On the 162 Game Workload
Commissioner Manfred’s ballpark tour took him to Texas yesterday, where he got to witness one potential solution to baseball’s run scoring problem: clone Samuel Deduno. I’m guessing that probably won’t be on the table when the next CBA negotiations come around, but it would bring offense roaring back to life, probably.
My mediocre attempt at humor aside, Manfred did talk about another issue that might become a discussion point in the next CBA, however; the length of the Major League season.
Manfred said reducing the number of games in a season would have economic and competitive ramifications, but the idea of giving players more off days is receiving more attention than ever.
“One hundred and sixty-two games in 183 days, and a lot of those 21 days consumed by travel, is a pretty demanding schedule,” he said. “By reputation I work pretty hard, and I don’t think I work 162 days out of 183. It’s a tough schedule.”
These comments aren’t particularly new for Manfred, who has previously talked about potentially considering returning to the 154 game schedule of years past.
“I don’t think length of season is a topic that can’t ever be discussed,” Manfred told ESPN.com. “I don’t think it would be impossible to go back to 154 [games].”
I do think it’s worth thinking about going back to a 154 game schedule, but I also wonder who is going to lead the charge on a move that would mean less money for everyone involved. If you drop five percent of the regular season, the television contracts that have been negotiated based on an expected number of hours of programming have to be reworked, as the networks aren’t going to just settle for fewer games at the same number of dollars. Fewer events at the ballpark means stadiums sit empty more often, and it’s not like building them is going to become cheaper as a result of reducing the number of games played. Reduced revenues for the teams mean less money for the players. Everybody takes a haircut if you go from 162 to 154.
While it’s perhaps interesting to think about a 154 game schedule, I just don’t see it happening. People generally don’t take paycuts on purpose, and it’s especially unlikely to see owners reducing their own revenues just to give their employees a few more days off. Owners may very well be incentivized to protect their players health and well being, but I’d imagine they’ll have a strong preference to do so in a way that costs them as little money as possible.
But as we see in other sports — especially in the NBA where the negative effects of playing on back-to-back nights has been well chronicled — there appears to be growing recognition that perhaps the ironman concept of playing every single game on the schedule is not actually a very good idea. With biometric analysis beginning to gain some real traction — the Dodgers, for instance, partnered with a company called Kitman Labs this year — we may be moving towards a time where days off for regular players are now viewed as a net positive to overall production.
While the Dodgers payroll allows them to construct rosters that other teams can’t even dream of, it is interesting to look at how they’re using their roster this year. Their Opening Day bench of Andre Ethier (17 starts), Justin Turner (10 starts), Scott Van Slyke (9 starts), and Alex Guerrero (8 starts) have all been used heavily in the team’s first 27 games, and while some of that is simply the result of injuries to Yasiel Puig and Carl Crawford, the team has leaned heavily on their position player depth even while we all wonder when they’re going to make a trade to clear up the logjam. And that probably isn’t a coincidence, given their investment into understanding the role of fatigue in player performance.
The future of baseball isn’t loading up on $30 million worth of reserves who play a few times per week, but reducing the number of games individual players are asked to work seems like a more likely solution than reducing the number of contests overall. If teams can get similar levels of overall production by asking their best players to play 145 games instead of 155 games, but still get the revenues associated with selling the tickets and television rights to 162 games, then this will be a much easier sell to the bean counters.
But given the competitive nature of the sport, simply suggesting more frequent off days for regular players doesn’t seem like a realistic solution, especially for lower revenue teams who can’t afford to have guys like Alex Guererro and Andre Ethier as their backups. If you’re in the Wild Card race and there’s a dramatic talent gap between your starting shortstop and his backup, it is going to be difficult to convince yourself to take that downgrade voluntarily, even if you buy into the idea that more rest is a net benefit to everyone. If the games are played and they count in the standings, managers are going to want to win those games.
In order to avoid creating a competitive balance associated with riding your starting line-up more heavily than your opponents, everyone would have to buy-in on a plan to move games played from the starters to the reserves. And you’re probably not getting that without a rule that makes participation mandatory. There would probably have to be a collectively-bargained rule that took this decision out of the managers hands, creating the opportunity to rest players without putting them in a position where they felt they were giving away an opportunity to maximize their team’s chances of winning.
