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.

[Enjoy Terror]

49 minutes ago, Hallas said:

3 batters hitting home runs takes up way less time than bringing in 3 pitchers to face 3 batters.

No it doesn’t. You still have one pitching change and three more outs to get.

[Enjoy Terror]

1 hour ago, dmvsports410 said:

This is interesting. On another note looks like the astros are cheaters. 

Your very own Mike Elias, perhaps.

[Hallas]

57 minutes ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

Why?  What is the inherent value of "trying something?"

Trying something to resolve the issue of game length certainly has inherent value.  You miss all the shots you don’t take.

But the elephant in the room is ad time between innings.  Cut ad time by another 20 seconds per half inning.  That’s 6 minutes right there.

[Hallas]

26 minutes ago, Enjoy Terror said:

No it doesn’t. You still have one pitching change and three more outs to get.

Assuming the 3 batters were all called out.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour 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.

There are already all kinds of rules about how you can use the roster.  You can't put a pitcher in the field and keep the DH.  You can't move a player from the mound to a position and back more than once in an inning.  You can't remove a player from the game and put him back in.  If you put a pitcher in the game he has to face at least one batter to the completion of a plate appearance (now the rule is slightly modified to three instead of one).  If you bring in a pinch hitter and remove him after he's announced but before he bats you can't use him any more in that game.  Starting in '20 you can't put a position player on the mound in certain circumstances. 

[DrungoHazewood]

 

1 hour ago, spiritof66 said:

Why not try that first?

Why not do both?  Calling automatic balls for delaying, strikes for not staying in the box and the three-batter rule and you could probably shave 15 minutes off a game.  But more importantly the pace of play would be far better.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

Why?  What is the inherent value of "trying something?"

Because it's better to try out solutions to problems than just let the game wander around wherever it happens to go.  They steadfastly refused to try anything for more than a century and we saw both homers and strikeouts go up dramatically, action in the field go down in a similar fashion, and game times increase from two hours to over three.  We went from a game that was constant movement all over the field for two hours to standing around and waiting for a homer for three hours.

[Hallas]

3 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

 

Why not do both?  Calling automatic balls for delaying, strikes for not staying in the box and the three-batter rule and you could probably shave 15 minutes off a game.  But more importantly the pace of play would be far better.

Drop 20 seconds off the between-innings break and you knock off another 6 minutes.

[DrungoHazewood]

58 minutes ago, Moose Milligan said:

I think we're going to get a few managers complaining early on in the season, some pitchers, too.  In all honesty, it wouldn't be surprised if they do away with this rule after a season or two.  Especially when games don't get significantly shorter.

Absolutely managers will complain.  People complain about every change.  Managers have been LOOGYing up the late innings for 30 years, so they're taking one of their toys away.  Now they actually have to think through the late innings instead of automatically bringing in Mark Hendrickson to face just David Ortiz any time he comes up in the 6th-8th.

They're really going to do away with the rule because it only contributes a small part to a much larger problem, and we knew this all along?  Why wouldn't this be step one in a larger strategy to attempt to control the pace and length of games?

[DrungoHazewood]

5 minutes ago, Hallas said:

Drop 20 seconds off the between-innings break and you knock off another 6 minutes.

But if one simple thing won't immediately result in two hour games why are we messing with the eternal sanctity of baseball?!?!?!?!?!

[Hallas]

4 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

But if one simple thing won't immediately result in two hour games why are we messing with the eternal sanctity of baseball?!?!?!?!?!

I thought that LOOGYs were the cause of world war and famine too, tbh.

[ChuckS]

Love this rule change.  Been calling for it for years.  I'm surprised they just didn't make it two batters though.  Minimum of three is quite a leap. 

Now we just need to find a way to enforce batters to stay in the box and pitchers not to take mid batter strolls around the mound.  

Traditionalist don't like it but you can't really tell me you enjoy the game more because of the things they are taking away that unnecessarily prolong games. 

[Oriole1940]

MLB raises its ugly head every  so often to prove just how powerful they are, and the results are that they screw up the grand old game of baseball more every time.

[Satyr3206]

Apparently God gave no sense to the people that run baseball today. They could #@$% up a wet dream.

[Satyr3206]

26 minutes ago, ChuckS said:

Love this rule change.  Been calling for it for years.  I'm surprised they just didn't make it two batters though.  Minimum of three is quite a leap. 

Now we just need to find a way to enforce batters to stay in the box and pitchers not to take mid batter strolls around the mound.  

Traditionalist don't like it but you can't really tell me you enjoy the game more because of the things they are taking away that unnecessarily prolong games. 

Take away all the commercials and challenges first. Don't screw up the game repeatedly for years and say you are fixing it.