Major changes to MLB reportedly discussed by Manfred, MLBPA

[Second Base]

I'm really glad they waited until Ohtani signed with the Angels before engaging in universal DH talks.  Had that been an option, you have to figure the Giants and Dodgers would've been stronger suitors than they were last offseason. 

And as for the rule changes as a whole, I LOVE them.  Baseball can't be afraid of change.  Lessen the mound visits, force relievers to go at least three batters, put in a 20 second pitch clock.....this all increases the pace of play.  And with so many quality major league hitters unemployed, a universal DH sounds like a good idea. 

Also, I like the idea of expanding the active roster to 26 rather than 25.  

Adding a single trade deadline earlier in the season forces team to make distinctive changes and allows players to have a greater effect on their new team in they are with that team longer. 

The only one I think I oppose is reducing September call-ups roster to 28.  If they're on the 40 man, they should get a shot.  It's a great way for losing teams to start showcasing and giving a try-out to young players. 

[WeatherWonk]

2 hours ago, arch stanton said:

I don't care about the other major sports or anybody else's sense of excitement. If you start knee jerking rule changes every time the wind blows you end up with the tuck rule and in the grasp calls and you spend all your time watching officials huddle up and listening to "rules experts" babble about minutia. What's next, a clock?

Agree that the NFL has ruined the excitement level at the end of a game with all the stoppages for "official" reasons.

But these would do just the opposite. They would force more matchups that tend to favor offense over defense. There is no judgement call or anything to review in these two.

I think people also forget that part of the reason for games being so long is stuff associated with pitching changes. I'd rather see games be longer because there was more offense produced by stringing hits together and running the bases smartly. Offense today is two Ks, a HR and a ground out. And an occasional BB. We've lost the effects of speed creating runs in baseball, and that is exciting stuff. If all teams care about are bruisers who strive for launch angle and exit velocity, we minimize the speed angle. I love the stolen base. It's an exciting play. A lost art.

[Make Angels Great Again]

1 hour ago, Stradling said:

I don’t know how to get the game back to what it was like when I was growing up, but those games were simply better and the only reason I feel that way is the pace of play.  People that are afraid of changing the game are looking at it backwards.  This game has somehow changed itself.  In the 80’s a game was two and a half hours long.  Now it is over three hours long.  

 

It's the players. They didn't used to have the pitcher step off the mound, adjust his cap, rub the ball around, adjust his cleats, walk around the rubber, take 15 seconds to get set, then get the sign and hold the ball for another 10 seconds before throwing a pitcher.

 

All while the batter steps out of the box, adjusts his gloves after every single pitch, takes some practice swings, slowly steps back in the box, makes sure his feet are just right, hold up his bat, and then gets ready.

[floplag]

22 minutes ago, fan_since79 said:

I like increasing the roster to 26 players during the regular season.

I would allow 30 players on the September roster.

one wrinkle, allow 30 on roster, but only 26 active for any given game. 

[arch stanton]

The reason games are so long is that every batter goes 3-2 and gets in his 10,000 steps in the process and every time a ball touches the ground it gets thrown out. The rules proposed don’t address the true cause. The true cause is the philosophical change in the way the game is played. 

If it was up to me I’d be looking for ways to make it harder to hit home runs such as banning maple bats and pushing back the fences. I might even take a little off the bounce of the ball. You could make up for that on balls in play by speeding up the infield surfaces. 

As far as rosters and pitcher specialization you could allow for a slightly larger roster and specify that barring injury you could only use 4 pitchers in any 9 inning game plus more if it goes extra innings and say that if a pitcher pitched in 3 games in a 5 game stretch he had sit out a game or two 

Of course none of this will happen so it’s just me ranting 

[ScottT]

For DH in both leagues.

Against 3 batter minimum. Arbitrary, borderline bizarre when comparing to other sports. The one batter rule is necessary, but keep it at that. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

I know I was half joking when I first proposed this, but as time goes on I start to think this actually might be a good idea... move the bases up one or two feet. The result would be that infielders will have to play closer to defend against ground balls, stolen bases and bunt hits will all become easier. Teams will be influenced to encourage speed and contact over power... at least more so than they are currently.

Another change I think they should consider... end free timeout altogether... Instead of 6 mound visits a game, give them 6 timeouts per game, which can be used to change pitchers mid inning, pitch run, etc. Combine with a pitch clock and forcing batters to keep a foot in the box and games will speed up.

[floplag]

24 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

The reason games are so long is that every batter goes 3-2 and gets in his 10,000 steps in the process and every time a ball touches the ground it gets thrown out. The rules proposed don’t address the true cause. The true cause is the philosophical change in the way the game is played. 

If it was up to me I’d be looking for ways to make it harder to hit home runs such as banning maple bats and pushing back the fences. I might even take a little off the bounce of the ball. You could make up for that on balls in play by speeding up the infield surfaces. 

As far as rosters and pitcher specialization you could allow for a slightly larger roster and specify that barring injury you could only use 4 pitchers in any 9 inning game plus more if it goes extra innings and say that if a pitcher pitched in 3 games in a 5 game stretch he had sit out a game or two 

Of course none of this will happen so it’s just me ranting 

Forgot to mention this in my post but yes the whole see more pitches work the pitcher thing has also slowed it way down, you see very few aggressive hitters in comparison. 

[Freezer]

1 hour ago, floplag said:

The one thing i wish there was more of in that list was anti-tanking stuff.  The game needs a legit salary cap AND floor.    There are 10 teams in this league spending under 100 million.  Only 12 that are above league average (which by the way is only 121 M), even though thats skewed some by the extremes.   The whole handful of teams with no budget restraints to rule them all thing has to be ended.  As ive said before if the Angels cant compete with the supposed big dogs money wise, then who can really? 

