How to fix the game

[nycphils]

To me, it’s important to increase the action in games (baserunning, defense, etc) but not change its fundamental character...just a few thoughts from me, interested in other views...everything is fine, the game always evolves is an acceptable answer as long as it comes with an explanation of why...

1. Increase rosters to 26, but limit teams to carrying 12 pitchers (provides more pinch hitters, can carry three catchers, but if they are to be used pitching limits would require less specialized pitchers who can go longer - and the players association would like it in exchange
   For some of the concessions needed)
2. With teams then designating 12 pitchers and 14 hitters, ban position players from pitching, maybe unless it is the 9th inning with a 10+ run lead (the Shoei Otani problem could be solved by designating him a hitter or pitcher in each individual game)
3. Pitch clock
4. require pitchers to face at least 2 batters rather than 1
5. Require that at least two players must be on the infield dirt on either side of second base - eliminate the most extreme shifts and avoid 4 man OFs, which I suspect is coming for flyball pitcher/flyball hitter matchups
6. DH in both leagues...never thought I’d say that

All of this is is intended to bring back hitting and defense...starters would again be needed to go deeper into games, fewer pitching changes and and expanding the portfolio of types of hits from all or nothing players.

[Squire]

1. OK with this.
2. Agree
3. I'm not ready for this yet.
4. I don't think this is necessary.
5. I like the idea of 2 men on each side of second base. I'm Ok with a line beyond which they cannot be when the ball is pitched (thought that is not the dirt)
6. I'm ready for this now too.

Great post by the way nycphils

[bkeich]

Increase rosters to 26, but limit teams to carrying 12 pitchers (provides more pinch hitters, can carry three catchers, but if they are to be used pitching limits would require less specialized pitchers who can go longer - and the players association would like it in exchange
For some of the concessions needed)
With teams then designating 12 pitchers and 14 hitters, ban position players from pitching, maybe unless it is the 9th inning with a 10+ run lead (the Shoei Otani problem could be solved by designating him a hitter or pitcher in each individual game)

Good post, interesting topic.

Honestly, I see this as overly restrictive. To me this is just wanting to see the game as it was once played. Why should the game not change and grow, more pitchers means fewer tired pitchers or pitchers just throwing it over the plate to get them to hit it, that is really what has been eliminated. I agree this makes games take longer, but I would rather see them just eliminate the warm up pitches. You have 1 minute to get to the mound and make your first pitch from when the change has been made by the manager. Limit the time a manager has in a pitching visit.

Pitch clock

Absolutely. Pitcher can pitch at their leisure within the clock, hitter can delay by 30 seconds ONCE per at bat unless there is an equipment problem. (i.e. a timeout). If he isnt in the box at all when the pitch is thrown it is automatically a strike.

require pitchers to face at least 2 batters rather than 1

Cant really do this because of injury. What you could say though is that if a pitcher only faces 1 hitter they are "disabled" and ineligible for 3 games (or something like that) and can only be replaced on the roster by going on the DL.

Require that at least two players must be on the infield dirt on either side of second base - eliminate the most extreme shifts and avoid 4 man OFs, which I suspect is coming for flyball pitcher/flyball hitter matchups

I see no point. The problem is not the fielding and pitching, but the hitters. If a hitter doesnt like hitting into the shift, learn to hit the other way. This is a rule that honestly is too easy to break and has unintended consequences. If a hitter puts themselves in a spot where they are this easy to predict it is their own fault.

starters would again be needed to go deeper into games

I will never understand why people want to see this. Why see tired pitchers or pitchers trying to hold on? Why make the game easier? Facing fresh pitchers is just more difficult, honestly I expect we are not far away eliminating the 5 innings to win rule and regularly having the first pitcher go 3 innings or so and back in a 3 days. That makes better sense to me and is a more exciting game.

...Also

I would add the loophole this year found by teams to "stash" relievers (and starting pitchers) by putting them in AAA limbo (sending them down but not really doing it, bringing them back up, thereby getting an extra roster spot). If you go down, you are in AAA for 15 days NO MATTER WHAT. Injuries dont effect the timeline, if a team needs you back they have to call someone else up, that is why there are 40 men on that list.

[andyb]

On rosters I think we just acknowledge that the game has changed. Go to 27. No restrictions on pitchers because in the Ohtani era that is a bit silly. I would also expand the 40-man roster to 42, 1 extra spot for each regular roster spot. Teams still need room for extra players to shuttle on and off the ML roster but also need a few spots for prospects not ready.

For September I would also limit active players for each game to whatever the ML limit was (27 in this case). SInce you do not need to activate the other 4 starters, in effect this is 4 extra spots to play with to rest players in September. Players who are in the majors would get paid the ML salary even if they are not on that game's active roster.

I would go to 3 batters for pitchers BTW with injury exceptions of course.

[julio]

Umm...

Lower the mound height by six inches. Do nothing else. You'll get more balls in play.

[bkeich]

Umm...

Lower the mound height by six inches. Do nothing else. You'll get more balls in play.

Going from 10 inches to 4 inches would certainly change things. Of course it might be a little more than we want. Maybe say lower it to 7 or 8. At 4 inches I suspect someone might hit 100 HRs next year.