Thinking out loud — and this is more thought experiment than fully-formed concept that I’m pushing for — the league could potentially implement a slightly different type of roster that included active and inactive players. Perhaps instead of a group of 25 who are eligible to play everyday, perhaps a team is allowed to travel with 30 players, but only 25 may be active for any given game, and no player is allowed to be active for more than six games in a seven day span. Currently, when a team wants to give a regular a day off, they have to do so with a shortened roster, which often results in that player pinch-hitting or coming in as a late game replacement, so even non-starts aren’t truly days off. Deactivating a player could allow them to know, in advance, that they didn’t have to mentally and physically prepare to take the field that day.
With the player’s association likely looking to capture a larger share of revenues, roster expansion is potentially one way to get more jobs covered by the union, even if it’s not a dramatic difference. But with the league rightfully concerned with the slowing pace of an MLB game, simply creating larger rosters with more specialists is not something to rush into. Instead, perhaps a scenario where teams had more options to choose from on a daily basis, but not more options to choose from in-game, could lead to a desired result of more rest for the league’s star players without allowing managers to slow the game down even further.
Under this kind of scenario, we’d never again see a Cal Ripken, but maybe we shouldn’t be asking players to follow in his footsteps to begin with. Maybe the game is better off with its stars getting more than 3.5 off days per month. Maybe it’s better for the game if guys like Andrew McCutchen aren’t asked to play when they aren’t 100%, and perhaps the only way to force him to take a necessary day off is to write it into the rules.
This is a highly speculative post, of course, because teams are never going to release biometric data concerning a player’s fatigue levels to the public. We don’t have data to conclude that a reduced schedule is going to provide enough of a necessary return to outweigh the loss of production that comes from playing inferior talents more often, and perhaps there will be other issues that arise that this can will be kicked down the road until there is more evidence that 162 games in 183 days is an inefficient use of the human body.
But to me, giving teams the mechanism and the requirement to lean more heavily on their reserves seems like a more likely solution than reducing the number of games played in a season. Instead of fewer games per team, perhaps the better solution is just fewer games per player.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
I wonder if some of the revenue lost from reducing the season to 154 could be made back by expanding the playoffs–perhaps extending the Wild Card round to a best of three and the Divisional round to a best of seven? Or, if they really want to expand revenue, putting more teams into the playoffs?
This is an excellent idea. It probably wouldn’t offset all the lost revenue but it would certainly mitigate the losses.
Expanding the Divisional Series to 7 would be my first priority but I’d rather see a (not unprecedented) 9-game World Series than a 3 game Wild Card. Part of the punishment for not winning your division is baked into the extreme variance of a 1 game series.
More double-headers, more off-days?
Not fun if the games go into extra innings.
The plan to have an “inactive roster” traveling with the team would need to have a solution that prevented teams from putting their 4 “other” starting pitchers (not starting that day) on the inactive roster and loading up on relievers. Nobody wants 15-man bullpens.
Yep, but it would be easy enough to create a constraint that restricted teams from deactivating any pitcher who started a game within the last four days.
I love this idea! I alos think it provides a better potential method for limiting the number of relievers in a game that were discussed before the season started. Why keep it at 25 in-game & 30 total? Why not make it 20 in game and 30 total? Keep the above rule, so 5 slots for starters, 9 for batters, 3 backups, and pick 3 of your 8 or 9 pitchers to have available that day (NL teams probably have one extra bench player instead of the DH). If you’re worried about your starter, cut into your bench a little bit, but this ensures a) regular rest, so better player health, b) bigger rosters, so somewhat increased revenues, and c) fewer pitching changes while maintaining the strategy and possibility of using bullpen specialists.
There is absolutely no way, and no reason, for that to happen.
Why would you want to cut down on relievers, and risk forcing relievers or starters to pitch more innings than they should be?
It would be very hard to legislate out. You could then just deactive anyone who is tired/over-used from the bullpen and continually get a cycle of fresh arms.
That’s the point though, to deactivate guys who are tired/overused. But there would also be a requirement that all players cannot be active for more than 6 straight games or something.
Maybe two lists:
* one for pitchers (where if you’ve thrown >60 pitches in the last… 2 days you’re forced to be on that inactive roster list)
* and one for position players (not sure if I like “forcing” someone onto this list, you’d think it’d take care of itself)
So:
-> A 4 (maybe 5) man “inactive pitcher” list, usually populated by starters, but perhaps by a bullpen guy you want to stay off of
-> A 2- or 3-man “inactive position player” list, call it healthy scratch or however the NHL does it
-> A 20-22 man “active roster”. Usually 1 starter, 7 bullpen, maybe 1 more pitcher (starter on his bullpen day)? 12-14 position players
One drawback: We wouldn’t see any Doug Fister 3rd inning PH appearances!
