Rule Changes Are Coming

[imb]

i think the three-batter minimum is kind of stupid but i also think you'll get to the end of a season and be like "oh that was bad like 4 times overall" so who cares

How does it definitely make the game better though? Because we’ll save maybe 7 min a game on pitching changes (not to say this won’t make games longer since there’s chances for blowups for guys forcing them to face 3 batters and creating long innings)? There’s far more downside than upside, imo.

 

i dont know how it makes the game better, i just dont think it makes it worse either, just different.

 

I really dont care one way or the other so i dont know why im even posting (very on brand for me.)

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'm surprised there is so much push-back to the three-batter minimum.

 

First, the thing it's aimed at: Repeated breaks at key moments. 8th innings where you get inning break/one-out-guy/break/opposite-handed OOG/break/closer for the third out/inning break are miserable at what should be one of the most exciting parts of the game.

 

Second, it should lead to more offense, which is always good.

 

Third, I think it's gonna add some interesting strategic nuance to reliever usage and lineup-setting. Knowing that you're giving the offense an advantage in choosing PHers once you've committed versus leaving in the reliever who is already clear of the limit for one more batter.

 

I mean, if it sucks it sucks, but I don't see the problem at first glance outside of the old "new rules are always bad" baseball reaction.

[ConstableRabbit]

I recently learned that this year, bullpens won't be able to watch games live on TV. Instead, they'll get feeds with an 8 second delay. Really sucks for the Cubs.

[treebird]

i think this is probably similar to the mound visit stuff in that it is too focused on a small issue to make any real difference, but i’m also unconvinced this is going to have any real negative impact. i don’t know what percentage of outings is less than three batters, but i am sure it is very small. i also think that the percentage of the time that pitchers have outings in which they face only one or two batters due to lack of effectiveness is so small as to be inconsequential here.

 

it really sucks when there is one pitching change after another and i am in favor of that happening less.

 

also, i hope they implement the rule in a way that gets around fake injuries. perhaps pitchers are always free to leave the game whenever, but if you leave before facing three batters, the next batter or two are intentionally walked to get to three.

[WrigleyField 22]

I get limiting guys in September but 28 seems low (unless it’s on a game to game basis I guess and can shuffle guys on and off at will to the 28 from the 40) but it also helps keep salaries down since there’s less guys seeing major league time.

What's a normal amount of September call ups? That extra 26th man is worth like 5 September call ups from a straight service time perspective.

[Cubswin11]

i think the three-batter minimum is kind of stupid but i also think you'll get to the end of a season and be like "oh that was bad like 4 times overall" so who cares

How does it definitely make the game better though? Because we’ll save maybe 7 min a game on pitching changes (not to say this won’t make games longer since there’s chances for blowups for guys forcing them to face 3 batters and creating long innings)? There’s far more downside than upside, imo.

 

i dont know how it makes the game better, i just dont think it makes it worse either, just different.

 

I really dont care one way or the other so i dont know why im even posting (very on brand for me.)

Jersey laid out pretty much all the reasons I have about why this is bad and dumb. I just don’t see the upside/making the game better and see a ton of downside.

[CubColtPacer]

I'll be the contrarian and say that I really like all these changes. I like the most important innings in the game to have a flow to them and not have 3 minute breaks multiple times during the inning. Limiting pitching changes and mound visits really helps with that. Baseball has already talked about trying to change the disabled list to prevent manipulation, I doubt they will implement something like this without some way to slow down the fake injuries.

 

The extra roster spot and the cap of pitchers on the roster is also good IMO. Those extra bench spots for things like a pinch-running specialist bring something different to the game.

 

The September restrictions are kind of meh for me, I don't really care either way.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If you come out of a game before your limit for an injury, mandatory DL trip. Easy-peasy-lemon-squeezey.

[Cubswin11]

If you come out of a game before your limit for an injury, mandatory DL trip. Easy-peasy-lemon-squeezey.

Yeah if this goes in to place that seems like the simple answer. Maybe not DL but can’t pitch in the next 2-3 games at least.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The extra roster spot and the cap of pitchers on the roster is also good IMO. Those extra bench spots for things like a pinch-running specialist bring something different to the game.

 

Pinch-running specialists are awesome and we should encourage more of them. How about minor leagues implement a mandatory Designated Fast Guy roster spot. Can only be used as a pinch-runner unless all other position players have been used. Some additional rules to prevent 18 throws to first when he's in the game. This idea is perfect, I will accept no notes and DFG has to be the official name of the roster spot.

 

While I'm rolling:

 

One throw to first per pitch. Extra throws are allowed at the expense of a ball in the count.

 

Pitch. Clock. Big one right behind the plate where the pitcher can see it like a shot clock. No fudging, buzzer goes off if you don't let go of the ball by 0.

 

Move the mound back a little.

 

Basically, as always, screw pitchers.

Edited March 5, 2019 by Hairyducked Idiot

[Brian]

I think it would be much better if it was 3 batters or end of inning.

