What do you want - Three batter minimum

[Chip R]

Another poll coming at you.

[WrongVerb]

I'm a fan. It's something I've been saying for years that would help speed the game up. It really doesn't give a team a competitive balance since both teams have to play by the same rule.

[REDREAD]

I hated this rule when it first was proposed.
Now that I have seen it for a season, I am more accepting of it.
The thing I really don't like about it though is that if a team puts a bad pitcher (like Doolittle) out there, he can single-handedly put the game out of reach.
I can understand why people don't like the delay of Tony LaRussa style managing, but it kind of sucks when you know the other team is going to get 3 batters against your
horrible reliever. A manager can't go out and "rescue" him after a batter or two. Maybe if the Reds had a better bullpen, this would not bother me so much.
So a soft "I don't like the rule" for me.

[cumberlandreds]

Voted yes but wouldn't say I love it. It does keep managers from over managing which I like. But there are times when you need a pitcher just for that one or two batters. So its not good at those times.

[RedsBrick]

I like the concept but not that it's mandated.

[MoneyInTheBank]

I don't really like the rule but I do like how it makes the game flow

[RedsManRick]

This is another one of those "in theory, no - in practice, yes" sorts of rules for me. Ideally, I'd rather teams have more flexibility to use players however they want. But mid-inning pitcher changes simply grind the game to a halt, creating a significantly less enjoyable product.

[RedsBaron]

I voted "yes" even though I do not "love" the idea.
MLB has altered the strike zone and otherwise changed the way the game is played for years. I am open to trying just about anything that may improve the game. If a rules change doesn't work or backfires, then revoke the rules change.

[CaiGuy]

I hated this rule when it first was proposed.
Now that I have seen it for a season, I am more accepting of it.
The thing I really don't like about it though is that if a team puts a bad pitcher (like Doolittle) out there, he can single-handedly put the game out of reach.
I can understand why people don't like the delay of Tony LaRussa style managing, but it kind of sucks when you know the other team is going to get 3 batters against your
horrible reliever. A manager can't go out and "rescue" him after a batter or two. Maybe if the Reds had a better bullpen, this would not bother me so much.
So a soft "I don't like the rule" for me.

That doesn't bother me. If teams want to avoid being stuck with bad pitchers for 3 batter, they should try and have less bad pitchers.

[0-2 Count]

Yes.

Relief pitchers > Relief specialists

[REDREAD]

That doesn't bother me. If teams want to avoid being stuck with bad pitchers for 3 batter, they should try and have less bad pitchers.

Agreed. Please forward this post to Krall

[RustyJ]

This is another one of those "in theory, no - in practice, yes" sorts of rules for me. Ideally, I'd rather teams have more flexibility to use players however they want. But mid-inning pitcher changes simply grind the game to a halt, creating a significantly less enjoyable product.

What if mid-inning changes were allowed, but the entering pitcher wasn’t allowed an extended warm up on the game mound? If you could do it without the five minute commercial break, it might not be so painful on the audience.

[mth123]

Every decision has consequences. This problem was exacerbated by expanded rosters with 13 man pitching staffs. Almost all relievers are match-up guys. Its why they don't start and go through entire line-ups. This should be a choice the manager has to make, but drop the roster back to 25 and the pitching staff back to 11 guys. Starters should stay in longer and teams would need to be more judicious on how many changes they can make. An artificial three batter rule isn't the answer. Reducing the number of limited ability arms on big league rosters is the way to approach this problem.

[Chip R]

Every decision has consequences. This problem was exacerbated by expanded rosters with 13 man pitching staffs. Almost all relievers are match-up guys. Its why they don't start and go through entire line-ups. This should be a choice the manager has to make, but drop the roster back to 25 and the pitching staff back to 11 guys. Starters should stay in longer and teams would need to be more judicious on how many changes they can make. An artificial three batter rule isn't the answer. Reducing the number of limited ability arms on big league rosters is the way to approach this problem.

Bill James had a Twitter poll a few days ago asking if the better MLB starting pitchers could go 9 innings 10-15 times a year if asked by their managers. Two-thirds responding said they could. They obviously could but is it a good idea?

[Number_Fourteen]

Mandate 1-2 less pitchers per roster, expand bench, managers adjust accordingly. Probably another "well, the player's union..." kinda moments though.