MLB and Union talk major rule changes

[eddie83]

7 minutes ago, ChosenOne21 said:

Couldn't most service time gaming be solved by declaring players free agents after 6 or 7 years of service time instead of the 6.190 or whatever it currently takes? There'd at least be no more three weeks in April when you belong in the majors

Those players left behind in April aren’t getting a full 6 years until their 7th season. It takes 6 full seasons.

So when a player goes to the minors for 3 weeks their 6th season leaves them with say 5.165 days. In essence they earn their 6th year early the next year but still have to wait until end of season to become a FA. You need 172 days to accrue a full year. 

[DrungoHazewood]

35 minutes ago, Aglets said:

Do you think the owners would approve a salary floor as well?   I'm pretty sure that would appeal to the MLBPA.

There already is one, at $555k x 25 or $13.875M.  I think the owners would be okay with a higher one in exchange for something else.

[DrungoHazewood]

51 minutes ago, eddie83 said:

Says here 3 batter minimum is happening. I still wonder if a pitcher finishes an inning what they do. 

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/26259301/mlb-union-agree-1-trade-deadline?platform=amp&__twitter_impression=true

Quote

"

A committee between the sides that will study the game is expected to make recommendations on the maximum number of pitchers allowed on the rosters, a source told ESPN. In negotiations, the league proposed 13 during the first five months of the season and 14 in September."

I'd like this to be a wedge, or a starting point.  13 max pitchers in 2020.  12 in 2021.  11 in 2022.  10 in 2023.  

Quote

 Under the agreement, players will be designated as position players or pitchers -- with the exception of those who throw 20-plus innings and start 20 games in the field or at DH, who will be two-way players.

Ohtani will be the only one.  Brooks Kieschnick never started more than seven games in the field or DH in a season once he returned to pitching.  Ruth would have only qualified in '18 and '19.  Rick Ankiel never pitched and played another position in the same season.  Smoky Joe Wood only pitched two games after converting to the field.  Bob Smith would have qualified in 1925, with 93 innings on the mound and 36 games at 2B/SS.  Bucky Walters played a few games in the field from '35-37 but never enough to qualify under this rule.  Nixie Callahan was in in 1897 and '02.

It's really Otani and nobody else in over 90 years.

[Moose Milligan]

Three batter minimum is stupid.

[makoman]

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I'd like this to be a wedge, or a starting point.  13 max pitchers in 2020.  12 in 2021.  11 in 2022.  10 in 2023.  

Ohtani will be the only one.  Brooks Kieschnick never started more than seven games in the field or DH in a season once he returned to pitching.  Ruth would have only qualified in '18 and '19.  Rick Ankiel never pitched and played another position in the same season.  Smoky Joe Wood only pitched two games after converting to the field.  Bob Smith would have qualified in 1925, with 93 innings on the mound and 36 games at 2B/SS.  Bucky Walters played a few games in the field from '35-37 but never enough to qualify under this rule.  Nixie Callahan was in in 1897 and '02.

It's really Otani and nobody else in over 90 years.

I wonder how much an extra pitcher is worth? Do you have your starters shagging fly balls every day from A ball on up so that they can start and play a passable top of the first inning in left or right field on some days? Of course when one gets hurt or makes an error you'll be vilified, so you have to make sure it's worth it.

(Assuming there will be an actual playing requirement, not just "starting" Dylan Bundy in CF for away games and pinch hitting with Mullins in the top of the first.) 

[DrungoHazewood]

9 minutes ago, makoman said:

I wonder how much an extra pitcher is worth? Do you have your starters shagging fly balls every day from A ball on up so that they can start and play a passable top of the first inning in left or right field on some days? Of course when one gets hurt or makes an error you'll be vilified, so you have to make sure it's worth it.

(Assuming there will be an actual playing requirement, not just "starting" Dylan Bundy in CF for away games and pinch hitting with Mullins in the top of the first.) 

I'm guessing someone remembers the Earl Weaver rule for DHs.  Steve Stone started 12 games at DH the year he won 25, but had zero PAs.  Earl would just pinch hit whomever he thought would be the best DH when that spot came up in the order.  That way he could be 100% sure he had the platoon advantage.  I like the idea, but no amount of modern analysis could tease out the tiny fraction of a win that bought the Orioles.

And baseball being baseball that was too weird so they changed the rules so your starting DH had to bat at least once.

15 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

Three batter minimum is stupid.

Agreed.  They should just ban mid-inning pitching changes or limit the roster to nine pitchers.

[Moose Milligan]

1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

 

Agreed.  They should just ban mid-inning pitching changes.

I don't think that's realistic.

I've said it before, I'll say it again.   The game is fine the way it is.  A 3 batter minimum isn't going to make ADHD kids suddenly attracted to baseball.  

[Aglets]

Foul balls are an ever-growing issue imo.  

I don't know the solution but it seems like that's where we could get the most bang for our buck in terms of speeding things up.