Dave already covered this, stating ” and no player is allowed to be active for more than six games in a seven day span.” Sure, a team could do what you propose sometimes, but then they’d also have to have multiple starting position players take off days at the same time. However, I think the 6 out of 7 is probably too many off days. That would at maximum give a player 139 games. I think 9 out of 10 would probably be better, about 146 games played a year.
As mentioned, I feel like larger rosters/inactives just encourages more micromanaging and specialization which would be a pace of play nightmare.
I think the better area to take issue with is the schedule itself, 162 games in 183 days? Why not start the season a week earlier and make it 162 games in 190 days? No TV contracts need to be reworked, everyone gets more rest, everyone wins.
If you start trying to play baseball in the northern half of the country in March, you’re just asking for a bunch of rainouts. If you push the end of the regular season back, the postseason will be played in very cold/potentially snowy November.
I’m sure a lot of people have spent a lot of time and money researching this already, but would adding three days at the beginning and three days at the end of the season really cause that many weather related problems?
I live in NY, maybe not quite Minnesota but still in the ‘cold-weather’ territory, I suspect the difference between the last week of March and the first week of April, where we’re already playing games is basically negligible in terms of forecast.
I feel that in the not-to-distant future all stadiums will be domed. But barring that what if there was a requirement for all Teams in cold/rainy climates to Dome their stadiums? I mean you could give them plenty of time and maybe the league subsidizes the cost. The point is you could tweak the schedule easily if most of the stadiums were domeified. Plus fewer rain outs, which everyone hates.
I know I know, I am a genius 🙂
NEVER.
This is the part where I step in to remind everyone that in almost every major league city in which cold weather is an issue, cheifly arund the Great Lakes and in the Northeast, the average temperature on November 2 is higher than that on April 2, by as much as five degrees, depending on the city. Yet people typically whine about playing and watching a game in “cold”, “snowy” early November without batting an eye about playing or watching a game in early April.
“My mediocre attempt at humor aside”
You overestimate yourself, Dan.
We’ll all pretend we didn’t see this…
Why not just keep 162 games, but reduce the Spring Training schedule and start the season two weeks earlier? That would build in 12-14 more off days per team. I know that this could mean additional winter weather issues for the northern based teams, but you could start a lot of those teams on the road and let them delay their home openers in April. Everyone says that Spring Training is two weeks too long anyway.
Spring training is itself a pretty good moneymaker. And from latest I’ve heard, I thought Sabrists were coming around to the point that players DO need that much time to get ready.
As to opening in warm weather sites, even for those teams April games don’t produce the revenue that later games do. So to get their buy-in, you’d have to rejiggle the revenue in some way to compensate them for the increased load of less-desirable home dates.
It would seem odd to address possible injury concerns of hitters without any real evidence while not at all addressing possible injury concerns of pitchers (again, of course, with no evidence). Would you propose some adjusted rule like this for pitchers, too?
Goodness, can we try to show even a little creativity with these titles? You’re literally not even trying anymore. Every day I open the site and see “On __________.”
Get your shit together guys, this is embarrassing.
Nothing on the subject matter itself, but the title pisses you off?
Tangent much?
Personally, I like these titles. Lets me know instantly whether I’m interested in the article or not. Maybe this doesn’t apply to people with unlimited time to read everything, but I have to maximize the time I spend not doing work.
‘Minimize’, don’t you mean? Get your poop together wildcard, that’s embarrassing!
I meant maximize the time I’m not doing work, as in make the most out of it.
Now that is funny.
So basically what you’re saying is that it takes a significant amount of time for you to read a couple opening paragraphs, or you have trouble trying to discern the subject matter in an article unless the title spells it out for you in child-like terms?
Just my humble opinion, but I think you should get off Fangraphs entirely and finish school.
Or maybe I just don’t want to open an article I don’t want to read?
If you are so concerned about catchy titles you should go read ESPN, I hear they have tons of articles with flashy titles and nothing worthwhile in the body!
You won’t BELIEVE what the solution to all of baseball’s problems is
8 ingredients you can find around your house that boosts testosterone that your doctor doesn’t want you to know about!
You clearly need anger management classes. And better things to worry about. And better lessons on “how to look smart and cool”, because your attempts at being condescending and dismissive just aren’t cutting it. “Embarrassing”, indeed.