[andyb]

At 4 inches I suspect someone might hit 100 HRs next year

On that point, the livelier balls of the last few years are an issue. I think the quality of the manufacturing in general is just better or more uniform, but there is nothing preventing them with adopting a slightly deader ball kind of like golf has done. Less lively ball = fewer home runs = more balls in play = more incentive to find hitters that can put balls in play and catch them as well.

[bkeich]

On that point, the livelier balls of the last few years are an issue. I think the quality of the manufacturing in general is just better or more uniform, but there is nothing preventing them with adopting a slightly deader ball kind of like golf has done. Less lively ball = fewer home runs = more balls in play = more incentive to find hitters that can put balls in play and catch them as well.

I was shocked to learn just how WIDE the acceptable range is on the specifications of the ball. I dont know whether that is just a hold over from days past where the quality control really wasnt good or if it is ML Baseballs way of having the ability to change things without an announcement or changing a rule, I suspect the latter since it seems the balls are consistent, just consistently in one part of the acceptable range. I can see reasons for this, I dont really mind the league having the ability to say "we are having a down year offensively, lets put a little juice in the ball" without having to announce it (and have the players union and every pitcher go nuts). Simple fact is offense sells.

[bkeich]

I like the idea of 2 men on each side of second base. I'm Ok with a line beyond which they cannot be when the ball is pitched (thought that is not the dirt)

Is that like the line where the 3rd base coach has to stand? Ever see one in there even for a second? Baseball doesnt enforce things like this very well.

[Philsmania]

To me, it’s important to increase the action in games (baserunning, defense, etc) but not change its fundamental character...just a few thoughts from me, interested in other views...everything is fine, the game always evolves is an acceptable answer as long as it comes with an explanation of why...

1. Increase rosters to 26, but limit teams to carrying 12 pitchers (provides more pinch hitters, can carry three catchers, but if they are to be used pitching limits would require less specialized pitchers who can go longer - and the players association would like it in exchange
   For some of the concessions needed)
2. With teams then designating 12 pitchers and 14 hitters, ban position players from pitching, maybe unless it is the 9th inning with a 10+ run lead (the Shoei Otani problem could be solved by designating him a hitter or pitcher in each individual game).
3. Pitch clock
4. require pitchers to face at least 2 batters rather than 1
5. Require that at least two players must be on the infield dirt on either side of second base - eliminate the most extreme shifts and avoid 4 man OFs, which I suspect is coming for flyball pitcher/flyball hitter matchups
6. DH in both leagues...never thought I’d say that

All of this is is intended to bring back hitting and defense...starters would again be needed to go deeper into games, fewer pitching changes and and expanding the portfolio of types of hits from all or nothing players.

1. Keep the roster at 25 per game and limit the number of pitchers available per game to 10. Overall, increase the roster to 27 with teams "deactivating" two players--most likely starting pitchers who started the prior two games. This would at least eliminate the eight man bullpen.
2. Teams designating 15 players and 10 pitchers per game (with three of them starters who wouldn't likely be used in relief). Agree with your suggestion of non-pitchers but also leave a loophole for very long extra inning games, say a game that exceeds between 16-18 innings. I would actually be open to considering reducing the active roster to only 23 with only 8 pitchers.
3. I thought they had one already. Perhaps more aggressively enforce it?
4. #1 above would probably take care of this.
5. Yes.
6. No, but I am resigned that it will probably ultimately happen.

And to add...
7. I also like the idea of the deader ball that andyb suggested.
8. Start enforcing the high strike between the belt and letters again, a pet peeve of mine for many years.
9. Limit the number of pickoff attempts to two per at-bat. That would increase SB's. At the same time, It might also cause baserunners to be bolder with their leads and get picked off more.
10. Require announced pinch hitters to take the at-bat and scratch another pet peeve itch of mine for many years. If a manger knew that his opponent would call on the lefty in the bullpen if he brought in a lefthand hitting pinch hitter, he might stick with the righthand hitter and prevent the other manager from making a pitching change. For all the good he did, Charlie M. was egregious in that regard.

[andyb]

Simple fact is offense sells.

True - but we are now getting a counter thought that the pace of the three true outcome game is more boring because there are fewer balls in play. Now this might be hearsay, but there were attendance declines this season.

[zambonir]

Regarding attendance decline the question is does any of this stuff really matter or is it just inevitable? The average baseball TV viewer is 57 years old. If fans between the age of 47-67 are no longer coming to games I'm not sure MLB is necessarily motivated to get them back, plus I don't really think changes to the game are the real reason people go away (nor would it bring them back). So the question is what can they do, if anything, to grow younger fans? And those answers probably lie more in TV, digital and fan experience (look at the Flyers this season with the arena renovation and Gritty) than in roster regulations.

I think roster regulations or forcing relievers to face more than one batter (I think injury exception is a manageable problem) are good but I'm not sure it will actually stop the direction things are currently heading in. We saw a team with only four starting pitchers this year (and not because they had horses going every fifth day) and we're seeing playoff teams that aren't even using a starting pitcher. That toothpaste probably isn't going back in for a while.

