Suggested Adjustments To MLB Baseball

zambonir 2019-02-15 02:18:00 UTC #81

Or something like that, yeah. NHL CBA is actually up this season though. There was talk of forcing Fehr out this past year but since it didn't happen I assume he needs to be there. Of course he could then be free come spring of 2020.

Given the state of American labor over the past 40 years it's not like there's a ton of talent to raid, but someone who actually has more experience than a former player seems called for. Miller came from the USW.

LoneStarPhan 2019-02-15 07:38:11 UTC #82

Would a non-binding team salary floor work. I'm thinking along the lines of a floor that if a team didn't meat, they would lose dollar for dollar from revenue sharing for what they were under the floor.

I hope that both sides can start meaningful talks early and resolve the issues long before a strike situation. Everyone loses if play is stopped.

andyb 2019-02-15 12:00:16 UTC #83

That is only partially true. They have valued young players more and have a system that limits their pay. The other side of the coin though is that is salaries are going down while revenue is going up, there is an imbalance in the players' share of revenues. That is what Neshek is noting. Teams are choosing not to overpay for older talent because it minimizes their profits, not just because it is a bad value. It might be a bad value compared to paying younger players. But it is not necessarily a bad win/loss decision if it still leads to profits (only lower).

The players could ask for some sort of rebate if owners fall short of a certain share of revenue. That would be better than minimum payrolls because the biggest problem now is teams in the middle refusing to spend more money.

zambonir 2019-02-15 17:29:32 UTC #84

I'm just saying if the player share if shifting from 50 to 45% say, the best way to make up that 5% would be to direct it at under 30 players. It's not gonna come from a bigger contract for Pat Neshek or Dallas Keuchel.

Now, that's assuming analytics is truly driving the trend, more than ownership's desire to make a profit. If there's anything resembling collusion it seems to be the fact that even the richest teams are currently treating the tax as an actual cap. Is that a temporary thing or is indicative of what they might want in the next CBA?

andyb 2019-02-25 17:12:04 UTC #85

Nate Silver weighs in on the problem. He diagnoses it as too many 1-inning relievers throwing hard because that is all they have to throw. His solution is a maximum of 10 pitchers on the roster with a designated emergency pitcher like hockey does with goalies.

I am not sure this works other than to force baseball back into the usage of pitchers when starters all threw 200+ innings. Do we want to go back to that? Would there be injury issues? I am fine limiting pitcher to 12 on the roster. We have to respect modern usage is in part due to health concerns. 10 seems extreme to me.

bkox 2019-02-25 17:28:13 UTC #86

i think I prefer the must face 3 batters rule.

bkeich 2019-02-25 19:10:29 UTC #87

Rather than a 3 batter minimum I would rather see the elimination of the during the inning warm up pitches. The pitcher should be warmed up and pitching from the actual mound really shouldnt be an issue anymore (it was a function of wildly poorly maintained fields/bullpens). That would eliminate the majority of the lost time in changing a pitcher. Set a 1 minute time limit for the next pitch (or slightly longer) in a change and get rid of the "walk out and take the ball" by the manager, if he wants to talk to the current pitcher it counts as a mound visit, even if he makes a change.

zambonir 2019-02-25 19:44:23 UTC #88

I have seen it argued that the mounds and rubbers are still too variable (as is weather) for that to be fair/safe.

LoneStarPhan 2019-02-25 20:15:04 UTC #89

I think not giving a pitcher a couple pitches off the actual mound is a bad idea. The 3 batter minimum would go a long way toward cutting back on pitching changes during an inning.

bkeich 2019-02-25 20:18:44 UTC #90

I would certainly suspect that some teams would intentionally make the visiting bullpens a little less great, but there has to be some type of oversight on things like that.

They have to come up with ways to shorten the game and I just don't like rules like "must pitch to 3 batters" because of course teams will then come up with ways to get around it.... "owww, oww, my eyebrow hurts" (yea, yea, force guys who dont face the minimum onto some inactive list...).

To me every odd rule like that just makes the game less enjoyable when you see teams find ways around the intent. Even last years debacle with the 10 day DL/sending relievers to the minors/expanding rosters game was annoying to me. That is not the intent of how to play, it is just a way of cheating the rules.

KISS principle.

zambonir 2019-02-25 20:27:56 UTC #91

Yeah they say teams do that on purpose with the visitors mound. But even so, it's not the same mound. Until you walk out there and put your feet on the rubber and feel the dirt you don't know exactly what it's like.

