i heard of an additional piece to this rule where you can switch out your starting pitcher before 6 innings or 100 pitches, but the reliever replaces the DH which i think is good cause if a starter is doing bad or is really tired you can still switch them, but there's an incentive not to do so
I get the concept and I am admittedly very old school and like to see starters go as deep into the game as they can, seeing pitchers get pulled early (ESPECIALLY in the postseason) really annoys me when they still have plenty in the tank, but you can't force a guy who's struggling out there to go 6 innings
MLB's habit of addressing any criticism by adding rules to an already overcomplicated rulebook is insane and the complete opposite of what might attract a bigger broader fan base. Nothing is more alienating to potential fans as not being able to understand the rules.
This is why I love Logan Gilbert. He always has the ability to go 7+ innings… Call me an old head but I miss the days of Randy Johnson throwing 160 pitches.
I think a minimum batters requirement that the starter needs to face would be a better way to get this done. If you said “starters need to face 15 hitters, or twice through the lineup” or something that would allow for a starter just getting wrecked, but get rid of openers.
I'm an old head, I miss starters throwing 200 innings plus like it's nothing. I miss starters getting more decisions and Ultimately wins. I personally like the rule idea, as the stipulations are reasonable and in line with expectations. If your starter hasn't givin up much, and he's been efficient no need to pull him. If he's giving up runs, you want to pull him and you can. If he's had some taxing innings and and is approaching 100 pitches by the 4th/5th , you can pull him. Basically the spirit of the rule is within the parameters of how a starting pitcher is typically managed anyways. This would eliminate teams using an " opener " The rule theoretically would reduce batter strikeouts ( every year sets a new record ), as hitters getting a 3rd look against starters more consistently should lead to more success. Hard being a hitter when your 4-5 AB's come against 3 maybe 4 different arms. As I said, I'm an old head, I like starting pitcher wins and batters that hit for average and dont strike out alot.
The issue is thought of is that itd be great when youre watching the top dogs pitch. But imagine trying to watch a game when its Taijuan Walker vs Patrick Corbin and they both are forced to pitch 6 innings. The final score will be probably 50-38 or some bullshit
I think part of it as well is in a sense to avoid injury. If a starter has to go 6 innings, they could in theory be less incentivized to go 100% all the time. Like maybe they cut it back to 90-95% and only go 100% In times where they need it. So maybe taking 98 and cutting it down to say 93 with more consistently would help. I don’t think it’s a perfect plan as it is only a theory but it an attempt to correct some of the issues
I like it, especially if it forces pitchers to not go 100% on every pitch. That gives us more contact which either means more hits and runs or more defensive plays. No one wants to go to a game that's 0-0 with like 2 hits in the 7th. People want to see fielding and runs.
I think the real problem is that teams are already kind of doing this by default. You'll only see pitch limits from guys that are either 1) New to MLB and subseqently aren't used to the workload 2) Coming back from injury, in which you would want to be careful with how much they put in MLB really seems to be trying to deny the fact that the real issue is an unsolvable one, that being pitchers that throw hard will get the best results (i.e. throw quality starts) but are naturally at higher risk of injury. The only solution I can see working is introducing a speed limit on pitches, which is an absolutely ludicrous idea since velocity on pitches is (and always has been) a big draw to the game There are so many other ways you can improve offense, and this ain't it. Note: I just realized another solution that's been brought up many times is pushing the pitchers mound back a foot or two, which I would be more than okay testing before this crap.
Wait, they want to FORCE them to pitch 6 innings? What about when a guy gets hurt because he had to keep pitching? This is very dumb. If they want more runs to be scored if this doesnt work what do they do next? Tell all the players to do steroids???
Then it is crucial for team to find out a way to stay healthy. Maybe let them throw slightly slower. Maybe let them throw it with less hurting spin rate. Maybe more recovery time. Right now the meta is to let pitcher disregard their physical limit and throw as hard as possible every single pitch until they cannot take it then take the pitcher out. By forcing a certain inning minimum for starting pitcher, we might be able to force the team to put that much stress on the pitcher. No doubt 6 inning would lead to more offensive oriented higher scoring game.
If you want the pitchers to give up more runs, teach the hitters to hit better. Cause league averages are trash atm. Over 20 years Strike outs are way up. Walks are consistent. Hit are down and home runs per 9 are holding fairly steady so….. I blame the hitters.
