Proposed MLB rule changes

[tmwiese55]

I agree with Patrick. 3 out thing is the only one I'd be adamantly against.

[Fear The Chorizo]

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.

 

So the 3 batter minimum would only apply to starters and any relievers beginning an inning? That is pretty much already standard practice, even for "openers". I guess that rule would eliminate what the Brewers did to start Game 5 of the NLCS by running a "starter" out for one batter, but it's very rare for the one out specialists to start an inning and get pulled mid-inning already.

 

If it's ok to yank a pitcher mid inning before he reaches his 3 batter minimum, what happens if a LOOGY/specialist is brought in to close out an inning for 1 batter and the next two opponent hitters are another lefty and a RH slugger nobody would want him to face? Does the manager have the option to remove him from the game mid-inning after facing only 1 batter, but if he runs him back out to start the next half inning he'll then be forced to face two more batters to reach his minimum - then still have to make a mid-inning pitching change? It just seems like a cluster of unintended consequences. I also fully expect feigned injuries by pitchers to circumvent the rule in certain situations - prompting mid-inning changes where by rule the replacement pitcher is allowed plenty of time to come in and warm up.

 

If they implement the rule, it's gotta be a 3 batter minimum per pitcher regardless of the time he's brought into the game - otherwise there will be so many wacky exceptions and situational allowances that there won't be a point to the rule in the first place.

[brewerfan82]

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.

I see this argument a lot, however, how often do you see a manager pull a pitcher for ineffectiveness after a single batter? That is a super quick hook for a pitcher that you intended to pitch more than a batter or two.

[Patrick425]

So the 3 batter minimum would only apply to starters and any relievers beginning an inning? That is pretty much already standard practice, even for "openers"......, but it's very rare for the one out specialists to start an inning and get pulled mid-inning already.

 

I actually think this happens quite frequently

 

If they implement the rule, it's gotta be a 3 batter minimum per pitcher regardless of the time he's brought into the game - otherwise there will be so many wacky exceptions and situational allowances that there won't be a point to the rule in the first place.

 

The intent of the rule change seems to be to speed up the game. I think not allowing a mid-inning change at any time (even if the previous pitcher only faced 1 or 2 batters), would defeat the point of the rule.

[82brewcrew82]

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.

I see this argument a lot, however, how often do you see a manager pull a pitcher for ineffectiveness after a single batter? That is a super quick hook for a pitcher that you intended to pitch more than a batter or two.

I agree. We are far more likely to see a gigantic thread questioning why CC left in a pitcher who "clearly didn't have it" than we are to see a pitcher pulled after one hitter for ineffectiveness.

[stoutdude04]

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?

 

Pretty sure I read their will be a vote to get the top 3 for each position, then there is an election day between those 3, for all positions.

[brewerfan82]

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.

An interesting side effect of this would be a hesitation to start an inning with a reliever you may not be confident in. I wonder if you'll see more "2nd-tier" relievers only being used after there's already 1 or 2 outs, and with the bases empty, to minimize the potential damage they could cause. Even if they come in, give up back-to-back singles and you have them intentionally walk the 3rd batter to get them out of the game, the next reliever could still get out of the jam with a double play. I think there's a lot of interesting scenarios and strategy the rule change creates.

 

With an already increasing emphasis on having good relievers, this definitely increases their importance that much more. This could be a pretty big benefit to a team already deep in their relief corps like the Brewers. Now go get Kimbrel and take full advantage!

 

Not to mention, it increases the importance of having starters that can go deep in the game to avoid using unnecessary relievers. So go get Keuchel too!

[JohnBriggs12]

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.

 

Since when is walking a guy on four pitches a sign that a pitcher "clearly doesn't have it"? I can't count the times a guy has walked his first batter on four pitches well outside the zone and then come back to strike out the side.

 

Yes it's a change to the basic rules, but those rules have been exploited in a way that the commissioner and many others don't think is good for the game. A manager can list a RH starter for a game to entice the opposing manager to fill his lineup with LH bats, and then take the guy out after one hitter and bring in a LH pitcher. The other manager can't counter that move because rules prohibit players from returning to games once they've been taken out. I think it might be a better alternative to limit teams to a 12 man staff rather than even 13, because that would put some of a damper on endless pitching changes.

