MLBTR and other sources report the MLBPA and Commissioner's Office are discussing some rather dramatic changes, including adding the DH to the NL, as soon as the 2019 season. The DH to NL, along with expanding the active rosters to 26, is something the MLBPA wants and is seen a deal inducer for additional changes the players may not be so thrilled about including a proposed rule limiting pitchers to a minimum of 3 batters faced unless in injury is involved. Presumably there would be mandatory DL stints for claims of injury. In addition to expanding regular active rosters to 26, MLB wants to limit September rosters to 28. To put it in economic terms, the players want more, higher paying jobs while the league wants a faster paced game and more offense.
MLB and the MLBPA are also proposing to collaborate on a study to look at lowering the mound or even moving it back from the plate(no, 60 ft, 6" was apparently not handed down on a tablet from the baseball gods). The study would also look at possibly changing the size and configuration of the strike zone. These proposed changes are seen as a needed adjustment to both average velocity increases and rising strikeout rates. I would also add that barrel velocities are also increasing and something needs to be done to protect pitchers before someone gets killed out there. Moving the mound and rubber back might help with player safety too. This study would go on for the duration of the 2019 season with an target for implementation in 2020. I wonder if we could see some of these changes in the minor leagues where the leagues don't have to negotiate with the players?
According to Jayson Stark of the Athletic, other proposals out there include awarding additional "reward" draft picks for revenue sharing teams that make or almost make the postseason which would be an incentive to compete and possibly a disincentive to tank. These proposals would inevitably produce winners and losers but would hopefully have an end result of making the game more enjoyable for more people. Let's break down the winners and losers:
WINNERS:
Hitters: Most of the proposed changes are designed to favor offense. The DH would almost surely provide instant offense for NL teams. Strike zone and mound changes would also favor hitters as would the 3 batter minimum rule. Roster size expansion would almost certainly be used to carry an additional pitcher and might balance out the 3 batter rule.
Pitchers: While most of the rule changes should favor offense, pitchers will most likely get the lion's share of extra roster space. They may not realize it, but pitchers desperately need protection from line drive comebackers. Moving the mound/rubber back may save a life or two.
AL Fans: They will get to keep the DH in postseason games played in NL ballparks. I have grudgingly come to believe NL fans will also benefit by not having to watch rally after rally fizzle at the bottom of the lineup.
Players: Roster increase gives the players 30 additional jobs and the universal DH may give them better paying jobs. More offense will presumably attract more fans which benefits everybody.
Small Market Teams that Compete: Compensation for revenue sharing teams that compete at long last changes the draft away from rewarding losing. Small market teams are not the only ones who sometimes tank so more draft changes may be coming.
LOSERS:
LOOGY's: The 3 batter minimum rule would all but eliminate the LOOGY(Lefty One Out Guys). While the extra roster space would likely be used to add pitching, several current pitchers may suddenly find their services not needed.
Diehard NL Fans: There are a lot of NL fans, especially older ones, who will absolutely hate the DH. I was one of those until recently, but I have grown weary of watching rallies get killed by pitchers. Bring on the DH! I know we'll hear from the haters, but guys, I'll let you in on something. The DH is coming to the NL. It's inevitable. Might as well accept it and get it over with.
WINNERS:
Fans: Aside from making the overall game more enjoyable to watch, this collaboration between MLB and the MLBPA may be the start of working together to avoid a looming strike. We all win from that!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
These all seem like decent improvements with the exception of moving the mound back. That just seems too extreme of a change even though you make a good point about pitcher safety. Nobody wants to see a pitcher die from being struck by a comebacker but they should explore other options instead of moving the mound.
ReplyDeleteThe DH is coming we all have anticipated it and I’m finally OK with it. I like roster expansion too but most of all I like the 3 batter minimum with a caveat. If a pitcher finishes an inning after facing less than the 3 minimum batters he shouldnt have to go in to start the next inning as they can warm up his replacement before the next inning and it wouldn’t affect pace of play. Also it would adversely affect pace of play if the pitcher had to go in to face one more batter after finishing an inning just to meet the minimum requirement. It would then prompt another mid inning pitching change which slows the game down.
