6-Inning Minimum for Starting Pitchers Considered as Possible Rule Change

[Ron Madden]

6-Inning Minimum for Starting Pitchers Considered as Possible Rule Change


There is "some belief" around MLB that starting pitchers should be required to play a minimum of six innings before leaving the mound, according to ESPN's Jesse Rogers.

MLB is discussing the potential rule change as part of a goal to "restore the prestige of the starting pitcher," Rogers reported.

The league has proposed some exceptions to pitching a full six innings, including the pitcher suffering an injury, exceeding 100 pitches or allowing four earned runs, per Rogers.

The new rule would require "years of advance notice" before it could be implemented by MLB, Rogers noted.

That delay is because teams would need to start implementing the six-inning minimum in the minor leagues to ensure prospects could handle the workload in the majors, Rogers reported.
Continue Reading Here
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10132008-mlb-rumors-6-inning-minimum-for-starting-pitchers-considered-as-possible-rule-change

[savafan]

We don’t need more rules. Why does Rob Manfred hate baseball?

[mth123]

I'm all for pitchers going deep into games, but mandating it is lunacy. If you know a guy doesn't have it that day, you should be able to take him out. It's just going to lead to a bunch of fake injuries. If a guy says his back hurts, how are they going to prove it's a lie?

[Boston Red]

That's dumb. Therefore, it's likely MLB will implement it.

[OldFashionedRed]

I like this rule! Teams did just fine with starters going 6 innings back then. Now they let Joe Schmoe off the hook because he's not feeling it that day, has a boo boo. You're getting paid an unreal amount of money to play, go play. Nobody I know wants to see a new pitcher every inning, from the second or third inning on. Part of the allure of watching the game when I was growing up was the hope that your team that's losing might be able to make a comeback after seeing the guy a third time.

[LeatherPants]

No

No no

No no no

no no

no

[Bob Sheed]

The only constant, is change.

This potential change is dumb.

Like, "ghost man on 2nd, and all double headers are only 7 innings" kind of dumb.

[CySeymour]

I like this rule! Teams did just fine with starters going 6 innings back then. Now they let Joe Schmoe off the hook because he's not feeling it that day, has a boo boo. You're getting paid an unreal amount of money to play, go play. Nobody I know wants to see a new pitcher every inning, from the second or third inning on. Part of the allure of watching the game when I was growing up was the hope that your team that's losing might be able to make a comeback after seeing the guy a third time.

It's not the pitchers wanting to come out early...it's the teams pulling them. They pitchers are taught to go all out from pitch 1, instead of pacing themselves like in years past.

[BlackPete Ibold]

While I would like to see SP somehow become resurgent, I think this rule as currently explained is beyond dumb

[mth123]

I like this rule! Teams did just fine with starters going 6 innings back then. Now they let Joe Schmoe off the hook because he's not feeling it that day, has a boo boo. You're getting paid an unreal amount of money to play, go play. Nobody I know wants to see a new pitcher every inning, from the second or third inning on. Part of the allure of watching the game when I was growing up was the hope that your team that's losing might be able to make a comeback after seeing the guy a third time.

My second Reds game I ever saw in person, Billy McCool was pitching against the Cubs in Crosley Field. McCool was getting rocked and Dave Bristol took him out in the 2nd inning. The Reds came back and won that game precisely because the Reds removed the pitcher. This was in the mamby pamby days when teams had multiple starters throw 200+ innings (that Reds team had 3 of them) and the best starters would approach or exceed 300 innings. The top 4 pitchers in IP threw over 300 innings that season and the top 9 exceeded 270.. The 10th guy pitched 269 and two/thirds.

Taking a guy out is appropriate sometimes and artificial rules that prevent that decision process have no place in the game IMO.

[Sea Ray]

So what's the penalty for yanking your pitcher early? Lose your DH?

[RedTeamGo!]

So what's the penalty for yanking your pitcher early? Lose the DH?

Nah usually just a frustrated partner

[texasdave]

Taking a guy out is appropriate sometimes and artificial rules that prevent that decision process have no place in the game IMO.

