Taking Temperatures on the 2020 Rules Changes

On Tuesday, I wrote about the National League’s current state of limbo regarding the continued use of the designated hitter. The Senior Circuit’s adoption of the DH was one of several rules changes included as part of MLB’s 2020-specific health and safety protocols, though both the league’s operations manual and commissioner Rob Manfred made clear that all of those changes would be undone once the season ended unless the players’ union agreed otherwise. While rules-related proposals are usually in place in time to be voted upon at the annual November owners meetings, this year’s assembly was canceled due to the coronavirus pandemic, and with MLB hoping the players will agree to some kind of expanded playoff format in exchange, it could be awhile before we get a resolution.

In writing Tuesday’s piece, I thought it would be interesting to take a page from the Jeff Sullivan playbook and invite FanGraphs’ readership to weigh in regarding not only the universal DH, but also the other rules that were adopted for 2020 but could revert back to their previous state. Several of these rules, or variations of them, had been kicked around in proposals for years, but few of us dreamed they would be put into action given their relatively radical nature. The shortened season created conditions that allowed some of them to audition on the big stage, and while many purists were mortified, a significant share of players, fans, and media found that even some of the more radical ones weren’t so bad after all.

Figuring that a couple of rules — namely the allowances for suspended games of less than five innings to be continued and for pitchers to carry wet rags in their back pockets — weren’t interesting enough to capture the imagination, I pared my list for readers to consider down to six. Additionally, I decided not to take the readers’ temperature on other controversial matters such as the potential introduction of pitch clocks and the outlawing of the infield shift. For the purposes of answering the questions, you should assume that I am talking about a relatively unencumbered season rather than another one played under pandemic conditions, with an emphasis on getting players in and out of ballparks more quickly. With COVID-19 rates surging all over the country, that may be fantasy, but if we’re talking about things going back to their previous state in 2022 rather than ’21, so be it. The question about each rule is accompanied by both a brief introduction as well as a follow-up question as to how much you actually care about that particular matter. I’ll compile the results in a follow-up post in the near future.

1. The universal designated hitter

As noted, I just wrote about this one. Back in June, I laid out my reasoning for preferring that the NL adopt the DH; while yes, that meant losing the chance for another moment of collective joy on the scale of Bartolo Colon hitting a home run, it also meant shedding a whole lot of tedious plate appearances, misguided attempts to sacrifice bunt, and dull-as-dishwater sequences of No. 8 hitters being pitched around to get to the pitcher. With the DH in place in the NL, the Senior Circuit outscored the Junior Circuit for the first time since 1974, and NL DHs performed about as well as AL ones despite teams not having a full offseason to figure out how to staff the position.

2. The extra-innings rule

Taken from the minor leagues, this rule calls for each half-inning after the ninth to begin with a runner on second base, creating an immediate level of urgency and increasing the chances that extra-innings games end more quickly. In that regard, the rule did what it was supposed to do; extra-inning games averaged 10.29 innings in 2020, down from 11.14 in ’19 and 11.04 in ’18. The percentage of games going past 11 innings dipped to 0.7%, down from 2.3% in 2019 and 2.8% in ’18. Only two games lasted into the 13th inning, compared to 37 in 2019.

3. Seven-inning games in doubleheaders

Another one taken from the minor league playbook, and not put in place until August 1, this was necessitated by the number of makeup games created by COVID-19-related postponements, so as not to burn out pitching staffs. A total of 110 shortened doubleheader games were played – 55 doubleheaders, about one per day from the time the rule was introduced through the end of the season, with the Cardinals (22) leading the way; due to an outbreak that shut them down starting on July 30, they didn’t play a single game for 16 days, then played an MLB-high 11 doubleheaders from August 15 onward, and a total of 53 games in 44 days; they would have played another doubleheader on the day after the regular season ended had a playoff spot been on the line. Given that strange mix of games, their pitchers ended up throwing just 473 innings, 24 fewer than the NL’s 14th-ranked team (the Phillies) and 65.2 fewer than the first-ranked Dodgers; their total was just 87.5% of the theoretical baseline of 540 innings (60 x 9).

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.

Six other teams reached double digits in seven-inning doubleheader games, namely the Phillies (16), Marlins and Yankees (14 apiece), Nationals and Cubs (12 apiece), and Athletics (10). The only team that did not play any such games was the Indians, while three other teams (the Dodgers, Rockies, and White Sox) played just two apiece.

4. A lifting of the restrictions on position players pitching

In 2019, position players took the mound a record 85 times, 20 more than the year before, and nearly as many as 2015-17 combined (87). In mid-February, MLB and the union finalized the expansion of rosters from 25 to 26 players while capping the number of pitchers (13), creating a designation of two-way players so narrow that it applied only to Shohei Ohtani and limited the use of position players for pitching to extra innings or in any game where the score margin was more than six runs.

