. If it doesn’t affect standings at season’s end then it doesn’t count. No ties ever.
I am actually fine with ending the game at 9 innings too. Has anyone done look at previous team records by applying ties? It would be interesting to see what kind of standings we get.
By restricting games to 9 innings might bring quality of play up because players will be more likely to stay on field and pitchers won’t get overworked like they do now. We will have to re-define no-hitter or a complete game.
2017 Brewers were especially unlucky in extra innings, going 5-11 (compared to an 81-65 record otherwise) and missed the Wild Card by a single game. I’m not sure how you’re proposing to count ties in the standings, but if you just dropped them out the Brewers’ .555 W-L% would top the Rockies’ .541.
Obviously just ignoring the ties wouldn’t really work, almost 9% of games go to extras, which is too many to wipe off the slate but probably not enough to bother with a 3-1-0 point system like soccer.
Extra Innings in Spring Training seem pretty meaningless; I’m assuming one team or the other would attempt to throw the game eventually. That said its obviously just a precursor to ending extra innings in general and that’s not good; however if you just said spring training games end at the 9th regardless of the score that would be fine.
Teams just agree to only play ten or twelve innings early in spring training anyway. Less if split squads.
Why is MLB so against ties? Other sports have them. I *hate* the idea of a runner starting on second in extras. Just cap regular season games at 12 innings. Knowing you’re down to the last out in the 12th would be exciting.
Hockey got rid of ties so I believe soccer is the only one with ties. I know extra innings games could be ugly with how everyone is just trying to hit homers to end the game just look at the Mets/Cardinals twenty inning game in 2010. That said, I’m strongly against ties and would hate doing what they do in the minors and put runners on base during regular season games.
NFL has ties if the game is still tied after the 10-min overtime. Happened three times this year. Oddly there was one a week for three weeks, and then no more ties the rest of the season.
Not sure how I forgot about ties in football, my bad.
The NFL has ties, and they suck. People passionately complain about them and the NFL overtime rules pretty much every time the extra period is required.
For the sake of discussion, just curious why you are strongly against ties? Will you actually watch the entirety of a game that goes beyond 12 innings? Based on how ballparks thin out in extras I don’t think most fans enjoy it or care to watch it. Also, what is the benefit of completely wrecking your team’s bullpen and needing to call up inferior minor league guys to cover the next day? What would be so bad about ~4 ties a year out of 162 games? Genuinely curious.
I love games that go on after 12 innings. Then again, at the age of 10, I was one of the 1,000 or so people who saw Rick Camp hit his only major league home run early on the morning of July 5, 1985. And stayed for the fireworks at 4 AM. It was brilliant, despite the result of the game. Why do people get bored with extra innings? It is the most exciting time of the game.
People barely have time to watch 3-4 hour long 9 inning games these days. I would prefer my players to save that little bit energy for next day.
In that case, why not go to six or seven innings and make them two hour games?
“Will you actually watch the entirety of a game that goes beyond 12 innings? Also, what is the benefit of completely wrecking your team’s bullpen”
I guess one could look at all 13+ inning games and see how they did the next day with a depleted staff. But looking at Play Index, I see that 14 of the 67 13+ inning outings last year faced 50 or fewer batters. There were 31 nine inning games last year that faced 50 or more batters, so maybe the number of innings doesn’t necessarily indicate the workload?
Also 18 of those 67 games used six or fewer pitchers — 626 9 inning games used 6 or more.
I’m guessing that using 13 innings as a threshold is probably too low if you are looking at it fro ma perspective of “what about the poor relief pitchers!”
Yes most fans do care. It’s jusy that when the games are on weeknights people have to leave. If there’s a very interesting game in extra innings on a weekend, nobody leaves
What is baseball’s equivalent of the shoot out in hockey? A Home Run Off?
How about each team loses a fielder for each inning after 9?
Cricket. Rugby. Soccer. Hockey.
Cricket not only has ties, it also has “draws” which are distinct from ties (and far more common), as well as a separate “no result” designation for games that get rained out too early.
But ties are exceedingly rare. Draws and no results, however, are fairly common.
Hockey, football, and basketball all still have ties.
Completely support capping regular season games at 12 innings.
Only if they resume later.
I’m okay with a game ending in a tie after 12 innings. No issue with that.
Ties are traditional. There was a tie in the 1922 world series. There was an official MLB tie game between the Cubs and the Pirates as recently as 2016. Ties were quite common in extra innings prior to these new-fangled electric lights. I have no problem with ties.
Agree.
Based on past frequency of games that go beyond 12 innings, this would only amount to two to three ties per team per season on average. I don’t think that’s a huge price to pay to spare players enduring marathon games that go past midnight in front of sparse crowds of sleepy fans, sometimes when they have to play the next day or fly out that night. Sure, I love the occasional crazy marathon game (when I actually have the opportunity to stay up for it), but it would also make them more special if they only occurred in the playoffs. That’s one of the things that’s always made playoff hockey so unique.
I’d be in favour of a skins type game where the next game with the same two teams counts for two wins. If they don’t play again that season take it to game 163 if it impacts the playoffs.
There’s nothing wrong with players enduring a marathon game
It’s part of the fun of a season
Lets borrow the shoot out concept from hockey and have a quick homerun derby. Each team picks 3 players who get 5 pitches a piece. Team with the most wins.
Just leave it the way it is. There’s no problem with extra innings
I would be in favor of eliminating the trade deadline entirely. That would give more leverage to the team that is dealing the veteran player for prospects or to clear out a salary.
And then you get superstars traded for peanuts on September 25 and having a massive impact on the playoffs. Maybe with a wink and nod that they’ll be traded back in the offseason.
The free agent to be players would go for peanuts without even the wink.
That wouldn’t work at all. You’d have literally every pending free agent traded to a contender for nothing the last two weeks of the season.
Is that the worst thing in the world, though?
I would have enjoyed seeing players like Harper and Corbin in the playoffs.
Also Dodgers paid for postseason starts, not regular season starts, from Darvish. They had the league locked down.
The price you pay for a player is basically the price the second most willing team is going to pay and I guarantee other playoff teams will be paying.
I think it would be terrible. Every playoff team would look significantly different than the team that got it there. The same ~20 players would be in every year. I can’t imagine the players would even like that.
I’d actually love this if only to rebrand the post season as it’s own ‘Champions League’ style tournament, while restoring the regular season to its deserved former glory. Maybe put 2 weeks between the end of the Regular Season and the start of the Playoff Tournament for some scorching hot stove action.
Most important of these issues is the DH. Not a fan of it at all. Fine if it stays in the AL, but keep it out of the NL.
One trade deadline is fine, but just keep it at the end of July.
I’d be good with a 2 batter minimum, but 3 seems unnecessary.
A lot of the other rules are just ehh to me.
I might be in the minority, but I like the fact that one league has the DH and one doesn’t; it seems to be a fair compromise for those on either side of the argument.
I don’t like the idea of bonus service time, because I think it’s too small a step. There needs to be a thorough revamping of the service time model and players need to have the opportunity to get paid much earlier, including better minor league pay. I’d like to end the perverse incentives to hoard young players and dump guys as they move toward arbitration and free agency.
Well, OK…then welcome to a league with the same 6 good teams every year.
I imagine he would support more revenue sharing. No rules will avoid the problem if some teams always have a ton more money.
The 50’s.
I think the “extra service time for winning stuff” idea seems good in hindsight but would actually further disincentive calling up rookies early if passed.
The 2019 Blue Jays do not look competitive in a tough division, and I think we’re all assuming they’ll bring up Vlad Jr. just after the super two cutoff at the end of April. If that rule were in place, and him winning RotY or getting down ballot MVP votes would add to his service time, then they would wait even longer to bring him up. They don’t want to lose an additional year of service time for a noncompetitive year, so they would probably wait until late July or August, almost ensuring he won’t win any awards.
Service time manipulation is a problem that needs addressing, but this approach would have the opposite effect on any teams who aren’t in tight division races.
I agree, it feels like the more complicated service time is, the more ways teams can and will manipulate it.
The best and simplest option is to make it so that 31 days = a year. Anyone called up and used for more than a month gets a year. Manipulating it would mean keeping a guy down for 5+ months before calling him up, at which point he wouldn’t be eligible for the playoffs.
Players called up ONLY for September cups of coffee wouldn’t get a year of time.
Yes, beware the unintended consequences. If you want to end service time manipulation it absolutely has to be an aged based rule. Could be something simple like ‘club gets 6 years of MLB service time or control until age 28, whichever comes first’.
