Dismiss Notice
Guest, I have a big favor to ask you. We've been working very hard to establish ourselves on social media. If you like/follow our pages it would be a HUGE help to us. SoSH on Facebook and Inside the Pylon Thanks! Nip

MLB/MLBPA discussing '19/'20 rule changes: Universal DH/no sept callups/3 batter rule

Discussion in 'Red Sox Forum' started by soxhop411, Feb 5, 2019.

  1. soxhop411

    soxhop411 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    33,773
    https://theathletic.com/802364/2019...sals-that-could-bring-big-change-to-baseball/

    Yes on universal DH, No on axing sept callups, no on the 3 batter minimum.. Axing sept callups will screw with service time


    Jeff Passan also lists possible rule changes:


    http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/25935056/mlb-players-discussing-rule-changes-alter-game
     
    #1 soxhop411, Feb 5, 2019
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2019
  2. moondog80

    moondog80 heart is two sizes two small SoSH Member

    Messages:
    5,043
    Seems a little late to tell NL teams they should assemble their 2019 rosters with a DH in mind.
     
  3. DrewDawg

    DrewDawg Dorito Dink SoSH Member

    Messages:
    32,545
    It should be a 3 batter minimum or the end of the inning. You come in to get the 3rd out and you fail, you have to face another hitter.
     
  4. Danny_Darwin

    Danny_Darwin Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    1,203
    To me, nothing prolongs games more than a parade of pitching changes - or it feels that way, at least, even if it isn't literally true. So I'd say bring on the three-batter minimum (unless the inning ends, like the person above me said). It's past time for universal DHing, also. Ending September callups seems like a solution in search of a problem to me, though.
     
  5. DrewDawg

    DrewDawg Dorito Dink SoSH Member

    Messages:
    32,545
    Most teams don't call up that many players where I think the 40 man thing would be an issue in regards to service time but that could be something negotiated around. But not sure why this is an issue.

    I know in the past there was some brief talk of keeping the call-ups, but you'd have to declare a 25-man roster each game.
     
  6. DeadlySplitter

    DeadlySplitter Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    16,123
    Why is the MLB HQ so bad? 3 batter minimum??
     
  7. jercra

    jercra Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    1,841
    The problem with pitching changes isn't the pitching changes themselves, it's the ad break that pitching changes enable. Pitching changes could be done in 30 seconds or less if that's what MLB wanted. They don't. DH is obvious and should have happened long ago. I have no idea what the issue with call-ups is except that it may give some perceived advantage to teams in a playoff hunt with a superior farm system or a mass of late injuries, but that seems far enough on the fringes that's it's not really an issue that needs to be addressed.
     
  8. j44thor

    j44thor Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    8,801
    I've long been against Sept call-ups. Why play the game one way for 85% of the season and then change the rules during the most important part of the season when playoff spots are won and lost. I'd be fine expanding the bench a spot or two but completely changing the roster composition for the final month is lunacy IMO.

    I'd be for a 2 batter min, not 3. There are those instances where a pitcher comes in and simply doesn't have it that night. If he walks the first two batters he faces and isn't particularly close with the pitches why should he be forced to face a third batter?

    All for DH but you need to give teams at least a year advance notice to properly prepare for it. I'd use it in Spring Training with the goal of making it official in 2020.
     
  9. edoug

    edoug Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    1,902
    Teams have so many pitchers, they can bring in a new one for every batter in the last two or three innings. That slows down the game a bit.
     
  10. Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat

    Bob Montgomery's Helmet Hat has big, douchey shoulders Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    31,371
    Totally agree. I've always thought that this was a horrible idea.
     
  11. Scoops Bolling

    Scoops Bolling Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    3,695
    September call ups get a lot of borderline guys time on a MLB roster, time that counts towards their health insurance and pensions. The union will likely fight hard to keep that in place, because it means a lot to a lot of the borderline members.
     
  12. swiftaw

    swiftaw Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    1,897
    I'd have no problem with September call-ups as long as they can only be used in games in which both teams have been eliminated from the post season.
     
  13. jon abbey

    jon abbey Shanghai Warrior Dope SoSH Member

    Messages:
    40,071
    I have no problem with September callups as is, it seems like most of them barely play and it's just about clubhouse experience. I would certainly prefer a 28 man roster (not 26) all season long though and no extra callups. 162 games is too long, but if you don't want to shorten the season, at least expand the roster size.
     
