"The 1974 Ultimatum"

[Bagpipes5]

Personal frustration and nostalgia have me thinking about the “Good ’Ol Days™” of baseball.

No $50 million/year contracts, 25-man rosters expanded to 40, no pitch clock, no designated hitter, no minimum batter faced rule, no runner-on-second gimmick, and no automated strike zone (“robo umps”). I could go on. The modern game has accumulated a lot of rule changes over time, and with another labor dispute looming in the background, it got me thinking about how different the current version of MLB feels compared to older eras.

The 1994-95 strike is still a major reference point for fan trust and labor tension in baseball, and it clearly changed how people relate to the league long-term. That history is part of why I wanted to do this.

With that in mind, I’ve decided to run what I'm calling “The 1974 Ultimatum", imagining a save where perhaps a higher power steps in and orders rules changes to be as close to the “Good 'Ol Days™” as possible just with modern teams, players, and stadiums to see how the system evolves under a different gameplay environment.

My plan is to play the 2026 season under current rules, treat 2027 as a shutdown/intervention year (no season), and resume in 2028 with a fully rebuilt rule set.

The focus is on removing modern rule layers while leaving the financial system intact.

The goal isn’t to recreate 1974 baseball per se, otherwise I'd run a historical, but to observe how a modern player pool and league structure behaves when only the rules of play are rolled back.

Curious if anyone else has tried something similar in OOTP, especially focusing strictly on rule environment changes while keeping modern economics and free agency intact, and what tends to change or stabilize over multiple seasons.

[atlbrave1]

Which rule changes do you plan to change? No DH, No minimum batters? Anything else?

I usually have at least one save each version with a "current" league format including financials (only change is inflation to 0%), but 1980s or 1990s stats and rule changes - specifically removing the minimum batters and usually removing the DH in the NL. Everything runs well.

[Bagpipes5]

Originally Posted by atlbrave1

Which rule changes do you plan to change? No DH, No minimum batters? Anything else?

I usually have at least one save each version with a "current" league format including financials (only change is inflation to 0%), but 1980s or 1990s stats and rule changes - specifically removing the minimum batters and usually removing the DH in the NL. Everything runs well.

Let's make a list, shall we?

Active Roster Size: 25 players (from 26)
September Expanded Roster Size: 40 players (full 40-man activation)
Amateur Draft Date: June (from July)
Designated Hitter: Off (or AL-only)
3-Batter Minimum: Off
Modified Extra Innings (Ghost Runner): Off
Defensive Shift Frequency / Aggressiveness: Set to Rare or Never
League Evolution: Off (lock it)
Minor League Options per player: Reduce to 2 (from 3)
Right of First Refusal: Off

That's what I can recall off the top of my head, if anyone else remembers any others please share.

Some of the financial aspects are a bit daunting, like revenue sharing didn't exist until 1997, is that included in the 'new MLB' or no?

[Pelican]

Good start. To really rein in the financials, you need to eliminate the arbitration system and free agency. Having a year off is a really good idea. I tried to do something of the reverse - limited free agency in 1961, with the Continental League a third major league - and it was pretty chaotic at first.

What do you do with guys that have long-term contracts? I mean, I guess they get paid, but the next generation would earn far less, without arbitration or free agency as an option. It would be weird.

In my frustration with the current state of things (lack of parity, rich and poor teams), I have experimented with a hard salary cap (doesn't work the way you would expect - doctrine of unintended consequences) and floor (better but hard to implement). But my favorite is to have wealthy investors buy up the teams that won't spend money on free agents, pumping up their budgets almost to Dodgers/Yanks/Braves level. That makes those weak teams competitive real fast; but the total salary numbers go through the roof, with all that new cash flying around.

But my favorite way to restore parity is expansion, preferably with four new teams. Want to level things? Allow teams to protect twelve guys on the roster from the expansion draft. (The draft program in OOTP by default will exempt guys with less than three years MLB experience, so this isn't quite as radical as it sounds...) This approach totally penalizes good teams. They keep their best guys, but lose the depth pieces and the bench/bullpen. They try to shed bloated contracts by leaving those dudes unprotected.

[Syd Thrift]

Part of why there wasn't an enforced pitch clock in the 70s (outside of when Charlie Finley tried to implement it and the umpires basically only looked at it when the A's were on the mound) is that batters started spending 10 years in the box starting somewhere around the mid to late 90s and nobody said anything. All the pitch clock did was send baseball back to those good old days of not waiting 10 minutes between pitches while the batter scratched their balls or whatever. Oldheads ought to love that rule...

[snepp]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Part of why there wasn't an enforced pitch clock in the 70s (outside of when Charlie Finley tried to implement it and the umpires basically only looked at it when the A's were on the mound) is that batters started spending 10 years in the box starting somewhere around the mid to late 90s and nobody said anything. All the pitch clock did was send baseball back to those good old days of not waiting 10 minutes between pitches while the batter scratched their balls or whatever. Oldheads ought to love that rule...

I'm a half-oldhead at this point, and absolutely love that they can't sit around twiddling their thumbs for an eternity between pitches. Keeping **** moving is one of the best things they've done in my lifetime.