Kinda like the 3-batter minimum for relief pitchers? Next thing you know is they'll be telling fielders where to stand.

[OldFashionedRed]

It's not the pitchers wanting to come out early...it's the teams pulling them. They pitchers are taught to go all out from pitch 1, instead of pacing themselves like in years past.

I agree with the pacing part, seemingly that's something ANY starting pitcher expecting they will go deep into the game would do, right? But I'm not saying the pitchers want to come out early, I'm actualy suggesting that managers / owners don't expect them to stay out there and so they pull them for every little thing. Rather than making them figure things out, adversity and all that.

- - - Updated - - -


Kinda like the 3-batter minimum for relief pitchers? Next thing you know is they'll be telling fielders where to stand.

Well, they told them where they couldn't stand, lol.

- - - Updated - - -


Nah usually just a frustrated partner

I had to read that several times before I *think* I figured it out :D

[mth123]

Kinda like the 3-batter minimum for relief pitchers? Next thing you know is they'll be telling fielders where to stand.

I hate the 3 batter minimum and the anti-shift rule (where is all that offense it was supposed to create?). Each decision has its own consequences. Let teams decide and live with what they have wrought.

If they want to limit pitching changes and have starters go longer into games, they should go back to the 25-man roster and let teams decide how many pitchers and position players they can carry. While we're at it, pitchers should be allowed to wear out their arms throwing to 1B as many times as they think is necessary.

[Patrick Bateman]

Like the idea but threshold of 5 innings, 85 pitches might make more sense in this day and age


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kingspoint]

6-Inning Minimum for Starting Pitchers Considered as Possible Rule Change

Continue Reading Here
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10132008-mlb-rumors-6-inning-minimum-for-starting-pitchers-considered-as-possible-rule-change

This is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard in my life.

Chances of it happening?

ZERO PERCENT

[WrongVerb]

Make it so that a pitcher must face 27 batters (or pitch 6 innings) before qualifying for a win.

Or maybe we can come up with a new stat, like "pitching win points." Get some amount of points for facing more than 18 batters, get more points for each 3rd of an inning past 5 innings. Maybe take away points for each earned run allowed.

[Kingspoint]

Just use Gamescore. Pitcher with the highest Gamescore gets the win.

A Loss is much easier to figure out. The pitcher that gave up the losing run.

[kaldaniels]

If you aren’t going to leave them out there to be slaughtered and have their arm fall off there’s just no fun in it.

[Kingspoint]

If you aren’t going to leave them out there to be slaughtered and have their arm fall off there’s just no fun in it.

Thus, the players' union would never agree to this one. They would strike before letting this rule be implemented.

[LiferJim]

This is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard of. No!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Strikes Out Looking]

How about they limit the number of Tommy John Surgery's an organization may have during a year?

[dreghorntwo]

If they are going to have a ghost runner and not let fielders line up anywhere they want, then the heck with it, i'm for this.

Four earned runs and they can be pulled seems reasonable, 100 pitch limit and they can be pulled seems reasonable, if a player claims injury they have to go on the disabled list seems reasonable, it will be be slowly introduced over multiple years in the minors before implementation seems reasonable.

Potentially not having a single National League hitter bat over .300 for a full season seems flat out unreasonable.

[KronoRed]

Love it, bring back the 250 inning pitcher.

[savafan]

Meanwhile… more teams get added to my blackout list every year…

[RedsManRick]

Bigger zone & move the mound back. More zone to cover, but more time to react. I suspect we'd see more contact, but a higher rate of weak contact, and fewer walks. Impact would be positive in a number of areas including pace of action, fewer pitches per PA meaning starters are able to go longer, and a higher payoff for the contact skill in general.

Am I right? Who knows. But it is 1000x more elegant than forcing teams to keep poor performing players in the game longer.