 

this might speed up the DH, because there will probably be a rise in relievers taking at bats

[Banedon]

i will say this much...with the 3 batter minimum, there should be an additional rule that a pinch hitter can't be pulled before facing a batter.

[UMFan83]

I recently learned that this year, bullpens won't be able to watch games live on TV. Instead, they'll get feeds with an 8 second delay. Really sucks for the Cubs.

 

They could just dance every time there is a large cheer just in case there is a HR

[WrigleyField 22]

I think it would be much better if it was 3 batters or end of inning.

 

this might speed up the DH, because there will probably be a rise in relievers taking at bats

Yea, end of inning would be better, and arguably save more time.

 

Starting pitcher gets into trouble one out in, so you bring in a reliever to close out the inning. Why not let that switch happen the next half inning. (assuming he went two batters, two outs) . Otherwise they can face another batter the next inning and then get pulled, introducing another mid inning pitching switch, where today they'd probably pull the guy after those two outs today.

[UMFan83]

If you come out of a game before your limit for an injury, mandatory DL trip. Easy-peasy-lemon-squeezey.

Yeah if this goes in to place that seems like the simple answer. Maybe not DL but can’t pitch in the next 2-3 games at least.

 

Maybe a 3 day restricted list or something. I don't think they should immediately go on the 10 day DL as some of the injuries will be real and I don't want to lose a key reliever for 10 days because he had muscle cramps or something.

[Thurman Merman]

I wonder if this will be the beginning of the end of traditional 9th inning closers. I can see there being a number of times where a reliever comes in with one or two outs in the eighth and has to start the 9th. Might lead to more managers using their best relievers in more high leverage spots. I mean, this already is kind of happening, but it might speed the process along.

[UMFan83]

I think it would be much better if it was 3 batters or end of inning.

 

this might speed up the DH, because there will probably be a rise in relievers taking at bats

Yea, end of inning would be better, and arguably save more time.

 

Starting pitcher gets into trouble one out in, so you bring in a reliever to close out the inning. Why not let that switch happen the next half inning. (assuming he went two batters, two outs) . Otherwise they can face another batter the next inning and then get pulled, introducing another mid inning pitching switch, where today they'd probably pull the guy after those two outs today.

 

I'm pretty sure the rule was written to be 3 batters or end of inning. Not sure if its changed recently but that's how it was being discussed last month.

[Sammy Sofa]

The three batter minimum is the worst idea ever

 

Yeah I agree, its terrible. We bring Carl in and its clear right away that its one of his "doesn't have it" games. We have to sit there and watch him walk the bases loaded before we can bring in another pitcher? Stupid.

 

Let's face it: it's not like Maddon would take him before this happened anyway.

[Andy]

Just to make sure I say something positive, I like pitcher maximums. There were too damn many pitchers on rosters. It used to be 12-man staffs seemed excessive and the Cubs were carrying 14 at times the last few years, which is dumb.

 

That said, three-batter minimum is complete horsefeathers. I don't like changing the rules just because people were getting good at maximizing benefit from it, which is pretty much what this comes down to. I understand the game flow thing. I just disagree with this in a big way. I'd rather see the NL DH than this, and I've gotten into angry arguments with people here about the DH.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

It's weird to look at these through your own team's interests. "What if we have to leave a reliever in who doesn't have it?" or "What if we lose a reliever to mandatory DL?"

 

You know the other teams will have this happen for them against the Cubs too, right?

[PackLandVA]

If I’m the Cubs, first time an opponent’s pitcher gets a 1-out save, I’m filing a protest!

[jersey cubs fan]

 

Baseball manager: "If I tug on my ear once and then touch my belt buckle, then have your next pitch sail wide and crumple to the ground in pain as if your arm just exploded."

 

That's how to overcome such a scenario as you propose.

 

If that happens baseball will be real quick to mandate a certain number of games pitchers have to miss if pulled from games due to injury.

 

Well if a pitcher sucks so hard that he has to fake an injury then maybe he needs to sit for a few days anyways, haha

haha

[jersey cubs fan]

It's weird to look at these through your own team's interests. "What if we have to leave a reliever in who doesn't have it?" or "What if we lose a reliever to mandatory DL?"

 

You know the other teams will have this happen for them against the Cubs too, right?

I'm not against it based on how it related to the Cubs.

[Bote McBoteface]

I didnt expect to be so deeply in the minority, but I really like the 3 batter minimum. Shortens game time/down time while also favoring more offense. Isnt that the stated goal of all these rule changes? Seems like a pretty good rule change. Ive always hated LOOGYs and the endless pitching changes per inning. Plus I wanna see Rizzo and schwarber get a chance to mash off of righties in the late innings. Baez/Rizzo/Bryant/Schwarber is pretty killer when you need one pitcher to pitch to 3 of them.

[imb]

im for the three-batter rule strictly because i like seeing the fucked up "oh my god why is this happening" face that relievers make when they suck butt and also the "oh my god why is this happening" face fans make when their relievers suck butt.

 

it will be bad when it happens to us but good when it happens to everyone else so therefore in conclusion the good outweighs the bad, do not respond to this post