The 26th Man Doesn’t Have to Be a Reliever
At some point this week, we’re probably going to get a new Collective Bargaining Agreement. The current one expires on Thursday, and given MLB’s current revenue situation, neither side can be all that incentivized to screw things up right now. Both the owners and the players are getting very rich off of baseball’s ability to sell their television rights, and to risk that kind of cash cow over something like the qualifying offer or an international draft would be the definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face. There may be hurdles yet to clear, but they’re very likely going to be cleared.
A seemingly settled issue in negotiations is the coming expansion of the active roster. According to Ken Rosenthal, owners have agreed to expand the April-August roster limit to 26 players in exchange for a reduction in the September limit, which will come down from 40 to 28 or 29. This will deliver a more consistent brand of baseball throughout the year, rather than having the final month played under very different rules than the rest of the season.
The concern is that expanding the roster will just give Major League managers the green light to carry yet another relief pitcher. We’re already seeing more pitchers used per game than ever before, and with another available bullpen arm, there would be even more opportunities to pull the starter early. And while there are plenty of valid strategic reasons to prefer relievers over tiring starters, from an aesthetic standpoint, the game’s march towards more pitchers throwing fewer pitches probably isn’t something baseball should be trying to accelerate.
So, how does the league rectify their willingness to add a 26th active rostered player with a desire to cut down on the number of pitching changes each game? Well, there’s one surefire way to make sure teams don’t use the extra roster spot to expand their bullpens; make a rule prohibiting it.
Right now, teams can do whatever they want with their 25-man rosters. Pretty much everyone defaults to the basic construct of five starting pitchers, seven or eight relievers, and 12 or 13 position players, though the fifth starter does go away sometimes when off days allow for skipped starts, and then teams can carry both eight relievers and 13 position players. By adding a 26th roster spot, the fear is that teams would just default to eight relievers all the time, and expand up to nine when they don’t need their fifth starter. But there’s no real reason why MLB can’t also just pass a rule limiting the number of pitchers a team can carry at a given time.
You could write the rule a number of different ways. For instance, you could require that teams must have 13 (or 14, if you want to get crazy) position players active for every game, which would effectively limit the size of a pitching staff to no more than 12 or 13 pitchers. Teams would still be able to carry their normal seven or eighth relievers with five active starters, or get a ninth reliever when they option out their fifth starter, so it would essentially codify the current pitcher usage as a maximum, and force teams to use the new roster spot on another hitter, or at least an extra runner/defender type.
If MLB wanted to be a little less draconian in forcing teams to use the extra roster spot in a specific way, they could simply target relievers more specifically, and say that teams simply can’t have more than eight relievers on the roster at a given time. This would, however, force the league to create some kind of differentiation between “starter” and “reliever” in the rules, which could create some room for loopholes, or might have some unintended consequences when it comes to swing guys who both start and relieve. It’s far easier to differentiate between hitters and pitchers, and as such, targeting relievers that specifically might be less desirable.
By codifying the rule as requiring a minimum of 13 hitters — though I’d probably argue for 14, honestly — you’d not only avoid expanding bullpen usage through this new rule, but then the 26th man would actually help combat the decline in offense brought about by specialization. Part of the reason for bullpen effectiveness isn’t just that relievers are throwing harder than ever, but that the growth of bullpens means that there are fewer roster spots for bench players designed to combat bullpen usage, so as we get more relievers, relievers also get an advantage by having fewer deterrents to their own use.
Because teams are carrying so few position players, they aren’t as comfortable removing their platoon-disadvantaged starters from the game to counter the entrance of a specialist reliever, and they don’t have a one dimensional slugger on the bench available to make that a bad match-up for the pitcher anyway. If MLB simply writes the rules in a way that forces MLB teams to use the roster spot on a position player, teams will either get to add that bat-first kind of player to use as a pinch-hitter once a game, or at least add a depth piece behind a starter that might make them more willing to remove a starter who is less likely to get a hit in a high leverage situation. Either of those uses of the extra roster spot will help push back against the bullpen revolution.