Actually have enforceable promotion limits without exceptions, so elongating pitchers's game volume and fatigue recovery becomes a priority (aka teams might actually want only max effort-ing in certain big spots). If you don't get bonus players for double-headers, if you can't get recalled for any reason once you're optioned, if you actually can't get phantom IL-ed for someone fresh, then longevity becomes a priority. Owners = pay everyone on the 40 man full MLB salaries even when in the minors (but they don't get the service time still) Players = agree to these rules which will cause less total jobs
You can try and shoehorn earlier exposure to waivers too, so teams lose their coveted cheap labor faster and cause rebuild jobs at the MLB level to not be as putrid, but players likely don't want more vagabond lifestyle and teams don't want to lose the cheap labor, so this is unlikely to ever be a real option.
I appreciate the goal. "Score more runs cuz offense sells tickets." This doesn't seem like the right way to do it. If the goal is to get them in there longer, give them an out that isn't tied to their performance. It's not unreasonable to have a pitcher that recently returned to the lineup after an injury or a younger player to be on a pitch count, and that pitch count is certainly not 100 pitches. Additionally, the "third time through the order" concept isn't guaranteed to even come into play if you have a pitcher dealing. Maybe the conversation should be about minimum batters faced. If you load the bases every inning, but never give up a run, you shouldn't have to face 36 batters before you're able to come out (obvious hyperbole). Maybe the requirement should be a combination of the two. "6 innings or 27 batters faced" (forces the third time through the order?) I've seen things like if they want to come out early, they lose their DH, or something like that. That could work, but there has to be a reasonable out for a pitcher that isn't "Go until you're tired, injured, or have a 6+ ERA."
I first heard this idea right after the braves giants game on 8/14. Look at the top of the first and replace michael harris’ GS with a BB. It would have been insane to not let a pitching change occur that inning.
I was thinking about what if instead of a per game minimum they made minimums but across the entire series or just set a series limit on pitching changes. So say like in a 3 game series every team is required to have their starters pitch minimum 17 innings or each team only gets 11 total pitching changes. In a 4 game series itd be 22 starter innings or 13 pitching changes. This way managers can still have lower end starters pitch less and rely on their aces for long outings.
I don't have an issue with certain rule changes. The pitch clock works for the game but not the stadiums selling beer thru the 7th (about 23 minutes less per game). Mandating a starter go 6 is like saying a hitter that broke a bat can't change bats...just swing with a handle. Pitching is difficult and if you're on you're on...if not go eat sun flower seeds and regroup until the next game. Will there be a rule that a right fielder has to play 7 innings? Make the game better by making it more accessible to the viewer and less injury prone to the player. Which league is trying out the two first bases to avoid foot/ankle injuries? That's an improvement if the stats prove so. Thank you for your content...always interesting.
Bullpen games are dogshit from a fan's perspective. I have no issue with this proposed rule if you do two things. First, tie it to the DH. If you pull your starter before 6 you lose the DH. Second, and this is the piece that protects players from injury but challenges ownership to step up, expand the MLB roster to 30 players with 4 healthy scratches. So you have 30 players on your roster, but before every game you name 4 healthy scratches. That means those four players are not eligible for that game. Exclude starting pitchers from the scratch list and teams are allowed to carry an extra 3 or 4 bullpen arms, and give them a game off whenever they want. Closer pitched 2 nights in a row? Make him ineligible for the next game. He gets a rest. The manager is not tempted to push him for a 3rd straight game.
Feel like there should be a league wide thing in contracts saying the more times you pitch 6 innings or more you get x amount of $ and if a pitcher goes 200+ innings they get x $
Speed limit would be the only effective way to increase offense and limit injuries. As you said, every guy chases velocity from the time they pick up a ball but a hard limit might make control more valuable. I agree it's an approach problem with MLB hitters but no one wants to hear let alone fix that. I think a lmit of 101 MPH with anything over being an automatic ball, unless hit or fouled, would do what an innings quota aims to do. It would also cut down on Ks considerably and increase walks, plus reduce injuries. If MLB isn't willing to do a speed limit I don't think the proposed rule change will do much beyond taxing arms more, whats the point?
Just add pitchers to the rotation or roster ig Or Make wins mean more in awards voting Or Shrink the zone Or Have a caviot of the pitcher can be pulled at certain pitch counts per inning ie 40 pitches in the 1st, 65 in the 2nd,80 in the third, 90 in the fourth…. Make them minimum pitch gates required to be pulled
from. a former pitcher perspective ( played little league and recreational league currently) don't we do this already for no hitters, complete games where the pitcher is on the mound almost for the whole game imagine the amount of injuries each pitcher would get yes starting pitchers do have rest and they arent playing every game like relivers(pitchers) but I think this is silly its asking for more trouble
If the issue is lack of offense and OPS, I'd rather see hitters have a rule allowing them a more favorable bat. Maybe a bigger barrel, maybe all -5 instead of -3? A Smaller zone would result in more walks, which is boring to many casual fans. If anything, I'd rather see a slightly bigger zone with hitters using more powerful bats. People are bored by walks, and want to see hard contact/homers/XBH
I hate the 5 n dive. However, I want to see Ohtani getting ABs late in games in crucial spots. Not some pitcher who absolutely cannot hit or some dude hitting 190 coming off the bench.
