MLB and Union talk major rule changes

[backwardsk]

2 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Sounds to me like you just want more offense. 

 

More strategy.  I don't know if this plan would actually increase offense.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, backwardsk said:

More strategy.  I don't know if this plan would actually increase offense.

Forcing managers to use sub-optimal relievers is going to lead to more offense.

 

[backwardsk]

32 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Forcing managers to use sub-optimal relievers is going to lead to more offense.

 

Is that provable?

Your top bullpen guys are going to pitch the same amount, if your manager is capable, of innings if not more.

The delta between your seventh and eighth/ninth guys isn't that great especially when you distribute the 24 pitchers from the contracted teams.

Carrying two extra guys in the pen allows you more opportunity to pull your starter in the middle innings.

I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that offense will increase under this hypothetical.

 

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, backwardsk said:

Is that provable?

Your top bullpen guys are going to pitch the same amount, if your manager is capable, of innings if not more.

The delta between your seventh and eighth/ninth guys isn't that great especially when you distribute the 24 pitchers from the contracted teams.

Carrying two extra guys in the pen allows you more opportunity to pull your starter in the middle innings.

I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that offense will increase under this hypothetical.

 

There is ZERO chance of a closer ever pitching in a non-save situation to "get work in" under your scenario.  Combine that with no back to back days and I'm guessing your average closer is going to be down to about 50 IP.  No chance they pitch as many innings as they do now. 

The only way top bullpen guys pitch as many innings is if they are more frequently used in multi-inning appearances, which is probably going to lead to them giving up more runs.

[backwardsk]

7 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

There is ZERO chance of a closer ever pitching in a non-save situation to "get work in" under your scenario.  Combine that with no back to back days and I'm guessing your average closer is going to be down to about 50 IP.  No chance they pitch as many innings as they do now. 

The only way top bullpen guys pitch as many innings is if they are more frequently used in multi-inning appearances, which is probably going to lead to them giving up more runs.

Why not? If a team goes a week of games without a save situation, the closer won't pitch at all?  Why would that be different than today?  Because they could possibly have a close game the next day?  The old school philosophy of how to use a closer will morph.

I don't see why a closer with two two-inning appearances over the course of five games would be more likely to give up more runs than pitching four games in five days.

There were only 12 pitchers who had 20 or more saves and pitched more than 50 innings in 2018.

[Can_of_corn]

10 minutes ago, backwardsk said:

Why not? If a team goes a week of games without a save situation, the closer won't pitch at all?  Why would that be different than today?  Because they could possibly have a close game the next day?  The old school philosophy of how to use a closer will morph.

I don't see why a closer with two two-inning appearances over the course of five games would be more likely to give up more runs than pitching four games in five days.

There were only 12 pitchers who had 20 or more saves and pitched more than 50 innings in 2018.

Exactly.

 

[Beef Supreme]

5 hours ago, Matt said:

I’d see it as a way of making frequent, mid-inning pitcher substitutions somewhat less appealing for managers, in addition to speeding up the game in and of itself. Basically, it might go a significant way toward doing what the proposed three-batter-minimum would accomplish.

MLB will never, ever go for pitchers not warming up on the game mound, The league has been working hard to reduce batters being hit by pitches. Even if by a slim margin, hit batsmen and wild pitches will rise, especially during the first few pitches a relief pitcher throws.

Prohibiting relief pitchers from throwing warmups for the sole purpose of shortening games is foolhardy, to say the least. Increasing danger to players while lowering the quality of play is not the goal of MLB.

[Can_of_corn]

1 minute ago, Beef Supreme said:

MLB will never, ever go for pitchers not warming up on the game mound, The league has been working hard to reduce batters being hit by pitches. Even if by a slim margin, hit batsmen and wild pitches will rise, especially during the first few pitches a relief pitcher throws.

Prohibiting relief pitchers from throwing warmups for the sole purpose of shortening games is foolhardy, to say the least. Increasing danger to players while lowering the quality of play is not the goal of MLB.

And injuries to pitchers.

[Beef Supreme]

6 hours ago, atomic said:

You are wrong.

And you may as well try to explain your impudence. What exactly do you mistakenly think I am wring about. I made numerous statements of fact.

[Matt]

43 minutes ago, Beef Supreme said:

MLB will never, ever go for pitchers not warming up on the game mound, The league has been working hard to reduce batters being hit by pitches. Even if by a slim margin, hit batsmen and wild pitches will rise, especially during the first few pitches a relief pitcher throws.

Prohibiting relief pitchers from throwing warmups for the sole purpose of shortening games is foolhardy, to say the least. Increasing danger to players while lowering the quality of play is not the goal of MLB.

If that’s “to say the least,” could you say more? I am dubious about your wild pitch theory. I imagine they want to keep it as is because the commercial breaks give them $$$. I think your idea about increases in wild pitches is pretty far-fetched.

[atomic]

9 hours ago, atomic said:

You are wrong.