Major League teams have been expanding their usage of relievers because the data shows that it works, and teams want to win. But if we give teams another hitter to use, the match-up sidearm guys become a little bit less effective, and it’s those one-batter pitching changes that the league should be most wanting to avoid. And by forcing them to carry a player who makes those specific match-up options less appealing, the extra roster spot could actually serve as a deterrent to bullpen usage.
In all this talk of the 26th roster spot, the assumption has been that teams will just add another arm to the pile. But the MLBPA shouldn’t care too much what kind of player the new spot goes to, and so the league should simply ask that the expanded roster also come with a requirement that forces teams to use that spot on a position player.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
I’m wondering if teams would just call their 26th man a position player, but use him as a pitcher, anyway.
I wonder if this would lead to the specialization of the utility player/Reliever as the 26th man.
Or i just declare one of my starters as a “position player” whenever he’s on an off day, and carry an extra reliever anyway.
It wouldn’t be that hard to write the rule to avoid loopholes. And if writing the rule this way gets teams to be more active in cultivating two-way players, well, neat, those guys are fun.
Dave do you think that teams would seriously consider a utility guy they could use out of the bullpen as well?
Although i agree with your comment for the most part I’m actually struggling to figure out how you’d write the rule to avoid a loophole.
Essentially all players are ‘positionless’ right up until the point where you write them into the lineup card. Then all kinds of specific rules apply based on their position (DH, P especially). So until I’m in the game, how do you define me?
Do coaches have to declare before each game? If so, we would eliminate the occurrence of a position player coming into pitch (which would be a tragedy)… unless we allow position players to pitch, but not vise versa…. but that still doesn’t solve my earlier problem, of a coach just declaring an SP on his off day as “position player” for that particular game. – to solve that you’d have to somehow register your players as one or the other at the start of the season or something… which seems…. messy.
This doesn’t seem hard. You just designate pitcher and hitter roster spots, then have normal DL, etc rules about moving them on/off or between the rosters (i.e. they have to spend 20 on what ever roster you just moved them too mlb-hitter/mlb-pitcher/AAA). Then just make one small additional rule: hitters can’t pitch in the first 9 innings. If that isn’t possible, you forfeit. And honestly, if you can’t get through a 9 inning game with potentially 10 pitchers at least modestly able to go throw some low leverage innings (assuming a couple of the starters could just eat an inning or two without to much harm if they don’t care about how effective they are), then you don’t deserve to win anyway.
The 9 inning rule doesn’t really work. Many of the occasions when position players pitch are on the losing end of blowouts to avoid having to use a bullpen arm.
And so what?
In exchange for not being able to do that, you get an extra roster spot.
Look, I’m not saying I support making such rules, but if you’re gonna put a 26th man on the roster, you have to do something put the breaks on managers just using this spot to get an extra pitcher in the game maybe twice a week. We already have a speed of the game problem. Lets not make it worse.
I recall Craig Wright proposing a limit on the number of pitchers on MLB rosters in the HBT Annual a few years ago. He saw a lot of positive ripple effects: More balls in play, more offense (this was before the recent HR renaissance), fewer Ks, fewer pitching changes.
So teams won’t be allowed to put a position player on the mound anymore if your suggestion is taken? That idea sucks.
If the goal is to limit pitching changes, just do that directly.
You write the rule to define position player and reliever. The rule ABSOLUTELY needs those definitions anyway, since otherwise yesterday’s starter is a position player today and the rule is meaningless.
Example rule: Anyone with at least 12 outs recorded from the mound in the season is a pitcher. Anyone with at least 8 AB and less than 12 outs recorded from the mound is a position player. Anyone who doesn’t qualify under either of these is a pitcher if he pitches and a position player if he doesn’t pitch.
Done. And you can still have position players pitch as long as they don’t do so for more than 4 innings in a year.
Anyone who has pitched a minimum of X innings in the majors or minors, during their last Y games of combined major/minor league service must qualify as a pitcher.
