Proposed MLB rule changes

[PlayerHader]

There's quite a few arguments against it. One is that it is going to wreck careers. It will be the death of the LOOGY.

 

Guys like Hader will obviously be fine, but guys like Xavier Cedeno and Alex Claudio who are murder vs LHP and can't retire righties will have a very difficult time finding work.

 

It's also going to hurt teams like the Brewers who really on innovation, matchups and strategy by dumbing down the game for the sake of game speed.

 

Death to the LOOGY? I can live with that. That’s essentially the point. Managers would definitely have to pick their spots with this guys. Or those guys would have to find a way to be not horrible at getting RH batters to make weaker contact.

[coolhandluke121]

Teams have to use a roster spot on a LOOGY though. That's a pretty steep cost for the privilege of using a guy against one batter a few times a week. I hate the idea of restricting different strategy elements. The more different ways you can try to find any little advantage, the better. Let some teams have starters go 6+ innings while other teams go 3-4. Let some teams have all kinds of versatile bench players and use platoons while others go top-heavy with better everyday players. Don't be so damn overbearing about what you want the game to look like.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I really do not want a 3 batter minimum. Baseball has always been a match up chess match. Don't take that away, which is exactly what you're doing.

[Baldkin]

I just can’t see a pitch clock working. First off what’s the penalty for violating the clock? Second what if it’s the batter that’s causing the delay? Third cant the catcher just call timeout if they are getting close?

 

Have you watched guys who come up from the minors who have had this clock in place? They pitch noticeably quicker.

 

It works. You don't pitch in 20 seconds it's a ball.

Catcher calling time counts as a mound visit.

Batter isn't in the box, the pitcher can pitch and it's called a strike.

 

Here is a sample size of 1, that someone took the time to study:

https://www.sbnation.com/a/mlb-2017-season-preview/game-length

 

Time between pitches is the primary villain. I tallied up all the pitches in both games that we’ll call inaction pitches — pitches that resulted in a ball, called strike, or swinging strike, but didn’t result in the end of an at-bat or the advancement of a runner. These are the pitches where the catcher caught the ball and threw it back to the pitcher, whose next step was to throw it back to the catcher. Foul balls didn’t count. The fourth ball of a plate appearance didn’t count. Stolen bases didn’t count. Wild pitches didn’t count. Just the pitches where contact wasn’t made, and the pitcher received a return throw from the catcher.

 

There were 146 inaction pitches in the 1984 game.

 

There were 144 of these pitches in the 2014 game.

 

The total time for the inaction pitches in 1984 — the elapsed time between a pitcher releasing one pitch and his release of the next pitch — was 32 minutes and 47 seconds.

 

The total time for inaction pitches in 2014 was 57 minutes and 41 seconds.

[owbc]

I wish the folks in charge of baseball (Manfred) actually liked the sport.

 

100% this.

 

I don’t understand this. The pitching/hitting balance is clearly out of whack and teams are manipulating the rules to the detriment of the entertainment value of the game. Ballparks are nearly empty in the 8th inning because nobody wants to sit through a bullpen chess match. It has no historical precedent in baseball history, it’s a new and undesired change.

 

The whole idea is to restore the game to a cleaner form. The game used to be faster. There used to be less pitching changes. They already abandoned the bad ideas like illegal defense.

 

I don’t worry about the Brewers. They are smart and will adapt to whatever the new rules are.

[GreatNWwi]

I don't care for a minimum batter count for pitchers and I really like the gamesmanship that goes with a LOOGY and other short relief stints.

 

I would go with a play clock so to speak. If a theoretical or real pitch clock is 20 seconds then you have x seconds to make a pitching change. x would be some number closer to 30 than 60 in which the relief pitcher pitches his first pitch.

 

In my world the manager hits the top step of the dugout and signals a pitching change, clock starts. Actually the clock would have to start based on some combination of events to prevent coaches from milling around before making the call etc. Reliever comes in ready to pitch or warms up until ready. If he needs more time, catcher tells batter to step out of the box and a ball is called for 20 more seconds. Play moves on.

 

I just came up with this 5 minutes ago so I am sure there are plenty of what ifs that will come........could become the new intentional walk strategy I suppose.

[RollieTime]

Manfred has stated that there will be no DH or draft changes for this season and that the focus is on pace of play for the 2019 season. Looks like the DH and draft changes could be addressed in the new CBA for the 2022 season.

[Oxy]

I don't think there should be mid-inning substitutions at all except for injury.

 

If you want to use two or more pitchers in an inning that's fine! They just have to play a different position on the field while they aren't pitching .

 

I'm not even joking here. It would add a ridiculous amount of strategy, and the only reason traditionalists wouldn't like it is because they aren't traditional enough.

[MadScientist]

A blog (sorry no link) indicates that Ken Rosenthal has reported the following:

 

MLB proposed:

-Pitchers must face at least three batters

-Mound visits reduced from 6 to 4 in 2019 and from 4 to 3 in 2020

-Rosters expand from 25 to 26 in 2020

-September rosters decrease from 40 to 28 in 2020

-DL goes back to 15 days

-Time optioned player must stay in minors goes back to 15 days

MLB doesn't want the Brewers to win (or at least not the way they did it last year).

