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.
7:53am: Major League Baseball commissioner Rob Manfred and MLBPA executive director Tony Clark have recently been discussing a series of potential rule changes centering around pace of play, roster size and roster construction, writes Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic (subscription link). ESPN.com’s Jeff Passan and Joel Sherman of the New York Post (Twitter thread) add further details, characterizing the dialogue as something of a thaw in relations.
The two most notable changes that’ll jump out to readers are surely the Union’s proposal for a universal designated hitter — possibly beginning as soon as the 2019 season — and the league’s proposal that all pitchers must face a minimum of three hitters per appearance (barring an injury). Other especially notable concepts under discussion include expanding standard rosters to 26 players and shrinking September rosters to 28 players. Both were proposed by the league with an eye toward the 2020 season.
Obviously, the mere fact that the two sides are discussing various scenarios is far from an indication that a significant number of the ideas being bandied about will come to fruition. However, the game has generally had at least a handful of new rules implemented in each recent season, with restrictions on the number of mound visits per game and automatic intentional walks among the most recent alterations that have come into play.
The addition of a designated hitter in the National League for the 2019 season would not only lead to a great deal of pushback from many fans — though that’s true of all rule changes — but could lead to some unrest among both teams and agents. Perhaps all parties were quietly made aware of this possibility back in November, but if not, there’d undoubtedly be an advantage for teams that held off on activity early in the winter. Conversely, a player such as Nelson Cruz would be understandably irked to only now be learning that his market might’ve included 15 other teams.
It’s not a surprise that the MLBPA would want to push for a designated hitter in the NL with this level of immediacy, though. There would be clear ramifications on the player market, which could help a few more players find jobs late in the winter. Names like Evan Gattis, Lucas Duda, Adam Jones, Carlos Gonzalez and others could all find increased interest, and the added lineup depth in the NL would likely have some degree of impact on the markets for the game’s top two free agents: Bryce Harper and Manny Machado. Perhaps this wouldn’t lead to entirely new suitors emerging, but the prospect of having the increased flexibility of a DH could make it easier for Harper to fit onto a team with a crowded outfield mix or for Machado to fit onto a roster with a perceived infield logjam. And the long-term outlook for any premium hitter would change with the ability to utilize a DH slot.
All of that said, though, it still seems likelier that a rule change that impacts the very manner in which a team constructs its roster is something that would need to be known to all months in advance. The Union may be proposing implementation of the rule in 2019, but it seems more plausible that it’d come into effect in 2020 at the earliest.
Those factors have led to doubt in some quarters that the DH will indeed come to the NL this year, as Andy Martino of SNY.tv reports (Twitter links). Even if the commissioner’s office decides it would like to move ahead, Martino cautions, the owners may well be slower to come around. And even if they are open to a quick turnaround, the expectation is that there’ll be an expectation of concessions on the part of the union. Whether the players will be amenable to giving value back for the DH — a rule change that would hold out at least some promise for enlarging the overall pie by bringing more offense to the National league — remains to be seen.
Turning to the three-batter minimum, that would all but wipe out the so-called “LOOGY” role — the left-handed relief specialists who are oft called upon to face just one or two lefties before being swapped out. That minimum could also come into play for teams that have been most aggressive in utilizing the “opener” role; the days of Dan Jennings and his southpaw peers facing just one batter to start a game before departing (a tactic the Brewers did indeed use this season) would be instantly wiped out. Per Passan, this proposed change came from the league side; the players “did not strongly oppose the idea” but suggested waiting to deploy it until the 2020 season.
Left-handed relievers and their representatives surely wouldn’t be thrilled with the development, though it seems likely to reduce the number of pitching changes and conversely place a greater deal of emphasis on rostering and developing relievers who can throw one or more innings without glaring platoon splits. Players who fit that mold, naturally, would see the demand for their services rise even further. Perhaps the union imagines that there could be some other market advantages to a general de-specialization of relief roles, as there’d be slightly greater incentive to keep starters in for longer and a slight enhancement of the market value of the best overall relief arms.
Rosenthal notes that eliminating specialist roles could lead to fewer strikeouts by virtue of the fact that there’d be an increase of plate appearances in which batters held the platoon advantage, though it seems that such a reduction would be relatively minimal. While specialist relievers admittedly have higher strikeout rates against same-handed opponents, the general league-wide discrepancy in strikeout rate in platoon situations isn’t as staggering as some might think; right-handed hitters (excluding pitchers hitting in NL parks) struck out at a 22.3 percent clip against fellow righties and a 21.1 percent clip against lefties. Meanwhile, left-handed hitters fanned at a 23.5 percent rate against southpaw pitchers and a 20.9 percent rate against righties. There would be some impact, to be sure, but it’s unlikely that this change alone would curb stand in the way of yet another record-setting strikeout mark in 2019.
Ultimately, the batters-faced minimum and the theoretical slight downturn in strikeouts further gets into what has become the focal point of Manfred’s tenure as commissioner: improving the game’s pace of play. That, as Manfred has noted on multiple occasions, includes both length of game and the level of action within a game (more specifically, the number of balls put into play). Reducing the number of pitching changes and even incrementally increasing the number of balls in play could lead to small gains in both of those goals, though neither seems likely to bring about major change, and the advent of the “opener” strategy may even mitigate whatever pitching changes are eliminated by implementing a minimum number of batters faced.
To that end, there figure to be further tweaks to the game, be they in 2019, 2020 or beyond. Rosenthal reminds that Manfred does have the power to unilaterally implement the 20-second pitch clock that was proposed last offseason, even if no agreement is reached with the players’ union. Beyond that, there’s also been discussion of even further reducing the maximum number of mound visits a team can make, and the league apparently has interest in using Spring Training to experiment with runners being placed on the bases in extra innings.
Most of the foregoing has little to do with what is surely the union’s greater concern — the increasingly glacial pace of the MLB offseason and the rampant increase of teams tanking in order to increase their access to amateur talent in the league’s hard-slotted draft and international markets. Perhaps some concessions could be made to help appease both sides, though it still seems that an extraordinarily contentious set of negotiations is on the horizon when the current collective bargaining agreement expires in 2021.
It does seem there are some relatively minor initiatives being pursued by the players on that front, with Passan adding a few items of note. In particular, the MLBPA has proposed the implementation of a single trade deadline to take place before the All-Star break, rather than the current system of a non-waiver deadline at the end of July and what is effectively an end-of-August deadline to acquire players that have cleared waivers. Eliminating later-season trade opportunities, the union seemingly believes, would force teams to be more proactive in their offseason investments. Likewise, Passan says, the union has proposed various concepts (still mostly vague in their details) involving gains or losses of draft picks and international amateur spending availability to incentivize greater spending by all clubs.
Finally, in another area that impacts overall player earning capacity in a complicated manner, the players have floated some ideas regarding service-time manipulation of top prospects. According to Passan, the concept seems to be that players could boost their service time through “performance, playoff appearances or awards.” Finding a workable arrangement will surely be quite complicated, but that is at least a creative approach to what seems from the outside to be rather a vexing problem to solve given the inherently subjective considerations involved in promoting a player.
Taken as a whole, there is obviously quite a lot to digest and for the parties still to discuss. We’ll see whether any significant changes are implemented in advance of the present season — and whether they can be settled in time to influence the final outcomes of this winter’s market.
Its goiny to be highly debatable, but I’m all for a pitcher hitting. As a rockies fan, seeing German marquez hit that homerun against the diamondbacks was the one of the coolest moments for me last season. And then seeing woodruff hitting that homerun against Kershaw in the playoffs. It’s unexpected moments like those that make the game more exciting for me. It would be a shame if they got rid of the pitcher hitting
How many completely pointless, boring, useless pitcher at bats lead to those moments though? Bartolo Colon hit a homerun, there will never be a better pitcher hitter moment. If I was the league I would have implemented the DH the next day LOL
the Reds had two different pitchers hit Grand slams last year
In that launching pad, even pitchers hit well.
Nothing beats the Robert Person 2 homer, 7 rbi game for the Phillies years ago. He almost had a second grand slam but it just went foul. Special moment but I still think universal DH is a plus. Doesn’t seem very fair to try and implement it for 2019 though given the off-season is nearly over.
Lorenzen was a stud CF in college and is the best athlete on the Reds team. He’s the exception to the rule though. The DH needs to be in both leagues.
Lorenzen’s slam was a home run anywhere. DeSclafani’s not so much. I hate the fact we have a seperate rule for each league, would rather have no DH at all. The players union will never let it happen though.
IMO the Reds made a mistake by using Lorenzen as a pitcher. He throws hard but his pitches have very little movement and his secondary pitches are average at best
And? How bout all the thousands of fruitless at bats around baseball by pitchers?
Why wouldn’t the players union push it through? It would open up more jobs by increasing the need for bats.
What I don’t understand is that another rule is lowering the mound (which they raised for Bob Gibson dominating hitters), effectively trying to counter the increase in power numbers during this so-called “juiced ball era”. If they added a DH you are creating more offense only adding to the problem, IF you believe there is too much offense. Maybe by lowering the mound you counteract the increase in offense from the DH – or maybe it’s all relative.
Designated hitter for the weak hitting second baseman too! Two complete separate defensive and offensive lineups! DH for everyone!
I think you have your narrative wrong; the mound was lowered after the 1969 season, and more importantly, the league began to take more seriously mound heights and their uniformity; it was well-known that the Dodgers groundskeepers built up their mound well-beyond the standard height allowed. The point is, raising the mound benefits pitchers, lowering the mound benefits hitters. When pitchers have more leverage over hitters, they can manipulate their breaking balls better along with other obvious advantages. Lowering the mounds again would just increase offense again. I don’t know if the league wants to return to the 1968 season – an historic low in offense, or if offensive levels in 2018 warrant any kind of drastic change.
Sorry, I got my directions wrong. Not sure why I said the opposite – slow morning. Thanks for the info.
