MLB looking at possible limits on the use of relief pitchers

[d-mac]

 

Obviously, I'd argue that it does and you'd argue the opposite.  I don't see how eliminating things that don't impact the game could be a slippery slope.  Nowhere have I suggested that I'd be in favor of limiting pitching changes, I'm not, because that does impact the strategy of the game - which I am adamantly against.  A pitch clock doesn't impact anything.  The uniqueness is the game itself.  Having 5 minutes between pitches makes it no better than football and results in a 4 hour game with 9 minutes of actual action.  

 

I know you didn't say that and I don't mean to put words into your mouth. I do think a pitch clock very much affects how the game is played. Shot clocks in basketball and play clocks in football absolutely affect games. 

[wsnydes]

 

Again, making rules changes for greater "entertainment" value generally have not worked that well in the past in other sports. 

 

I'm all for rules that increase player/fan safety. And for changes that eliminate margins of error in officiating (replays, and hopefully a computerized strike zone). What I am against is rule changes that change the parameters of the game. What makes baseball unique relative to other stick and ball sports is that there is no clock or allotted time in which to complete a game. 

Nobody is suggesting that the game is to be done inside of "x" minutes.  There is no entertainment value to watching the umps sit on a headset for 5 minutes waiting for NY to tell them what the correct call was.

[wsnydes]

 

I know you didn't say that and I don't mean to put words into your mouth. I do think a pitch clock very much affects how the game is played. Shot clocks in basketball and play clocks in football absolutely affect games. 

And I would agree with you that shot clocks in basketball and play clocks in football impact play.  I can't imagine what games before the shot clock era were like to watch.  It had to be absolutely unwatchable at times.  

 

That being said, a pitch clock doesn't dictate the length of a possession.  It doesn't dictate how long you have to set up a play.  It simply forces a pitcher to deliver a pitch or check a runner inside of a certain time.  It doesn't impact actual play one bit.  I've seen it first hand, it doesn't impact play one bit.

[mnfireman]

Pace of play, gametime,etc.... Whatever you want to call it, there is more action in a baseball game than in a football game, according to a Wall Street Journal study from 2013 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323740804578597932341903720). But on each play in a football game all 22 players are doing something, whereas a baseball play might only involve 2 players doing something. I personally enjoy baseball more, I kind of go into "robot" mode during football games (rush left, rush right, incomplete pass, punt....or is that just the Vikings!).

[Willihammer]

I'm warming to a pitch clock, but wouldn't want the actual 12 seconds that is on the books (luckily I don't think any of the clocks are that quick). Average pitch times are around 18-1/2 seconds so a 20 second clock seems reasonable to stop (or un-stop) the Pelfrey's of the world.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Again I think it's a non-issue. 

 

That's fine, but your position is likely to go the way of the dinosaur, so would you rather just roll over or try to find a way to be part of the solution?

 

Pace of play, in the very near future, will be addressed and possibly quite radically.  

[d-mac]

 

Nobody is suggesting that the game is to be done inside of "x" minutes.  There is no entertainment value to watching the umps sit on a headset for 5 minutes waiting for NY to tell them what the correct call was.

 

And I would agree with you that shot clocks in basketball and play clocks in football impact play.  I can't imagine what games before the shot clock era were like to watch.  It had to be absolutely unwatchable at times.  

 

That being said, a pitch clock doesn't dictate the length of a possession.  It doesn't dictate how long you have to set up a play.  It simply forces a pitcher to deliver a pitch or check a runner inside of a certain time.  It doesn't impact actual play one bit.  I've seen it first hand, it doesn't impact play one bit.

 

The headset issue is not something I addressed, but that should be sped up a bit. It shouldn't take as long as it does to challenge a play and then review it. 

 

But I can't imagine having a pitch clock wouldn't affect games. A pitch clock is really no different than a play clock in football. There is a set time in which to decide on a play or a pitch and then run that play or throw that pitch. Both baseball and football, the ball is not in play outside of the play/pitch action sequence. If a team doesn't get the play or pitch off they are penalized. What's the penalty of running out the pitch clock? A balk? 

 

Plus, I might add there have been studies on the impact of time between pitches- shorter time between pitches is an advantage for the pitcher, and a longer time between pitches is a benefit to the hitter. That dynamic between the pitcher and batter changes. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

The headset issue is not something I addressed, but that should be sped up a bit. It shouldn't take as long as it does to challenge a play and then review it. 