As part of the return-to-play agreement, however, all of those rules were swept to the side, with rosters increasing to 30 players for the first two weeks of the season (and then 28 thereafter) and the position player pitching restrictions lifted. Even with those expanded rosters, there were 35 instances of position players pitching (not including Ohtani, who totaled 1.2 innings before suffering a flexor pronator strain that ended his pitching efforts for the season). Those 35 appearances represented a larger share of the total relief appearances than in 2019 (0.57% versus 0.51%). Thanks in part to the extra-innings rule change, none of those appearances were in extras, though a few did occur when the margin was just six runs, and in one instance, during the nightcap of a September 4 doubleheader between the Braves and Nationals, Charlie Culberson extricated Atlanta from a bases-loaded jam when the margin was just three runs.

5. The three-batter minimum rule

Adopted with that same slate of roster rules in February, this one requires all starters and relievers to face at least three batters, barring injury. The move was supposed to reduce the number of pitching changes and thus in-game delays, that despite the fact that outings of two batters or fewer were already on the wane. Thanks to those expanded rosters and larger bullpens — not to mention the short ramp-up from the reopening of camps to Opening Day, which prevented many starters from being fully stretched out — the number of relievers used per team game increased from 3.41 to 3.43, and the average time for nine-inning games grew from 3:05 to 3:07, a record.

In late August, Craig Edwards found that the rule’s main effect was a decline in the usage of left-handed pitchers late in games — what you’d expect, given that LOOGYs were often at the center of those brief pitching appearances — though without a performance decline. I’m not sure where the numbers ended up once rosters were expanded in September.

6. The expanded playoff format

Probably the most controversial of all of the rules changes — even moreso than the NL DH — was the expansion of each league’s playoff slate from five teams to eight, and the creation of a best-of-three Wild Card Series round that threatened to derail even the top-seeded teams. Though MLB had mused about a future expansion of the playoff field prior to the pandemic, the agreement to create this extra round and new format didn’t go into effect until Opening Day. The expansion generated more broadcast rights money for teams in a year where gate revenue was nonexistent, with at least $50 million earmarked for the players.

Each division’s winners were seeded 1-3 by record, each division’s second-place teams were seeded 4-6 in the same manner, and then the two teams with the best records beyond that were seeded 7-8, even if they had better records than seeds 4-6 (as was the case with the 35-25 White Sox and 32-28 Blue Jays vis-a-vis the 29-31 Astros). Beyond the Wild Card Series round, all games took place at neutral sites; without the need to actually travel between cities, “travel days” were eliminated until the World Series, which placed a greater emphasis on pitching depth. While the Astros came within one win of a trip to the World Series, the two top seeds squared off in the Fall Classic, the first time that happened since 2013.

Thank you for participating! I’m sure our comments will be ripe with suggestions for tweaks to the rules not covered within the framework I’ve provided. I may get into those tangents when I report and evaluate the results of these polls in the near future.





Brooklyn-based Jay Jaffe is a senior writer for FanGraphs, the author of The Cooperstown Casebook (Thomas Dunne Books, 2017) and the creator of the JAWS (Jaffe WAR Score) metric for Hall of Fame analysis. He founded the Futility Infielder website (2001), was a columnist for Baseball Prospectus (2005-2012) and a contributing writer for Sports Illustrated (2012-2018). He has been a recurring guest on MLB Network and a member of the BBWAA since 2011, and a Hall of Fame voter since 2021. Follow him on BlueSky @jayjaffe.bsky.social.

101 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
VinnieDaGooch
5 years ago

I dont care about any of these except the expanded playoff format. I hate it so much

SyndergaardengnomesMember since 2020
5 years ago
Reply to  VinnieDaGooch

Yep, I’m pretty much the same. NL DH, sure, I’ve come around, and I actually hope it stays. Extra innings rule? I don’t like it, hope it goes away, but I’m not going to lose sleep over it. 7 inning DH’s? Slightly against, but again, not the hill I’m going to die on. Position players pitching and 3 batter minimums? Eh, whatever, I hardly noticed a difference TBH.

But expanded playoffs? That’s my hill. That’s the one I’ll die on. This idea is garbage, and needs to go away immediately. It was fine for a 60 game season, since we were just throwing stuff against the wall, but it cannot exist when we go back to 162 games. I won’t list the reasons it’s terrible, this is a knowledgeable baseball site, we all know why this idea sucks, and I fully expect most people to be of the same opinion.

SirLancelittle
5 years ago

I would have voted for shrinking the playoffs back down to 4 teams/league if that had been an option. What is the point of playing 162 games if you are basically going to ignore the outcome of them?

sadtromboneMember since 2020
5 years ago
Reply to  VinnieDaGooch

I think this is the kind of thing you could revisit if you have major expansion–say, if you expanded to 36 teams. But when you only have 15 teams in a league and 8 of them make it…it’s no good. The math is hard if you start tinkering with it instead of going to 8, but there has to be some way to let another team into the playoffs or something without this nonsense.

dukewinslowMember since 2020
5 years ago
Reply to  VinnieDaGooch

I don’t like the expanded playoffs, but I really like the idea of no breaks between games.

gallen27
5 years ago
Reply to  VinnieDaGooch

“Waaaaiiit a minute. The Gooch does not under any circumstances say “Hi ho”. Sunny Day may be saying “Hi ho”, but The Gooch just says YO!”