Making it service time based catches injured players who may have missed a long stretch, and allows for guys like Rick Ankiel to clear their slate while they learn a position in the minors.
Add in some qualifier for the case of rookie college pitchers who go straight to the majors, and it’s covered.
I’m not questioning whether a rule can be written, I’m stating such a rule sucks.
On May 31, back-up catcher Bethencourt entered the game as a relief pitcher and moved to second base when he was relieved by shortstop Amarista. That’s fun, and it can’t happen ever again if you writes rule prohibiting position players from pitching and vice versa.
It’s also pointless. The motive for restricting the number of relief pitcher is to limit pitching changes. Thus, the solution is to limit pitching changes, not to restrict other aspects of the game because it may indirectly limit pitching changes.
That’s why you’d set a floor higher than zero. A position player who pitches in a blowout wouldn’t become a “pitcher” until he’d done it more than a few times.
I do agree that the point is pitching changes, however, and not pitchers themselves.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I think most people find the enjoyment of watching a position player pitch far outweighed by the enjoyment (or lack of annoyance) of fewer one batter pitching outings.
Limit pitching changes to one an inning. Problem solved. If you need five guys in an inning, then you don’t deserve to be in the game.
Except that NL pitchers will all meet the thresholds to be considered both a pitcher and a position player. Also, not for nothing, but the Noah Syndergaards and Madison Bumgarners of the world are such decent hitters that it’s really not much of a stretch to call them position players, anyway.
I may be thinking uncreatively, but I just don’t see how you make this rule work. Baseball has never codified positions of players who haven’t entered the game, and indeed, the rules don’t have position names for in-game play, with the exception of P, C, and DH. Everyone else is just a fielder. Creating rules to clarify positions of players on the bench is likely quite complex, and not worth the time.
I’d say that the best fix for this is to remove the replacement pitcher’s warmup. Require that every team’s bullpen mounds match the game-field mound geometrically and materials, and have the reliever jog in from the bullpen to immediately face a batter. Remove the commercial break that typically goes in there, and let managers bring in a new pitcher as frequently as they like. When Joe Girardi uses 9 pitchers in a game in September, it’s unbearable not because of the changes themselves, it’s unbearable because six of those pitchers spend more time and pitches warming up during a commercial break than they do in the game.
Do you think more Jordan Schaefer and Christhian Bethancourt projects will happen and make these types of projects the norm?
As an aside, I would love to see Yasiel Puig on a mound if he sucks again this year..
We have a different definition of “sucks,” if you are willing to throw a league-average hitter on the mound for shits and giggles.
I’d like to see each team set a “game roster” of 18 players from the larger 25-man roster. Players outside the roster could be used only once the 18 had all played.
Also, I wonder when some team will profit by having fewer pitchers and more potential pinch-hitters on the roster.
I’ve always liked the fact that the rules of baseball do not require that a player’s role be explicitly defined. A player’s role is like the meaning of a word: defined by usage, not by a prescriptivist. Any player can in theory occupy any role. There don’t need to be loopholes or exceptions to bring the second basemen in to pitch, or the pitcher out to left field. I do like the idea of a 26th man not being a pitcher BUT I don’t like changing this admittedly very trivial concept of the game.
Completely agree, and think the idea of a new rule for pitching and position rosters is a bad one. If you want to limit pitching changes, limit pitching changes. Simple.
ALMOST completely agree. How about this for a change:
What upsets people is that pitching changes take too long. So instead of limiting the # of pitching changes – limit the TIME they can take. Do we REALLY need the manager to walk out to the mound, pat the existing pitcher on the back and take the ball from him, then watch the next guy come waltzing in from the bullpen and throw his warmup pitches? They should be warm and ready to go already before the pitching change decision is made anyways.
It’s not like the manager has to walk out to the batter’s box or on-deck circle and pat the batter and tell him, “sorry, I’m replacing you”. It just happens.
