The Atlantic League Will Experiment Again, This Time With the Pitching Distance and DH Rule
Building upon a suite of experimental rule changes for the affiliated minor leagues that Major League Baseball announced in March, the independent Atlantic League has agreed to implement a couple of radical changes to the rulebook this season as well, one involving the pitching distance and the other the designated hitter rule. Via MLB.com’s Anthony Castrovince, the eight-team league will increase the pitching distance by a foot for the second half of its 120-game season, and will implement a “Double Hook” designated hitter rule, in which a team loses its DH spot after its starting pitcher is removed.
Like several of the experimental rules MLB announced in March — larger base sizes in Triple-A, anti-shift rules in Double-A, a step-off rule in High-A, an electronic strike zone in the Low-A Southeast League, a pitch timer in the Low-A West League, and pickoff limits in all three Low-A leagues, all of which Brendan Gawlowski and Kevin Goldstein discussed here — these changes are a chance to examine the real-world effects of implementing rules that have been discussed in recent years as ways to liven up a game that has become increasingly geared towards home runs and strikeouts. The pitching distance change is an effort to counter the trends of higher pitch velocity, higher strikeout rates, and fewer balls in play that have reduced the level of action and — to the eyes of many — the level of entertainment as well, the latter despite the incredible athleticism of the players involved. The DH rule change is an effort to counter the trend of decreased workloads of starting pitchers and the corresponding increased reliance upon bullpens, which have stoked the velocity and strikeout trends throughy a steady stream of relievers throwing an inning at a time at maximum effort.
This isn’t the first time MLB has gone to the Atlantic League to test out radical ideas; instead, it’s the latest stage of a three-year agreement put into place in 2019, allowing MLB to test new rules and equipment in the country’s top independent league. The three-batter rule that was introduced at the major league level last year was first tried in the Atlantic League in 2019. That same year, the league became the first to implement an electronic strike zone, and debuted larger bases and an anti-shift rule. All of those changes are now being subjected to further testing in affiliated ball, though the shift rule has taken a different form.
The Atlantic League planned to introduce a 62’6″ pitching distance — a two-foot move, twice the distance of this year change — in the middle of the 2019 season, but that plan was greeted with a chilly reception, with some pitchers threatening to leave the league. The plan was soon delayed until the second half of the 2020 season, which itself was scrapped entirely due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
As with the new rules being tried in the affiliated minors, it’s fair to be nervous about the effects these changes will have upon the game, both in terms of intended consequences and unintended ones, particularly as MLB has sometimes appeared to overlook the latter. For example, the introduction of instant replay to review umpires’ calls has not only led to debates over the propriety of calling a player who inadvertently loses contact with a base for a fraction of a second out, it led to the technology being exploited by teams in the service of stealing signs illegally, creating a scandal that rocked the sport while calling into question the validity of the 2017 and ’18 World Series outcomes. And then there’s the ongoing saga of changes to the construction of the ball itself, which has pushed the game further into a three-true-outcomes cul de sac amplifying some of the conditions the league is attempting to counter.
Likewise, it’s also fair to worry about anything that makes the jobs of pitchers more difficult given that they already get injured with greater frequency than position players. They’ve been fine-tuning their deliveries and their arsenals for a 60’6″ distance since high school, but suddenly they have to adapt to a whole new distance. What’s more, the first wave of players being asked to adapt to this radical change on both sides of the ball are already at the fringes of professional baseball, making at most $3,000 a month for a five-month season, and usually much less than that. They’re being given a choice: submit to being used as baseball guinea pigs or take your bats and gloves elsewhere.
All of that said, getting MLB and the players’ union to buy into changes that are designed to address longstanding concerns about the game’s pace of play and entertainment value is less likely without seeing some of these ideas play out in a competitive environment. The pandemic-shortened 2020 season led to the temporary implementation of the extra-innings runner-on-second rule and the introduction of seven-inning doubleheader games, both of which have been used in the minors for years, and both of which were brought back for 2021; they’re efforts to make it easier to get a full slate of games in amid the complexities posed by the pandemic as well as to reduce players’ time in close proximity. Some of us despise these rules with a passion, but sentiment in either direction is far from unanimous, even among players, and it’s not impossible that some of these rules are maintained; seven-inning doubleheader games might be used to give players more off days over the course of a non-pandemic season, for example. Seeing proposed new rules put into action can change minds and, one would hope, lead to better versions of those rules. With negotiations for a new Collective Bargaining Agreement looming, and with teams feeling the financial crunch of a shortened season without any paid admission and then a (hopefully) full season of significantly reduced capacity, this is a critical juncture for the sport. The time is right for some trial and error.