 

But I can't imagine having a pitch clock wouldn't affect games. A pitch clock is really no different than a play clock in football. There is a set time in which to decide on a play or a pitch and then run that play or throw that pitch. Both baseball and football, the ball is not in play outside of the play/pitch action sequence. If a team doesn't get the play or pitch off they are penalized. What's the penalty of running out the pitch clock? A balk? 

 

Plus, I might add there have been studies on the impact of time between pitches- shorter time between pitches is an advantage for the pitcher, and a longer time between pitches is a benefit to the hitter. That dynamic between the pitcher and batter changes. 

 

Is that dynamic perfect now? Change <>bad....

[Taildragger8791]

 

If we're talking about marginal returns context matters. There are diminishing returns here. The impact of an 8% return is a lot less if you have $100 million vs $100K. If the game was an hour long the impact of an additional 5 minutes is greater than 15 minutes. 

 

15 minutes over the course of 3-ish hours may not seem like much, but you can feel the difference when trying to focus on a slow game and are experiencing all those little delays which add up. The extra several seconds a particular batter or pitcher takes to get ready between pitches, the excessive pause of a manager thinking about a challenge, multiple mound visits, getting into the bullpen in the 5th or 6th inning and rotating pitchers 1-2 times an inning from there, etc. A 15 second pitch clock seems pretty reasonable, very little changes from pitch to pitch that needs to be reconsidered. But I don't think limiting relievers could or should happen, even though it's increasingly a source of delays. Admittedly, a game does seem less interesting to me if a barrage of random fireballers starts trotting out in the 6th-7th that can shut down all offense, but you can't make a rule against it either.

[Mike Sixel]

I do like the no warmups idea.....unless there is an injury.

[wsnydes]

The headset issue is not something I addressed, but that should be sped up a bit. It shouldn't take as long as it does to challenge a play and then review it.

 

But I can't imagine having a pitch clock wouldn't affect games. A pitch clock is really no different than a play clock in football. There is a set time in which to decide on a play or a pitch and then run that play or throw that pitch. Both baseball and football, the ball is not in play outside of the play/pitch action sequence. If a team doesn't get the play or pitch off they are penalized. What's the penalty of running out the pitch clock? A balk?

 

Plus, I might add there have been studies on the impact of time between pitches- shorter time between pitches is an advantage for the pitcher, and a longer time between pitches is a benefit to the hitter. That dynamic between the pitcher and batter changes.

Players will adjust. Just like with shifts, they'll adjust.

[d-mac]

 

That's fine, but your position is likely to go the way of the dinosaur, so would you rather just roll over or try to find a way to be part of the solution?

 

Pace of play, in the very near future, will be addressed and possibly quite radically.  

 

Is it? Non-baseball fans complaining about the pace-of-play relative to other sports was just as much an issue in 1990 as it is today. The recent increase in the time of game, I argue, has a relatively minimal impact, and has increased at a very slow pace year-to-year. 

 

If it is addressed radically, my interest level in baseball might wane. We should not be fixing things that are not broken in order to appeal to the Sports Center watching rube-ish masses. Fundamentally changing qualities that attracted many of us loyal fans of the game in the first place would damage the sport.

[d-mac]

 

Players will adjust. Just like with shifts, they'll adjust.

 

But shifts were implemented by teams in order to gain a competitive advantage, not through diktat. 

[d-mac]

 

Pace of play, gametime,etc.... Whatever you want to call it, there is more action in a baseball game than in a football game, according to a Wall Street Journal study from 2013 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323740804578597932341903720). But on each play in a football game all 22 players are doing something, whereas a baseball play might only involve 2 players doing something. I personally enjoy baseball more, I kind of go into "robot" mode during football games (rush left, rush right, incomplete pass, punt....or is that just the Vikings!).

 

I too like football, college basketball (can't stand the NBA), motor sports, starting to get into soccer (my wife loves it), but my passion is baseball. It was the sport I fell in love with first. As I kind I played baseball with my dad in the back yard and one day I hope to pass that on to my son. As I played and watched the game, I grew to love the history and the traditions. I loved how it requires significant skill, unlike sports that require you to be a freak of nature, either huge and/or ridiculously gifted. I loved the individual dynamic of pitcher vs batter, yet it is still very much remains a team sport. I loved learning about the business and statistical sides of the game.