That’s all I have to say.

thestatbook
5 years ago
Reply to  VinnieDaGooch

I’m not a huge fan of the expanded playoffs, mostly because more than 50% of the teams then make the playoffs.

HOWEVER, perhaps more than expanded playoffs, I hate when teams intentionally lose. It’s bad for baseball to have teams phoning it in knowing they don’t stand a shot.

Expanding the playoffs gives more teams a shot, thus making for more competitive baseball. I don’t like 8 teams per league, but I like the idea of expanding it to six (every division’s top 2 go through).

More teams = more chances = more competitive baseball year round.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
5 years ago
Reply to  thestatbook

I am really not convinced that teams intentionally lose. This isn’t basketball where you have Mark Madsen taking eight or nine three pointers a game at the end of the season. If you’re worried about the front office not trying, or if you’re worried about the fans (and to a lesser extent, the players) not putting their whole heart into it, those would require different solutions. And there’s just no way to convince every team they have a real shot at winning in the playoffs unless you let everyone in, and at that point I’m not sure what the point would be.

Kevbot034
5 years ago

I think double headers as 7 innings could be good if stadiums called them the same ticker or something, and made it a whole day of baseball. But that’s entirely irrelevant, just a hope for someday having baseball live again lol

sadtromboneMember since 2020
5 years ago
Reply to  Kevbot034

Where I grew up the games weren’t sold out, ever, so the fans figured out how to lay low until the next game started. I suspect that ever since teams started cracking down on fans sneaking into better ones this doesn’t work anymore.

mikeladd123Member since 2018
5 years ago

Wasn’t the 3-batter rule put in place by MLB prior to covid-19? It was first put out by MLB in 2019 and was schedule for a 2020 implementation before covid even existed. The rule is not really under discussion for 2021. The next player agreement will probably address it if the players actually care.

Mike NMN
5 years ago

Question wording here could use some work. “How much you care” could travel the full spectrum of “yes I love it” to “yes I hate it”

Mike NMN
5 years ago
Reply to  Jay Jaffe

Fair point. I’d be interested in the cross-tabs.

ScottyBMember since 2017
5 years ago
Reply to  Mike NMN

Can we get a cross-tabulation of which voters cared the most. For example, I would like to keep the 7 inning double-headers, but don’t feel very strongly about it, and I suspect most who don’t like the rule feel strongly.

mikeladd123Member since 2018
5 years ago

with respect to 7-inning DHs, I cannot imagine the owners actually wanting this. These games would be one-gate game. A rainout could reach havoc with season ticket owner. I cannot imagine owners giving up gates without some type of salary reduction and the players would never go for that.

Jay MoskMember since 2022
5 years ago

Get rid of the runner on 2nd in extras nonsense, cap games at 12 innings so you don’t destroy a team’s staff with an early season 19-inning game and have regular season ties after 12 innings

sadtromboneMember since 2020
5 years ago
Reply to  Jay Mosk

I’d actually be happy with ties after 9 innings in the regular season. Extra innings in the playoffs is awesome, but in the regular season it just means people go to bed not knowing how it ended.

Sleepy
5 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Totally agree. I don’t understand why regular season games in *any* sport have extra innings, overtime, etc.

It’s the regular season. If a game’s tied after nine innings, just leave it as a tie. See you tomorrow.

carterMember since 2020
5 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

Not everyone lives on the east coast.

bluerum29
5 years ago
Reply to  carter

not sure what east coast has to do with it. Even in a home market, if the game doesn’t start until 7, that is potentially going on past 10 pm. I want to be alseep by then if I am watching at home.

fredsbankMember since 2020
5 years ago
Reply to  carter

A 7 PM start time on the west coast is unwatchable in any other time zone. They’re absolutely brutal.

Ade
5 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

huh, to me extra innings means free baseball! love it, always, even when it takes 8-9 extra boring-ass innings and I miss the train home on a weeknight – that’s baseball, baby and don’t go changing what ain’t broke (please)

ResumeManMember since 2016
5 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

I think overtime is fine, but I’d be happy with a 12-inning max, then call it a tie.

bluerum29
5 years ago
Reply to  Jay Mosk

Yes, so much yes to this.

AngelsLakersFan
5 years ago
Reply to  Jay Mosk

I wonder what the general stance towards this is. I think there are a few strong “no’s” in the crowd, but to me this is easily preferable to the home-weighted coin flip that is the runner at second base. I would like to see a 10th inning though…

fanofthemanMember since 2020
5 years ago
Reply to  Jay Mosk

I’d be in favor of something like the runner on second starting after the 12th inning or so. Extra innings is fun and good, and most games get sorted out before then. But once you get into 12+, it becomes more of a drag on both fans and teams.

