MLB /Union discussing drastic rules changes

Castor76

New member
The 3 hitter min rule doesn't make sense to me. If a team has a 3 run or more lead and they bring in a pitcher to start the inning and they guy gets jacked by the first two batters he faces, you're going to make him face a third batter by rule? You could have a faster paced game, which is the only reason they could want to do this, by stating a team gets X number of warm up pitches per inning except for injury replacement.

Another question, if a pitcher is brought in to get the last out of an inning and does so, does he have to pitch to two batters the next inning or is it simply a by inning rule? I'd guess once the inning is over then the rule is out.

This should be way down on the list of things to speed up the games.

Uniform, electric strike zones though . . .
 

chibears55

Well-known member
50/50 at best.

The whole 3 hitter min rule could cause issues if your starter gets into a bind and you were planning on hitting for his AB. Now you are forced to let the relief pitcher hit because of a 3 hitter rule binding.

Forcing rules like that is bad for baseball. DH universal would have to be mandatory then.
I doubt that rule happens but I would guess that they would make it to where it only enforced in the same inning he enters game ..
 

CSF77

Well-known member
I doubt that rule happens but I would guess that they would make it to where it only enforced in the same inning he enters game ..
They are in the early talks about it. I get that they want to shed the 1 hitter pitcher. Having it min 3 hitters or the end of a inning would ease the stupidity
 

CSF77

Well-known member
TEAMS
logo image

MLB, Union Discussing Significant Rule Changes
February 6th, 2019 at 9:45pm CST • By Steve Adams and Jeff Todd
9:45pm: The Athletic’s Jayson Stark sheds some more light on potential changes to be discussed (subscription required). Chief among them is that the league and MLBPA are discussing the formation of a joint committee to study the potential impact of lowering and/or moving back the pitcher’s mound in an effort to curb the growing advantage pitchers face as velocity ticks upward league-wide. The study would be conducted throughout 2019, with a report on the findings delivered by the end of the year.

As Stark explores at length, further topics to be discussed include changes to the definition of the strike zone — which have been discussed in the past, as recently as 2016 — as well as alterations to the manner in which draft order is determined and the potential to award compensatory picks for revenue sharing teams that make or narrowly miss the postseason.
 

fatbeard

Well-known member
1/2/3 innings happen but it is not the majority. A hit batter, a walk or a base hit counts as a unclean inning. Even if it ends up with a 0.
You said they were "rare" and "almost never happen". Of course they're not the majority, but they still happen frequently.
 

CubsFaninMN

Member
I rather like the proposal to ding teams that deliberately tank year after year, behind the mask of "rebuilding", but which are really keeping their player compensation as low as possible to maximize the amount flowing into the owners' pockets.

If anti-tanking rules are successful in MLB, maybe they'll be shown to be appropriate across other sports, too. There are too many NBA teams, for example, who use tanking as a means of enhancing the revenue flow into two or three pockets... sigh...

-Doug
 

CSF77

Well-known member
You said they were "rare" and "almost never happen". Of course they're not the majority, but they still happen frequently.
Fair enough.. but forcing 3 batters with out the platoon advantage. Clean innings would become less.

From what it sounds like.
1. Removal of specialist in the pen.
2. Adding 15 DH
3. Lowering the mound(again)
4. Moving back the rubber.

They are looking to increase run generation in baseball. The clean inning may become another dead ball era product
 

CSF77

Well-known member
I rather like the proposal to ding teams that deliberately tank year after year, behind the mask of "rebuilding", but which are really keeping their player compensation as low as possible to maximize the amount flowing into the owners' pockets.

If anti-tanking rules are successful in MLB, maybe they'll be shown to be appropriate across other sports, too. There are too many NBA teams, for example, who use tanking as a means of enhancing the revenue flow into two or three pockets... sigh...

-Doug
They were vague. Paywall might get more specific
 

fatbeard

Well-known member
Fair enough.. but forcing 3 batters with out the platoon advantage. Clean innings would become less.

From what it sounds like.
1. Removal of specialist in the pen.
2. Adding 15 DH
3. Lowering the mound(again)
4. Moving back the rubber.

They are looking to increase run generation in baseball. The clean inning may become another dead ball era product
I continue to think that, with an appropriate pitch clock, a lot of the TTO issues that have made baseball less watchable would be solved. Forcing pitchers to deliver within a shorter timeframe would mitigate SPs throwing with max effort on every pitch. Reduced velo means fewer Ks, hopefully fewer walks, and more balls in play--which in turn means more hits, defense, and baserunning. Baseball is best when things are happening.
 