Adding the DH probably will give the game a bit of a boost, just in terms of novelty and media.

[nycphils]

On attracting young fans, I think the MLB will (or should) move toward allowing fans 10-12 and younger in for free, in the less premium seats, at least for parts of the season. Hook em young, get their concession and merchandise money to make up for any lost attendance dollars.

Seats for games are perishable, like airline seats or fresh produce in a grocery store - if they don’t sell by a deadline, The revenue is lost forever and the costs are fixed. I’ll bet giving the nosebleed seats away for free doesn’t even really reduce attendance dollars much if at all.

[zambonir]

That would make some sense. Of course, so would having playoff games that kids could actually watch (whether they were not during the day or not ending at midnight).

It is a bit of a conundrum because seeing live baseball probably matters less than ever but it's also the only unique thing they can offer vs. other forms of digital/visual entertainment.

[philsphan67]

I am also for the electronic strike zone -- the casual fan will watch the rectangle somewhere in the stadium and everyone knows whether it is a strike or a ball.

I am also 100% for the pitch clock, the time b/w pitches is 4 - 6 seconds greater than 20+ years ago. Call it what you want, enforce the rule on the books, but you can't have relievers taking 30 seconds b/w pitches. I hate hearing about kids attention spans, there should not be 25+ seconds b/w pitches. Less time b/w pitches also should put more balls in play and quicken the games. Int'l league games were about 20 minutes shorter.

I could go on and on, but I also think the owners need to move some of the fences back out. They moved them in to have more HR's, but now everyone is trying to hit them - not their intention. I'd love to see the non-HR guy get back to trying to put the ball in play.

[schooldoc]

I'm not sure the 25-30 seconds between pitches is always the fault of the pitcher. If you have seen enough Odubel Herrera at-bats, you know what I'm talking about.

Let's keep the batters in the batters box unless they've run out a foul ball, broken their bat, or injured themselves. If we can do that, we probably don't need a pitch clock.

[bkeich]

I'm not sure the 25-30 seconds between pitches is always the fault of the pitcher. If you have seen enough Odubel Herrera at-bats, you know what I'm talking about.

Let's keep the batters in the batters box unless they've run out a foul ball, broken their bat, or injured themselves. If we can do that, we probably don't need a pitch clock.

There is a passive "both players have to agree with proceeding" that occurs. I would get rid of that, if the pitcher pitches it is up the hitter to be ready. Stepping out doesnt delay the pitch, just cuts way down on your chance to hit it. Obviously things like broken bats or attacks by insects have to be accounted for, but the idea that the hitter can delay the game is really one of the TV era.

[allentown]

I think the pitch clock is a positive change, although difficult to implement. In the minor league games I've attended, in order to be in the umps vision, the clock is also a distraction to the batter and is turned off before it runs to zero. Perhaps a timer and alarm in ump's pocket or as a pendant.

I favor the DH. With interleague play, the two leagues need to play by the same rules. A roster built for a DH is not the same as a roster built for a DH a few times during the season.

I also favor requiring a pitcher to face at least 2 batters. If removed for injury, then I like the suggestion above of 15 days before can return to majors -- make it a DL requirement.

With these two changes, I don't think you need to expand rosters, as there won't be as many switches, so not as many players required.

The shift is here to stay. I wouldn't mind a change that says at least one player on each side of 2B, and if there aren't 2 players on a side, then one has to be directly in line with 2B. That still allows for very substantial shifts. I have no problem with IFs playing on the OF grass. That has a very long history.

I think an effort is needed over time to make the dimensions of the playing fields fairer. Have a small park, have a large park -- your choice, but don't have a park which severely favors one particular handedness. It should not be that easy for teams to gain a competitive advantage by severely tailoring their roster to benefit from a unique playing field layout. No other sport allows teams to vary the dimensions of the playing field to suit themselves. Yes... the venerable old stadia -- they can do something, like the Philllies did to make LF a bit less HR-prone. All teams should be playing the same game.

[baseballoldie]

In this age of less attention span and need for a faster game, it seems to me the easiest way to speed things up is to change the balls/strikes from 4-3 for an at bat to 3-2. I would like to see MLB try that in the minors and see how it works. IMO, that one change would have the biggest impact on the game time and eliminate the need to consider pitch clocks and all the other discussed changes. Pitchers will have to focus more as will batters. The game will speed up.

I would also like to see MLB implement the split season to add interest and excitement to pennant chases. I think it would eliminate some of the tanking/dumping that goes on in season and give teams a chance to complete for a playoff spot even if they get off to a slow start or swoon at the end like our Phillies.

[zambonir]

Split season doesn't sound any crazier than the wild card. But don't they do it in the minors in part because rosters tend to churn naturally? In the majors it would completely change the trade market (possibly a good thing) and you'd have to reform the September 1 call-ups too.

In another forum I recently suggested 4-4, to cut down on strikeouts. I wonder what 3-2 would actually do. Nobody would automatically take the first pitch anymore that's for sure. Doubt this would ever come close to happening though, union would not go for it. An Indy league should try it.