Only way to decrease injuries is to adopt the 7 man pitching roster or pitching ever 7th day. MLB would never allow it because that means the money makers pitch less often which makes them less money. Unfortunately, all they care about is mondy
There goes the ERA of a journeyman pitcher. Contract negotiations will be a nightmare. Control is gonna become a fashionable work approach in the coming seasons. 6 innings Mando is a bad idea. Better grooming of starters as for conditioning and mech's.
Way to many rule changes. Since I started watching baseball in mid 50's seems like pitching gets attacked when hitters have a bad year. Lowered the mound after 68,expansion always dilutes pitching for a few years. I don't like the batter rule,or the 2 engagements with a runner on base. At first J didn't like the 100 pitch count,but now I am ok with it. I liked it when a pitcher went 9 inns at times,something that's no longer available to SP much. So like the pitch clock and 3 batter rule ect I'll adapt to the 100 ptch or 6 inn rule if it happens. I just love the game of baseball.
What's the point of this other than "stats"???? I hope the MLBPA fights against this. Expand the roster to 27 players with a minimum of 13 pitchers or allow unlimited transfers between MiLB and MLB. Do you think getting rid of the MPH guns at games would perhaps help so pitchers aren't chasing that number?
@@OliverBlench as bad as people complain about their teams bullpens, statistics show that relievers are more effective than starting pitchers once they reach the 3rd round of batters which is around the 5th inning. I wonder if Japan's approach of starting pitchers only going once a week. Myself, i think having a pitcher going innings 1-3, 2nd pitcher going through 4-6, then relievers are now, pitchers go 3 innings every 3rd or 4th day.
It seems to me the mlb is making a mistake here that the entertainment industry has been making a lot. The initial rule changes got pushback, but overall, they were a hit. Now they're already looking for the next thing to change. Film does it all the time with things like the "Lego Movie" being a hit and immediately over saturate the market with as many as possible. The Barbie movie was a hit, so now they're making a bunch of boardgame/toy movies. It seems as if the marketing side of things take the wrong lesson from things that work.
Implement robot umps and a smaller strike zone at the same time so there’s no question to whether the umpires are able to recognize a new strike zone after careers of calling it the same way. This 6 inning proposal is a dumb way to achieve this goal imo
im sick of making everything into rules. the pitch clock should not have been a rule change, the pace of play becoming faster should have only been a suggestion. pitching more innings and throwing more pitchers each game should only be a suggestion. stealing more bases should be a suggestion. unnecessary step offs should only be a suggestion the league needs to stop making rules for things instantly. let the players work on these issues on their own. if they fail to do so within a given window of time, then start the rules. i bet we could have shortened pace of play without the pitch clock, and i believe if there are enough incentives involved, players and teams will make an effort to throw more pitches and innings per start without being forced by rules i also believe that pitch count watching is hindering baseball at all levels. throwing more at a young age, and at every stage of your career will make you healthier and better. pitchers nowadays are trying to throw hard but havent got the conditioning to sustain it and thats the real problem
It’s a great idea if executed right Obviously 6 innings and 100 pitches unless injured yep They need to have more starters and/or they throw harder and then it’s a sink or swim type deal
Ask nolan ryan about arms and injuries. Arm strenght is developed not protected. Use your muscles you can use them better, protect them then they never get strong. Lift arm limits all ages, i use to throw everyday, most kids before arm protection rules and we call it tommy john because he was a rarity not the norm like it is now
Idea to incentivize 6 innings but not mandate it: change a "win" from 5 inning minimum to 6 inning minimum. That literally does not change the game at all, but would make pitchers a little more cognizant of efficiency.
I'd prefer if Starters pitched longer in games. The game is more fun to watch with a bunch of dominant/big name starters. Trying to mandate it though, is the dumbest idea ever. Pitchers already average 5 1/3. The rule would mostly penalize a team that gets rocked early. That seems like it would make the rest of the game less entertaining to watch, not more.
I hate this. Dictating how teams deploy their pitching staff. Just as outlawing the shift tells teams how they must align defensively. Teams use data to maximize their advantages, and MLB comes along and outlaws the techniques. It's asinine. Baseball will not become more popular because of this.
Here's my issue. There's no reason for this. What's sacred about going 6 innings? Nothing. It's arbitrary. What actual problem is it solving? None. This isn't how you generate more offense. This is not going to result in fewer pitcher injuries. Let the game evolve naturally and stop messing with establishing artificial boundaries to try and reach some desired outcome (at least desired by Manfred; it's not desired by the fans.)