A blanket age-based rule that reasonably accommodates drafted college players – like Okra’s idea – would do nothing regarding service time for players like Acuña or Guerrero Jr. The former was 20 at the start of last season, and the latter is 19.
Moving service time for free agency to something like 5.5 years rather than the current 6 years would at least get rid of the egregious examples of getting almost 7 full years of team control before free agency by delaying a call-up for just a couple weeks in April, like the Cubs did with Bryant. There will probably always be some manipulation right around any cutoff, but that would put teams in a much tougher position of deciding to forego a lot of production by not calling up a player at the start of a season. Under current rules, Bryant still played in 151 games for the Cubs during his rookie year, so ~10 games delayed free agency by 1 year.
I enjoy the discussion, Dave T, but you didn’t really propose a better solution. Going from 6 years of control to 5.5 as you propose would still have the exact same service time manipulation implications. Yes, my proposal of ‘club gets 6 years of MLB service time or control until age 28, whichever comes first’ wouldn’t really help the generational/phenom type talents … but it’s rare for a 20 year old to be undeniably ready for MLB. And in those instances no team would keep a Vlad Jr type down for 2 years when they are obviously ready.
This is an unavoidable problem. No matter where you set the line, teams can manipulate it. You can move it to 5.5 years, but if there are deadlines set, teams will make it almost 6.5. All of that is arbitrary.
Let’s take the Kris Bryant situation. If the rule was 5.5 years, would he have been brought up in July 2014 just after the cutoff? No. The Cubs weren’t even trying to win that year and he was only a year out of college. Would he be delayed until July 2015? No, because the Cubs were trying to win and he was long past ready. So he’d have been called up at the start of 2015 and would be a free agent in 2021 instead of ’22. So the rule change would have helped him.
That’s a random issue, too. Bryant happened to be ready at the start of a year. If he was only actually ready in June 2015, he sure as hell would have been kept down until July.
The NHL determines it based on a player’s tenth regular-season game, which seems like a way to avoid the problem. Maybe you make it a little more for baseball since there are more games in a year, but if it’s like 15, then you either get a service-time year of Acuna or you don’t get his production.
A player’s rookie season, for Rookie of the Year award purposes, is defined by crossing any one of three experience thresholds: 130 AB (not PA for some reason), 50 IP, or 45 days on a pre-September active roster. It wouldn’t be a big jump from that definition to say that whatever counts as your rookie season, also counts as your first year of service time.
Plus, do we really want writers to affect players’ service time?
Wouldn’t it just be better to enforce a league wide “Bonus” for winning awards? Players would make extra cash during their team control days and low market teams could still hold onto their players during this period.
Just call it 6 years (or 6.5, or whatever they agree) and be done with it. Players become a free agent as soon as they accumulate 6 years, regardless of at what point during the season that occurs. Players could be free to negotiate as a pending free agent within e.g. 2 months of their contract expiry.
That would create free agency in the middle of the season and would be nuts. Probably completely impractical, but the more I think about it, the more I like it.
Absolute thumbs down on testing the extra-inning baserunner rule. Any implementation of that rule introduces a slippery slope. I’m already terrified that it’s a thing in the minors. It needs to stop, and stop now.
Yes, this, exactly. If you want to do it in spring training and simultaneously sign some kind of binding agreement that it will never, ever be implemented in the regular season, then by all means go ahead. But clearly this is being introduced to try to build momentum for it.
Agreed. Who cares in spring training? Those games end in ties after the 10th. Hell, start a guy at home plate already scoring in the 10th in spring training.
Regarding the 3-batter minimum unless a pitcher is injured, the (obvious?) problem with that idea is that it’s not possible to measure “injured” objectively. If a pitcher says he’s injured, who’s to say otherwise? Would the umpires really get involved in trying to determine whether or not a pitcher is injured? That would seem to be pretty pointless…
Umpires wouldn’t want to be duped into allowing pitchers to leave the game if they weren’t actually injured, but imagine the absurdity of the reverse scenario where umpires force an actually injured pitcher to keep pitching because they don’t believe he’s actually injured…
imagine intentionally walking two batters just to get a reliever out of the game when they clearly don’t have it that night after one hitter? there’s so many ways this goes poorly its just not worth it.
Could easily stop any abuse of this rule by stipulating that if removed for injury the pitcher is not eligible to play for the next 5 days/games (or something along these lines).
…..perhaps a forced 15 day DL stint?
BINGO! If a team claims that a pitcher is injured while facing fewer than three batters, it’s an automatic DL trip. If a team tries it in a playoff series, that pitcher goes straight to the DL and their opponents get a free exception to the rule themselves that carries over for the entire playoff series.
It’s a horrible rule idea. The ways to stop abuse could just cause more abuse. It’s the worst idea suggested, other than the runner on second and universal DH, and maybe others, lol.
Eh it wouldn’t stop abuse during the playoffs, or big games. If the season is on the line you do whatever you feel is necessary to stay alive in that moment. Worry about the consequences later
Umpires already have to enforce this rule (though rarely) if a pitcher is pulled before pitching to any batter. If the league thinks a team is cheating, put in the rules that it can demand an examination by an outside doctor.
There’s also already the potential for abuse when a pitcher is struggling but a reliever isn’t yet warmed up. A team could say that the pitcher in the game is “injured” and get the reliever as many pitches as he needs to warm up. I’ve never heard of an example of such gamesmanship, so in practice it doesn’t seem to be a problem.
And I’m pretty sure it would be sufficiently obvious and suspicious if a reliever gets “injured” before 3 batters faced at a time very convenient to his team – just before an opposite-handed hitter is due up – but then doesn’t go on the disabled list and is suddenly healthy enough again to pitch a couple days later. It doesn’t strike me at all as the sort of thing that a team could use more than once.
What if a team tries to use this to plunk somebody? I can go head-hunting and cannot be ejected because of the three-batter rule. If you say that is an exception, well, you don’t need to intentionally walk two guys, just attack one.
Or just call the umpire a motherfucker
“Or just call the umpire a motherfucker”
LOLed at this! It would work like a charm!
My off-the-cuff solution: If your pitcher gets ejected, you don’t get to replace him unless he’s faced his three-batter minimum. You have to move one of your fielders onto the mound to pitch out the string. Like being short-handed in hockey.
Sometimes umpires eject pitchers for staring at them funny . That’s cruel and unusual punishment
There’s no way to prove one HBP is intentional.
Agreed..same with the throwing at someone or getting intentionally kicked out idea. May get away with it 1X, but, if say, The Cubs LOOGY’s start faking injuries, beaning people or getting kicked out after 1 batter, that will be noticed VERY quick. Quite frankly, all the league needs to do is make sure any shenanigans will be dealt with severely, either with fines, manager suspension,etc.
Make the potential penalties such that a trying to circumvent the rule will be costly.
MORE RULES EQUALS MORE FUN!!!
the time spent of having trainers come out and “diagnose” an injury would eliminate any savings of not switching to a different pitcher
No ties. End the game with a home run derby.
With the batters standing on 2nd base instead of at home plate. You know, make it just like soccer.
Or pickle
Some kind of two-ring steal-of-home sudden death derby.
Anything to reduce the number of pitching changes is a step in the right direction.
1) Three-batter minimum
Great idea!
2) 20-second pitch clock
Hell yes. This should have been implemented twenty years ago.
3) Universal DH
Absolutely not. The DH should be abolished in both leagues instead.
4) Draft incentives for winning
No. Punishing a team that can’t help but fail (like the Orioles) is cruel.
5) Potential extra service time
Terrible idea. It punishes good teams and it shortens team control.
6) Two-sport-athlete exception
Sure.
7) Single trade deadline
Great idea.
8) 26-man rosters
A 26 player roster limit has been needed for a long time, but instead of a maximum of 12 pitchers, they need to make it 11, or even 10. There are waaaay too many pitchers being carried on active rosters and inserted into games and that’s a big reason that games last so long.
9) Mound-height study
A study is a good idea, and if lowering it cuts down on K’s as it should then I am all for it.
10) Extra-innings adjustment
Absolutely not. The entire idea is just grade school ludicrous.
I was hoping more comments would be like this one with a reason behind their ideas.
Regarding the three-batter minimum proposal…
My suggestion: a two-batter minimum, unless the pitcher ends the inning or gives up one run (or, in the case of injury, umpire discretion may be used).
