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

If people are concerned about pitching changes taking too long, then start a bullpen clock for two minutes. If your pitcher isn’t in the set position in two minutes, it’s called offsides and a five yard penalty, replay the down.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

There's always the conflict between creative use of rules and rosters, and not wanting to restrict competitive advantages small market teams often want to use.  At some point you have to say just go play an engaging form of baseball instead of doing 11 mid-inning changes a game. And figure out other solutions to market imbalances.  It doesn't do us much good to have five hour games that nobody wants to watch just so long as the Orioles have a 10% better chance of winning those unwatchable games.

My idea was to just disallow all mid-inning pitching changes.  You can use as many pitchers as you like, but unless you're injured you can't come out until the inning is over.  And if you're injured... see two answers below.

Or you use a position player.  

That's easy.  Make the rule that if you're removed from the game for an injury you can't pitch for five days. Or 10.

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.  They were pretty spot-on about a lot.  But they couldn't foresee every loophole and every change that would happen 120 years later.  They certainly didn't envision managers doing six mid-inning pitching changes a game.  Prior to the last major changes in the rules around 1900 it had been less than a decade since they allowed any unchallenged substitutes at all.  In 1890 if you wanted to bring in a LOOGY he'd better also be your RFer because the other manager was just going to say no.

But here in 2019 the primary goal of the rules is to foster an engaging, entertaining, money-making sport of baseball.  If they allow every single rule to be stretched to its logical conclusion we may well end up with a sport nobody wants to pay to see any more.  

Your baseball origins story leaves a lot to be desired.  First of all it was Abner Doubleday who came down from Mount Cooperstown... and you call yourself a student of the game?  Ha!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, atomic said:

Batting changes don't take extra time.  

Which is a key reason why offensive strategy in baseball is more interesting than pitching strategy.  Maybe I'd be more in favor of endless pitching changes if the new pitcher was already in the dugout and sprinted to the mound and ready to go in the same time it takes the batter to walk up from the on-deck circle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is like three or four old guys standing on their porches yelling, "Get off my lawn!", "No, YOU get off MY lawn!", "NO, I said, YOU get off MY lawn!", and on and on. 🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Shame that isn't the best way to win games.

Best does not equal most efficient.  Dean Smith figured out the most efficient way to win basketball games was the four corners.  Problem was that was also the worst way, so they changed the rules.

11 pitching changes a game wins you more games, but it's about as entertaining as growing mold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Philip said:

Apples oranges. I don’t need to refute anything you said individually, but it doesn’t apply.

Any rule change that doesn’t accomplish a specific goal is worse than meaningless.  If the goal is to shorten the game, to what end? What is the advantage of a shorter game? Boring and short is no better than boring and long. And this change would not meaningfully shorten the game, anyway. It would, however, negatively impact strategy available to the managers, especially in the National League. It eliminates Loogy/Roogy pitchers, pinch-running or pinch hitting specialists, or specialists of any kind, because roster spots must go to more versatile players.

What?  How would it eliminate pinch running or pinch hitting?  With no more one-out pitchers, and necessarily more multi-out pitchers, you would free up roster space for more offensive specialists. Instead of tying the managers hands in roster construction (hmmm... will I have 13 pitchers on the roster or 14?) he'll actually have choices in how fill it out. 

Today if a big lefty sluggers comes up with two on in the 8th down a run, you use your LOOGY.  There's no strategy at all, it's button pushing.  It's automatic.  With all pitchers constrained to three or more batters the manager has to use his brain more often.  He has to plan ahead, and think not only about the big lefty coming up, but multiple batters downstream, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Enjoy Terror said:

I’m not against this rule because I’m steadfastly against change, I’m against it because it won’t accomplish what the MLB thinks it will.

I'm for it because it may be the only in-game rule change I'll see the rest of my life.  We only get one every 40-80 years.  Foul-strike rule in 1903... DH in '73... three batters in '20... we should have another in, what, 2064?

Share this post


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

Another alternative would be to limit teams to nine or 10 pitchers on the roster.  Then we can let the manager come to the conclusion that using five of them for one or two batters is a poor choice.

