Jump to content
weams

MLB will be going to a three-batter minimum rule in 2020 that should make it especially difficult for lefties who struggle versus righties to find work.

Recommended Posts

Ideally: "Eliminating the LOOGY will reduce bullpen calls and speed up the game!"

Reality: "Our reliever has loaded the bases because we couldn't remove him from the game, and our mop up reliever (who also doesn't have his stuff) will now put six runs on the board against us! We've now wasted an extra half hour watching terrible pitchers!"

  • Upvote 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tony-OH said:

So you are fine with dictating that a pitcher must face three batters even if he's gone over his prescribed pitch limit for that game? It's an absurd rule that will not help speed up the game.

 

1 hour ago, Philip said:

Every time I think of Mad Fred, and that is a typo that I’m going to leave in, I wonder if he’s deliberately trying to ruin the game. He has no sense of The “game of chess” aspect of this game. He has no response for a successful strategy except forbidding that strategy.

 Some of the things he’s done can be legitimately debated(although I personally dislike everything) but some things are just without reason or benefit. 

 

1 hour ago, Philip said:

Amen!

It’s stupid. And there is no reason for it. It makes the game less interesting. It takes away an important part of a managers strategy. It neutralizes some of his tools, it’s just stupid.

Couldn’t disagree more.   To me, there  is nothing more boring in all of baseball than watching a manager saunter out to the mound, call for a relief pitcher, have that guy stroll in from the bullpen, take his warm-up pitches, pitch to one batter and then have that whole process repeated again.   And then maybe a third time.

Frankly, I think the strategy gets more complex with the new rule.    Bring in a lefty to face a lefty and then replace him when a righty comes up isn’t exactly rocket science.    Bringing in that lefty when he’s going to have to face a righty somewhere in his appearance is a tougher choice.   
 

As to a pitcher exceeding his pitch limit in three batters, that sounds pretty remote to me.    And if managers have to limit the use of some guys on back to back days, fine with me.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Redskins Rick said:

While I will agree with your post that MLB is trying to "tweak" [my word]  the game to make it more engaging. Lord knows, they need to.

IMO, this doesn't do that much.

Why can’t they just leave the game alone? It’s been a fun game for over 100 years. When they tweak the game they take chances on messing the game up. IMO 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What this is, is baseball drawing a line on specialization.  I think all sports, if controls aren't in place, will evolve into contests between ever more specialized athletes and often more anonymous players. 

Look at football.  70 or 80 years ago they decided to allow two-way, essentially unlimited subs.  And rosters about five times the size of the number of players allowed on the field.  So now we have players who are on the field for a minute or two a game, who just punt, or kick field goals, or long snap on punts and field goals, or stand at the goal line and watch the kickoff go over their heads into the stands.  In college there are kickers who just do kickoffs, their entire job is to wack the ball into the opposite stands three times a game and pray they never kick it out of bounds.

Baseball has a problem promoting their stars.  One part of that is that Mike Trout gets four at bats a game, and makes four mostly routine plays in the field a game.  Relief pitchers often throw to one batter every three games.  This new rule is a small step towards correcting this.  It's saying, no, we're not going to allow managers this one conceit. No, you can't have the 26th man on your roster throw 38 innings a year.  You have to be just a tiny bit more cross-trained in getting a righty or three out once in a while.  We're drawing a small line in the sand, we're not going to be football.  Maybe if this goes well we'll draw a bigger line later.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Tx Oriole said:

Why can’t they just leave the game alone? It’s been a fun game for over 100 years. When they tweak the game they take chances on messing the game up. IMO 

Leaving it alone takes us to places no one ever intended, and probably never wanted.  100 years ago most starts ended up with two-hour complete games, there were 2-3 strikeouts per team per game, and an over-the-fence homer maybe once every three or four games.  They left the game alone with very few exceptions for a century and we now have a game where teams routinely use six pitchers, there's a strikeout per inning, homers are so commonplace that they've almost become boring, and games often last four hours.

We're not asking for change to make this some kind of futuristic spaceball or add six bases or anything over-the-top nuts.  Most of the changes are an attempt to get back to a more balanced, competitive, athletic form of baseball instead of an endless drone of K, K, HR, pitching change, K, HR, pitching change, K, K, HR, HR, ad nauseum...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Tx Oriole said:

Why can’t they just leave the game alone? It’s been a fun game for over 100 years. When they tweak the game they take chances on messing the game up. IMO 

Not wanting to sound like the historian Drungo.