Jason BMember since 2017
5 years ago
Reply to  fanoftheman

I think that’s a fair compromise – just play regular baseball in 10-12 then maybe go runner on 1st in 13th and runner on 2nd in 14th+. Acknowledge that extra, free baseball can be fun and a welcome addition on a lazy summer evening, but also tacitly acknowledge that maybe everyone didn’t sign up for a 7-hour, 16-inning affair.

Christopher GoreMember since 2018
5 years ago
Reply to  Jay Mosk

Having a runner start on second is unnatural and I’m not sure if it has an actual outcome on reducing the amount of innings or not, nor am I sure how much it helps the home team (which seemingly would have an even more significant advantage).

kevininmotion
5 years ago
Reply to  Jay Mosk

Have you ever paid for a ticket to see a tie? It’s inhumane. If I went to a +4 hr, 12 inning baseball game, on a Tuesday night, when I have to work the next morning, and nobody won, I’d end it all in the parking lot.

bluerum29
5 years ago
Reply to  kevininmotion

When I went to games even on a Friday night, if it was close in the 7th inning I was just praying someone would win after nine so there would be no extra innings so we could get home at a decent time.

Jason BMember since 2017
5 years ago
Reply to  kevininmotion

I would NOT want to attend a soccer game with you (or a hockey game, pre-shootout). I am not identifying you at the morgue and telling your next of kin because Hartford and Quebec skated to a 2-2 tie 🙂

abtrube
5 years ago
Reply to  Jay Mosk

Improbable, but possible tie situation:
Last game of the season and home team needs win or tie to advance to the post-season and is out if they lose. Come to bat for bottom of the inning and intentionally swing and miss at 9 pitches. Tie! Go to playoffs!

si.or.noMember since 2017
5 years ago
Reply to  abtrube

They could do whatever they want and still advance. Wouldn’t need to intentionally swing and miss at 9 pitches.

They don’t score, they advance. They score, they advance.

Magician_531
5 years ago
Reply to  Jay Mosk

I think that 12 innings of regular ball followed by the runner on second starting in the thirteenth would be best.

alexpbloomMember since 2019
5 years ago

I thought I was going to hate the NL DH rule, but… I actually didn’t that much?

The extra-inning guy on 2nd is maddening to me, though. I thought I would hate it, and that didn’t begin to capture the level to which I found it corrupted the game.

bluerum29
5 years ago
Reply to  alexpbloom

The DH rule is the one out of all of them that could drive me to watch less baseball.

AngelsLakersFan
5 years ago
Reply to  bluerum29

NL fan? I find support for universal DH tends to be skewed towards AL fans. I wonder what the poll would look like if only NL fans responded.

bluerum29
5 years ago

Yah, I never really watch AL games unless I have some anterior motive.

greenaway55Member since 2016
5 years ago

NL fan but love the DH. Watching people do stuff they suck at sucks. If I wanted to see someone suck at something I’d look in the mirror.

TKDCMember since 2016
5 years ago

I’m an NL fan and I don’t care much but I favor the DH. But the real problem is having different rules in each league, and since getting rid of it won’t happen, we really need to have it be uniform.

Ryan DCMember since 2016
5 years ago
Reply to  TKDC

Yeah I wouldn’t mind if they got rid of the DH for both leagues, but since it seems like it’s here to stay I’d prefer to have it in both.

bluerum29
5 years ago
Reply to  TKDC

for decades I have heard that part of the appeal and uniqueness of baseball is that the different leagues have some different rules and also play differently.

thestatbook
5 years ago
Reply to  bluerum29

As a life-long NL fan, I’ve been wanting the DH for years. Mostly because I knew what would happen: the NL would start outpacing the AL in nearly every offensive category.

If you’re a fan of the National League, and despise the American League, you should hope the universal DH gets implemented.

bluerum29
5 years ago
Reply to  thestatbook

I’m more concerned with keeping scoring down and keeping pitching stats low. I don’t want to see outpaced offensive categories.

random Colorado guy
5 years ago
Reply to  thestatbook

If you’re a fan of [one league] and “despise” [the other league], I would claim that you shouldn’t see a rule change; you should seek therapy. Baseball is too beautiful a game to become part of the move toward hatred in spots that has contaminated pro football, soccer, etc. My favored team has a long-standing rivalry with another team that has long been conducted respectfully, by players and (most) fans alike. If that were to devolve into hatred, I’d consider the rivalry, and baseball, diminished.

This said, no NL DH for me.

TKDCMember since 2016
5 years ago

Dude, I’m pretty sure this is shorthand for being a fan of a team in that league and thus that is the league you watch.

Joseph MeyerMember since 2016
5 years ago

I think ties are better than that 2nd base extra inning nonsense.