The Atlantic League begins its season on May 27, and will use the 60’6″ distance, which has been in place since 1893 for the first half of its season, then add a foot of distance starting on August 3. The goal is to dial back velocities and strikeout rates. Via Baseball Savant, the average four-seam fastball from last year was clocked at 93.3 mph, 1.1 mph faster than in 2010 and 1.4 mph faster than in ’08, the first year of reliable pitch-tracking data. Where major league hitters struck out at a 17.5% rate in 2008, they did so at a 23.4% clip last season, the 15th year in a row that the rates have increased. What’s more, the past three seasons have featured more strikeouts than hits. Mind you, not all of this is due to increased pitched velocity; the analytically-driven acceptance of strikeouts among batters has increased because it correlates with increased power, particularly as players rework their swings to hit increasingly homer-friendly balls in the air with greater frequency. Early indications point towards all of these trends continuing through the 2021 season.
As both Castrovince and the Washington Post’s Chelsea Janes reported based upon their discussions with unnamed MLB officials, the addition of an extra foot of distance reduces the effective velocity of that 93.3 mph fastball to the equivalent of 91.6 mph, an average velo that actually predates the pitch-tracking era rather than the 2010 or ’11 dates mentioned in those reports. Regardless, if the math on the equivalent velocities is correct — and I’m waiting for the physicists to weigh in here — we can note that in 2019-20 (I’m combining the two seasons due to the brevity of the latter), batters hit .263 and slugged .476 when putting four-seamers in the 93-94 mph range into play, and produced a .357 xwOBA on those pitches when one accounts for walks and strikeouts. On four-seamers in the 91-92 range, they hit .293 and slugged .548, producing a .383 xwOBA. For four-seamers in the 98-99 range, batters hit .220, slugged .366, and produced a .300 xwOBA, but for 96-97 mph heaters, the numbers rose to a .244 AVG, .441 SLG, and .336 xwOBA. A couple ticks of velocity makes a difference.
Countering the effect of that reduced velocity and the advantage it produces for hitters will be different pitch movement. On that subject, as well as the concerns regarding increased injury rates, league sources cited a 2019 study by the American Sports Medicine Institute, published in the Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport; both Dr. James Andrews, perhaps the top orthopedic surgeon in all of sports, and Dr. Glenn Fleisig, a leader in pitching biomenchanics, were involved. For the study, the biomechanics of 26 collegiate pitchers were recorded as they threw three sets of five maximum-effort fastballs from distances of 60’6″, 61’6″, and 63’8″ (that last one is half the distance between home plate and second base); likewise the velocity, horizontal and vertical breaks, duration of the ball’s flight, and strike percentage were measured. The study found “no significant differences” in pitching kinetics, ball velocity, or strike percentage at the varying distances, and the authors concluded that “it is unlikely that moving the mound backwards would significantly affect pitching biomechanics and injury risk.” They also noted that while increased duration of flight (and thus greater reaction time) could help the hitter, increased horizontal and vertical break could help the pitcher.
Given the minimal pitch counts and the lack of breaking balls used in the study, I think it’s fair to regard the ASMI’s findings as incomplete when it comes to appreciating the ramifications of a distance change. Five fastballs is the rough equivalent of facing one batter, and left unanswered here is the question of the physical effects of pitchers throwing 100 pitches at 61’6″, and further questions abound. How much harder is it to control a curveball at that distance, or a slider? Will control difficulties on breaking pitches increase pitchers’ tendencies to rely upon fastballs, putting them at greater risk for arm injuries? Higher contact rates are the goal, but will we in fact see them even with the greater pitch movement? Will lower strikeout rates be offset by higher walk rates, prolonging innings and games? Will pitchers try to compensate for the increased distances by throwing harder, perhaps leading to shorter stints and even greater reliance upon bullpens? Will batters turn their noses up at increased opportunities for contact and instead attempt to hit lower-velo pitches over the wall, too? We’re apparently going to find this stuff out, though it’s one thing for indie league teams to ride out the effects of what happens over the course of a couple of months, and another for major league teams with well-staffed analytical departments to start looking for the edges to be had in implementing these changes.