Make pitching changes take no more time than the time allotted to the pitcher between batters. It’ll take a major adjustment to how the bullpen is managed, and how pitchers are called in, but it could be done.
I’ve been following baseball for more than 50 years, and easily the most striking change over that time is the pitcher-position player balance on rosters. The deep bullpen and 5-man rotation, with the short bench, have altered how the game is played and who’s in the majors; also AAA and AA ball has been transformed.
Teams should be able to do whatever they see fit with the additional roster spot. Perhaps a team with a surplus of quality starting pitchers will feel compelled to experiment with a 6 man rotation, or perhaps you’ll see more teams do what the Cubs did with Kyle Schwarber during the World Series, and I wouldn’t want to discourage that.
Most likely, though, teams will go about filling the 26th roster spot the same way they fill the 25th; with a replacement-level mop up reliever or late inning defensive replacement, the kind of player that doesn’t do anything particularly well and thus isn’t very well suited for high leverage match-up situations in the first place.
But I mean, the current rules don’t define roster spot roles at all, correct? Position players are eligible to pitch, and they do so every once in a while; pitchers are eligible to play a position, and they do so once in a (very long) while. (More frequently they pinch-hit.) Would we want to change either of those? In particular would we really want to impose a rule that prohibited position players from pitching in blowouts? Or long extra-inning games, where teams often just run out of actual pitchers? (This is especially true given that bullpens are often used extensively in the late innings of what go on to be extra-inning games, in ways that are dumb in retrospect.) That last part could be an actual problem if the number of legally available pitchers is limited. There have been 26-inning games, though not I think for a while; 20-inning games are somewhat more routine, on a “once every few years” scale.
One of the things I love about baseball is that it’s relatively undefined. The seven position players who aren’t part of the battery can set up wherever they want, and it’s up to the batter to respond to their positioning, etc. The lack of defined roster spot roles is part of that, and I’m loath to change it. (If they actually legislate against defensive shifts that might be the only thing that could make the experience of watching baseball games a lot less enjoyable for me; I doubt that legislating bullpen sizes would do the same, but philosophically it’s similar.)
Dave makes a good argument that, on many teams at least, the most useful 26th man would be another bench player. If that’s true, great! I think it might well be, especially given how little usage the 7th reliever on a lot of teams, particularly the good ones, gets already. But I’d rather just give teams general parameters to work with, in terms of players on the roster or on the field, and then let them make their own strategic decisions with those resources, rather than trying to legislate exactly the aesthetics we want to see in the game.
I agree with all of this, and yet here’s where I am with baseball: I wouldn’t dream of inviting anyone to a game unless I knew them to be a fan. It would not be a place to take a date. There are long, long breaks in the action. The games are generally three full hours, and the managerial moves that impress a fan don’t do anything for a casual person who wants to watch people *do* things. I understand pitchers need to warm up, and I don’t want anyone to get hurt, but there’s no other game that stops the action for two minutes so one player being inserted by the choice of his manager can prepare to join the game.
How much of the pitching change thing is about commercials rather than the amount of time necessary to warm up? I wonder if you could sell people (read: advertisers) on cutting out pitching-change commercials entirely, and making the gap in the action just what’s necessary for warming up itself. I don’t know how much of the gap that would erase.
I get that people don’t like the frequency of mid-inning pitching changes; I’m not the world’s biggest fan myself. But if we simply must do something about it, I’d rather just go directly at it somehow, rather than throwing the unspecified nature of roster spots out the window. Some kind of extension of the current rule that pitchers must face at least one batter would at least be somewhat within the current character of the game, unlike Dave’s proposal. (A proposition with which I gather you don’t disagree.)
I would be fine with almost any rule designed to limit mid-inning pitching changes. To me, the rules should encourage actions that are fun to watch — balls in play! — and discourage actions that are not fun to watch — pitching changes, walks, most strikeouts. The Three True Outcomes leave most of the players with nothing to do.
You can’t stand talking to your date?