Lorenzon Hit 4 home runs. Only 2 at Home
Lorenzon is a complete ball player. Only seen him a couple times since the Reds are in a different division, but I like the kid.
Two-way players like Otani and Lorenzon that can both pitch and hit make the game more exciting. Adding the DH to the NL gets rid of some of that.
Yeah make it like football. An offense and a defense. That would totally suck.
Hey, Manfred Mann! You really are blinded by the light. Stop acting like a teenager who can’t wait five minutes for something. Having a minimum pitching requirement is stupid. It’s up to the manager how to manage his team.
How are you going to add a roster spot, while reducing the number of moves a manager can make? “you have an extra guy now, but you cant use him!” Are all starting players required to get two at-bats now too. It’s getting closer to Little League each year. If Manfred was NBA commissioner, he’d make teams pass the ball three times before you can shoot!
September rosters at 28 makes sense, probably should do it in April too. DH for both leagues (or neither) does too. Having the two leagues play a different game is weird. You don’t see the AFC have wider goal posts or one conference in the NBA allow zone defense. Just play the same game.
To save time, make relievers warm up in the pen. Get to the real mound and start playing. No 8 pitches for each reliever. There are usually 7=8 relievers in a game. That’s 56-64 pitches no one wants to see every night.
Maybe a team should be able to DH for whatever position they want.
@TL: Tony Cloniger once hit 2 grand slams and had 9 RBIs in the same game as a pitcher.
Manford is thinking ahead for a reason. The survival of this sport is in jeopardy sooner than you think. The average MLB viewer is now 57 years old and only 7% are under the age of 18. The newer generations don’t care to watch a sport where all 162 games take more than 3 hours each to complete.
Without major changes, this sport that we all love will be in a world of hurt in 20 years.
NFL games take 3 hrs, and most is commercial time. Its not the time, its the cost. If they want younger fans, lower prices so parents can afford to take the family, just like the current aging fans learned to love the game.
I like the cut of your jib
I was at that game. I remember Bruce Chen started for the Expos
Oh yeezus there is 518 comments on the post. I never seen so many on a post before, it will take decades to sort through the vast archives of this post.
I prefer to look at it another way: Why do I have to watch a guy who’s sole purpose is to hit a baseball and can’t learn to field a position? If you want to hit you have to play on the field…
The people that think all pitchers can’t hit must want a DH for catchers too? Because most of catchers can’t hit there’s like 5 that can.
I would love to see Heyward only play defense and have someone else DH for him.
Actually, they were all in GABP.
The mound was actually lowered after the 1968 season- the “year of the pitcher”, when Denny McLain posted 31 wins and Bob Gibson had a 1.12 ERA. But yeah, that’s the correct version of the change that was made.
Average age of the NFL viewer is also way too high right now.
The cost for going to games is high yes but it’s always been high relative to family income.
The problem is kids don’t care about baseball. We have entered a time of instant gratification and baseball doesn’t fit that mold in its current state. There are some things they can change in how they market the sport, but tweaks to the speed of the game along with more offense will also help.
How do you explain the popularity of the Little League World Series then?
I am firmly in the NO DH crowd, and not because I’m a crusty old man shaking my fist at the greatness of the good ol days. The thing I LOVE about NL baseball is the strategy required because of the pitcher having to hit.
I couldn’t care less about pitcher HR’s…I’m more concerned with the NL not losing that strategic wrinkle.
I’m fine with the roster stuff and pitcher limit stuff…bullpen use can/should be strategic…but I feel like it’s gone too far into mindless rote “lefty hitter lefty pitcher only now and forever amen”. Let pitchers pitch.
5 years ago I proly would have sided with you. But honestly ive come around for multiple reasons. Pitchers suck at hitting, when compared to position players, AL has an advantage in luring elite talent because of DH.
Majority of pitchers coming up have less then 75 AB in their whole minor league career. They simply arent prepared.
Expand the roster and Have DH both leagues. Pitchers focus on pitching, hitters focus on hitting.
Agree on all accounts, I’ve come around on the DH as well
Yes because there is soooooo much more strategy…..give me a break.
From someone who grew up and became a fan long before the DH was ever conceived, saying there is more strategy is a concept I completely disagree with. A double switch is about as complex as ordering french fries with your burger.
Bob Boone, who managed in both leagues, who is a Stanford graduate says it’s harder to manage in the AL. He’s right. Pitching changes are harder in the AL.
Not to mention, did you really want to see Willie Mays play CF for the Mets in the 74 World Series? Do you want to see Ohtani miss the entire 2019 season? Did you want Aaron to lose an entire season and not end his career in Milwaukee.
Being an American League fan, I’ve seen it both ways, the DH is better.
Agree!
Agree with half baked
I’d have to agree with you, on every point.. I share your thoughts exactly on the DH and I believe baseball sets itself apart from the other sports with the two leagues being different. I enjoy the strategy. I’m more a fun of speed, defense, bunting, and pitching.
Sure, I liked being in the stands when Randy Wolf hit that pinch hit Grand Slam at CBP back in 2005, it was awesome. It’s cool to see, but the biggest thing for me is the strategy involved in the NL brand of baseball.
I switched from an Orioles fan to Nationals when the Expos moved to DC. Thought the DH made a ton of sense until I saw how much strategy came into NL games. To me, no-DH makes for much more exciting baseball.
But ultimately I’d like to see my team win a World Series (I know, Nats need to win a playoff series first), and it sucks to have them at an immediate disadvantage due to not having a seasoned DH at the ready.
No DH. The DH just leads to a parade of batters strolling up to the dish, one after another, swinging away. I must prefer that cat-and-mouse strategy of an NL game. So what if pitchers don’t hit well? What is a chess game without pawns?
What do you mean by Aaron losing a year?
Last time i checked the pitcher was a position. All positions SHOULD hit. if you want a EXTRA BATTER (dh) create a 10th position in the lineup. Otherwise catchers should ONLY catch, let’s designate a hitter to bat for him so he can FOCUS more on his REAL job of stopping the run game, calling pitches, and the all important pitch framing. Yes, i’m being fictitious but the designated hitter was put in place to generate offense when it was needed. it’s a different time now and it’s DEFINITELY not needed ANYMORE.
So I guess a pitcher bunting with a runner on first base with less than two outs quantifies as “strategy”? I mean, the entire audience knows what’s going to happen there. That’s not strategy; that’s just concession that pitchers can’t hit. And really, people get excited about a double-switch? Like, you watch a baseball game looking forward to a minor lineup manipulation? This is pretty minor stuff; give me a bunch of professional hitters and professional pitchers.
The rule changes proposed all appear to favor the hitters. Rushing pitchers, pitchers have to stay in for unfavorable matchups. There can be specialty hitters, but not specialty pitchers? Should we make the LH hitters have to stay in the game and face Aroldis Chapman in the 9th, instead of letting a RH hitter PH? Sounds one sided to me.
Baseball truly is a chess match. It is not meant to be a video game version of cramming a baseball game into an hour. I am ok with reducing the September call-ups to just 2-3 more players than were there before, because adding 6 guys to the bullpen seems unnecessary.
Extra runners in extra innings? Why not just change the game. Shorten the bases to 60 feet in extras, or have the pitcher throw underhand.
I was really on the fence about the universal DH, but I always go back to preferring the NL game. More strategy, better game to watch. Also, the DH players listed all have their disadvantages (injury-prone, bad splits, aging, slow and clog up the bases, etc.) Requiring a team to go out and get one of these guys is almost extortion. And the teams that are re-building, still probably won’t spend the money these guys are requesting.
Actually, yes, bunting is strategy, same now as it always has been. First off, bunting is a skill. Some are really good at it, others, not. Just like any other skill in the game it takes practice. Also, some pitchers are adept at the butcher-boy play. Maybe a little too subtle for an audience expecting every swing to be aimed at the seats but a thing of beauty when it’s done right.
Agreed BlueSky. But I also believe if we eliminated the DH we’d see most pitchers work hard at being a better hitter. No DH will force the entire league of pitchers to be better. I also think it will create 1-3 more jobs as the league will request to expand rosters from 25 to as many as 28.
LMAO the pitcher hitting twice a game is really exciting, alright.
A double switch is only a small portion of it. Choosing when to pull a pitcher, what situation, trying to get a pitcher though one last inning so the lineup can rollover are all part of it.
And/or their productive out skills, something all players can develop better. These skills are are being steadily depreciated in a game that is more and more defined by launch angles and exit velocities. Game-changing plays are not always about hitting a bomb, they are just as often about advancing a runner.
Yes bunting is a skill. A bit of a lost art today, but still a baseball skill
All positions should hit. Thems the rules!
Well said highandtight
We used to say things like “Defense wins championships”…. Now all of a sudden Defense is a four letter word
Idk about you guys, but I enjoyed watching Big Pappi mash dingers a lot more then I enjoyed watching Dusty Baker chew tooth picks and fill out lineup cards. Watch chess if strategy is so important to you!
Re: DH
Love your “extortion” take.
That’s pretty much exactly what it is.
Wish I could upvote this more than once. Well stated.
Can you make the argument that the pitcher has to pitch with more strategy vs a DH over a Pitcher? The pitcher doesn’t have to fool the pitcher much to get the out.
NOPE,
Once you are done, you are done.
Strategy is the big reason I hate the DH.
Managing in the NL, is much harder.
Also, why make it easier on the batters? That will make games longer.
Increase the mound size, and have ERAs drop.
Games will speed.up
Hank Aaron was a DH in his last season and could hardly move.
“Last time i checked the pitcher was a position. All positions SHOULD hit.”
Unless they’re relief pitchers… then go ahead designate a hitter for him.
I could agree more.
Watching a NL game and seeing a pitcher on a roll but down 0-2 in the 6th and the manager having to either see him bat with 2 on and 1 out, or let him bat and hit into a double play is great strategy.
Adding a DH is going to impact pace of play and increase the bull pen specialists.
