Some possible MLB Rule Changes

[Bluenoser]

Well, these are certainly interesting suggestions. Bickering between players and owners aside, some of these ideas I could get on board with.

A three-batter minimum for pitchers This would definitely speed the game up if they weren't changing pitchers after every batter.

A universal designated hitter Not a fan of the DH at all, but like it or not this going to happen

A single trade deadline before the All-Star break No comment really

A 20-second pitch clock Very much on board with this. All the fussing and fidgeting by both pitchers and hitters has gotten beyond ridiculous

The expansion of rosters to 26 men, with a 12-pitcher maximum Like this, so would the players union like anything that creates more player jobs

Draft advantages for winning teams and penalties for losing teams Yes, make teams try harder to win

A study to lower the mound Not sure what difference this would make

Here's the full article - http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/2...ges-alter-game

[Reed]

The DH rule—I think both leagues should have the same rule and I think the NL for better or worse will end up with the DH. I would rather keep roster size at 25 but I am sure the players union will get the increased size.
I like the idea of forcing pitcher to face at least 3 batters (except for injury or end of inning).
I assume lowering the mound would increase offense. I wish the could do something to lower HRs, lower KOs, and increase BAs and the running game.

[Curve Ball Dave]

The 3 batter rule is ridiculous. Pitchers coming in to face one batter is a time honored strategy. Better to limit the number of pitchers on the roster so managers will think twice about using up every reliever they have in one game.

[Clovidequano Dovatha]

I've said it before, and I'll probably say it again, the DH rule should totally be done away with. It's contaminated the game long enough, but unfortunately, it probably will continue to contaminate the game for quite some time to come.

Pitch clocks are not needed, either, in my view. One of the best things about baseball is the fact that it's an untimed game, or at least it was, until not too long ago.

Pitch counts, utterly ridiculous, as well. You don't get better at something if you don't work at it, generally. No matter what it is. Also, saves are too easy to get nowadays, compared to years ago. The closers basically don't have to work much to earn their keep, so to speak, nowadays. I understand that many teams have a lot of money invested in players, but not having them play may be doing more harm than good, when it comes to injury proneness and all, whether it's for pitchers or for position players, I think, folks.

There's no need to lower the mound. If anything, raise it back up to where it was years ago, or somewhere in between what it is now and what it was about 50 or so years ago.

No sense, either, in having half your roster be made up of pitchers. I'd figure, no more than eight to ten pitchers, at most, per 25. And please, do away with the five-man rotations, and go back to four-man rotations on a relatively regular basis, while helping pitchers readjust to that sort of practice. At this rate, we'll never likely see a 300-game winner again, or at least not for a very long time, I think.

I'll probably have more thoughts here about the suggested changes at some point, but this is enough to talk about here in this post for now, I think. CD out.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

The 3 batter rule is ridiculous. Pitchers coming in to face one batter is a time honored strategy. Better to limit the number of pitchers on the roster so managers will think twice about using up every reliever they have in one game.

Originally Posted by Clovidequano Dovatha

I've said it before, and I'll probably say it again, the DH rule should totally be done away with. It's contaminated the game long enough, but unfortunately, it probably will continue to contaminate the game for quite some time to come.

Agreed 100%.

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

A 20-second pitch clock[/u] Very much on board with htis. All the fussing and fidgeting by both pitchers and hitters has gotten beyond ridiculous

Isn't there currently a 12 second clock they don't enforce? I'm fine with 20 seconds, but this clock does no good unless batters are also not allowed out of the box to adjust everything after every pitch. This rule would have to accompany a once in the box stay in the box rule as well. Not including throws to first or batters almost being hit by the pitch.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

The 3 batter rule is ridiculous. Pitchers coming in to face one batter is a time honored strategy. Better to limit the number of pitchers on the roster so managers will think twice about using up every reliever they have in one game.

There was a time when you almost never saw a reliever.

There was a time when a reliever came in, and stayed in for a while.

It's not that long of a "time honored" strategy.

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

There was a time when you almost never saw a reliever.

Yes, the 1940s and earlier.

There was a time when a reliever came in, and stayed in for a while.

True, I wish they did that more often.

It's not that long of a "time honored" strategy.

Lefty specialists started in the late 80s/early 90s or 30 years ago. It's not new.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

Yes, the 1940s and earlier.



True, I wish they did that more often.



Lefty specialists started in the late 80s/early 90s or 30 years ago. It's not new.

