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

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,278
The left-on-left specialist — a left-handed reliever who sometimes faces only one left-handed hitter — soon might be an endangered species in Major League Baseball.

As part of a Jan. 14 proposal to the players’ union on pace of play, baseball suggested a rule requiring pitchers to face a minimum of three batters, sources told The Athletic.

The Major League Baseball Players Association responded last Friday with its own comprehensive proposal that addressed the players’ concerns on competitive integrity and service-time manipulation in multifaceted fashion, sources said. A lowering of a team’s draft position for failing to reach a specified win total in a certain number of seasons is believed to be part of the union’s plan.

A universal designated hitter — something the players have sought for more than three decades, according to commissioner Rob Manfred — also was part of the union’s proposal. Under the plan, the National League would adopt the DH for the 2019 season.
If no agreement is reached, the collective bargaining agreement empowers Manfred to unilaterally implement three elements he formally proposed last year, according to sources — a 20-second pitch clock, a reduction of mound visits from six to five and a rule placing a baserunner on second base in spring training games and the All-Star Game when the score is tied after the 10th inning.

Baseball’s current proposal includes one slight modification from the above provisions, reducing mound visits from six to four in ‘19 and four to three in ‘20. It also includes an expansion of rosters from 25 to 26 in ‘20, with an accompanying reduction from 40 to 28 in September.
The most dramatic change, however, would be the three-batter minimum for starting pitchers and relievers.

The rule, as it applies to starters, would prevent the situation that occurred in Game 5 of the National League Championship Series, when the Brewers used left-hander Wade Miley for only one batter before removing him for right-hander Brandon Woodruff in a game the Dodgers won, 5-2.

The introduction of “the opener” last season produced only five regular-season games in which starting pitchers faced fewer than three hitters, according to data compiled from Baseball-Reference.com. Baseball’s far greater concern is the slower pace that results from managers using multiple relievers in an inning to gain a platoon advantage, especially late in games.
https://theathletic.com/802364/2019/02/05/rosenthal-three-batter-requirement-for-all-pitchers-universal-dh-part-of-proposals-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:


Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association are discussing potentially drastic changes to the on-field game and economic landscape of the sport in the middle of a collective bargaining agreement, a significant departure from the past that speaks to the chasm between the parties but represents a thaw in the chill that has divided the sides, sources familiar with the talks told ESPN.

Dueling proposals from MLB on Jan. 14 and the union on Friday covered a wide range of topics, according to sources. Among them include:
  • A three-batter minimum for pitchers

  • A universal designated hitter

  • A single trade deadline before the All-Star break

  • A 20-second pitch clock

  • The expansion of rosters to 26 men, with a 12-pitcher maximum

  • Draft advantages for winning teams and penalties for losing teams

  • A study to lower the mound

  • A rule that would allow two-sport amateurs to sign major league contracts
Low-revenue teams that succeed -- whether by finishing above .500 or making the playoffs -- would be given greater draft positions or bonus pools under the union's proposal, according to sources. While the depth of the penalties were not clear, the union suggested teams that lose 90-plus games in consecutive years could be affected negatively in the draft.

In the wake of Oakland Athletics first-round pick Kyler Murray potentially leaving behind baseball to pursue an NFL career after a Heisman Trophy-winning season, the union also suggested the idea of bringing back the major league contract as an enticement for two-sport athletes to stick with baseball, sources said. Currently, all draft contracts are minor league deals subject to a draft pool that penalizes teams that exceed it
http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/25935056/mlb-players-discussing-rule-changes-alter-game
 
Last edited:

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,105
Seems a little late to tell NL teams they should assemble their 2019 rosters with a DH in mind.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,853
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.
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,407
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.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,853
Yes on universal DH, No on axing sept callups, no on the 3 batter minimum.. Axing sept callups will screw with service time
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.
 

jercra

No longer respects DeChambeau
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
3,147
Arvada, Co
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.
 

j44thor

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
10,961
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.
 

edoug

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
6,007
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.
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.
 

Bob Montgomerys Helmet Hat

has big, douchey shoulders
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
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.
Totally agree. I've always thought that this was a horrible idea.
 