I've been supportive of most the new rules, but this one is overreaching. Seems like this is something the CBA would cover and protect the players from. But IDK nuthin 😆
Im a traditionalist. I like baseball the was it's supposed to be played fast, slow who cares.let the humans make the decisions and the mistakes, let the game play out.
MLB get rid of the pitch clock or give more time and add more pitchers to the teams. I would like to see starters pitch more but don't want people to get hurt. I think teams are allowed 5 starting pitchers maybe move to 7 and leave the other pitchers the same.
I don't think there will be any substantial change to injury rate, guys will still be pumping absolute gas no matter what and its not like the inning caps or pitch counts have done anything to save guys from getting TJ multiple times. But what I have thought for years now is that the game will devolve to pitchers only going once through the order and have 3 guys go 3 innings each. its going to become a little league game in essence. As a Dodger fan I absolutely hate that sabermetrics has made the game super predictable and boring as hell when you constantly change pitchers and the batting order depending on who is pitching. Also games are way too long still and there really needs to be more scoring and the money will follow when the game is more exciting. Following a decision tree the way Roberts does is so BORING. We need to see who is actually good and not have a bunch of guys have their stats protected by not going 3 times to the top of the order, not facing righties/lefties etc. If you cant go 6 innings and stay healthy the bullpen is where you belong. Also I absolutely agree the strike zone needs to be smaller. Additionally I think a HBP should be an auto ejection (10 games, miss 2 starts), control should be paramount and having someone like Mookie miss 2 months is absurd, and baseball loses when this happens.
I don’t want to see more runs. I want there to be someone out there on the mound that my son can look up to. You can’t really do that with a rotation of glorified bullpen guys. By putting the stars on the field for longer time, they are hoping the youth will have heroes again. The number of kids interested in baseball is concerning. Without the kid/fan dynamic, they are just grown ass men playing a kids game.
You’re not considering that forcing 6 maybe moves guys away from throwing as hard as they can every pitch. A little more craft and tactics and less pure physicality.
So if a starter has 100 pitches after 5. You're going to force them back out there? Insane. I'd far rather they automated the zone to prevent catchers gaming bad umps into trash balls & strikes calls....
When i was a kid, starters always pitched deep into the game. That their job. 3 or 4 times thru the order and they still got outs. This is the late 90s and 2000s. Players are just softer now, much like the rest of society. The end.
This is why I love Logan Gilbert. He always has the ability to go 7+ innings… Call me an old head but I miss the days of Randy Johnson throwing 160 pitches.
i heard of an additional piece to this rule where you can switch out your starting pitcher before 6 innings or 100 pitches, but the reliever replaces the DH which i think is good cause if a starter is doing bad or is really tired you can still switch them, but there's an incentive not to do so
I get the concept and I am admittedly very old school and like to see starters go as deep into the game as they can, seeing pitchers get pulled early (ESPECIALLY in the postseason) really annoys me when they still have plenty in the tank, but you can't force a guy who's struggling out there to go 6 innings
MLB's habit of addressing any criticism by adding rules to an already overcomplicated rulebook is insane and the complete opposite of what might attract a bigger broader fan base. Nothing is more alienating to potential fans as not being able to understand the rules.
Agreed. A lot of truth in this. All major sports could learn this lesson.
@@yawnberg Can’t wait until there is a “rules advisor” in the dugout with a laptop during games!!! lol
This is why I love Logan Gilbert. He always has the ability to go 7+ innings… Call me an old head but I miss the days of Randy Johnson throwing 160 pitches.
I think a minimum batters requirement that the starter needs to face would be a better way to get this done. If you said “starters need to face 15 hitters, or twice through the lineup” or something that would allow for a starter just getting wrecked, but get rid of openers.
…and I do know that twice through the lineup is 18. I just got my quote marks wrong. Before anyone says anything snide…. :)
I'm an old head, I miss starters throwing 200 innings plus like it's nothing. I miss starters getting more decisions and Ultimately wins.
I personally like the rule idea, as the stipulations are reasonable and in line with expectations.
If your starter hasn't givin up much, and he's been efficient no need to pull him.
If he's giving up runs, you want to pull him and you can.
If he's had some taxing innings and and is approaching 100 pitches by the 4th/5th , you can pull him.
Basically the spirit of the rule is within the parameters of how a starting pitcher is typically managed anyways.
This would eliminate teams using an " opener "
The rule theoretically would reduce batter strikeouts ( every year sets a new record ), as hitters getting a 3rd look against starters more consistently should lead to more success.