A 10-pitcher limit is extreme but what about a 12-pitcher limit? Of course these days we'd just see more position players pitching if that happened (unless you banned that).

LoneStarPhan 2019-02-25 20:35:18 UTC #92

I think if a pitcher was unable to pitch to 3 batters or finish the inning, then they would have to miss some time. I would suggest that either they had to go on the DL or not be able to pitch in the next 5 games but not be replaceable on the active roster. Not having the pitcher for 5 games with no replacement would be a strong incentive to not play games with fake injuries.

bkeich 2019-02-25 20:44:12 UTC #93

To me this is trying to go back to the game we knew as a child, where pitchers had to pitch longer. The reason that teams have 1 inning pitchers and LOOGYs is because it works better, you have guys that can come in and throw 97 with wicked stuff for 10 pitches, and you create matchup issues. To me that is "natural" and trying to limit the number of pitchers just tries to impose a rule for a less successful version of the game (although with all the breaks less enjoyable also).

It is better to try and find a way to let managers do what will help them win and shrink the time it takes rather than try and stop them from making moves just because of some artificial/arbitrary rules, because they will find ways around those rules. Just like last year when suddenly every team had a "slush" roster of relievers that were waiting for their fake time in AAA to expire.

If they imposed a 3 hitter minimum I think it would be better than what we have now, but I would rather find a way to shorten games without that rule, which I do think is arbitrary.

zambonir 2019-02-25 20:48:40 UTC #94

Well, I would argue that if it works better, it works better. Who cares if the games are 2:50 vs. 2:57? Expand the rosters while we're at it since we're entering the age of the 3-5-inning starter and the universal DH too.

I don't actually think the 10-day DL was especially abused that much. Used and manipulated, certainly. But real injuries, and deserved demotions, also happen. And it's arguable that it actually helps you win too. Just look at our own team, I think they would greatly prefer to be able to rely on their non-optionable relief corps every day and not have to shuttle six different guys (this year it will be three different guys).

andyb 2019-02-25 20:57:09 UTC #95

I think the point on the 1-inning pitchers is less pace of game then it is boring baseball. Lots of pitches and few balls in play. It actually does not matter if an optimal pitching strategy has lots of 1-inning pitchers. As long as both teams have the same rules they need to make the best out of the pitching staff they have.

andyb 2019-02-27 17:15:18 UTC #96

Latest proposal from owners seems to make more sense. No real changes unilaterally like the pitch clock.

Proposal would include:
-pitch clock
-shorter commercial breaks
-26 man roster with 13 pitchers. 28/14 in September (this gets the 5th bench position back and leaves the 8-man bullpen unchanged
-3 batter LOOGY rule
-single trade deadline of 7/31 - not before the All Star break which would be too early IMO
-15 day DL and options (up from 10)

Of course none of this deals with the 1-inning pitchers causing all the strikeouts. That would require limiting pitchers further (not likely IMO) or changing the mound height or distance (intriguing but again maybe not too likely, Atlantic league testing aside). I could see the players agreeing to a lot of the above though.

zambonir 2019-02-27 19:49:03 UTC #97

I don't reallly understand why the pitch clock is controversial compared to all the other stuff. Especially if there was a grace period (like, no consequences at all during first year or two, then maybe you get a certain numbe of violations per game before it costs you a ball).

andyb 2019-02-27 19:54:02 UTC #98

I just don't think the pitch clock will change that much. Most of the slow at bats occur with men on base. They also seem to be setting this up as anti-pitcher when the batter is just as culpable. Fangraphs pointed out a problem in the rules that the better could delay stepping in until there were 5 seconds left on the pitch clock.

VoteForKalas 2019-02-27 21:21:46 UTC #99

I think it impacts both the pitchers and batters. Both have routines they use to perform their jobs that have been very successful. They are naturally going to resist forced limits that impact, in their minds, that performance since it has the potential to damage their careers. I also think the umpires probably do not love having to enforce this either.

andyb 2019-03-06 20:33:26 UTC #100

Looks like minor rule changes could be implemented in a couple of days. Most prominent are 26-man roster and a single trade deadline.

So I guess the 5-man bench is officially back if we go to 26 spots on the roster this year.

One other tidbit is that the Mexican League agreement is finally done. There were a handful of international prospects waiting for this to happen. Have not heard if we were linked to anybody this year, but historically we sign a couple each year. 35% of the signing bonus will go to the Mexican team now. This is above what goes to the player and does not count on the pool.