The mid-inning pitching change is baseball's answer to five timeouts and 11 fouls at the end of every basketball game.  Stop messing around and just play the game.

That's a really poor analogy because baseball was never and will never be an action flow game like basketball was designed. 

Forcing a manager to not change his pitcher is ridiculous because there are a ton of reasons it might not be best for the player, team or game. When you add in that manager can still pinch hit, that is completely ridiculous. If you are going to tie a managers hand a his bullpen management, then he should have his pinch hitting tied down as well during those two batters he must face.

Anything is else is unfair. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Tony-OH said:

But that's a managerial and roster management decision that every team faces. The rule has nothing to do with imbalances but because baseball somehow thinks this will shave two minutes off a game which is not going to help get young fans.

Maybe stop starting your playoff and World Series games at 8PM during the week?

Regardless, this is completely goofy. 

Is it only 2 minutes?  If you're reducing the average number of mid-inning pitching changes per game by 3, that will shave around 10-12 minutes from the game.  (assuming 3-4 minutes in between changes) That's about 1/3 of difference in average game time from the good ol' days to now. You could save a few more minutes by reducing the commercial breaks to 1:45 instead of 2:05.  That would save another 5-6 minutes.

On the topic of 8pm game starts. the NFL has no problem starting games at 8 or 8:30, for games that regularly take 3 and a half hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let me see here, a pitcher comes into the game and after throwing his 10th pitch has a blister. According to some here, if the team removes him for injury he can't play for 5 or 10 games or the team has to put a position player into the game. How freakin' ridiculous is this?

Honestly, how many LOOGYs do team's employ? One, maybe none. As was stated before, how is forcing a guy into a bad matchup who might be off his game a good thing? What if the guy is 25-pitch guy (most one inning relievers are) and has two long at bats to the first two batters and has already 25 pitches? Then the next guy starts fouling off pitches and now you risk an injury, for what, to save two minutes? 

This is one of the most ridiculous rules changes and arguments I've ever seen.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hallas said:

 

Is it only 2 minutes?  If you're reducing the average number of mid-inning pitching changes per game by 3, that will shave around 10-12 minutes from the game.  (assuming 3-4 minutes in between changes) That's about 1/3 of difference in average game time from the good ol' days to now. You could save a few more minutes by reducing the commercial breaks to 1:45 instead of 2:05.  That would save another 5-6 minutes.

On the topic of 8pm game starts. the NFL has no problem starting games at 8 or 8:30, for games that regularly take 3 and a half hours.

BS, a typical game is not having that many mid-inning pitching changes and most team are employing the super set up guys in the 7th and 8th. This is not saving 10-12 minutes a game. If it does, point me back to this and I'll apologize for being wrong.

Most playoff games don't start that late and the Super Bowl is at 6PM and only one game, so sorry, I don't buy the NFL thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hallas said:

 

Is it only 2 minutes?  If you're reducing the average number of mid-inning pitching changes per game by 3, that will shave around 10-12 minutes from the game.  (assuming 3-4 minutes in between changes) That's about 1/3 of difference in average game time from the good ol' days to now. You could save a few more minutes by reducing the commercial breaks to 1:45 instead of 2:05.  That would save another 5-6 minutes.

On the topic of 8pm game starts. the NFL has no problem starting games at 8 or 8:30, for games that regularly take 3 and a half hours.

You can't presume that the one reliever facing at least three batters will be as effective as having three relievers face those three batters. It seems likely that in some cases, having to wait two batters to replace a reliever who is not on his game would lead to making the game longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Redskins Rick said:

I think this is ludicrous.

While I do not like the one batter specialist, I dislike even more, MLB dictating how the game will be played.

 

 

This.  Hate, hate, hate this.  They've got a 25 man (or I guess soon to be 26 man) roster, let the manager use it as he sees fit.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, esmd said:

This.  Hate, hate, hate this.  They've got a 25 man (or I guess soon to be 26 man) roster, let the manager use it as he sees fit.

Just like them talking about outlawing the shift.

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...