Scoops Bolling

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 19, 2007
5,874
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.
 

swiftaw

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2009
3,434
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.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,745
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.
 

rymflaherty

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2010
3,420
Norfolk
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.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,745
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.
 

candylandriots

unkempt
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 30, 2004
12,327
Berlin
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?
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,824
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.
Furthermore, only 7 of 15 AL teams had good performing DH players last year:

https://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=dh&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=8&season=2018&month=0&season1=2018&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).
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
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.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,105
With the three batter minimum, what happens if the pitcher is injured during his appearance?
You can take him out if he's hurt, but that means he has to miss the next game or two or whatever.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,278
Jeff Passan also lists possible rule changes:


Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association are discussing potentially drastic changes to the on-field game and economic landscape of the sport in the middle of a collective bargaining agreement, a significant departure from the past that speaks to the chasm between the parties but represents a thaw in the chill that has divided the sides, sources familiar with the talks told ESPN.

Dueling proposals from MLB on Jan. 14 and the union on Friday covered a wide range of topics, according to sources. Among them include:
  • A three-batter minimum for pitchers

  • A universal designated hitter

  • A single trade deadline before the All-Star break

  • A 20-second pitch clock

  • The expansion of rosters to 26 men, with a 12-pitcher maximum

  • Draft advantages for winning teams and penalties for losing teams

  • A study to lower the mound

  • A rule that would allow two-sport amateurs to sign major league contracts
Low-revenue teams that succeed -- whether by finishing above .500 or making the playoffs -- would be given greater draft positions or bonus pools under the union's proposal, according to sources. While the depth of the penalties were not clear, the union suggested teams that lose 90-plus games in consecutive years could be affected negatively in the draft.

In the wake of Oakland Athletics first-round pick Kyler Murray potentially leaving behind baseball to pursue an NFL career after a Heisman Trophy-winning season, the union also suggested the idea of bringing back the major league contract as an enticement for two-sport athletes to stick with baseball, sources said. Currently, all draft contracts are minor league deals subject to a draft pool that penalizes teams that exceed it
http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/25935056/mlb-players-discussing-rule-changes-alter-game
@jon abbey

@moondog80
 

begranter

Couldn't get into a real school
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 9, 2007
2,344
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.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
51,333
The 3-batter minimum is a tee-ball rule and should be laughed off the face of the planet.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,506
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.
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.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,880
Boston, MA
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.
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.
 

Pablo's TB Lover

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 10, 2017
5,963
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...
 

uncannymanny

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2007
9,081
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.
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?
 

Murderer's Crow

Dragon Wangler 216
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
23,482
Garden City
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.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,853
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?
Could be why they're talking about increased rosters.
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
If the owners had been smarter many many moons ago...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.
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."
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,633
Springfield, VA
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.
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.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
10,232
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.
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,633
Springfield, VA
For spring training games tied after nine innings, why not just declare it a draw? It's not like the W-L records matter.
 

cornwalls@6

Less observant than others
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
6,249
from the wilds of western ma
For spring training games tied after nine innings, why not just declare it a draw? It's not like the W-L records matter.
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 sign MLB contracts.
 
Last edited:

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
16,725
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.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,745
Don’t they already end ST games as a tie after the 10th inning?
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.
 

Average Game James

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 28, 2016
4,346
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.
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,407
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.
 

Average Game James

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 28, 2016
4,346
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.
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...
 

Average Game James

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 28, 2016
4,346
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...
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Seems a little late to tell NL teams they should assemble their 2019 rosters with a DH in mind.
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.

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.
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.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
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...
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.
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,407
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.
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.
 
Last edited:

z-factor

New Member
Dec 30, 2010
9
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.
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.
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
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.
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/Boston/2011-2020/2018/10/24/BostonGlobe.com/ReceivedContent/Images/102418GrossfeldPre5.jpg?uuid=anBfrNgQEeiB0dJN_n9wAQ
 

DanoooME

above replacement level
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
19,831
Henderson, NV
Mark Reynolds is still a free agent.
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.