I liked an idea that was mentioned in the MLBTR chat earlier this week. It involved the draft order  Basically, it was suggested by someone to determine the draft order by having the best non-playoff teams record draft first and then move down from there. So, the first 20 picks would be all the non-playoff teams in order from best record to worst record. Then the next 10 picks would be the playoff teams. I really like that idea while doing the same with the international draft and doing away with the draft pool allotments. Whatever is done must include incentives for teams to perform well and try to eliminate advantages of tanking. 

[floplag]

20 minutes ago, Freezer said:

I liked an idea that was mentioned in the MLBTR chat earlier this week. It involved the draft order  Basically, it was suggested by someone to determine the draft order by having the best non-playoff teams record draft first and then move down from there. So, the first 20 picks would be all the non-playoff teams in order from best record to worst record. Then the next 10 picks would be the playoff teams. I really like that idea while doing the same with the international draft and doing away with the draft pool allotments. Whatever is done must include incentives for teams to perform well and try to eliminate advantages of tanking. 

i like that, reward the effort.  Make the so-called "moving of the needle" matter much more.  

[Lou]

If they lowered beer prices by 50% I wouldn't care about the length of a game. 

[floplag]

9 minutes ago, Lou said:

If they lowered beer prices by 50% I wouldn't care about the length of a game. 

im not sure the length is the real issues though as much as the pace.
I dont mind the game taking more than an hour or 90 minutes personally, for what the excursion costs i would like to have it be more than a 87 minute wham bam thank you maam affair. 
i do mind having time to run the the head and stop for a beer without missing a batter.  

[Lhalo]

I'm in favor of basically everything Manfred proposed. I can't remember the last time I was in such agreement with a MLB commissioner. 

Edited February 6, 2019 by Lhalo

[AngelsLakersFan]

49 minutes ago, Freezer said:

I liked an idea that was mentioned in the MLBTR chat earlier this week. It involved the draft order  Basically, it was suggested by someone to determine the draft order by having the best non-playoff teams record draft first and then move down from there. So, the first 20 picks would be all the non-playoff teams in order from best record to worst record. Then the next 10 picks would be the playoff teams. I really like that idea while doing the same with the international draft and doing away with the draft pool allotments. Whatever is done must include incentives for teams to perform well and try to eliminate advantages of tanking. 

Im not sure if I like it... It would have been great for the Angels the last few years because it seems to push teams towards mediocrity, where being close to the middle is the desired outcome. I'd rather just punish teams with reduced revenue sharing for continuously losing. Tying a team's income to winning more directly is the way to go.

[Troll Daddy]

The 3 batter rule for relievers will never happen ... what a frickin joke. 

[WeatherWonk]

40 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

The 3 batter rule for relievers will never happen ... what a frickin joke. 

People probably said that about the concept of a DH at one time.

Or lowering the mound. 

Or banning foreign substances on a baseball by pitchers.

 

I like the idea. Make managers think several moves ahead with their pitchers and pinch hitters.

[Blarg]

I have no problem with a three batter clause as long as it is contained to the inning the pitcher entered the game. Once the inning is over changing pitchers to start the next inning does not slow the game, while forcing a pitcher to complete his third batter would result in a pitching change, slowing the game down. 

I am also from the old era when relief pitchers were often the pitcher from the 7th to the end of the game. For better or worse the relief corps were generally long relievers and specializing came into the game in the 80's. Over specialization the last decade. 

So nudging the game back a little to a more efficient use of a bullpen rather than include six or more pitchers into the game for three innings is getting pretty stupid. It is anti metrics but at some point the game has to be watchable. 

[zenmaster]

Too much $ in having longer games for commercials, beer, food, etc...3 hours is here to stay

[WeatherWonk]

11 minutes ago, zenmaster said:

Too much $ in having longer games for commercials, beer, food, etc...3 hours is here to stay

Then why is baseball trying to shorten the game and screaming bloody murder every time the Yanks and Sox play a 4 hour, 9 inning game?

[eaterfan]

Love the DH rule. 

Ambivalent about the 3 batter rule. I assume there is an injury exception... I'm not sure it does up the game that much. Most pitching changes after the starter is removed are between innings. I think mostly time is wasted between pitches. Actually enforcing a pitch clock would be better.

I like the expanding rosters to 26 and limiting to 28 in September as an idea... But it would just be one more spot for a reliever in practice. It will just slow the game down more. I do like that it means one more guy making major league money.

[Tank]

4 hours ago, fan_since79 said:

I like increasing the roster to 26 players during the regular season.

I would allow 30 players on the September roster.

i'd allow 35 in september.

[zenmaster]

53 minutes ago, WeatherWonk said:

Then why is baseball trying to shorten the game and screaming bloody murder every time the Yanks and Sox play a 4 hour, 9 inning game?

They'll try to shorten it some but they will only go so far. I'm just saying it will never go back to the 2.5 hour games.

[Sully151]

Move the fences back, the bases up, raise the mound, allow PEDs and switch to aluminum bats. 

[Dick Enberg]

26 man roster, no more than 12 pitchers.

Only two pitching changes per game. Only one of those can be during an inning. If pitcher pulled for injury, starters could not pitch for 10 days, relievers for 4. This would keep everyone honest and if really injured, probably going to miss sometime anyways

This would not change every game, but it would force more offense at times, due to leaving in pitchers longer.

Offense is what the game needs to survive. additional bodies on the bench would bring in more pinch hitters, more later inning base runners, more steals, just more excitement. I think this would also shorten the game time wise in many cases. the longer games would be created because of the additional offense, which fans would be ok with

[Lhalo]

3 hours ago, Troll Daddy said:

The 3 batter rule for relievers will never happen ... what a frickin joke. 

This confirms it will happen. ^^^