Hard being a hitter when your 4-5 AB's come against 3 maybe 4 different arms.
As I said, I'm an old head, I like starting pitcher wins and batters that hit for average and dont strike out alot.
I think the concept makes sense but realistically it’s silly. I’d love to see starters go deeper into games it’s more exciting I think
The issue is thought of is that itd be great when youre watching the top dogs pitch. But imagine trying to watch a game when its Taijuan Walker vs Patrick Corbin and they both are forced to pitch 6 innings. The final score will be probably 50-38 or some bullshit
I think part of it as well is in a sense to avoid injury. If a starter has to go 6 innings, they could in theory be less incentivized to go 100% all the time. Like maybe they cut it back to 90-95% and only go 100% In times where they need it. So maybe taking 98 and cutting it down to say 93 with more consistently would help. I don’t think it’s a perfect plan as it is only a theory but it an attempt to correct some of the issues
I like it, especially if it forces pitchers to not go 100% on every pitch. That gives us more contact which either means more hits and runs or more defensive plays.
No one wants to go to a game that's 0-0 with like 2 hits in the 7th. People want to see fielding and runs.
I think the real problem is that teams are already kind of doing this by default. You'll only see pitch limits from guys that are either
1) New to MLB and subseqently aren't used to the workload
2) Coming back from injury, in which you would want to be careful with how much they put in
MLB really seems to be trying to deny the fact that the real issue is an unsolvable one, that being pitchers that throw hard will get the best results (i.e. throw quality starts) but are naturally at higher risk of injury. The only solution I can see working is introducing a speed limit on pitches, which is an absolutely ludicrous idea since velocity on pitches is (and always has been) a big draw to the game
There are so many other ways you can improve offense, and this ain't it.
Note: I just realized another solution that's been brought up many times is pushing the pitchers mound back a foot or two, which I would be more than okay testing before this crap.
There’s enough arm injuries happening in the game. This is a terrible idea.
Wait, they want to FORCE them to pitch 6 innings? What about when a guy gets hurt because he had to keep pitching? This is very dumb. If they want more runs to be scored if this doesnt work what do they do next? Tell all the players to do steroids???
Then it is crucial for team to find out a way to stay healthy. Maybe let them throw slightly slower. Maybe let them throw it with less hurting spin rate. Maybe more recovery time. Right now the meta is to let pitcher disregard their physical limit and throw as hard as possible every single pitch until they cannot take it then take the pitcher out. By forcing a certain inning minimum for starting pitcher, we might be able to force the team to put that much stress on the pitcher.
No doubt 6 inning would lead to more offensive oriented higher scoring game.
If you want the pitchers to give up more runs, teach the hitters to hit better. Cause league averages are trash atm. Over 20 years Strike outs are way up. Walks are consistent. Hit are down and home runs per 9 are holding fairly steady so…..
I blame the hitters.
Actually have enforceable promotion limits without exceptions, so elongating pitchers's game volume and fatigue recovery becomes a priority (aka teams might actually want only max effort-ing in certain big spots).
If you don't get bonus players for double-headers, if you can't get recalled for any reason once you're optioned, if you actually can't get phantom IL-ed for someone fresh, then longevity becomes a priority.
Owners = pay everyone on the 40 man full MLB salaries even when in the minors (but they don't get the service time still)
Players = agree to these rules which will cause less total jobs
You can try and shoehorn earlier exposure to waivers too, so teams lose their coveted cheap labor faster and cause rebuild jobs at the MLB level to not be as putrid, but players likely don't want more vagabond lifestyle and teams don't want to lose the cheap labor, so this is unlikely to ever be a real option.
I appreciate the goal. "Score more runs cuz offense sells tickets." This doesn't seem like the right way to do it. If the goal is to get them in there longer, give them an out that isn't tied to their performance. It's not unreasonable to have a pitcher that recently returned to the lineup after an injury or a younger player to be on a pitch count, and that pitch count is certainly not 100 pitches. Additionally, the "third time through the order" concept isn't guaranteed to even come into play if you have a pitcher dealing. Maybe the conversation should be about minimum batters faced. If you load the bases every inning, but never give up a run, you shouldn't have to face 36 batters before you're able to come out (obvious hyperbole). Maybe the requirement should be a combination of the two. "6 innings or 27 batters faced" (forces the third time through the order?) I've seen things like if they want to come out early, they lose their DH, or something like that. That could work, but there has to be a reasonable out for a pitcher that isn't "Go until you're tired, injured, or have a 6+ ERA."
I first heard this idea right after the braves giants game on 8/14. Look at the top of the first and replace michael harris’ GS with a BB. It would have been insane to not let a pitching change occur that inning.