The Athletic’s Jayson Stark did note that MLB also conducted a study involving where catchers set up behind the plate and found that the difference could be as great as three feet, meaning that pitchers are already throwing at varied distances. Even so, what still matters most is where the pitch is when it crosses the plate and into the strike zone, not how far back the glove catching it is — all the moreso in a league that’s already using an electronic strike zone, taking pitch-framing out of the equation.
Speaking of Stark, the DH rule that’s being put into effect takes the name from a proposed rule that he wrote about a few months ago while considering alternatives to the universal DH rule in place last year. The Spink Award-winning writer says he didn’t invent the idea, writing with tongue firmly in cheek, “If you like the Double Hook, I’ll accept all the credit you’d like to heap on me. If you hate it, hey, I’m just the messenger!”
The proposal stems from a belief that the offensive advantages to be had by keeping one’s DH in the game can offset some of the disadvantages that come with sticking with a starting pitcher, such as the times through the order penalty, or a platoon disadvantage over the course of several hitters or in a high-leverage spot. The idea is both that the rule can restore a layer of strategy to the game as a manager weighs the costs and benefits of going to his bullpen and his bench, and that it can nudge player development and roster construction back towards the development of longer-lasting starting pitchers.
Circa 2015, starters still averaged 5.81 innings per turn, and teams used an average of 3.1 relievers per game, but that innings average dropped by about 2-3% annually through 2019, by which point starters averaged just 5.18 innings per turn and reliever usage had grown to 3.41 pitchers per game. Fueled by the reduced run-up to the 2020 regular season, larger roster sizes, and the introduction of seven-inning doubleheader games, last year starters dipped to 4.78 innings per turn. Thanks to the three-batter rule and the doubleheaders, reliever usage grew only to 3.43 pitchers per game, but their share of innings grew from 42.1% to 44.4% in the span of a year, and has expanded from 35.0% to 44.4% from 2015 to ’20.
In writing about the Double Hook rule in January, Stark ran the idea by a few people, including pitcher Adam Wainwright (one of the better batters among starters), manager Bud Black, and an unnamed executive, the last of whom pointed out several unintended consequences. For one, blowouts could become more common, because a team forced to remove a very ineffective starting pitcher early would also be at a greater disadvantage by pulling its DH, making it even more difficult to get back into the game. The rule could force a team to put its DH (Nelson Cruz, in the example used) in the field to keep him around at the expense of a better defender.
“So now you’re taking Max Kepler out of the game?” the executive told Stark, sticking with a Twins-flavored example. “Or if you put him at first base, Miguel Sanó is out of the game? Come on. You’re creating a shit show to address a problem that doesn’t need addressing at all.”
The rule would stamp out the opener, an innovation that not everybody loves, but it would also eventually breed out the likes of Cruz and other long-lasting DHs due to their limited opportunities, perhaps depriving the sport of its next David Ortiz or Edwin Encarnación — popular elder statesmen who may not fit the sport’s athletic ideal but who are fun as hell to watch in their own right. On the other hand, the rule would create more jobs for pinch-hitting and defensive specialists, and might lead teams to staff their benches with four or five reserves instead of three, as many AL teams do while carrying 14 pitchers (the rule limiting teams to 13 pitchers on a 26-man roster, introduced for 2020, has been waived under the pandemic-driven health and safety protocols.
As somebody who grew up on National League baseball but is utterly tired of watching increasingly inept pitchers swing the bat and add injury to insult in the process — the ongoing litany now includes Zac Gallen’s fractured forearm, suffered while taking batting practice, and Max Fried’s right hamstring, strained while running the bases — I was all in on the universal DH when it arrived last year. MLB’s cynical ploy to retain it for 2021 was to to use it as a bargaining chip in exchange for some type of expanded playoffs, an unequal exchange that benefited the owners far more than the players from a financial standpoint. The players didn’t bite, and now we have the utter stupidity of pitchers trying to hit again after taking a year off, a situation that’s likely temporary given the sentiment within the game towards adopting the universal DH rule within the next CBA.
The Double Hook rule, while well-intentioned, feels like a gimmicky tweak to a DH rule that’s become accepted over the course of nearly half a century, and ultimately I think it creates more problems than it solves. It seems far simpler to reduce the number of pitchers a team can carry so that they’ll push their starters a bit harder and perhaps have an extra bat or two on the bench for a well-timed pinch-hitting opportunity.