Bob Boone is possibly the worst manager in the history of baseball. I wouldn’t use him as a example for anything involving being a manager.
It’s part of the game. People used to hate watching Shaq at the foul line. The NBA could have implemented a replacement where Kobe took his shots but didn’t and Hack a Shaq became a planned defense.
Once the DH is implemented in the NL, and it will be eventually, people against the DH will quickly forget why they were against it after seeing much more home runs and scoring.
No, we won’t
Games will be even longer…
Yeah cause no one ever talks about disliking the DH.
Quite the contrary. For me, if MLB goes to the universal DH, I’m done. I find AL baseball boring and if I am forced to watch that brand of baseball, I frankly have better things to do.
What does this mean?
For starters, I can save money by cancelling my MLB.tv subscription since I won’t be watching games. I can also cancel my Sirius XM Subscription since I’ll have no use for it since I’m not following the sport any longer and the only reason I have it is to listen to games.
Lastly, I go to at least a dozen games a year. That’s 12 games I don’t go to. 12 bags of peanuts I don’t buy. 24 $10 Beers I don’t drink, $240 in parking I don’t spend, etc. Let’s not forget to mention merch that I wouldn’t be purchasing any longer also.
Sure, this might just be me and MLB doesn’t care about little ‘ol me. However, if there are thousands of me, they will end up with a much bigger problem on their hands.
I’m one of you, too
Well, I think it’s ridiculous the NL does not have a DH, but I still watch NL games because I love baseball.
Pitchers have to apply more strategy with their pitches against a DH vs a pitcher. The pitcher is a weak easy out in most cases. Plain and simple.
Pitchers using PED’s don’t count!
The same can be said for position players who strike out 150+ times a year!!!!
How many times does having to factor in whether leaving a pitcher in to hit or pulling him and affecting the rest of the game is there? I mean, it’s a huge part of what makes baseball exciting for me.
The reason why pitchers suck at batting is the DH rule. If there never was a DH, pitchers would have put more effort into hitting. Players like Ottani would be more common, although not the norm. The pacing of the game, pitcher specialization, openers, all are a result of the DH. It’s time to end it. 10 or 15 years from now pitchers will become better hitters as a result
History woould strongly disagree with you. Pitchers before 1973 were also awful hitters, as a rule.
SoCalBrave nailed it
Actually, he just ignored facts; pitchers before 1973 were also awful hitters, as a whole. There’s never been an era in baseball in which pitchers were good hitters; even in the 1800s they were the #9 hitter on the team and were widely derided in the media of the day for their inability to hit. As someone once wrote, ” you could look it up!”
My opinion is that pitchers should have to hit too. The DH to me is pretty much the same thing as having a fast guy run after a fat guy hits the ball.
I think those moments are dramatically outweighed by the number of yawn-inducing dribblers back to the mound, three-pitch whiffs and crappy bunts announced even before the pitch is thrown.
Well, maybe, just maybe, a pitcher should practice hitting as well as pitching. A first basemen works on hitting and fielding, why can’t a pitcher work on pitching and hitting?
Pitchers today are babies like never before. They can’t do anything with out getting hurt.
The national league has had pitcher’s hitting since their inception and they have always sucked(with few exceptions.) The pitchers have never practiced hitting because that is not what they are there to do.
Bob Gibson .206 average,
Tom Seaver .154 average
Greg Maddux .171 average
Cy Young .210 average
Even Madison Bumgarner who is suppose to be a “good hitter” as a pitcher has a .183 average.
So your comment “pitchers today are babies like never before” pitchers have never concentrated on hitting, because that’s not how they get their money.
Because a guy like kershaw isn’t getting paid $30 million dollars to hit. Someone like Robbie Cano is getting paid to hit and play defense. Not a hard concept to grasp.
Pitchers have never been good hitters. I mean, unlkess you’re talking about Babe Ruth or Shohei Othani – that’s what, two guys in 100 years? Putting as much effort into hitting as into pitching would be physically impossible – there aren’t enough hours in a day; players specialize in one or the other early in life and pretty much stay there. The DH is fine; there’s such an overblown narrative about the “strategy” of bunting and the majesty of a double-switch, of all things. It’s not strategy when everyone in the stadium knows that with less than two outs and a runner on first the pitcher is going to lay down a bunt.
Cliff Lee
Tom Glavine
Carlos Zambrano
Cole Hamels
Mike Hampton
All had some great moments as hitters.
Randy Wolf
Jake Arrieta
Can add D-Train Willis to that list.
Position players have to learn to play D and hit. Pitchers can learn how to hit between starts. Yes it will take a lot of work on their part. They are professionals and multi-millionaires. I think they can spend time in the cages working on their swing. Most of you want players to get paid, so why not ask them to earn it? It may be a foreign concept to most of you anti-owner, pro-player posters here.
Up the game, raise the bar, make them raise their level on both sides of the ball.
You should look up the numbers of these pitchers’ hitting stats. A few great moments don’t mean they were good hitters. Bad hitters have great moments all the time – remember Buddy Biancalana in 1985?
No, pitching and hitting are self-selected skills. Pitching requires a tremendous amount of work, and it’s obviously work that cannot be done daily because of arm fatigue. Pitchers have, throughout baseball history, been terrible hitters. There’s a reason for this; hitting is not a skill set required for them, and never has been. ANd no owner ever shelled out money for a pitcher because of his hitting skill.
oh please….. Today we call a .240 hitter great if he can hit 30+ home runs. Why can’t a pitcher get away with some .050 points lower if they can pitch?
The BA in the AL was .002 higher than the NL last year. This is consistently the amount of difference between the leagues that can be attributed to the DH. Is it worth altering the game so fundamentally for such a tiny difference?
And Chien-Ming Wang shortened his career because he had to hit and run the bases as a Yankee in an interleague game. Not sure how many more pitchers have hurt themselves on the bases or getting hit by a pitch, just so the famous double switch can be performed.
For me I prefer the DH. I know a professional hitter has a good chance of getting a game winning hit while the majority of pitchers do not.
Two percent. This very tiny difference in offense is what we’re really talking about. Funny in a game where the fans can be so obsessed with numbers that when faced with such a compelling one, the argument reverts to vague generalizations and anecdotes.
if you don’t want to watch pitchers bat, place a automated pitching machine on the mound & set it up as random pitch selection.
.2%
Swinging Friars is right, I don’t know where we came to accept a .240 hitter as elite just because he hits 30 bombs )and 30 bombs is an exception.)Few players drive in 75 runs anymore . It’s all individual stats, if you hit .240 hit 25 hr and drive in 55 how have you helped the team?
Big Papi, Edgar Martinez, Jim Rice, Don Baylor, Harold Baines, The Big Hurt, Rusty Staub, Hal McRae, Jim Thome…I know which group I’d prefer to see hit.
NONE,
If they cannot play D, retire.
Edgar, SHOULD NOT IN THE HALL.
Chien-Ming wang is the only example. More players have been injured by sprinkler heads. Ban sprinklers in MLB!
Batting average isn’t offense; let’s look at OB and SLG% or, basically, anything besides just raw batting average. That doesn’t tell us anything.
BA is one measure of offense. It tells us something, not everything, but “nothing” either. So if you want to look at another measure of offense, then go ahead do it. Seems to me you just accused someone else of committing a logical error in their reasoning. Maybe your answer should not be another logical error.
I really hoped we were beyong BA and RBIs as some measure of hitting skill, but, sigh, here we are. Getting on base is the most important skill in baseball, because the most important skill in baseball is not making outs. A few extra singles over the course of a season are way less important than getting on base (And, to a lesser extent, hitting for power). RBIs are a function of opportunity, not a function of skill, nothing more.
Three true outcomes baseball is yawn inducing. I’d rather see a pitcher up there taking awkward hacks then some position player waiting for a walk.
Yeah, there’s nothing I’d rather watch than a player make an easy out than a player getting on base and, therefore, not making an out. That seems like an odd thing to root for. “Oh man, awesome, the pitcher’s up! Can’t wait to watch some awkward swings!”
That’s all because of poor preparation and lack of focus on fundamentals. Who wants to see an everyday player strikeout 160 times a year?
I’m so tired of watching pitchers hit. Someone post the NL pitchers hitting with RISP stats?
What is it .065?
The times changed 25 years ago, please implement the dh already.
All for the pitcher hitting but as well I’m not crazy about the pitchers getting hurt running the bases(jimmy Nelson etc). In AC ball we were allowed courtesy runners for the pitcher if he got on base. I’d be all for the courtesy runner.
Maybe we should also prohibit pitchers from covering the bases, or backing up a fielder. Gah lee!!! This is not AC ball, this is the Majors!!!
Chien-Ming Wang from the Yankees got hurt running the bases. He was never the same after that injury. But it’s not just the bases, but while hitting he has a chance of taking a fastball to his pitching arm, getting a stinger after hit a line drive on his pitching hand. I’m firmly in the DH camp. .
As a longtime Yankee fan, I am well aware of Wang hurting his wang. But, unexpected things happen. Do you think Kirby thought El Presidente would end his career? But implementing the DH because a pitcher can’t circle the pads is ridiculous. If that’s the case, put robots in NASCAR or remote control operated cars so drivers don’t get hurt. I buy the “offensive” argument to a certain degree (I actually like it how it is right now), but the “hurting themselves while running?” That’s why I said, don’t let them cover the bases. I am sure a pitcher has gone on the DL because they got hurt covering a base.
You mean like girls’ softball where the pitcher gets a courtesy runner because she’s the only one on the team who take the circle? Come on. What’s next, carry them on to the field because we don’t want to see them pull a hammy walking all the way in from the dugout? Let’s put in service ramps too so they don’t slip going into the dugout. Oh, and bubble wrap them behind a pitching screen so they don’t get hit by a batted ball and by all means, it should be illegal for a pitcher to be expected to cover home with a runner on third after uncorking a wild pitch. I’m done with this one. Next?