I was thinking about what if instead of a per game minimum they made minimums but across the entire series or just set a series limit on pitching changes. So say like in a 3 game series every team is required to have their starters pitch minimum 17 innings or each team only gets 11 total pitching changes. In a 4 game series itd be 22 starter innings or 13 pitching changes. This way managers can still have lower end starters pitch less and rely on their aces for long outings.
I don't have an issue with certain rule changes. The pitch clock works for the game but not the stadiums selling beer thru the 7th (about 23 minutes less per game). Mandating a starter go 6 is like saying a hitter that broke a bat can't change bats...just swing with a handle. Pitching is difficult and if you're on you're on...if not go eat sun flower seeds and regroup until the next game. Will there be a rule that a right fielder has to play 7 innings? Make the game better by making it more accessible to the viewer and less injury prone to the player. Which league is trying out the two first bases to avoid foot/ankle injuries? That's an improvement if the stats prove so. Thank you for your content...always interesting.
Bullpen games are dogshit from a fan's perspective. I have no issue with this proposed rule if you do two things. First, tie it to the DH. If you pull your starter before 6 you lose the DH. Second, and this is the piece that protects players from injury but challenges ownership to step up, expand the MLB roster to 30 players with 4 healthy scratches. So you have 30 players on your roster, but before every game you name 4 healthy scratches. That means those four players are not eligible for that game. Exclude starting pitchers from the scratch list and teams are allowed to carry an extra 3 or 4 bullpen arms, and give them a game off whenever they want. Closer pitched 2 nights in a row? Make him ineligible for the next game. He gets a rest. The manager is not tempted to push him for a 3rd straight game.
The only way I see this reducing injury is guys pitching to more contact (less pitches) which could realistically lead to more offense as well
Feel like there should be a league wide thing in contracts saying the more times you pitch 6 innings or more you get x amount of $ and if a pitcher goes 200+ innings they get x $
This is NFL level dangerous
Speed limit would be the only effective way to increase offense and limit injuries. As you said, every guy chases velocity from the time they pick up a ball but a hard limit might make control more valuable. I agree it's an approach problem with MLB hitters but no one wants to hear let alone fix that. I think a lmit of 101 MPH with anything over being an automatic ball, unless hit or fouled, would do what an innings quota aims to do. It would also cut down on Ks considerably and increase walks, plus reduce injuries. If MLB isn't willing to do a speed limit I don't think the proposed rule change will do much beyond taxing arms more, whats the point?
Just add pitchers to the rotation or roster ig
Or
Make wins mean more in awards voting
Or
Shrink the zone
Or
Have a caviot of the pitcher can be pulled at certain pitch counts per inning ie 40 pitches in the 1st,
65 in the 2nd,80 in the third, 90 in the fourth…. Make them minimum pitch gates required to be pulled
In my day starters went at least six, so let's make them do that today. That's the extent of the thinking going on. The rest is rationalization.
from. a former pitcher perspective ( played little league and recreational league currently) don't we do this already for no hitters, complete games where the pitcher is on the mound almost for the whole game imagine the amount of injuries each pitcher would get yes starting pitchers do have rest and they arent playing every game like relivers(pitchers) but I think this is silly its asking for more trouble
Saw Trevor on the street today! What a guy
If the issue is lack of offense and OPS, I'd rather see hitters have a rule allowing them a more favorable bat. Maybe a bigger barrel, maybe all -5 instead of -3? A Smaller zone would result in more walks, which is boring to many casual fans. If anything, I'd rather see a slightly bigger zone with hitters using more powerful bats. People are bored by walks, and want to see hard contact/homers/XBH
What if someone throws out the first pitch
I hate the 5 n dive. However, I want to see Ohtani getting ABs late in games in crucial spots. Not some pitcher who absolutely cannot hit or some dude hitting 190 coming off the bench.
Only way to decrease injuries is to adopt the 7 man pitching roster or pitching ever 7th day. MLB would never allow it because that means the money makers pitch less often which makes them less money. Unfortunately, all they care about is mondy
There goes the ERA of a journeyman pitcher. Contract negotiations will be a nightmare. Control is gonna become a fashionable work approach in the coming seasons. 6 innings Mando is a bad idea. Better grooming of starters as for conditioning and mech's.
Way to many rule changes. Since I started watching baseball in mid 50's seems like pitching gets attacked when hitters have a bad year. Lowered the mound after 68,expansion always dilutes pitching for a few years. I don't like the batter rule,or the 2 engagements with a runner on base. At first J didn't like the 100 pitch count,but now I am ok with it. I liked it when a pitcher went 9 inns at times,something that's no longer available to SP much. So like the pitch clock and 3 batter rule ect I'll adapt to the 100 ptch or 6 inn rule if it happens. I just love the game of baseball.
