Discussion post Atlanta Series

[andyb]

I don't disagree with that necessarily, but does that still hold true if some of those relievers are throwing a low amount of pitches? How much rest does a situational pitcher need?

Clearly they can go back to back and even 3 in a row if they throw a minimum of pitches. But remember just to get to the game they probably throw 10-15 pitches in the bullpen and then 8 from the mound. Those are not as high intensity, but they do deny the arm some rest and recovery. There is not a great track record of relievers appearing in 90 games a year. Plus some other times they warm up and do not get in the game (though maybe our strategy to save their arms is to skip the warmup!).

Baseball needs a 3-batter minimum to switch pitchers mid-inning. Talk about pace of play - mid-inning switches will just kill the game because it lengthens it and slows down the pace.

[donaldorc]

Baseball needs a 3-batter minimum to switch pitchers mid-inning. Talk about pace of play - mid-inning switches will just kill the game because it lengthens it and slows down the pace.

I couldn't agree more! 4-hour games are a travesty.

[David_Criss]

I still remember the days of 10, maybe 11 man pitching staffs and a starter would regularly go into the seventh in most games.....

[zambonir]

I think we can all agree the game was mostly better that way. But our manager has to try and win games for the way it is now.

But yeah they gotta fix pace somehow. It's great that you can look away from baseball or go get a beer or even miss a few innings but even as a TV or radio view a 3 1/2-4 hour slot in your life six days a week to truly follow the sport is insane. At least colllege football is only 13 games.

[julio]

The thing is... if you actually plan to use a nine-man bullpen (or and eight-man 'pen), and carry only four bench players, you pretty much have to use multiple pitchers in single innings. If you go to the bullpen after five innings (or, God help us, sooner), you're going to need multiple pinch hitters - you may only need one or two, if your offense doesn't mount any serious threat in the last four-five innings. But if the offense actually gets something going, you're going to run out pinch hitters; you're going to have relief pitchers coming to the plate. That's in nine-inning games. You get into a twelve-inning game, where you've been cycling relievers (and using pinch-hitters) since the sixth, you're up the proverbial creek with Hoby Milner at the plate. Only a matter of time.

Bottom line: If managers are going to try to use six pitchers a night, or more, rosters have to expand. OTOH, if MLB is serious about game length, then they have to limit roster size; it's the only real limit on how much managers can abuse - and lengthen - the game with constant personnel changes.

[andyb]

OTOH, if MLB is serious about game length, then they have to limit roster size

Limiting mid-inning switches (the 3-batter minimum rule) would take care of this.

In general I agree though. The roster size needs to increase. Whether that is a nominal 26 (restore the 5-man bench with the 13-person standard pitching staff) or 27-28 are needed is unclear. If the MLB roster is increased one probably needs to add the same number of slots to the 40-man roster also (26/41, 27/42). Teams will need a way to use options while also protecting some young players that are not quite ready.

[allentown]

Bottom line: If managers are going to try to use six pitchers a night, or more, rosters have to expand. OTOH, if MLB is serious about game length, then they have to limit roster size; it's the only real limit on how much managers can abuse - and lengthen - the game with constant personnel changes.

I disagree. Managers have to maximize results based on existing rules, not flounder around with a strategy that only works with a bigger roster and demand a bigger roster to make their preferred novel strategy work. Also, if you go with the 3 batter rule, then there won't be as many pitching changes or as many PH required. Really, I'd just permit the DH in the NL. That equalizes the leagues and does away with the need to expand rosters. I propose this not to enable the current Phillies strategy for pitcher use, which I think has been pushed to the truly stupid point, but because I think that in a sport with inter-league play that the leagues need to play by the same rule book. Yes, they allow the NL team to use the DH in games at AL stadia, but that doesn't lead to the same team construction as actually allowing the DH for all games. I also think pitchers batting is boring and a needless chance for injury.

[julio]

In general I agree though. The roster size needs to increase.

No, we don't agree. I said "if managers are going to try to use six pitchers a night, or more, rosters have to expand." That doesn't mean I think rosters need to expand - because I find the excessive use of pitching changes annoying. It's a principal reason why game length has become a problem (well, that and conceding excessive time between innings to television advertising, in exchange for more lucrative broadcast deals).

Frankly, I think I might prefer if MLB simply mandated that major-league clubs, with 25-man rosters, were permitted to have no more than 12 pitchers on that 25-man roster, period. This would force managers to be more circumspect in their use of relief pitchers, but wouldn't arbitrarily prevent them from removing a guy who simply cannot throw a strike on a given night.