I can't wait for the game where a starter loses command in the 4th and we have to watch a half dozen walks before he gets a merciful double play to get out of the inning. Only to have to do it all over again the next inning. If such a rule were to be in place, I'd probably have it be something like 3 ER in an inning, 5 ER total, 5 complete innings, or 80 pitches. It should be there to keep good pitching matchups going longer; not to punish the fans when a guy sucks.

[Roy Tucker]

I can’t say that I like starters going for fewer innings now, but that’s how the game evolved in an organic way.

And I’m always one for creative out-of-the-box thinking and I think having a bullpen game is kinda interesting. I’m a little surprised how well it works sometime. The unlimited shifts rendered the game almost unrecognizable and I’m glad they got rid of it. But I’m ok with pitchers and starters evolving. I’d say let’s let the guys play as is and see where it goes.

[Ky Fried Redleg]

We don’t need more rules. Why does Rob Manfred hate baseball?

Why do I hate Rob Manfred? See the bolded.

- - - Updated - - -


Meanwhile… more teams get added to my blackout list every year…

My blackout list is at 29 teams.

[savafan]

In 2014, the average starting pitcher went 5.9 innings. The current average is 5.2 innings. That’s a difference of 0.7 innings over 10 years. The averages from 1980 to 1999 were 6.1 innings.

I think the real difference is pitchers throwing every pitch at maximum velocity. We used to see guys like Nolan Ryan pitching 90-92 MPH in the early innings to keep from getting fatigued, and then dialing it up to 100 MPH later when he needed to. That type of pitching isn’t being taught anymore.

[Redsfan6272]

I rather they implement the pitch call challenge or robot umps. Maybe that will help

[Kingspoint]

Love it, bring back the 250 inning pitcher.

Wusses!

I want the 300-Inning Starting Pitchers.

A Million-Dollar Bonus for every 9-inning complete game.

[BenchRider]

Seems not many fans of this rule. I don't think it's that bad.

[oregonred]

They should call this the Jeff Austin rule

https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/ATL/ATL200305280.shtml

21 years ago. I remember being on the game thread or posting on that fateful day

[M2]

Sounds like a good way to blow out the arms of even more pitchers. MLB's only averaged 6 IP/GS four times in the 21st century: 2014, 2011, 2010 and 2005. There's only 18 guys doing it this season. The idea that every SP in MLB is suddenly going to be able to throw 6 IP every time out is a pipe dream.

[MikeS21]

I remember hearing a story of a pitcher who was getting rocked by the opposing hitters. The manager came out to relieve him, and the pitcher begged to be left in, claiming that he “wasn’t tired.” The manager said, “That may be true, but all your fielders ARE tired!”

This is just a dumb idea, any way you look at it.

[cincinnati chili]

Four earned runs and they can be pulled seems reasonable, 100 pitch limit and they can be pulled seems reasonable, if a player claims injury they have to go on the disabled list seems reasonable, it will be be slowly introduced over multiple years in the minors before implementation seems reasonable.

Potentially not having a single National League hitter bat over .300 for a full season seems flat out unreasonable.

Exactly. No pitcher is going to get "slaughtered" because of this rule. Giving up 4 runs isn't being "slaughtered." I think it will put more guys on base, and we need that. Also, if a starter is given enough rope to know that his manager CAN'T pull him until the 7th inning, (as long as he gives up fewer than 4 runs and manages his pitch count), it will probably reduce the number of pitches thrown under stress, thereby reducing starting pitcher injuries.

One tweak I would make: Reduce the pitch limit from 100 to something less until May 1 or May 15 or something like that.

[Kingspoint]

Let's just put the ball on a tee and get it over with.

[SunDeck]

In a year when one of the big stories was pitcher injuries, this makes all the sense in the world.

[GAC]

If you aren’t going to leave them out there to be slaughtered and have their arm fall off there’s just no fun in it.

It's a stupid idea or rule change; but you're not forced to leave them out there to get slaughtered. You can pull them prior to the 6th for various situations - injury, 100 PC, 4 ERs.

