Require Relievers to Face More than 1 Batter? I think I like this.

[JB_Iowa]

There have been a number of proposals for speeding up the game.  While I favor enforcing the current rules, I'm not really in favor of a time clock.

 

But now there is this idea:

 

The answer seemingly is yes, but eureka! Here’s an idea that could both increase offense and improve the pace:

 

Require relievers to face more than one batter per appearance. Make it at least two, or even better three.

 

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/just-a-bit-outside/story/rosenthal-speed-up-mlb-game-make-relievers-face-more-than-1-batter-faster-game-more-runs-012815

 

Yes, it would change the strategy of the game but it would introduce a whole new level of strategy.

 

When I think about what drives me crazy about the current pace of the game, constantly changing pitchers is a big part of it.  The game just doesn't seem to flow in the latter innings.

 

This is an idea that warrants some consideration.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I'm a bit of a purist but I'm not entirely against this idea. Some managers have gone completely off the deep end with bullpen management and it's hurting the game. There are a few reasons to force a pitcher to face more than one batter:

 

1. It speeds up the game. A lot.

2. It forces more utilitarian bullpens, which *should* lead to smaller bullpens

3. Smaller bullpens mean bigger benches, which make for better late-inning substitutions

 

While I'm not against this idea, I'd wait on it for a year. First and foremost, just impose the rule on the books. We don't even need a rule change, or a pitch clock, or any of that garbage.

 

If the pitcher doesn't release the ball within 12 seconds of receiving it, call a ball. It's that bloody simple. The rule exists. Enforce it.

 

If a batter is doing his best tree sloth impression while adjusting his jock, gloves, tying his shoes, whatever, tell him to get his ass back into the box. The umpire has that right.

 

I'm not sure we need new rules, we just need umpires to start enforcing the rules already on the books.

[gunnarthor]

Yeah, I think umps should do a better job of forcing the issue.  I liked Joe P's piece abut how baseball has no clock and I agreed with it.

As to the reliever rule, all I could think was Tony La Russa would have fought like hell against that.

[James]

You know, I don't know how I feel about this.  I don't really think it needs to happen.  I would definitely wait on this for a bit.

 

I don't actually hate the pitch clock... in the minor leagues.  I think the great thing about it is that it will teach players how to work faster in the minors.  Hopefully, we won't need a pitch clock in the major leagues because all the pitchers will be used to working at that pace by the time they reach the majors.  

 

The umpires do need to be more vocal with getting the players back in the batters box though.  Some of the things some of those guys do are just ridiculous.  

 

But, you get pitchers used to working at a faster pace, and keep the batters in the box, the games will start moving and you probably won't need to enact a rule like this and will keep all the purists happy.

[Mike Sixel]

I think teams should be free to use their players any way they want. I am not in favor of this at all, but wouldn't be upset if it happened.

[TheLeviathan]

I don't think I could get behind this rule change as I tend to side more with Brock.  There are rules already in place to move things along, lets emphasize those.

 

But in the end, something has to give because baseball is becoming a dinosaur in a lot of respects and losing a lot of ground to other sports.

[kab21]

I might have mentioned this before.  I 80% really like the idea and 20% unsure (there can always be unintended consequences).  Mostly I don't like things that I consider overmanaging and this is one of them.  Using 3 (or more) RP'ers in an inning drives me crazy.  Filling up an entire roster of RP'ers such that teams have a skeleton offensive bench seems silly. 

[JB_Iowa]

I have mixed feelings as well.  They need to enforce the rules currently in place before making any drastic changes and hopefully they will start doing that.  But I don't have a lot of faith in the umps ability to alter ingrained behavior.  So alternatives like this one that would force a change intrigue me,  And while it would change strategy, it wouldn't really change the tradition of the game:

 

As Rosenthal pointed out on the MLB Network, in 1974 the average numbers of a relievers in a game was 2.8; this past season it was 6.0.

 

http://www.gammonsdaily.com/on-the-theo-epsteinken-rosenthal-idea-of-making-relievers-face-more-than-one-batter/

 

And Tony LaRussa may not have liked it but I have no doubt he would have found a way to make it work.

[jimmer]

The pitch counts which have forced teams to go to the bullpens earlier than the past have affected the time of play because we have more pitcher switch-outs. The expanded bullpens with specialists has effected the time of play. 

 

I think we need to see what the average game time of MLB this year is without Jeter in the game.  Between him stepping out and doing his adjustments after every pitch and all the fanfare he had to have at every park, that had to have really affected the amount of game time. :-)

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Not sure I like it but at least it's thinking outside the box. Try enforcing the rules on the books before adding more. Empower the umpires to keep the game moving.

 

Also, issue crowbars to every home plate umpire to be used to pry the strike zone a little wider. Again, another case of drift / not enforcing rules already on the books.