This is My view. I like preserving the old game, but pitchers these days are simply not conditioning to be suddenly going into a dead sprint for 90, 180, or 270 feet. It’s as if we were asking position players to pitch on a regular basis.
Agreed, there is nothing better than seeing Rich Hill get a hit and run the bases like Forrest Gump.
How about home team chooses to use or not use the DH everyday? It keep the traditional game alive while still not having a poor hitting pitcher every game. It would add another wrinkle to the lineup cards.
If they’re not careful it’ll end up like the NFL where every player is a one way player and the lineup is all DHs and all Buxton types in the field. How many poor hitting catchers, SS, OF get to bat everyday? We should have a DH for them too?
The DH is not real baseball. It was implemented in the 70s to improve ratings by appealing to the mindless masses who do not understand strategy.
Watching Jon Lester do the same thing was awesome too. A 3 run go ahead homer no less.
The 500 or more strikeouts by pitchers hitting is not worth that one pitcher home run.
How about the 10,000 strike outs by position players AND dh’s who, for the first time in history, had months where they struck out more often than they had hits!!! Are those 15 home runs position players hit that have no influence on the outcome of the game worth the 150 times they struck out and hit .220? It goes both ways. Blame the (lack of) coaching philosophy and preparation not the pitcher stats.
Could t agree more. It’s really exciting when a pitcher hits a homer or hits a bases clearing double. It’s a good part of the game. That doesn’t necessarily happen all the time
Possibly it is inevitable and I understand why the MLBPA would want the DH in the NL, however having the pitcher hit is a large part of the strategy of the game. The choice to have a pitcher hit or remove him can be a game deciding decision. It is what makes the NL game better than the AL game.
I would like to see a new rule where ONLY pitchers hit. The other players would be purely defenders. In that case, ANY offense would be exciting and unexpected. What a great way to enhance the game!
The way I look at it is that right now, both sides of the issue have a league they can watch. If you you change it one way or the other, one half of your sport’s fans will be unhappy with your decision. It is best to leave it alone and focus on something else.
Perhaps 2 expansion teams so we can get the league to an even number again and do away with the interleague play that highlights the difference between the DH rules. The union should go for that too since it would be providing 50 new jobs as opposed to the 15 an NL DH would. And those wouldn’t even be new jobs, just transforming a bench guy into a DH.
Rob Manfred is a idiot.
Here here todd!
No DH.
Anything else is fine discussed above.
You agree with a 3 hitter minimum? I can think of a million reasons why this is the dumbest thing ever (baseball related). Yeah, I am down six runs because dip-tihs can’t get a hitter out tonight and he has to face three of them.
If they truly wanted to increase pace of play and put more balls in play, limit each team to three pitchers per 9 inning game. More starters, fewer specialists, less reliance on the strike out, fewer pitcher changes.
I’d go with a pitcher has to stay in until he’s scored upon. That would work too.
LMFAO. If you’re down six runs because of one pitcher giving up 6 runs, he’s already faced more than 3 batters.
Not really. He could give up a grand slam to the first batter he faces .. then walk or give up a base hit to the 2nd batter then 2 run homer from the 3rd batter.
Bingo, I think nymetsking is too smart to think of that one.
if a pitcher can’t face 3 batters, he DEFINITELY DOESN’T DESERVE TO BE IN THE MAJORS!!!!!!
If a major league pitcher can’t get a hitter out and deemed useless after one batter, maybe he shouldn’t be on the roster at all. That’s part of the problem too. “He throws 100, lets give him a big contract” and keep ignore the Tom Glavines and Jamie Moyers of the world.
Watching those two pitch was like watching art in motion.
I remember Jaime Moyer dominating the Marlins with nothing more than patience. He ate that young and aggressive lineup alive consistently.
If your guy can’t face three batters, then maybe he doesn’t belong in the majors.
The only good idea here is the universal DH
I caught your typo. You meant to say, “The only BAD idea here is the universal DH.”
Your welcome.
I caught your typo. You’re welcome.
Thank you
Cashford64: i agree with you 100%.
Wrong.
“And now we would like to award the new, hot, highly sought after, official, Rob Manfred participation trophy to the Baltimore Orioles for having the worst record in the league.
“Highly coincidental, 28 other teams are also getting this great trophy.
“Now since there’s sadly one team that is not getting this trophy, in order to compensate for that, they’ll get to be called World Series Champions.”
This idea is just as good as the other ones being discussed IMO.
I feel the DH rule has been in the making for a long time. I like the NL having no DH but it would definitely allow older players more opportunities and make the NL lineups a little stronger. The reliever rule sounds crazy and I like it
No it wouldn’t. It would allow players that can hit but suck at defense play a lot longer. Example would be Naylor when he came up and Reyes by playing right field.
Not playing right field *
Isn’t that giving more opportunity to older players? NL could sign players like Adam Jones for a corner outfield spot and move their bad outfield defenders to DH
Why in the world would we want to see that? Doesn’t every older player who can’t (or no longer can) run, catch or throw, block some younger player coming up who has these skills?
Maybe some people have a favorite player that is 31-32-33 that can’t get a job. I said in my original post that I like the NL having no DH but I can understand why they are thinking about implementing it
Isn’t that also eliminating young players getting opportunities? If Adam Jones can’t play defense anymore, do you really need to be paying him 8 million a year to play half the game to hit 15 homers? Pretty sure there is some kid in AA that could do the same for league minimum. Jones has made his money, give someone else s shot.
I’m not into helping team owners grow their investment accounts, what I want to see as a fan is the best players in the game playing the game. In baseball that means to me the rare athletes who have the variety of skills that the game demands of its best players. That’s one major factor that makes baseball unlike any other sport. What I am not into is making baseball more like football, a game I find to be totally boring.
Time to do away with the DH and force pitchers to face at least 3 batters! Make it so. I’m a baseball traditionalist but ready to say good buy to the DH. The Ken Brett’s of the world don’t exist like they used too.
You say good buy, and I say hell low.
“What??? Bro, what are you talkin’ about man?” – Russell Westbrook
I’d love to see your reaction when your favorite team puts a reliever in with the bases loaded, and a four-run lead….. but the reliever implodes and can’t get an out and gives up 6 runs (the Grand Slam, a walk, and another home run)…. because he’s having a bad day.
The manager’s hands are tied however….. because you supported a ridiculous rule that a pitcher must face three batters.
Assuming you’re referring to something happening in the later innings, how often do 2 late inning relievers allow 6 runs together while retiring no one?
If this is something that happens to a team regularly, chances are, they have an extremely horrible bullpen to begin with.
he’s just talking about one relief pitcher. It happens a good amount: starter is cruising, then 3rd time through he gives up a couple hits and a walk, gets pulled and that first reliever out of the pen has a bad day every so often. mid-relief 5th/6th inning guys get blown up fairly often, that’s why they aren’t in the 8th/9th. To tie the manager’s hands after he puts in a guy who just can’t handle it on that day, just to shave 10-15 min off a game time is obscene.
Thank You los_leebos. That’s Exactly what I meant.
Relief pitchers…..even the best ones…..have “off days” when they don’t have their best stuff (for whatever reason). Locking him into 3 batters could mean the difference between winning a close game, and losing it, because you can’t remove that reliever.
I don’t have a problem with the length of games…..I happen to Love Baseball…..and all the strategies that come with playing the game…….lol
But the best relievers are typically the ones who Do face at the very least 3 batters to begin with.
Maybe this will only be a rule change for the middle of an inning, meaning if there is 1 or 2 outs already and the batter gets 1 or 2 outs to end it in 1 or 2 batters, he won’t have to start the next inning to get the 3 batter rule.
I do think this actually Adds strategy as opposed to removing strategy. A manager may have to decided whether to keep in his SP longer or bring in a setup man/closer an inning or part of an inning earlier.
An expanded roster of 26 with an added arm can help this too.
Soooooooo, sign and develop better relievers, eliminate pitch counts and teach starters how to finish their own games. In the 80’s even marginal starters finished a third of their games and had 12 year careers. Now, with all these pitch counts, every single starter gets hurt or has career ending surgery. TJ surgery is pretty much assumed that every pitcher will need one at some point.
How about this: you can only be taken out after one batter if you fail to throw a strike? Who enjoys watching four pitching changes to get three outs and then keep hearing how there is no one left in the bullpen after 9 innings? That’s just bad managing, period.
MB, you act like this is outside the realm…
Last year, Chapman gave up 3ER without recording an out and then again while only recording 0.2ip, Betances allowed 4ER while only recording 0.2ip, Hader allowed 4ER once while only recording 0.2ip, and Kimbrel allowed 4ER while recording only 0.1ip. Obviously they faced more than three batters, but the fact that these guys, who are le creme de la creme, can get rocked kinda suggests that this is not an unforeseeable occurrence.
I can see lots of trainer visits after a pitcher struggles finding the plate with the game on the line. Will they prevent a player from being removed due to “injury”? What if the pitcher gets the last out of an inning, and then has his spot come up? Would the manager be unable to PH, because he hasnt faced his 3? Maybe thats why they want the DH added.
And let’s say you bring a reliever in with a 3 run lead and the bases loaded. Without the 3 batter minimum, so you only planned on using him for this one batter. He has an off day that every reliever has and gives up a grand slam to give up the lead. Exactly what is the difference if it’s a one batter or three batter minimum? Any pitcher can have a bad day and blow a game
The difference is that it limits the manager’s ability to manage the game. That’s a big difference, don’t you think?
barring injury, that happens I’m sure the pitcher would then become day to day with a possible forearm strain or something of the sort.
Easily solved. Two intentional walks, and then new pitcher.
You could always have your reliever throw an intentional walk or two if you don’t trust him after the Grand Slam.
It’s one game. And you have figured out that the reliever does not belong on your roster. Which might save you 4-5 different games. So I’d be okay with that.
I LOVE THE DH IDEA!!!
