PDA

View Full Version : The 30 Man Roster



Dark Kinetic-Grip
06-22-2012, 10:53 AM
The 30 Man Roster

Might it be time for MLB to rethink roster size? How would this change MLB, for better or worse? Your comments please.

Brock Beauchamp
06-22-2012, 11:02 AM
Baseball already has too many specialists. They need to start thinking of ways to create more flexible bullpens, not add half an hour to every game because Gardy has five more guys in his pen to use relentlessly.

Then again, that move would really allow managers really get in there and do some managin'.

GCTF
06-22-2012, 11:09 AM
Finally, there'd be room for Toby!

ashburyjohn
06-22-2012, 11:13 AM
Let's see: 8 position players, one more for the DH, catching's tough so you need a backup, plus one more position player in case someone gets hurt. Three starting pitchers for the rotation, plus a couple of rookie/graybeards to come in if the starter gets tired or pulls something. Sounds like a 16-man roster should be enough.

old nurse
06-22-2012, 11:28 AM
86-89 they played with 24. Did not remember baseball being any worse for it. Now if it were 30 man rosters rather than 40 it could get real interesting.

Thrylos
06-22-2012, 11:35 AM
Will never happen. Here is the biggest issue (math) :

a. 30-25=5 x 500,000 = $2.5 Million more (give or take) per club per season
b. the arbitration/free agency clock will start a season earlier for at least 5 (the extra 5) players. Add a few trips to the DL and the number of players with accelerated arbitration/FA clocks will be more like 8-10.

So I suspect total $ impact around $5-7 Million per season per club.

The Players' Association would love it. The owners not so much

biggentleben
06-22-2012, 11:45 AM
Teams have no need for more players. They simply need to use those players better.

Curt
06-22-2012, 12:02 PM
"There are no poorly designed hazards in golf. It is the golfer's responsibility to avoid a hazard wherever it is placed." Bobby Jones

OK, I can't find the quote but I think I heard Johnny Miller quote him reasonably close to that.

The baseball equivalent is that it is the GM's responsibility to man the team with 25 guys and the Manager's responsibility to use them efficiently and effectively. They should probably get together and discuss it.

Alternative to expanding rosters:

1. Get rid of DH
2. Call the rule book strike zone including "high" strikes
3. Transition back to four-man rotations
4. Stop the pitch count madness (not the same thing as stop monitoring pitch count)

If there is evidence that the five-man rotation transition in the 70's, or the more recent pitch count obsessions have done anything but increase the need for more pitchers, I would be interested to see it.

25 man roster:

8 position players
1 backup catcher
1 backup infielder
1 backup outfielder

4 starting pitchers
7 relief pitchers
---
22 players

That leaves three roster positions. Someone other than the two catchers should be able to catch in an emergency. I suggest one long-relief/spot starter (for the occasional [split] double-header) and two big bats off the bench or to platoon (fielding ability a plus).

7 relief pitcher scenario:

2 ninth inning specialists
2 eighth inning specialists
2 seventh inning specialists
1 sixth inning specialist

Preferably a mix of lefties and righties and, obviously, mixing and matching allowed as needed.

Let us not forget that teams went to 24 man rosters several times including, that most-wonderful of seasons, 1987.

IdahoPilgrim
06-22-2012, 12:18 PM
I'd be curious to hear your reasons for proposing the increase. Is there a particularly problem/issue you think this would address, or are you just generating discussion?

greengoblinrulz
06-22-2012, 12:36 PM
it'd be more inventive if you could find a manager who can handle a 25 man roster

Rosterman
06-22-2012, 12:38 PM
Issue #1, additional cost.

Issue #2, actual playing time. More guys would be sitting around having less that 100 at bats and 40 innings pitched, only they'd be on a roster for a full year.

Difference between old days and now -- players did play a lot more. Relief pitchers did multiple innings. You had the spot starter/relief pitcher. Maybe a starter would come back and do an inning or so a few times on his throwing day if necessary.

Remember in the 50s/60s where bonus babies HAD to be carried on a roster (shades of Rule 5 now) and msot did little but learn by sitting on the bench.

Right now, you can get a replacement player up and on the field in less than 24 hours.

Another item of interest is the AAAA players. Looking over real old AAA rosters (go to baseballreference and look up the Twins stuff in the 60s), pretty much everyone who played in AAA was assured of making the big leagues or had played in the bug leagues at some time. We seem to get fewer former big league players hanging on in the minors -- must be the drop from a million-dollar salary to whatever AAA pays on the whole. In the old days, the difference wasn't as great.

