Limit on mound visits per 9 inning game without prompting a pitching change...

[Fear The Chorizo]

"The new rules announced Monday include a general limit of six mound visits per nine-inning game without a pitching change, whether by a manager, coach or player. The changes also attempt to force half innings to start on time."

 

I think this is fantastic, and will likely shave 5-10 minutes off games - maybe 30 minutes off Cub games when Contreras is catching...

 

On its face it doesn't seem like much - but I guarantee a catcher typically makes more than 6 runs out to the mound during most games to either discuss a pitch selection, give a phony break for relievers to get loose, just talk to a pitcher, etc. Add in the random 2-3 pitching coach visits and this rule is already reducing these largely unnecessary breaks by 50% - not to mention the fact they are more valuable during late game situations where a manager may have a legit reason to discuss strategy and doesn't want to have to pull a pitcher.

[superfly]

Only way this could be better is to cut it to zero. This whole farce of "gotta go out to the mound" is one of the worst things about baseball, right behind restrapping the gloves after every pitch. Applause to MLB

[KeithStone53151]

There are a ton of situations where a manager will take his sweet time lumbering to the mound intentionally to slow the game down to allow his pitcher to warm up. It's an intentional stall tactic, limiting these will absolutely speed the game up. Heck it might even result in less pitching changes for reactionary managers that use too many mound visits and can't slow the game down to allow a reliever to warm up. I feel like 6 is a lot though, I wish it was 4 or 3.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Only way this could be better is to cut it to zero. This whole farce of "gotta go out to the mound" is one of the worst things about baseball, right behind restrapping the gloves after every pitch. Applause to MLB

 

The unfortunate part about MLB having to impose this rule is that baseball rules actually give umpires the authority on whether to grant time outs like this already - basically if an ump feels like too many of these are happening they're completely allowed to not grant time and force a catcher to stay behind the dish where he belongs. Collegiately, I played in games on several occasions where umps basically put an end to these mound visits after a few innings by warning both teams' benches and stating that the next time he grants time/mound visit will only be when the skipper requests it and a pitching change gets made.

 

This sort of in-game time management should've already been happening without needing a rule.

[KeithStone53151]

I already can see it coming, some reliever is going to get hurt because a dumb manager threw him in before he was fully warm and they'll blame the mound visits rule...rather than the manager's incompetence. My guess is Joe Maddon.

[Fear The Chorizo]

The ones I hate, and almost always automatically occur, are when the 1st time a runner reaches 2nd base while any pitcher is in the game - it's almost an automatic run out to the mound by the catcher to confer about their pitch signs. In the case of a reliever coming into the game with a runner already there it's almost comical to watch him come in from the bullpen - confer with the coach/catcher when he takes the ball from them to warm up, complete his warmups, then the batter gets announced and he takes his stretch before the catcher calls time again and then runs out to discuss the signs because they forgot to do so during the pitching change.

 

I mean, they can't sort this stuff out before the game, between 1/2 innings, or in the bullpen when they're just throwing seeds?

 

I hope this does away with a lot of the 1/2 trips, when the ball bounces in the dirt and time gets called briefly for the catcher to pick up the ball and get a different one to the pitcher - so many times where the pitcher meets him 20' in front of the plate and the two walk back to the mound together before the catcher actually jogs back behind the dish.

[pacopete4]

Anything that speeds up the downtime in a baseball game is alright with me. If the next generation of fans is really going to take hold of this game, it has to figure out a way to get away from the complete stoppages of the game. I love baseball and it doesn't bother me all that much that it's a slower moving game but I want to see this game grow even more.

[jerichoholicninja]

Thank god. It has gotten terrible the last few years. Although I'm not sure how they'll enforce someone other than a coach or catcher as a "mound visit". An infielder bringing the ball back to the pitcher can talk to him at the same time. Is that a mound visit?

 

As someone posted above, a lot of this is on the umpires for letting it get out of control. They have to power to not grant time and keep the game moving. Aside from that one time Joe West wouldn't let someone (Yadier I think) go to the mound I've never seen an umpire do anything about it.

[KeithStone53151]

Thank god. It has gotten terrible the last few years. Although I'm not sure how they'll enforce someone other than a coach or catcher as a "mound visit". An infielder bringing the ball back to the pitcher can talk to him at the same time. Is that a mound visit?

 

As someone posted above, a lot of this is on the umpires for letting it get out of control. They have to power to not grant time and keep the game moving. Aside from that one time Joe West wouldn't let someone (Yadier I think) go to the mound I've never seen an umpire do anything about it.