[GAC]

Sounds like a good way to blow out the arms of even more pitchers. MLB's only averaged 6 IP/GS four times in the 21st century: 2014, 2011, 2010 and 2005. There's only 18 guys doing it this season. The idea that every SP in MLB is suddenly going to be able to throw 6 IP every time out is a pipe dream.

And I'm beginnng to wonder what they're putting in that pipe?

[Bob Sheed]

I think I know where they want to go with modern baseball, and I have a few additional suggestions:

- What if they added yardage markers from home plate to the outfield fences?

- To increase unpredictability, so things aren't so boring, what if they changed the shape of the baseball to more of an oblong shape, with rounded points at each end?

- And for player safety, all players should wear helmets, not just the batter.

- When players get a base hit, their song of choice should play, and they are permitted to do a 5 second dance while pointing to the next base.

- When a player hits a HR, all players are permitted to take field, for a short skit of the batsperson's choice, so that everyone knows how awesome they are.

- 13 strikeouts in one game = lucky 200 dollar deposit match from Draft Kings

- Instead of concession workers walking the aisles, there could instead be bookies walking the aisles, dressed in neon yellow, ready to assist with any responsible gambling related questions.

- And finally, how about a name change? I mean "baseball"? Really? What does that even mean? How about "bussin-ball"? I'd totally ship that.

BONUS: Can we please take down all the numbers and numbered jerseys on the stadium walls? I get it. They were former players. Former players. Why do they get to hog all the low numbers? Tear all those down and look at all that new ad space!

[Danny Serafini]

So you have to leave your starter in 6 innings, but you're allowed to pull him early for the same reasons starters get pulled early as it is. What exactly does this accomplish?

[Roy Tucker]

MLB is starting to resemble the NFL. Let’s tweak the crap out of the rules to force the game to be how we want.

[mth123]

I just hate taking more decisions out of the team's hands. All decisions have benefits and consequences and it should be up to the team to make the decision to reach for those benefits and suffer those consequences as they see fit. That's a big part of competing for the play-offs over a 162 game season.

I don't understand why they added a 26th man to the roster so that teams could have 13 man pitching staffs if they didn't want teams changing pitchers and using those guys in games. Just take the roster back to 25 and let the team decide where they want the consequences of 2 or 3 inning starts to show up. Whoever can manage that best gets an advantage and they should get an advantage for managing it best. They're competing. They are supposed to be structuring and utilizing their roster to their best advantage.

[LeatherPants]

I just hate taking more decisions out of the team's hands. All decisions have benefits and consequences and it should be up to the team to make the decision to reach for those benefits and suffer those consequences as they see fit. That's a big part of competing for the play-offs over a 162 game season.

I don't understand why they added a 26th man to the roster so that teams could have 13 man pitching staffs if they didn't want teams changing pitchers and using those guys in games. Just take the roster back to 25 and let the team decide where they want the consequences of 2 or 3 inning starts to show up. Whoever can manage that best gets an advantage and they should get an advantage for managing it best. They're competing. They are supposed to be structuring and utilizing their roster to their best advantage.

Taking the roster back to 25 players isn't going to happen, the MLBPA won't let them cut 30 jobs out of the league.

[cumberlandreds]

MLB is starting to resemble the NFL. Let’s tweak the crap out of the rules to force the game to be how we want.

Yep they are trying to make it a one size fits all. Not all starting pitchers are the same. Some can throw 120 or more pitches game. Not many but a few. Some can only go about 90 pitches and they are done. Then most will fall into the 100 to 110 range. They need to realize all pitchers aren't the same and need to be treated on an individual basis. Just another dumb idea from the powers that be.

[Tuff Nut]

Taking the roster back to 25 players isn't going to happen, the MLBPA won't let them cut 30 jobs out of the league.

His point still stands though. If a team wants a 14-12 split or even 15 -11, it should be the teams' decision.

[Chip R]

Four earned runs and they can be pulled seems reasonable, 100 pitch limit and they can be pulled seems reasonable, if a player claims injury they have to go on the disabled list seems reasonable, it will be be slowly introduced over multiple years in the minors before implementation seems reasonable.