[RollieTime]

One thing I don’t think that’s been discussed much is how much a 20 second pitch clock would totally affect the game. It goes much further than just being one rule change.

 

The 20 second pitch clock could work in theory for when there are no baserunners. Once a guy gets on base, the batter needs to be able to step out to get signs for the next pitch, as well as allow the base runner time to get back to the bag and get the signs as well.

 

If the batter is stepped out for 15 seconds, does the pitcher just need to rush his pitch in 5 seconds then? That doesn’t seem fair for the pitcher. It also wouldn’t make sense in that the baserunner now knows that the pitcher only has two seconds left to pitch it otherwise violates the rule. He could time it up and steal more bases much more easily.

 

But what if the pitcher were to step off? Does the clock automatically reset to 20 seconds? Couldn’t a pitcher continue to do that if he is running out of time? Seems like baseball would then need to implement a limit of how many times a pitcher can step off such as 10 times in a game. Would throwing over to first base reset the clock as well? Couldn’t a pitcher stall and throw it over 3 or 4 times in a row? On top of that, now we need pitchers to be aware of step off rules and possibly not being able to step off if all 10 were used up or only being able to pick off so many times after each pitch. Now the baserunner can just take off running knowing that the pitcher can no longer step off or try to pick them off.

 

To me, a pitch clock is going to cause a lot more rule changes and totally change the game that we all love. Having baseball get more complex and adding a ton of rules will really turn people away from the game. Baseball is simple and to me they are just muddying the waters, making it much more complex than it is meant to be, and creating their own issues that will result in a lot of people questioning the future of Major League Baseball.

[KeithStone53151]

Rule changes to the Atlantic league, which many of these writers seem to think could lead to these rule changes being implemented at the MLB level.

 

[pitchleague]

I don't understand the last one: "distance from pitching rubber to home plate extended 24 inches, in the second half of the season only." They're going to make pitchers throw from 2-feet further???? They're going to move the mounds in all the stadiums back, in the middle of the season?

 

What am I missing? I don't get the purpose.

[KeithStone53151]

I don't understand the last one: "distance from pitching rubber to home plate extended 24 inches, in the second half of the season only." They're going to make pitchers throw from 2-feet further???? They're going to move the mounds in all the stadiums back, in the middle of the season?

 

What am I missing? I don't get the purpose.

 

It's super weird that they are only doing it in the 2nd half of the season, but yes it seems like they'll be moving the mounds back and the pitcher will throw from 2 feet further away.

[monty57]

If you aren’t capable of getting MLB hitters (from both sides of the plate) out at a respectable clip, maybe you aren’t an MLB pitcher.

 

In that note, a LH batter who struggles against LH pitching must not be a MLB hitter. Maybe they should eliminate pinch hitters as well.

 

I think baseball should be about pitting your best guy against their best guy. Let teams place their defenders wherever they want, put in the pitchers and hitters they want, and see who wins out in the end.

[young guns]

I don't understand the last one: "distance from pitching rubber to home plate extended 24 inches, in the second half of the season only." They're going to make pitchers throw from 2-feet further???? They're going to move the mounds in all the stadiums back, in the middle of the season?

 

What am I missing? I don't get the purpose.

 

It's super weird that they are only doing it in the 2nd half of the season, but yes it seems like they'll be moving the mounds back and the pitcher will throw from 2 feet further away.

I'm guessing the thought process is something like, we want to increase offense. Pitchers throw really hard. If we move the mound back 2 ft that might slow the ball down enough to create more offense. Doing it in the middle of the season gives them a more accurate comparison than just 1 season to another. However, that is going to really screw with those pitchers at first.

[BrewFan130]

I’d be okay with the 20 second pitch clock with bases empty, but when there’s a runner on I don’t think there should be a clock. I just think there’s too much going on, especially when you’ve got a speedy runner on base. Worse case with 20 second clock is pitchers will just throw off to 1B repeatedly until they’re ready, possibly leading to longer game times.

[jerichoholicninja]

I don't understand the last one: "distance from pitching rubber to home plate extended 24 inches, in the second half of the season only." They're going to make pitchers throw from 2-feet further???? They're going to move the mounds in all the stadiums back, in the middle of the season?

 

What am I missing? I don't get the purpose.

 

It's super weird that they are only doing it in the 2nd half of the season, but yes it seems like they'll be moving the mounds back and the pitcher will throw from 2 feet further away.

 

The only thing I can think of is that they don't want to mess with things and prevent guys from getting signed by major league teams. In theory, MLB teams have seen all they need to see after the first half so making the change in the second half shouldn't hurt guy's chances of getting signed.

 

I also don't think changing the distance by 2 feet will dramatically change the results. Some guys probably won't be able to adjust but I would guess that overall offensive numbers won't go up that much. They may even go down. Yes, you have more time to react to a fastball but breaking pitches also have more distance to break.