I’m in the minority probably, but I like the 3 batter minimum (although I probably would have made it 2). If you’re a pitcher in MLB, you should be able to get out both RHH and LHH.
My only concern would be what if the pitcher faces 1 or 2 batters to end the inning? Do they have to start the next inning? Or does this rule only apply to changing pitchers in the middle of an inning?
As much as I love baseball, I’m tired of seeing 3 pitchers getting 3 outs. As mentioned, I probably would have made it 2 minimum, but 3 adds more pressure for both pitchers and managers.
I’d think they definitely have to make this apply only to within one inning to pick up any steam w/ this rule change. Will lead to injuries for guys who aren’t conditioned to span multiple innings (especially young guys groomed to be relievers/closers).
Without question it would have to be “face a minimum of 3 batters OR end the inning, whichever comes first”.
Otherwise, following your example you’d be actually adding pitching changes that weren’t there. If a guy comes in with 1 out in the 8th and finishes out that inning… they’re certainly not going to make him come in to get the first out of the 9th and THEN allow the closer to come in and get the save – thereby adding a pitching change that formerly would have happened in between innings.
I’d be very shocked if it weren’t worded that way.
The “pitcher must face 3 batters” would be beyond stupid and appeasing to the causal fan, who already watches basketball/football more than baseball. I do not like the DH, but I don’t see too big a problem adding it to the NL.
The problem is that most NL fans don’t want a DH. But who cares what the fans want? Just shove it down our throats, MLB.
I agree. I’m an Astros fan, so I got forced to like the DH. I’d rather not have it, but it is going to change whether we like it or not.
And all I’m doing is letting the powers that be know in any way I can that they will be destroying the baseball experience by shoving this novelty act down our throats.
No argument from me.
As long as you continue to watch and support the ones who shove things down your throat that you don’t want, you are contributing to why they can get away with it
anything the commissioner proposes regarding pace of play should be rejected. rob man has got it all wrong!
It’s overwhelmingly clear that NL fans do not want a DH. So if MLB or the Player’s Association want to insist on going against NL fans wishes, then MLB and the Player’s Association should expect a drop-off in NL fans attendance and interest in the sport.
Is it overwhelmingly clear? Life long Reds fan and Yankees hater and I’m all for DH.
Game of baseball has been around for over 120 years. NL has never had a DH. Yet you still root for an NL team. AL teams picked up the DH in the ’70s but not NL teams. NL fans still root for NL teams…. So based on that anecdotal evidence, it’s pretty clear NL fans are more than happy to not have a DH.
But you say, let’s force everyone in the NL to adapt to what some small circle of executives declare they feel those NL fans want in order to improve baseball.
Maybe it’ll be better for you, Joeshmoe. As you said, you’re a Reds fan. Having no one else in attendance will be a normal thing for you.
I think fans are going to cheer for their teams irregardless of the DH. I don’t believe that people stopped following their favorite AL team when the DH was introduced.
It’s frustrating to see a pitcher get an injury from non-pitching or fielding activities (swinging or running the bases, though any injury is bad).
I never understood how the league has two different rules for the NL and AL. It would be like the NBA having half the teams use the 3 pt line and half the teams not having it.
I understand the feelings on bothsides. I have grown up with the DH (Angels fan starting in the 80s), so I’m partial to the DH being universal.
Adding a DH to the NL would definitely be the final straw for this fan. Prices already have me down to just a game or two a year, this would be it for me.
Go ahead and alienate your die hard fans in this half baked attempt to grab new ones who could care less
@ marijuasher
AL fans still like their home teams just as much after the DH as before. Kinda like the shift. I prefer the SS playing at SS. The shift just happened w/o being discussed first. Do you like your team more or less because they shift, now?
Nearly all fans and all players hate the shift. It should be banned
Yeah, Cubs fan here and I agree. Would much rather have the league all on the same page rather than half playing with different rules. I want hitters to hit and pitchers to pitch. I’m tired of seeing a pitcher get in a jam, but not sweating because they know the pitcher is on deck so they don’t have to try cause it is an easy out.
Sounds like a typical cub fan. Hey cub fan they want to do away with the tanking that the cubs did also and have many teams coping. Bad for baseball!
Joeshmoe11:You my friend, are DEFINITELY in the minority of National league fans. in today’s world even if you live in a MLB city, MOST baseball fans at least “somewhat follows” a 2nd team. if you choose to follow a NL team, you most likely dislike the DH. i live in NE Ohio where the Indians are the local team. i grew up a pirates fan and also have followed the Braves since ’81. i only want the Indians to do well because it helps the local economy.
Really? Over one player and a substantial upgrade to your lineup?
How is it an upgrade adding a one dimensional all-hit (sort of) no-field (please don’t go out there) player to the lineup? Because baseball games suck when they’re low scoring affairs? This isn’t football.
Padres fan, all for the dh.
This would give Wil Myers a position
and as soon as that DH starts smashing the baseball for their team, or the team starts winning those NL fans will be right back in the seats (at home, or in the stadium)
If you’re willing to stop watching altogether because of one rule change, were you really a fan in the first place?
It’s a VERY BIG rule change
Yes it is. Still not a reason to stop being a fan. Do people watch and get their enjoyment out of baseball just from watching the pitcher bat? If not, why should this make them a non-fan?
I don’t like the DH at all, but two leagues playing under different rules is worse imo.
I think NL clubs without a fulltime DH are at a bigger disadvantage in an AL park than an AL club not being able to use a DH in a NL park.
100%. AL clubs going to the NL have zero disadvantage at all. NL clubs going the other way basically have to insert Joe Blow in off their bench instead of a legit bat.
I see it from the other perspective. I have felt the NL has the advantage because their pitchers are used to hitting situations and running the basis. AL pitchers have to “prepare” prior to interleague series.
AL pitchers look more inept during those series so I think the AL offenses take a bigger hit. Since many teams use a rotational DH rather than a traditional one, the NL teams are more prepared than they used to be.
But I am enjoying this thread because everyone is giving an opinion that is rational and logical without jumping on others who just don’t happen to agree. And it is staying on topic!
Couldn’t agree more Sasha!
@SashaBanksFan – while that is true that the NL pitchers have a little more hitting experience than AL pitchers, they still only hit once in every five games, and usually only 2-3 plate appearances per.
The difference in hitting prowess between an NL pitcher and an AL pitcher is much narrower than the difference between a full-time AL DH and an NL bench bat.
But I think now that there are less full time DH’s in the AL I think the gap between the AL DH and NL bench is much smaller now
Not necessarily JDGoat. In today’s day and age of the “Super Utility Player”, the DH allows the NL club to put a highly offensive based but defensively liable player in the DH role and replace him with a softer hitting, better defensive replacement. That can lead to an advantage for the NL team.
I might be mistaken here, but I believe the NL won more of the interleague games last season.
No question about it.
I think there’s one thing that we all agree that needs to change: Manfred’s favorable standing with the owners.
Wish I could like this more than once.
I love it. Would love to see more offense in the NL. And I’m sick of all the pitching changes because it’s a 5 minute commercial break with every pitching change.
Manager should have 15 seconds after arriving at the mound to decide whether to make a pitching change. If not, return to the dugout now. If yes, bring in the new pitcher and he gets one warmup pitch. Cut the total time for a pitching change to about 1 minute. I like the 3 batter rule mid inning but once the inning ends a new pitcher should be able to come in. Pitchers in the AL should be in the bullpen between innings staying warm. When the inning ends they go to the mound and pitch. 1 warmup pitch only. Can’t do that in the NL. And if a batter takes a pitch he needs to stay in the box. If he leaves the pitcher can still pitch and the ump will call a ball or strike. That’s a start.
3 batter minimum before pitching change is the dumbest rule I’ve ever heard
Yes, the three-batter minimum is a bad idea. It also will just turn into an absurd spectacle of the league trying to determine if an “injured” pitcher is really injured. Because obviously a pitcher will just leave the game after an “injury,” right?” I think the league trying to get involved with decisions between a player and his team’s medical staff is getting into some pretty murky territory.
Mandatory stint on the DL would solve fake injuries.
That’s also a problem; players leave games all the time and play the next day. Again, you’d be turning the league into doctors and interfering with a decision made between a player and his team’s medical staff (not to even get into HIPPA issues)
Agreed
I like the DH idea. For the relief pitcher requirements though, I think that should only be to start an inning. If the reliever comes in and faces a batter with two outs in the inning and retires him, I don’t think they should be required to come back next inning.
Yes, three batters or until the end of an inning.
Ok that’s good then.
Agree.
I’d welcome the DH to the NL purely so I no longer have to suffer through another one of Folty’s awkward at-bats.
Pitchers are being coddled too much, and the game is being “over-managed”. You can’t face 3 hitters? You don’t belong in the bigs. I don’t think that’s too complicated.
I’ve been a baseball fan since the 60s. I’ve followed the AL much closer than the NL. The DH is better. Just think of Willy Mays in the 73 Series. And the double switch is not rocket science. The 26 man roster is long overdue as well. When I started following baseball there were 10 man staffs, now there are 13 man staffs.
It’s whatever to me if they implement the DH in the NL, but they shouldn’t do it this season. They should tell the owners that they will implement the DH next season for NL teams to prepare to sign/trade for or develop a DH. On the topic of the three batter requirement, I really would rather not see LOOGY guys be completely eliminated from the game.
What I don’t understand is why they’re not addressing the shift. Compared to the three-batter rule and universal DH, limiting the shift would less affect certain players’ ability to do their job and earn money. Sure, pitchers would give up more hits, but it’s not like it would significantly affect a certain definable group of pitchers more than others.
Manfred has mentioned it before, and this article touches on it, pace of play is less about game length and more about action on the field. If you want action, WE NEED MORE RALLIES! The argument that if hitters don’t like the shift, they should just go the other way is weak. The best games are played when it’s strength vs. strength. If the vast majority of the world’s best players can’t do something, it probably means it’s a little ridiculous to expect that they should all of a sudden be able to figure it out. From a fan’s perspective what is it good for? Is that two-second shot of a crazy infield that exciting to watch on TV?