As with the experimental rules introduced for affiliated ball, one doesn’t have to love or even like these changes to respect the fact that MLB is trying out a handful of ideas to see what clicks and what doesn’t. I’ll wager that every baseball fan can find at least one of those new rules to dislike intensely — I’ll go with the Double Hook (sorry, Jayson!), and I have my reservations about the anti-shift rule — but that many of us might have our minds changed about at least one of the rules by seeing the results play out in a comparatively low-stakes way, whether among affiliated players or independent ones. Just as there’s no perfect solution to cure the game’s on-field woes, there’s no perfect way to test out these ideas on players whose talent levels are high enough that the effects can be extrapolated to major leaguers. Let’s see how these bold gambits play out.
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.
Willing to bet that the ‘unnamed executive’ works for an AL team, seeing as how that person described what is basically National League baseball as ‘a shit show’.
I had proposed the “Double Hook” rule in the comment sections here a few years ago (called the “Starter-Linked DH”, as you can tell I’m not in marketing 🙂 ) I do think Bud Black gives the best reason against the rule, not only for games where the starter is blown out but also when he gets hurt. I’d hate to think of a hurt pitcher being left in to complete an inning because the DH is due up the next inning.
However, I do think we need to find a way to discourage teams from carrying 7-9 relievers, many of whom will spend a short time in the majors before their arm blows out from all the 100% max effort pitching expected from that role. If not the Double Hook (to expand innings thrown by starters), what about giving the DH the hook after say the 3rd or 4th pitching change of a game?
I love this rule and hope it sticks across MLB. Would also make having someone like Michael Lorenzen in your bullpen pretty valuable in both leagues. It would turn the DH into a supersized pinch hitter which would be way more interesting. Anytime you involve pinch hitting mechanics the game is more interesting.
My personal preference would be that each pitcher would have their own DH so if you had a multi inning guy that would also be to their advantage but that part will never happen.
I keep coming back to this: isn’t the best way to limit relievers on the roster to just… Make a rule that limits the number of relievers on the roster? I wholeheartedly support the pursuit of this goal, but the double hook rule seems too cute by half, and could have some really harsh unintended consequences, some of which you mention above. It also seems like it would have a snowball effect, where a team whose pitcher is bad enough to be removed early is likely losing the game, and then takes a hit on offense making it less likely that they come back. Idk. Again, I love the goal here, but don’t understand why, if we’re already changing the rules, we can’t just make the rule do exactly what we want it to do instead of taking the four-dimensional-chess route to get there.
The problem with limiting relievers is the roster machinations that would ensue to get around it. If what you’re actually trying to limit is game stoppages for pitching changes then don’t dick around. Limit THAT. Each team gets ## mid-inning pitching changes per game, with a scaled increased allotment if the game goes to extra innings, and a free pitching change if a pitcher has to leave the game with an injury. Any pitching change that happens between innings is free.
…and to handle the case when you’ve used all of your allotted mid-inning changes and are put in a situtation where you REALLY want to make another one? Sure, go for it. It will cost you putting the next batter on first base for free, but then you can have a new pitcher.
How about simply no warmups on the game mound for mid-inning relievers? It requires no change to the rules of game play, and it strongly discourages — without gimmickery — the single action that makes innings 6-8 so tedious.
The rule also helps the visiting team.
If limiting the number of relievers means that a starter could never pitch in relief in any circumstances, I’m against it.
All of these ‘unintended consequences’ that people love to bring up are the rarities. How often does a SPer get knocked out in the 2nd inning? If you’re making a rule around ‘well what happens if..?’ then you’re putting too much thought into it. Perfection is not the enemy of good.
This double hook rule is great… adds another level of real managing esp where none exists in the AL and could represent a nice compromise position that both leagues can adopt. I love the idea. People are struggling too much to find issues with it.