Sure I can, but I’d rather talk to her while there was something going on that we both enjoyed.
You don’t talk to her during sex?
” I understand pitchers need to warm up, and I don’t want anyone to get hurt, but there’s no other game that stops the action for two minutes so one player being inserted by the choice of his manager can prepare to join the game.”
This ties into a reply I made above – the problem isn’t that switches are made – the problem is how long they take. NHL “changes on the fly”. NBA, you do a quick check-in at the table and you’re in. NFL, players come in and out almost every play, and have to do so within the play clock.
But in baseball, we change the pitcher, and it takes a long, drawn out drama of the manager coming out and taking the ball from the existing pitcher, calling in the new one, giving the new one more warmup throws (even though he should be warm from the bullpen).
Make pitching changes fit within the normal “play clock” between batters. Make the reliever be warm before he comes out.
I really believe your second to last paragraph sums it up. Otherwise it appears we are entering the “relievercentric” phase, and perhaps a fundamental change to the basic game.
I get where this comes from, but I’d much rather just have a rule that says “Every pitcher must pitch to at least 3 batters, unless they are injured. If they are injured to the extent that they cannot pitch to 3 batters, they must immediately be placed on the 15-day DL.” Done.
I’ve seen this suggestion a lot and for the AL it may make some sense but in the NL? Lets say you bring a reliever on in the top of the 9th inning down two and the bases loaded. He strikes out the first batter and then gets a double play ball.
Then in the bottom of the 9th the home team in the midst of a good come back scores a run and loads the bases but records two outs in the process and up to the plate comes the relief pitcher. Obvious pinch hitter time but wait the 3 batter rule we just randomly threw out there prohibits this and the relief pitcher must bat with the game on the line.
Why is the home team being punished here and forced to bat a relief pitcher with the game in the balance?
Changing pitchers between innings should always be fine. Must pitch to three batters or until the end of the inning, something like that.
Ok, a reliever must do one of the following:
1) Face X batters
2) Earn Y outs (to include DPs that kill an inherited runner)
3) Complete an inning
The point of the rule is to save time on pitching changes, so anything that ends an inning should be good enough.
Yes, good points here. I’d also get rid of the DH in the NL (it’s time), but that’s a story for a different day.
The NL beat you to it by never implementing the DH.
Ha, meant put the DH in the NL. No need to see pitchers flailing away (and often getting hurt).
I think my error meant I was able to piss off everyone on either side of the debate (AL supporters thought I wanted to get rid of the DH in the AL and NL supporters thought I wanted to put the DH in the NL).
I suppose it could be worded as “pitcher must record at least three outs or face at least three batters” to handle burgh_fan’s issue… but beyond that- lets say your pitcher tweaked something and won’t be able to be effective any further that day, but you are also pretty sure it’s nothing a little ice and a day off can’t fix?
Do you suck it up and leave him out there to try and get to get to the batter/out minimum? Or do you pull him and lose him for the next 15 days?
I’ll readily admit that this is definitely one of the strongest arguments against my idea. My concern is you leave a guy out there because “we think he’s mostly ok and don’t want to miss him for 2 weeks” and then he blows out his elbow. Not good.
Maybe you compromise and say “he cannot be used for 7 days” or something similar, instead of putting him on the 15-day DL. But state that he can’t be sent down or taken off the 25-man (or 26-man) roster to game his service time.
I wrote about this at Twinkie Town when I was tackling adjustments to September rosters. Essentially I said that the team has to designate 7-8 relievers each game and no one is allowed to pitch outside of those players. It does become a problem if a game goes extra innings or injuries cause a team to use all their relievers, but then other rules could be added to lessen the impact.
It’s as simple as saying that once the designated 7-8 have all pitched to at least one batter, anyone else is permitted to pitch
Then that’s not any different than how it is now where every reliever faces one hitter. We’re trying to avoid that, aren’t we?
Then what’s the point of designating available pitchers?