Some things need improving.

They use real gloves now, and the catcher is better protected.

I think the uniforms look better, and can you image playing back in the wool uniform days, serious.

I dont mind the DH, hate seeing pitchers hit. Just wish it was in both leagues.

I dont mind change, per say, not excited about this one, I think this one is silly, IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Frobby said:

 

 

Couldn’t disagree more.   To me, there  is nothing more boring in all of baseball than watching a manager saunter out to the mound, call for a relief pitcher, have that guy stroll in from the bullpen, take his warm-up pitches, pitch to one batter and then have that whole process repeated again.   And then maybe a third time.

Frankly, I think the strategy gets more complex with the new rule.    Bring in a lefty to face a lefty and then replace him when a righty comes up isn’t exactly rocket science.    Bringing in that lefty when he’s going to have to face a righty somewhere in his appearance is a tougher choice.   
 

As to a pitcher exceeding his pitch limit in three batters, that sounds pretty remote to me.    And if managers have to limit the use of some guys on back to back days, fine with me.    

 The entire goal is flawed. He claims he wants to speed up the game, but he doesn’t want to speed up the game: rather, he wants to shorten the game. There is a big difference, and none of the changes meaningfully shorten the game anyway. They certainly don’t improve the game.

The goal should be to maintain interest throughout the game, tand that means increasing strategies, and increasing possibilities for activity. A home run is nothing. Nothing in all sports is dumber than a highlight of a home run. Most of the time, you can’t even see the ball(and neither can the cameraman) but we had thousands of home runs and the season was dull. On the other hand, stolen base attempts are exciting.

Also, the very nature of baseball is that there’s a lot of opportunities for discussion, analysis. In basketball everything happens too fast. Football has a complicated few seconds of game play and then a minute or so of setting up for the next play, during which there is commentary and analysis. While the manager is strolling to the mound to make a pitching change, the same opportunity exists. That is not wasted time, if the announcers know what they are doing. However if you’re really offended by the manager’s saunter, then he can make the change from the dugout and eliminate the saunter entirely. Yay! Save what, 45 seconds? A minute? Two? So what? Gotta be somewhere? 

We need to increase base runners(NOT home runs) and we need announcers who can intelligently discuss baseball.

Manfred is making things worse, and this move will interfere without any benefit.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If MLB sticks with it, I think I'm going to like this rule.

Initially, the downside is the likelihood of an increase in blow-out innings.

On the plus side (at least, for me) I foresee the following:

Increased value, development and use of pitchers who:
consistently perform with better than average command and control
are "rubber-armed" (can throw more pitches per appearance and require less rest between appearances)
are versatile -- starters who can effectively relieve and relievers who can effectively start
have very effective "trick pitches" -- ex: knuckleball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Enjoy Terror said:

Ideally: "Eliminating the LOOGY will reduce bullpen calls and speed up the game!"

Reality: "Our reliever has loaded the bases because we couldn't remove him from the game, and our mop up reliever (who also doesn't have his stuff) will now put six runs on the board against us! We've now wasted an extra half hour watching terrible pitchers!"

3 pitching changes take about 9 minutes.  back-to-back-to-back home runs take about 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

 

MLB has always dictated every aspect of how the game will be played!!  All rules in all sports are arbitrary. They are what they are because a bunch of people on some committee decided that's what they are.  Moses didn't come down from Mount Cooperstown with the rules on stone tablets.  Mostly they're what a bunch of guys from the 1800s came up with, fumbling around, trying to come up with something that made them money. 

giphy.gif

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can't remove the pitcher until he's faced three hitters, than the offense shouldn't be able to pinch hit for the second and third hitters he has to face. At least that would provide some balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mdbdotcom said:

If you can't remove the pitcher until he's faced three hitters, than the offense shouldn't be able to pinch hit for the second and third hitters he has to face. At least that would provide some balance.