This is what the NHL does, so it’s not without precedence – each team has up to 23 players on the roster, but can only dress 20 for any one game. Makes it a lot easier to carry a banged-up player who you want to observe for a few days before sending him to the DL, too.
The real issue buried in the article is that with 12 and 13 man bullpens you have no bench. If you have a 12 man bullpen in the AL you have 4 roster spots available for position players during a game. One has to be able to play middle infield defense at least competently, one has to be be a catcher and one has to be able to play center field. Odds are, even on a good high payroll team, these guys are pretty much zeroes with the bat in their hands. That last player may be a 1B/RF/LF backup guy who might be able to hit. That’s not a bench. In the NL you would have one extra spot because of no DH, but that’s it.
I agree with the commenter above who said that if you gave teams inactive spots, unless you protected them by rule, you would end up with 14 or 15 man bullpens each night, not 4 more position players. And while fatigue is real and it is hard, these are mostly young men and most of baseball is standing around waiting for something to happen. These guys are not slinging a pick axe for 10 hours a day for 162 of 183 days.
On this site there are routinely complaints about the number of older players who take advantage of the DH and stay around too long when all they can do is hit, etc. Inactive roster spots would only make it easier for those guys to continue to play. If a guy can’t hack it any longer then he needs to go. Yes it’s hard, but so are lots of other jobs that aren’t as well compensated.
If you want to shorten the season and start the playoffs sooner, get rid of the all star game and schedule 5 day night double headers. Then you can start the playoffs 5 days earlier and the season 3 days later.
So you’d rather see a guy like, David Ortiz for instance, just disappear from the game because he can’t run or field well? If we get to the point where this is happening, that just sounds sad.
Or a late career Miguel Cabrera chasing Aaron’s RBI record?
I agree, baseball without those guys is a sad thought.
people who are against the DH would probably question why a guy who can’t run or field well should even be in the game to begin with.
Probably because he can still be one of the better hitters in the game long after he can run and field well?
Should we eliminate late game pinch-runners because they’re basically all terrible at hitting?
While we’re at it, let’s get rid of all substitutions. If you start the game, you finish the game. Only time you can make a switch is for injuries.
A DH isn’t comparable to a late game pinch-runner though. It’s more comparable to a late game pinch-hitter. In that case, the anti-DH crowd can say that someone like Ortiz can stick around as a pinch hitter.
Baseball is more than just hitting would be the response I imagine. If you cant do everything the game demands at a competent level then you don’t belong in the game. Which to be honest, is a stance have a hard time refuting.
To use your example of pinch running, guys good at running don’t get to just run all game because its all they are good at. If you want to utilize their speed all game you have to suffer with the other stuff they don’t do well. So why do guys good at only hitting just get to hit all game? Why do teams not have to have to deal with the negative parts of their game as well?
Could you not argue that since the DH exists for guys who can hit that their should be a Designated Runner position for the guys who can run? Or why not create a Designated Fielder position for guys who are really good defensively but suck at hitting (a reverse DH if you will).
Why do only hitters get a pass?
Should all players be required to pitch?
That could be interesting. Everyone pitches an inning?
The DH discussions run their course quickly because someone always says “you should be able to do everything required”, but they don’t mean pitching. So, they don’t really mean you should have to do everything, only the things that they are most familiar with in their viewing experience.
I’m not seeing where baseball is needing saving or augmented. Players dont want to sit out because they want stats to earn money and they want respect from peers for being there for the team. Managers dont want players to sit because they want to win. Fans dont want players to sit because when I pay $200 (and those are cheap tickets) to see KC-LAA, my son wants to see Mike Trout, not whoever would take his place.
Managers could easily modify and ease their player’s playing time without formal regulation.
Pitching isn’t really the same thing though because of how specialized it is. pitchers aren’t even regarded as position players.
Although making position players pitch would certainly increase offense haha.
I think what you are saying is that because pitching is so [1] important, [2] skill required, and [3] the amount of in between game work that exists, that pitchers shouldn’t have to hit.
I agree.
But, I still bring it up to point out how arbitrary that pro or anti DH positions are.
I think at this point pitching is so specialized that pitchers should NOT be allowed to hit. It’s horrific to watch. If/When pitchers hit they should pull a “Mark Grace” (when he pitched and did his Mike Fetters imitation) and at least imitate a famous/unique batting stance and go all-in on the over-dramatic plate appearance. As a pitcher, I’d do my tribute to Jose Cruz Sr.
