MLB and Union talk major rule changes

[atomic]

16 hours ago, 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.

 

Seemed like in 2014 we had guys pitch an inning each.  We had defined guys for the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th inning. And our bullpen was pretty unstoppable.   I think adding more pitchers probably doesn't help.  The more guys you pitch the more likely one is going to have a bad outing. Especially when you are bringing in your 5th, 6th and 7th best relievers. 

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, UpstateNYfan said:

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.

 

I think you make a lot of sense, a lot of good points.  

- On the constant manipulation of the roster... I do and I don't like it.  Duquette was good at it, it gave teams like the '12 Orioles a competitive advantage.  It can benefit teams with limited resources.  If you have nine All Stars you're not doing that as much.  I'd be good with more restrictions if and only if they find other ways to level the field and equalize resources.

- The service time thing is a consequence of the salary structure that's based largely on tenure. Teams, like the O's, with limited resources are more likely to take advantage of this.  I'm good with a system where players are promoted solely on readiness, but they'd have to give the smaller market teams alternate methods of competing.  Gaming the system usually is done by teams with no other option.  You don't game the system if Mike Stanton is batting cleanup and you have a $220M roster. 

- I've always had issues with late season trades and playing by a different set of rules in September.  I'd be fine with no September roster expansion and a hard 31 May trading deadline.  I'm still upset with the '82 Brewers getting Don Sutton on August 30th.  How are you allowed to add a star to your playoff roster when he wasn't there for 80% of the season?  I thought baseball was a marathon, not a sprint.

[Beef Supreme]

On 2/10/2019 at 9:47 PM, atomic said:

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. 

You are going to spout off and claim that I am "wrong:" but don't have the nerve to say what you think is wrong. I know your way on this forum: you complain about everything and attack others like you are still a teenager (which you probably are). You are a blight on this forum in the eyes of most. But that you have so little integrity that you will claim someone else is wrong and refuse to back it up tells me that you are full of BS. Back up your empty claim with facts or go wag you little thing in somebody else's face.

I will agree with the bolded: you are "clearly ignorant of the facts."

[Beef Supreme]

On 2/11/2019 at 8:31 AM, DrungoHazewood said:

 

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.

Baseball is real life, not just statistical reflection. A pitcher not being allowed war up pitches from will result in greater wildness. It is possible that adjusting to a new mound could result in such wildness that the batter gets seriously hurt.

Denying pitchers warmup tosses won't reduce the length of games played by a significant amount (Shaving off 15 seconds per mid-inning pitching change would be completely lost in the noise.) 

And this is merely a moot point: MLB will not enact that change. I am not a gambler, but this is something I would put money on. 

[Beef Supreme]

On 2/10/2019 at 1:11 PM, 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.

Denying warmup pitches to mid-inning relievers would not "speed up" the game in a significant, tangible way. It may just as likely slow the game down because of the wildness and increase in balls thrown. 

I don't know what the 3-batter minimum is intended to accomplish (MLB does not expressly say), but I would not mix these two things up and claim they might accomplish the same thing. 

[Beef Supreme]

On 2/10/2019 at 11:17 AM, Matt said:

Decrease in effectiveness would be a feature of this rule change, not a bug, in my opinion.

 

On 2/10/2019 at 1:11 PM, 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.

Quote

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.

You enter the conversation by claiming that wildness would be a good thing (first quote). Then you say wildness would reduce mid-inning pitching changes (second quote). Then you say it would not increase wildness (third quote). Sounds like you want to have it all ways. But if refusing warmup pitches would not increase wildness, why would a "decrease in effectiveness...be a feature?" I can't follow the inconsistencies here.

As for wildness, why are pitchers allowed warmup pitches? Are you really going to claim that the sole reason is to air commercials?!? Do you realize that warmup pitchers for relievers predate commercials? 

Those people who have relieved mid-inning know that every mound is different and that there is an adjustment that pitchers need to make. This is not merely ideological speculation, the human body needs to experience the contours of the unlevel playing surface that is the pitcher's mound in order to adjust.

[DrungoHazewood]

16 hours ago, Beef Supreme said:

Denying pitchers warmup tosses won't reduce the length of games played by a significant amount (Shaving off 15 seconds per mid-inning pitching change would be completely lost in the noise.) 