[andyb]

My comment implied the current roster usage we are seeing.

The 3-batter rule is the best way to combat this though. Fewer switches mid-inning. Fewer one dimensional LOOGYs as well.

There are football analogies here too. I am not a fan of seeing 5 players come in and out of the game on every play. A simple rule change in football might be no player changes unless there is a first down or an injury. One reason football has more injuries these days is that the players are so specialized in their roles. They can be bigger and faster because they play fewer downs and in more specialized roles. If a defensive lineman has to defend both the pass and the run they will probably be smaller. Smaller players in more general roles would lead to fewer injuries.

In the same way that longer but less frequent bullpen appearances would probably lead to fewer pitching injuries.

[julio]

The 3-batter rule is the best way to combat this though. Fewer switches mid-inning. Fewer one dimensional LOOGYs as well.

I don't know; I have this nightmare of a reliever coming in who literally has no idea where the ball is going. Steve Blass? He'd have to pitch to three batters? He might kill somebody. Perhaps is you have a three-batter rule, you need to empower umpires to immediately remove a pitcher who is obviously a danger to the batter. (OK, they have that power now, but have you ever seen it used? "Sorry son, it looks like you're a little wild today. You're out of the game.") And of course, if you have that rule, then a manager could instruct a pitcher to throw at the batter just to get the pitcher out of the game, no?

[phillychuck]

I like a three batter rule for all pitchers with a once-per-game waiver. Any time a new pitcher comes in he has to face three batters (I think I'd count CS and other base running outs as a "batter faced" toward this rule) or pitch to the completion of a half-inning. You'd definitely speed up the game by reducing pitching changes on both teams by about 1 to 1.5 per team. Those changes take about 8 minutes, so you're recovering 16-24 minutes of game time there. That's a lot.

[andyb]

Well you could give the team the option to intentionally walk hitters if you really thought a wild pitcher was going to kill someone. I just don't see that as a huge problem.

The fewer mound visits is a good thing this year (and they make it like FB and BB timeouts on the TV graphics!).

[Lucky_Beagle]

at various pitch counts.

Also, some pitchers have 3-4 good pitches. Some starters only 1 or 2. The more distinct pitches a pitcher has, the better they are equipped to get through a lineup 3 times. I am guessing teams have studied this even if it takes the outside world some time to catch up.

My point though is that short starts on a pitching staff cannot co-exist with lots of short, situational bullpen appearances. That is what has happened in the first 3 games. One needs longer bullpen appearances as a rule if you are lifting starters early.

I wouldn't mind the pitching changes so much if they didn't take so long. Why is it a pitcher who is supposedly warmed up in the bullpen still needs 8 pitches once he hits the mound? I understand giving him 2 or 3 pitches since the mounds are different but he should be ready to go.

[julio]

Part of the reason pitching changes take so long is, again, the broadcast contracts. The pause for a pitching change has been sold to an advertiser, either directly by a team (local broadcasts) or through a national broadcast contract. They can't shorten the pitching change timeout - because they don't own it any more.

[Lucky_Beagle]

Part of the reason pitching changes take so long is, again, the broadcast contracts. The pause for a pitching change has been sold to an advertiser, either directly by a team (local broadcasts) or through a national broadcast contract. They can't shorten the pitching change timeout - because they don't own it any more.

You are correct about this and is a major part of the reason I am sure.

[BostonRoss]

Part of the reason pitching changes take so long is, again, the broadcast contracts. The pause for a pitching change has been sold to an advertiser, either directly by a team (local broadcasts) or through a national broadcast contract. They can't shorten the pitching change timeout - because they don't own it any more.

So MLB is getting a lot more revenue because there are more commercial breaks? Then they aren't going to limit the number of moneybags they can receive per game, and we can forget about two or three batter minimums.

[zambonir]

Well yeah. The game has only been making more and more money in recent years so from that perspective there is nothing "wrong" with it. There would even seem to be a direct correlation between less watchable, longer games and profit, even though ratings are also dropping. With a median TV viewing age of 54, likely future changes to TV/Internet (and future contracts), plus the fact that half the people advertisers care about are going to prefer watching on their phones, it's hard to imagine that's sustainable.

Anyway - it also does seem a bit paradoxical to combine short starts and using a lot of relievers with a short bench. I guess it works if your starter is frequently leaving with a lead and your relievers keep it but that might be another way in which the Phillies are not yet the Dodgers or Astros.