  14. rymflaherty

    rymflaherty Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    2,475
    Seeing a lot of debate on the September call-up one. I skew toward it being dumb to play the last month of the season unlike the rest, but It seems like there can be some middle ground, as swifaw’s idea seems like a potential compromise.
    To throw another out there - what about keeping call-up’s, but each team has to designate a 25 man roster before each series?
    In that scenario you kind of get the best of both worlds. The one potential issue still could be stillbgetting the parade of pitchers if Managers manipulate the 25 to exclude guys that won’t be starting, but if they ensure some sort of deliver rule anyway then this would be a moot point. And if service time is an issue - in this scenario everyone that is “called up” would be incurring service time whether designated eligible in a series or not.

    I was actually surprised to wake up and see this story. All of these ideas seem worth exploring, or like good starting points to discussion. However, they all seem like potentially radical changes in anaport that’s been adverse to change, so it’s tough to imagine any of these changes actually happening in the near future...it will be very interesting to see how this plays out.
     
  15. jon abbey

    jon abbey Shanghai Warrior Dope SoSH Member

    Messages:
    40,071
    I'm sure it's too short notice to happen this year, but a bunch of NL teams already have very good DH candidates. The Mets have Cano and then Lowrie could play 2B, Jose Martinez on STL and Reyes on SD and Murphy on COL are all better off not in the field, maybe Schwarber in CHC too.

    That's 5 out of 15 off the top of my head, and in fact the Mets going after both Cano and Lowrie makes a lot more sense if the NL had a DH.
     
  16. jkempa

    jkempa Well-Known Member Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    7,821
    With the three batter minimum, what happens if the pitcher is injured during his appearance?

    I agree that the idea of September call-ups affecting pennant races is kind of stupid. I'm also sympathetic to the service time issue.

    The reason that there is this possibility is because the minor league seasons end before the major league season. Is there some reason that it couldn't be changed so that rosters expand at the beginning of the season and start the minor league season later? It would be helpful as players get into shape for the season and removes the chance that someone who wouldn't normally affects the outcome of a pennant race. I feel like I must be missing something more obvious than rewarding players that have had strong minor league seasons, but they just get their reward at the beginning of the next season. Thoughts?
     
  17. charlieoscar

    charlieoscar Member

    Messages:
    1,272
    What else could you do but forfeit the game?
     
  18. EricFeczko

    EricFeczko Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    2,811
    Furthermore, only 7 of 15 AL teams had good performing DH players last year:

    https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.a...8&ind=0&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0

    EDIT: Actually the number of "pure" AL DHs is fewer than that, since some of those players were at defensive positions for a large chunk of games (e.g. Stanton).
     
  19. charlieoscar

    charlieoscar Member

    Messages:
    1,272
    Because the American League and National League are no longer separate entities and because they play some regular season games against each other, they should be playing by the same rules, so they either both use the DH or don't use it. Because most AL pitchers haven't batted for a while, the easiest solution would be to make the designated hitter universal.

    One of the things that leads to the lengthening of game time when switching pitchers is the manager stalling. The pitching coach will come out and the infielders and catcher will join him at the mound until the umpire eventually comes strolling out to break it up. Then after a pitch or two, the manager will come out to the mound and there may be a short argument by the pitcher before he gives up the ball. Finally, the new pitcher will throw some warm-up pitches before the game resumes. The warm-up pitches are necessary because the bullpen and the pitcher's mound are different but since he is going to throw eight pitches, perhaps the manager does not need to stall as long as he does.
     
  20. moondog80

    moondog80 heart is two sizes two small SoSH Member

    Messages:
    5,043
    You can take him out if he's hurt, but that means he has to miss the next game or two or whatever.
     
  21. soxhop411

    soxhop411 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    33,773
    Jeff Passan also lists possible rule changes:


    http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/25935056/mlb-players-discussing-rule-changes-alter-game
    @jon abbey

    @moondog80
     
  22. grantb

    grantb Couldn't get into a real school Silver Supporter SoSH Member

    Messages:
    2,029
    Nothing about tweaking the review process? It's idiotic how it stands. The umpires don't even review the play! Just have NYHQ review all the plays and buzz down to the umpire when they get it wrong. It's essentially what happens anyway as managers get on the phone and get told to ask for a review or not. Make it so they get the call right, and move on. I don't need the 'drama' of will they/won't they challenge the call and the 'strategy' of potentially losing their challenge when any close play can be requested to be reviewed anyway.
     
  23. Jed Zeppelin

    Jed Zeppelin Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    33,939
    The 3-batter minimum is a tee-ball rule and should be laughed off the face of the planet.
     