 

The one I find interesting is making the bases bigger. I would assume that's for safety but it also shortens the distance between home/first and third/home by 1.5 inches and first/second and second/third by 3 inches. I'm sure the benefit to the offense will be negligible in the numbers but it still is a benefit.

[young guns]

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/26259301/sources-mlb-union-agree-1-trade-deadline?platform=amp

This year brings a single trade deadline, all star election day, and million dollar bonus for home run derby. Next year we get the stupid 3 batter minimum, roster expansion to 26, and limits in september to 28. Both sides are looking into pitcher limits on the roster as well, proposed as 13 with an increase to 14 in september.

[Fear The Chorizo]

I'm ok with everything but that 3 batter minimum nonsense....there are just so many reasons not to mess with it, and I think if part of their intent implementing it is to reduce game times, they will quickly realize it will actually lengthen them.

 

I'd be interested in getting the managers' takes on this rule - there can't be too many that are happy about it. Not to mention LOOGYS. And unless the DH is implemented in the NL to go along with this move, it's a really stupid idea that will put bats in the hands of middle/late game relievers in crunch time. If they are brought in to finish an inning and still need to face another batter or two before a manager can pull them, we will get to witness guys who never pick up a bat flail away and pray not to hurt themselves. Or, will there be an exception to the 3 batter minimum if a pitcher finishes an inning and is removed for a PH?

[Lathund]

If they are brought in to finish an inning and still need to face another batter or two before a manager can pull them, we will get to witness guys who never pick up a bat flail away and pray not to hurt themselves. Or, will there be an exception to the 3 batter minimum if a pitcher finishes an inning and is removed for a PH?

 

We'll have to see when the full details are released, but I would think that with the purpose being pace of play, then between-inning pitching changes would be exempt. I mean if they weren't, then the pitcher would go out there for a batter or two, only to likely have another mid-inning pitching change which kind of defeats the purpose.

 

A better change, for some reason less reported on, is the shortening of commercial breaks

 

[Patrick425]

If they are brought in to finish an inning and still need to face another batter or two before a manager can pull them, we will get to witness guys who never pick up a bat flail away and pray not to hurt themselves. Or, will there be an exception to the 3 batter minimum if a pitcher finishes an inning and is removed for a PH?

 

We'll have to see when the full details are released, but I would think that with the purpose being pace of play, then between-inning pitching changes would be exempt. I mean if they weren't, then the pitcher would go out there for a batter or two, only to likely have another mid-inning pitching change which kind of defeats the purpose.

 

A better change, for some reason less reported on, is the shortening of commercial breaks

 

 

I've seen the split screen model used more recently in golf. Not sure why all sports don't start incorporating that. In football do we really need a full screen for a kickoff that is a touch back 98% of the time? Also, I sure hope that between inning pitching changes are exempt.

[MillerParkSouth]

Rob Manfred and Tony Clark are going to ruin this sport.

[Patrick425]

Fans will vote online for All-Star starters, and the top three vote-getters will take part in a one-day election

 

I'm not sure I'm understanding this. 3 players will take part in a one day "election"? How do you have an election with 3 people? Will it really an election or will those guys just decide who is on the remainder of the two rosters? Is it an election or is it a selection?

[brewerfan82]

I'm cool with all the changes. For a league that's so resistant to change, the three batter minimum is definitely a bit surprising, but I think it'll be interesting to see how it plays out. LOOGY's are definitely the big loser here, but otherwise, I don't see it taking away from strategy, just changing it. In addition to eliminating LaRussa-esque back-to-back-to-back pitching changes, I like that it eliminates the lefty/righty matchup dance that burns batters and pitchers without them actually playing in the game.

 

I also think it's interesting they went with "three" as the limit so if you don't like a matchup, or within the first batter or two you know your pitcher doesn't have it, you can always issue intentional walks to fill out the remaining of the pitcher's quota without giving up additional runs. I haven't heard for sure if injuries actually do let you bypass the minimum or not, seems like everyone assumes they do, but with the new rule that you can issue free passes without throwing a pitch, they could still enforce the minimum without additional risk to the pitcher. That would be pretty harsh for actual injuries, but it would also eliminate the "fake" injuries everyone is assuming will happen with the new rule.

 

All in all, I think the changes will be intriguing to watch, but as mentioned by others, the biggest winner is shorter commercial breaks. I'm surprised the owners approved that and will take that in exchange for anything that's lost by losing LOOGY's.

[Patrick425]

or within the first batter or two you know your pitcher doesn't have it, you can always issue intentional walks to fill out the remaining of the pitcher's quota without giving up additional runs.

 

Well...if those intentional walks don't score, that is. This change does not sit well with me. A reliever comes in at the start of the game, walks the 1st batter on four pitches and clearly does not have it...now you are forced to leave him in there for 2 more batters?? That is too big of a change to the basic rules of the game in my opinion. If they allow for pitchers to be removed because of injury, I can see managers/trainers "pretending" they are seeing an injury related issue and removing wild pitchers for "precautionary" reasons.