While I don’t particularly care about the number of playoff teams, I thought that the limited off days in the playoffs was a big plus and made playoff baseball more like regular season baseball

AngelsLakersFan
5 years ago
Reply to  Joseph Meyer

Agreed, though I did feel that a little of what I enojoy about post season baseball was lost (using only your best players). Anyone else feel that way?

fanofthemanMember since 2020
5 years ago
Reply to  Joseph Meyer

Yeah I agree with this. I think the no off days setup really skewed towards the best teams (which is what we saw, obviously). It rewards teams that are better, and makes it feel more stressful and impactful. Each game has a higher impact on the next game with the no off days set up than the normal playoffs

mike sixelMember since 2016
5 years ago

If it was an option, I would have voted EVERY team makes the second season. Have the first season winner be truly celebrated as a champion over the long haul. Give massive benefits in the second season to the great teams (byes, etc)……and realize that the playoffs are a terrible way to pick the best team, so let’s just have a short second playoff season…..

bluerum29
5 years ago
Reply to  mike sixel

What the huh?

foxhawk
5 years ago
Reply to  mike sixel

I can’t tell if you are sarcastic, but I actually agree with you. My 2nd favorite league to follow is the English Premier League soccer, for just this reason. You have many different Cups/Tournaments to compete in (all teams make it, generally), but the true season winner is the one that makes it through the entire season with a balanced home/away schedule. American sports are the least “American”, with random playoffs rewarding lesser teams by chance, salary caps/restrictions/taxes (including minor league baseball), drafts rather than true free agency, etc.

The best teams should be rewarded and celebrated and a full 162 game season is the best we have at determining the who was the best (although fix the schedule to make it more balanced if you’re going to do it). Playoffs are fun and exciting, but like you said, the worst way to determine the “Best”.

Since that’s never going to happen, I vote for only division winners in the playoffs.

bluerum29
5 years ago
Reply to  foxhawk

My preference in sports season is that the team considered “best” doesn’t actually win it most of the time. I like seeing an underdog team win, an unexpected team winning it all. I like seeing upsets in the playoffs.

fredsbankMember since 2020
5 years ago
Reply to  foxhawk

English soccer also has relegation, interaction with other European leagues, and a generally more complex system. Invalidating the regular season in baseball just leads to fewer teams trying to win; after seeing .500 and worse teams make the playoffs, who is going to sign free agents, spend $200 million, and wheel and deal at the trade deadline? Just hope for a league average ERA and a league average offense and you reap all the benefits of the playoffs. It’s a farce and should disgust all of us.

feddy
5 years ago

Extra inning runner rule is fabulous for the regular season, would be disastrous if it was implemented in the playoffs

ScottyBMember since 2017
5 years ago
Reply to  feddy

Agreed, but that’s never been on the table

farnorthsider
5 years ago

More teams in playoffs are ok but top seed should get a bye to LCS, not just past 1st round

Anon21Member since 2018
5 years ago

The only real change I favor keeping is the three-batter minimum, for reasons of pace. Even that doesn’t garner more than a 2 from me.

The playoff expansion essentially invalidates the whole concept of a 162-game season, shifts an already random game towards greater randomness, disincentivizes teams from “going for it,” and allows very weak teams like the 2020 Marlins an equal chance at the championship to an extremely strong team like the 2020 Dodgers. (Equal chance just in the sense of what they need to achieve, not in terms of their respective likelihoods of doing so.) It would make MLB much worse. Unfortunately, the only people able to bargain over this (players and owners) do not have clearly-recognized financial incentives to maintain competitive integrity, so I expect it is here to stay.

Six Ten
5 years ago
Reply to  Anon21

I voted yes on keeping the 3-batter rule, but in my actual perfect world I’d do it differently: no mid-inning pitching changes unless 1) the pitcher has thrown at least 2 innings or 2) the other team has scored off that pitcher. Any pitcher who comes out mid-inning in other circumstances must miss at least four calendar days of baseball.

bluerum29
5 years ago

I care the most about the DH. I’m fine with it in the AL, I rarely ever watch AL games unless I’m scouting a player for my fantasy team. NL, no, don’t want it, don’t like it. For those who like different things in baseball, there are different leagues, its unique, lets keep it that way.
Extra inning rule; ehh, if it shortens games and gives teams incentive to go for the win more prior to extra innings, then fine. I’d be okay with ties after 12 innings, I don’t like the really long games.
3 batter minimum I think should be changed to 2. If a pitcher comes in and gives up 2 straight home runs, or walks 2 in a row because he can’t find the strike zone, the team should be able to take him out.

Connor Gould
5 years ago

The 7 inning doubleheaders and runner on 2nd thing are bad. No one asked for the runner on 2nd but Manfred stuck it in the minors and All Star game and no one cared since it was meaningless, but then it legitimized it enough for him to to slap it into the Corona season with no explanation of why it would help with anything. That needs to go, the 7 innings need to stick to the minors, and I don’t like the 3 batter minimum but it looks like it might stay. As a Twins fan, I don’t care what the NL does about DHs since it won’t affect the Twins. As for the position players thing, it really is meaningless but I’m worried it could lead to a slippery slope of more roster restrictions and I don’t like that.

OkraMember since 2016
5 years ago

The runner on second in extras is so bad. Why is MLB so against ties?? Cap games at 12 innings and then call it a tie. Knowing you are down the last inning in the 12th would be exciting.

carterMember since 2020
5 years ago

I have a hard time voting 5 on anything. I spend a lot of time on fangraphs, watch a lot of baseball, and spend hours a day on fantasy baseball, but, even without covid and the election debacle, I don’t think I could ever say “I care very much” about any of these.

shortstop
5 years ago
Reply to  carter

It’s all relative… I think everyone here agrees that there are more important things in the world than baseball rule changes.