  24. wade boggs chicken dinner

    wade boggs chicken dinner Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    16,001
    It's the easiest solution but I would guess also the costliest for the owners. And frankly, it's one of the things that has helped to create the current economic situation. In 2015 (latest look I could easily find), this Forbes article stated that "Altogether, the 15 American League teams doled out $125.7 million for their regular D.H.’s in 2015, an average of $8.4 million apiece. The average Wins Above Replacement for the group: 1.2, with 9 of the 15 coming in at 1.0 or lower. Chicago’s Adam LaRoche, Detroit’s Victor Martinez, and Oakland’s Billy Butler, who combined to earn $32.6 million last season, all put up negative WAR." Basically, the DH gave a bunch of money (and now cap space) to old sluggers who would have been out of the game in past years.

    If the owners had been smarter many many moons ago, they would have (i) never agreed to the current arbitration system, and (ii) IMO they would have changed lineups to 8 hitters (so that the pitchers don't have to bat if that is what people wanted) instead of instituting a DH.
     
  25. Max Power

    Max Power thai good. you like shirt? SoSH Member

    Messages:
    3,448
    How many of those players providing negative value were at the beginning of their contracts? The end years of free agent contracts are almost universally negative value, but those players are still on the roster and probably have deteriorated physically to the point where they can't play the field, so they end up at DH. I don't see that as an issue. The contracts are guaranteed and they're still better hitters than pitchers.
     
  26. Pablo's TB Lover

    Pablo's TB Lover lurker

    Messages:
    339
    The 3-batter rule stinks of the NFLs level of over-officious jerks and teams will immediately find a way around it or we'll need 10 asterisks to really carry out the rule. We'll have a lot of "oh my arm, it's broken!" I think the combination of a pitching-change clock and between pitches clock will deter teams from using more than one single-batter specialist, just from a practical level of having enough time to warm the next dude up. But watch, after the clocks are implemented we'll see the first 4-mound bullpen...
     
  27. uncannymanny

    uncannymanny Well-Known Member Gold Supporter SoSH Member

    Messages:
    5,944
    Is $8.4/1.2 really a bad value? What were the $/WAR for the last pitcher on the roster + pitchers batting in the NL?
     
  28. crow216

    crow216 Dragon Wangler SoSH Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    3 Batter minimum is going to be the most controversial. Relief pitchers can get tired and lose their stuff. If you have someone who you used 3 days in a row and you only want them to face one batter because that's all the juice they have left, now what? Manager can't make a judgment call?

    I'd rather them just limit the number of pitching changes per inning to 3 as a test and every time a lineup turns over, you get one new pitcher.
     
  29. DrewDawg

    DrewDawg Dorito Dink SoSH Member

    Messages:
    32,545
    Shows what you know, pitchers don't pitch in tee ball!!!!!!
     
  30. DrewDawg

    DrewDawg Dorito Dink SoSH Member

    Messages:
    32,545
    Could be why they're talking about increased rosters.
     
  31. charlieoscar

    charlieoscar Member

    Messages:
    1,272
    Roughly the first 100 years of baseball was without the DH, then for whatever reason (more offense?), the AL decided to use it. Overall, pitchers haven't been good hitters. I looked at Red Sox pitcher batting many years ago (after DH began) and found that even though they have had a lot of good-hitting pitchers, there was only one season (ca. 1904) that their pitchers' combined career average was over .200. There have been a lot of pitchers who had the potential to hit well but just did not get the opportunity. For example, in the earlier days, the regular players simply would not let pitchers take batting practice and eventually they just gave up trying. Look at how many pitchers there have been who played other positions when in school, particularly high school when they were among the bset athletes. Even in today's college ranks, you find a number of players who play another position when they are not pitching.

    The trend in the majors was to use aging, good hitters who had become a weakness in the field as designated hitters. Today, there is a movement away from that, where they want their DHs to be able to fill in as needed.. Last season there were only four players who played at least 90% (100+ games) as DH/PH/PR and 7 with 80%.

    Baseball is making money hand over fist and because of the players' union and court rulings, they have to share it more or less equally with the players. The longer you stay around, the more you make; the better you perform, the longer you stay around. I still think the owners should tell the players, "This is your share of the money, divide it amongst yourselves however you want."
     
  32. Lose Remerswaal

    Lose Remerswaal Leaves after the 8th inning Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    33,338
    26 man roster with only 12 pitchers makes no sense to me. Unless folks like seeing Mitch Moreland on the Mound.

