Possible MLB Rule Changes: Universal DH? Roster size? Anti-tanking?

I wish I had noticed this thread sooner. Now I have to slog through 7 pages of comments, but before I do that I'll weigh in.

Three batter minimum: Never!

Universal DH: Makes sense to me, although I would propose this for fans who insist on two different sets of rules: The visiting team gets to make one roster move with no constraints before every interleague series. If they want to sign a free agent for three days they can do it. If they want to promote a minor leaguer with no loss of options they can do it. This would make it more fair for a team that assembles a roster based on one set of rules but has to play some games under a different set of rules.

20-second pitch clock (and similar batter clock): Yes, but ONLY with the bases empty.

Mound visits: I think six is fine and I could live with five. But there needs to be reasonable allowance for strategizing and going down to four could get in the way of that.

Roster size: An increase to 26 is overdue. Regarding the September limit, it certainly doesn't have to be 40. I think it's reasonable to give managers the opportunity to rest regulars and look at prospects, so maybe 30 or so.

Anti-tanking: The owner of any baseball team that tanks games to move up a spot or two in the draft should fire their GM and manager. Selection order in the baseball draft is just not that critical with the rare exception of the case where one prospective draftee is light years beyond the others.

I don’t think we need the three batter minimum.

The problem is the mound visits and warm up. If you want to change the pitcher, inform the umpire and bring him in. No commercial breaks. No prolonged mound visit as they get ready. No warm ups on the mound. Play baseball.

We also need to end the coach visit to the mound. If it is health related go to the umpire and check the pitcher. Otherwise prepare your team so they know what to do during the game. You don’t need a mound visit where the purpose is often to delay the game.

Leftovers go to minor league players, not owners.

Yes to this. One of the greatest wrongs in baseball is that minor leaguers are living in poverty to chase their dream. All the while ML players become multi millionaires and owners roll around in Billions.

With the travel schedules and the time dedicated to their team it isn't like these guys can go get another job to supplement their incomes either. Or even a part time job. Another 1k a month even wouldn't hurt the owners or MLB players.

I haven't read all the comments here, so maybe some of these ideas have already been offered up.

I would indeed make the DH universal.

However, I would make the DH more robust. I would make the position interchangeable just like any other position. In other words, the DH could become the 2B for defense later, and the 2B would become the DH, or a different player could become the DH. Or The DH becomes the 2B, the 2B becomes the 3B and the 3B becomes the DH. 

And then, because of that flexibility, I would leave the roster at 25. At least until after this is tested. I would not be opposed to 26 players eventually though.

Roster expansions in September do create some roster advantages, but the also ran teams do need to have an opportunity to test their younger players against stronger competition. What's the difference between that and that team fielding a whole team of rookies, because they traded off all the veterans they had at the trade deadline. Teams facing them after the selloff certainly have an advantage over the teams that faced them earlier definitely have an advantage. There is no real solution to this problem that works for all the teams. So leave it alone.

Mandating that a team use a pitcher for 3 batters is also a bad idea. Because now you have a team that may have the benefit of having a balance of LH and RH batters in their lineup having a competitive advantage over the other team that now cannot use their pitching staff to combat that. At the same time the hitting team is free to pinch hit against that pitcher without the pitching team being able to counter that. Again, it will make the games less competitve.

I think the better solutions are the ones that just try to take the wasted time out of the games, like not taking forever to make a pitching change. Like the idea of no additional warm up pitches on the mound. And figuring out how to get the pitcher in the game quicker. Make it mandatory to use a golf cart.

Tanking is a big issue over nothing. Tanking has been going on for years. Somebody has to be the low man on the totem pole. And while teams may not see a need to spend needless money when they have no real chance of competing, I don't think the plan is to just stick extra money in the pockets of the owners. I am sure those teams would much rather be competing and turning the turn stiles.

Why make a team that is clearly in a rebuild situation sign a couple of players that won't significantly help their situation anyway. Really? They are still not going to change the level of competition. Why not allow those teams to expedite their rebuild and return to competition. Is what Houston and San Diego and Atlanta and the Twins did really that bad? Or the Phillies? Maybe if the Yankees and Dodgers and Red Sox and Cubs and Nationals weren't still able to corner all the best players, there wouldn't be so many teams tanking.

Teams that are perennially in the middle of the pack because they were always trying to compete but can't get over the hump are also perennially boring. Teams like the recent Giants, White Sox, the Brewers for many years, the Mets, the Cinncinnati Reds, and so forth. They should have tanked or should have tanked earlier.

Personally, I would rather watch a team that is letting their young players play and develop than one with a bunch of washed up veterans trying to hang on just to force the owner to spend a little money. Wouldn't you?