Three batters feels like a large overreaction to the one-batter relievers that slow the playoffs down (read: national games where fair-weather fans watch and then start complaining). A pitcher shouldn’t be forced to remain in the game – forcing a player to play a certain amount isn’t a good precedent – hence why I suggest light conditions under which a pitcher needs to remain in the game.
I also think two batters is enough. As a Cub fan, I imagine Tyler Chatwood coming in as a reliever to build up his confidence. Walks batter #1 on four pitches. Throws three wild pitches on his way to walking batter #2, allowing batter #1 to score. Does Joe Madden really need to leave him in to face batter #3?
He should have to stay in.
If a pitcher has a three-batter minimum, pinch-hitting should be banned to stop teams from getting the platoon advantage due to the rule. Remember, there is tons of offense in the game. More K’s and pitching is better. Thinking that the game should be shorter but there should be more offense (i.e. less K’s) is oxymoronic.
I’d like to go back to there being more hits than strikeouts.
Don’t blame Joe Maddon for Theo being an idiot
Owners want to shorten the game using pitch clocks/ mound visits etc so they can throw in extra commericals during that time saved. Games will never be shorter, they will be same length but with more commericals. Pocket the $$. Thats the real reason. Sad how its all about money for them. they don’t care about winning, shown by more than half tanking right now.
You ever press a link on a website and it takes some time to link up… maybe just a second longer than you want it to take? It is maddening and makes the experience so much slower seeming. The time between pitches is like that now. Getting it below 20 seconds would make the games you are watching seem to go more crisply and make the games just plain less slow to watch.
(I don’t have any studies I can cite on this, but I recall stuff saying stuff like this over the years and sincerely believe it to be true…)
You really like to throw in comments like “more than half tanking right now”. What’s your list of 16 or more teams that are currently “tanking”?
Not 16, but there are some: Baltimore, Toronto, Kansas City, Detroit, Seattle, Texas, Arizona, Miami (perpetually). Maybe tanking isn’t the right word, but every one of those teams would be just as happy winning 60 games instead of 70.
maybe i shouldve said shown by more than half not trying to win right now. is that better?
“more than half tanking right now.”
What baseball league are you following? No way sixteen MLB teams are tanking.
none of these effect the current lack of market and players getting offered and paid what they are worth.
I’ve said before, but its sad that Degrom is a top 5 pitcher in MLB and has been for last 5 years and has only made 12 $MM dollars to date. He will be 32 when he becomes a free agent in couple years and wont get jack then either as shown the last few FA. Sad how one of the games best pitchers is treated. Rules need to be changed.
The Universal DH would presumably increase the demand (by NL teams) for good hitters that aren’t good fielders, wouldn’t it…?
DeGrom not making money as a pre-arb player due to baseball’s salary structure is an entirely different thing from “players not getting offered what they’re worth” (which is a stretch anyway).
“has only made 12 $MM dollars to date”
ONLY?
Anyone who has made $2 million and invested it wisely is set for life, let alone $12 million. Cry no tears for DeGrom.
Why should our dollars go instead to the talentless owners who are often just kids of rich folks? Remember, lower player salaries have nothing to do with ticket prices, etc. They will charge whatever maximizes revenue, regardless of cost, and pocket the rest.
“Why should our dollars go instead to the talentless owners who are often just kids of rich folks? ”
This is idiocy on a grand level.
1. Few owners are “talentless.” Owners include Magic Johnson, Billie Jean King. Ilona Klass, and Derek Jeter – all of them sports stars. Then there are the businessmen who had the talent to succeed in business, like the brilliant John Henry of the Red Sox, or even the much-hated Loria. Or the children of such men, who have every right in the world to inherit from their parents, because that’s how the law works.
2. The owners of a given business are the people who deserve the profits of that business. Not the employees, but the owners. Baseball is a business, and that’s how business works.
3. I am (a very small) part owner of the Atlanta Braves via stock ownership and I’m not talentless either.
1. The sports stars you listed have small ownership interests only, most of them in the Dodgers. Mark Walter has a controlling interest, not Johnson, King, or Klass. They are just public faces.
1a. Every legal right yes, that does not mean it is morally right for them to make more of the money than the players. Players have a legal right to strike, is that not just a much of a right?
2. Nobody pays for tickets or watches on TV (generating ad revenue, which is behind the TV contracts) to see the owners. They do it to see the players. Baseball is a business, and the players have every right to attempt to secure as much as the revenue from it as they can. The question for fans is whose side of the player/owner disputes fans want to take. To the extent there is ever a legal issue over who deserves money between the players and owners, it will be resolved through arbitration or in court. The legal rights are not the issue. When the next labor issue arises in baseball, both sides will do what it legal–both certainly have the resources to retain good legal counsel. The question that was raised in the post was whose side fans should be on. Should fans think that the talent should make the money or that the money should make the money. That’s a pretty easy on for me–the talent.
3. Alas, your talents do not include grammar. If they did, you would have known that there should be a comma after the word ownership.
agreed, both parties were happy until the owners started stepping out of line. All the players are asking for is 50/50, not 60/40 and trending down each year like the owners are currently doing.
They have to do away with this control of 6 years bs until you are a FA. Why do you think the avg mlb tenure is ~5yrs? If they take away a couple years of control, the avg tenure will be ~3 yrs etc.
“All the players are asking for is 50/50, not 60/40 and trending down each year like the owners are currently doing.”
That’s nothing but lies. I can’t post a URL here, but search for the article “Baseball’s Economics Aren’t As Skewed As They Seem” at The Ringer. It has the data to prove that “the players’ percentage of revenue has hovered within 1.5 percentage points of the 50 percent mark for at least the last eight seasons.“
wrong , several articles on fangraphs stating otherwise and backing up 60/40 claim. let me guess the article you are refferrin tto is coming out of ny? geez i wonder who is behind that one. ill trust fangraphs work.
Caveman:
1. You’re wrong. Owners are owners. You are not allowed to demean any of them and declare them to be only “public faces” with the exception of Jeter, who has voluntarily decided to actually be one.
1a. You’re wrong. I used to work for a major corporation whose name you likely see on a daily basis where employees salaries were only ~2% of the annual budget (I know this because I worked on the budget). Anyone who owns a business has an absolute moral right to make a profit that is far greater than the sum total of the wages that he pays his employees. Anyone who argues otherwise is ignorant, because that’s how exactly the way that successful business and free enterprise work.
2. You’re wrong; people pay to see the teams play. As Bill James recently pointed out, if every current player retired today major league baseball would still be going strong three years from now with rosters made up of their replacements. (He also correctly pointed out that the players are fungible and no more essential to the game than the beer vendors are.) The reason for this is because people pay to see the Yankees play the Red Sox or the Giants play the Dodgers or the Pirates play the Phillies. The scourge of free agency means that rosters change constantly and that players come and players go. Because of that constant change fan loyalty is primarily to teams, not to players – and that loyalty means that fans should be on the side of their teams, which of course means the owners. Players are just the owners’ employees and nothing more. Some people forget that.
3. You’re wrong. My grammar skills have proven perfectly sufficient over the years, and I have never received a complaint about them. Today, in fact, I was employing them writing a (literally) million-dollar document. You can take your shabby attempted insult and choke on it, because I’m laughing at it. I’d laugh at you as well, except that I find it disturbing that anyone would believe what you do.
In short, you’re wrong about everything.
I had to go and make a account just to respond to you. I believe you when you say you’re a small time stock owner because your comments reek of elitism.
Johnston:
1) We are fans who are paying the money that is keeping you in business, we have every right to criticize ownership and take our money elsewhere if we so choose.
1a. While I agree that owners should earn more than employees, it is in no way a “moral right”. There’s that elitism again.
2) Again, reiterating the point made by Caveman that hardcore fans, which are the majority, pay to see the players and not a team of nobody’s. You seem to think that fans see the owners the same as the players and they really don’t. most of these players come from humble roots and are people fans can relate with who then become millionaires while most owners are already rich and out of touch when they buy a team. There is no loyalty besides maybe some of the bigger name owners.
3) Again I’d actually compliment you on your grammar here but its followed up by petty insults and horribly disillusioned ideas on what you think he was actually trying to do. You do realize this is community that encourages DISCUSSION and DISCOURSE. Sadly you are doing neither. Good day to you.
Splitting revenues 50/50 doesn’t mean owners are making more than employees. Do you understand the difference between revenues and profits?
My company just reported yearly revenues in excess of $100 Bln with an employee count of ~ 50,000. I wish we got 50% of revenues.
BTW, I’m not complaining about my position because I’m doing very well; but to hear players complain about not getting more of the revenue is dumb.
