MLB and Union talk major rule changes

[Sessh]

1 hour ago, AZRon said:

The agreement also calls for the introduction of a playing rule that places severe limits on pitching by position players.

Each team must designate players as either "position players" or "pitchers" before the start of the season, and that designation cannot be changed during the season. Only players who are designated as "pitchers" will be allowed to pitch in any regular-season or postseason game, with the following exceptions:

• One team is ahead by at least 6 runs when the player has assumed a pitching role.
• The game is in extra innings.
• The player serving as pitcher has earned the status of "two-way player".

This seems unnecessary and redundant. Do teams use position players as pitchers in any situation outside of the ones listed? Teams only put the center fielder in to pitch when the game is a blowout or they run out of pitchers in extras. What is the point of this rule and how are these "severe limits" in any way? It doesn't seem like this would change anything at all.

[Morgan423]

34 minutes ago, Sessh said:

This seems unnecessary and redundant. Do teams use position players as pitchers in any situation outside of the ones listed? Teams only put the center fielder in to pitch when the game is a blowout or they run out of pitchers in extras. What is the point of this rule and how are these "severe limits" in any way? It doesn't seem like this would change anything at all.

It wouldn't.  These scenarios are in play during 99.9% of position player pitching appearances. Not sure why they feel like they need to codify it.

[Sessh]

22 minutes ago, Morgan423 said:

It wouldn't.  These scenarios are in play during 99.9% of position player pitching appearances. Not sure why they feel like they need to codify it.

That's exactly my take. My questions would be:

• What currently existing problem in MLB is being addressed by this official rule? If none, what is the purpose of it's creation?
• Why is the immediate consequence of significantly lowering your chance to win a winnable game not sufficient enough to deter teams from using position players outside of these parameters?

I don't get it.. and I don't expect this will be the last time one of Manfred's silly rules will incite similar (or worse) responses. I am still not convinced he is doing anything except taking wild swings in the dark in his approach to this.

[AZRon]

3 hours ago, Sessh said:

This seems unnecessary and redundant. Do teams use position players as pitchers in any situation outside of the ones listed? Teams only put the center fielder in to pitch when the game is a blowout or they run out of pitchers in extras. What is the point of this rule and how are these "severe limits" in any way? It doesn't seem like this would change anything at all.

Since the proposed rule requires that each team list its "rostered" pitchers at the beginning of the season and with a limit on the number of pitchers on the active roster, the MLB is properly stating those game instances when exceptions to the rule - only pitchers or 2-way players can pitch -- are allowed.

[SteveA]

31 minutes ago, AZRon said:

Since the proposed rule requires that teams list its "rostered" pitchers at the beginning of the season and would limit the number of pitchers on the active roster, the MLB is properly stating those game instances when exceptions to the rule - only pitchers or 2-way players can pitch -- are allowed.

Exactly.   They are forcing the Ohtani's and Kieshnick's and McKay's and [name of that Reds OF/reliever]s of the world to QUALIFY as pitchers and until they do they can't be used except in "Steve Wilkerson" type situations.   

[thezeroes]

Unless they are putting the DH in place in the National League, why designate anybody at a particular position.

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, thezeroes said:

Unless they are putting the DH in place in the National League, why designate anybody at a particular position.

I think the concern is if you increase the roster size from 25 to 26 at any given time 25 of the 30 teams will just be running with an additional relief pitcher.

[LocoChris]

Would you trust this guy?

[thezeroes]

2 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

I think the concern is if you increase the roster size from 25 to 26 at any given time 25 of the 30 teams will just be running with an additional relief pitcher.

To my way of thinking, why should the MLB dictate to the MLB Clubs as to how they use their respective rosters. 

What will be next, telling clubs the average age of the Forty. 

Telling clubs how many pitchers, catchers, infielders , outfielders, and DH's they can have on the Forty. 

When does it end??

Do you think this is related to the Tampa By usage of "OPENERS" and not spending on aged starters and making it work??

[weams]

2 minutes ago, thezeroes said:

To my way of thinking, why should the MLB dictate to the MLB Clubs as to how they use their respective rosters. 

What will be next, telling clubs the average age of the Forty. 

Telling clubs how many pitchers, catchers, infielders , outfielders, and DH's they can have on the Forty. 

When does it end??

Do you think this is related to the Tampa By usage of "OPENERS" and not spending on aged starters and making it work??

I think this is a negotiated enhancement of the roster.Both the players association and MLB agreed to these terms.  More relievers extends game length which is an MLB priority. 

[thezeroes]

More strikes called would shorten games.  Maybe it is the Umpires???

[weams]

34 minutes ago, thezeroes said:

More strikes called would shorten games.  Maybe it is the Umpires???

Get rid of the umpires. 

[AZRon]

1 hour ago, thezeroes said:

To my way of thinking, why should the MLB dictate to the MLB Clubs as to how they use their respective rosters. 

What will be next, telling clubs the average age of the Forty. 

Telling clubs how many pitchers, catchers, infielders , outfielders, and DH's they can have on the Forty. 

When does it end??

Do you think this is related to the Tampa By usage of "OPENERS" and not spending on aged starters and making it work??

Hopefully, with team player payroll parity.

[DrungoHazewood]

16 hours ago, AZRon said:

Since the proposed rule requires that each team list its "rostered" pitchers at the beginning of the season and with a limit on the number of pitchers on the active roster, the MLB is properly stating those game instances when exceptions to the rule - only pitchers or 2-way players can pitch -- are allowed.

I think this is step one.  They could start lowering the number of allowed pitchers in a few years to 12, then 11, then 10.  To me that's the only sure-fire way of getting individual pitchers to pitch more, and back off from max effort all the time.

And I think they decided to make these irrelevant rules defining when a non-pitcher can pitch just to show they're putting something in the rules drawing a line between pitchers and non-pitchers.  And to keep teams from stashing an extra real pitcher on the bench as a position player for use in real game situations.

[DrungoHazewood]

2 hours ago, thezeroes said:

To my way of thinking, why should the MLB dictate to the MLB Clubs as to how they use their respective rosters. 

What will be next, telling clubs the average age of the Forty. 

Telling clubs how many pitchers, catchers, infielders , outfielders, and DH's they can have on the Forty. 

When does it end??

Do you think this is related to the Tampa By usage of "OPENERS" and not spending on aged starters and making it work??

Why?  Because teams have used the absence of roster rules to evolve strategies that are more optimal for winning, but may be less optimal for an enjoyable, financially lucrative game. 

It's like the four-corners in basketball, but perhaps less extreme.  Why should the basketball powers-that-be dictate what strategies teams should use?  That's obvious: the strategies were good to win, but horrific from the standpoint of fan experience. 

What if teams figured out that if they had 25 pitchers on the roster each throwing to one or two batters, the other team would never get a hit?  The whole team would be pitchers, the fielders would be out-of-position pitchers, standing out there on the off chance that someone didn't strike out.  Wouldn't it be incumbent on the league to stop this, because nobody wants to watch 27 guys strike out every game?

At some point the league has to step up and say we need to make this something people want to watch and pay for.  It can't all be about the purity of 100+ year old rules.