Larger Rosters = More Offense?

[pacopete4]

With the ongoing discussion of how to increase offense in the majors, would allowing teams to carry 2-3 more positional players help increase offense? I ask this assuming teams would platoon more players or go with match ups more often. Probably a crazy idea, but hey, ya just never know.

[jerichoholicninja]

Yes and no. Those extra players probably wouldn't be anything more than AAA filler but it would allow big bat/no glove players the opportunity to get a pinch hit late in the game but not play the field and no really hurt the teams bench.

[bill hAll Star]

Yeah, you'd see teams going with full platoon lineups. Like 8 or 9 lefties on any given day (unless they had a stud RH hitter like Braun or David Wright).

[Baldkin]

Yeah, you'd see teams going with full platoon lineups. Like 8 or 9 lefties on any given day (unless they had a stud RH hitter like Braun or David Wright).

 

I think you'd see more relievers, and more teams using 6 pitchers to get 9 outs, instead of 3 pitchers to get 9 houts from the 7th-9th.

[JohnBriggs12]

It wasn't that long ago when pitching staffs typically had 10 pitchers, so rosters had 15 position players. I'd be all for adding a couple spots but only if they put a cap on number of pitchers at 12. My fear is most teams would use 2 extra spots to go with 14 pitchers.

 

Today managers are afraid to hit for struggling starters before the 7th inning for fear they will run out of bench bats. You never used to see pitchers bat and then not come out to pitch the next inning. That happens quite frequently these days.

[tmwiese55]

somehow you'd have to write the rules to allow only extra positional players, not allow the spots to go to pitchers. Otherwise teams would definitely load up on relievers, especially in the AL. Not a bad idea actually and kind of a simple tweak. another simple way would be to lower the mound.

 

I've seen expansion mentioned in order to dilute the pitching pool a bit. Financially the league seems strong but I don't know what markets could handle a team. Maybe Charlotte, Vegas, Portland.

[JohnBriggs12]

You'd also likely see a lot more Rule 5 picks with extra roster spots. Rather than pay a veteran to pinch hit, teams will go with good AAA hitters who otherwise can't stick in the majors. It would be great for a guy like Matt Clark.

[pacopete4]

I feel as though the union would love it. More players getting paid.

[CheezWizHed]

Seems like you would see much more specialization in the MLB level. You would have a few no-hit, high defense type players and a few no-D, big stick type players.

 

So if you pull in your LOOGY, I'll respond with my RHITTY.

[jerichoholicninja]

I feel as though the union would love it. More players getting paid.

 

More players to pay is more like it. Imagine the Brewers have to pay 3 more Major League players. They're not getting more money to spend but they have more players they need to pay. And that's less money for them to sign free agents or more importantly lock up young guys. The superstars will still get paid their $150 or $200 million deals, but everyone else is going to take a little bit of a hit.

[torts]

I feel as though the union would love it. More players getting paid.

 

More players to pay is more like it. Imagine the Brewers have to pay 3 more Major League players. They're not getting more money to spend but they have more players they need to pay. And that's less money for them to sign free agents or more importantly lock up young guys. The superstars will still get paid their $150 or $200 million deals, but everyone else is going to take a little bit of a hit.

 

I dont think paying 3 more players is going to break any teams bank, especially a team in the smallest market already with 100 million on payroll. 3 more players for the brewers could all be league minimum, which is $1.5 million total. not really breaking the bank by any means

[jerichoholicninja]

I feel as though the union would love it. More players getting paid.

 

More players to pay is more like it. Imagine the Brewers have to pay 3 more Major League players. They're not getting more money to spend but they have more players they need to pay. And that's less money for them to sign free agents or more importantly lock up young guys. The superstars will still get paid their $150 or $200 million deals, but everyone else is going to take a little bit of a hit.

 

I dont think paying 3 more players is going to break any teams bank, especially a team in the smallest market already with 100 million on payroll. 3 more players for the brewers could all be league minimum, which is $1.5 million total. not really breaking the bank by any means

 

Not break the bank but $1.5M is enough to keep them from signing an important bench or bullpen player. My point was that it's going to decrease salaries across the board and the players union wouldn't like that. The Brewers only have say $100M to spend. With a 25 man roster, that's $4M per player. With a 28 man roster, that's $3.5M-ish per player.

 

Momma bird only has one beak and can only fit so many worms in it. She can easily keep 3 baby birds full and happy. Add in a 4th baby bird and those tummies aren't as full.

[djoctagone]

26 players, and the 26th has to serve as your bullpen catcher. this would make most teams carry three catchers, and would open up a lot of playing time for the #2 catcher, as he tends to be the last to be used in pinch hitting and double switches.

[Ennder]

I have to think that expanding the roster would just mean more RP which are generally already overused at this point.

[reillymcshane]

More players means more specialization. More ROOGYs, more LOOGYs, more platoons, more pinch hitters.

 

I'm not sure if that would mean more offense - or less. Does an extra arm in the pen trump an extra bat in the dugout? Or vice versa? Will more guys mean more changes during innings - meaning longer games?

 

The best way I can think of is to look at how games are played in September - when rosters expand. Does scoring go up then? Or down? No change?

 

To increase offense you might have to limit the number of pitchers on a roster.