Frank HudsonMember since 2016
5 years ago

1) Keep NL DH
2) Keep Extra Innings Runner on 2nd (Remove for playoffs)
3) Keep 7 inning double headers
4) Lift restrictions on position players pitching
5) Remove 3 inning batter rule
6) Keep expanded playoff format (preferablly reduce regular season to 150-155 games, 12 teams in playoffs)

My thinking is I want to see the players do what they do best while watching a game, even if the game is longer. NL DH, removal of 3 inning batter rule, and lifting position player restriction means more players have jobs, and allow specialists to shine; specifically Nelson Cruz type of DH’s where otherwise they probably wouldn’t have a job, and LOOGYS. Plus it’s fun seeing the Rays get creative with their players, hopefully more teams will follow. The extra runner on 2nd is…fun. I have no way to analyze it other than that, however its the least strong opinion I have for these. Double headers are tough on a team so I feel we don’t get to see of the best of what a team has to offer during a double header anyway so mine as well reduce them. Expanded playoff format and reduction in regular season means more meaningful baseball, and some added rest for players during the season so possibly reduces chances of burnout during playoffs.

joelbarlow
5 years ago

Is there any evidence the runner on second rule actually shortens games? If so, by how much? It seems like a massive change in the game’s structure for potentially not actually a huge benefit (if eliminating 3 13 inning games a year even is a benefit)

ScottyBMember since 2017
5 years ago
Reply to  joelbarlow

According to MiLB: Over the last two seasons (once the rule went into effect), just 43 total games went more than three extra innings, compared to 345 in 2016 and ‘17 combined (the two prior seasons). That’s an 88% reduction in long extra-inning games. A great rule!!!!!!

ScottyBMember since 2017
5 years ago
Reply to  ScottyB

Not sure why this got downvoted. This is taken word for word from a Fangraphs article https://blogs.fangraphs.com/so-just-how-much-less-baseball-will-the-new-extra-innings-rule-give-us/

TrinianMember since 2025
5 years ago
Reply to  ScottyB

It got downvoted because you called it “A great rule!!!!!!”. It is a horrible rule! Calling a game a tie after 11 or 12 innings is much better.

Jason BMember since 2017
5 years ago
Reply to  Trinian

I think that proposal is almost as bad…how about:

1. Just go back to the old way and let them play as long as it takes
(huge gap)
2. Just call it a tie after 12 or 13 I guess?
(gap)
3. Runner on 2nd nonsense

Magician_531
5 years ago
Reply to  joelbarlow

I don’t think that its a massive change in the game’s structure. No one will be debating what player was better 20 years from now and throw in the caveat “oh, but that was before the runner on second rule” as a way to put a statistic in perspective.

That’s usually my gauge for if a change is major

RoyalsFan#14321Member since 2024
5 years ago

Did the 3 Batter Rule really have no effect to reduce game times in 2020?

kp2767
5 years ago

While I enjoyed the no off days during playoffs, I think the overcrowded field put some undeserving teams in the playoffs. We really shouldn’t be rewarding teams below .500 with a playoff chance. I put that I liked the runner on 2nd to stop games from being true marathons, but having regular season games end in a tie after 12 is just a much better solution that I didn’t know of until I read these comments. I would prefer having the DH stay, 3 batter minimum stay, position player restrictions removed, and 7 inning DH gone, but I don’t strongly feel about those either way. I really do think the tie game though after 12 is great and so much better of than what was actually decided on.

ScottyBMember since 2017
5 years ago

I was very skeptical of all of the proposed changes at the time, but now support all of them, except for expanded playoffs. A few other thoughts:
– The restrictions on position players pitching becomes mostly irrelevant if the extra-innings and double-header rules are retained.
– I would have rather seen a rule such as “only 2 mid-inning pitching changes per team per game, including extra-innings” rather than the 3-batter rule. But I like the 3 batter rule more than the prior unregulated system
– I’d also like the following- a 24-second pitch clock, a prohibition of leaving the batter’s box between pitches, and a reduction in on-mound warm-ups for relief pitchers

Six Ten
5 years ago
Reply to  ScottyB

If they’re serious about increasing the pace of play, the pitch clock has to happen. Every other change pales next to that one.

olethrosMember since 2020
5 years ago

I’ve made my peace with the DH, and things like the three batter rule don’t bother me too much, though I find them unnecessary. But the expanded playoffs are hot f****** trash and guarantee that we’ll see a sub-.500 “champion” if permanently implemented, the runner on second makes it not baseball anymore, and seven inning games are for high school and below.