 

And yes, I very much love it's leisurely pace. There is very much a beauty and grace in it's non-aggressive lack of in-your-face attitude found in other stick and ball sports. There is no clock to tell a team "it's over, pack up and go home." Until that 27th out, anything is possible.

 

[wsnydes]

 

But shifts were implemented by teams in order to gain a competitive advantage, not through diktat. 

Right, I'm simply stating that they'll adjust.  I'm not sure what your point is.

 

At AAA, the time clock is virtually unnoticeable.  If it weren't for the physical clock, I wouldn't have even given it a thought or known that it was even a thing.

[Mr. Brooks]

Is it? Non-baseball fans complaining about the pace-of-play relative to other sports was just as much an issue in 1990 as it is today. The recent increase in the time of game, I argue, has a relatively minimal impact, and has increased at a very slow pace year-to-year.

 

If it is addressed radically, my interest level in baseball might wane. We should not be fixing things that are not broken in order to appeal to the Sports Center watching rube-ish masses. Fundamentally changing qualities that attracted many of us loyal fans of the game in the first place would damage the sport.

It must be nice to think you are the only "real" baseball fan.

 

Meanwhile, all of us pretend fans that wouldn't mind a few minor changes to speed up the pace of the game.

 

Here is the thing. For me, in a vacuum, I can live without any changes. I'm not going anywhere. However, if you don't want our favorite sport to become a niche sport like boxing and horse racing, it's going to have to adapt to keep the interest of the masses.

[jimmer]

Wanna bring in the fans? Cheerleaders and Hip Hop music.  That should do the trick! :-)

[TheLeviathan]

Yeah, I'm not going to revolt if changes don't happen, but baseball would be foolish to ignore the fact that there are some issues with participation in the sport.  It's losing some of it's luster and part of that may be a combination of their policies towards letting people watch games (archaic and beyond stupid) and the fact that it is probably the easiest game of the four major sports to turn off or away from for long stretches of time and barely miss much.

[kab21]

There is one big problem with this it's only 8% longer than 10 years ago. The problem is that the games were too long then and now they are longer.

 

But I don't think game length is really the focus of this particular discussion. Pitching changes late in the game are as annoying as the constant barrage of timeouts at the end of close basketball game. I hate a 7th or 8th inning in a close gamethat consists of the first pitcher putting a couple of runners on and getting replaced by a specialist. TV advertisement. The specialist pitches to one batter and gets replaced. TV advertisement. During this time you meeting at the mound or two and the result is that the pace of play at what should be the best part of the game has ground to a complete halt.

 

I have proposed before that if a RP enters a game then he has to face a minimum # of batters (2 or 3) before being replaced. Or be replaced between innings. This obviously affects LOOGY's the most.

[Loosey]

 

True, but you can't legislate good command into the game. The zone has "expanded" to allow for more strike calls (truly its not expanded; better umpiring, aided by pitch tracking, has caused the called zone to more closely match the rulebook zone). And ironically, Manfred talks about doing the exact opposite - chopping off the bottom third of the zone, in order to necessitate more "action," ie. pace of play. Seems pretty clear this would actually lengthen games further by leading to fewer strike calls, more walks, etc. the exact opposite of the type of game you are describing.

I agree you can't legislate that type of thing.  Which is kind of what I was trying to get at.  I don't want Pitch Count Minimums or innings minimums for relievers.  Outside of a pitch clock, I don't want many changes.  And Better quality players will make the game quicker and more enjoyable, which is true in every sport. 

[d-mac]

 

It must be nice to think you are the only "real" baseball fan.

Meanwhile, all of us pretend fans that wouldn't mind a few minor changes to speed up the pace of the game.

Here is the thing. For me, in a vacuum, I can live without any changes. I'm not going anywhere. However, if you don't want our favorite sport to become a niche sport like boxing and horse racing, it's going to have to adapt to keep the interest of the masses.

 

I doubt most baseball fans would care one way or the other. The argument has always been framed based on relation to how non-fans of the sport view baseball. I think it's key, though, that we don't fix things that aren't broken in order to broaden the appeal. 