Your point on the adjustment of the "minimum three batter" suggested change makes good sense.
DeleteThe 3 batter stipulation should be waived if the opposing team pinch hits after the first batter -- if I can't change, you can't change...
DeleteThe rule certainly ends the career for some true LOOGYS, which seems a little out of sorts when jobs are being created for one type of specialist (DH) and ended for another.
Some sources report the roster increase would include a rule limiting pitchers to 12 before September. It seems like there would have to be an adjustment for 2-way players. We'll call it the Shohei Rule. Could also be the MadBum Rule.
ReplyDeleteHa! .... or the Pablo Rule.
DeleteWhy not just give batters aluminium bats, if offense is such a hallowed goal? Implement softball rules. Everybody starts with a 1-1 count. Lower the mound to ground level.
ReplyDeleteIf it's a designated hitter, why not say that they're required to have a batting average of 270 or they'll be benched or sent to the field.
With all due respect, CDH, the proposed rule changes are much less obtrusive.
DeleteI like how we present all these reasons for the DH in the NL when in my view, the key piece of evidence argues differently. The DH experiment has had a near perfect lab for determining whether the NL should adopt the rule. Opinions on fan boards make for a lively discussion but the clearest evidence that the DH does not need to be adopted in the NL is attendance. NL attendance has kept pace with the AL and in the case of the top performers outstrips the AL. So you had the perfect test case for decades and what happened? In 2018, 12 of the top 20 teams in attendance were NL teams. Whether I am for or against the DH is not interesting; what I do find interesting is that what I see as the key factor in determining the need for the DH in the NL is rarely mentioned. People go to NL games in at least the same numbers as the AL. Fans have voted with their wallets for literally thousands of games.
ReplyDeleteAttendance is not the primary reason for the MLBPA lobbying for the DH in the NL. The MLBPA believes it will create an additional high salary roster position. Whether true or not, that's what the MLBPA clearly believes. Maintaining attendance MIGHT be an additional longterm benefit via increased run scoring.
DeleteAs for attendance comparisons, you would have to normalize attendance for population base to make a valid comparison.
Not to belabor the point (well, I guess I am) but one does not have to normalize as that's been done by simply being an MLB team. A scatter shot of teams and franchises spread across the country. That's like saying I would have to normalize for W-L records as that would affect attendance as well.
DeleteBut seriously, I just wanted to make the point that if you want an opinion poll, look at attendance as a key indicator. And it says is NL fans are not voting with their wallet and staying away from the game in protest due to the lack of a DH. They love their game (overall) the way it is. So the drive for the DH is something that goes beyond the health of the game in NL stadiums. Listening to talk radio and sports tv, they never bring up this simple fact. I just find that odd.
Not trying to ruffle feathers. Love your site and appreciate all the work you do to give a fan like me a cool place to go to get Giants news and opinions.
Thank you for the kind words.
DeleteYes, you would have to normalize, but again that's not the main reason why the DH is coming to the NL, like it or not. The players want it for another higher paying roster spot. MLB wants it for uniform rules. I have come to want it because I am sick of watching pitchers kill rallies. Regardless of current attendance trends, I do believe adding the DH to the NL is good for the long term health of the game.
There are many factors that influence attendance. It's probably impossible to single out any one and be able to identify a trend in actual attendance numbers. There is a longstanding rough correlation between scoring, attendance and overall interest in the game.
DeleteYou also have to account for competitiveness. If we define non-competitive as finishing more than 10 games out of a playoff spot, there were 9 non-competitive teams in the AL and just 5 in the NL. That might have something to do with better attendance in the NL too.
DeleteI wish they would give removing the DH from the minors a chance before determining that pitchers can't hit. Most pitchers are essentially skipping hitting development and are expected to learn in the fly against the top pitching talent in the world. Even MadBum took several years before he was not a complete eyesore at the plate.
ReplyDeleteIf pitchers are still awful after getting a chance to learn to hit, then sure, maybe a universal DH is the way to go.
Pitchers have been terrible hitters since long before Charles O Finley even thought of the DH.
