Should relievers have to face more than one batter?

[reillymcshane]

As people talk about shortening the game and increasing offense, here's one thought that has come up: force relievers to face more than one batter in a game. The idea was reportedly tossed out by Theo Epstein at the last GM's meeting, and people were receptive.

 

Some options include making a reliever face a minimum or two - or even three - batters. Maybe even add in 'or the end of an inning.' So the rule could be 'A reliever must face a minimum of (insert 2 or 3) batters (getting the batters out or allowing the batter to reach base), or reach the end of an inning.'

 

Shoenfield suggests you add in that if a pitcher leaves due to an injury, he must sit out a minimum of three games. This would prevent pitchers from faking injuries.

 

Obviously this would have some major ramifications late in the game. Is it fair? Like banning shifts, are we just dumbing down the game? Are we penalizing smart people figuring out how to manage their rosters?

 

Or are we saving fans from watching parades of relievers coming in and out? In 2012, the Mets and Astros used 11 pitchers to get the last 16 outs in one game. This kind of thing can really get crazy in September when teams have loads of extra guys on the roster (which I hate - teams play five months, then suddenly September rolls around, and how a game is managed can dramatically change - just hate that).

 

Limiting the number of relief pitchers would (theoretically) speed up the game (less substitutions) AND improve offense (diminished ability to create situational match ups, especially with Loogys).

 

Curious how others feel about the idea.

 

Here's some of the articles where writers discuss this idea.

 

Dave Shoenfield - http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/54831/should-relievers-have-to-face-two-batters

 

Ken Rosenthal - http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/story/rosenthal-speed-up-mlb-game-make-relievers-face-more-than-1-batter-faster-game-more-runs-012815

 

Tom Verducci - http://www.si.com/mlb/2015/01/27/rob-manfred-commissioner-major-league-baseball

[Bombers]

Honestly, I think that is an alright idea. I am all for increased offense. I get it, most on here (including myself) have no problem sitting in a 1-0 ballgame and watching some masterful pitching. But reality says that isn't what the general public wants. Scoring is important in any league. I think this is a decent option to increase scoring. I do also agree with how others have said attendance is fine, so don't fix what isn't broke. While that is true, scoring is trending downward and at what point will this downward trend start impacting dollars. It is in baseball's best interest to always be prepared.

[3and2Fastball]

I would very much prefer that MLB does not tinker with the rules..... let teams adjust. I don't want them to try to turn MLB into a league that it is already superior already, than such as the NFL or NBA, all as an attempt to make it more "popular", when the game is already awash in cash as is

[jerichoholicninja]

I would very much prefer that MLB does not tinker with the rules..... let teams adjust. I don't want them to try to turn MLB into a league that it is already superior already, than such as the NFL or NBA, all as an attempt to make it more "popular", when the game is already awash in cash as is

 

I like the idea but I also agree with this post.

 

However, I'm as big a baseball fan as there is but I hate when a team uses more than 2 pitchers to get through an inning unless it's because one of them can't get an out. All the righy/lefty matchup stuff to me is boring and is probably one of the biggest reason games drag on.

[igor67]

The world has temporarily tilted towards the pitchers, but I wonder if just letting a team figure out how to collect more flexible relief arms, so they could use more bench hitters wouldn't do just as much for offense? That said I'd be far more open towards implementing a minimum batters faced requirement than banning shifts.

[MadScientist]

It's not the increased offense, changing pitchers every batter is just annoying to watch. It will make late innings more watchable, which is good for baseball. More than any other proposed changes, I want them make this rule change.

[Invader3K]

I don't like the idea. It seems like it's a solution in search of a problem to fix.

[djoctagone]

what happens to advertising revenue for the radio and television networks broadcasting the games? when networks signed those ridiculous tv deals with teams, it was knowing that sports is programming that viewers watch live (and do not digitally record for later viewing), and thus there are more viewers likely viewing the commercial(s) in between pitching changes. the networks' projected revenues from advertisers would fall short if mlb implemented this.