I like the DH application as a way to get guys “some” rest while still keeping them in the lineup as a batter, especially for catchers. Some of these climates are so brutal and the season so long I think you are essentially requiring talented catchers to take PEDs or change positions.
I disagree with some of the commenters and I think a solid day off from standing/running in the heat/sun, or from throwing really does help players recover.
Except that the DH has been a thing now for more than 40 years, so it’s already canon that you don’t have to play the field in order to contribute. There’s no valid argument there.
I know plenty of non-Dodgers fans who love watching Kershaw pitch. I know plenty of non-Braves who love watching Simmons field. I know plenty of non-Reds fans who love watching Hamilton run.
I don’t know any non-Red Sox fans who like watching Ortiz hit.
Fans love him because he plays for a popular team and has helped his team’s chances a huge amount over the years. His actual game is not very engaging though.
I have never gone to a Cardinal game thinking “Wow, I hope I see Matt Holliday make a sliding catch on a routine to below average difficulty fly ball.”
Now that I think about it, I never wanted to see mark Reynolds airmail a throw to first or see Uggla throw a 3-hopper from 2nd base. Really, there are very few guys a fan goes to “watch field”. The time I observed Brendan Ryan for the whole game was worth it. I enjoyed watching his setup and positioning (in shallow LF) and then watching him charge everything and catch it after the 2nd or 3rd hop. That was impressive.
Anyway, given the distance each fan is away from the action, I’m guessing most fans are there to watch the hitters or just general action.
I love defense and pitching, but the only time I rooted for a low scoring quick game while attending was in Wrigley and it was freezing. Travis Wood beat Tim Hudson 1-0, and I was grateful.
Actually that’s 1 interesting idea right there. Day-night doubleheaders. Is there any revenue loss there? A bit lesser attendance for the day part, along with lower TV-cable ratings. But otherwise has there been any revenue difference?
Oh, and as much as all we right-thinking people hate the thing, the All-Star game is still a good moneymaker for baseball. And provides all the players a bit of a break, which is what we’re actually talking about here.
I remember I used to play baseball in a league where you had maximum innings pitched and maximum games pitched per week, and we had big gaps between games. Someone’s mom would always bring goodies at the end of the game, too! Then I grew up.
I was thikning of LIttle League during this whole discussion.
The big difference is [1] little league is dealing with players who still have growing bones, open plates, immature muscles, and developing tendons, and [2] are managed by dads that know significantly less about development and prevention than they should (and mechanics, and strategy, and I could go on forever … but they do donate their time).
Major leaguers are in a different realm and situation. They aren’t “playing a kids game”, they are “doing their job” and playing baseball for a living as work or a business.
Having said all that, as a union, the MLBPA does have a responsibility to advocate for the safety of their workers if restrictions and extra time off can be demonstrated to significantlym improve their workers safety without significantly lowering their earnings and benefits.
I disagree that we need or should reduce the number of games based on the idea that the players are tired. It’s a sport, they should be tired.
I’m all for double-headers to reduce rain-outs and weather related problems though.
Players aren’t fatigued simply from playing the games. They’re fatigued from all the travel, all the practice, all the meetings, and all the time spent on hot ball-fields.
More importantly though, playing so many games leads to more injuries because players are not able to give their bodies sufficient time to recover. Shortening the schedule and adding
more off days will allow players to perform near their peak level
more of the time and reduce the amount of time they have to spend
on the DL.
How many professions other than professional sports push their employees to the point that their bodies break down frequently?
We all know it’s all about the money but considering the fact that
most players and owners are millionaires you’d think that they’d
be willing to forgoe 5% of their income in exchange for better health and better performance.
“They’re fatigued from all the travel,”
How much do you think it would help if they went to 2 4-5 game series @ division rivals rather than 3 3-4 game series? Or a single 9-10 game trip??
DAY OFF!!! DAY OFF!!! I don’t know the meaning of them ugly words!
How about approach it from a different angle. Instead of an expanded roster, allow each team a certain number of healthy scratch roster exemptions … effectively 1-Day DL spots that would allow the team to bring up a MiLB player to fill the hole.
Those you could then limit by player usage. A single player could not be a healthy scratch for two games in a row (except on double header days). A pitcher could not be a a healthy scratch if he’s pitched in the last “X” days. A scratched position player can only be replaced by another position player, etc…things like that.
Some followups.
By not allowing the same scratch two games in a row, you limit teams from abusing the rule to short-circuit real DL decisions
You could have the same 26th (or 27th,etc…) man called up pretty much all the time, effectively lengthening your bench, so long as you scratch someone every game.