    And the term Universal DH has me hoping they make David Ortiz the DH for every team.
     
  33. AB in DC

    AB in DC OG Football Writing Silver Supporter SoSH Member

    Messages:
    5,474
    My preference here is to put a hard limit on the amount of time it takes for each pitching change, say 90 seconds. If your reliever wants to have six or seven warmup pitchers, he better be sprinting out of the bullpen. If he just saunters in like a lot of relievers, he'll only have time for one or two.
     
  34. Jed Zeppelin

    Jed Zeppelin Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    33,939
    You know, I wrote little league but replaced it because it didn't seem amateurish enough for this terrible idea.
     
  35. Philip Jeff Frye

    Philip Jeff Frye Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    6,801
    No discussion of MLB's continued interest in sneaking the "start extra innings with a man on second" rule into the game? All Star Game and spring training? How long before that leaches into actual games that count? If they're concerned about spring training games taking too long, why not just allow ties? No one would care. This is a terrible idea.

    As for punishing teams that do badly/rewarding teams that do well in the draft, doesn't that undermine competitive balance? Would the Astros have become the success they have if this rule had been in place?

    Its disheartening, but I suppose not surprising, that baseball is so intent on fundamental changes to the game that don't address the single fundamental reason games are too long - television commercials.
     
  36. AB in DC

    AB in DC OG Football Writing Silver Supporter SoSH Member

    Messages:
    5,474
    For spring training games tied after nine innings, why not just declare it a draw? It's not like the W-L records matter.
     
  37. Wily Mo Lester

    Wily Mo Lester Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    345
    Don’t they already end ST games as a tie after the 10th inning?
     
  38. cornwalls@6

    cornwalls@6 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    797
    Precisely because the W-L records don't matter. I think the idea is to use them as a laboratory to see how these potential changes play-out, and if they're feasible in real games. FWIW, I'm:

    Yes on a pitch clock.
    Yes on reducing mound visits.
    A resounding No on 3 batter minimum.
    A resounding Yes on universal DH
    No on eliminating September call-ups. Open to compromise on the number, but the chance to see a heralded young prospect get his feet wet in MLB games is one the cool little quirks of the game, IMO
    No on 26/12 pitcher roster. I like the idea of a slight roster expansion, but let the clubs do it however they please.
    No on trade deadline changes. There's no issue with the way it's done now.
    No on lowering the mound. I don't like manufactured offense, in any sport.
    Yes on 2 sport amateurs being able to sing MLB contracts.
     
  39. The Gray Eagle

    The Gray Eagle Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    12,329
    I think teams like to use the September call-ups to help develop their young players by giving them a head start on getting acclimated to playing in the majors, letting them just get used to what it's like and to learn from the veteran players.
    But rather than having so many extra players eligible to play in every game, I think they should have to name a max of maybe 3 players who are eligible to play in each game. Since the minor league seasons are over, they could still let the same number of minor leaguers travel with the big club and sit in the dugout, etc. but only a couple should be eligible to play in a given game.

    It makes more sense to have an expanded roster in April, when pitchers are still building up arm strength and are frequently limited in pitch counts. And slightly larger rosters at the beginning and end of the season could help avoid fatigue for the guys on the roster all year.

    So I'd be in favor of having 2 or 3 extra eligible players in both April and September, rather than the current system.
     
  40. jon abbey

    jon abbey Shanghai Warrior Dope SoSH Member

    Messages:
    40,071
    They usually ask the managers if they want to keep playing after 9, sometimes they have other players they'd like to see or they might not have any pitchers left.
     
  41. Average Game James

    Average Game James Well-Known Member Gold Supporter SoSH Member

    Messages:
    1,007
    I wonder if 3 batter minimum is being used as an opening position with the hopes of actually getting to 2? 3 seems excessive if only because a guy could reasonably get gassed if he pitched the night prior and has to deal with a couple longer ABs. The extra roster spot doesn’t help if the number of pitchers is limited, so it’s not crazy to think this introduces injury risk for some RPs, which I can’t imagine the union would go for...

    As a fan, I don’t hate the idea because pitching change - one batter - pitching change really kills the flow of what could otherwise be really exciting late inning sequences. Plus, it’s just kinda annoying.
     
  42. Danny_Darwin

    Danny_Darwin Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    1,203
    Maybe a two-tiered rostering system where you can call as many players up as you want in September, but you can still only use 25 in any given game - young players still get exposure to the big leagues, players who need the rest can be deactivated (without being demoted or disabled), and teams still match up evenly. But then, I guess, teams would still load up their bullpens by deactivating all of the starting pitchers who aren’t scheduled to appear.
     