[logan82]

Leave things the way they are. If they want to make the game better enforce all the rules already in place.

[pacopete4]

I'd be ok with it. The lefty specialist is stupid to me. If you can't pitch vs. both hands, go pitch in independent ball or something.

[jerichoholicninja]

I don't like the idea. It seems like it's a solution in search of a problem to fix.

 

The problem is that once you get to the 7th inning, baseball games turn into the last two minutes of a basketball game with constant fouling and time outs. There's no flow, it's just one stoppage after another.

[BuckyBrewer61]

 

The problem is that once you get to the 7th inning, baseball games turn into the last two minutes of a basketball game with constant fouling and time outs. There's no flow, it's just one stoppage after another.

 

Agree with this completely (including the end of basketball games). There has to be a better way to shorten this delay though - do pitchers really need 8 warmup pitches after they just threw 30 in the bullpen? Do they need to wait for the manager to walk out....talk on the mound for a little bit.....get the call....saunter out of the dugout.....slowly jog to the mound....talk to the manager about scouting reports for the upcoming batters......take their warmups....wait for the batter to saunter over from the on deck circle so his walkup music can play....readjust the gloves he hasn't even used yet....

 

I don't know the answer, but why not just sub the pitcher in and out like any other sport. Manager makes the call from the dugout, last guy leaves, new guy come in right away. Maybe throw 2-3 pitches to adjust to the ballpark, then batter up.

 

There are clearly 2 things on Manfred's agenda - shorten games and increase scoring. The 1st can be done by eliminating so much of the wasted time not playing baseball and not changing the game itself one bit - this idea seems to be trying to masquerade the 2nd as trying to accomplish the goal of the 1st.

[Polish Falcons]

I am very much in favor of this rule. Every reliever must face a minimum of 3 batters unless it is the end of an inning. I don't like it when the late innings drag on for so long because teams keep going to the bullpen for loogys and situational pitchers to face one batter. It is so annoying to sit home watching a game like that, or even if you are at a ballgame that is running late and you want to get home. It's just annoying.

 

I don't agree with the purist idea of not tinkering with the game, because in the 'good ole days' managers never used to do this crap with situational pitchers. The managers are already manipulating the system that allows too much of this.

 

I am opposed to a lot of the rule changes that I have heard floating out there, like no shifts, and I don't like instant replay either. But I like this idea.

[folly412]

This kind of thing can really get crazy in September when teams have loads of extra guys on the roster (which I hate - teams play five months, then suddenly September rolls around, and how a game is managed can dramatically change - just hate that).

 

I like the idea someone brought up of allowing teams to call up as much as they want of their 40-man roster, but allowing them to only keep 25 active for each game. They'll deactivate recently used starting pitchers, which still allows for roster flexibility, but without the absurdities of using two relievers every inning and multiple pinch runners just because the roster size exceeds any practical use.

[Outlander]

I don't think the union would support this as it would make a LOOGY less valuable.

[reillymcshane]

I don't think the union would support this as it would make a LOOGY less valuable.

I think the only one who would not like it is the LOOGYs of the world.

 

It's not like they are eliminating positions. Perhaps some more rounded guy get gigs over LOOGYs. Same number of jobs.

 

I think hitters would like it too, since they wouldn't be facing as many specialists later in the game.

 

I don't think it's going to drive down salaries. It just means a LOOGY doesn't get as much, while a more rounded player is more valuable. But maybe I'm wrong on that assumption.

[JohnBriggs12]

I have an idea. Stop making a production out of the 7th inning stretch. When I went to Braves games as a kid, there was no singing Take Me Out to the Ballgame during the stretch. Fans just stood up and stretched. They didn't have to be told or urged on by a sing along. By the way if you were a fan of the road team you stood before YOUR team batted in the top of the 7th. It was kind of a neat thing being in the rivals ballpark and defiantly standing while the other sat. But you never see that anymore. Now you go to a Sunday game and there's like 6-7 minutes to get all the songs in often followed by endless pitching changes over the remaining innings.