I don’t understand the creation of roster construction rules to address this problem. Fix the problem directly. Write a rule that a pitcher must remain in for 2 (or 3 if you like) completed plate appearances. If they are removed prematurely then they are unavailable to pitch for the next 7 games. This would address the over use of pitchers for one out only which is the real problem. A roster construction rule is not the proper path. If a team wants to experiment with 8 starters or no starters and all 3 inning swing men I don’t want to discourage that.
Also, ban coaches from visiting the mound unless a pitching change is made. If a pitcher is injured then he can signal that he needs to come out of the game.
Yes! You are hereby declared Commissioner. I love these ideas. I also want a rule that restricts catchers from going to the mound more than once per inning (per pitcher). There should be one allowed mound visit per inning by the catcher and one by one of the coaches (which necessitates taking the pitcher out).
I like this. Take football as a comparison – it’s not like the coach can just say “hang on a sec everyone” and walk out on the field and spent a few minutes talking to the QB, receivers, etc about something that he didn’t like. There’s 3 timeouts and that’s that. I see no reason why pitching changes need to take longer than, say, a football timeout — if pitching changes had to be done in the same time as batter changes — most of the complaints people have about all this, go away without further, complicated rules.
So is Otani a pitcher or a position player?
Yes.
Good question/point…I can’t help but think of how a rule like this would make Shohei Otani even more valuable!
I partly agree with your position, Dave. I hate to see the 26th position occupied by another loogie, so that the manager can waste time and blow the game by making 4 pitching changes in 4 PA as Bochy did in that critical playoff game.
However, the game is so much better to me if the manager has more options.
I suggest eliminating the DH and expanding the roster. This allows fun strategies like PHing for pitchers more or always or players who only PH, PR, bunt, defend et. al.
It feels like you’re over-engineering a rule to avoid loopholes.
Let a team declare whether a player is a position player or pitcher. Set a limit of innings pitched by a position player, maybe 10. Position players can pitch; pitchers can pinch hit and play the field. You just can’t call your #1 starter a position player and pitch him 200 innings.
You might be able to game the system in September with your 9th bullpen guy — I have to think that one through. Oh well.
You’d probably be better off targeting the aesthetically unappealing pitching changes directly by making them less unappealing aesthetically by a) making the pitching changes shorter, b) less concentrated, and/or c) folding them in with other natural stoppages.
With a) you could simply reduce the number of mound warm-up pitches. This isn’t a safety issue: the bullpen warmups are for safety. The mound warmups are for competitive familiarity. This kills two birds with one stone by making the pitching change faster and also discouraging the pitching change in the first place. With b) you could increase the 1-batter minimum to a 2-batter minimum. With c) you could modify Rule 5.10(i) to force managers to make their substitutions between innings so that we never again have to ever deal with a situation where the previous reliever warms up, when play resumes the batter in pinch-hit for, and then a new reliever is brought in and we have to go to another commercial.
You forgot d) bullpen cars.
Defining roles is far too complicated and will endup removing the option of a player who both pitches and fields, which reduces strategy and makes the game more boring. I’m not a fan of the 26th man being added BUT if this change is made, there is a much more simply way to limit pitchers.
New Rule:
Only 5 players may pitch within a 9-inning game.
– If a game goes over 9-innings, then any number of players may pitch.
– If the fifth pitcher is removed from the game (injury or strategy) then a position player who is already in the game at that time may pitch as the 6th pitcher
This would additional strategy to the game (you can make a defensive replacement before the 9th innining to put a pitcher in LF who then becomes the 6th pitcher after the first batter is retired)
It would be even more fun if it were only 4 pitchers in 9 innings, but I don’t think anyone would go for that.
Don’t like it. There are valid reasons to use more than 5 pitchers in 9 innings, big ones being if multiple relievers are getting shelled or if the starter gets knocked out in the early innings.
I’m with those who say that, if we’re going to address pitching changes, do it directly by saying that a pitcher needs to face at least two hitters or complete an inning.