15 seconds?  Today you have 15 or 30 seconds for the manager to walk out to the mound, go to commercial, then about a minute for the reliever to walk in from the pen, then a couple minutes of warmup tosses, then we're back from commercial.  That's at least three minutes per mid-inning change.

My proposal is that the reliever has already walked to the dugout, the manager yells out that there's a change, and you now have one minute to throw your first pitch to the batter.  Five mid-inning changes a game... you've shaved 10 minutes off the length of an average game.

[DrungoHazewood]

15 hours ago, Beef Supreme said:

As for wildness, why are pitchers allowed warmup pitches? Are you really going to claim that the sole reason is to air commercials?!? Do you realize that warmup pitchers for relievers predate commercials? 

Those people who have relieved mid-inning know that every mound is different and that there is an adjustment that pitchers need to make. This is not merely ideological speculation, the human body needs to experience the contours of the unlevel playing surface that is the pitcher's mound in order to adjust.

- Warmups and long walks from the pen weren't as big a deal when an average starter went 7 2/3rds and there was less than one mid-inning change per team per game.

- I'd think high-caliber professional athletes could adjust to a very slightly different mound without incurring devestating injuries and terrible wildness, especially since this scourge can apparently be completely mitigated with a handful of warmup tosses.

- What I'd really like to see is a warmup time for pinch runners and defensive replacements.  Imagine how many pulled hammys and strained quads could be avoided if we'd just set aside 3-4 minutes for some stretching and wind sprints whenever a pinch runner comes in.  Oh, oh... and you know how pinch hitters hit significantly worse than regular hitters.  What if we let them face 8-10 practice pitches before the real ones start?  They'd hit better, and they wouldn't face the danger of trying to hit completely cold after sitting on the bench for 7-8 innings...

[Frobby]

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

15 seconds?  Today you have 15 or 30 seconds for the manager to walk out to the mound, go to commercial, then about a minute for the reliever to walk in from the pen, then a couple minutes of warmup tosses, then we're back from commercial.  That's at least three minutes per mid-inning change.

My proposal is that the reliever has already walked to the dugout, the manager yells out that there's a change, and you now have one minute to throw your first pitch to the batter.  Five mid-inning changes a game... you've shaved 10 minutes off the length of an average game.

Per rule, the pitcher gets 2:05 from the time he leaves the bullpen to the time he’s ready to pitch.    That excludes the time spent by the manager before he signals the pen 

[NattyO's]

Leave the draft the way it is, either use the DH for all teams or pitcher bats for all teams. I fine either way. No to the pitchers clock, no to the pitchers minimum. Im ok with lowering the mound a bit. My opinion.

[Satyr3206]

I have a solution. How about people develop some patience and watch the game. This speed up the game movement has been tried before and it really doesn't work.

[NattyO's]

19 minutes ago, Satyr3206 said:

I have a solution. How about people develop some patience and watch the game. This speed up the game movement has been tried before and it really doesn't work.

Absolutely agree

[DrungoHazewood]

 

10 hours ago, Satyr3206 said:

I have a solution. How about people develop some patience and watch the game. This speed up the game movement has been tried before and it really doesn't work.

 

10 hours ago, NattyO's said:

Absolutely agree

That's fine, except for the fact that there were long periods in baseball's history when an average game was 50% shorter than it is today.  Is it really that wrong to ask for more baseball, less nose picking and commercials?

[Frobby]

45 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

That's fine, except for the fact that there were long periods in baseball's history when an average game was 50% shorter than it is today.  Is it really that wrong to ask for more baseball, less nose picking and commercials?

When I was growing up games took about 2:30.    It was much crisper and better.   It’s mostly the pitching changes and general slowing down of the game in the later innings that’s a killer.   I will often note that after 5-6 innings the game is on pace to be over in 2:45 or so, then the last 3-4 innings just drag on and on.   

Here’s a really good statistical analysis done by a young man I know:   https://sharpestats.com/making-baseball-slow-again/

[Camden_yardbird]

I've got it.  If a team starts an inning with a lead they only get two outs.  Shorter games, more competitive due to the handicap, win win for everyone.