The problem isn’t so much about the share as it is about the rules being designed to limit a players ability to be compensated at their true value. As set up currently, a players salary is dictated to them by the team or through arbitration during their productive years, and only in their decline phase do they get paid what they are worth.
That is also without getting into MLB’s anti-trust exemption and status as a legal monopoly.
Not sure why the trade deadline needs adjusting. August waiver-wire trades are meaningful beyond allowing rebuilding teams to sell off absolutely all of their adequate relievers and veterans that might provide depth on a contender. All the trades that might alter the course of a team’s season are done before the July 31st deadline.
Tell that to Verlander
I’m fine with ending spring training games after the 10th inning. That would of been a thumbs-up. Hell, even start a runner on 2nd in the all star game because who cares? But this is way too drastic of a change, and extra innings is more baesball, and I love baseball. I don’t want it to end faster! I could do without the pitching change downtime, even 3 batter maximum sounds fine to me, but starting a runner on base is a hell no.
Spring Training games already end after 10 innings. As ties.
The 26 person roster is something where its time has come, but I hate that the idea of the universal DH could be implemented so quickly. Does Philly work overtime to trade Carlos Santana if they have a DH? There are about a half-dozen moves that wouldn’t have been made, and probably another half-dozen that would, if teams knew the DH was coming even at the beginning of the offseason. You can’t possibly implement something like that so quickly. And I’m unclear why the union is pushing for this. Don’t they know this just takes away a slot from a reliever?
They probably think the average DH makes more than the average last reliever on a staff, which is usually some minimum wage player. Is that correct? Probably..which would allow for salaries to go up. It’s either that or Dan Vogelbach, Peter Alonzo, etc. have a strong list of followers at MLBPA HQ.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if after 45 years of arguing we get a universal DH because one of the most popular players in the union, Adam Jones, can’t find a job?
That would be silly. His offense is deteriorating as much as his defense. As someone who is younger than Bartolo and only Bartolo among MLBers last year, I understand the effects of age.
If they keep the 10 day DL rule you can still stash (paid) relievers there.
I assume the union wants the universal DH because it’ll create jobs. Wouldn’t the 3 batter minimum do the exact opposite? The LOOGY has been around since I was a kid in the 80s. Jesse Orozco made a living out of it.
Relegation
“Relegation”
Not just no, but Hell no.
and there is no way for that to possibly work since AAA teams are affiliated.
Add a couple of teams and chop the current League in half.
The hellest of nos
Lol, I know it’ll never happen but coming from a country where relegation is a given I have no problem with it. It makes the whole season interesting for all teams as you battle at both ends of the league and quite frankly $#@& the owners, it’s about entertainment and what’s entertaining about watching the Orioles this year? A battle to not come in the last two (i.e. relegation spots) would make me care about their games.
I think this is a great idea. Want to tank? Then enjoy playing in a bunch of podunk AAA towns next season. Oh sorry, the cartel that runs MLB protect the other cartel members, profit above all.
re: 3-batter minimum for pitchers
Pitching changes (per se) don’t suck from a pace of game perspective – commercial breaks are what sucks.
Easy solution: For pitchers who don’t start the inning, reduce the number of (on-mound) warmup pitches from 8 to, I don’t know, 2 or 3, and don’t take a commercial break.
I would allow the first pitching change of the game to get a full 8 warmups even if it occurs mid-inning, so you’re not overly punished for pulling your starter after 6.1 instead of a flat 6 (after all, he’s probably leaving inherited runners to clean up in that case).
This would also be a pushback, ever so slight, against increasing use of openers.
Give the incoming pitcher 60 seconds from the time the manager steps out of the dugout. Managers going to the mound for pitching changes is stupid. Make the call, guy runs in, he has 60 seconds (including his run or ride in, yes also bring back the carts) and if he isn’t ready in 60 seconds, start calling balls every 5 seconds until he is. TV can do one 30-second commercial and then come back and the game is about to start.
What about some way of encouraging local broadcasts (over the major networks) of local teams? Most people are cutting cable out right now and this would also be a way of attracting new fans who won’t pay for a subscription service.
Completely agree. St Louis’ local Fox affiliate shows a handful of games a year, and it’s fun to see them.
re: man on 2B to start extra innings.
For the life of me, this is the one I’ll never understand. “Extra inning games don’t end quickly enough” is right up there with “it doesn’t rain enough during games” and “Mike Trout is too good” on the list of MLB’s problems.
You’re talking about the most tense part of the game, that doesn’t happen all that often, that offers the most unique strategy (it’s the 14th inning – do I use tomorrow’s starter?), etc. – why on earth would they want to cut down on that?
How about “in extra-inning games, each inning past the tenth will start with a man standing 20 feet from home plate?”
I’m open to consideration regarding whether than man would be standing on the third-base line or the first-base line.
Flip a coin every night to see!
I’m strongly for the 26-man roster and a 13/13 split for position players and pitchers. With bullpen domination, teams need to have a bat-first PH in the dugout. The 28-man roster is okay if the teams are allowed to bring more to the big league team, but only roster three of them each game (or each series is fine too).
What about two-way players, regular players pitching, and pitchers pinch hitting?
re: roster size
Wish we didn’t have to vote on the 2 changes combined. 25-man rosters are fine. Artificial limits on the number of pitchers are not. 40-man rosters in September make a mockery of the sport and change it significantly when the biggest games are being played.
25-man rosters all year round. If teams want to bring guys up in September to “get a taste of the show” then allow them to let as many guys as they like travel with the team, practice with the team, sit on the bench during games, get their own locker, etc. – but they can’t play unless they’re on the 25-man roster.
re: DH
I get that there is some added strategy, but I grew up watching AL ball and just don’t understand why it’s a good thing that players are forced to do something that they are completely incompetent at.
Also here’s an honest question for fans of NL teams: Clearly the pitcher batting both helps and hurts your team (i.e. sometimes your rally is killed because the pitcher comes up with two outs and the bases loaded; sometimes you get to kill the other team’s rally in the same position). As a fan of an AL team, I find it incredibly frustrating when that happens (even though I know that, on average, my team will get out of as many jams). Do you find that that your team having its rally killed “hurts” more, less, or the same as the “happiness” you get from having your opponent’s rally killed due to the pitcher batting?
I agree on this. Also, some of the added strategy are moves that are rote moves, instead of some grand stratagem. IBB to the #8 hitter with men on base, so the pitcher has to hit. 6th inning, 2 men on, pitcher up, unless it’s 3-4 pitchers (Scherzer, Kershaw, DeGrom, etc), it’s SOP to pinch hit.
Are there some real strategic decisions? Yes, but, a large chunk of them are obvious if you put 5 seconds thought into them.
I don’t really have any thoughts on this one way or the other, because it never really occurred to me to think about it. But as someone who grew up on AL ball as well, I never really “got” pinch-hitting until I started regularly watching NL games. I strongly prefer NL for that reason now.
“I strongly prefer NL for that reason now.”
Yes. The NL game is better because it’s deeper. Fifth inning, down by three runs, the bullpen is depleted, and the starter is due to bat with two outs and three on, and it’s Decision Time with the game in the line. In the AL version, there’s no pressure, no decision to make, and no strategy to employ – and it’s, in a word, boring.
If you decide that the ideal allocation of practice time for your pitchers is exclusively on the side of throwing the ball, at the expense of trying to hit the ball, that’s the trade-off you decided to make, and you can’t act surprised when scenarios come up where that trade-off might not be the most ideal.
It’s not practice time that’s the issue: it’s live ABs against MLB pitching.
Take the poster child for “good hitting pitcher” Madison Baumgarner: over 9 years in his career he has amassed less than 600 plate appearances, 17 HRs, a .228 OBP, and a WRC+ of 47. An everyday DH with a season like that is history. Other than 2018 Chris Davis pretty much any MLB 1B/DH type can do better.
No doubt MadBaum could do much better if he hit every day and got those ABs but then he couldn’t actually pitch because hitting also takes its toll on a player. That why Otani doesn’t hit the day before or after pitching.
MLB is hard to do well, be it hitting or pitching. Try to do both and you face trouble.
Otani has talent both ways but to maximize either he is going to have to choose one or the other sooner or later. I’m guessing before he hits 30.
In general I really don’t see what’s wrong with game lengths. Be honest – can anyone here raise their hand and say “the average game is now 3 hours, 9 minutes, so I don’t watch baseball anymore – but if they can get it down to 3 hours, 4 minutes – then I’m back in!”