I haven't gotten through the whole thread yet as I type this, but I think another factor that affects game length and, to some extent, pace of play is that there are many, many more batters working the count in today's game. Batters are much more willing to take a pitch they know is a strike if they don't think they can do anything with it. I certainly do NOT advocate any changes to the rules to change this, BTW. It is just one of the ways in which the game has evolved.

A couple more points to add. On tanking, let's look at last year as a perfect example. The 2 worst records in baseball were the Baltimore Orioles and the Kansas City Royals.

Yet both of those teams definitely started their seasons fully intending to compete. The Orioles signed a few high dollar free agents and held on to Machado and a few others that they could have gotten bigger trade haul from before the season. Kansas City brought back Moustakis and Escobar, and held on to Duffy. They tried. Now you want to take away their high draft picks?

And then, nobody tried to tank more than Miami but they will pick fourth. So you want to put them in a draft lottery and give them a chance at number one anyway. I say leave it alone. Trying to play God with rules only makes things worse.

As far as this thing about the players deserving bigger paychecks just because of higher revenues, I say foul. That's just a ploy that agents use to fill their pockets. How come we don't despise Scott Boras for his billions as much as we do the owners for theirs.

It would be far more fair to distribute that extra revenue to the people working in the office, scouts traveling the country, ticket takers, hot dog vendors, yes to more for minor leaguers, the trainers, minor league coaches. 

Why don't we take the players salaries above a certain amount and redistribute that to all those people. Then we will find out what the players' version of fair really is, won't we?

Just food for thought.

On the 3 batter minimum...

I have been trying to find a game from last season stuck in my memory for being killed by pitcher changes the last 3 innings. 

June 3: Cleveland at Minnesota.

Twins are losing 4-3 as we enter the bottom of the 7th.

Starter Mike Clevenger faced 1 batter. 

Tyler Olson faced one batter

Neil Ramirez faced one batter

Oliver Perez cam in and finished the inning

The Twins took the lead 5-4 for anyone who somehow kept following the game through all of the stoppages. The Indians had two other pitchers this game that faced 2 or fewer batters. The Twins had one. Four other relievers were used in the game. 

Nine relievers. 25 batters faced. 16 outs. Killed the flow of the game. 

While this game had 5 occurrences of a pitcher facing two or fewer batters, it wasn't the most. It might be typical of a close game that otherwise should be the kind of game that brings people to the ballpark. Last year I found 2293 occurrences of a pitcher facing two or less batters. In 1988 there were 1006.

Baseball can help here. 

• Make it a 3 batter minimum or
• Allow only 1 mid inning pitcher change per inning or
• No more coach mounds visits of any kind or
• No warms on mound for relievers.

They have options. The very best games of the year are being killed by constant interruptions from the 7th inning on. Do something.

Universal DH? Absolutely not.

Might as well make all ball parks the same so that ground rules become meaningless.

Pitch clock? Eh.

Want to speed up games? Stop running 3 minutes of commercials between half innings. 

3x18 = 54 minutes of commercials.

I would like to see the one expanded roster spot (or let's say 28 players with 25 set for each game, maximum number of pitchers on the roster).

You should be able to use a pitcher for one pitch or one batter. Three minimum, no. If they are bad, you need to get them out rather than walk the bases loaded.

Universal DH? Or never ever have a pitcher bat or play in the field. How about that, too.

No adjustments of batting gloves once you step to the plate.

Let's eliminate stolen bases. All the time wasted staring the runner back to the base!

DH and parks the same? those are apples and lumber, I don't get that comparison at all.

DH and no DH are ground rules, from where I sit. 

If the move is to homogenize the leagues, might as well go all out and homogenize the parks too.

As long as there is interleague play, I'm all for the DH in both leagues. If they want to keep the differences between leagues, then keep them separate until the WS. I think it's ridiculous for teams to be expected to play many games a season under different rules. So ... either make it the same game or keep it separated until the WS. But the DH is likely coming to the NL. It's the only way the Bryce Harper contract makes any sense, imo.

 

I still fail to see how that has anything to do with making the parks the same. Okay, so you make one part of the game homogenous, so now you want to make every aspect homogenous, because, that's what follows?

Yeesh, can't a guy be a curmudgeon on this site?

Oh, and get off my lawn!

But yeah, I think you've got a point about getting rid of interleague play when it comes to the DH.

I don't mind some changes but I'm dead set against the universal DH, though I think pitchers swinging a bat borders on silly at times.

I guess I worry that MLB is going to do to baseball what the NFL has done to football. (NFL might as well not even draft running back any more, because passing is what the rules are designed to encourage)

The preceding opinion is worth about what you'd expect. Maybe less.