Proposed MLB rule changes

[wntrtxn21]

[quote name="JosephC"

 

So does this mean' date=' 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?[/quote]

 

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.

 

20IP is the criteria said to count as both ways. Davidson could play on the field and pitch in a close game vs the 7run differential or extra inning. If I recall Maddon used a position player to pitch to one batter while leaving the previous in the field. Only then to switch back. Maybe a different team? but same situation. You would remove that from the game.

 

The rule change I saw twice now said: in order to be a 2-way player he must have 20 Major Lg. innings pitched and at least 20 major lg. starts as a DH or position player where he batted at least 3 times each start. I don't know how that would affect guys coming up from the minors.

[pacopete4]

MLB.com- How the 3-batter minimum will change baseball

 

Good article to read over.

[trwi7]

Rob Manfred is the worst.

[young guns]

MLB.com- How the 3-batter minimum will change baseball

 

Good article to read over.

That is a good article. Pretty much confirms it's not the number of pitching changes, its how long a pitching change takes.

[Ennder]

Rob Manfred is the worst.

 

 

This seems odd. We have Adam Silver who is like a fanboy to the NBA stars who is giving them everything they want. The league is almost unwatchable the product on the court is so awful now. We have Goodell who can't seem to make a proper decision at any point when it comes to hot topics in football. He seems so out of loop with the times that it is hard to understand how he keeps the job, plus the NFL is completely tanking as a long term sport.

 

Manfred looks good compared to these guys. He gets what is wrong with baseball, his solutions just seem a bit odd at times but they haven't actually implemented them yet. How the league hasn't added the DH to the NL is one of the most baffling things in sports, it is just so dumb it makes no sense.

[DuWayne Steurer]

While I hate this rule change, this isn't "the Brewers were successful so let's make a rule to stop them from being successful" rule change. That's silly and in no way a reality. The Brewers had a great bullpen, and yes, it will change the way Counsell will manage, and it sucks, but they certainly aren't the only team to do this. The Brewers still averaged over 5 IP per start last year, even factoring in the way he managed in September, and Hader, Jeffress, and Knebel aren't one batter guys.

 

I still think this is stupid.

 

If you want to speed up the game, speed it up, don't make fundamental changes to the way it is played.

[Bob Skube Snacks]

I’m fine with the changes. People are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

And to claim this was targeted at the Brewers is the worst kind of provincial thinking. Brewers can do just fine with these rules.

[502 to Right]

I LOVE the three batter rule. Unless you are a LOOGY I do not understand why people hate it.

[brooks_quichenick]

MLB.com- How the 3-batter minimum will change baseball

 

Good article to read over.

 

This is essentially a press release from an MLB employee/propagandist about Rob Manfred's unilateral decision without player consent being a good thing.

[rondoman]

Manfred is without a doubt the worst commissioner in all of sports.

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

While I hate this rule change, this isn't "the Brewers were successful so let's make a rule to stop them from being successful" rule change. That's silly and in no way a reality. The Brewers had a great bullpen, and yes, it will change the way Counsell will manage, and it sucks, but they certainly aren't the only team to do this. The Brewers still averaged over 5 IP per start last year, even factoring in the way he managed in September, and Hader, Jeffress, and Knebel aren't one batter guys.

 

I still think this is stupid.

 

If you want to speed up the game, speed it up, don't make fundamental changes to the way it is played.

 

Yep ... personally I can't remember many times when Counsell specifically brought in a pitcher to face one batter. Maybe once or twice with Hader when he had pitched the day before. Cedeno obviously after he got here. Jennings typially pitched to multiple hitters. Taylor Williams I guess they tried to limit exposure to left handed hitters.