The funniest thing about this is that the “big national” broadcasts always include the Yankees-Red Sox games that are the slowest, easily. And they are the ones picked because of ratings. MLB is being not particularly smart here.
If they got it to 2:30, I’d watch a lot more
But do you also prefer more offense? If so, your wishes conflict with each other. But if that is what everyone wants, make them seven inning games.
I want the game to have a certain pace to it; I don’t care how long it is.
Commercials, batters getting signs after every pitch, and pitcher changes are probably 75% of the problem. Fix 2 out of the 3.
Yes but the game is getting longer and there will be a point where too many fans are turned away by game length. Maybe it’s 4 hours, maybe it’s 3 and a half but it’s certainly better for the league to curtail this trend before it becomes a problem than it is to scramble to win fans back. There’s also the issue that post-season games are longer than regular season games and they’re likely already seeing the effects drastically longer game times have on fan interest.
Actually, 2018 was down to 3:04 already.
I may be in the minority but as a true baseball fan, I don’t mind the length of the games and I am opposed to the efforts to quicken the game or shorten it. This game has no clock. If the game duration is an issue, fans have lots of options for trying to fit a game into a 2 to 2-1/2 hour window. Also, I am in the age group who can afford to buy the products advertised during baseball games. I’d be curious whether the advertisers/MLB have data on the demographic that actually watches the game and have compared that demographic to the groups complaining about game length.
The problem is more the pace of the game than the length of it. Watching games now is like using a slow computer. Upgrade your computer (or make the games move along more quickly) and the game feels crisper.
Witness football — it has the perfect space between plays — enough time to think about it a little but not so much time that your mind wanders.
Trying to make baseball like football is like playing H2H baseball fantasy. Just a bad, bad idea.
How would two way players work in 12 pitcher max rosters? If they count towards the 12 this means this is the last time we saw position players pitch as making him eligible would cost a real pitcher his spot.. If they are excluded their value raises tremendously.
Plate Appearances in each role determines your roster designation, after an initial choice to start the year. Call-ups are assigned based on minor league numbers. It would only be the very rare player where it would come out to something close in significant playing time. A healthy Ohtani who started opening day and pitched reasonably well would always be a pitcher. If you want to tweak the ratio of PAs in each role, that’s fine, but it’s not that hard to figure. You might have a weird spot of late-game roster management where a team wants to get a player over one threshold or the other for some reason, but there aren’t exactly a lot of two-way players.
Instead of having an artificial runner on 2nd in all extra innings, a variant I could actually get behind is “If an extra inning ends with runners left on base, have the next inning start with runners in the same configuration.”
This would do away with the potential nonsense where a pitcher could throw a perfect game, specifically avoiding any baserunners, and still lose because of no run support and the opponents taking a sac bunt + sac fly in the 10th (depending on whether the rules would be construed so as to make “perfect game” a meaningless term for extra inning games). It would also add tension if a pitcher works his way into a jam in the highest-leverage portion of the game. That jam is only going to keep coming back, inning after inning, unless the runners finally do come around to score. Or, of course, unless the team manages to channel the urgency of their one-inning reprieve to score and *end the game* before they have to take the field again.
While I’m not in favor of every single proposal, collectively they would be a massive improvement over the current state of affairs. I hope they get a approved ASAP.
Strong, strong disapproval for punishing consecutive bad seasons. I get the sentiment, but knocking down an organization that makes a legitimate effort and runs into bad luck is counterproductive, and there’s no way to put that into a fair, objective measure. It would also lead to a lot of anger from fans, I think.
I also have no faith in the implementation of draft incentives for low-revenue teams that win either. The freakin’ Cardinals STILL get a ‘competitive balance’ pick every year.
It is almost an impossible situation. If you don’t do anything, teams can artificially suck for consecutive seasons, and that just isn’t right. If you do something, you punish the ones who basically are trying but crap happens. Compare the Astros tank to the current Giants.
Maybe a draft lottery?
What about the Marlins?
I think they’d punish teams with win totals in the 60’s that did not improve at all. If you win 66 games, you better at least win 67 next year. The draft is an crapshoot anyway, so this wouldn’t cripple anybody
The unintended consequences of a lot of these are crazy. If only I trusted Manfred to actually realize this…
A few of these I approve of w/ caveats:
Extra innings start with a runner on 2nd? Fine EXCEPT the playoffs. I do not want glorified ghost runners scoring WS winning runs.
Extra service time: yes but this mechanism is going to be subjective like arb hearings and will not help the majority of players who are not all stars and will still be facing very little FA future after 6-7 years of service.
3 batter rule: shoukdn’t it be 3 batters or end of the game not inning? Otherwise we’ll still see 2+1 out pitcher innings and mid inning changes nearly as often.
“yes but this mechanism is going to be subjective like arb hearings and will not help the majority of players who are not all stars and will still be facing very little FA future after 6-7 years of service.”
Good point — if players who’d qualify for service time bonuses are more often than not guys who got 6-to-7 figure signing bonuses when they were originally signed, then I think it may just end up helping the “wrong” people.
I cannot emphasize enough how opposed I am to rule changes such as the three batter minimum, pitch clock, extra innings rules and the previously proposed banning of the shift. These, to me, are too significant of changes to the fabric of the game for me to stomach given their purported benefit.
I dealt with the intentional walk rule with a “pick your battles” mentality, and now I’ve picked.
Why does the MLB feels that it’s so important to shorten the average run times on games by what? 90-180 seconds? And appeal to constituents who may not even exist? And completely overlook excessive commercial length because it’s revenue generating?
This I cannot abide. I love baseball, but if the MLB wants to make decisions purely based on dollars and cents and at the expense of the game, then I’ll have no choice but to retract my contribution.
I’m in my late twenties. I attend roughly 12-15 games a year. I live in NY, and attend games of both local teams, despite only being a supporter of one. I’m motivated to visit road stadiums when I travel. I subscribe to MLB At Bat yearly. I compete in multiple fantasy leagues. I read Fangraphs daily. I feel like I am the exact type of fan that the MLB should want.
And, yet, they care more about a theoretical fan who probably wouldn’t notice or care about these changes or a game running 2% shorter just because they saw one too many complaints on Twitter.
Mess with the fabric of our game and see what happens. It might hurt revenue more than you’d projected.
Other than supporting a New York team (and really, living there, you have an excuse), I completely agree with your sentiments. And, hell, you have Albies in your handle, so you can’t be all bad on your team preferences. 😉
I exist, and would def watch more baseball with these changes. The rules are attacking time between pitches much more than total game time.
The shift and extra innings rule are terrible. As is the 3 batter rule
Rules like a pitch clock really are the type that helps though
Average 275 pitches a game, take out the ones that end an AB and you get to about 200 pitches a game. Using fangraphs “Pace”, starters are using ~23 seconds, and relievers ~25. No one wants to pitch as time expires every time, so I think 6-7 seconds quicker might be doable.
If you could shorten the between pitch times by 6 seconds, 200 times a game, that’s 20 minutes less. That’s a sitcom worth of dead time removed from each game. If it doesn’t apply to runners on base (how does the minor league clock work in these situations?), cut that in half, and you’re still removing 10 minutes a game.
Announcers might love it too. I’ve started to notice a lot of what will bug me about announcers comes up only because they feel obligated to fill the time. A quicker pace means more play-by-play, less “colour” commentary (i.e. blather).
Hell, make a 2 strike foul ball the third strike and you can probably shave off 45 minutes!
I don’t think there would be a pitch clock with runners on. That would effect baserunning drastically
Eh I think pitch clock is “pick your batters”. The rest of these I agree 100% though
In general I really like the direction of these changes. I love the pace of play improvements and giving the players stuff in exchange seems fair. I get that some people hate the DH but it’s only a matter of time until it happens, so if it can be used to get buy-in from the players on some pace of play stuff that sounds good to me.
Even if you like pace of play changes, remember that adding the DH to the NL adds offense and makes the games last longer. Probably easily by more than the pace of play changes. The only way to make the game have offense and shorten it at the same time is to shorten the game intentionally by reducing the innings.
To compare, look at the closest professional sport to baseball. Test cricket (5-day matches) was the only type for a century or so, then ODI’s (one-day-internationals, last about 7-8 hours) got introduced, and now T20’s (last about 4 hours) are all the rage, and they have introduced T10’s (about 2 hours). If you want it shorter and more offense, you have to do it hard.
Actual game length is not as important as improving what happens during that same time span. I’d much rather see more offense per minute of game time than pitchers stepping off the mound to adjust their caps.