DeleteHow about an electronic strike zone? It's very annoying to see an umpire miss a ball/strike call that can be obviously reviewed these days - you could have a red light go on for a strike - more obvious to outfielders and more accurate. Tired of referees/umpires affecting games with their mistakes (still not over Saints/Rams) //
ReplyDeleteI favor electronic strike zones, but MLB has much more pressing issues. Between PitchFx holding umps accountable and instant replay, the quality of umpiring has gotten better in recent years, especially balls and strikes(I am not sure, but I suspect Instant Replay has actually made reviewable on-field calls less accurate because the umps know it's going to be reviewed anyway).
DeleteThen you could also have a pink CG aura around the baseball - like a hockey puck - more fun for fans! Or how about huge scoreboards with hot dogs racing against popcorn and sodas around an imaginary circuit! Subliminal food sales pitch! Okay, this is cynical but I like NL baseball as it is, with different strategies at different points in the lineup and in the game - pitcher should hit, let's see what the managers do in a scoring situation with pitcher coming to the plate...the fun of baseball is the variety and resourcefulness of strategies.
ReplyDeleteCharles O. Finley(him again) actually proposed using bright yellow balls.
DeleteDouble switch, Pinch hitting, strategery, blah, blah, blah. That stuff is actually pretty elementary if you know the game at all. AL managing strategy is more subtle, but likely more difficult, like deciding how long to leave a pitcher in if you don't have to PH for him because your team is behind.
Bottom line for me is I finally just had enough of watching pitchers kill rallies. Even Bumgarner has killed way more rallies than a competent DH hitting for him would.
OK, moving the mound back strikes me as an incredibly stupid idea. Every pitcher has spent years pitching from 60'6" at all levels. Changing that would lead to walk rates skyrocketing, and a proliferation of injuries as pitchers try to adjust their mechanics. As for pitcher safety, unless you moved the mound by several feet back the difference would be miniscule, a difference of only a microsecond.
ReplyDeleteAs for the DH, I've resigned myself to it coming (tho I'm still an old school curmudgeon who doesn't like it), but teams really should have 1 year notice to adjust. Putting it in place less than a month before Spring Training would be hard on rosters.
Reaction times are in microseconds, so they can make a significant difference.
DeleteTo reduce pitcher's risk of serious injury, maybe they could unjuice (de-juice?) the ball so that it doesn't come off the bat so hard - compensate for less ball carry by establishing maximum fence distances for straightaway CF and the RF/LF lines in all parks to keep that crowd-pleasing HR rate up.
DeleteAgain, preventing pitcher injuries is not the reason why they are looking at moving the mound back. That was actually MY addition. The reason they are looking at moving it back is because of rising pitch velocities accompanying K rates. Personally, I think you could accomplish both goals by lowering the mound and making pitchers wear protective headgear.
DeleteThey are going to study the mound changes for at least a year before implementation so I am sure they will take all these issues into due consideration.
I’m very much with mm on both electronic strike zones and leaving NL baseball as it is. 26 on a roster seems to me a very good idea, since teams carry many more pitchers than they did when the number 25 was set.
ReplyDeleteIf the mound is moved back so that virtually every pitcher has to retool, Iwould expect an exponential increase in the percentage of arm injuries.
Take heart, Campanari. They are going to study the mound changes for at least a year before implementing them. I am sure the pitcher's lobby will make sure they do their due diligence when it comes to pitching injuries.
DeleteLost in the excitement of the last day or so, giantsprospects and mccoveychron both cite PECOTA projections today for the 2019 Giants on twitter: they are not bad, they are horrid!
ReplyDeletePECOTA is subscription -- believe it: you don't want to pay good money to see how dismal the Giants are going to be.
It's sad enough to read what our cited friends say...
PECOTA is largely based on the past 2 years when injuries were a big factor. If they can stay healthy they will beat their PECOTA's handily. If not, oh well.
Delete....and did you read the text? PECOTA is actually projecting a significant improvement from 2018 for several core players.
DeleteNo, and projecting anything in baseball is problematic, but they are also projecting some significant regression for SF's 2 best SP and 10 games worse than the D'backs who lost some real stars.
DeleteIf the 30+ aging trends continue, SF will be competing with Miami and Baltimore for worst.
I looked up the Giants PECOTA projection for 2018. 84 wins. How did that work out?
Delete