Maybe once you get to like 5 or 6 fouls that's an out......idk.

[DrungoHazewood]

11 minutes ago, makoman said:

I wonder how much an extra pitcher is worth? Do you have your starters shagging fly balls every day from A ball on up so that they can start and play a passable top of the first inning in left or right field on some days? Of course when one gets hurt or makes an error you'll be vilified, so you have to make sure it's worth it.

I think the risk could work out for generic relievers, but then you lose the reliever for the day unless you plan on pitching him in the 2nd inning.   No decent starter is ever going to play RF so that he can be designated a two-way player and essentially be a 14th pitcher.

We're talking tiny fractions of wins here.  An average pitcher is probably a -30 LFer, or worse.  The starter is going to lose it the first time Darren O'Day spins around three times, falls down, and turns a routine fly ball into a triple.  There may be odd cases where you have a really athletic pitcher and Maddon is the manager... but this is going to be like the part of the balk rule about not facing the batter when he pitches.  It'll be on the books and essentially forgotten for decades.

[DrungoHazewood]

5 minutes ago, Aglets said:

Foul balls are an ever-growing issue imo.  

I don't know the solution but it seems like that's where we could get the most bang for our buck in terms of speeding things up.

Maybe once you get to like 5 or 6 fouls that's an out......idk.

I thought about this, but the foul balls aren't intentional.  Nobody today wants to hit a foul ball.  Instead of punishing batters for not being able to square up on a 93mph pitch with movement, maybe you move the mound back and mandate thicker bats.

Or you just make any pitch over 94 mph a ball.  I'm sure that would be popular...

[Aglets]

3 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I thought about this, but the foul balls aren't intentional.  Nobody today wants to hit a foul ball.  Instead of punishing batters for not being able to square up on a 93mph pitch with movement, maybe you move the mound back and mandate thicker bats.

Or you just make any pitch over 94 mph a ball.  I'm sure that would be popular...

?

Is it intentional when they swing at a ball and miss for strike 3?   I'm not sure I get your argument.   Why is one worthy of 'punishment' but not the other?

[DrungoHazewood]

14 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I don't think that's realistic.

I've said it before, I'll say it again.   The game is fine the way it is.  A 3 batter minimum isn't going to make ADHD kids suddenly attracted to baseball.  

No, but giving up and setting no limits or even goals for pace and duration of game leaves us where we are today with 3+ hour average games and no endpoint in sight.  Then we look up, it's 2030, those darned millenials are the core of the population base, and nobody watches four hour baseball games any more.  I'd rather baseball fight for more fans rather than fade away, clinging to the idea that baseball takes as long as baseball takes .

[DrungoHazewood]

9 minutes ago, Aglets said:

?

Is it intentional when they swing at a ball and miss for strike 3?   I'm not sure I get your argument.   Why is one worthy of 'punishment' but not the other?

It exacerbates the issue of lack of balls in play.  You basically turn any at bat with X foul balls into a strikeout.

[Aglets]

4 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

It exacerbates the issue of lack of balls in play.  You basically turn any at bat with X foul balls into a strikeout.

OK that I can understand.   I think the only way to fix it by getting more balls in play is to lower the mound or move it back.   That seems like a tough sell.

[Moose Milligan]

2 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

No, but giving up and setting no limits or even goals for pace and duration of game leaves us where we are today with 3+ hour average games and no endpoint in sight.  Then we look up, it's 2030, those darned millenials are the core of the population base, and nobody watches four hour baseball games any more.  I'd rather baseball fight for more fans rather than fade away, clinging to the idea that baseball takes as long as baseball takes .

The length of a game has been hovering around 3 hours for quite some time now.  Meanwhile NFL games take 3 hours, no one's crying about that.  The inherent issue, the elephant in the room is that baseball is boring.  It's a slow pace with quick bursts of action and no matter what they do, the game will always be slow.

If there was a way to get an MLB game down to 2 hours, 30 minutes, I'd be all for it.  But to shave off 5 minutes and act like it's a big deal is a bit absurd, IMO.  To your point, I don't see how a 9 inning MLB game gets any significantly longer from here on out.  I don't think we'll be looking at 4 hour games in 2030.

MLB wants to have its cake and eat it, too.  They want homers, high scoring, big offensive numbers because that's what sells but at the same time they want to shorten the length of games.  More runs, more offense = longer innings, longer games.  They know they can't sell a 2-1 pitchers duel that takes 2:45.  So which is it?

Then in order to save 5 precious minutes, they're going to start messing with the integrity of the game, imposing new rules on strategy in order to shave off a few minutes, puff their chest out and say "WE'VE SHORTENED THE GAME BY 7 MINUTES ON AVERAGE!"

Well, great.  You got it down from 3:12 to 3:05.  Is that really fighting for fans?  Or is that akin to trying to knock out Mike Tyson with a feather duster?