Why don’t they shave more of the non-game related time off? Clock the turnover between innings, clock the pitcher entries, clock the batters getting to the plate… make the million dollar athletes hustle, they’ll be fine. If someone gets injured, turn the clock off, sure. But the injured guy has to leave the game, and has a mandatory DL stint.
And no commercial breaks. Run ads concurrent with the action, go split screen, give our 1000″ HD TVs some work, shut the broadcasters up for 30 seconds or 60 seconds but never leave the field. Soccer does alright in the shithole countries, WHY CAN’T WE DO IT THE SAME BUT BETTER?
Don’t like an ad popping up during the action? Go to the game- maybe they’ll charge reasonable prices for concessions with the boon to attendance. (Probably not.)
I just read that shorter commercial breaks and split screen ads were suggested… so… I have no original ideas.
No one would enforce a clocked time to plate or pitcher entry. A pitch clock is the only timer that a prayer of being enforced.
None of that would change concessions prices. They will charge whatever price maximizes their revenue. Since they can ban outside food and drink, the price is high.
I get the concern about pace of play and wanting to limit pitching changes mid-inning but might some of these other proposed rule changes potentially address that? For example: pitch clocks would encourage faster play and incentives for winning would encourage fielding your most competitive roster (less room for rostering the classic LOOGYs).
Basically, if the pace is the problem, I’d prefer we add clocks to the game before we remove strategy. If pitchers are forced to face 3 batters, aren’t limits to defensive shifts next?
It’s both time elapsed and discontinuity of game play.
The shift does nothing to stall the game, so I doubt it will be considered a pace of play issue, if it ever is considered an issue at all (it’s not).
The shift kind of does affect pace of play. There’s evidence that shows that pitchers’ walk rates are higher with a shift than without.
Meanwhile, there are people that believe the launch angle craze is due to shifts, which has led to an increase of strikeouts. That’s more game action than pace of play, but it’s somewhat related.
You forgot the question “Should whoever brought up the runner-on-second-base in extra innings proposal be banned from baseball for life?”
I hate hate hate the idea of limiting September callups. Watching kids get cups of coffee in September is one of the best parts of baseball.
1. Three batter minimum. Feels like over-legislation. Would it even accomplish the goal? Maybe test it in the low minors (really low, like sub-Rookie league). The thing is, even though there are 162 games, there’s a lot at stake in every game. Especially every close game. Why diminish a team’s chances of winning that game?
2. 20 second pitch clock. Sure, paired with keeping hitters in the box. And it absolutely has to be turned off with baserunners on.
3. Universal DH. Noted in a comment elsewhere: pitchers don’t hit at all throughout the minors. Most don’t hit in college. And then, in the NL, they’re expected to swing against the best pitchers on the planet. Makes no sense. I really don’t care either way on pitchers hitting vs DH, but if pitchers have to hit in the NL, pitchers hitting should be universal in the minors. If they don’t want to do that, then DH should be universal in MLB.
4. Draft incentives for small market teams winning, and penalties for consecutive losing seasons.
This is a solution nibbling around the edges of the real problem. What the rule is saying, in so many words, is that small market teams should be spending more money on players — i.e. trying to “be competitive.” The rule that would actually produce that result is a salary floor, paired with a salary cap and additional revenue sharing.
And btw, penalties for consecutive losing seasons? In the current structure small market teams would rarely get out of the cellar if they couldn’t have a few seasons with high draft picks.
5. Potential extra service time. Another “solution” nibbling around the edges of the problem. Fix the salary structure for young all young players. 1) Higher MiLB salaries. 2) Higher minimum MLB salaries. 3) Tweaks to the Arb system (e.g., let the Arbitrator choose a salary anywhere between the team’s offer and the player’s request). 4) Reduce the service time window.
6. Two sport athlete exception. Sure.
7. Single trade deadline. Why? What “problem” is this solving?
8. 26 man rosters, rising to 28 in Sept. Non-Sept maximum of 12 pitchers.
I’m on board with the 26. I think the Sept limit could be 30 and not be unreasonable. But to codify a 12 pitcher maximum? More over-legislation. Let the teams decide themselves how to allocate roster spots. This isn’t the USSR.
9. Mound height study. Certainly. Study is a good thing.
10. Extra innings adjustment.
Spring training games end after 10 innings. Sure. Don’t they already? I know there are ties in the ST standings.
Test beginning the 10th with a runner on 2nd. Oh, Hell no. It’s called the Big League for a reason.
Not sure why #1 would require extensive testing. It’s pretty obvious what the impact is. Not sure how/why it would affect one team unfairly in a close game.
Agree with salary cap and floor.
For instance, suppose the pitcher who has to face three batters is ineffective against those batters. If two of those three batters get on base, then the manager can go get another pitcher, who not only has to deal with runners on base (pitch clock is off), but has to warm up, etc. The unintended consequence may be longer innings, not shorter innings.
But if you want more offense (which means longer innings), then this rule might be for you.
Again, it’s not about longer or shorter innings; it’s about a higher playing time to dead time ratio — which the rule would definitely improve overall.
I suppose one might argue that instead of building bullpens with specialists (LOOGYs, ROOGYs), teams would build bullpens with guys good at getting three outs. But if those guys were out there, they’d already want them. That’s what closers are (supposed to be).
I think the game takes care of itself and this rule is unnecessary. These types of pitching changes are only made in close games, which are by their nature compelling to watch.
Two thumbs way down on universal DH.
The most exciting play I’ve ever witnessed in person was Kerry Wood’s HR in Game 7 of the 2003 NLCS. Or how about when Jake Arrieta stole second base after getting HBP in the 2015 wildcard game? I’d argue that there is no play in baseball more exciting — or more devastating if you’re on the wrong side — than the big hit by a pitcher. And these are way more common than “pitchers getting hurt while hitting”, so let’s not overlook what we’d be throwing away…
Also, consider how the epic rivalry between Kershaw and Bumgarner would be diminished if they did not bat against each other.
Bumgarner has taken Kershaw deep twice, but perhaps the high-point of this rivalry was Kershaw’s 13-pitch AB that ended with a groundout to second base – with Kershaw busting his ass down the line. Bumgarner was getting ever more pissed as the at-bat progressed, and it ended up knocking him out of the game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcXilhw60Is
One of my favorite moments of the last ten years, and it involved a pitcher batting *and* a 13-pitch AB. That’s baseball!
The DH question was incredibly biased as it asked “Under this proposal, the designated hitter would spread to the National League. That would mean the end of pitchers hitting, and the end of pitchers getting hurt while hitting.”
This predisposed the answers to going to the universal DH because it insinuated that not doing so would result in injuries,such injuries are quite rare.
What about non-pitchers getting hurt while hitting? Ryan Howard on the last play of the 2011 NLDS ring a bell?
Clearly hitting is a dangerous act no matter what position is by your name. We already have calls for robo-umps, how about robo-hitters.
Reduction of games is needed
True.
But the owners won’t give up the 8 games worth of revenue and players won’t agree to a matching salary cut.
There are plenty of good reasons to do 154 games but only one to do 162. Money.
And money trumps everything in MLB.
I’d prefer a limit of 5 pitchers per 9-inning game to the three 3-batter rule.
This would cause too many injuries and would be rejected by both the players and management. Imagine the fifth pitcher having to throw 150+ pitches in a Coors Field special.
Not unless the manager burned all four of his other pitchers too early. You could easily add in a pitch limit exception to make it work as well.
I think a limit on the number of pitchers is fine, except I think you’d have to ease into it. Last year 13% of all 9-inning games used 6+, I think that would be too drastic a change in one season.
[edit]
Looking at every five years:
2018 13%
2013 7%
2008 6%
2003 5%
1998 4%
1993 3%
1988 0.8%
1983 0.7%
1978 0.6%
… wow, that was far more dramatic than I expected
Since no one’s really seeing it as a thing, I want to address the two-sport athlete exception. What you’d be doing here is motivating the best amateur baseball players to add a second sport in order to manipulate the definition of “two-sport athlete” and demand a major-league contract.
Either they’d be bad at their second sport, increasing their opportunities for injury, or they’d be good at it, increasing the chance they decide to do that instead of baseball. Either way is a bad result for MLB.
One assumes “2-sport players” would apply to those actually drafted by another sport. Think of it as buying them out of their second sport.