Potentially not having a single National League hitter bat over .300 for a full season seems flat out unreasonable.

I don't care for it but it does seem pretty reasonable. Basically getting rid of the "opener."

[UKFlounder]

The other side is at least they’re trying to adapt to a changing society instead of keeping exactly like it was in the 1950s or whenever. Without any changes, (some like the pitch clock, limited pickoff attempts, and three-batter rule have generally been mostly accepted as improvements to the pace of play people complained about) the discussion might be that the sport was falling behind the times or stuck in its ways.

I don’t like this proposed rule though the fundamental thought behind it of having starters pitch more is not bad, but the willingness to change with the times is a legitmate approach to take, even if not all ideas are good.

[mth123]

Taking the roster back to 25 players isn't going to happen, the MLBPA won't let them cut 30 jobs out of the league.

You are certainly right that the union won't give these up easily. MLB went to 26 just a few years ago. Now they see the consequences of that and want to add more rules to take the decision making away from the team. They could reverse course if they want it bad enough. They would just need to make a concession elsewhere. Adding these artificial rules isn't the answer. As teams start seeing the consequences of all of these short starts, it will change on its own. I think we're already seeing it.

[dubc47834]

I like this rule! Teams did just fine with starters going 6 innings back then. Now they let Joe Schmoe off the hook because he's not feeling it that day, has a boo boo. You're getting paid an unreal amount of money to play, go play. Nobody I know wants to see a new pitcher every inning, from the second or third inning on. Part of the allure of watching the game when I was growing up was the hope that your team that's losing might be able to make a comeback after seeing the guy a third time.

Mandating this is not the answer tho. The game has evolved, whether we like it or not. Why should a team be forced to sit there and watch a guy pitch like hot garbage because it's a rule. Get him out of there and give your team a chance to win the stinking game. Baseball has already implemented new rules to limit pitching changes, it has sped the game up. I'm OK with changing things as needed, but this isn't needed in my opinion.

[foster15]

Stupid rule.

However, if they implement it, picture this. The automatic intentional walk that was implemented to speed up the game will now never be used by the starting pitcher. He will lob four pitches way high and outside like he used to do to get it added to the pitch count.

[dreghorntwo]

Sounds like a good way to blow out the arms of even more pitchers. MLB's only averaged 6 IP/GS four times in the 21st century: 2014, 2011, 2010 and 2005. There's only 18 guys doing it this season. The idea that every SP in MLB is suddenly going to be able to throw 6 IP every time out is a pipe dream.

The idea is that it will start in the low minors and slowly move it's way to the majors over a long period of time. This will allow new professional pitchers to learn to pace themselves and try to get more soft outs.

They are not going to expect current pitchers to immediately begin adhering to these new rules.

I'm not 100% convinced of this, but i am convinced that MLB knows something has to be done and i believe they're right.

[redsfan9988]

I don’t care for this. I think it’s another thinly-veiled attempt by MLB to add more offense. Most good SPs pitch into the 6th or reach 100 pitches (or both) in a lot of their starts. What this rule is going to do is force mediocre five-and-dive guys to keep right on pitching the third time through the order until that 4th run scores.

I understand the sentiment of wanting to see a SP pitch deep into the game. I get a lot more out of watching Johnny Cueto or Justin Verlander hurl a 7-hit CG SO than I do out of watching the Rays use 7 pitchers in a combined no-hitter. But that era is gone. You can’t just pipe fastballs to the bottom of the order. Everyone can hit the ball 450 feet and you don’t get to face the pitcher to give yourself a breather.

It’s sort of like pining for the ground-and-pound NFL of old where Ricky Williams would run the ball 40 times a game. It’s not coming back. I think Americans are attracted to the narrative of the Herculean individual effort. But that’s not something you can bring back the SPs in baseball with a bunch of weird, meandering rules (that almost certainly won’t apply to postseason play even if they’re implemented).