 

Honestly, this affect's Joe Maddon's managing style much more. He's become known for playing matchups and making a ton of pitching changes during a game. Take a look at those Cubs box scores last year, especially from September. It was nothing for 6 or 7 or even 8 pitchers to appear. Counsell never came close to doing that.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

This 3 batter minimum rule will not last long. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if it's scrapped before it's even implemented in 2020. I wonder what kind of influence coaches and front office people have because I can't imagine they would support this in any way. And I have no idea why the player's agreed to it in the first place. They just eliminated a bunch of player jobs held by righty/lefty specialists.

 

The only way for this rule to have any meaning is for there to be consequences like a mandatory DL stint for any pitcher that doesn't face 3 batters. But then managers are faced with is my pitcher bad enough today that I don't want him available for the next two weeks. Then you have not injured players on the DL only because of this stupid rule and MLB has wanted to crack down on not injured players being DL'd anyway so what exactly is trying to be accomplished in the first place? Or even worse, your pitcher definitely feels off so you pull him early and after getting checked out he's fine and feels fine a couple days later but now he's gone for another 10 games or so when he really only should have missed 2 or 3.

 

The mandatory DL stint is completely impossible. It is totally within reason that a guy faces one better and tweaks an arm for a couple of days. By requiring a DL stint you are encouraging players to play through an injury. The union would have a field day with that.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

While I hate this rule change, this isn't "the Brewers were successful so let's make a rule to stop them from being successful" rule change. That's silly and in no way a reality. The Brewers had a great bullpen, and yes, it will change the way Counsell will manage, and it sucks, but they certainly aren't the only team to do this. The Brewers still averaged over 5 IP per start last year, even factoring in the way he managed in September, and Hader, Jeffress, and Knebel aren't one batter guys.

 

I still think this is stupid.

 

If you want to speed up the game, speed it up, don't make fundamental changes to the way it is played.

 

I agree, but think this whole thing smacks of being sponsor-driven. Which I do understand from their POV. The reality is you can't get approval from players and teams, because they're going to be the purists. If they want to move the sport forward, continue growing the base fo young fans etc., the game really does have to get faster. I personally love a 4-hour game that goes to almost midnight. But that's not the societal trend. I'm not sure this is going to speed up the game, but I accept why this stuff is happening.

[pacopete4]

While I hate this rule change, this isn't "the Brewers were successful so let's make a rule to stop them from being successful" rule change. That's silly and in no way a reality. The Brewers had a great bullpen, and yes, it will change the way Counsell will manage, and it sucks, but they certainly aren't the only team to do this. The Brewers still averaged over 5 IP per start last year, even factoring in the way he managed in September, and Hader, Jeffress, and Knebel aren't one batter guys.

 

I still think this is stupid.

 

If you want to speed up the game, speed it up, don't make fundamental changes to the way it is played.

 

I agree, but think this whole thing smacks of being sponsor-driven. Which I do understand from their POV. The reality is you can't get approval from players and teams, because they're going to be the purists. If they want to move the sport forward, continue growing the base fo young fans etc., the game really does have to get faster. I personally love a 4-hour game that goes to almost midnight. But that's not the societal trend. I'm not sure this is going to speed up the game, but I accept why this stuff is happening.

 

Good post here. I agree with it. I read that the average viewer is 55+ years of age for MLB. If they want to tap into the younger demographic, change is needed.

[coolhandluke121]

I hate these ideas. They want it both ways - more offense, but faster games. Those are mutually conflicting goals. Heck, a 3-batter minimum is almost as drastic as just getting rid of an inning or something like that. It's actually very forced and inorganic by comparison.

 

So many of these ideas remind me of the the corporate-minded education reform stuff that has poisoned schools. Not enough students passing a standardized test? Make a policy that more students have to pass or else. How creative! As if a lack of a policy against failure is the real issue...

 

Want faster games? Call more strikes, period. I remember Carlos Torres on the pregame show, talking about how with the Mets he played a series where games averaged about 2 hours because they called more strikes. If batters have to swing, you get more balls in play or more strikeouts, without such long counts. The strikeouts would go way up at first, but eventually this would favor good contact hitters, and the game would be more exciting. Besides, a strikeout goes faster than a walk. The current model favors the "three true outcomes" way too much.