Somebody downvoted something because they are wrong. Just google it and see you are wrong instead of downvoting. I mean to be so clearly ignorant of facts. 

[DrungoHazewood]

14 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

And injuries to pitchers.

 

14 hours ago, Beef Supreme said:

MLB will never, ever go for pitchers not warming up on the game mound, The league has been working hard to reduce batters being hit by pitches. Even if by a slim margin, hit batsmen and wild pitches will rise, especially during the first few pitches a relief pitcher throws.

Prohibiting relief pitchers from throwing warmups for the sole purpose of shortening games is foolhardy, to say the least. Increasing danger to players while lowering the quality of play is not the goal of MLB.

Let's put this in context.  Right now something like 40% of MLB pitchers get injured in any one year.  Reducing or eliminating warmup throws from relievers would increase injuries by how much?  My guess is it would be so small as be inconsequential, since we don't have a rash of injuries on the first warmup throw or two.  And I've never heard of a reliever being injured warming up, although I'm sure it's happened, and that can't be because they all come in and gingerly toss a couple knowing that the bullpen mound might be Mt. Everest compared to the game mound's Federal Hill.

And hit by pitch?  Really?  We're at a historic high in HBP already.  Adding a handful a year because of slight mound differences would be completely lost in the noise.

[DrungoHazewood]

15 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Forcing managers to use sub-optimal relievers is going to lead to more offense.

 

Unless you turn the tension back on the ball winding machine from 8 to 7.5 at the same time.

[DrungoHazewood]

15 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Sounds to me like you just want more offense. 

 

 

15 hours ago, backwardsk said:

It's my idea to bring in more late inning strategy for managers while balancing out the negative impact of the shift against hitters.

You want to bring in a one-out lefty guy?  That's fine, but now you've burned him for the next game.

Up three runs heading into the 9th with the bottom of the order coming up?  Want to automatically push the closer button and bring in Jansen?  Okay, he's unavailable for  the next game.

ir would prevent bullpen arms from getting called upon or warmed up three nights + in a row.

The idea of the extra roster spots was to keep the same amount of jobs after contraction (net +6) and give more roster construction flexibility to compensate for the rule.

I think what would probably happen in that teams would just have 4-5 man pens that would pitch on alternating days.  27 man roster, 15 pitchers, five starters, five Day A relievers, five Day B relievers.  Everyone would be rested on the day they pitch which might actually drive runs down or keep them at current levels.  Every team would have two closers, two setup men, two/four LOOGYs, and two 7th inning guys.  You might stretch out some of the non-closers a little more, but mostly you'd just be cutting workloads by ~30%.

I much prefer shrinking the size of the pitching staff and forcing pitchers to pitch more, make the manager get creative with staff use, and bringing strategy back to offense.  While deadening the ball a bit, and/or mandating fatter/heavier bats.

[UpstateNYfan]

The rule changes and suggestions have been pretty interesting. I haven't commented here in a LONG time, for various reasons, but mainly for my own mental health.

I agree games are too long and will probably continue to be so. The modern game is not, see the ball, hit the ball. It is go deep in counts, get starters to the "magical" 100 pitch count as early as possible. The game has become a base to base game, little manufacturing of runs. I don't see that changing.

So, the  20 second pitch clock...does anyone know what the average time between pitches is? Would this apply with runners on base and the pitcher steps off the rubber? A pitcher, throwing a projectile had better be comfortable and allowed to step off if he needs to.

Warm-ups for relief pitchers is a must IMO. Mounds are different and bullpen mounds are not the same. Even the visuals are different..throwing in a tunnel vs a field. In wet weather a pitcher's footing should be able to tested.

Extra innings?? Long games are bad. Time to be a little hockey creative. Maybe play a regular tenth. If still tied, put the runner at second, maybe reduce the number of fielders by one to open up a field. Players might have to learn to hit them where they ain't. It can be exciting. I'm not in favor of ties.

I'd like a bigger roster. More pitch hitting, running. I'd like a limit on pitchers on rosters. So, bigger roster doesn't mean add a pitcher.

I don't like the current manipulation of rosters with players up and down. The mythical 10 day DL.

I don't like teams screwing with players service time. If they are ready and a spot is available they should be up. You aren't talking pocket change to a player and he might get injured and never make it to the big club.

Penalizing bad teams that don't improve enough?? What is the standard?...Look at the AL East last year vs the AL Central. The East as a division was well above .500 ball, the Central was over 100 games under .500 ball. The current structure of the game (lack of salary cap) means at least half the teams have to play for a window of opportunity, that would likely to cause teams to be lousy, build prospects, compete, lose good players to free agency..repeat cycle. MLB wants TV ratings requiring large markets in the post season. Maybe divisions should not be based on geography but on market size.

September ball is stupid with the expanded rosters. Limit the call ups, add a pitcher to the new pitcher roster limit, a couple non-pitchers. 

I am sure the wise here can shoot holes through all my thoughts for good rational reasons. They are just thoughts.