What's the point of this other than "stats"???? I hope the MLBPA fights against this. Expand the roster to 27 players with a minimum of 13 pitchers or allow unlimited transfers between MiLB and MLB. Do you think getting rid of the MPH guns at games would perhaps help so pitchers aren't chasing that number?
It's to get back to the days of dominant starting pitching, opposed to now, when more relievers are being used than ever
The point of this is "offense sells tickets and good pitching means no offense".
@@OliverBlench as bad as people complain about their teams bullpens, statistics show that relievers are more effective than starting pitchers once they reach the 3rd round of batters which is around the 5th inning. I wonder if Japan's approach of starting pitchers only going once a week. Myself, i think having a pitcher going innings 1-3, 2nd pitcher going through 4-6, then relievers are now, pitchers go 3 innings every 3rd or 4th day.
Pitching to the ground during the last few pitches needed for 100
It seems to me the mlb is making a mistake here that the entertainment industry has been making a lot. The initial rule changes got pushback, but overall, they were a hit. Now they're already looking for the next thing to change. Film does it all the time with things like the "Lego Movie" being a hit and immediately over saturate the market with as many as possible. The Barbie movie was a hit, so now they're making a bunch of boardgame/toy movies. It seems as if the marketing side of things take the wrong lesson from things that work.
Considering that their rule changes haven't had the intended effect (more offense), it is necessary to address what has caused the failure
Implement robot umps and a smaller strike zone at the same time so there’s no question to whether the umpires are able to recognize a new strike zone after careers of calling it the same way. This 6 inning proposal is a dumb way to achieve this goal imo
im sick of making everything into rules. the pitch clock should not have been a rule change, the pace of play becoming faster should have only been a suggestion. pitching more innings and throwing more pitchers each game should only be a suggestion. stealing more bases should be a suggestion. unnecessary step offs should only be a suggestion
the league needs to stop making rules for things instantly. let the players work on these issues on their own. if they fail to do so within a given window of time, then start the rules. i bet we could have shortened pace of play without the pitch clock, and i believe if there are enough incentives involved, players and teams will make an effort to throw more pitches and innings per start without being forced by rules
i also believe that pitch count watching is hindering baseball at all levels. throwing more at a young age, and at every stage of your career will make you healthier and better. pitchers nowadays are trying to throw hard but havent got the conditioning to sustain it and thats the real problem
It’s a great idea if executed right
Obviously 6 innings and 100 pitches unless injured yep
They need to have more starters and/or they throw harder and then it’s a sink or swim type deal
I'm not really a huge fan of either the 6 inning/100 pitches or the double hook DH rule.
Ask nolan ryan about arms and injuries. Arm strenght is developed not protected. Use your muscles you can use them better, protect them then they never get strong. Lift arm limits all ages, i use to throw everyday, most kids before arm protection rules and we call it tommy john because he was a rarity not the norm like it is now
Idea to incentivize 6 innings but not mandate it: change a "win" from 5 inning minimum to 6 inning minimum. That literally does not change the game at all, but would make pitchers a little more cognizant of efficiency.
I can assure you not a single current day MLB pitcher gives a single fuck about wins. It is completely irrelevant
@@ggx4971 tell that to someone in an arbitration case, where they 100% use them in deciding how much they earn. More wins = more money
Rick Porcello's Cy Young in 2016 made wins irrelevant.
I'd prefer if Starters pitched longer in games. The game is more fun to watch with a bunch of dominant/big name starters. Trying to mandate it though, is the dumbest idea ever. Pitchers already average 5 1/3. The rule would mostly penalize a team that gets rocked early. That seems like it would make the rest of the game less entertaining to watch, not more.
“Considered as a possible…” only means it was a discussion point. That’s it. When exploring solutions - everything gets spitballed.
yeah and now its our turn to very loudly say NO
"Minimum of 5 innings or lose your DH" is the way to do it
What about if a pitcher is on a pitch count
Just move the mound back six inches and offense (which is better for mlb's brand) will skyrocket
27 batter minimum if that’s what they really are after? Maybe we’ll see more knucklers too!
A one sided 6 inning rule is dumb. Introducing the double hook until the 7th however would be fantastic.
What do you think about mandating a 6 man rotation to force extra rest?
I hate this. Dictating how teams deploy their pitching staff. Just as outlawing the shift tells teams how they must align defensively. Teams use data to maximize their advantages, and MLB comes along and outlaws the techniques. It's asinine. Baseball will not become more popular because of this.