It doesn’t even have to be drastic. Keep two guys left of second base; two guys right. The effect on pace of play would be realized immediately. These other suggestions might help, but it’s more of a indirect byproduct with minimal gains.
I agree, I hate the shift. If Williams couldn’t handle it against pitchers throwing in the mid 80s, what chance do mortals have against pitchers throwing in the mid 90s?
Limiting the shift only punishes the hitters who are really able to control where the ball goes
Except the hitters that regularly hit the ball to all fields barely get shifted against anyway.
But it indirectly harms them in that the hitters that regularly face the shift will begin to hit better while those who don’t will experience no change.
Which is probably absolutely nobody. In order to control where the ball goes, batters would need to be able to adjust their swing, stance, timing and plate approach on the fly.
It’s like just expecting guys to hit deep fly balls to every time they have a chance at a sacrifice. They can try, but it’s not frequently successful… and in that instance, you’re just asking the batter to hit a medium/deep fly ball and not care where it goes.
have you ever played baseball martras?? these guys spend hours every day practicing hitting the ball to a given part of the field
Do you follow baseball even??? Every game a hitter puts the ball in the air to score the runner from third or goes to right field to get the guy to third…..
yeah, baseball needs less strategy. Sheesh, can we just show the haters a different sport and get back to playing baseball?
Some of the best pure hitters in the game have struggled against the shift. Of course, maybe I’m just an idiot and batters can truly place the ball wherever they want, whenever they want.
Seems a shame one of these elite guys doesn’t step up and get back to a .400 batting average or drag every bunt attempt for a hit. It should be easy. Just hit the ball to wherever the defender isn’t.
i don’t love the shift but i don’t think it needs to be addressed at all. Maybe the hitters should start making adjustments and take what the defense is giving them? I’m thinking they might stop shifting on you…
Does the shift work in the long run? I’m not sure it actually does, but I’m sure there is data that proves me wrong.
And if the immortal Ted Williams couldn’t make the adjustment with pitchers throwing in the mid 80s, what chance do today’s players have against pitchers throwing in the mid 90s.
I don’t think people understand that making contact with a moving baseball going 95 MPH is really really hard. How many different swings do you want a big league player to handle?
Shorten your swing, they already make adjustments when they’re down 0-2 in the count. have you played baseball before?
ever hear of Tony Gwynn?
All of them. If you make it to the MLB, I expect you to be able to put the ball in play and hit to all fields
Makes so much sense to reference one of the greatest hitters of all time as a representative example of what everybody should be able to do…
The great Ted Williams could hit the ball to all fields. It’s a big part of what made him so great
You could have the infielders not play in the outfield. You would have more hits in the outfield. A lot of players are not good at inside outing an inside pitch. Offense is good for business.
The point is that most players can’t hit to all fields. Like I already said, we can sit around and wait for 3/4 of the best hitters on Earth to figure out how to do something that doesn’t come naturally, or we can be real and recognize that if most of the greatest players on Earth can’t do something, it probably should be amended. .
Limiting the shift is not some gross violation of the spirit of the rules. From a fan’s perspective, this is what we really get:
1. Brian McCann steps to the plate with runners on 1st & 2nd with 1-out.
2. Camera shows crowded shift on right side. Shot lasts 3 seconds.
3. McCann hits the ball to a place that was a base hit for 100 years.
4. Instead of a run scoring and leaving 1st/3rd, we have a double-play and the rally is over.
So are we more interested in seeing static infield configurations for 3 seconds on TV than actual baseball being played? For what? So we can brag that our analytics department is better than your hitters?
BS, they choose not to hit to the other field, they are they best hitters in the world. HRs outweigh singles or moving the runners over, that is what it is, 100%
They chose not to hit the other way? You’re playing too much softball. When a pitcher throws the ball 95 MPH with movement, you really think most players are capable of going to their “B” swing?
softball?? LMAO
If Brian McCann can’t hit the other way he shouldn’t be playing baseball. It’s not easy, I’m not saying that and to say hitters have one swing is a ridiculous statement.
“we can sit around and wait for 3/4 of the best hitters on Earth to figure out how to do something that doesn’t come naturally, or we can be real and recognize that if most of the greatest players on Earth can’t do something, it probably should be amended. .”
YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT. That’s one of the best points that has ever been made on this board.
LOL, yeah working on your swing in BP and spring training is such a hard concept for you to grasp i guess. It’s what makes good hitters great.
OMG, it’s going to go to his head now. Next he’ll have an agent and be wondering if MLBTR will sign him. ;-)
We can agree to disagree. I happen to think that players are working on their swings during BP and that they actually try to leverage their strengths to be the best hitters they can be.
For whatever reason, whether it’s this, or as you say, 100% stubbornness, it’s not making for better baseball games. How long are we willing to wait for the home run not to matter to people anymore?
I agree. There are positions you play in baseball so there should be a player at the position. I don’t mind some movement, obviously, but fielders should be at their fielding position.
It’s like letting defensive lineman all line up outside the offensive line in football. Illegal formation.
I don’t like the shift either, but I don’t see a way to ban it. There’s nothing that specifies fielding positions. Believe the only rule is that only one fielder (ie the C) can position in foul territory. The traditional placement of position players came from “old analytics” where the eye test said to cover the most ground, you should line up “here, here and over there.” Eventually those standing spots got names. Some forms of shifting have been around way before this past decade or so, most obvious being bringing in an OF as a 5th IF in the bottom of the 9th (or later) with less than two outs.
Never suggested banning it–Just apply some rules/limitations. Just because it isn’t in the rule book now, doesn’t mean that it rules can’t be added.
I get that people want to see more prolific hitters, but after 17-18 years, it isn’t happening. Yet, we’re still content to just blame it on stubborn hitters.
Somebody please tell me what the shift brings to the baseball viewing experience? It boggles my mind that people find looking at defensive alignments more enjoyable than watching pure baseball.
Strategy
I guess it comes down to preference… I don’t think of dead pull hitters and constant long balls as “pure baseball”
For me this is a game of strategy. The shift is a natural evolution and market correction. As hitters pull more the defense has to adjust, hence the shift
Situational hitting, bunting, sacrifice flies, pinch-hitting, pinch-running, matchups, infield in, infield back, short leash, left vs. right, choking up, hit and run, base stealing, pitch outs, pitch counts,what happened yesterday?, what do I need for tomorrow?…
Baseball has never been lacking for strategy. At a certain point though, it comes down to whether or not Pitcher can get Batter out. Strength vs. Strength.
But you didn’t answer my question. What does the shift bring to the viewing experience? We get to see the alignment for a few seconds then we get to see somebody make an out.
I wish batters were better all around hitters too, but rather than expect that from everybody, I’d rather do something about what is actually happening, regardless of the reason.
I did actually. The answer only required one word. Strategy
Thank you for listing all of the examples of strategy in the game. Can’t get enough!
Sounds like your beef is with the hitters who forgot how to hit opposite field?
Actually, the shift is arguably the one form of strategy that requires the players to exhibit less baseball skills in order to execute.
So the shift is a non issue then
wow, dude come on
Boo hoo, the defense changed to better defend against the hitters tendencies. Outrageous!
Better adjustments by the batter is all that’s needed to nullify the shift. Make a slight change in their stance and it makes a difference in direction of the ball. it’s not rocket science, i learned that in the early 1980’s. it still holds true today.
Better solutions for the three problems
1. there is no need to have the DH in the NL.
2. Shorten warmup time on the mound and don’t take a commercial break during it.
3. dont add an extra roster spot that would be taken up by another reliever by at least 2/3 of the league’s teams. instead allow rosters to expand from 25 to a more reasonable number in the 30-37 range.
2./3. Limit the number of dedicated picthers on a team’s roster.
1 No universal DH, but have the DH in NL cities during inter-league games. Re-address universal in 5 years and see what fans think.
2. Pitcher must face 3 batters or finish the inning.
3. Expand rosters to 30 but have the manager designate 25 eligible for each game when turning in line up cards.
4. Leave the shift alone. Position the defense how ever you want.
5. CALL STRIKES. Nothing will speed up the game more and make hitters take the ball to the opposite field more than knowing that the outside corner is going to the pitcher.
Get Randy Choate on the phone. He needs to be the representative of LOOGY’s in the MLB.
I’m an NL fan, have always hated the DH, but it’s time for them to implement in in the NL as well.
3 batter minimum for pitchers – not so sure I like that, but could debate
Single trade deadline – I’d be ok with
20 second pitch clock – NO PLEASE
Draft Advantages for winning – probably not a bad idea
Lower mound – doing a study is fine
The NL needs the DH or the American League needs to get rid of it . It’s unfair and allows players age 29-31 to sign longer deals with AL teams due to the DH … it has to be done one way or the other .
As an NL traditionalist who also gets a ton of enjoyment seeing pitchers get hits, I’m beginning to come around to the idea of a universal DH.
As for pitching and pace of play, I like the 3 batter rule, but negating it in between innings. So someone who finished the 8th inning and faced less than 3 batters doesn’t have to come in for the 9th when the closer normally finishes the game.
That just gives managers a way around the rule, IMO. I can see the logic, though.
But the point is for pace of play, so if the pitching change is happening between innings, who cares? Limiting the pitching changes during the inning is the purpose of this.
It does, but it’s still an improvement. In most cases it would negate seeing more than 2 relief pitchers during a single inning (barring an offensive outburst.)
But if it’s all about pace of play then let them switch at the end of the inning. If you still require them to face 3 and a guy has to come back out to face 1 more batter in the next inning you’re just going to lead to even more mid-inning pitching changes.
That’s what Phaithful was proposing. The 3 batter limit only applies to within innings. If the inning ends they can be taken out even if they only faced 1 or 2 hitters.