[Fear The Chorizo]

expand the strike zone and look for ways to expand the amount of foul territory on MLB stadium playing surfaces - If you replace 2-3 pop/flyball fouls that land 2-3 rows deep in the stands with outs per game, you probably can shave off 5 minutes of gametime right away.

 

we're talking about the MLB average game time increasing roughly 30 minutes over the past 50 years, almost entirely due to commercial breaks for TV ($revenue$ to fund the sport), and game-wide changes to how its most central and repeated event - pitcher vs hitter at bats - is approached both offensively and defensively. Hitters strive to see more pitches and worry less about striking out than ever before - pitchers prioritize Ks more than ever before, too. That simple change in approach leads to high pitch count ABs that in turn lead to longer gametimes.

 

What is the time MLB needs to reach for it to not die as a sport? I'm totally fine with it taking 3 hours on average to get through 9 innings - there are still games played that are much shorter and ones that take much longer. It's the beauty of a game that doesn't have a clock. I really struggle when this is brought up as a reason youngsters don't watch baseball, when you consider the average NFL game time is 3 hrs 15 minutes to play an hour of gametime, and it only consists of roughly 15 minutes of actual game play. The NBA game takes roughly 2hrs 15 minutes to play 48 game minutes with a mostly running clock and much quicker quarter/halftime breaks than the NFL.

[owbc]

we're talking about the MLB average game time increasing roughly 30 minutes over the past 50 years, almost entirely due to commercial breaks for TV ($revenue$ to fund the sport)

 

Why does this point keep getting repeated. It's not true. The extra time is almost entirely from time between pitches and extra pitching changes. Commercial breaks haven't gotten longer.

[BillScottCanRake]

I LOVE the three batter rule. Unless you are a LOOGY I do not understand why people hate it.

 

My biggest gripe isn't LOOGY's, but rather usage over multiple games.

 

Let's say Hader pitched one inning the previous game. His availability in this game is now limited because he has to face three hitters. Which means he can't come in with 2 outs in the 8th and get the last hitter because he then has to face 2 guys in the 9th, too. That sort of usage now goes away, which can be just as game-changing as elimination of the one hitter specialist.

 

If this is about speeding up the game, the rule should have been "must face three batters or complete the inning". That way if the Brewers want to pitch Hader with 2 outs in the 8th the night after pitching one full inning they can. The consequence for Hader not getting the first guy is he may need to face two more and extend how long he is not available. Once the inning is over changing pitchers won't impact the pace of play, so it should be allowable.

[KeithStone53151]

I find this hysterical. Joe Maddon complaining about a rule that was basically designed to protect him from himself.

 

[Fear The Chorizo]

we're talking about the MLB average game time increasing roughly 30 minutes over the past 50 years, almost entirely due to commercial breaks for TV ($revenue$ to fund the sport)

 

Why does this point keep getting repeated. It's not true. The extra time is almost entirely from time between pitches and extra pitching changes. Commercial breaks haven't gotten longer.

 

Why did you neglect to include the 2nd part of this sentence that includes pace of individual at bats as one of the primary reasons for increased game lengths in your quote? And if I was a betting man I'd put my house on betting the total time spent in commercials during 9 inning baseball games played in 1970 was indeed lower than in 2018.

[brewerfan82]

My biggest gripe isn't LOOGY's, but rather usage over multiple games.

 

Let's say Hader pitched one inning the previous game. His availability in this game is now limited because he has to face three hitters. Which means he can't come in with 2 outs in the 8th and get the last hitter because he then has to face 2 guys in the 9th, too. That sort of usage now goes away, which can be just as game-changing as elimination of the one hitter specialist.