[monty57]

More players means more specialization. More ROOGYs, more LOOGYs, more platoons, more pinch hitters... meaning longer games

 

Yeah, I think that would be the net result, and since baseball is trying to find ways to shorten games, I don't think this idea is likely to happen. It's more likely they force pitchers to throw to more than one batter than it is they will do something that increases mound visits/pitcher changes/pinch hitters.

 

More likely is some over-reach due to a small sample of "pitcher dominance," that will lead to something like shrinking the strike zone, lowering the mound or bringing fences in. Expansion could also be a possibility if they thought it would be profitable.

[pete]

Make it like football with offensive and defensive players. How big is an NFL active roster? The TV guys can talk about that rare player who can play both ways like in the old days.

[davego]

Could a cap be placed on how many pitchers a team could carry? Also, there has been this idea floating around that you could use a PH at anytime in the game, but then re-enter the pitcher after the at-bat. The PH would be done, but the pitcher could continue.

 

While both these ideas interest me, I sort of like this new dead-ball era.

[brewcrewdue80]

Live DaveGo says, I like better pitching in the league than hitting. Pretty much can't stand coming to the 8th/9th innings when beer has stopped being served, and a team can comeback from 6runs behind only to give up 4 runs and score 2 in the 9th because the Pitching Bullpen isn't good vs superior Offensive Batters. Having 2-4 Batters to fear is good when its their turn in the lineup. Having to worry of any of the 9 coming to the plate because they are .800+OPS batters just nerveracking. You just assume that team is going to score and win. Can't stand 8th/9th innings that last 1hour or more when the first 7innings took 2hours roughly.

 

Now, I really like the idea of a Pinch-hitter 26th man for the SP who gets to stay in the game after that AB. I think you could see old-timers like Jason Giambi who just retired play longer for their careers just for that role to get 162PAs over the season. IF the idea is to add to Offense. Problem is what do you do about the AL teams? They don't get that 26th man and vs NL teams on the road what do they do? What is it like 14games on the road InterLeague? That rule would only be 14PAs?

 

Do you make this rule to ditch the DH in the AL?...Actually sapping Offensive numbers in the AL?

 

Or do you make that rule, and tell the 26th man, he cant bat vs AL teams? Since they won't have that 26th player?

 

Or do all teams carry that 26th man, and he has to Pinch-hit once in every game so he gets 162PAs. Imagine Manny Ramirez coaching a team in a few years and being the 162PA Batter? Player/Coach? Batting yourself in the game? Anything that maybe makes more teams pitch to the #8 batter in the NL because they have to fear that PA where they don't face the SP? End up making that #8 batter better creating more offense?

 

Lets say the 26th man can only be somebody over 30, so it doesn't effect the 25man roster by playing say a AAAA guy 23-27 for the ABs?

 

I just wonder the money that could be made by this. Some Jersey sales All Batters wear #26 for being the 26th man? Have the guy wear special Colors, doesn't have to match the teams game jersey that day. It'd be like a testing jersey for teams, throw out a jersey idea for him, and if fans buy it up, they could turn to playing in that more often? Consider it the answer to the NFL's "12th man" in Seattle, Baseball's "26th Man"

 

Derek Jeter could be the 26th man on a team for example this year. At the very least you make 1 PA more likely to impact a game than the SP getting the PA, who also gets to rest and not risk injury via a Bean Ball or while running. Nostalgia, Players fans like and wish would still bat because he's going to still be a better option than Kyle Lohse getting that PA.

 

That could be a question, who would you want as the Brewers 26th man this year if that were in place?

[AJOHNSON104]

So if we have a 26th man and the pitcher comes up for first time in the 3rd with 2 outs (batting 9th), the 26th man has to hit? Say he trikes out and then in the 4th inning the team gets a big rally going. Bases loaded, 2 out, 3 runs in. The 26th man is already done, having batted in the 3rd (as required?). The Brewers would then have to choose between actually batting their starting pitcher or using a different pinch hitter, correct?

 

Also, what if the rally takes place in the first? The Brewers designate Scooter as the 26th man that day as a right hander is starting. The Brewers have 3 runs in, bases loaded, and 2 out (again he's batting 9th). The other team now brings in a lefty. The brewers then have the choice of batting Scooter against the lefty, batting the starter (and no longer being able to bat Scooter), or pinch hitting another batter (and losing both the starter and the 26th man)?

 

There could be some interesting angles played on these things.

[Point Beer Is Best]

I'm in favor of expanding the rosters overall anyways. Expanded rosters would help in injury cases where a guy might just need a week to rest up and now don't have to place him on the 15 day DL or just go shorthanded for that time period.

 

I think it will lead to an increase in offense, as long as they are limiting the number of pitchers a team can carry or limiting specialization on the pitching side by making them face more than one hitter. I do not like eliminating the defensive shift, so this solution seems "better" if you want to increase offense. As others have mentioned, you will see many more platoons to increase offense. But I think it would be cool to see teams carry a guy who may be nothing more than a pinch-run specialist. A guy with track speed who can steal a base at-will. That would add a few more runs a year for each team, and add even more excitement to late-inning situations.

[JohnBriggs12]

Have 27 man rosters, but only have 25 active for each game and put a limit of 11 pitchers active per game. Presumably then teams could de-activate the starting pitchers from the prior two games. It works in other sports. With 14-15 non-pitchers, teams could pinch run a lot more too and make defensive replacements.

[torts]

are games slower in September than the rest of the season when they expand to 40?