Placing a runner on any base in extra innings tops the list as most ridiculous proposal.
The concept of the game should not change in extra frames to save million dollar players from additional health risk. This is why they got paid as well they do (and I have zero prob w that)— for that risk.
Additionally, those that love baseball are invested in extra innings despite the time commitment … no matter how many extra innings.
Those that don’t love baseball (casual fans) are leaving in 8th or 9th inning anyways.
New extra inning proposal would gain zero new casual fan interest.
I think they are only proposing it for ST and All Star games. I don’t think its a big deal
If that’s indeed the case, I get it, cool.
Thanks for clarifying.
No way that should be rule come reg season or postseason.
Agreed. I’ve talked to players who’ve played under those rules and they hate it.
The DH in the NL would help solve a lot of the Padres’ roster issues. Franmil and Renfroe could both play and Myers would have a spot in the outfield.
As a Cubs fan I’d be thrilled having Schwarber at the position he should be. At least give you the flexibility as well to give other players a day off from the field.
There needs to be a universal DH. If an NL team wants a pitcher to bat (Lorenzen, Bumgarner), let them be the DH.
The problem with having no DH in the NL is that all older free agents sign with the AL. Perhaps Pujols would have considered staying in STL if he knew he could DH later in his career? Same thing with the Mets acquiring Cano, as Sherman said in his tweets.
I also love the three batter rule. Having a pitcher come out and throw two pitches, then exiting the game adds at least five minutes to each game. That, and the commercials.
Albert went for the money, nothing else.
$$$ Correctamundo
How long before the Dodgers exploit the three batter rule? What if the pitcher is hurt? Do they get penalized a base per batter he didn’t face?
I like the idea of DH for the NL but isnt it somewhat unfair to the NL teams to think about implementing it for 2019 given that the offseaon is nearly finished?
If it gets passed at some point I doubt they’d implement it right away, probably 2020
The universal DH is long overdue. The AL and NL shouldn’t play under a different set of rules. As for the pace of play ideas, all of them would become irrelevant if MLB would introduce the pitch clock.
Any “gains” in speed of game you get from the three batter minimum rule are going to be easily wiped out if you bring the DH to the NL, because right now AL managers can switch pitchers like crazy without fear of having to make a corresponding change to the lineup.
Sick of pitchers hitting it’s a waste of time and Peter Alonso is perfect for the dh spot.
Yeah, these radical shifts need to be done away with. It’s a simple rule to implement. 2 fielders on the left side of 2nd base, and 2 fielders on the right side. You can still shift, just not as much.
Yes to the NL dh, who isn’t tired of the pitcher easy out role.
As far as the 3 batter minimum, could it also be tied to a 4 run minimum? Grand slam, he can be replaced. Or any combination of 4 runs, or 3 batters.
3 batter minimum could really get interesting!
It’s about time they enlarged the roster to 26, I think they could even go to 27. As for the DH vs pitchers hitting, why not compromise and do both. 10 man batting lineup in both leagues, with a DH, and the pitcher hitting!
Compromise and get the best of both worlds ? I might could get with that
….no talk about reforming the juiced baseball eh? oh, but let’s study mound heights!
the league’s proposal that all pitchers must face a minimum of three hitters per appearance (barring an injury).
—————–
Please, please, please adopt this one. It’ll make late innings so much more watchable. I’m sick of watching the manager stroll out every other PA, in the sixth inning.
A 60 minute football game takes 4 hours but they’re worried about pace of play in baseball. No one not watching baseball already is going to suddenly start watching if pace of play rules are changed. Conversely if they make the one game that doesn’t live and die by the clock all about pace of play and speed of the game than I for one will no longer watch games or be interested in the game.
I agree with this, the pace of play talk is silly.
Maybe, but why not pick off the low-hanging fruit? Last year’s mound limitation was a perfect example. There’s no reason to send the bench coach out for 30 seconds, followed by sending the manager out for 30 seconds, to bring in an RP. There is no reason for the entire team to meet at the mound.
There is no reason for Buchholz to take 30 seconds to decide which pitch to throw.
Imagine Belichek & Brady taking 30 seconds while Brady is shaking off play after play.
Limiting time between innings was another sure-winner. It is not the end of times, but BB becomes much more dull with all the needless interruptions.
Game times were reduced by 5 minutes due to automatic walks, mound visit limit and shorter time between innings.
A WHOLE 5 minutes.
“I can watch a whole baseball game now that they took away those 5 extra pesky minutes” said no one ever.
Exactly! Thank you.
Regardless of how little time it saves, this was one rule change that I could get behind. To me, it always seemed pointless for a pitcher to waste time to throw 4 meaningless pitches. This was a good move to remove some “dead space” during a game, however minute it might be.
Granted, I really think the fastest way to speed up the game is for the pitchers to throw strikes.
I think the minute you start making things automatic (intentional walk, no shifts, etc) you’re taking the strategy & skill out the players & managers hands.
Thus begin dumbing down the game little by little.
Not a fan.
You should have to those 4 pitchers, you should have to figure out how to combat the shift, etc.
I love the chess game of baseball — don’t make it checkers.
That’s why baseball is/was brilliant psychology vs psychology.
throw*
Those meetings are strategy meetings. Why dumb the game down? When the game is just home runs and strikeouts it will become way too long. ADHD peeps may like it. But those of us who enjoy the strategy of this game will be turned off.
And then what? Are you really going to stake the future of this game on whether or not the new ADHD crowd will stick around and fork out money for the rest of their lives?? Or is it more likely that as soon as you tell this new crowd no they will bail leaving baseball with less fans than ever before?
This 100%.
I’m not against pitch-clock — but to your point casual fans aren’t suddenly going to become diehard MLB fans and start attending more games b/c game times are reduced by 30 minutes.
Great use of football as example.
NFL games are not 4 hours unless you’re watching the Superbowl and trying to intentionally use it to bolster your already weak position. NFL games are less than 3hrs and 10min on average. The 8 regular season home games are almost all played on the weekend and most are played during the day.
In MLB, each teams plays at least 81 home games including multiple games during the middle of the work week. Games starting at 7pm mean people often aren’t getting home until 11:00pm or later on week nights. That’s doesn’t work for kids or people with early jobs.
Apples vs. Oranges.
Also, there’s absolutely no reason to take 25 seconds to deliver a pitch. Watch some of the old All Star games. I think I remember watching, somehow, Mark Gubicza pitching in a late 80s All Star game on youtube. 14 seconds. That’s how long it took between pitches. 14 seconds.
The point is those watching now – will continue to watch w rules/pace of play as is. For many fans it’s part of the romanticism and nostalgia and draw of the game.
You’re not gaining new fans with modest game time reduction.
Yes, minus 3hr games would be ideal for the diehard fanbase —but you’re not going to lose those fans regardless of changes or not, I just don’t buy that.
Yes, MLB just like every other sport has seen decline in viewership (live and tv) – – – but that has more to do w accessibility to whatever entertainment you want right on our mobile devices and/or computer.
Competition for the entertainment dollar w so many options has cut into entertainment revenue everywhere.
The point is people aren’t watching anymore and MLB is concerned.
I get that and it’s fair point.
But you will lose more fans than gain by radically changing the game.
I can see very small concessions as reasonable but some of changes are quite drastic.
And again I don’t believe there are even hundreds of thousands of casual fans that are out there just waiting to go all-in if the game speeds up.
Proposed rule/pace of play changes*
Now go to that same site and find the average game times in ’80s. No way the games were shorter back then
link to baseball-reference.com
There you go. Internet search engines are your friend sometimes. Average game time in 1988 was 2:49, it was 2:50 in 1989. It was 3:08 in 2017 and after pace of play rules were implemented in 2018, it dropped to 3:04. Still 15 minutes longer than it was.
That said, it’s probably not the best thing to look at 1988-1989 when game times were roughly 2hrs 45min in 2003-2005 and MLB is looking to reverse the FACT attendance is dropping fast.
And how many more commercials today vs 1988?
Your strawmen aren’t hard to knock down
I’ve got my marbles mixed up. The pace of play was way faster back then
More small ball, less player changes, fewer commercials..
These rules changes aren’t what’s needed. If the games must be shorter than maybe cut out the non-baseball time?
Agree. Baseball doesn’t have a time clock. You must get all 27 outs (or more if needed). That’s one of the most endearing things about the sport. You can’t take a knee or do anything to “run out the clock”. You’ve got to make that pitch, get that out.
If you want to make this about pace of play, teach pitchers to throw strikes!
The ball stays live during a baseball game for a lot less than 60 minutes.
And … what? Again… that’s part of the charm. It can be lazy & slow most of the time … and we enjoy that aspect. There is beauty in the subtlety & calm of baseball. No need to change pace of play to pacify ADD minority that want action action action. Fans have other sports options for that.
Baseball was meant to be played as is.
NL does NOT need a DH ! The difference in the AL/NL rules are part of the beauty of the game !
Then get rid of inter-league play IMO
It’d make the WS more interesting IMO
Yes it would, expansion will come soon, 3-5 years maybe, MLB will get to 32 teams, 16 in NL and 16 in AL. Inter-league play may get addressed then, I doubt it would go away completely, but think it’d be less. More games vs division opponents makes more sense.
The RS/NYY already play each other 19 times. And I like seeing teams from different cities.
I get that, I enjoy that as well, but when a division title comes down to a game or two and 2nd place might not get you in the playoffs, I’d prefer the division games over how they did in the other league. i get both sides, if they have a universal DH i may change my tune a bit.
“Names like Evan Gattis, Lucas Duda, Adam Jones, Carlos Gonzalez and others could all find increased interest, ”
Probably not. The only reason to hire a DH is to get a big bat in the lineup. Gattis had a OPS+ of 102 last year, Duda 100, Jones 103, Cargo 105 (< .700 road OPS over last three years). Their next contracts will be rebuilding/tanking teams that need a one-year position player in order to not thoroughly stink. For Miami, I think Jones & Duda work out perfectly in RF and as a platoon 1B.