Well, I didn't say it was new, but then I guess that depends on how new you are to the game. Myself I've been following since the early 60's, so I see it from a different perspective than someone following since the 80's and onward.

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

Well, I didn't say it was new, but then I guess that depends on how new you are to the game. Myself I've been following since the early 60's, so I see it from a different perspective than someone following since the 80's and onward.

I've been following since the early 70s actually. Personally I think the use of relievers these days is ridiculous. I say leave a pitcher in until he stops getting batters out. No use pulling a guy who's mowing the opposition down just because the "metrics" say so.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

I've been following since the early 70s actually. Personally I think the use of relievers these days is ridiculous. I say leave a pitcher in until he stops getting batters out. No use pulling a guy who's mowing the opposition down just because the "metrics" say so.

Amen to that

[Leo_The_Lip]

>>A study to lower the mound Not sure what difference this would make<<

Lowering the mound is what saved baseball after the farce of 1968 almost did away with hitting.

[drksd4848]

A three-batter minimum for pitchers

YES!!!

A universal designated hitter

NO!

Why? Because I like my MANAGER TO USE HIS BRAIN, not some analytic nerd with a computer in the front office. I'd like to use the argument about, what is the point of having separate leagues, but pitchers use to hit in both leagues years ago (and guess what? it was better that way!) Adding a universal DH makes the game even more boring. Eliminate it all together. GODFORBID a manager has use his brain to figure out a double switch.

All this is is a <something naughty that happens in a place of ill repute> to the players union so they can institute a:

A 20-second pitch clock

Fine, although it seemed players 30+ years ago never had a problem throwing the ball in a timely matter.

A single trade deadline before the All-Star break

Another <blank> to the Players union.

The expansion of rosters to 26 men, with a 12-pitcher maximum

Lower it to eleven pitchers, keep the 25 man roster.

Draft advantages for winning teams and penalties for losing teams

YES, absolutely!!!! Enough of the suck for draft pick model.

A study to lower the mound

NO, unless they're using it to under cut the stupid launch angle.

A rule that would allow two-sport amateurs to sign major league contracts

Fine, whatever. Have it be feature to integrate OOTP into Front Office Football

[Reed]

In 1968 when the mound was lowered, ERA went up by .75. Fastballs are slightly slower also with a lower mound.
I think MLB has to make some changes since interest seems to be declining so the next 3 or 4 years should be interesting to see what they do.

[swoboda]

Yes to the 3 batter minimum but....I would settle for a two batter minimum unless the first batter gets a hit.

DH in the NL ? Never !

[MorseMoose]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

A three-batter minimum for pitchers This would definitely speed the game up if they weren't changing pitchers after every batter.

Teams should be rewarded for good pitching. If you can use 6 guys to get 6 outs, you should be able to do that.

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

A universal designated hitter Not a fan of the DH at all, but like it or not this going to happen

It's about time. Pitchers hitting is awful. The only wish I'd have is that the DH could be for any player, not just pitchers.

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

A single trade deadline before the All-Star break No comment really

Meh...I like the deadline being as late as it is. Maybe remove the waiver trades instead?

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

A 20-second pitch clock Very much on board with this. All the fussing and fidgeting by both pitchers and hitters has gotten beyond ridiculous

Sure, I can accept that one. But I wonder how many already adhere to this.

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

The expansion of rosters to 26 men, with a 12-pitcher maximum Like this, so would the players union like anything that creates more player jobs

I like raising the rosters, but don't care for the pitcher max. Bad pitching can be really bad and having that extra spot for a pitcher allows for the match-ups. This probably relates to the earlier rule change.

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

Draft advantages for winning teams and penalties for losing teams Yes, make teams try harder to win

No. I think dynasties would be too easy and you'd so rarely have that overachieving underdog that baseball gets so often. I don't think the draft is broken.

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

A study to lower the mound Not sure what difference this would make

I'd go the other way, to be honest.

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by MorseMoose

Teams should be rewarded for good pitching. If you can use 6 guys to get 6 outs, you should be able to do that.

I think if they did away with commercial breaks every time they changed pitchers it wouldn't matter quite as much. Particularly if they all did away with or lessened their warm-up on the mound (if they already warmed up in the pen). They could also do what CBS has been doing with commercials during football: two pictures on the screen. The game in one and the commercial in the other.