 

If you want to fill time during a pitching change sing your hearts out then.

[jerichoholicninja]

I have an idea. Stop making a production out of the 7th inning stretch. When I went to Braves games as a kid, there was no singing Take Me Out to the Ballgame during the stretch. Fans just stood up and stretched. They didn't have to be told or urged on by a sing along. By the way if you were a fan of the road team you stood before YOUR team batted in the top of the 7th. It was kind of a neat thing being in the rivals ballpark and defiantly standing while the other sat. But you never see that anymore. Now you go to a Sunday game and there's like 6-7 minutes to get all the songs in often followed by endless pitching changes over the remaining innings.

 

If you want to fill time during a pitching change sing your hearts out then.

 

Other than God Bless America on Sundays the 7th inning stretch takes literally 15 seconds longer. If that.

[MadScientist]

I have an idea. Stop making a production out of the 7th inning stretch. When I went to Braves games as a kid, there was no singing Take Me Out to the Ballgame during the stretch. Fans just stood up and stretched. They didn't have to be told or urged on by a sing along. By the way if you were a fan of the road team you stood before YOUR team batted in the top of the 7th. It was kind of a neat thing being in the rivals ballpark and defiantly standing while the other sat. But you never see that anymore. Now you go to a Sunday game and there's like 6-7 minutes to get all the songs in often followed by endless pitching changes over the remaining innings.

 

If you want to fill time during a pitching change sing your hearts out then.

 

Other than God Bless America on Sundays the 7th inning stretch takes literally 15 seconds longer. If that.

 

But since it is televised, for whatever reason, the time gets added to the stretch. The other songs are just done while they do the infield grooming and the warmups.

[DocLuna7]

I do not think that we should change the rules of a game as old as baseball just because attention spans are getting shorter. For me, part of the beauty of the game is that it takes a brain and an attention span to really get it. I happen to love watching the strategies that managers use in the later innings playing out in front of me. Baseball is a game measured over the long haul. It has had eras of pitcher dominance followed up by a decade of hitters taking offense to new levels. In the cycle of baseball this has happened over and over again throughout the years. In the long-term we will eventually see hitters adjust to the defensive shift, the loogy, and to the bigger ballpark just like at one point in time pitchers adjusted to the livelier ball, the move from small ball to the long ball, and the elimination of the spitball. The game always seems to find a way to check and balance itself when taking the long view.

[brewcrewdue80]

Heres something not mentioned. What if when a Call to the Bullpen is made for Loogy and the opposing manager removes his lefty for a Righty nullifying the Loogy? Is he supposed to be forced to face that pinch-hitter? Shouldn't the pitcher change manager be allowed to call in a Righty at that moment? Because if not the case, then the other manager should not be allowed to change batters. And he should. I mean if Scooter Gennett was at the Plate and a Manager calls in a Loogy who Gennett has been absolutely dominated vs. RRR should be able to call upon Gomez/Sardinas even Maldonado if pulling a double switch?

 

Lets say in this case it was Wil Smith called upon to face Gennett. dominant vs Leftys not so much Rightys(at least as season wore on) Should Smith be forced to face Gomez or Maldonado HR threats when he's weaker against them?

 

Or because the rule is in effect does the other manager have to just sit back and watch Gennett at around .300OPS vs Loogys, stand at the plate and face Smith?

 

This rule doesn't work both ways and in a 162 game season if the Batting manager is allowed to bat a Righty facing the Loogy, There's going to be multiple games likely lost due to being forced to stick with the Loogy. How great will that be in the final week a Manager/GM is opening their mouth complaining how they wouldn't be needing to win 2 games to catch so and so because the last game played while ahead were stuck forced to stick with a Loogy who wound up serving up a HR to a Right Handed Pinch Hitter and lost that game.? And meanwhile a Thornburg or Jeffress was ready to come pitch vs that righty(who lets say it was Thornburg with the SP exp. that batter's history was 0-13 against) That Game Winning HR doesn't Happen. Because the RHB grounds meekly to the Pitcher instead and that team holds on for a win.