The strategy changes when using a DH… but still, there is strategy.
I would prefer both leagues have a DH. I’ve gone both ways on this over the years. I watched Baseball before 1973 when there was no DH. I was not on board at first but, I have to admit, it was exciting to see players such as Tony Oliva, Orlando Cepeda and Frank Robinson have quality ABs in place of a pitcher.
Without the DH, would Hal McRae, Paul Molitor, Edgar Martinez or Dave Ortiz play very long?
If they put ghost runners on 2nd base in Major League Baseball I’m done
It’s hard to believe that NL fans would prefer to see pitchers hopelessly flailing at pitches or forever engaged in the sacrifice bunt as opposed to seeing a conventional offensive player at bat. I would also think they would prefer NOT to see a pitcher pulled during a tight game ONLY because a pinch hitter is employed. It is also a consideration that having the DH , doesn’t necessarily mean that an older or one dimensional player is utilized exclusively for that role. Many AL teams utilize the DH to rest star players from the rigors of performing a defensive position, enabling the team the opportunity to still treat the fans to that player’s offensive production. Remember also that just because the DH would be in effect, would not preclude pitchers such as MadBum from batting for themselves.
Not only does the roster need to be increased, but considering the cumulative aches and pains as well as occasional illnesses that affect players during the course of the season, increasing the roster to 28 would be more practical.. Quality of play could increase as players that are nicked up could sit out a few games. Use of the disabled list could decrease. the Minor League shuttle of players to MLB could be minimized. An increase from 25 is long overdue.
Also out of date is the 40 man roster and all the game playing with player’s lives as they are claimed on waivers and then DFA by the new team to enable them to be stashed. An increase to 45, at least for teams that lack the revenue streams to chase free agents and instead rely on the draft and their organization to provide a flow of talent to their team.
I’m amazed here how many people think the greatest game in the world needs change. I am frankly appalled at the idea of the DH rule. I hate every change in the game that’s been made the last few years. Now now boys don’t be breaking up double plays. And don’t crash into the catcher. Let’s don’t have the exciting play at the plate. Let’s don’t watch the pitcher get the yips and throw it to the backstop on an intentional walk. Cut out the instant replay if you want to save time. Your paying 4 guys to make those decisions. If they are constantly getting it wrong get rid of them. I personally am in no hurry to end the games and don’t care how long it takes. That’s the beauty of the game no clocks. I want to see the pitcher hit. I like the stategy of the game. I sure don’t like the idea of a pitcher forced to face 3 batters. Ridiculous But you young guys go ahead and change things. As an old retired guy I can’t afford to go to the games anyway like I did in my younger years. I love the last couple of years in free agents. The owners are finally realizing that the price gouging players are not worth the long expensive contracts.
^^ this
I pretty much agree with what you’ve said, but, I don’t see it staying as-is. Social media is part to blame, imo, and everyone is a news reporter now w/ their twitter, FB & instagram pages. Any idiot can have 100k followers.
I’m a fan of no replay, or, 20 second maximum to review. Something. Gotta shorten that time up for sure.
There’s already a rule about the batter staying in the box unless he calls time. Just enforce that rule; it is never enforced.
Perfectly stated !
Agree!
back in your younger years did you have to walk 10 miles through snow and fight polar bears just to go to a game in the summer?
Were hard slides into second, or collisions at the plater exciting? yes they were. Were they exciting were players were taken out of the game because of injury? And the player who was injured possibly having a season ending or career ending injury., no I don’t want that. So shame on the players and MLB for caring about the safety of the players.
You’re probably not a fan of the nets long the baselines now too, to protect fans from getting hit with balls and bats, “because they should be paying attention”
As the world changes it would be foolish to not pay attention to things that could better the game, for the simple fact of “well we’ve done it this way for years”
Baseball is my favorite sport, I try and watch every Sox game that I can, but even in Boston, thee tv raitings for the Red Sox are dwarfed by those of the Patriots. The rating share the Patriots recieved for a game in the middle of the season, are higher than the world series games. And that is sad.
The players and MLB are coming up with ideas to increase the popularity of baseball, and back to the heights of relevance it was in the 80s / 90s.
Fantastic comment
Back to the heights of relevance… Ha!
Baseball is making more money right now than ever before. Over 10 billion dollars of revenue say you are very very wrong about the state of baseball today
Compare the % of the market baseball had back in the 90s to now, the numbers are lower.
So yes MLB rakes in the money, but if they had he dominance in the markets like before they would be raking in even more.
Baseball used to be THE sport in the US, and now it that sport is football.
The NFl makes just over 1 billion more than the MLB. But go ahead with those false narratives
People have more choices today so naturally the market share has gone down. However revenue continues to increase to record levels. Proof that narrative is not only tired but false
Where are you getting your numbers? Because what I have found on multiple sites is that the MLB was at 9.56 billion, and the NFL was at 14 billion. That’s a 4.5 billion difference.
This was 2017-2018 NFL, and 2017 for MLB.
Several sites have reported last released numbers of 10.something billion for MLB. NFL has been at just under 12.
Where are you getting your inflated numbers trying to build up some sort of straw man?
The only website I have found where they have the NFL at 11 billion is Wikipedia and only reason why it’s at 11 billion is that number is in pounds and not dollars. If you do the exchange rate it’s at 13.5 billion dollars.
Marketwatch.com, howmuch.net, and wsn.com all have the NFL at 13-14 billion and MLB at just above 10.
But it seems that even if you want to argue that the NFL was worth 3 billion dollars more last year than baseball that still isn’t much of a difference; MLB is still setting record revenues. The market share of fans isn’t as much of an issue as the revenue stream, which is strong.
And the NFL is the most poopular sport, sure, but have you watched an NFL game? 90% of them are completely uncompetitive, the same team wins every year, and if we wabt to talk about pace of play, ever watch the last two minutes of a close game? They take like an hour. to play. Or the “fouling”: strategy that makes the end of NBA games take forever.
Thank you!!!!!!!
I believe the NL owners would rather have the DH. The owners carry more weight than a fans mlb.coms comments.
Probably so. I don’t want the NL to get a DH, but I realize that it’s just a matter of time before it happens. We all dislike change, but then we get used to it. Same story here. Complain about it for a few weeks, but then you’re used to it after that.
Ok, the three hitter minimum is ASININE!!! I haven’t done any research, but I would venture to say that baseball has the most knowledgeable fans as a whole. And also the most loyal fans. I don’t have a problem sitting at the stadium for 3 hours, and I haven’t heard many people complain about it. In fact, when the game goes longer, people are thrilled that they are getting “free baseball.” That’s just from a fan perspective. Now, imaging the implications this stupid rule could have on win/losses and standings.
Honestly, I’m for the 3 batter minimum. Nothing frustrates me more watching a game on TV than pitching changes. They take longer bc they go to commercials (the real problem w/ game times) and takes so long. I’m fine w/ 3 batter minimum.
I also greatly dislike the last 3 mins of a basketball game too.
So you are ok with a pitcher coming in with the bases loaded, give up a grand slam (batter one), letting the next batter get on (batter two) and give up another homerun (batter three)? You are now down six runs because you had to let dip-tihs face three batters, and the dip-tihs rule that forced you to keep him there for a minimum of three hitters. Sounds so dumb to me.
Sounds like a dumb example to use because that’s something that rarely happens.
Seriously. If you have a RP A you don’t have confidence in, you probably shouldn’t bring him in with the sacks full.
What about this scenario:
Bottom 9th.
Visiting team up 4-0
visiting SP has a shutout to start the 9th
walks the first batter.
Visiting team has 2 all star relievers- set up guy and closer
Visiting team brings in set up guy.
Set up guy gives up HR to batter 1
Set up guy gives up HR to batter 2
It’s now a 4-3 game and the visiting team can’t bring in their closer.
It’s dumb because it rarely happens? Great logic. It’s only made dumb by your limited capacity to appreciate the many ways such a dumb rule can go wrong.
Yes, because someone you have confidence on never has an off night and blows chunks!!!
Dave, you’re a real fan and you get it. These other guys must fallow baseball with their Tango cheat-sheets.
So in that scenario the setup guy only has to face one more batter. Find me the last pitcher in the 9th inning to give up 3 consecutive HR
No one said they don’t have off nights. Do you really think managers take out setup men/closers after only 2 batters? Lmao.
April 30, 2017
Hector Neris gave up 3 straight home runs in the 9th
batters: Puig, bellinger, turner
Dodgers walk it off 6-5
boom.
So in other words a closing pitcher allowed 3 consecutive HR to lose a game. Explain to me how this new proposed rule would have made a difference in that game in the 9th inning?
Trevor Hoffman gave up 4 consecutive homers in the 9th inning once.
It was your argument. You said
“Find me the last pitcher in the 9th inning to give up 3 consecutive HR ”
I just answered your question.
I Agree…..
The only people arguing for a shorter game……are the ones who “don’t really LOVE Baseball”……(the rest of us love “free baseball”…..)
Straight facts. Nothing more dramatic than an extra inning homerun to win the game. Can’t stand these announcers with vaginas (Vasgersian, Buck) whining about actually having to call extra innings. How about quit, and let someone who really loves the sport take over.
Buck is clearly the worst announcer in professional sports. He only has a job because of his Daddy. Plain and simple.
I mute the TV and turn on the local radio broadcast when that waste of space is calling a game.
have you read the comments of the some of the people on this site? Are you sure that baseball fans are the most knowledgable?
The pace of play is never about the people who go to the games, it’s about the people who will watch the games at home.
If your city’s team is good, the team is going to have higher attendance. If your team sucks only the actual baseball fans will show up.
I still like the proposal of the DH for the starting pitcher, but then the pitcher must hit (or pinch hit for) when you bring in a reliever. Keeps a bit of the strategy in place.