But to 30-man rosters - NO. You basically have a pinch runner, a third catcher, a wily-old vet to mop up innings, a total pinch-hitter, and an all-around utility player to backup the bench that yo already have. It's bad enough that a team needs more than 11 pitchers now because of the lack of guys who jsut get into the sixth inning.

But wait, second thought -- and the Union would love this -- from hereon out no starter has to throw more than 100 pitches, a relief pitcher is a short reliever (24 pitches) or long relief (55 pitches) and their role is established out of spring training. A player must be replaced in the line-up if he bats five times. No infielder is allowed more than 15 chances or outfielder more than 9 chances of touching a baseball before being replaced by another player. And no single catcher is allowed to catch more than 2-days in a role, and if the team is willing, each starte can have their own personal catcher.

Riverbrian
06-22-2012, 12:46 PM
Exactly... Managers don't use the 25 man depth available to them. Adding 5 more would make it worse.

ScottyB
06-22-2012, 01:02 PM
In the 60's and 70's your average pitching staff was 9 or 10 pitchers (always a 4-man starting rotation), so you always had at least 7 players on your bench. I was looking back at some old Sporting Newses and found an article about Tony LaRussa's Chicago White Sox in about '79 or '80. At that time he was contemplating an 8-man pitching staff - that's right 5 fewer pitchers than the Twins are currently carrying. All 8 pitchers had the ability to start if needed. In that case, he would have had a bench of 9 players. In those days, platooning players was a regular occurance. You could pinch hit more, have defensive specialists - and always 3 catchers.

When the owners and players were beginning negotiations for the new CBA, I put together a proposal which included a salary cap (which I placed at $225 MM initially.) I proposed expanding to 32 teams with four 4-team divisions in each league. Playoffs would not include wild cards, but the 4 division winners in each league. The other option in my proposal would be expanding the rosters to 28 and 45. Thereby adding additional players to the major leagues. (I know that talent is already watered down and this would cause more players who aren't ready to be in the majors.) My twist to the 28 man roster would be that 3 players each game would be designated as an emergency squad. Before each game the manager would designate which 3 players could be used under emergencies (i.e multiple injuries in the game) and only after the 8th inning. The stipulations would include that starting pitchers could not be designated to the emergency squad. I would include five categories to chose from; infielders, outfielders, catchers, utility players, and relief pitchers. You could only designate one player from each category, but always 3 players.

In this day and age, with 12 to 13 pitchers and a designated hitter, it can leave a mighty thin bench on a regular basis. For the Twins, who regularly it seems are playing even shorter because of Mauer injuries or overworked relief pitchers, it would allow for some players to rest a day or two a week without losing the full 25-man roster.

RIP BYTO
06-22-2012, 01:41 PM
it'd be more inventive if you could find a manager who can handle a 25 man roster

Gardy would use the 5 extra spots on pitchers and catchers.

spideyo
06-22-2012, 01:55 PM
I don't think an expansion of the active roster would be all that useful, but I think maybe introducing a 5 or 7 day DL would make it a lot easier to deal with the day-to-day injuries that leave the bench or bullpen thin for a week.

biggentleben
06-22-2012, 03:50 PM
I don't think an expansion of the active roster would be all that useful, but I think maybe introducing a 5 or 7 day DL would make it a lot easier to deal with the day-to-day injuries that leave the bench or bullpen thin for a week.

They do have a 7-day DL for concussions and roster allowances for bereavement and paternity now. I think a lot of that is just the way teams manage injuries. The tough part is no two teams are the same in how they treat medical issues on their team.

Riverbrian
06-22-2012, 04:31 PM
Before we get to a 30 man roster... I'd really like to see all managers manage their bench players better with a 25 man roster first.

This is an out of the box thought of mine... But I've always felt that bench players should play more than they do.

Here's the out of the box thought:
Baseball is a streaky game... Over the course of 162 game season. Players go into funks and it happens to superstars quite often. Managers will let these guys play themselves out of the funk and the team suffers for the stretch. I say sit them when they are funking. Let them work the kinks out in the cage. They won't lose their timing on the bench for a week. That's a myth.

Of course the opposite is true. If you stick a bench guy in and he goes 4 for 5. Let him play again tomorrow. Let him roll is he's feeling it.

Forget about how much money the player is making. If he's struggling... Give him some rest and see if the bench guy is ready to go.

In Short... Play the hot hand and sit the cold one... No matter who it is.

I know it's out of the box thinking but the box gets a little stuffy at times.

Dark Kinetic-Grip
06-23-2012, 11:32 AM
I'd be curious to hear your reasons for proposing the increase. Is there a particularly problem/issue you think this would address, or are you just generating discussion?