Yeah, this isn't a good idea. Maybe in the 8th and 9th inning, but it typically seems the 7th inning is where a Loogy is used/bunch of pitching changes happen since youre 9outs away from end of the game-1 run through the batting order.

 

But overall, I just think this wont work, it would end badly with the scenario I mentioned.

[jerichoholicninja]

Heres something not mentioned. What if when a Call to the Bullpen is made for Loogy and the opposing manager removes his lefty for a Righty nullifying the Loogy? Is he supposed to be forced to face that pinch-hitter? Shouldn't the pitcher change manager be allowed to call in a Righty at that moment? Because if not the case, then the other manager should not be allowed to change batters. And he should. I mean if Scooter Gennett was at the Plate and a Manager calls in a Loogy who Gennett has been absolutely dominated vs. RRR should be able to call upon Gomez/Sardinas even Maldonado if pulling a double switch?

 

Lets say in this case it was Wil Smith called upon to face Gennett. dominant vs Leftys not so much Rightys(at least as season wore on) Should Smith be forced to face Gomez or Maldonado HR threats when he's weaker against them?

 

Or because the rule is in effect does the other manager have to just sit back and watch Gennett at around .300OPS vs Loogys, stand at the plate and face Smith?

 

This rule doesn't work both ways and in a 162 game season if the Batting manager is allowed to bat a Righty facing the Loogy, There's going to be multiple games likely lost due to being forced to stick with the Loogy. How great will that be in the final week a Manager/GM is opening their mouth complaining how they wouldn't be needing to win 2 games to catch so and so because the last game played while ahead were stuck forced to stick with a Loogy who wound up serving up a HR to a Right Handed Pinch Hitter and lost that game.? And meanwhile a Thornburg or Jeffress was ready to come pitch vs that righty(who lets say it was Thornburg with the SP exp. that batter's history was 0-13 against) That Game Winning HR doesn't Happen. Because the RHB grounds meekly to the Pitcher instead and that team holds on for a win.

Yeah, this isn't a good idea. Maybe in the 8th and 9th inning, but it typically seems the 7th inning is where a Loogy is used/bunch of pitching changes happen since youre 9outs away from end of the game-1 run through the batting order.

 

But overall, I just think this wont work, it would end badly with the scenario I mentioned.

 

This is really hard to follow but you know that the current rules are that any pitcher brought in has to face at least one batter, right?

[bani1717]

I don't think that situation would happen anyways, because a manager would be smart enough to figure out that his LOOGY would have to face some unfavorable match-ups if brought into the game. (And if he can't figure that out, he probably deserves to lose.)

 

As others have said, this rule would force teams to re-evaluate the value of a righty or lefty specialist in the first place.

[dlk9s]

I have an idea. Stop making a production out of the 7th inning stretch. When I went to Braves games as a kid, there was no singing Take Me Out to the Ballgame during the stretch. Fans just stood up and stretched. They didn't have to be told or urged on by a sing along. By the way if you were a fan of the road team you stood before YOUR team batted in the top of the 7th. It was kind of a neat thing being in the rivals ballpark and defiantly standing while the other sat. But you never see that anymore. Now you go to a Sunday game and there's like 6-7 minutes to get all the songs in often followed by endless pitching changes over the remaining innings.

 

If you want to fill time during a pitching change sing your hearts out then.

http://i.imgur.com/RtFY3XY.jpg

[Ennder]

I like the spirit of the rule, I don't know if I like the reality of it though. As for the 'integrity of the game', screw that. Baseball was not perfect the day it was made, it has gone through a hundred changes for the better and it will go through another 100 changes for the better. Sticking with something because that is how it is supposed to be is just asinine as proven by how dumb it is the AL still has the DH imbalancing the game so completely.