 

Also, replay.

[Dman]

I think a clock wouldn't be a bad idea.  Didn't basketball face similar issues with zone defense and not taking shots.  The strategies made the game too boring so they introduced the illegal defense rule and the shot clock.  Seems like they are doing just fine with those rule changes.  IMHO I don't think playing the game faster would hurt the game that much at all and I would enjoy things moving faster and games being shorter.  A clock would just put everyone on the same page and take the burden off the umps to decide how much is too much time.

[h2oface]

Giving Blue more to do is a mistake in my mind. Giving them less.... like the cameras calling accurate balls and strikes..... much better.  The game ends when it ends. We love baseball and then want to make less of it happen? I don't get it. 

[biggentleben]

I think a clock wouldn't be a bad idea.  Didn't basketball face similar issues with zone defense and not taking shots.  The strategies made the game too boring so they introduced the illegal defense rule and the shot clock.  Seems like they are doing just fine with those rule changes.  IMHO I don't think playing the game faster would hurt the game that much at all and I would enjoy things moving faster and games being shorter.  A clock would just put everyone on the same page and take the burden off the umps to decide how much is too much time.

 

Not exactly accurate in the NBA's case.  Illegal defense is no longer because zone defense was illegal and is no longer illegal.

[Dman]

Not exactly accurate in the NBA's case.  Illegal defense is no longer because zone defense was illegal and is no longer illegal.

My bad it used to be there.  At one time you had to play man to man or you got called for it.  I guess in the end the clock solved the problems for them.  

[Dman]

 We love baseball and then want to make less of it happen? I don't get it. 

 

With that statement I admit you are a greater fan of baseball than I am.  i just see it differently.  Even if you have a clock to speed up the game you get the same amount of baseball.  To me what you get rid of is the non-baseball related stuff i.e Grab jock, adjust gloves, take deep breath, spit, take another deep breath, step out of the box etc.  I guess if you enjoy those things then Yes you would get less baseball.  As far as hits, runs, pitches thrown etc all those baseball things remain the same whether the game is shorter or longer.

[jimmer]

We love baseball and then want to make less of it happen? I don't get it. 

I agree with you.  A lot of the extra stuff is a player's way of trying to get his opponent out of his groove. For example, if you're facing Buehrle, who LOVES to just go go go, wouldn't it be good strategy to step out on him quite a bit, make him wait, mess with his rhythm? Baseball is a thinking man's game.  To me, that's it's appeal.  So much more action than what's going on with the ball.

 

I am absolutely fine with how long games takes, especially if I am AT the game.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I just don't know how the fan experience would improve with a clock constantly ticking down the entire game for everyone to see. 

 

Should the clock be rounded to the second or the tenth of second? If the pitchers is in the windup but hasn't delivered the ball as the clock strikes zero, is it a ball? Does the umpire jump out and yell Time! and then point to the scoreboard as a ball is added to the count? What happens if the batter ended up hitting a home run on that pitch but the umpire didn't jump out until after the ball was hit? Does the opposing manager have an argument that the play never happened? Do they go to replay? What about clock malfunctions? 

 

I guess we'll see what happens in the minor leagues this year. Hopefully this is just a tool to prepare guys to play faster when they are called up, and not a trial for actually implementing it in MLB stadiums. 

 

The one batter minimum is a better idea. Managers would get a reset after each half inning. Otherwise you have Perkins entering the game with two outs in the ninth, retires his only batter, and is required to pitch in the tenth to reach his minimum. I'm still not sold on it though. Not sure how well it actually addresses the speed of the game issue compared to the length of at bats when there are runners on base.  

[Platoon]

I hate to "tinker" with the game. There are enough rules in place that are not enforced to move it along. The strke zone is the first, a swing early and swing often one would make a huge difference. As would calling only about 3 balls per game for the first week of the season for late pitches. That's all it would take. Here's one that will never be implemented! Cut the time between half innings down to 2 min. That would knock off over 15 min off the top.

Oddly I kind of like the minimum of 3 batters per RP, with a reset at the start of an inning. It would change strategy, save time, and change the roster configurations. It would not be any more or less of a sacrilege than the DH rule. Hmm with a rule like that, what would be the over/under on the number of catchers Gardy would have carried??

[ashbury]

Here's one that will never be implemented! Cut the time between half innings down to 2 min.

What corresponding move would you make to recoup the lost advertising revenue on teevee, which is why the breaks are as long as they are now?

[Platoon]

What corresponding move would you make to recoup the lost advertising revenue on teevee, which is why the breaks are as long as they are now?

.. I don't have one. It was simply a note to remind us that one of the reasons games take longer overall is the added time for commercials. I realize without revenue, less games will be broadcast. But it is a factor in the math. It was also the reason for the invention of TIVO.