I was curious to hear what others might think of the idea. First, I think there are excessive roster transactions during the season--a larger roster would mitigate this (and perhaps some limitations or modifications to DL and injury rules).

Perhaps an expanded roster would warp what some people feel is a perfect and unchangeable game-perhaps it is, and shouldn't be monkeyed with--but it seems these days there is more strategy being executed at the GM level than on the field. I'd like to see a manager have more choice and strategies available to them. But that is just an opinion, a matter of personal aesthetics on my part.

Maybe it is a product of growing up and watching the SF Giants and Oakland A's--Manager Dick Williams did some crafty (or foolish, depending on your perspective) things to try and win games. Check out this box score Twins vs. A's in 1972. Oakland's 2nd basemen never batted in this game, though the Twins prevailed. http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1972/B09111MIN1972.htm

Sometimes, I find the moves and antics of spring training and September expanded rosters most entertaining.

Jeremy Nygaard
06-23-2012, 11:52 AM
Check out this box score Twins vs. A's in 1972. Oakland's 2nd basemen never batted in this game, though the Twins prevailed. http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1972/B09111MIN1972.htm

I was curious to see how the 2B never batted, so I checked out the box score... and the 2B did bat and went 1-for-2. Though it looks unique, not batting a specific position (besides pitchers, obviously) would be not only really tough, but probably really stupid because you're not keeping a "defensive guy" in, you're constantly rotating.

As far as expanding rosters to 30... it won't happen. There's no good reason for it.

Kobs
06-23-2012, 12:31 PM
Alternative to expanding rosters:

1. Get rid of DH

I don't see how getting rid of the DH is an alternative to expanding rosters. I'd be surprised to find that the NL uses fewer substitutions than the AL.

IdahoPilgrim
06-23-2012, 12:57 PM
My guess is that the DH is heading toward universal acceptance anyway, eventually. That will reduce the number of substitutions and make a larger roster mostly unnecessary.

I do think there would be merit in looking at a 7-day DL list - not just for concussions, but for any injury like the minor leagues have. That would better maximize managers having a full bench available to play, and not have as many "walking wounded."

spideyo
06-24-2012, 01:22 PM
Having a shorter DL would also discourage players from playing hurt. How many times has a guy been out for 3 or 4 games, and then got into a game because they really needed him, and then got hurt worse and ended up on the 15 day DL anyways?

IdahoPilgrim
06-24-2012, 01:26 PM
Having a shorter DL would also discourage players from playing hurt. How many times has a guy been out for 3 or 4 games, and then got into a game because they really needed him, and then got hurt worse and ended up on the 15 day DL anyways?

You're not thinking of anybody in Minnesota, are you?:)

biggentleben
06-24-2012, 09:11 PM
My guess is that the DH is heading toward universal acceptance anyway, eventually. That will reduce the number of substitutions and make a larger roster mostly unnecessary.

AL teams with a DH have as many or more pitchers for bullpen substitutions now. There is no movement in baseball to make DH universally accepted or dropped. The players union won't let it be completely dropped, and the owners don't want any more "veteran" positions, which is basically what a DH is. There will be one more team with DH starting next year with the Astros move to the AL, but that's as much DH movement as I'd wager you'll see in the next 10-20 years, minimum.

darin617
06-24-2012, 10:16 PM
Only 30? Why stop at 30? This is the dumbest thought I have heard of in a while. I can already imagine a 5 hour game with all the pitching changes there would be. Like Gardy needs more options, he doesn't have a clue what to do with the current 25. Why is Darin Mastroianni still in the majors?

SpiritofVodkaDave
06-24-2012, 10:19 PM
The worst part about a 30 man roster is you would have at least one or two guys that has absolutely no business being on a major league roster ever or even a AAA or AA roster. i.e. each team would instantly go out and sign the fastest 40 yard dash guy they could find to simply be late inning pinch runners and nothing else.

I personally think a 25 man roster is just fine, maybe you allow teams to stretch it to 26 in the world series just so that a pitcher never comes up to bat in the bottom of the 13 inning in an important game.

Though I imagine a guy like Drew Butera would be a fan of the 30 man roster, he would end up being a 20 year vet.

Ultima Ratio
06-24-2012, 10:27 PM
I don't like the idea of a 30 man roster because it makes it that much easier to draft a rule 5 player and hide him on the roster for the year if he doesn't put up mlb numbers for you -- but by hiding him, you'd still get to keep him instead of sending back to his team of origin. You'd see a lot more guys taken as rule 5 guys if this were to happen. Not a good way to keep prospect you are developing but who you cannot yet put on the 40 man roster. Then again, maybe that would change to the 45 man roster, eh?