Hey guys,
Just listed most of my autograph collection on eBay. Will give 20% of all sales to charity. Check it out and spread the word: http://www.ebay.com/usr/isaasasso-0
If you want to donate directly to the charity, you can donate on teamsbh.org/isasson
Thanks!
Roster construction is a venture that lends it self to creative efforts. Arbitrarily setting rules governing that construction reduces the opportunity to field the best 25(6) man squad, and possibly taking advantage of status quo heuristics. Besides, extra pinch hitters means more men on base, and longer innings. The shortest games are 1-0 shutouts… Wouldn’t that counteract the idea of reducing the number of pitching changes?
I don’t like the dramatic change regarding the September roster rules. I think they should’ve reduced it to 35 or so for a season and see how it plays out.
How the hell would anyone know who the 26th man is.
Frankly,a 6th starter who piggy backs on the 5th starters turn in the rotation, aka a long man /spot starter makes the most sense. 5th starters are basically replacement level pitchers and often times managers let them give up way too many runs before pulling them for fear of blowing out the pen. A 6th starter would allow the manager to pull him as early as the 1st inning. Back in the day of the 4 man rotation and frequent CG the spot managers pulled pitchers from games much earlier when it was apparent a starter did not have it. Now managers leave a guy in until they give up 6-8 runs or exceed their pitch count
It’d be great to see teams use the 26th man on a particular kind of reliever: Letting a young pitching prospect develop as a piggyback reliever throwing 2-3 innings instead of languishing in AAA longer than he needs to. This is how the Cardinals initially used Alex Reyes and he was dominant and kept the Cardinals in games, kept a lower innings count and got MLB experience before joining the rotation.
Not sure how a rule would enforce this. Maybe require all teams to use a multi-inning high-leverage relief ace, defined by a minimum of 10 blog posts written about him.
I love your idea of limiting pitching changes by improving the quality of hitter relief pitchers must face. I would be even more agressive. If a team makes a pitching change during a half inning of play then the opposing team can reset its lineup from any point. So if you choose to bring a pitcher during a half inning he is facing (Haper, Trout, Miggy, Bryant ect) Win win for the fans either the action will move at a better pace or you will be rewarded with high leverage at bats by great players.
Restrict pitching changes, not roster makeup.
1) It more directly targets the problem: Fans don’t care how many relievers a manager may choose from; we just hate these mind-numbing innings with multiple pitching changes.
2) There is no precedent for a rule on roster makeup by position. But there are position-based rules on in-game usage. (A pitcher announced in the game must face a batter; a pitcher must be removed upon a second mound visit by a coach in an inning; a starting DH must come to bat; etc.) Avoiding needless precedent is a good principle for a sport whose essential rules are as old as baseball’s.
If there is a strategic edge to be found in the use of the 26th player, better it be discovered organically by the smarter managers. I don’t want MLB telling managers, “Trust us — this is for your own good.” But I do want MLB to tell them, “Stop boring the paying customers!”
Yes. Limit the number and length of pitching changes and mound visits, and this problem goes away.
I agree with both of your points.
Echoing points above, try a rule that a pitcher has to face at least two batters or finish an inning before being removed. That makes it tougher to use LOOGY’s/ROOGY’s and eliminates the horribly slow innings where we get one pitching change per hitter.
A consequence that I really don’t like about Dave’s proposal is that it forecloses some interesting ways that a team might use the 26th man. Some teams might, for example, use the flexibility to create a dedicated piggyback for the 5th spot in the rotation, which would be an interesting development.
I’m always pitching a National League DH compromise to whoever will listen, and I think it would do a lot to alleviate this problem, too. The basic concept is you tie the DH directly to the SP. When the starter leaves the game, the DH goes with him and the rules revert to classic NL style. I always include a 26th man when I make this pitch to compensate for the fact that the SP and DH would effectively represent one roster spot. So the “what to do with the 26th man” question sort of answers itself, and if you’re concerned about the bullpen revolution, I think the downside of losing the DH would be a pretty strong incentive to stick with the starter as long as possible.