MLB and the MLBPA made a deal.

[itsKnoppUitsme]

4 hours ago, Jeremiah said:

I think the issue is the rule takes away some flexibility in roster construction and usage of players. A player like Cowart is kind of a project as a pitcher. For now he’s probably only be used situationally. If he has to take a designated pitcher’s slot, it can cost the team the opportunity to carry a more established reliever.

 Wouldn’t this give an unfair advantage to national league teams/players? 

[gotbeer]

9 hours ago, krAbs said:

Yeah...This still doesn't really make sense, though. Why specify that they need to have the requirements "in either the current or the prior season"? That sounds like if you have a pitcher who gets 20 games started as a hitter, you could then become a two-way player that year; except that they also say "clubs will have to designate each of their players as either a pitcher or a position player prior to each player’s first day on the active roster for a given season. That designation cannot change for the remainder of the season."

It feels really sloppy...

I haven't read the rules.  But this statement is probably the important one.  Clubs will have to designate what the players are on the first day on the active roster for a given season.  Since most of these players start on day one.  Then the rules are kind of confusing in that the timeframe is the current season or the previous season.  It probably will be changed to the previous 2 seasons or last 2 calendar years.  In Ohtani's case, he would have done what needs to be done the season prior, so he would be the 2 way player.

[gotbeer]

13 hours ago, Stradling said:

Here’s my solution for free agency.  Unless you’ve already signed an extension everyone is a free agent after their age 26 season, regardless of service time.  My thought would be they become a free agent entering their prime.   If you are a phenom you aren’t getting dicked around playing the service time game.  

Now I’m sure there are logic flaws in this or unforeseen unintended consequences, but to me it helps a bit.  If a team has a 19 year old stud they could have 8 years of club control.  They could still keep the arb process after year three so guys like Trout, Harper, Soto and Acuna would still get paid a ton pre free agency if they continue to perform.  

The other thing I would add is a roster spot for a player you signed after a certain age, say 34 years old.  His contract would be free of luxury tax implications.   

Lastly no more draft pick forfeiture for signing any free agents   

 

Sounds like the hockey model.  UFA at age 26 or 27, depending on if a college player.  RFA after the entry level contract expires, and a certain amount of service time.  I think in most cases, entry level contracts are 3 years.  Although the service time might not be a factor, as it might have more to do with the expansion drafts.In the MLB case though, I can see the entry level contract being increased a few years.  Just because I think it does take baseball players a bit more time to develop than hockey players.  Probably a compromise will be 5 years after the contract is signed instead of the 6 years MLB playing time.  They could go a straight 5 years after the contract is signed, 4 years for college players.  This would actually give teams incentive to play a player sooner to have a cheap entry level contract, instead of burying them in the minors to maximize their prime MLB experience time.  

I don't know if it's addressed at all.  But to me, the big change I wish they would do is get rid of international signings.  They should be like every other sport, and have one draft.  None of these shenanigans that's happening in Latin America and even Japan/Asia.  If you want someone, you have to draft them.  None of this international cap crap, or signing players when they are 15 in hopes they become good.  

Oh, and be able to trade draft slots.  I know baseball is more of a crapshoot when it comes to the draft.  But drafts would be a lot more fun.  And trading picks at the trade deadline would also make things more interesting.  

[Jeff Fletcher]

Ok, we actually spent 15 minutes debating this with Ausmus as we tried to understand the rule. Mostly because I misread it. 

Here’s the deal...

the purpose of a pitcher limit is to keep teams from making too many pitching changes which slows down the game. They haven’t decided the limits yet but I expect it will be 13 pitchers when the roster is 26 and 14 when it’s 28. They just don’t want you having 15 or 16 pitchers. 

Now, they want to exclude two way players from counting against the pitcher limit. 

You establish your two way status by pitching 20 innings and playing 20 games as a position player/DH. You can start the season that way if you met those criteria the previous year or you can gain the status during the year. 

Since Ohtani isn’t going to pitch this year, he won’t start 2020 as a 2-way player. They’ll call him a pitcher and once he has 20 games as a DH they’ll make him a 2-way player. 

As for Cowart-Walsh, they have all of this year to establish a status for 2020. If they don’t make it, it would probably depend on their preferred role which way the team goes at the start of the year. For Cowart it would probably be as a pitcher and for Walsh as a position player. 