We have to get over the idea that pitchers are “soft” or whatever for not going deeper in to games. In 2014, Johnny Cueto pitched 243 innings on 34 starts. If Hunter Greene makes 34 starts, he’s on pace for 202 innings. YET - Cueto averaged 107 pitches/start and Greene averages 102. Only 5 pitches/game. I think it’s just harder to get guys out now. It requires more pitches. You can count the number of successful “pitch-to-contact” SPs now on one hand.

It’s a new era folks. Embrace it or don’t, but don’t let MLB fool you into thinking that forcing Carson Spiers to pitch the 6th is going to make the product better.

[RiverRat13]

This rule's primary objective would be to help the offense, but the point has been made about the number of pitcher injuries. But is the increase due to the number of innings, or number of max effort pitches being thrown? Making pitchers go six innings will force them (with the exception of the elite) to ease off. There's a plausible outcome of fewer pitching injuries rather than more.

More importantly, forcing six innings will help starting pitchers' value. IMO, we're at an inflection point where pitchers could very well become as interchangeable as NFL running backs. Just throw as hard with the most spin as you can. If you get tired or hurt, we'll just run another guy out there to throw as hard with the most spin as he can. If we can "Driveline" anyone who can throw it hard into a viable pitcher, then each pitcher has less value on the open market.

But back to the real objective - pitches thrown with less effort + a dead ball = more balls put into play. That's what MLB wants.

[Underachiever]

I think I know where they want to go with modern baseball, and I have a few additional suggestions:

- What if they added yardage markers from home plate to the outfield fences?

- To increase unpredictability, so things aren't so boring, what if they changed the shape of the baseball to more of an oblong shape, with rounded points at each end?

- And for player safety, all players should wear helmets, not just the batter.

- When players get a base hit, their song of choice should play, and they are permitted to do a 5 second dance while pointing to the next base.

- When a player hits a HR, all players are permitted to take field, for a short skit of the batsperson's choice, so that everyone knows how awesome they are.

- 13 strikeouts in one game = lucky 200 dollar deposit match from Draft Kings

- Instead of concession workers walking the aisles, there could instead be bookies walking the aisles, dressed in neon yellow, ready to assist with any responsible gambling related questions.

- And finally, how about a name change? I mean "baseball"? Really? What does that even mean? How about "bussin-ball"? I'd totally ship that.

BONUS: Can we please take down all the numbers and numbered jerseys on the stadium walls? I get it. They were former players. Former players. Why do they get to hog all the low numbers? Tear all those down and look at all that new ad space!

All of these ideas are gold. My tweak is to have a cumulative mph limit on pitches. You get 10,000 mph for the game. Then, when the game goes to extras, guys will be lobbing it up there at 40 to conserve mph. Tie game in the eighth? Your reliever tosses some eephus pitches to preserve velocity for the closer in the ninth. More math=way more fan excitement!

Let me add, I think if a game is tied in the ninth, the win should be awarded to the team that used fewer mound visits. If they are going to put that stat on the scoreboard, make it count, dang it!

[cincinnati chili]

So you have to leave your starter in 6 innings, but you're allowed to pull him early for the same reasons starters get pulled early as it is. What exactly does this accomplish?

No ability to use openers or bullpen games

No ability to bring in a guy throwing 98 to face a batter or two in the middle of the 5th or 6th. Happens a lot. There are numerous GOOD starting pitchers who don’t average 6 innings per start, but have an Era under 4.50. Meaning they are giving up fewer than 3 earned runs per start.

- - - Updated - - -

So, I like the rule but a great hack if you wanted to get your starter pulled early would be for him to start arguing balls/strikes and calling the umpire four-letter words.

[OldFashionedRed]

Stupid rule.

However, if they implement it, picture this. The automatic intentional walk that was implemented to speed up the game will now never be used by the starting pitcher. He will lob four pitches way high and outside like he used to do to get it added to the pitch count.