 

You're basing this assumption on what? Baseball is losing fans? It might be the case, but based on the revenue increases baseball has been pulling in the past 10 years, it's doubtful. With parents coming to the realization that football is dangerous to their children's' brains, fewer kids will be playing football, I see baseball and basketball being the largest beneficiaries from that. 

[Willihammer]

 

I agree you can't legislate that type of thing.  Which is kind of what I was trying to get at.  I don't want Pitch Count Minimums or innings minimums for relievers.  Outside of a pitch clock, I don't want many changes.  And Better quality players will make the game quicker and more enjoyable, which is true in every sport. 

I'm with you but Manfred seems to think the average fan is not. He seems more concerned about dominant pitching and strikeouts, and pace of  play- all kind of wrapped into the term "action," than he is game times, which is interesting I think.

[wavedog]

I don't see how you can limit the number of relief pitchers in an inning or game.   I have stated my preference for time saving on relief pitching changes - no warm-up throws when a reliever comes in - and they have to run in from the bullpen - lol!   Pinch-hitters don't get 8 balls to practice hitting.     I am also in favor of limiting the number of trips to the mound - I like the fact now that they limit the time on visits. 

[Loosey]

 

I don't see how you can limit the number of relief pitchers in an inning or game.   I have stated my preference for time saving on relief pitching changes - no warm-up throws when a reliever comes in - and they have to run in from the bullpen - lol!   Pinch-hitters don't get 8 balls to practice hitting.     I am also in favor of limiting the number of trips to the mound - I like the fact now that they limit the time on visits. 

I think they need to bring back the bullpen cars to drive the relievers in.  Speeds it up and brings an entertainment factor.

[wsnydes]

 

I think they need to bring back the bullpen cars to drive the relievers in.  Speeds it up and brings an entertainment factor.

That could also double as a revenue generator, again.  Turn it into a NASCAR and plaster it with logo's and have another company sponsor the actual trip in from the bullpen.

 

I don't like this notion as ballparks and broadcasts are advertisements to the hilt, but it is what it is.

[Rosterman]

Starting pitches must now throw a minimum of 150 pitches in a game before being relieved. A relief pitcher can no longer work more than one out of four games. Players must run faster. No batting gloves allowed on the field. Let's make it a two-strike strikeout and a three-ball walk.

[clone52]

 

I don't see how you can limit the number of relief pitchers in an inning or game.   I have stated my preference for time saving on relief pitching changes - no warm-up throws when a reliever comes in - and they have to run in from the bullpen - lol!   Pinch-hitters don't get 8 balls to practice hitting.     I am also in favor of limiting the number of trips to the mound - I like the fact now that they limit the time on visits. 

 

What games are you watching?  Pinch hitters can basically take as many practice swings as they want before coming to the plate.  Easily at least 8.

[dxpavelka]

 

The pitch clock is alive and well in the minors.  I was at an Iowa Cubs game last weekend and I was amazed at how quickly the game moved.  I'd adopt that in the bigs immediately.  I can't stand how long games take these days.  Molitor using his entire bullpen every night is only part of the problem, but one that I don't think can be taken out of the game.  Time saving measures shouldn't be impacting the ability of a player or manager to play/manage the game.

The problem isn't Molitor using his entire bullpen, the problem is the bullpen Molitor is using.

[wavedog]

 

What games are you watching?  Pinch hitters can basically take as many practice swings as they want before coming to the plate.  Easily at least 8.

I meant do they get to stand in the batters box and hit 8 practice pitches - not swinging at the air.  

[kab21]

 

I doubt most baseball fans would care one way or the other. The argument has always been framed based on relation to how non-fans of the sport view baseball. I think it's key, though, that we don't fix things that aren't broken in order to broaden the appeal. 

 

You're basing this assumption on what? Baseball is losing fans? It might be the case, but based on the revenue increases baseball has been pulling in the past 10 years, it's doubtful. With parents coming to the realization that football is dangerous to their children's' brains, fewer kids will be playing football, I see baseball and basketball being the largest beneficiaries from that. 

 

Revenues don't measure anything as far as popularity is concerned. The revenues of all sports are exploding as desperate cable companies try to remain relevant.

 

The problem here with RPers is that the game grinds to a complete halt in the late innings at times because there are multiple pitching changes (commercial breaks) in an inning. This absolutely does suck.