[krAbs]

1 hour ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Ok, we actually spent 15 minutes debating this with Ausmus as we tried to understand the rule. Mostly because I misread it. 

Here’s the deal...

the purpose of a pitcher limit is to keep teams from making too many pitching changes which slows down the game. They haven’t decided the limits yet but I expect it will be 13 pitchers when the roster is 26 and 14 when it’s 28. They just don’t want you having 15 or 16 pitchers. 

Now, they want to exclude two way players from counting against the pitcher limit. 

You establish your two way status by pitching 20 innings and playing 20 games as a position player/DH. You can start the season that way if you met those criteria the previous year or you can gain the status during the year. 

Since Ohtani isn’t going to pitch this year, he won’t start 2020 as a 2-way player. They’ll call him a pitcher and once he has 20 games as a DH they’ll make him a 2-way player. 

As for Cowart-Walsh, they have all of this year to establish a status for 2020. If they don’t make it, it would probably depend on their preferred role which way the team goes at the start of the year. For Cowart it would probably be as a pitcher and for Walsh as a position player. 

Awesome - I've been waiting for a post from you about this (as someone who has a finger closer to the pulse of the actual MLB establishment than anyone on here).

I think a lot of the concern/confusion around Ohtani is the line about choosing whether to call someone a pitcher or a hitter at the beginning of the year, and then locking them into that for the year. It sounds like your take is that that would apply to switching between hitter and pitcher designation, but not switching between pitcher and two-way player designation.

I think this is the sticking point for most of us fans - we really don't want to see Ohtani get screwed out of going two-ways because he can't pitch this year. But, if it works how you're saying, that makes Ohtani even more valuable than he is now, because he allows the Angels to carry one more "pitcher" than other teams.

[Jeff Fletcher]

49 minutes ago, krAbs said:

Awesome - I've been waiting for a post from you about this (as someone who has a finger closer to the pulse of the actual MLB establishment than anyone on here).

I think a lot of the concern/confusion around Ohtani is the line about choosing whether to call someone a pitcher or a hitter at the beginning of the year, and then locking them into that for the year. It sounds like your take is that that would apply to switching between hitter and pitcher designation, but not switching between pitcher and two-way player designation.

I think this is the sticking point for most of us fans - we really don't want to see Ohtani get screwed out of going two-ways because he can't pitch this year. But, if it works how you're saying, that makes Ohtani even more valuable than he is now, because he allows the Angels to carry one more "pitcher" than other teams.

I thought the same thing and actually argued with Ausmus for a few minutes but then it was pointed out to me that if you keep reading it says “except....”

its not like it would really make a difference anyway. All this is much ado about nothing. 

It means in 2020 the Angels could have one more reliever than everyone else, which is not a big deal. There are teams now that sometimes carry one more reliever than the other team and no one notices. 

[arch stanton]

And none of this will prevent 75% of batters from going to 3-2 then fouling off 3 more pitches before whiffing or walking 

[Jeremiah]

8 hours ago, arch stanton said:

And none of this will prevent 75% of batters from going to 3-2 then fouling off 3 more pitches before whiffing or walking 

FiveThirtyEight ran a story that showed foul balls to be a major culprit in game delays. It never really get talked about, though. Hopefully it isn’t a Craig, but here it is. And, hey, there’s a pic of Ohtani with the headline.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/foul-balls-are-the-pace-of-play-problem-nobodys-talking-about/

[Jeremiah]

13 hours ago, itsKnoppUitsme said:

 Wouldn’t this give an unfair advantage to national league teams/players? 

Possibly because of the way NL rosters are constructed. Since they don’t typically carry DH-type players to begin with, they’ll have more positional flexibility and can more afford to carry a player like that.

[krAbs]

Okay, so, the most interesting rule update has largely been ignored here because of the 2-way player thing.

MLB is doing two things to give us more baseball and less advertisement. 1. they are limiting how often a manager can change pitchers in a game (and limiting the total number of pitchers carried). This will result in fewer mid-inning commercial breaks. 2. they are shortening the time between innings. This will lead to less commercial time in the middle of games.

Obviously, as a fan, I LOVE this. But, its kind of a crazy change. It feels like its going against entropy - how often do professional sports teams say "You know what? We are taking in too much add revenue. We should cut down on the number of commercials shown in our games." I hope it works out for baseball as an organization, but from my perspective, that's really cool.

