Upcoming 3 batter minimum rule for a pitcher to face

[darin617]

In my opinion this has to be one of the dumbest moves they came up with. I have a few things that bother me about it.

 

1. Taking away strategy from the manager you are putting pitchers in danger as well. In a pennant race teams will not be able to use relievers in back to back days anymore.

 

2. Will turn into a massive advantage to large market teams. Relief pitchers that can get out both left & right handed batters will command money that small markets can't spend on that part of a team.

 

3. How about if a team wants to bring in a lefty to face a batter they need to have the next pitcher come out of the bullpen the same time and have him in the dugout so he can just come in after the batter is done. Let him throw his warm up pitches and no need to have a commercial break. But then the 2nd pitcher must complete the inning or face 3 batters before he can be removed.

 

So many other things that don't make sense on it that I don't want to continue ranting about it.

 

What bothers me is that they are doing most of these changes to shorten the game in hopes of attracting new fans to the game. I don't mind a well played & managed game going over 3 hours.

 

New fans attracted by the new rules will be like a child with a new toy. They will watch for a few games and then move on to something else.

 

 

[cardsfan]

If the trend of more strikeouts and a few more HRs per year continues baseball will be boring. There is fewer and fewer real action in a game with balls in play.

[darin617]

The next thing will be banning the shift. If these hitters cannot make the adjustment they don't belong in the majors. They need to put in the work to become better or simply go away.

 

It would be like if the NFL changed it that teams could not run the ball to the left side of the field or the other way saying a defense can't blizt from the blind side of the QB.

[gil4]

 

"In my opinion this has to be one of the dumbest moves they came up with. I have a few things that bother me about it.

 1. Taking away strategy from the manager..."

 

That's part of the point. Plenty of people hate the strategy of constant pitching changes. They won't stop unless we make them. 

 

 

  

 

"you are putting pitchers in danger as well. In a pennant race teams will not be able to use relievers in back to back days anymore."

 

 

Plenty of closers get three outs and pitch the next day. I'm not seeing the danger.

 

 

"2. Will turn into a massive advantage to large market teams."

 

The advantage is already there. The priorities will just shift. The large markets will still have more money to sign their top 25+ players. I don't see how changing which players will be more highly valued changes the advantage.

 

"3. How about if a team wants to bring in a lefty to face a batter they need to have the next pitcher come out of the bullpen the same time and have him in the dugout so he can just come in after the batter is done."

 

Every mound is different, and pitchers will want at least a few throws off the real mound. I prefer to just give the offense this advantage. I would be OK with an exception - if the first two batters reach, let them replace the pitcher.

 

[gil4]

 

The next thing will be banning the shift. If these hitters cannot make the adjustment they don't belong in the majors. They need to put in the work to become better or simply go away.

 

It would be like if the NFL changed it that teams could not run the ball to the left side of the field or the other way saying a defense can't blizt from the blind side of the QB.

Same with the pitchers - if they can't get lefties and righties out, they don't belong in the majors. I agree on the shift, and I believe it will take care of itself. 

 

Ad far as rushing the QB goes, we're already pretty close to touch football for the QBs because of the constant rule changes. The NFL has always tweaked the rules, and the cumulative effect has been huge. I can remember that NFL receivers had to watch out for the 12th and 13ths defenders in the red zone (before that term existed, of course) because the goal posts were right at the goal line.

 

It's not like the LOOGY is a timeless tradition in baseball and getting rid of it will drastically alter the game. It's a recent phenomenon, and it sucks. 

[the_brute_squad]

I've been advocating for a minimum batter/pitch count for relievers for years. Gone will be the days of manager saunters out to the mound, points to the bullpen, reliever finishes his last warmup pitch, reliever slowly ambles to the mound from 300 feet away, slowly takes his warmup tosses, discusses strategy with the catcher, throws one pitch to the batter who pops it up. Two outs. Manager saunters out to the bullpen.....

That's ten minutes of game time and people wonder why the younger generation is leaving baseball for other sports? Changes like this need to take place or the game dies.

[rv78]

The only reason for this change is to speed up the game. Why not just have the manager, from the top step of the dugout, tell the ump he's changing pitchers. That would save a lot of time. And any reliever that can't run to the mound from the bullpen in less than 1 minute of time once the manager announces the change gets a $10,000 fine. 99% of them shouldn't have any problem running to the mound. Isn't any different than trying to run out an infield base hit. Fans like to see high payed atheletes hustle. If you can't hustle then maybe you should be playing and getting paid millions of dollars.

There are so many other ways to speed up the game and they come up with something this dumb?

Rules like this will make current fans leave just as much as attracting new ones. Maybe more!

[bighat]

MLB is making major changes to the game - that, ironically, those casual fans won't notice.