[JosephC]

If I was Counsell, and wanted to use Claudio for just one batter, I'd tell him to pitch to that batter and when the at-bat was done then walk around the mound and claim to be having a dizzy spell or something like that so I could take him out of the ballgame. Then after this same scenario happens 6 times in 6 weeks, then we can see what MLB will do about it. Do the Brewers get fined? Does MLB then institute another rule that if a pitcher doesn't pitch to a required number of batters then he is ineligible to play in the next few games (three, maybe?). Since 30 out of 30 MLB managers like having the option of using a one batter specialist, does that mean all teams will have pitchers who suffer injuries after pitching to one batter and the new rule will, in effect, just be ignored (like pitchers using pine tar)?

 

Hopefully what I outlined above won't happen until the world's eyes are on baseball. Example, it gets to the seventh game of the World Series and a meaningless, irrelevant team like Milwaukee has a pitcher fake injury in the 8th inning and it obviously helps them knock off the all-important New York Yankees. Baseball writers wouldn't stop whining about this for at least two decades and MLB is sitting there with egg on their face. But hey, make stupid rules, then be willing to look stupid and face the consequences.

 

Also think putting a maximum amount of certain position on a roster (13 pitchers) is another dumb rule. If a team has 26 rosters spots, they should be able to use them in whatever manner they want to win the most games. If MLB is so scared of too many pitchers, then why add another roster spot?

 

Don't mind having one, hard trade deadline. But I think July 31 is too early. Would have rather seen them put this date at August 15 or even a bit later. Trades and player movement is fun for the fans. Although numerous blockbusters don't occur in August because of the waiver rules, it's still an opportunity for teams to make moves and fans can speculate on possible moves. This makes August a really long month IMO.

 

And from the perspective of a team that does not have all that great of a history, I think the 28 man roster in September is another bad idea. Frankly, if the team you root for is bad, it is still interesting to stick through September when you can watch many rookies see their first MLB action. Was just having 40 players eligible a bad idea? Maybe. But I think a far better solution would have been to have a 25 man "active roster" that is "fixed" on August 31, then be able to call up however many of the rest of the 40-man roster players a team desired...and from there the team plays with the fixed 25 and then the manager can insert and remove 7 more players daily so each game a team has a max of 32. I've never really cared for the whining that the old rules make the rosters too unbalanced. Teams that think they get the worst end of this deal have been playing under these rules for decades and had months to prepare to improve the overall depth on their 40-man roster. Personally, I think the 28 number is too small and just gives the fans of teams that have struggled all the more reason to just turn off the TV in September.

[brewcrewdue80]

Here's a good one to the rule:

Position players will be allowed to pitch only in extra innings or when their team is ahead or behind by more than seven runs.

 

I thought I read the proposal somewhere else that exclaimed 3 batter minimum except during an inning change. So 2 outs and a Loogy gets the third he'd be done for his day with the inning change. The article posted doesn't say that but maybe that's just ignorance figuring that's common sense. I'm personally not worried about this for the Brewers since really the Loogy hasn't been that great for us and we're filled with 2IP relievers.

 

1million for the HR derby champ? Not a fan of that because you know how generally you make the HR derby? Any 1st-3rd season batters making under 1mil minimum just got a green light to swing for the fences until the AS break. On MLB's end I can see that they're putting out an incentive to get the best of the best to participate, but this really encourages HR swinging. How about the guy who's abnormally at 15-18HRs before AS break for a typical 20HR season hitter? Whatever just ranting.

 

I'm wondering if when they say top 3 vote getters for an Election if they are referring to at the position and not overall top 3. So for instance, at NL catcher you have Posey, Molina, and this year(hopefully) Grandal. You have 1 day election to vote that starter, even if Posey had a 1million vote lead previously? You would then get rid of the team with 5 or 6 vote winners on one team when 1 player hadn't even played in half the games...potentially?