Isn't part of the reason for the rule that we're all unbalanced now?  Every team uses eight pitchers a game, and there aren't any pinch hitters anymore.  Maybe with this rule, and maybe a few more, we can actually get back to a point where all the strategy in the sport isn't centered on matchup pitching.  Remember when Earl used to pinch hit five times a game?  Now there aren't five guys on your bench to pinch hit with!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Frobby said:

 

 

Couldn’t disagree more.   To me, there  is nothing more boring in all of baseball than watching a manager saunter out to the mound, call for a relief pitcher, have that guy stroll in from the bullpen, take his warm-up pitches, pitch to one batter and then have that whole process repeated again.   And then maybe a third time.

Frankly, I think the strategy gets more complex with the new rule.    Bring in a lefty to face a lefty and then replace him when a righty comes up isn’t exactly rocket science.    Bringing in that lefty when he’s going to have to face a righty somewhere in his appearance is a tougher choice.   
 

As to a pitcher exceeding his pitch limit in three batters, that sounds pretty remote to me.    And if managers have to limit the use of some guys on back to back days, fine with me.    

Managing your bullpen full of assets is definitely strategy. Do you use your lefty now who hold on to him? Has he pitched three straight days? On the other side, do you pinch hit for your starter because of the matchup now or do you let him face a bad matchup and use your pinch hitter in a higher leverage situation later.

I just think it's goofy to start telling mangers how long they have to pitch someone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






  • Posts

    • The problem isn’t just missing pitches here and there, as frustrating as that can be for the players and managers. When an ump is having a bad game the batters, pitchers, and catchers have no idea what the strike zone is going to be from inning to inning or even from pitch to pitch. How was Realmuto to know that last pitch was going to be called strike three to end the game when a better pitch to Harper had been called a ball just seconds earlier?    One of the main advantages of an electronic strike zone would be the consistency of that zone. What’s a strike now will be a strike next inning and next game and next year. I think that’s where the primary value will be found. 
    • As if my year couldn’t get any worse, Sisco starts doing good...
    • I've been in the robo ump camp for a while now, and these examples only strengthen my viewpoint.  The time has come to remove ball and strike calls from the umpire.  Make it happen.
    • I am still adjusting to all the new people, in part because I watch over the MLB app and I frenetically switch between the TV, radio, home/away feeds so everyone kinda blurs together (particularly after a few beers). I think Ben is awesome on color. I like Melanie the best so far on play by play. Her even, steady, slow, accurate calls are a classic style. I find her voice pleasing. Sure, she could work on the excitement a bit perhaps, but I think it is better to grow into excitement than to come to the door with it. She will find her signature call. She has the most upside of the lot I think.
    • I don't have a problem with the baseball knowledge or game calling accuracy of anyone on the TV or radio crews this year. I fully understand the difficult circumstances and that they're beholden to what they see on TV. I don't think any of them are dunces about baseball. I'm sure all of them are very nice people, too. The lack of excitement -- especially with Scott Garceau -- is the worst thing for me. Jim Hunter may not have known the sport, but at least he knew how to make a home run call. He was also an excellent setup man for Jim Palmer's often sarcastic retorts. Palmer was so great at underhandedly insulting Hunter for not even "getting it" after Palmer hinted at it and it was so funny. Their dynamic was far more entertaining than Garceau and McDonald.
    • In some areas of private industry, there's a (fairly brutal, honestly) performance management process called "stack ranking." In stack ranking, everyone's performance is compared against each other, using a combination of objective and subjective metrics. The elite few at the top get raises and/or promotions; the solid contributors get to coast along undisturbed; the struggling end up getting "help" to try to improve their performance; and the worst of the worst get fired. This happens on a monthly, bi-annual or yearly cadence depending on the company. Stack ranking of umpires would be based on their accuracy on calls compared to the "correct" call via video review / electronic strike zone. You could set up the strata exactly as you do for tech workers: give raises to the best, let the good ones keep going, pull the struggling ones from daily MLB games and have them work on their calls and improve in some kind of umpiring camp, and just fire the worst ~1% every year. The other thing you could do is add more umpires to the umpiring pool. This would increase the "overhead" cost of umpiring, yes, but by adding more umpires without adding more teams or games, you could set up a situation where only the best X% of umpires get to call MLB games on the regular. The rest would either call simulated games, extended spring training games, or minor league games until they get better.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...