Too bad they didn't do this when Nomar was playing.

[WooBallFan43]

You gotta at least keep ABS if you're rolling it back.

[Bagpipes5]

Originally Posted by Pelican

Good start. To really rein in the financials, you need to eliminate the arbitration system and free agency. Having a year off is a really good idea. I tried to do something of the reverse - limited free agency in 1961, with the Continental League a third major league - and it was pretty chaotic at first.

What do you do with guys that have long-term contracts? I mean, I guess they get paid, but the next generation would earn far less, without arbitration or free agency as an option. It would be weird.

In my frustration with the current state of things (lack of parity, rich and poor teams), I have experimented with a hard salary cap (doesn't work the way you would expect - doctrine of unintended consequences) and floor (better but hard to implement). But my favorite is to have wealthy investors buy up the teams that won't spend money on free agents, pumping up their budgets almost to Dodgers/Yanks/Braves level. That makes those weak teams competitive real fast; but the total salary numbers go through the roof, with all that new cash flying around.

But my favorite way to restore parity is expansion, preferably with four new teams. Want to level things? Allow teams to protect twelve guys on the roster from the expansion draft. (The draft program in OOTP by default will exempt guys with less than three years MLB experience, so this isn't quite as radical as it sounds...) This approach totally penalizes good teams. They keep their best guys, but lose the depth pieces and the bench/bullpen. They try to shed bloated contracts by leaving those dudes unprotected.

That's kind of where I'm looking for ideas mostly, the financials. The rules are pretty straight forward, but depend on what you do with the financial could make or break the save or have long term repercussions you may not want. What does a league look like in 20 years if you turn revenue sharing off? Things like that.

[Bagpipes5]

Originally Posted by snepp

I'm a half-oldhead at this point, and absolutely love that they can't sit around twiddling their thumbs for an eternity between pitches. Keeping **** moving is one of the best things they've done in my lifetime.

I like that it makes the game move better for the fan but I believe it's hurt the players more than it's helped them. Imai came over this year from Japan and blames his inability to settle in on the pitch clock. Many also blamed the rule change to be the cause of Luis Garcia's injuries and fall from grace. He used to have the 'rock the baby' windup (like an old school player) and he had to eliminate that from his game. Me personally? I grew up in Cleveland watching Mike 'the Human Rain Delay' Hargrove play. Nobody really bothered me after that, not even Jim Thome with his crotch grabbing and bat pointing.

[Bagpipes5]

Originally Posted by WooBallFan43

You gotta at least keep ABS if you're rolling it back.

Not a chance! Maybe one day when the NFL gets robo-officials we may follow suit but just no!

[Pelican]

I was opposed to the pitch clock as an old fart and traditionalist - and I was wrong! Syd is right. It restores the game to where it was in the "glory days". Games are shorter and the quality of play is unaffected. Now, if they could shorten the lapse between half innings...(never happen, as they need to sell beer in stadium, and run endless ads on TV between half innings).

But I will stick to my guns on the ridiculous spectacle of ghost runners in extra innings, the ridiculous three-batter minimum for RP, limits on mound visits and pickoff attempts. Gimmicks that change the flow of the game.

Okay with ABS. It obviously works well. Why tolerate error? The challenge system is merely a step on the way to letting the robots call balls and strikes. It has become a weird aspect of strategy that I could do without.

[Bagpipes5]

Originally Posted by Pelican

I was opposed to the pitch clock as an old fart and traditionalist - and I was wrong! Syd is right. It restores the game to where it was in the "glory days". Games are shorter and the quality of play is unaffected. Now, if they could shorten the lapse between half innings...(never happen, as they need to sell beer in stadium, and run endless ads on TV between half innings).

But I will stick to my guns on the ridiculous spectacle of ghost runners in extra innings, the ridiculous three-batter minimum for RP, limits on mound visits and pickoff attempts. Gimmicks that change the flow of the game.

Okay with ABS. It obviously works well. Why tolerate error? The challenge system is merely a step on the way to letting the robots call balls and strikes. It has become a weird aspect of strategy that I could do without.

I think you kind of glossed over the actual point I was making.

I already acknowledged the fan-side benefit of the pitch clock. Faster games, less dead time, fine. My point was that there may be player-side tradeoffs people ignore because the viewing experience improved.

When a guy like Luis Garcia has to completely alter a lifelong delivery rhythm because of a timer, or when pitchers coming over from other leagues openly talk about struggling to settle in under the pace constraints, I think that’s at least worth discussing instead of just “Syd is right.”

That’s the part that rubbed me the wrong way a little. I wasn’t arguing for 4 hour games or defending endless Nomar batting-glove rituals. I was talking about whether forcing tempo changes on pitchers and hitters might have unintended effects physically or mechanically.

Those are two different conversations.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by Bagpipes5

I like that it makes the game move better for the fan but I believe it's hurt the players more than it's helped them. Imai came over this year from Japan and blames his inability to settle in on the pitch clock. Many also blamed the rule change to be the cause of Luis Garcia's injuries and fall from grace. He used to have the 'rock the baby' windup (like an old school player) and he had to eliminate that from his game. Me personally? I grew up in Cleveland watching Mike 'the Human Rain Delay' Hargrove play. Nobody really bothered me after that, not even Jim Thome with his crotch grabbing and bat pointing.