As I chat, Patrick Corbin has just given up 10 runs in 1 2/3, but there are enough arguments against the Double Hook to question its merits. A pitcher is exactly the same as a goalie in the NHL. These are 100% specialized players and I don’t want to see a pitcher bat any more than I want to see a goalie skate up the ice and join the rush. Anything that brings a pitcher anywhere near a batter’s box should be a non-starter. So many injuries have happened to pitchers trying to do something that they are simply not talented enough to do. I offer Chien-MIng Wang and Jimmy Nelson as just two examples of pitchers whose careers were sharply curtailed on the base paths. Doing something that you are not qualified to do leads to injury. I don’t work with electricity, a pitcher shouldn’t work with a bat. The game is still entertainment. Millions and millions of people have paid to watch Big Papi, Edgar Martinez and Nelson Cruz hit. Nobody has paid to watch Zach Greinke, Madison Bumgarner or Adam Wainwright hit despite the fact that they are some of the better hitting pitchers in the game. This article is about attempting to regain the balance between batter and pitcher. Pitchers can only make the situation worse if they are forced to go up to the plate.
Had the Double Hook rule been in place yesterday for Rodon’s near perfect game, the Indians would have lost Franmil Reyes before he even came to the plate, the pitcher’s spot would have been up second in the second inning, and would have batted three times for the game.
Or maybe Francona would have let Plesac just keep throwing meatballs and been down double digits to start the second, having gotten all of one PA out of his DH and still requiring at least 2 PH to get through nine without forfeiting or using a position player to pitch, maybe several. It really could have made the game a joke which might have been amusing once, but if it happens regularly it makes a bunch of games unwatchable.
If the early knockout is the biggest consequence that people have issue with, there’s a simple fix for that – you don’t lose the DH before he’s had an AB. Anything else??
Last night Corbin lasted 2 innings and gave up 10 runs. Maybe the DH would have appeared once, which also hurts the offense of the trailing team. That is twice in two nights and this “idea” should go in the circular file.
What’s your point? When your SPer allows 10 runs in 2 innings then your loss probably really isn’t going to be affected by DH or not…
Sheesh. MLB continues to try to fix what isn’t broken. Truth be told, I’d rather they take a look at some of the innovations the Savannah Bananas have introduced.
Stealing first on a passed ball? Yes, please!
No time out for batters in the batters’ box? I like it!
Foul ball caught by a fan is an out? Why not?
Ok, so #3 is bad, but I’m definitely on board with #2…and I actually thought #1 was a rule when I was little (I couldn’t tell the difference between a passed ball and a dropped third strike).
I don’t really like the double-hook thing either as there are some unintended consequences, but I like that the league is experimenting with these things. I also don’t really like the shift limitations either, but if there’s a secondary consequence of significantly reducing 3 true outcomes, I could live with it.
I have genuinely wanted to know what the consequences of moving the mound back slightly would do and whether it would increase the number of balls in play. I have hypothesized that a deader baseball along with moving the mound back slightly would reduce both home runs and strikeouts, but I’d like to see evidence and I’d like to know if there are other consequences (a higher walk rate, injuries etc). Strikeouts may counterintuitively go up if breaking pitches became more effective as a result.
This is a long way of saying that I am glad to see them trying things out.
With that said, the double-hook rule might incentivize the Angels to turn Ohtani into a reliever and we could see some interesting usage out of him.
wow, the Angels could start their previous day’s starter and just have him throw one ball in the dirt, pitching change, Ohtani, and he gets to hit!
I mean they are already planning on putting him in the outfield after he pitches in the future… So gonna be lots of interesting use of him.
Jay,
Good piece, and I like that they are experimenting.
I hate the false narrative that pitchers get hurt while hitting. Zac Gallen, had a stress fracture in his forearm. Stress fractures/reactions are caused by intensive repetitive stress to a body part. Can you think of anything stressful Zac Gallen does with his right arm? The moment the injury fully came to a head or was discovered may have been swinging, but it was inevitable and not because of BP. Do injuries on occasion occur because a pitcher is hitting or running? Sure. But these are elite athletes, who if we cannot expect them to swing and run, then I am not sure what we are doing.
The risk to pitchers is throwing over and over and max effort. Putting relentless stress on a few joints/ligaments in a way that was never intended by the human body. They also stand 60.5 feet away from a rock hard orb being launched at them at 100+ MPH with no ability to protect themselves, and we never talk about that. So I would really really love to stop the DH is important because it protects pitcher health narrative. There are enough actual reasons you can make for it, and the health thing really bugs me.
Great point. My peeve is the notion that universal DH is sufficiently justified by the fact that pitchers are bad hitters (especially when accompanied by sophisticated statistical analysis to demonstrate that, uh, pitchers are bad hitters) — ignoring all the interesting consequences that follow from the fact that pitchers are bad hitters.