 

If players don't listen to the ump, they could be hitting the showers early. One or two of those to set a precedent will probably slow down or stop any efforts at abusing the rule.

[liveforoctober]

I was just going to ask how this is enforced. If a catcher runs out to the mound after 6 visits ... is the catcher thrown out? Does a pitching change have to be made?

[MrTPlush]

Can’t wait for 2,000 throws to first each game

[RollieTime]

I personally see a lot of issues arising from this new rule. What if it is the 9th inning, with the game tying or leading run on third and the manager wants the defense to set up a certain way? Or maybe the catcher noticed something with one of the runners and believed the runner could be picked off? This type of scenario could take place in one of the final games of the season when playing for a division crown and the manager can’t go out to communicate what to do or how to set up for a certain situation. Is this gonna lead to the manager yelling from the dugout while the pitcher remains off the rubber for a while so he can communicate how to be set up? This could lead to the game taking even longer as well.

 

I see this rule backfiring multiple times during the season, and it may end up costing a team a playoff berth (in their mind) based off of the manager not being able to set up something during one of the final games of the season.

 

I don’t see the issue with a game taking 3 hours and 10 minutes compared to 3 hours. I am sure there will be people that will argue for it the other way and want it to be 10 minutes shorter, but I don’t have an issue getting home or back to my hotel room at 11:00 pm instead of 10:50. I paid good money to attend the game. I don’t mind the teams putting themselves in the best chance to be successful, whether it takes a few extra minutes of my day or not. I go to the games to relax and have fun. The few extra minutes should not be deterring fans from attending an MLB game.

[Thurston Fluff]

Only way this could be better is to cut it to zero. This whole farce of "gotta go out to the mound" is one of the worst things about baseball, right behind restrapping the gloves after every pitch. Applause to MLB

 

I'm not quite ready to go to zero. There are times the catcher and pitcher aren't on the same page with signs. You'll see a pitcher clearly throw something the catcher isn't expecting and the catcher goes to the mound. That to me can be a safety issue. The catcher or ump taking a fastball to the head should be prevented if possible. Other than that I agree. Strategy, pitching mechanics or how to pitch to a certain hitter in a certain situation should be done in the dugout or pregame.

[Fear The Chorizo]

I see this rule backfiring multiple times during the season, and it may end up costing a team a playoff berth (in their mind) based off of the manager not being able to set up something during one of the final games of the season.

 

there's already bench coaches sending out signs/signals for defensive alignments basically every batter, and managers/bench coaches routinely send signs out to the field to put on different bunt coverages/plays - to think that the only way a team can get on the same page is for a coach to huddle them all up on the mound to talk to them is not giving players near enough credit.

 

Besides, wouldn't it be likely more effective for a team to put a play on without stopping the game to huddle in the middle of the field for the opponent and everyone else to watch them meet? If they really had to have a late inning meeting of the minds on the field, simple answer - don't have your catcher saunter out 6 times earlier in the game on his own, you'd still have one of those "time out" requests available to use.

[KeithStone53151]

I personally see a lot of issues arising from this new rule. What if it is the 9th inning, with the game tying or leading run on third and the manager wants the defense to set up a certain way? Or maybe the catcher noticed something with one of the runners and believed the runner could be picked off? This type of scenario could take place in one of the final games of the season when playing for a division crown and the manager can’t go out to communicate what to do or how to set up for a certain situation. Is this gonna lead to the manager yelling from the dugout while the pitcher remains off the rubber for a while so he can communicate how to be set up? This could lead to the game taking even longer as well.

 

I see this rule backfiring multiple times during the season, and it may end up costing a team a playoff berth (in their mind) based off of the manager not being able to set up something during one of the final games of the season.

 

I don’t see the issue with a game taking 3 hours and 10 minutes compared to 3 hours. I am sure there will be people that will argue for it the other way and want it to be 10 minutes shorter, but I don’t have an issue getting home or back to my hotel room at 11:00 pm instead of 10:50. I paid good money to attend the game. I don’t mind the teams putting themselves in the best chance to be successful, whether it takes a few extra minutes of my day or not. I go to the games to relax and have fun. The few extra minutes should not be deterring you from attending an MLB game.

 

It will be the manager's responsibility to limit mound meetings then to make sure he has one at the end of the game. A team losing a game because the manager used all his mound visits and couldn't set up the appropriate defense isn't on the rule, it's on the manager. How is it any different from an NFL team using timeouts too early because they didn't get a play in timely...and that timeout costing them the game? It's on the coach/team...not the NFL for not granting more timeouts...