I like the idea of a single trade deadline, but before the AS break is way too soon. I would put it in mid-August, and then remove the September roster expansion. To compensate for those young players that don’t get called up anymore, I’d massively bump the minimum salary and arbitration system to better account the value of young MLB players.
I don’t like position-specific lineup and roster rules. In fact, I’d like the DH to be able to replace any position, not only pitcher (I guess we’d very rarely see that happen). That all in the name of versatile players, like Shohei Otani. How do you define a pitcher on a roster? Does that mean he can’t play the field? Does that mean a position player can’t pitch?
As far as messing up with the mound, why don’t they just remove it? I’ve also seen a proposition to move it back. Welcome the walks again. Pitchers do have more velocity than before. But that’s not the only thing in the rise of Ks. Homers are also up, and how much does swinging for the fences and in the air account for the lack of contact?
And don’t mess up with a runner on second. I could compromise and put him at 1B. Then the double play is a risk, and the runner can’t score on just two successful sacrifices. It also does increase the chance of scoring
NO to universal DH, unless it’s an optional thing. I like the differences between NL and AL ( I am an NL fan, so…). I do like the extra inning and the limited service time ideas…other than that no to the rest of it.
A single trade deadline? Yeah, I like that. Before the ASB? Are they high? Teams will have to decide if they’re out of it much sooner, making for worse baseball viewing over a longer period of time and takes away a few weeks of potential bounce back play that could see a team back in the hunt. If anything, they should just use the playoff eligibility deadline of August 31.
I also don’t like the extra service time, wouldn’t that push players out of team control earlier? What happens to competitive teams like the Indians and the Rays that survive based on draft and reap? Now their guys earn more and stay with the team less. I mean, just try this thought experiment, if Ramirez hadn’t been extended (and players would have less incentive if they were to reach FA earlier), what would 5th and 6th year arbitration salaries look like for Jose Ramirez and Francisco Lindor? How would the Indians be able to afford both at the same time? They already had to trade away not-terrible players on not-terrible FA contracts (for arguably worse players when they are trying to compete this year) just to get back in black this year, and they haven’t really addressed their most pressing needs.
If they offer additional service time to players based on performance, teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, and Phillies are going to get a lot better while teams like the Indians, Pirates, Rays, and A’s get a lot worse.
I don’t understand the strong aversion to testing the extra runner in extra-inning games during *spring training*. How can so many people be so strongly opposed to what amounts to a research study?
It’s also the ASG, and most fans don’t want to see the game changed that much. I mean, a pitch clock has been extensively studied in the minors and in college ball, and wouldn’t dramatically change the game, but at least I’d spend less time gazing painfully into the pitcher’s eyes while he jostles the ball in his hand trying to make up his mind.
Personally, I’d love if they adopted a little bit more of the MiLB playoff structure and then moved the deadline back, say to 8/15 or 9/1, and had a single deadline. If MLB expanded to an even 32 teams, having 8 divisions of 4 teams could have a 1st half and 2nd half winner. Teams that win both halves get a first round bye, otherwise first round of the playoffs would be the 1st and 2nd half divisional winners facing off. Would add another layer of excitement mid-summer and help keep fans engaged all season long. I’m a baseball traditionalist, but that would add excitement with tie-breakers and a natural mid-season ASG.
I like the game ending after 10 innings, but had to down vote because of the starting runner at second nonsense. What about learning from other sports and just allow ties after say 12 innings?
I’m not a huge fan of RADICAL CHANGES, which probably puts me in the minority. That being said, I would like to see / be okay with:
– 20 second pitch clock (see Grant Brisbee’s article about game length)
– Draft / bonus pool penalties for ‘tanking’ teams.
– Players getting to arbitration a year (and free agency) earlier.
– Ties after twelve innings, esp. in exhibition games.
– 28 man roster, but teams can only dress 25 (so as to rest an injured player and prevent the team from playing short-handed. I know that this has the potential for being abused by swapping relievers in-and-out, so I’d say this “taxi squad” is available for players who hadn’t pitched more than X innings in the previous Y days)
– Limit defensive shifts by saying that at least three fielders (minus the pitcher and catcher) need to be on both the left and right halves of the field.
I would also add:
– Payroll floor
– Relocate the Rays
– Expansion to Montreal and city-to-be-named-later (Vegas?)
– Stop the silliness of blacking out games when there is a national broadcast (I don’t care if ‘Fox Saturday’ has Cardinals / Cubs on. I want to watch the Mets.)
Also relocate the Marlins and stop putting teams in Florida.
i like the idea of having a 26 man roster, but limits on pitching staffs and september call up limits are hurtful rather than helpful
How about not blacking out local games on MLB.TV? My son will never watch Reds, Cubs or White Sox games. so it’s very unlikely he will be a fan of any of those teams. Meaning we will be way less likely to make multiple visits to any of those parks each season. I know they are getting millions from cable companies, but it seems to me that when it comes to improving pace of play or other issues they always throw a blind eye towards certain problems if money is involved. More and more people are cutting the cord with cable and MLB is very slow to realize this. It seems to me that building up the local fan base should be their biggest priority.
I think there should simply be salary arbitration every year, for every player, regardless of service time. Players and teams would be free to negotiate longer-term contracts that avoid arbitration at any point in time. Service time would only matter for determining which year a player could begin to opt-in to free agency. Say it stays at six years — players could become a free agent any year after six so long as they hadn’t signed a contract waiving that right, and teams could release a player with no penalty as well under the same stipulations.
Young stars would start making way more money pre-free agency because they’d it arbitration every year. Since they’d take up a bigger chunk of payroll, old free agent contracts would naturally continue to decline. Further, even old players could just opt to enter into salary arbitration rather than go to free agency. Everyone would essentially have a mutual option at the end of every year. Player would have to get used to arbitration producing LOWER salaries much more frequently, though there’d still be a locked percentage of how much lower a salary can be than the previous year.
The only major effect would be redistribution of wealth toward current ability rather than simply experience.
While I voted in every poll, I strongly feel about 3 batter rule. I dislike use of 4-5 relievers on nightly basis because I am a fan of starting pitchers dominating games. However, I am not a fan of influencing the game from outside. Every team is trying their best to win every game. Some teams can get those outs from a single pitcher and some needs multiple pitchers on nightly basis to win. Forcing a pitcher to face 3 batters will be forcing pitchers and managers to evolve while it is giving yet another advantage to batters. I don’t think I agree with that.
About service time, can we switch maximum pre-FA control to number of years a team develops a prospect with 4-6 years being the limit? If I am not mistaken, most prospects make it to big leagues in 4-6 years time, with super prospects like Harper and Bryant taking even less time than that. I don’t think this will work by itself. Teams might just keep super prospects down to control them longer. It will work with incentives to win though.
BTW I am a NL fan and love seeing pitchers hit but DH is coming sooner or later. Might as well do it now. If it is being implemented for 2019, I want my team to sign Harper.
I think I generally am with the majority on most of these, but #5 (anti-service time manipulation measures) seem at first glance like they have the good intentions, but in reality, they’ll wind up having a bunch of unintended consequences – imagine if the Braves were a non-competitive team last year, how much *more* jerking around Ronald Acuña would have been subjected to in a clandestine effort to not lose a year of service to him winning RoY.
I think a better solution to the service time manipulation issue is like many have suggested in this comment thread: Lower the threshold for achieving one year of service time to something much lower, like 30 or 50 days. Just enough to not trigger it for players who get called up when rosters expand, but something that forces teams to actually call up players and start their clocks at the beginning of the year, and not engage in blatant manipulation the way Bryant and/or Acuña situations were. I understand that there will always be gamesmanship happening at the margins, but I think a 50 days = year threshold solves a lot of problems.
Also, kudos to Jeff for the recent run of interesting, thought-provoking articles the last few days. This is what I come to FanGraphs for.
Proposal 10 (extra innings changes) is a little confusing – I voted thumbs up and 2 on the proposal, but I would vote thumbs down and 5 on any changes to games that actually matter (regular season or playoffs). I feel like people are voting in fear of the implications to regular season games.
How about doing away with All Star Game? Replace it with All Star fun fest or something where all players can relax and fans can get to see them. We already see them play 162 games. Don’t need them to risk injury for a meaningless game.
How about simply eliminating the warmup pitches on the game mound for mid-inning pitching changes? This 1) dramatically reduces the down time during changes, 2) makes the new reliever less comfortable, thereby 3) discouraging mid-inning changes or otherwise 4) restoring more of an advantage to the offense in late innings.