[ForeverRoyalKC]

I'm for the universal DH. I've always hated it when a crucial situation was taking place and......up comes the pitcher!
I am fifty years old and have never understood the hatred of the DH. I hated the pitcher batting as a kid and I hate it now. SO many scoring opportunities have been lost by the pitcher squibbing one to SS.
Granted, great DH hitters have done the same thing and you do have good hitting pitchers like Kersh and Bumgarner, I concede those points. But I have always hated for a real crucial backbreaking moment and......up comes the pitcher!

[rink23]

I have no clue how I am going to react when they announce "Batting second, designated hitter Jose Martinez" at Busch Stadium sometime in the near future.
Probably throw up in my mouth a little bit.

[kq76]

A three-batter minimum for pitchers
-I don't see this happening. I hate all these pitching changes as much as the next person, but what are they going to do when pitchers claim they're hurt? It'll be like diving. We'll start seeing pitchers all of a sudden falling to the ground like they've been shot one after another.

The 12 pitcher per roster rule would have a similar desired result (less pitching changes) without having such an obvious negative impact on strategy.

A universal designated hitter
-I don't think this is going to happen any time sooner either. I do think it's more likely that we'll see the DH rule tweaked (to be more like the NL game) in the minors. And then the AL, and possibly the NL, will adopt the tweaked rule. But as the rule is now, I don't think the NL will ever adopt it. It's just takes away too much of the game.

I like how the SI writer put it (and I'm paraphrasing): pitchers in the NL averaged 2.1 plate appearances in 2018. Are we seriously willing to throw away all the great end-game aspects of the NL game for 2 measely PAs a game, really? And even if one does insist on improving those 2 PAs a game, there are better ways to improve them (ie, getting batters to hit for pitchers) than by adopting the bland and boring AL rules. It's easy too. The ideas are already out there, we don't need to invent them.

A single trade deadline before the All-Star break
-Okay, sure, whatever.

A 20-second pitch clock
-Yes, please. Okay, yeah, I understand where people are coming from where they say baseball is the only game not ruled by a clock and that there is a beauty to that, but there are also people who very much prefer a fast game too so. I really don't think there's nearly as much lost going to a pitch clock as there would be going to an all DH game.

The expansion of rosters to 26 men, with a 12-pitcher maximum
-For the love of God, yes! But to take it a step further, make it 27, but you get to declare only 24 players for each game, 3 are scratches (most likely yesterday's SP, tomorrow's SP, and someone else). The 12 pitcher max (preferably lower) is the more important part of that though. I hate how the game has lost all its pinch hitters, base-running specialists, and defensive replacements all for the sake of more relievers. I don't so much mind having lots of relievers on the roster, but not if it means sacrificing the bench.

Draft advantages for winning teams and penalties for losing teams
-I'd like to hear more of how they plan on doing it. It needs to seem fair. I don't think it'd be fair for, presumably mostly large market, successful teams to automatically get the best draft picks. There's something to be said for being trudged on and then getting a chance to get better by getting high draft picks. I'd rather see them just do away with the draft altogether, but there's no way that will ever happen.

A study to lower the mound
-We want more offense I guess? How about we move the fences out, make it harder to hit home runs, and then instead of everyone just swinging for the fences but just striking most of the time, maybe they'll change their minds and try to get more hits instead.

One I'm surprised isn't getting more traction is the idea of starting service time based on when you're drafted or first signed instead. Of course MLB wouldn't want this, but if I was the union I'd definitely want this. More and more teams are giving older players less and less. The union needs to get the players paid before they're deemed to be on the down curve. And as a fan I certainly want it. Instead of getting stuck in the minors for far longer than necessary, imagine all these young phenoms getting to play in the bigs as soon as it looked like they could hack it. Wouldn't that be great. But no, we have a stupid system in place where teams are incentived to bury their best young players in the minors so they don't have to pay them a year early. They can increase how many years are needed to get to free agency, but please let's start their clocks earlier so we don't have to put up with this nonsense any longer.

[Le Grande Orange]

A single trade deadline before the All-Star break

Interesting. So basically they're talking about moving the trade deadline back to something closer to what it used to be for a long time: from 1921 through 1985 the trade deadline was June 15th; it moved to July 31st in 1986, and it's been there ever since.

The expansion of rosters to 26 men

Considering there is already a 26-man roster for some doubleheaders, this change would simply enact that limit for all games instead of it being limited to some games.

Draft advantages for winning teams and penalties for losing teams

Originally Posted by drksd4848

YES, absolutely!!!! Enough of the suck for draft pick model.

You do realize doing something like that is antithetical to a core concept of the draft, right?