Well, that's the way it used to be, so all good here :D

- - - Updated - - -


No ability to use openers or bullpen games

No ability to bring in a guy throwing 98 to face a batter or two in the middle of the 5th or 6th. Happens a lot. There are numerous GOOD starting pitchers who don’t average 6 innings per start, but have an Era under 4.50. Meaning they are giving up fewer than 3 earned runs per start.

- - - Updated - - -

So, I like the rule but a great hack if you wanted to get your starter pulled early would be for him to start arguing balls/strikes and calling the umpire four-letter words.
Then make it so that whoever comes in next has to throw six innings, lol. So, if you're a starter and you want to royally anger someone in the bullpen, have at it.

[ComputerHand]

Great rule.

[cincinnati chili]

Reds fans could have used this rule tonight. Lorenzen had only thrown 83 pitches, had only given up one run after 5 2/3. With a runner in scoring position and Freel coming up, Quatraro still brought in the tough lefty sidearmer to face Freel. Freel had no chance. He would have had a good chance vs Lorenzen on his third time through the lineup.

[M2]

Reds fans could have used this rule tonight. Lorenzen had only thrown 83 pitches, had only given up one run after 5 2/3. With a runner in scoring position and Freel coming up, Quatraro still brought in the tough lefty sidearmer to face Freel. Freel had no chance. He would have had a good chance vs Lorenzen on his third time through the lineup.

What?! Ryan Freel is back?!

[757690]

I don't care for it but it does seem pretty reasonable. Basically getting rid of the "opener."

I like the opener and bullpen games. It creates more strategy. But that it’s something Manfred has been trying to reduce from day one. That seems to be the a hidden reason behind this proposed rule.

[Wonderful Monds]

I actually don’t mind adding new rules to make the game stay a bit more traditional, because things have suddenly gone haywire in the last decade when a bunch of hedge fund algorithm losers showed up in front offices and “optimized” all the fun out the game.

A 6 inning minimum doesn’t inherently make me recoil in disgust. But I think there would have to be conditions that aren’t remotely what they are proposed. Like allowing more than one run. A certain amount of base runners. A certain amount of batters faced in an inning. Pitches thrown in an inning etc.

The 6 inning minimum would also force teams to adapt and not coach their pitchers to try to throw so hard their arm flies off with the ball to home plate every single pitch. They’d have to adjust for endurance again as mentioned earlier ITT.

But really mandating 12 man pitching staffs would also help. Also do something about teams circumventing that by having a revolving carousel of relievers between MLB and AAA.

I’m not sure why everyone is hating on new rules. Seems like the pitch clock was a universally acclaimed success for one.

The only thing for me is probably that I hate having to mentally track all this stuff. I’ve frequently forgotten a pitcher couldn’t be pulled yet because of the 3 batter minimum for example. Honestly you’d need some kind of on screen graphic tracking how the pitcher is reaching the starting pitcher minimums or limited on earned runs and stuff.

Idk. Not totally against it in spirit. But as proposed, sounds pretty bad.

[Wonderful Monds]

I like the opener and bullpen games. It creates more strategy. But that it’s something Manfred has been trying to reduce from day one. That seems to be the a hidden reason behind this proposed rule.

I do think an opener exception would be fine too. Like the first inning pitcher can be pulled after that for the starter, and accounting for 3 batter minimums and earned run clauses and stuff.

Also just as a complete non sequitur get rid of the ghost runner. Damn.

[Danny Serafini]

No ability to use openers or bullpen games

I despise the opener, so that would be the best part of this rule :laugh:. Bullpen games are a necessary evil sometimes though.


No ability to bring in a guy throwing 98 to face a batter or two in the middle of the 5th or 6th.

So it's bad in the 6th inning but OK in the 7th? That's not something I can get behind.

[cincinnati chili]

The more I think about this proposed rule, maybe they’re throwing it out there, knowing that the union will hate it***, so that they can get the union to go along with something less radical. Something less radical might include the proposal that, if the starting pitcher doesn’t go ‘x’ innings, a that team loses its DH spot (https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/36226372/mlb-eyes-more-rule-changes-experiment-atlantic-league) for the remainder of the game.