[Fish Oil]

19 hours ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

After reading through this, the new rule is going to kill the two way player almost entirely. Someone like Ohtani is going to be fine, but guys like Walsh and Cowart are going to lose the flexibility that was going to be the value they provide.

Yeah, or it will turn them into multi-year projects. Let them mop up blowouts this year, then next year they can carry the "two-way player" designation.

On another note, will this carry into free agency? If a player earns the two-way designation this year then enters free agency with that designation, it would likely greatly increase his value, no?

[AngelsLakersFan]

4 hours ago, Fish Oil said:

Yeah, or it will turn them into multi-year projects. Let them mop up blowouts this year, then next year they can carry the "two-way player" designation.

On another note, will this carry into free agency? If a player earns the two-way designation this year then enters free agency with that designation, it would likely greatly increase his value, no?

Yes. It will get to the point where if you can earn 'two-way status' you will make a team over better players because the ability to have an extra pitcher on a roster is going to be huge, especially in the AL.

[Lou]

it's a f'n stupid rule. 

why not limit the number of left-handed pitchers on the roster? 

[AngelsLakersFan]

9 minutes ago, Lou said:

it's a f'n stupid rule. 

why not limit the number of left-handed pitchers on the roster? 

They did

[Jeremiah]

2 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

They did

In effect they did. This rule pretty much makes the LHRP endangered and the LOOGY extinct, neither of which is a problem in MLB as far as I’m concerned.

[AngelsLakersFan]

I haven’t seen much talk of this, but a major source of the problem these rules are designed to fix is the existence of the DH. 

The DH decreases the value of having position players on your bench while also increasing the value of additional relievers. The DH makes it more difficult for pitchers (particularly starters) to navigate lineups while simultaneously giving defenses more ammo to play matchups and platoon advantages. 

While I don’t advocate for the removal of the DH, doing so would likely have a stronger effect than all of these changes together will, without all the unintended consequences and general stupidity.

[vladdy#27]

If pitchers are required to pitch to three batters and you are only allowed to make 5 mound visits does it really matter how many pitchers you carry on your roster?

Those rules are already preventing pitching changes from happening. It seems redundant and unnecessary to force how teams assemble their rosters.

[Second Base]

The whole 3 batter rule thing is being blown out of proportion. As of right now, the rule will only apply in extra innings. And if you ask me, that's dumb. It should apply for all innings. It would speed up the game and force managers to use more strategy. Pitchers would no longer be lefty or righty specialists, which is a good thing. 

If you only apply this rule to extra inning games, then it makes no difference in shortening the game. 

[Glen]

On 3/15/2019 at 7:28 AM, Jeremiah said:

FiveThirtyEight ran a story that showed foul balls to be a major culprit in game delays. It never really get talked about, though. Hopefully it isn’t a Craig, but here it is. And, hey, there’s a pic of Ohtani with the headline.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/foul-balls-are-the-pace-of-play-problem-nobodys-talking-about/

This is a good article and I'd never even considered it.

[Jeff Fletcher]

9 hours ago, Second Base said:

The whole 3 batter rule thing is being blown out of proportion. As of right now, the rule will only apply in extra innings.

No. It will apply all the time. 

[m0nkey]

Here’s what’s being blown out of proportion: how many times a game does a pitcher face less than 3 batters in a game (not ending an inning)? 

Once every 3 games? It’s definitely not a major reason why the average time of game is what it is 

[Second Base]

3 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

No. It will apply all the time. 

Thanks for the connection. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

15 hours ago, m0nkey said:

Here’s what’s being blown out of proportion: how many times a game does a pitcher face less than 3 batters in a game (not ending an inning)? 

Once every 3 games? It’s definitely not a major reason why the average time of game is what it is 

Not sure, but there were 1159 one batter appearances last year.

I also agree with suggestions that if they feel the need to do this it should be 3 batters or until the pitcher allows a baserunner.

[Slegnaac]

So the relief pitcher just needs to get tossed after the first batter.

[Jeff Fletcher]

11 hours ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

Not sure, but there were 1159 one batter appearances last year.

In 2431 games.

Edited March 18, 2019 by Jeff Fletcher