Here's my issue. There's no reason for this. What's sacred about going 6 innings? Nothing. It's arbitrary. What actual problem is it solving? None. This isn't how you generate more offense. This is not going to result in fewer pitcher injuries. Let the game evolve naturally and stop messing with establishing artificial boundaries to try and reach some desired outcome (at least desired by Manfred; it's not desired by the fans.)
I've been supportive of most the new rules, but this one is overreaching. Seems like this is something the CBA would cover and protect the players from. But IDK nuthin 😆
What if they have a broken leg keep pitcher or lose the Dh
What a dumb comment.
Too many rules. Too many rules. Nolan Ryan would be pissed.
Nolan Ryan also tore his ucl on the last pitch he ever threw
Thomas🤝jonathan
I like it 😂
6 Inning Min for Starters
Excellent
A 27 man roster is a no brainer there's no reason not to if it saves one injury per year.
Manfred-Goodell-Silver killing their leagues.
Im a traditionalist. I like baseball the was it's supposed to be played fast, slow who cares.let the humans make the decisions and the mistakes, let the game play out.
MLB get rid of the pitch clock or give more time and add more pitchers to the teams. I would like to see starters pitch more but don't want people to get hurt. I think teams are allowed 5 starting pitchers maybe move to 7 and leave the other pitchers the same.
I like the goal, but this is too brute force of a means to accomplish.
at lower levels there's a max pitch count, so at the bigs they want a minimum? Stupid
Kelso Highs finest 🫡
Remove the DH from the game and let starting pitchers hit. Pitcher trows no hitter and nukes a game winning HR.
I understand what they are trying to achieve but this isn't the way to implement it.
Right so when a dude throws 40 pitches in the first and gives up six goodluck?
I think there is a stipulation if you give up 4 runs or more, you can be taken out.
I don't think there will be any substantial change to injury rate, guys will still be pumping absolute gas no matter what and its not like the inning caps or pitch counts have done anything to save guys from getting TJ multiple times. But what I have thought for years now is that the game will devolve to pitchers only going once through the order and have 3 guys go 3 innings each. its going to become a little league game in essence. As a Dodger fan I absolutely hate that sabermetrics has made the game super predictable and boring as hell when you constantly change pitchers and the batting order depending on who is pitching. Also games are way too long still and there really needs to be more scoring and the money will follow when the game is more exciting. Following a decision tree the way Roberts does is so BORING. We need to see who is actually good and not have a bunch of guys have their stats protected by not going 3 times to the top of the order, not facing righties/lefties etc. If you cant go 6 innings and stay healthy the bullpen is where you belong. Also I absolutely agree the strike zone needs to be smaller. Additionally I think a HBP should be an auto ejection (10 games, miss 2 starts), control should be paramount and having someone like Mookie miss 2 months is absurd, and baseball loses when this happens.
Magikarp.
I hope MLBPA never approves this new rule this is crazy and dangerous for the pitchers
I don’t want to see more runs. I want there to be someone out there on the mound that my son can look up to. You can’t really do that with a rotation of glorified bullpen guys. By putting the stars on the field for longer time, they are hoping the youth will have heroes again. The number of kids interested in baseball is concerning. Without the kid/fan dynamic, they are just grown ass men playing a kids game.
4 inning minimum to get rid of an opener.
You’re not considering that forcing 6 maybe moves guys away from throwing as hard as they can every pitch. A little more craft and tactics and less pure physicality.
give an extra day rest
So if a starter has 100 pitches after 5. You're going to force them back out there? Insane. I'd far rather they automated the zone to prevent catchers gaming bad umps into trash balls & strikes calls....
It's an idiotic rule. Let the manager decide how much a guy should pitch. That's how it is supposed to be.
Incredibly soft if you can’t.
Fire Manfred.
No, no..... And NO. MLB will never stop,.it'll be let your kids bat day next
after several decades of baseball I'm out due to Manfred - he's completely ruined the game
How about a pitch minimum. 6 innings on a bad day may be 150 pitches.
When i was a kid, starters always pitched deep into the game. That their job. 3 or 4 times thru the order and they still got outs. This is the late 90s and 2000s. Players are just softer now, much like the rest of society. The end.
This pisses me off. Stop trying to fix what is not broken. I miss baseball pre recent rule changes. I didn't mind watching longer games and the shift
MLB: Starting pitchers throw 6 innings minimum.
K2SO: That's a bad idea, I think so and so does Cassian.
if guys refuse to drop velo after this rule, their future injury is nobodies fault but their own
I am a purist and don't recognize this game anymore. I rather have them pitch 6 innings minimum than a pitcher leaving after 12 pitches.
MLB is in bed with Tommy John surgeons.
This is why I love Logan Gilbert. He always has the ability to go 7+ innings… Call me an old head but I miss the days of Randy Johnson throwing 160 pitches.