*** The union will hate the proposed rule because so many of its members are middle relievers who often enter the game prior to the 7th inning. This rule will make those members nervous about their future viability.

[corkedbat]

I haven't bothered to read through the whole thread because the idea seems so inherently F'n stupid. Everybody has off days. If a pitcher's in the 3re or 4th inning with 80 or 90 pitches already on his arm, he shouldn't be punished by having to endure two or three more frames.

Maybe a starter has to reach a certain number of pitches before you can kift them (but I'm not even wild about that).

[dragonoffrost]

This is to prevent the proliferation of the dreaded BULLPEN DAY.

[Sea Ray]

I haven't bothered to read through the whole thread because the idea seems so inherently F'n stupid. Everybody has off days. If a pitcher's in the 3re or 4th inning with 80 or 90 pitches already on his arm, he shouldn't be punished by having to endure two or three more frames.

Maybe a starter has to reach a certain number of pitches before you can kift them (but I'm not even wild about that).

They're saying that he can be lifted after 100 pitches. I agree with you, it's a horrible idea

[OldFashionedRed]

I think it might have something to do with offense being down across all of baseball. Maybe the thinking is that offenses will pick up if a pitcher has been out there long enough.

[RedsBaron]

I think it might have something to do with offense being down across all of baseball. Maybe the thinking is that offenses will pick up if a pitcher has been out there long enough.

I understand appreciate that batting average is an incomplete stat, and that on base percentage, slugging percentage, OPS, and adjusting stats for playing conditions help give us a better evaluation as to how effective and valuable a hitter is. However, the game is more exciting for me if it has baserunners and action. I just checked out the NL league leaders in batting average. This season is roughly 80% complete and the NL has a grand total of three hitters who would qualify for the batting title who are hitting at least .300: Marcell Ozuna .309, Luis Arraez .304, and Trea Turner .311. If Mookie Betts doesn't miss any more games for the rest of the season, he may have the necessary plate appearances to also qualify for the batting title (he's hitting .307 with 364 plate appearances). In the so-called "Year of the Pitcher" in 1968, the NL had five players who hit at least .300: Pete Rose .335, Matty Alou .332, Felipe Alou .317, Alex Johnson .312, and Curt Flood .301. Right now the NL is on pace to have fewer .300 hitters than in 1968. The Reds leading hitter is Elly De La Cruz at .257. Elly is a terrific and exciting player, but a .257 BA should not lead the team.

[paulrichjr]

This is to prevent the proliferation of the dreaded BULLPEN DAY.

Why is a bullpen day so bad? I seriously would like to know. It doesn't bother me at all. Sure I would rather go see Hunter Greene throw 7 innings and then turn it over to the bullpen but if a new pitcher came out every inning and the Reds won the game I would be fine with that also.

[dragonoffrost]

Why is a bullpen day so bad? I seriously would like to know. It doesn't bother me at all. Sure I would rather go see Hunter Greene throw 7 innings and then turn it over to the bullpen but if a new pitcher came out every inning and the Reds won the game I would be fine with that also.

It's a bad thing due to doing it for an extended period of the season will either kill your relief pitcher's arms or will require more pitchers on the daily roster. It's not a bad thing sporadically (to cover a 15 day IL stint) but there have been a few teams I believe that have done it for over a month. That's when we get a grey area.

[mth123]

It's a bad thing due to doing it for an extended period of the season will either kill your relief pitcher's arms or will require more pitchers on the daily roster. It's not a bad thing sporadically (to cover a 15 day IL stint) but there have been a few teams I believe that have done it for over a month. That's when we get a grey area.

There are definitely consequences to short starts and bullpen days. Why shouldn't it be up to teams to weigh those consequences into their decision and do what they think is best? It's up to the team to have enough depth to avoid the consequences and it's up to the team to suffer those consequences and make those preparations. How they handle that will have an impact on their record and is part of competing for a championship.

I wish every starter would pitch six innings at minimum, I just don't understand why there needs to be a rule to take these decisions out of the team's hands. .