 

And I think the reason they want to stick to 3 hours is it becomes a slippery slope. If 3 hours and 10 minutes becomes the new norm, why not 3 hours and 20 minutes? 2 years later...3 hours and 30 minutes. Gotta draw a line in the sand on this stuff, many people would say 3 hours is too long.

[Fear The Chorizo]

I was just going to ask how this is enforced. If a catcher runs out to the mound after 6 visits ... is the catcher thrown out? Does a pitching change have to be made?

 

I believe it would require the pitcher to be removed from the game, based on how the rule is worded.

[Fear The Chorizo]

Can’t wait for 2,000 throws to first each game

 

They already have that, and frankly this rule wouldn't change it for the better or worse. 6 stoppages provide ample in-game opportunities over 9 innings without requiring a pitching change for a coach/player to call time and go over things on the mound, or still do the traditional "walk on eggshells" to give a reliever a few extra pitches. what's gotten out of hand IMO is the constant catcher/infielder visits to the mound that wind up leading to an ump walking out to break it up. There's already 18 designed stoppages of play between half innings for 98% of what gets discussed on the mound to get sorted out amongst players in the dugout or clubhouse without interrupting pace of play.

 

I think there's already a rule loosely in place that only allows for 1 coaching visit per inning or perhaps even per pitcher before the 2nd coaching visit results in an automatic pitching change.

[RollieTime]

I see this rule backfiring multiple times during the season, and it may end up costing a team a playoff berth (in their mind) based off of the manager not being able to set up something during one of the final games of the season.

 

there's already bench coaches sending out signs/signals for defensive alignments basically every batter, and managers/bench coaches routinely send signs out to the field to put on different bunt coverages/plays - to think that the only way a team can get on the same page is for a coach to huddle them all up on the mound to talk to them is not giving players near enough credit.

 

Besides, wouldn't it be likely more effective for a team to put a play on without stopping the game to huddle in the middle of the field for the opponent and everyone else to watch them meet? If they really had to have a late inning meeting of the minds on the field, simple answer - don't have your catcher saunter out 6 times earlier in the game on his own, you'd still have one of those "time out" requests available to use.

 

I am in no way taking credit away from the players. There are always mental lapses throughout the season whether a player thinks there are 2 outs instead of one, 3 balls instead of 2, or forgetting there was a runner on first and not turning a double play. Those meetings are just to make sure everybody knows the situation and to make sure it is executed properly. Especially if it is late in the game.

[chuckiehacks]

This whole focus on time of game is dumb. Baseball games are already shorter than NFL or NCAA football games, and shaving a couple minutes off a 3 hour event isn't significant.

 

If baseball really wanted to shorten games, they'd reduce the time spent in between innings. But god forbid anyone should lose advertising revenue.

[RollieTime]

I personally see a lot of issues arising from this new rule. What if it is the 9th inning, with the game tying or leading run on third and the manager wants the defense to set up a certain way? Or maybe the catcher noticed something with one of the runners and believed the runner could be picked off? This type of scenario could take place in one of the final games of the season when playing for a division crown and the manager can’t go out to communicate what to do or how to set up for a certain situation. Is this gonna lead to the manager yelling from the dugout while the pitcher remains off the rubber for a while so he can communicate how to be set up? This could lead to the game taking even longer as well.

 

I see this rule backfiring multiple times during the season, and it may end up costing a team a playoff berth (in their mind) based off of the manager not being able to set up something during one of the final games of the season.

 

I don’t see the issue with a game taking 3 hours and 10 minutes compared to 3 hours. I am sure there will be people that will argue for it the other way and want it to be 10 minutes shorter, but I don’t have an issue getting home or back to my hotel room at 11:00 pm instead of 10:50. I paid good money to attend the game. I don’t mind the teams putting themselves in the best chance to be successful, whether it takes a few extra minutes of my day or not. I go to the games to relax and have fun. The few extra minutes should not be deterring you from attending an MLB game.

 

It will be the manager's responsibility to limit mound meetings then to make sure he has one at the end of the game. A team losing a game because the manager used all his mound visits and couldn't set up the appropriate defense isn't on the rule, it's on the manager. How is it any different from an NFL team using timeouts too early because they didn't get a play in timely...and that timeout costing them the game? It's on the coach/team...not the NFL for not granting more timeouts...