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

I get the feeling that perhaps the Brewers say the writing on the wall, which is why they acquired (and actually paid a pretty high price for) Claudio. He's a lefty that has the capability and is used to pitching to multiple hitters. This is why you didn't see them make any attempt to hang onto Jennings or Cedeno, despite the two of them putting up decent numbers overall last year.

[JosephC]

So Jeffress walks out to the mound in September to start an inning after having not pitched in the last six days. He throws four pitches to the first batter and walks him. Of those four pitchers, three were fastballs and the highest velocity for any of those fastballs is 84 MPH. Counsell goes to the umpire and they walk out to the mound and Jeffress says he feels fine.

 

Should Counsell have the option of removing Jeffress in this situation? Umpire is standing right there and hears Jeffress saying that he feels fine.

[SeaBass]

They're not going to be allowed to fake an injury or illness. I thought I had seen a report about such players requiring a stint on the DL.

 

Edit: I guess I should say IL not DL.

[JosephC]

Here's a good one to the rule:

Position players will be allowed to pitch only in extra innings or when their team is ahead or behind by more than seven runs.

 

 

So does this mean, that if the Brewers have a 2 weeks stretch with 4 off-days and decide to go with 14 hitters and 12 pitchers, that Milwaukee can then reclassify Hernan Perez as a pitcher? And if Hernan is then a pitcher, do we now have rules that indicate he can no longer play IF/OF for those games where he is listed as pitcher on the roster?

[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?

 

Pretty sure I read their will be a vote to get the top 3 for each position, then there is an election day between those 3, for all positions.

 

Oohhhh! I was reading that as the top 3 vote getters over all have a one day "election" where they are the "voters" (basically they select the rest of the team).

 

In regards to not being able to remove "pitchers that don't have it", I understand that walking a guy on 4 pitches does not automatically meant that a pitcher does not have it. My point is I don't like hampering the flexibility of a manager in a crucial situation. Lets say there is one guy on base late in a close game and the manager brings in a new pitcher. The new pitcher walks the next two batters and appears to be having some control issues. Now you have bases loaded. Most fans watching will probably be yelling at the TV or from their seats...get him out of there!! The manager does not always do this, but he should have the flexibility to do it. I don't care if these types of situations are rare, I don't like rule changes that take away that much flexibility from a manager, especially when the game may be on the line.

[JosephC]

I get the feeling that perhaps the Brewers say the writing on the wall, which is why they acquired (and actually paid a pretty high price for) Claudio. He's a lefty that has the capability and is used to pitching to multiple hitters. This is why you didn't see them make any attempt to hang onto Jennings or Cedeno, despite the two of them putting up decent numbers overall last year.

 

Stearns picked the wrong guy then because righties feasted on Claudio last year and Claudio's three year splits against righties isn't any better than Jennings.

[tmwiese55]

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?

 

Pretty sure I read their will be a vote to get the top 3 for each position, then there is an election day between those 3, for all positions.

 

Oohhhh! I was reading that as the top 3 vote getters over all have a one day "election" where they are the "voters" (basically they select the rest of the team).

 

In regards to not being able to remove "pitchers that don't have it", I understand that walking a guy on 4 pitches does not automatically meant that a pitcher does not have it. My point is I don't like hampering the flexibility of a manager in a crucial situation. Lets say there is one guy on base late in a close game and the manager brings in a new pitcher. The new pitcher walks the next two batters and appears to be having some control issues. Now you have bases loaded. Most fans watching will probably be yelling at the TV or from their seats...get him out of there!! The manager does not always do this, but he should have the flexibility to do it. I don't care if these types of situations are rare, I don't like rule changes that take away that much flexibility from a manager, especially when the game may be on the line.

 

 

Spit-balling solutions to that issue. Maybe the team gets one exemption per game. Still, I think this is all just over complicating things.

[bill hAll Star]

Here's a good one to the rule:

Position players will be allowed to pitch only in extra innings or when their team is ahead or behind by more than seven runs.