90% of the time, the consequence is a very boring out. A fair amount of the time that boring out is preceded by an equally boring IBB of the #8 hitter. Twice the boredom for one low price!
The frequency with which a pitcher actually bats in the pitcher’s spot is far, far lower than 90%. And that decision to pass the #8 must be weighed against increasing likelihood of prompting a PH. Which might, in turn, be reason enough to do it, to get an effective starter out of the game. Etc.
My fear is that baseball becomes so gimmicked that people won’t even know the rules half of the time, especially casuals. I can hear the conversations now, “oh wait, they have to pull Nelson Cruz now? He’s my favorite player! I guess I’ll turn this off.”
This just screams NASCAR in the late 2000s-present all over again. Segmented races, overtime line, expanded playoffs that just make everything a big crapshoot. Yeah, it didn’t work. Try to rope in casuals with a bunch of gimmicks, the casuals still don’t care and a lot of the hardcores become less interested in a watered-down product.
There are some actual problems that could be fixed, but a lot of these proposed rule changes are solutions in search of a problem.
I agree, but the original too-cute gimmick was the DH. Ignoring the situation on the ground for the moment, the most elegant solution is universal 9 vs 9. If you want to hit, better own a glove.
I totally agree. I’ll never abandon the sport, but every sudden rule-change has consequences to the gameplay. There are a few rule changes I can get behind, but Double Hook? Nope.
I don’t mind the three batter minimum; I’d be fine with no timeouts for batters in the box, though I really don’t think that harms the pace of play too much; 7-inning doubleheaders are fine too–it’s probably good to not have to play 18 innings in one day; universal DH is a great thing in my mind (nothing is stopping the manager from putting Greinke in as a PH if he wants to bat! (or at least, nothing should stop them)).
I’m curious about the mound distance effects, so I don’t mind that in indy ball as long as we get a good look at it before popping it into MLB.
The runner on second rule though–that’s my crusade. I hate that rule. If MLB is concerned about game length, they should just implement ties after 10 or 12 (in the regular season–playoff games shouldn’t end in ties). There’s no reason that extra innings should have different rules.
Also, no more than 1/3 of the teams in a league should make the playoffs.
I’m with you. The extra-inning rule is the worst. I would rather have ties than that fake baseball. The casual fan likely isn’t watching a 13-inning game anyway.
Extra inning rule is horrible. I can understand maybe doing it after 12 (still don’t like it, but it is interesting at least) but in the 10th? WTF is that.
No clue at all about Nascar, but agree with your point .
I don’t watch NASCAR, but its downfall has been something I’ve been fascinated by the last few years. It really is a prime example of how to nearly kill off your brand. I’m seeing baseball trying to do some of the same things, and I’m scared.
If HR were harder to get wouldn’t hitters try harder to avoid strikeouts and reduce launch angle and hit away from shift? The constant pursuit of solo HR seems to be the problem.
Yeah, if you’re going to move the mounds back, you probably also have to move the fences back (or, since every ball park has unique dimensions and that’s a good thing, require some minimums).
I hate the Double Hook thing. It doesn’t really solve any issues and creates many more. I don’t want to watch pitchers bat. It’s not fun or interesting and everyone always points to like the 5 pitchers that can hit but the vast majority of pitchers can’t and watching them bat is completely uninteresting. I don’t want to take better players out of the game to double switch to prevent pitchers from batting. I want to watch the best players play. Just do universal DH. Pitcher batting was fine 40 years ago but in an era of specialized sports it makes as much sense as making your QB also be a linebacker.
Hate the double hook idea. Do we really need Nelson Cruz taken out in the 5th inning? Or on the field? Cmon. As someone else said, just limit the number of pitching changes or relief pitchers. Seems like an easy fix.
I can get behind the moving the mound back idea. Long before I was born offense was struggling, and they lowered the mound. It had the effect that they wanted it to have. Strikeouts are continuing to rise, and it isn’t because of batters approach. While the batters approach might increase K’s ever so slightly, the biggest issue is how good the pitchers are now. No matter what anyone says the pitchers today are far better than they were prior, you can see it simply by the velocity and movement on pitches. With the technology changes this isn’t a pattern that is going to change, batters are going to continue to strikeout more and more and more until a change is made. At least they are trying something. And before anyone suggest it, no, moving the mound back will not increase strikeouts. It isn’t as much the movement as it is the tunneling and velocity.