 

The #millennials and #influencers still won't watch, won't care, won't buy tickets. This type of change just waters down the game for the true fans. It's a lose-lose and I have no idea who Manfred is listening to.

 

All that said, I think part of this is in response to the shifts, the opener strategies, etc. The MLB is trying to keep the game from becoming too much of a chess match. Walking Bryce Harper or Barry Bonds intentionally with nobody on base and zero outs might be a good strategy, but it's not great for the game. So I understand why they are reviewing some things, but changing a 125 year-old sport shouldn't be done so lightly.

[Mr. Brooks]

The next thing will be banning the shift. If these hitters cannot make the adjustment they don't belong in the majors. They need to put in the work to become better or simply go away.

 

It would be like if the NFL changed it that teams could not run the ball to the left side of the field or the other way saying a defense can't blizt from the blind side of the QB.

That's not really an apt comparison.

It's more like if the NFL said you can't line up 4/5ths of your offensive line on one side of the ball.... which is already the rule.

[twinsfansd]

This is the stupidest rule change I have ever heard of. Change the integrity of the game just to shave a couple of minutes off a game? Are you kidding me? I agree that they need to attempt to eliminate the down time caused by pitching changes, like the mound visits, the warm up tosses on the mound after a new pitcher enters, the slow entrance in to the game by the relievers. But do not alter the integrity of the game.

 

The strategy of the game should be dictated by the game situation, not by some ill conceived rule making devised to appease a generation of impatience that can't sit down and enjoy the game just for what it is, a game of strategy using all of your resources to the best effect.

 

I have an idea. Maybe we should change the rules of chess to speed up the game. I can't understand why anyone would want to sit there and watch their opponent strategize for long periods of dead time in between moves. Or maybe I just shouldn't play chess, and not insist on changing the rules for all of those long time chess players who enjoy the game as it is.

 

Maybe a better idea would be to actually promote the game to a bigger audience as the game currently exists. Maybe we should  do something to keep the kids in the ballparks during games, instead of shuffling them to a play land somewhere away from the game so the parents don't have to deal with them. How are the kids going to become fans if they don't watch the game. Or maybe just do a better job of teaching the fans what strategy really is in the game.

 

As far as the infield shifts go, leave it alone. Give the strategist time and they will figure out ways to contend with those shifts. And who knows, the strategies might even make the game more interesting.

 

 

[Vanimal46]

Holy overreacting, Batman! If you're an MLB pitcher incapable of facing 3 batters whether they're right or left handed, you shouldn't be an MLB pitcher.

[Vanimal46]

I've been advocating for a minimum batter/pitch count for relievers for years. Gone will be the days of manager saunters out to the mound, points to the bullpen, reliever finishes his last warmup pitch, reliever slowly ambles to the mound from 300 feet away, slowly takes his warmup tosses, discusses strategy with the catcher, throws one pitch to the batter who pops it up. Two outs. Manager saunters out to the bullpen.....

That's ten minutes of game time and people wonder why the younger generation is leaving baseball for other sports? Changes like this need to take place or the game dies.

Yeah I agree managers strolling on the field to make changes should be eliminated next. Coaches don't even touch the playing surface to make changes in other sports. Watching Gardy hitch up his baseball pants, stretch/groan, and make his way onto the field provides zero value to the game.

[Dantes929]

 

Holy overreacting, Batman! If you're an MLB pitcher incapable of facing 3 batters whether they're right or left handed, you shouldn't be an MLB pitcher.

I agree.    What is a possible career threatener for some is an opportunity for others.    It puts strategy at a more macro level.     Instead of having a starter and then 5 or 6 relievers a game you have a starter and maybe 2 or 3 relievers.    Maybe you don't need to carry as many relievers giving you more options on the offensive side.   On the micro side its not taking strategy away from the managers, its actually putting a premium on it.    Where is the big secret currently of saying "Gee, two guys on and their best lefty is hitting.   I think I will throw my lefty specialist out there"    Instead, now they have to look at the next three guys and consider risk and reward.

[rdehring]

I don't have a problem with the 3 batter minimum.  There are probabaly more situations where you bring in a LOOGY with an out or two and he will only pitch to one or two batters.  Requiring three, unless the inning ends, doesn't bother me.

 

The only rule change that does bother me is limiting the September roster to 28 is too low.  I understand not having all 40 guys in the dugout during September.  But cutting to 28 seems too much.  Could understand 30-32, but adding only 2 guys when the MiLB seasons are over doesn't give you enough slots to bring up the most worthy players to get that taste of the big leagues.  There is a year to go, hopefully, there is time to edge that number up a bit.

[Joe A. Preusser]

MLB is making major changes to the game - that, ironically, those casual fans won't notice.

 

The #millennials and #influencers still won't watch, won't care, won't buy tickets. This type of change just waters down the game for the true fans. It's a lose-lose and I have no idea who Manfred is listening to.