But that’s essentially the point of the article. Teams need some way to rest players, and the DL can be too much.
For example, the Jays this week, Saunders has had some minor work done, so he’s been either unavailable to play, or possibly available as a pinch hitter late. Bautista can’t play the field. The game I think Tuesday they mentioned I think Valencia was hurting and possibly unavailable. And it was Martin’s day off. So the team was playing with a bench of like 2 players for the game.
I think if I were going to do this, I would let teams carry a roster of 26 or 27 players, and each game the team would be able to designate say 20 players eligible to play, and maybe you give teams 1 or 2 “emergency” roster spots that open up in extra innings. That’s actually one less than current, if you treat the 4 other starters as unavailable, but it does allow the team an extra couple players that they don’t have to use options on to rotate with the farm team. Yes, you need to throw other rules to make sure teams aren’t getting around DH rules, and you could also maybe add where a player has to not play one day per week (so he could still play 6/7 games if the team has an off-day, but would end up being forced to sit maybe 8 games a year).
I don’t think there’s a way, short of cutting games entirely, to mandate rest without unexpected consequences bubbling up. All you can do is allow teams more replacement options and let them manage player workloads accordingly.
If you reduce the schedule from 162 to 154 that’s basically one extra day off a month. I have a hard time believing that a single extra day a month is going to reduce fatigue all that much.
The benefits to the pitching staff would way outweigh the benefits to the position players — this would result in an even lower run-scoring environment.
25 players per team X 162 games = 4,050 player days per team.
27 players per team X 162 games with 25 players active = 150 games per player
30 players per team X 162 games with 25 players active = 135 games per player
Limiting all players to 135 or 150 games per regular season while still playing a 162 game season is feasible. It costs teams more in payroll but the union would love it. It should not be hard to start and end the season 3 days earlier and later and use those 6 days to make the wild card play in game a 3 game series and the division playoffs a 7 game series, with the additional game revenues (including media) going to the teams to offset the additional payroll costs.
Keep the season at 162 games, but limit playing time to a maximum of 154 games. The owners see revenue, the players get rest, and everyone’s happy.
…until some manager pulls a Strasburg, and burns up their stars’ eligibility before the season quite ends and falls out of contention in the last week.
…or excepting basically any player that ever hits the DL midseason. Viola! They can now play in every single other game without any mandated rest.
…and what about pitchers? Last I checked “starter” and “reliever” are not actually positions, so good luck setting INN constraints.
If you think 160/180 is hard try being a roofer, or really any type of construction, in the north when you only have around 180ish days to work. And those guys aren’t making $500K at a minimum.
Except people pay to watch baseball players, nobody is paying to watch roofers stay healthy.
If you think being a roofer is hard, try being a sweatshop laborer. If you think being a sweatshop laborer is bad, try being a sex slave.
See why you’re dumb? The rest of us do.
So what happens if a team has the exact same 25 players active for six games in a row? Do they have to declare all of them inactive for the seventh game? How would that even work?
Maybe there could be a very short DL stint for “general fatigue”– maybe a 3 game DL– that would allow a player to sit a few days while not creating a hole in the roster.
Congratulations on your reelection.
145 games? I guess that’s doable. But I can’t have Salvy catch any less than that. Try and propose something lower, and I’ll protest it.
Why would teams need a roster limit? If a team wanted to carry 55 players, couldn’t they do that? It’s not like the 55th player is going to be anywhere near the talent of the 5th player, and they wanted to sacrifice talent for fatigue, shouldn’t they be allowed to do that? If they wanted to pay a bunch of players to “never play”, shouldn’t that be their choice?
Im obviously tongue in cheek, but with some legitimacy. I don;t think teams would be sending their “2-on 1-out defensive formation” onto the field, and then have that arrangement be replaced by their “bases-loaded 2-out package” or anything of the sort due to the limited amount of MLB talent.
how about more doubleheaders, a guaranteed day off on either each Monday or Thursday, and slightly expanded rosters for doubleheader days and the day after
My proposal in the earlier article was to have 8 intradivision, 4 game/3 day series Friday-Sunday. You get a roster of 27 players the entire series (call ups allowed) with 25 active each game. You can then even carry either your designated 26th or 27th player into Monday’s game to address fatigue concerns.
So you take a 5% haircut? BFD! How about more doubleheaders?
How about scheduling longer homestands/visitorstands? No more burning jet fuel to cross the country to play 2 games! MLB’s carbon footprint is a joke!