The idea of losing the DH when your starter comes out is a potential semi-okay compromise. Sadly it would eliminate starting pitchers from ever hitting, but it would get pinch hitters used off the bench more than the traditional dh. Still don’t like the DH at all.
The only positive I see about moving the mound back would be on the reduction of strike outs. I’m good with that, but I don’t want to see scores of games going up. I want to see pitchers getting hitters out quicker, get up and get down and stay in the game longer.
I’m seeing some good arguments against the double-hook that I hadn’t thought of, but something else it’s designed to discourage is having an opener, which limited pitching changes may not do as successfully. It’s an aesthetic thing for me but the starters are the natural focus for a game’s story and breaking that up for yet another pitching change is something I’m happy so see disincentivized. I don’t find it to be a particularly interesting strategy either (the way an extreme shift can be) and feels more cute than clever, like batting the pitcher 8th or whatever.
Is the opener strategy so common that it needs to be discouraged? (I don’t know the answer; just posing the question.)
not at all
Why not compromise and introduce the “double hook” rule in the NL only? That way we avoid pitchers hitting almost entirely, but NL baseball maintains its unique strategy and the Nelson Cruzes can still play full-time for AL teams.
I’m all for starters going deeper in games, I’d be interested in seeing a pitch minimum, call it 100 pitches from your starter. If he’s hurt, then make it so at minimum he misses one full turn in the rotation (call it his next start can’t be until 10 games after the one he is pulled early so teams don’t just claim injury). You’d have to have something for if they’re really struggling, make it 100 pitches or 5 earned runs before you can pull your starter? I’d be interested in seeing what they could do as far as that direction, would force less pitching changes and starters pitching 6+ innings far more often
There are many questions to be answered that only human beings in the arena can answer. The time has come, and should have been addressed earlier, to attempt to regain more of a balance between balls in play and strikeouts. It all revolves around the amount of contact. If that can increase significantly then a less lively ball might lessen HR’s and bring back the action with the return of the hit and run and more steals. I have been a believer that given that extra instant to follow the ball, the major league hitter will be able to handle velocity much better and read the breaking stuff earlier and react. Physics demands that the ball will move more but the hitter should be more able to judge the break more efficiently. I cannot believe some of the chasing I see in today’s game. This has to come from the hitter’s fear of getting beat by the heat. Quickness is the basic talent in all sports and today’s hitters are at their extreme limit to attempt to catch up to the heat thrown by the steady diet of 6’4″ or taller pitchers virtually handing the ball to the catcher. I was familiar with Dr. Andrews findings and think the risk of injury isn’t going to change. Of course, pitching is fraught with peril and you can bet that the first pitcher who goes down after throwing from 61’6″ will blame the increase. Sadly my home town tried to have a team in the Atlantic League, after33 years in the Eastern League, but they could not make a go of independent ball or I would be there almost every night.
WAY TOO LONG: Maybe give me specialists, as wanted/roster/salary limits, for fielding, hitting, running, and ofc pitching. Players can still and will hit and field but some that only hit or field or even just run can find jobs.
I used to be full get rid of the DH altogether. Over the course of a couple years of reading I’ve come to realize pitchers can no longer hit. They simply stop training to be hitters and focus only on pitching. I also have always been willing to have the Ortiz’s have a spot (#1 P.H. has never been worth enough to pay them to stay in the league).
I know it would cost more money, but I’m even leaning the whole other way. AKA A Fielding and a Hitting Team. You can still have players play for both sides. But, you can keep your defensive first SS and catchers, and don’t have to stick your bat only hitters at first or right field.
While I’m at it, I’d even be willing to have pitch runners. No, not from contact of the bat, but before the next hitter, a pitch runner can (and often will) come in, and try to steal, go first to third etc. The batter is still in the game, and in fact the runner can be used again and again for anyone (save for ofc there are no invisible men and if they are on a base, 2nd fastest will be used). Pinch Runners can also be anyone (noting ofc the above) (thus the defensive and fast centerfielder can both be paid for defensive and speed on the bases).
