Article: Unlocking Baseball: Enhancing the Game with Expanded Roster Sizes

[Sean Chapin]

Major League Baseball games are played very differently now than they were in the 1920s, but roster rules have changed little in all that time. Maybe that needs to change.

Image courtesy of © Jerome Miron-USA TODAY Sports

For over a century, baseball has held a special place in American culture--"the national pastime." However, this reverence for tradition shouldn't equate to resistance against necessary changes. Throughout its history, baseball has undergone significant transformations, from implementing automatic runners on second base to introducing pitch clocks and the DH rule in the National League. While these changes have occurred, Major League Baseball still has ample room for improvement.

In this series dubbed "Unlocking Baseball," the aim is to delve into strategies for enhancing the game experience for teams, players, and fans. In today's post, we'll consider the ramifications of expanding roster sizes.

While the recent expansion of Major League Baseball roster sizes to 26 players was a step in the right direction, it's essential to acknowledge that, on any given game day, teams essentially operate with only 22 players available, since starting pitchers aren't held in reserve as emergency relievers anymore. So, how can we address this limitation and improve the game?

Expanding roster sizes offers numerous benefits, including providing more players with opportunities, increasing the ability to rest players, and offering managers greater flexibility. Currently, only 10% of minor-league players make it to the majors, and expanding roster sizes could significantly improve these odds. Additionally, the grueling 162-game season takes its toll on players, and a larger roster could mitigate fatigue and enhance performance over the long haul.

Moreover, in the era of advanced metrics and analytics, expanding rosters would provide managers with more options for strategic matchups and allow teams to take chances on players with specialized skill sets. That would not only benefit veteran players seeking to prolong their careers, but also open doors for younger talents to break into the big leagues sooner. We've witnessed first-hand the challenging decisions made by teams like the Cubs, who opted to send down promising talents at various stages of their careers (like Alexander Canario, Carl Edwards Jr., and Matt Mervis) before the season started.

In a scenario with expanded rosters, at least one, if not all, of these players would likely have secured a roster spot. This situation isn't unique to the Cubs; numerous teams across baseball face similar dilemmae. Take the Orioles, for instance, who might benefit from expanded rosters given prospects like Jackson Holliday and Coby Mayo starting in the minors. Likewise, consider the Nationals and James Wood. Expanded rosters offer these young talents more opportunities to showcase their abilities on the grand stage of Major League Baseball, potentially accelerating their journey to "The Show."

Expanding roster sizes could also have a positive impact on the free-agent market, reducing the number of players left unsigned due to roster limitations. This move could potentially increase payroll for teams, but could also lead to a more competitive and dynamic league.

However, there are downsides to consider, such as reduced playing time for fringe players, increased team payroll, and the possibility of slowing down the pace of the game due to more options from the bullpen and bench.

To strike a balance, I propose to expand the active roster from 26 players to 28 players from Opening Day to August 31st, as well as in the playoffs, with an increase to 30 players from September 1st through the end of the regular season. Additionally, expanding the 40-man roster to anywhere from 42 to 45 players could provide teams with greater flexibility throughout the season.

Failing that, what about a smaller version of the expansion? In the 1960s, for various reasons, there were multiple seasons in which teams got to carry an extra three to five players during the first month of the season, before cutting down to 25 men. It was, functionally, a tryout period, during which teams could finish the work of culling their rosters while evaluating them under the pressure and stakes of the regular season, rather than in the simulacrum of spring training. We saw the league allow a similar system in 2020 and 2021, after the massive disruption of COVID-19. It's worth further discussion, at the very least.

In conclusion, expanding roster sizes presents numerous benefits for players, teams, and the overall baseball experience. By considering the pros and cons and implementing a balanced approach, baseball can continue to evolve and thrive.

View full article

[Guest234]

Poppa Joe will love this - paying all those bowlers to play a kid's game is not a wise use of money anyway.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Really hard to see how this could be a positive in any way, absent other rule changes to keep the downsides in check.  More roster spots just means more relievers/pitcher specialization, lengthening games and taking us further down the track of pitchers being anonymized like NFL running backs.  Same thing with longer benches that promote more platoons.  In both cases you'd see suppressed service time/arb salaries/FA contracts as a result, so aside from the extra service time days for the ~900th best player in the game, there's not much upside for players either.  You could change some rules to hedge against this(double hook DH, overhaul service time), but you should do those anyway since there's no compelling benefit to upping rosters.  The sport doesn't become more compelling with arbitrarily deeper benches, it's the opposite in practice in all likelihood.