CSF77

Well-known member
I continue to think that, with an appropriate pitch clock, a lot of the TTO issues that have made baseball less watchable would be solved. Forcing pitchers to deliver within a shorter timeframe would mitigate SPs throwing with max effort on every pitch. Reduced velo means fewer Ks, hopefully fewer walks, and more balls in play--which in turn means more hits, defense, and baserunning. Baseball is best when things are happening.
I'm not a fan of forcing a full inning on a pitcher. But I'm not a fan of a inning seeing 3 or more. There should be a limited amout of pitcher swaps per inning. With the exception of injury.
 

CSF77

Well-known member
I think 1 swap per inning is fair. So if you bring in a new arm to start the inning you have 1 pitching change that you can use. Which can lead to interesting decision making. It would quicken the pace also where a change could be pre meditated and a arm ready for a match up.
 

Castor76

New member
I'm not a fan of forcing a full inning on a pitcher. But I'm not a fan of a inning seeing 3 or more. There should be a limited amout of pitcher swaps per inning. With the exception of injury.
But how often does that actually happen? It's bound to happen, but seeing more than two pitchers in one inning is probably fairly rare. By rare I mean 5% or less. And when you think about a team has just about 1450 innings in a season, 5% would be 77 times a year. That would be almost half the games but also very rare depending on how you define it.

What I guess it would lead to is teams no longer having that specialist.
 

CSF77

Well-known member
But how often does that actually happen? It's bound to happen, but seeing more than two pitchers in one inning is probably fairly rare. By rare I mean 5% or less. And when you think about a team has just about 1450 innings in a season, 5% would be 77 times a year. That would be almost half the games but also very rare depending on how you define it.

What I guess it would lead to is teams no longer having that specialist.
I was thinking it would affect lefties that lack a counter vs RH batters. Typically a LOOGY will have a sweeping slider. All it really does is make teams target lefties with a hammer and/or a change up. Which will affect development where teams start targeting talent with a repatriate that works against both. Kids will start to train more vs trying to max out a wipe out pitch targeting left handed. Even then there is Sale who comes in at a weird angle and wipes both out regular basis. But that is not something that you train.

The system will adapt. It always does.
 

CSF77

Well-known member
It just makes ex starters or pitchers that came up as a starter in higher demand.
 

brett05

1-888-NEED-HIM
I hate the minimum batters faced. Next would be minimum playing time for batters which is equally a bad idea.

Universal DH? I don't care. Universal Rule is what I care about. We have to stop this separate rules. It's the same league, should be the same rules. This will finally remove the advantage that the NL has had since interleague play began.
 

anotheridiot

Active member
Why not just limit the pitches the guy gets to throw when he comes in the game. Its usually more than they throw in the game.

They say the pitch clock will probably make it. It will be interesting to see if the hitter gets a ball called if it expires, you gotta think if its the hitter stepping out of the box he should lose a strike right?

All rules that for some reason, they think that people want to spend less time at the ball park for those tickets they just dropped 200.00 on, and think they will stick around the food courts in the park when the game ends.
 

Diehardfan

Well-known member
I hate the minimum batters faced. Next would be minimum playing time for batters which is equally a bad idea.

Universal DH? I don't care. Universal Rule is what I care about. We have to stop this separate rules. It's the same league, should be the same rules. This will finally remove the advantage that the NL has had since interleague play began.
You know they are trying to eliminate the old Tony LaRussa "a new pitcher for every hitter routine". I always hated that. A lot time the AB is decided on one pitch....then it's back to the mound, another pitcher brought in, watch him walk in, watch him warm up....really tedious shit. I'd be more than willing to give this at least a shot to see how it works out. One thing it should do is shorten the bullpen thus adding an extra position player.
 

anotheridiot

Active member
I rather like the proposal to ding teams that deliberately tank year after year, behind the mask of "rebuilding", but which are really keeping their player compensation as low as possible to maximize the amount flowing into the owners' pockets.

If anti-tanking rules are successful in MLB, maybe they'll be shown to be appropriate across other sports, too. There are too many NBA teams, for example, who use tanking as a means of enhancing the revenue flow into two or three pockets... sigh...

-Doug
There are only 30 teams, if they cannot find 30 people who want to win a world series in this world, there is something wrong.

My thought, you penalize them for not spending like you penalize the teams that do spend and reduce the cut they get from the shared pool. That is supposed to allow every team to afford a superstar player. If they refuse to use that to sign a big name player, they should not get it.
 
Top