 

All that said, I think part of this is in response to the shifts, the opener strategies, etc. The MLB is trying to keep the game from becoming too much of a chess match. Walking Bryce Harper or Barry Bonds intentionally with nobody on base and zero outs might be a good strategy, but it's not great for the game. So I understand why they are reviewing some things, but changing a 125 year-old sport shouldn't be done so lightly.

If there is such a disconnect between correct strategy and "whats good for the game," then the game is flawed or the rules are flawed. This is a competition. Teams are supposed to find and exploit weaknesses. It should be a chess match.

 

I get it, things change. By all means, adjust rules to address those changes. But dont screw with the essence of the game.

[cardsfan]

Speeding up the game is noble which is now 3 hours down a little from year before. But, number of strikeouts increased 11,000 over the last 15 years, 30 years ago there were 13,000 more hits. Now there are more strikeouts as hits.

 

The league average for strikeout is 8.4 batters per 9 which only 7 pitchers averaged 15 years ago. The league batting average is down to .245 and will likely fall more.

 

So here you have longer games, less action, fewer hits, 1000 more strikeouts each year for years now, mediocre batting averages, etc.

 

Those trends are likely to trend. Just think if 2 years from now there are another 2000 more strikeouts, batting averages drop to .239 and the length of game?

 

Little by little fans' minds will wonder away. I blame the increased speed for arm injuries, less IP per starter, more strikeouts, etc.

 

Just think if there are even more Strikeouts than hits.

[bighat]

 

Speeding up the game is noble which is now 3 hours down a little from year before. But, number of strikeouts increased 11,000 over the last 15 years, 30 years ago there were 13,000 more hits. Now there are more strikeouts as hits.

The league average for strikeout is 8.4 batters per 9 which only 7 pitchers averaged 15 years ago. The league batting average is down to .245 and will likely fall more.

So here you have longer games, less action, fewer hits, 1000 more strikeouts each year for years now, mediocre batting averages, etc.

Those trends are likely to trend. Just think if 2 years from now there are another 2000 more strikeouts, batting averages drop to .239 and the length of game?

Little by little fans' minds will wonder away. I blame the increased speed for arm injuries, less IP per starter, more strikeouts, etc.

Just think if there are even more Strikeouts than hits.

 

I've always thought maybe moving the mound back a few feet and expanding the bases by a few feet might give batters the edge again. I think that back in the day, "pitch to contact" was the norm. Now every pitcher is going for a strikeout. And for good reason: it works. Guys like Aroldis Chapman coming in for the 9th and throwing 102 MPH is basically unhittable, no matter how good of a hitter you are.

[darin617]

 

Holy overreacting, Batman! If you're an MLB pitcher incapable of facing 3 batters whether they're right or left handed, you shouldn't be an MLB pitcher.

 

Just remember that when they ban defensive shifts.  How hard is it for a hitter to make the adjustment? If they can't they should not be playing either.

[gil4]

 

If there is such a disconnect between correct strategy and "whats good for the game," then the game is flawed or the rules are flawed. This is a competition. Teams are supposed to find and exploit weaknesses. It should be a chess match.

I would prefer to watch players play baseball, not managers play chess. (If I wanted to go to a chess match...)

[rdehring]

If Baseball really wants to cut the time it takes to play the game, there is a simple answer.  Just have two or three Willians Astudillo on every team.  One two pitches and the at bat is over...no walks, no strikeouts.  Hell, most fans wouldn't have time for that third beer.

[oregontwin]

I have said for a long time that they either had to put an upper limit on the number of pitchers a team carried or, alternatively, a lower limit on the number of bench players that must be carried. What they did is likely to have a similar effect, but I would have preferred either of the alternatives.

[oregontwin]

Of course, I should perhaps have mentioned that when I was growing up teams typically only carried 9 pitchers. Worked well, and as I recall the games were exciting.

[Rosterman]

Wait, aren't they doing something about requiring two guys on each side of second base?

 

[rv78]

Let's just change the game entirely to speed it up. 2 balls is a walk. 2 strikes is an out. 2 foul balls is an out. Add another 2 players on the field so you have 5 infielders and 4 outfielders to prevent a bunch of base hits. That way there won't be any long innings since teams will be extremely lucky to get more than 2 hits in an inning. No one is building their Team to score with just singles and doubles anymore anyway. Everyone wants homerun hitters. 6 innings and the game is over. If it is tied after 6 have each team load the bases to start every extra inning and first team to score wins. That should cut game time in half. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

There's some evidence that bringing these guys in like this on a frequent basis actually contributes to injuries...

 

Personally, I like the rule, both from the above point, but from a pace of game point. I'm not a fan of having a guy in the pen who is used for that narrow of a situation anyways.