  43. Average Game James

    Average Game James Well-Known Member Gold Supporter SoSH Member

    Messages:
    1,007
    You could get around that by requiring a team have 4 or 5 SP active at any given time. Sure, the definition of “SP” is fungible, especially given the opener concept, but presumably you could get around it by saying any pitcher that pitches the first inning of a game must remain on the active 25 man September roster for 5 consecutive days unless placed on the DL or something like that...
     
  44. Average Game James

    Average Game James Well-Known Member Gold Supporter SoSH Member

    Messages:
    1,007
    Also, no discussion of the tank tax concept? I think it’s interesting, though maybe there need to be some qualifiers around it... like, I could get behind a draft slot penalty for teams that are terrible in consecutive years AND aren’t spending any money on their major league roster. Owners might get behind tanking strategies a little less if they were still required to spend a certain amount on the major league roster...
     
  45. Plympton91

    Plympton91 bubble burster SoSH Member

    Messages:
    11,652
    Moustakis is still a free agent.
    Adam Jones is still a free agent.
    Harrison is still a free agent.
    Mark Reynolds is still a free agent.

    I think it should be 3 batters or a base runner or end of inning. If a guy comes in and walks two batters, you should be able to remove him. End of inning doesn’t add time if you change. But if you come in and K a guy for our number 2, you have to keep pitching.
     
  46. Plympton91

    Plympton91 bubble burster SoSH Member

    Messages:
    11,652
    I’ve been pushing that idea on these Boards for a month or so now. I think it is the best way for the players to force teams to spend on marginal win improvements that won’t result in a higher playoff probability. I would absolutely support it. They shouldn’t tie it to low revenue teams though. It should just be that you get a draft and international signing penalty if you lose 95 games or more in consecutive seasons and you get draft and international bonuses if you finish .500 and miss the playoffs or lose the wild card game.

    Penalties for losing marginal games
    Rewards for winning marginal games.

    That’s the way to get more spending.
     
  47. Danny_Darwin

    Danny_Darwin Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    1,203
    Marwin Gonzalez would be perfect for this list. Maybe this could even draw some more teams into the Harper/Machado quagmire.

    EDIT: And, actually, looking around, it seems like most of the teams have semi-obvious candidates for this anyway, or they’re the Dodgers who are positionally flexible to begin with. The only exceptions I’m seeing - and please, correct me if I’m missing someone - are Pittsburgh, Miami, and Arizona.
     
    #47 Danny_Darwin, Feb 6, 2019
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2019
  48. z-factor

    z-factor lurker

    Messages:
    7
    How about not allowing a mid-inning relief pitcher to warm up on the mound? They can get loose in the bullpen. Yes, I recognize that mounds get uniquely worn during the game, but I see this as a feature. The manager would need to determine whether the freshness of the new pitcher would be worth the risk of having to adjust for the first few pitches while throwing to a live batter. Think if the strategic second-guessing involved.

    Baseball is the only sport that interrupts the game to allow players to warm up on the field.
     
  49. charlieoscar

    charlieoscar Member

    Messages:
    1,272
    I don't think they have mounds in the bullpen, or along the sidelines if that is where pitchers warm in a particular stadium, that are anything like the actual mound.

    https://c.o0bg.com/rf/image_1200w/B...GrossfeldPre5.jpg?uuid=anBfrNgQEeiB0dJN_n9wAQ
     
  50. DanoooME

    DanoooME Well-Known Member Gold Supporter SoSH Member

    Messages:
    15,097
    He signed a minor league deal with the Rockies.

    The tank tax I'm okay with.

    I prefer the idea of limiting pitching changes in an inning instead of a per-batter minimum.

    DH all around is good

    26 man roster makes too much sense, even if there's an extra pitcher instead of hitter. Make it 26 with a 13 pitcher max. But maybe they need to increase the time you have to stay off the roster (make the DL 15 days again and/or make it a minimum of 15 days in the minors before they can return)

    I'm okay with the restrictions on 40 man rosters, with a 26 man active roster, but anyone deactivated can't return for 3 days, which should reduce the shenanigans with leaving all of the other SPs off of the roster.

    The strange one is the mound lowering. Is there really a problem with offense in this game? Last time they lowered the mound, the R/G went up over half a run. And MLB still has not regressed to the level of 1969, so to me, there's nothing wrong there.
     

Share This Page