Pretty much all of Manfred’s attempts to shorten game length (he calls it pace of play but they don’t actually address that) are cosmetic attempts to alter the fundamental nature of the game while utterly avoiding the real culprit, which is virtually entirely time between pitches. Grant Brisbee did an excellent comparison several years ago now of a 1984 game to a 2014 game, both of which had identical scores and virtually identical more granular numbers like pitching changes, total number of pitches under which rule 8.04 was applicable, etc. He expected commercial breaks to be the big offender but discovered that it was entirely time between those 8.04 pitches.

All of the complaints about pitch clocks conveniently ignore the fact that the actual rules call for one. Pitchers may not be entirely responsible for this, but there’s evidence that the increased time between pitches is at least partially responsible for the increase in velocity we’ve seen this century, spiritual heirs to “Human Rain Delay” Mike Hargrove like Harrison Bader notwithstanding.

descender
5 years ago

I’m really shocked at the response for the 3-batter rule. It did nothing to address pace of play concerns at all. It did influence the outcome of 3-4 playoff games though.

If the rule isn’t addressing the “problem” it should be removed.

Anon21Member since 2018
5 years ago
Reply to  descender

I don’t know one way or the other if it helped address pace of play concerns. Keep in mind that just because pace may have decreased this year doesn’t mean the three-batter minimum rule didn’t help at the margins, because there are countervailing forces at work. Basically, umps allowed unlimited timeouts, and as it turns out, players will take tons of them if there’s no consequence for doing so.

3cardmontyMember since 2025
5 years ago
Reply to  descender

Yeah that rule was always a solution in search of a problem. All of Manfred’s rules are hamfisted interventions senselessly meddling with the structure of the game, get rid of all of them.

ResumeManMember since 2016
5 years ago

The 7-inning DH messes centrally with the integrity of the game. Potential CGs/NoNos with 7 IP, completely upends a team’s bullpen approach. That just isn’t major league baseball.

I would also reverse most of the other changes, but I don’t think any of them are as important.

Long, long extra inning games can massively disrupt a team’s roster for days later, based on something that happens more or less randomly. Could potentially negatively impact health as well. It’s a very long season and I don’t think so much should ride on determining the outcome of a single game. I do think extra innings are fun though, so as I noted elsewhere in this thread I’d like to see a max of three EEs, and if nobody wins it in 12 call it a tie.

Da Bear
5 years ago

For the extra innings rule, instead of saying “always a runner on second, no matter what,” I could get behind a variation that was “If an extra inning ends with runners on base, and the game is still going, that team gets to start their next inning with runners in the same configuration.”

Having it structured this way makes it more likely for a run to score in extras, and end the game, but doesn’t automatically preclude the existence of an extra-inning perfect game. If a team keeps being lights-out with 1-2-3 innings, they don’t get punished with unearned runners; meanwhile, if someone gets into a jam and manages to work their way out of it (temporarily), their team had better make use of the one-inning reprieve they get in their turn at bat or else the jam will come right back in the next frame.

The possibility of asymmetric start conditions due up in an inning would also produce novel, interesting effects on win probability graphs: if the road team gets to start with runners on 1st and 3rd inherited from the previous inning, and the home team only has a runner at 1st, what are the chances of each team winning as of the start of the inning?

Six Ten
5 years ago
Reply to  Da Bear

I’m much more open to this rule if there’s something funky about it instead of just “uhhh, guy on second”. I love your version. I also love one where the baserunner setup at the start of the inning has increasing run expectancy as the game progresses. Runner on 1st in the 10th, on 2nd in the 11th, on both in the 12th, on 3rd in the 13th, etc.

dl80Member since 2026
5 years ago

I don’t care all that much about any of these, but I desperately want the aborted “top seeds choose their first round opponents” idea.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
5 years ago
Reply to  dl80

My preference, if we’re going to be letting more teams in the playoffs, is the “teams that won their divisions play at home 100% of the time against teams that didn’t.” That way you can also have no days off.

chiseMember since 2016
5 years ago

Regarding tweaks/middle ground, I’m coming around to the idea of a universal DH, but he’s tied to the starting pitcher (you lose the DH when you take the starter out). You get a little of both worlds in terms of DH and the strategy of pinch-hitters, etc. it also incentivizes leaving the starter in longer if the DH spot is coming up in the order. I heard this discussed on the Poscast and I think it could work.

Another off-board option I’d pitch is no automatic runners in extra innings, but regular season games end in a tie after 12 innings. Viewers accept ties in the NFL so it’s not unprecedented in American sports, and the number of games that’d end in a tie would be really small. It also adds a little more potential for tiebreaker/Game 163s at the end of the year, which both MLB and I would enjoy.

jmb2171Member since 2018
5 years ago

I’d like expanded playoffs with 6 teams but with the caveat that each league splits into 2 divisions with the division winners getting byes. That makes winning a division a big deal, and with larger divisions there would be more diversity in the teams’ schedules.

Christopher GoreMember since 2018
5 years ago

I’m not sure if suggesting that watering down the playoffs is a crime against humanity is a bridge too far or not.