 

 

So does this mean, that if the Brewers have a 2 weeks stretch with 4 off-days and decide to go with 14 hitters and 12 pitchers, that Milwaukee can then reclassify Hernan Perez as a pitcher? And if Hernan is then a pitcher, do we now have rules that indicate he can no longer play IF/OF for those games where he is listed as pitcher on the roster?

 

Looks like per the press release:

 

You can bring a position player into pitch if down by more than 6.

You have to define a guy before the season. The only way a guy gets a definition of "2-way" is if he has a specific number of innings in the minors (I think 20+?). I could see some guy coming through the system given garbage innings to attain this but I'm not sure it is worth it on either end for that. You're taking time away from minors guys that actually will pitch and it will maybe affect one game all year.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

MLB needs to stop picking on pitchers to speed up games. How about the hitters that step out between every pitch and take 30 seconds to spit on their hands, adjust their gloves and find their stance in the box? That's why it's so much fun to watch guys like Miley and Suter work, because they work quick and mess up those hitters' stupid mid-pitch habits/routines.

[KeithStone53151]

So Jeffress walks out to the mound in September to start an inning after having not pitched in the last six days. He throws four pitches to the first batter and walks him. Of those four pitchers, three were fastballs and the highest velocity for any of those fastballs is 84 MPH. Counsell goes to the umpire and they walk out to the mound and Jeffress says he feels fine.

 

Should Counsell have the option of removing Jeffress in this situation? Umpire is standing right there and hears Jeffress saying that he feels fine.

 

Or maybe you just fire your bullpen coach...as he should have noticed an problem during his warmup and communicated to CC that Jeffress just didn't have it that day.

[KeithStone53151]

Here's a good one to the rule:

Position players will be allowed to pitch only in extra innings or when their team is ahead or behind by more than seven runs.

 

 

So does this mean, that if the Brewers have a 2 weeks stretch with 4 off-days and decide to go with 14 hitters and 12 pitchers, that Milwaukee can then reclassify Hernan Perez as a pitcher? And if Hernan is then a pitcher, do we now have rules that indicate he can no longer play IF/OF for those games where he is listed as pitcher on the roster?

 

Looks like per the press release:

 

You can bring a position player into pitch if down by more than 6.

You have to define a guy before the season. The only way a guy gets a definition of "2-way" is if he has a specific number of innings in the minors (I think 20+?). I could see some guy coming through the system given garbage innings to attain this but I'm not sure it is worth it on either end for that. You're taking time away from minors guys that actually will pitch and it will maybe affect one game all year.

 

What about a case like Matt Davidson, where I believe he pitched in college but I believe now the Rangers are giving him a chance both as a pitcher and position player. So technically he wouldn't hit any criteria, but they fully intend to utilize him as a 2 way player. Erceg might fall into that category at some point as well.

[JosephC]

Did they insert some type of agreement where 40 man roster players get a free month of MLB service time due to the new September roster rules? Because if they didn't, the MLBPA just agreed to a deal that could potentially cost 360 players a full month of MLB service time every year.

 

Maybe this was the "trade" for the additional roster spot. Although I feel the additional roster spot was something the league wanted to do anywhere, although I find it completely unnecessary...especially if they limit the amount of pitchers a team can carry.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

I hate most of it. But I understand the need for the game to survive profitably and as a televised production.

[bill hAll Star]

Did they insert some type of agreement where 40 man roster players get a free month of MLB service time due to the new September roster rules? Because if they didn't, the MLBPA just agreed to a deal that could potentially cost 360 players a full month of MLB service time every year.

 

Maybe this was the "trade" for the additional roster spot. Although I feel the additional roster spot was something the league wanted to do anywhere, although I find it completely unnecessary...especially if they limit the amount of pitchers a team can carry.

 

Given that this goes into place basically with 1 year left in the CBA, I'm guessing the compromise may be a change to the rules where guys like Eloy and Kris Bryant go down to the minors for a month to start the year when they hit that negotiation (maybe?)

[young guns]

I think the 2 way players are for people like ohtani and kieshnick. It sounds like that would include davidson.