[Thrylos]

What if a LOOGY goes in to face a leftie and then calls the trainer after he is done with the leftie batter.  Are they going to let him get out?

 

I am really against anything that takes strategy out of the game.  What's next?  Eliminate pinch hitters and pinch runners?

 

Do you want to shorten the game?  Here:

 

a. Quit the mascot races, T-shirt/hot dog canons etc. in-between inning silliness.

b. Allow 30 seconds between pitches; anything more than 30 seconds automatic ball

c. Allow only one equipment check/timeout/getting out of a batters box, second and more are strikes

d. Catchers' trips to the mount count as coaches' trips.  With the second within an inning the pitcher has to get out.

[USAFChief]

I'm not convinced anything needs to be done, but if something has to be, I would prefer using methods to speed the game that concentrate on eliminating the time between pitches.

 

Relief pitchers entering the game don't need 8 more warmup pitches. Any visit to the mound counts as a coaches visit. Put a clock on pitchers...and hitters.

 

I think the growth of bullpens, and corresponding pitching changes, will self correct as some smart manager finds a way to get by with a 10 or 11 man pitching staff and gains an offensive and/or defensive advantage that other teams then copy.

 

You might even see a team with a big enough bench to try this thing called a "platoon."

[diehardtwinsfan]

I like the idea, but it may have more to do with the fact that I think this is not good on relievers from a health standpoint.  Not sure if that's an assumption on my part or if there's something there.  But Gardy's bull pen use really made me wonder if a lot of the reliever health issues were due to this. 

[kab21]

What if a LOOGY goes in to face a leftie and then calls the trainer after he is done with the leftie batter.  Are they going to let him get out?

 

 

 

Obviously there would have to be a penalty.  If a RP'er leaves before he completes the 2-3 batters then they could automatically award an IBB and all runners advance one base.  This should be enough of a penalty that he stays in.

[big dog]

What corresponding move would you make to recoup the lost advertising revenue on teevee, which is why the breaks are as long as they are now?

I wouldn't mind it if major league player salaries were cut by 20% or so.  They could still get along.

[Paul Pleiss]

Stop making more rules. Make less rules, especially the unwritten ones.

[Seth Stohs]

I don't hate this idea. I'm a fairly big baseball fan and I can hardly bear the last 3 innings with all the pitching changes. I watch because I get it, but it's annoying. 

 

If I were to guess what the #1 reason for the games taking forever these days, it's all the pitching changes. 

 

That said, I don't like adding too many rules. The game is the game. Play it. 

[Linus]

I'm not crazy about the idea because it fundamentally changes the way the game is played but I am all for trying to do something about this.  Its not so much the time but the pace; there is just a whole lot of nothing going on for far too much of each game.

 

Here would be my ideas:

Strike zone: call strikes, everything would move along, pitch counts would be lower and starters would work longer into games.  This might tempt some teams to go back to 11 man pitching staffs, allowing for more and better pinch hitters and fewer relievers.

 

Once the pitcher is on the rubber he cannot get off until he delivers a pitch. 

 

Once the batter enters the box, he cannot step out.  In between pitches, he has to keep one foot in the box.

 

Trip to the mound counts as a visit, no matter who does it.

 

Managers must immediately challenge a call.  If they come out of the dugout they lose their right to challenge.

 

Reduce relievers warm ups when they enter the game to 4.

 

Ban batting gloves.  Screwing around with these things is what started this mess (and a strike zone the size of a microwave oven).

 

Call strikes.

 

Did I mention, call strikes?

[kab21]

I think calling more strikes is the last thing that is needed.  Strikeout rates have gone through the roof in the last 5 years. 

[Dantes929]

I'm not convinced anything needs to be done, but if something has to be, I would prefer using methods to speed the game that concentrate on eliminating the time between pitches.

 

Relief pitchers entering the game don't need 8 more warmup pitches. Any visit to the mound counts as a coaches visit. Put a clock on pitchers...and hitters.

 

I think the growth of bullpens, and corresponding pitching changes, will self correct as some smart manager finds a way to get by with a 10 or 11 man pitching staff and gains an offensive and/or defensive advantage that other teams then copy.

 

You might even see a team with a big enough bench to try this thing called a "platoon."

I was kind of thinking along the same lines but from a different direction.    Why not just limit the number of pitchers on a staff to 10 or 11?    Makes 6 pitchers a game less likely which is kind of the most ridiculous part of all this.    Was not aware there was a 12 second limit already on the books but think the batter should be limited on time outside the box as well.    Never really cared for the gamesmanship of making a pitcher wait to throw off his rhythm unless you vary it a little within the 12 seconds the pitcher is allowed..     You can do other stuff like bunt more to get a pitcher out of his comfort zone.