DavidMember since 2016
5 years ago

I disapprove of all the changes listed in the article. My order of disapproval (from most to least disapproval):
Extra inning runner
DH
7 inning games
Expanded playoffs
3 batters
Position players pitching

deep64blue
5 years ago

If they’re going to keep the DH in the NL then they need to tie it to the starting pitcher, once he leaves the game then you lose the DH. Brings back the tactical element and helps solve the problem of the opener. In case of injury there might be an exception like the DH can stay in but the Pitcher automatically goes on the DL.

icswirkaMember since 2026
5 years ago

I am usually of the mindset that if a rule applies to every player and every team, then I don’t really care; fairness and competitive balance remain intact. Which is why I was fundamentally given the willies by the asinine and arbitrarily sprinkled 7-inning doubles. I’m not saying I know for sure that it’s better or worse for a team to get more or less of them, but the point is it’s *something*. If they were planned and meted out evenly across all teams, like NFL byes, sure- now I don’t care.

jeffself66
5 years ago

I absolutely hate the runner on second in extra innings. I first noticed that in travel ball years ago and I thought it was awful, even for 12 year olds. I’ve been against the DH for years but ever since starting pitchers stopped pitching past 5 innings, the strategy argument doesn’t cut it anymore.

I do love the idea of less rest days in playoffs. 4 days of games before a rest day.

I’d like to see baseball expand to 32 teams, eliminate the two leagues, and just have 4 divisions of 8 teams each. All divisions based geographically. The schedule would then be 14 games against each team in your division and 8 games against each team in another division. Each year, out of division games would rotate to another division.

Ideally, I’d only want the division winners to qualify for the playoffs, but I know America doesn’t like this.

kevininmotion
5 years ago

I’m sorry, but we’ve given you two 9 full innings to figure this thing out. If you can’t come to an agreement your father’s putting a runner on 2nd until you do.

JLanDC
5 years ago

Change the uniforms, change the stadia graphics, change the players, change the team cities, maybe even change the team names, but please don’t change the game itself. Every change, however modest, moves us farther away from the game that we know and love. It’s still mostly recognizable but fully implementing these changes will make MLB something different. Better? To some, perhaps, but I doubt if they will outnumber those who see it as detrimental.

deuce26
5 years ago

The more baseball tries to make the playoffs more “fun” or “exciting,” the more the regular season is rendered meaningless. The message to fans is to watch other sports from April until September, then tune in for some great playoff action.

AlbyMember since 2025
5 years ago

So a pitcher in extra innings can be charged with a run even if he doesn’t allow a baserunner? Yeah, that seems fair.

I watched newspapers destroy themselves by trying to cater to people who didn’t like newspapers. Baseball can go ahead and do the same thing, but I’ll no longer watch.

DBRunsMember since 2025
5 years ago

in 2019, MLB pitchers hit a combined .128 / .160 / .162 (-18 wRC+) with a 43.5% K-rate and a 3.1% BB-rate across 5,000+ plate appearances. The game doesn’t need this. Let hitters hit, and pitchers pitch. The Majors is the only level in which pitchers are required to hit. It’s non-sensible.

Magician_531
5 years ago

I want to add that I think the man on second rule for extra innings should be kept, but only starting at about the 12th inning. Let the game have some regular extra innings and then add this. Marathon games are fun in theory, but in practice, the players are playing in front of an almost empty stadium and they are exhausted for days. It messes up the bullpen and forces roster moves for all the wrong reasons.

So keep the rule, but keep it from the twelfth. Super long games aren’t that common anyway and this will cut down on them. Also, don’t have this rule in the playoffs. Marathon games in the playoffs are their own thing.

3rdgenbruinMember since 2016
5 years ago

My issue with the DH isn’t that they replace pitchers who can’t hit, it’s that it creates jobs for people that can’t play defense. I don’t want baseball to turn into football where there are an offense and a defense. What I like about baseball is similar to what I like about soccer, basketball, and virtually all other sports: you have to play the whole game. I don’t like serving specialists in volleyball. I’m not a big fan of enforcers hockey (but love tough guys who can actually play) and you get the idea. I get pitchers are a different thing, but if you can’t play defense, why do you get to hit?

arrantjudgement
5 years ago

Adding extra teams ruins the importance of the regular season … and all the MLB needs to do is look at the NHL and NBA to see that. No one cares about either of those leagues regular seasons. MLB’s regular season remains important bc it is so competitive to get into the playoffs. Not to mention, it will de-incentivize teams to add talent and depress player salaries. I may consider not watching if they choose to make the playoff change permanent.

sbf21
5 years ago

Here’s the rule changes I want:

– Limit the rosters to 11 pitchers. That will reduce pitching changes, increase average number of innings pitched, reduce velocity of pitches out of necessity.
– Implement a pitch clock. Get the ball, throw the ball. And keep batters in the box. Watching hitters play with their batting gloves and loosening and re-fastening the straps is not entertaining.
– Move all outfield fences out 15-20 feet to reduce home runs and put more balls into play. A game of homeruns, whiffs, or walks is also not entertaining. It’s tedious.

I’d prioritize all of those over all the changes put thru in 2020. Of those – yes on DH, no on all the rest.