The thing that really drilled it down to me is if you go back and watch a Mike Hargrove at-bat, that's how basically everyone played circa 2015. If anything if memory serves Hargrove's antics even took *less* time than players from a decade ago did.

I personally will always love the moment when Kyle Seager got I think it was Jered Weaver big mad by calling time right as Weaver was about to throw and touched off a brawl, but still... not all changes are bad, necessarily, and IMO the pitch clock is a "change" that really just makes the game flow like it did 50 years ago.

My league is, coincidentally, also set in 1974. One thing I love about it is K rates are so low, you get hitter BABIP being as big a deal as Avoid Ks in terms of contact, but you also get that weird effect where a career .230 hitter might just go off and hit .290 one year for no reason (because BABIP still relies on a whole lot of outside factors whereas K rate, just as in real life, stabilizes pretty quickly), or as was the case of a Gorman Thomas or a Tony Armas, a guy just completely forgets how to hit singles for a season and then remembers the next year.

The K rate thing is one part of the game that incites the old-man-yelling-at-clouds part of me. They've been trending upwards since the 30s but they really skyrocketed around 2010 and I'd love for them to even get back to the 7ish K/9 that we had before everyone started throwing pitches with all of the torque (which in turn happened because we decided that throwing more than 100 or so pitches was bad on a pitcher's arm, which in turn saw bullpens expand, which in turn saw more guys throwing less often but harder). It's one of those bells you can't unring deals and I don't know how you'd lower it IRL without having some other large effects / doing things that would make some people cry (like making baseballs slightly bigger but squishier).

[Bagpipes5]

I get the appeal for fans and I’m not arguing for the old 4-hour marathons. My point was just that some pitchers have had real mechanical/adjustment issues under the new pace (Garcia’s windup change, Imai’s comments, etc.), and that side of it sometimes gets glossed over.

Anyway, let’s bring this back to the actual discussion
.
Since I'm running present-day MLB but with 1974 rules, how do you think I should handle the financial side? Do I:
Keep modern revenue sharing / luxury tax structures, or try to approximate the much looser 1974 financial environment?
Use a hard cap, soft cap, or no cap at all?
Set minimum payroll floors?
Adjust draft bonuses, international spending, etc.?
I’m inclined toward looser financial settings to let owner personalities and market-size differences matter more (like the big-market spenders vs. small-market scrappers in that era), but without making it so extreme that competitive balance collapses in a few seasons.

[WooBallFan43]

I feel like a floor is mandatory just to get some competitive balance in there. I don't think a cap is good but something like the NBA's second apron could be beneficial

[Bagpipes5]

Originally Posted by WooBallFan43

I feel like a floor is mandatory just to get some competitive balance in there. I don't think a cap is good but something like the NBA's second apron could be beneficial

I agree, a salary floor feels pretty much mandatory if I want any real competitive balance.

I'm not interested in a hard cap, but something like the NBA's second apron makes a lot of sense. It would force teams like the Pirates to actually spend their revenue sharing money instead of just having the owner pocketing it while a guy like Skenes wastes away on a bad roster.

This whole situation is a big part of why I think we're heading into a work stoppage after this season. The big markets are tired of sending money to small-market owners who don't put it back into the team, and the small markets don't want to be forced to spend it. That's the real crux of the upcoming negotiations, not the pitch clock or robo umps. Money is what matters.

That's also why I'm doing this the way I am. The shutdown year in 2027 is basically my "higher power" forcing a reset on the rules and (hopefully) creating some new financial reality. I want to see how modern players and teams evolve under old-school rules while still dealing with real economic pressures.

Has anyone run long-term saves with a floor + strong tax? Did it keep things competitive without feeling too artificial? How did revenue sharing behave over time or did you eliminate that as well?

[fredbeene]

i would think the main finance thing you need to do is change the inflation factor. Make 0. Maybe negative if possible. I would live in that world!

[zappa1]

This thread is turning into a "I like todays game" vs "I like the good old days game". Yeah they take 10 years and scratch their balls. Umpires always had the authority to get a guy in the box to hit. I just have to lol.

[Bagpipes5]

Originally Posted by zappa1

This thread is turning into a "I like todays game" vs "I like the good old days game". Yeah they take 10 years and scratch their balls. Umpires always had the authority to get a guy in the box to hit. I just have to lol.

To me, it feels like forum karma farmers with user numbers way higher than mine that constantly attempt to derail my thread. It would be nice to get an on topic reply. No wonder it's 'slow' here.

[Bagpipes5]

Originally Posted by fredbeene

i would think the main finance thing you need to do is change the inflation factor. Make 0. Maybe negative if possible. I would live in that world!

Really I want to keep Free Agency and it makes sense that baseball players would be making as much as players in other sports so I'd want to flatten but not 0 out inflation. A lot of the other financial settings are more difficult however.