Any kind of study is a good idea. But to study the height of the mound because strikeouts are increasing is akin to saying unemployment is too high because the minimum wage isn’t high enough. Strikeouts are on the rise because everyone is swinging for the fences. Leave the mound alone and teach players that putting the ball in play is better than all or nothing.
The problem is that it’s not better, objectively, from a run-scoring perspective.
This problem is going to take care of itself. The obvious counter to too many strikeouts is that guys will start getting super aggressive. We’re already seeing it in fact. The age of the Mondesi/Baez profile is beginning.
I think number ten should be two separate questions – end spring games after ten, sure, whatever. Runner on second to start extras, hell to the fucking no until the end of time.
I also think that pitcher safety is a pretty big concern when it comes to mound height.
That is a softball rule. Leave that crap to them. Play the game as it was intended: get ’em on, get ’em over, get ’em in.
I’m against the idea of putting a runner on second base to start an inning in extras after seeing it in use at a World Baseball Classic game.
In that game, the first batter bunted the runner to third, the second batter drove the runner in on a weakly hit fly out, and the third batter struck out.
A bunt out, a weakly hit fly out, and a strikeout – not the way I prefer to see a team win.
In the bottom of the inning, the offense also started off with a sac bunt, followed by an intentional walk, followed by a GIDP.
I suspect these would be common occurrences under such a rule. Not appealing to me.
Use the Japanese rule (which Mr. Baseball fans know) for the regular season: 15 innings and then it is a tie. Obviously you need a winner for playoff games. But don’t change the game. Someone always eventually wins.
Surprised more people arent behind the 3 batter, or inning ending minimum. Would eliminate the REALLY dead time associated with multiple specialized relievers coming in for 1 or 2 batters.
Give me the NL DH, please.
Watching a promising rally implode because the pitcher happened to be up at the wrong time is just terrible baseball, and watching playoff games where the best 9 guys aren’t on the field because some of them got benched for the double switch is also regrettable.
I don’t care about the tradition of it, this’ll make the game better
By the same argument, chess would be a better game if every piece on the board had the abilities of the queen.
No, a hypthetical chess-like game where you had 2 queens, 2 rooks, 2 bishops, 2 knights, and 1 pawn and were forced to move the pawn once every 9 moves would be a better game if that 9th pawn were instead another bishop or rook.
Why is it better to decrease the dynamic range?
Because you just have a player that’s completely out of his element. It would be like making the punter run the ball every 9 plays, or blindfolding a fielder every inning.
Decreasing the range isn’t good – but removing the outlier who is many standard deviations away from everyone else.
There’s strategy, sure – but it almost feels fake or artificially created, because the pitcher at bat is so impossibly bad compared to every other hitter.
I can’t get behind the idea that between pitchers taking their turn at bat and the alternative of sending up a non-fielding 10th roster spot invented in the 1970s, the former is the ‘fake or artificially created’ one.
Yes lets compare a competitive intellectual exercise with something fundamentally intended to be entertaining as if they are the same.
Now, if you are one who believes that the double switch is some mind bogglingly complex manuever only fully understood by tactical geniuses, It’s really just not that complicated – double switches as some sort of chess match is a joke.
Nobody is arguing that double switches are beautiful to behold. What *is* interesting is the strategy involved in optimizing the use of a finite number of bench and bullpen players when you never know how many times the pitcher’s spot is going to come up, or how effective the relievers will be..
I fully support a three-beer minimum for pitchers.
Call it the Dock Ellis rule.
David Wells rule.
If we’re willing to submit to calling it a tie after some number of innings, what’s wrong with that number being nine?
I have other suggestions: limit the number of foul balls, for example you’re out after 6, and avoid the “microworkout” and warming pitches at the beginning of every inning. I know it’s hard to imagine and many would desagree, but what do you think?
I’ve been reading about these rule changes, if you’re going to consider a DH in the natty league you should consider a courtesy runner for catcher and pitcher as well. I’m not the mathematician you guys are but if you put a guy on base who’s job is to swipe bags versus a pitcher or limbering catcher there will be more runs and more excitement. If it’s someone like Rickey Henderson that was successful 80% of time he’s going to generate runs and excitement and speed up the inning changes. Just add that 26th spot for a speed demon.
Look up Herb Washington.
Charlie Finley tried it.
The pitcher hitting isn’t remotely comparable to having a slow catcher running. The pitcher hitting is more like making your catcher run backwards for the whole game.
It is becoming rare for an NL team to send a pitcher to the plate more than once in a game. Personally, I like the strategy involved in using the bench players. I’d rather watch Jose Oquendo than Dave Kingman play baseball.
But the pitchers are hitting less *because* they are so bad. And then they aren’t allowed to do the thing that they actually are good at (and trained their entire lives for). Isn’t it a good thing that a pitcher leaves the game when he’s no longer deemed to be the best pitching option a team has?
Also, I’d rather watch Jose Oquendo too. But I’d rather watch Dave Kingman (or Jose Oquendo, or Rey Ordonez) at bat than Jon Lester. Not sure why the comparison is Oquendo vs. Kingman.
Agreed that it is *because* they are so bad, but I just think that’s a feature, not a bug. You prefer the removal of a pitcher to be based only on his effectiveness as a pitcher. I prefer having to weigh that against the disadvantage incurred by sending him to bat. The need to pinch-hit for the pitcher’s spot several times after the 5th inning is precisely what breeds Oquendos in the NL, the absence of that need is what breeds Kingmans in the AL.
20 sec pitch clock would be great, but the enforcement could be difficult at MLB level. If it’s an umpires judgement on if he released the ball in time would there be a challenge every inning showing the clock beside the hand releasing the ball in slo-mo? Can’t have that.
True. I have a tough time seeing it enforced, since they umps already refuse to enforce any pace of play initiatives. I imagine it would be some kind of warning system, where you get one violation (“time out”) per inning and then a penalty on the next one if the pitcher had not started his motion before the time expired.
As much as I would love to see the time between pitches limited, a pitch clock is always going to be a bit awkward. Not to mention the gamesmanship with Ps constantly cleaning their cleats and asking for new balls.
I’m a big fan of watching pitchers bat. And yes, there’s strategy involved in trading offensive outs for defensive ones that I don’t want to see disappear. Plus, the pitcher RBI is one of the most wonderful/devastating things in sports.
If we’re trying to protect pitcher injuries and help starters stay in the game, how about a designated runner for starters? They’d still have to hit, but if they get on, then they can go back into the dugout and somebody else takes over. No jacket to keep from getting too cold. No, “he had to run first to third on a single and now he’s worn out for the next inning.” No injuries on slides, or pulled hammies.
I like the trade deadline idea, but I hate basically all of the rest.
First of all, I don’t think the pace of the game is a problem. I like a slower game. So anything designed to speed up the game is, to me, a bad idea.
Regarding pitcher usage, the proper response to teams carrying too many pitchers is to have the other team penalize them for that by making them throw more pitches.
Are there studies that show pace of play is actually a big concern of fans? One of the things I’ve always loved about baseball is the absence of a clock/timer. It’s a game measured only in outs, not in seconds. Is this just me?
Not just you. The only thing that’s frustrating to me regarding game length or pace of play is repeated commercial breaks for relievers coming in, and there’s a simple solution to that – give pitchers fewer warmup pitches on the mound, and don’t take a commercial break. Give the announcers 30-60 seconds to talk about the guy coming in.
In general I think a lot of the “problems” could be solved with better commentary. There are definitely a lot more intelligent things that can be talked about/explained in the 20+ seconds between pitches, especially now with all the advanced visualization tools that networks have.
I think many are failing to realize that most of these rules are a direct response to changed behavior. I.e., they are trying to stabilize the game, not change it. 20 years ago, no one was tanking, pitchers were not wasting time gearing up for every pitch, teams weren’t planning to use 6 pitchers a game. They started doing so bc there were no explicit rules outlawing the behaviors. Without new rules, things will simply continue in the same direction, which I believe most fans — present and future — would not enjoy.
Things I want most on this list are Universal DH (or none universally for that matter) and 26 man rosters with only slight expansion in SEPT. I HATE roster expansion in SEPT as it changes everything. Really would like DH in both leagues.
I get it that for TV purposes games should be shorter and I don’t disagree. But when it comes to watching games at the ballpark I wish they would last 6+ hours. I absolutely love every second I spend at a baseball game and wish the games would never end. Doesn’t matter if my team is winning or losing there is just something about being at the ballpark that puts me at ease.
I thought there already was a pitch clock that is not in any way enforced. Would this be a new pitch clock that is not in any way enforced?