 

And I think the reason they want to stick to 3 hours is it becomes a slippery slope. If 3 hours and 10 minutes becomes the new norm, why not 3 hours and 20 minutes? 2 years later...3 hours and 30 minutes. Gotta draw a line in the sand on this stuff, many people would say 3 hours is too long.

 

 

I agree that it is the manager’s responsibility to keep a mound visit available for late in the game. I just don’t agree with putting an exact number to the amount of mound visits. I see it leading to issues as the season goes on.

[topper09er]

This whole focus on time of game is dumb. Baseball games are already shorter than NFL or NCAA football games, and shaving a couple minutes off a 3 hour event isn't significant.

 

If baseball really wanted to shorten games, they'd reduce the time spent in between innings. But god forbid anyone should lose advertising revenue.

 

I agree, but I think the real issue is the time between pitches. This is easy to fix since a rule already exists that simply needs to be enforced, no stepping out of the box if you did not swing.

I don't mind the inning breaks, go get another beer etc.

I think the pitching change breaks are much worse, usually they interrupt exciting innings. Just make a rule you get 2 warm-up pitches on the game mound, just enough to introduce the pitcher and then get back at it. No commercial break.

[RollieTime]

This whole focus on time of game is dumb. Baseball games are already shorter than NFL or NCAA football games, and shaving a couple minutes off a 3 hour event isn't significant.

 

If baseball really wanted to shorten games, they'd reduce the time spent in between innings. But god forbid anyone should lose advertising revenue.

 

Thank you! That is exactly what I have said for years! Reduce the 20 or so commercial breaks throughout the game and don’t take 5 minutes to do a replay review. If you can’t see a way to change it after a few different camera views, play on!

[Fear The Chorizo]

I am in no way taking credit away from the players. There are always mental lapses throughout the season whether a player thinks there are 2 outs instead of one, 3 balls instead of 2, or forgetting there was a runner on first and not turning a double play. Those meetings are just to make sure everybody knows the situation and to make sure it is executed properly. Especially if it is late in the game.

 

so when players hold up 1 or 2 fingers for how many outs there are after a play, the umpire gives the count after each pitch/50 scoreboards across the field have it available for 40,000 fans to see, and players get ~30 seconds between each pitch to survey who's on what base, they still need someone to call timeout and tell them all that stuff again? That seems like taking credit away from the players...

 

commercial breaks happen between innings breaks or pitching changes - they're supposed to last exactly as long as the inning breaks take. Discussing shortening those breaks is something that could happen too - I for one have been a proponent of setting up something like staying with the game broadcast from the 7th inning stretch on, and having non-stop coverage be provided by 1 or a group of advertisers - similar to what they already do near the end of some playoff games. There seems to be most of the pitching changes happening then, and staying with the broadcast or having ads run on a split screen would probably allow mlb to shorten those breaks without impacting revenue or the quality of play.

[KeithStone53151]

This whole focus on time of game is dumb. Baseball games are already shorter than NFL or NCAA football games, and shaving a couple minutes off a 3 hour event isn't significant.

 

If baseball really wanted to shorten games, they'd reduce the time spent in between innings. But god forbid anyone should lose advertising revenue.

 

Thank you! That is exactly what I have said for years! Reduce the 20 or so commercial breaks throughout the game and don’t take 5 minutes to do a replay review. If you can’t see a way to change it after a few different camera views, play on!

 

That's absolutely not true, and football games aren't increasing at rates like baseball games...and signs point to it getting worse and worse. Plus, all other sports have a limit to how many "timeouts" you can take...why is it so unreasonable to have more of them in baseball?

 

Plus as I've noted, I think an unintended consequence could be reduced pitching changes. Especially at first, managers may have a tough time managing their mound visits/pitcher warmups and may not make a pitching change they intended to because a reliever isn't ready.

[superfly]

This whole focus on time of game is dumb. Baseball games are already shorter than NFL or NCAA football games, and shaving a couple minutes off a 3 hour event isn't significant.

 

If baseball really wanted to shorten games, they'd reduce the time spent in between innings. But god forbid anyone should lose advertising revenue.

 

The difference is we do *one hundred and sixty two* games, half of the year. I like acting like a vegetable as much as anyone on the couch but at some point things have to get done. People don't have time to sit 3 hours a day watching these guys stand around and occasionally run to a fly ball like we used to, so anything to shorten the game helps. IMO

 

Granted, that's not taking into account the radio broadcasts which are quite useful in passing time at work and all, but still.