To sum it up: Save for Always having Mike Trout bat, we sh/could have the positions on the field be the best they can be. I don’t think the roster size should increase so much that there are a full 8 fielders and 9 hitters, though if you increase it to 30 (and keep it there all year long, don’t forget September silliness), you can have all 17 or most of the 17 plus enough pitchers. Well, unless you also want 3 runners that are not already included.
In reality, you probably have 4 defensive first/runs well players (usually Catcher, SS, 2B, CF) as well as 5 “DH” slots on top of the 4 regular players (often 2 COF 1B/3B) as well as your backup catcher*. Thus, 14 non pitchers (pitchers don’t train extensively on anything but pitching), leaving you 16 pitching slots. Maybe a team pays for a run only type. But I doubt they feel that more slots than one is worth rostering at once for that sole purpose. I know that there are quite a few good hittng CF/SS/2B’s out there, so likely the COF/1B is more the defensive specialist on that team then.
If there are no “extra non pitching players” PH and def sub will no longer be a thing. Only if you have more 2 way aka 100+ year normal players and/or have less pitchers will you have extras. OFC, if for some reason, you decide to sub in someone from either your hitting or your defense, they are out of the game. You can move around fielders, but one of them has to come and stay out. Batting substitution is same as always.
*Catcher is the one non pitching defensive slot, that while less likely than ever, I will allow you to have a real catcher catch. So, if you pitch hit for your “Realmuto”, he can still catch, he just can no longer hit. I will even allow for you to bring back your main catcher, possibly if only due to injury (I’m thinking concussion related), but maybe just for whatever reason (even if it’s personal catcher situation, def not so they platoon the hitting catcher spot…I’d rather they roster hitters for platoon catchers).
Any of your hitters that didn’t start in the field as well, can be moved to the field, but they must keep their hitting slot in order to keep hitting. Any of your fielders who didn’t start hitting (and yes you have to give a lineup card for all 17 slots the 9 hitters and 8 fielding positions, names can be used 2 times…thus no changing w/o consequences in the 2nd aka before the full 9 hitters hit), can be given a hitting slot. However, that hitter must either come out of the game or go to a field only status (they can move around the field. but no longer hit).
Things I didn’t address, I’m sure can probably be minor and solved as needed.
Brilliant! I am still laughing after reading (make that pounding the table) a second time.
I don’t like the idea of the full split offense/defense like football, but I don’t think it’s absolutely insane. People prop it up as a strawman/slippery slope against the DH all the time (just as bad as the “pitchers always get out” strawman the other way). If baseball had evolved to specialized Off/Def in the 40s like football had, no one would bat an eye at it now, yet we treat the idea as some kind of abomination.
Your comment was even longer than your user name 🙂
Can’t shake the feeling that a Turing test just failed
I genuinely laughed at my desk reading this response. Well done 🙂
What about a rule saying that no matter what, the DH can’t get pulled before the end of the 5th inning? Or once the starting DH leaves the game he’s replaced by another DH who finishes the game?
How about no rule at all. I will venture a guess that most baseball fans like to watch Nelson Cruz approaching the plate in a high leverage situation much more than in the 4th inning but with modern pitching theory it is very likely that he would seldom bat after the 5th inning. No thanks!!!!
Maybe, but a lot of others feel that everyone who bats has to play a position.
I mean, now it’s pitchers but eventually it’ll become another defensive specialist can be hit for with a 2nd designated hitter. Why stop at pitcher?
When there is one rule, it’s just an accepted part of the game (the pitcher’s spot in the order). When half the teams don’t have to deal with that nuance, that’s what causes some to yap about it. The double hook is a compromise that can level the rules and adds some managing at the same time.
And btw, talk about a dopey rule for a problem that doesn’t exist, the extra inning runner at 2B rule is just awful. How many times does a game go past 11 innings that they needed to do something radical like this?! Not to mention the added drama and quirkiness of extra innings can be so much fun!
just limit the size of pitching staffs. 8 and now 9 man bullpens used to be a rarity, but now they allow managers to not fear pulling their starter in the 4th inning. from a roster building perspective it will put the emphasis back on starters who are workhorses and off of relievers who throw 95-mph for 20 innings or whatever before hitting the DL.
that and an electronic strikezone that would curb strikezone expansion would go a long way to improving the run scoring environment and pace of play.
7 inning double headers are an abomination, and the runner on second rule in extras is….worse than an abomination. A plague?
The double hook also sucks, but at least it’s still baseball. I could come around on something like that.