 

If this is about speeding up the game, the rule should have been "must face three batters or complete the inning". That way if the Brewers want to pitch Hader with 2 outs in the 8th the night after pitching one full inning they can. The consequence for Hader not getting the first guy is he may need to face two more and extend how long he is not available. Once the inning is over changing pitchers won't impact the pace of play, so it should be allowable.

 

That is the rule:

 

Three-batter minimum for pitchers: Rule 5.10(g) will be amended to require that starting pitchers and relief pitchers must pitch to either a minimum of three batters or to the end of a half-inning, with exceptions for incapacitating injury or illness. This will effectively end the so-called “LOOGY” (left-handed one-out guy) and other specialist roles in which pitchers are brought in for one very specific matchup.

https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-rules-changes

[And That]

Want faster games? Call more strikes, period.

Exactly. Bigger/better strike zone, and shorten pitching change times.

 

This three batter minimum nonsense doesn't help the game. Can't wait for a pitcher to come in, get in trouble, have to muddle through an extra batter or two (making him unavailable to pitch the next day), and then have an even worse pitcher come in to relieve him. Great stuff.

 

I am optimistic that this rule will never see the field. Hopefully, it will get negotiated away for something less stupid, and something the players actually agree to.

[BillScottCanRake]

My biggest gripe isn't LOOGY's, but rather usage over multiple games.

 

Let's say Hader pitched one inning the previous game. His availability in this game is now limited because he has to face three hitters. Which means he can't come in with 2 outs in the 8th and get the last hitter because he then has to face 2 guys in the 9th, too. That sort of usage now goes away, which can be just as game-changing as elimination of the one hitter specialist.

 

If this is about speeding up the game, the rule should have been "must face three batters or complete the inning". That way if the Brewers want to pitch Hader with 2 outs in the 8th the night after pitching one full inning they can. The consequence for Hader not getting the first guy is he may need to face two more and extend how long he is not available. Once the inning is over changing pitchers won't impact the pace of play, so it should be allowable.

 

That is the rule:

 

Three-batter minimum for pitchers: Rule 5.10(g) will be amended to require that starting pitchers and relief pitchers must pitch to either a minimum of three batters or to the end of a half-inning, with exceptions for incapacitating injury or illness. This will effectively end the so-called “LOOGY” (left-handed one-out guy) and other specialist roles in which pitchers are brought in for one very specific matchup.

https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-rules-changes

 

 

Awesome... objection withdrawn!

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

My biggest gripe isn't LOOGY's, but rather usage over multiple games.

 

Let's say Hader pitched one inning the previous game. His availability in this game is now limited because he has to face three hitters. Which means he can't come in with 2 outs in the 8th and get the last hitter because he then has to face 2 guys in the 9th, too. That sort of usage now goes away, which can be just as game-changing as elimination of the one hitter specialist.

 

If this is about speeding up the game, the rule should have been "must face three batters or complete the inning". That way if the Brewers want to pitch Hader with 2 outs in the 8th the night after pitching one full inning they can. The consequence for Hader not getting the first guy is he may need to face two more and extend how long he is not available. Once the inning is over changing pitchers won't impact the pace of play, so it should be allowable.

 

That is the rule:

 

Three-batter minimum for pitchers: Rule 5.10(g) will be amended to require that starting pitchers and relief pitchers must pitch to either a minimum of three batters or to the end of a half-inning, with exceptions for incapacitating injury or illness. This will effectively end the so-called “LOOGY” (left-handed one-out guy) and other specialist roles in which pitchers are brought in for one very specific matchup.

https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-rules-changes

 

 

Awesome... objection withdrawn!

 

Wouldn't this mean, though, that a LOOGY could be brought in to face a tough LHH with two down in the inning? Granted you'd be taking the chance of having to leave them in there should they not retire the guy they're supposed to, but I think this leaves the door open for those guys at least a crack.

[Bob Skube Snacks]

Yes, which is why the reaction to this is way overblown.