Rogers: MLB kicking around idea of making starting pitchers reach a 100 pitch count

[thawv]

I like the idea.  If a guy gets injured, gives up 4 earned runs, or reaches 100 pitches, he can be removed whenever they choose.  I like that it keeps guys in the game that are pitching will, instead of just pulling them.  

I really don't see much change as far anything goes.  If a guy is pitching well in the 6th and his PC is not high, they usually keep them in anyway.  Now they have to keep them in.  I like it.

I would assume that this would be the end of the opener??

[Cuzi]

6 minutes ago, thawv said:

I would assume that this would be the end of the opener??

What is the purpose of getting rid of the opener? Do double headers not exist any more in this world where a bullpen game would be necessary at some point in the schedule?

This is trying to fix a problem that is fixed by removing the damn umpire from calling balls and strikes. Its not like doing that removes the home plate umpire from the field. You still need one there to call plays at the plate. Stop trying to tell teams how they are allowed to use their roster and fix your own damn issue.

Edited August 16, 2024 by Cuzi

[thawv]

17 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

There are just too many missed calls to do a challenge system. It has to be just all automated, IMO. 

I agree.  Why challenge it if the automated system already know what the pitch was.  That's the exact think that they look at when they challenge.  Just skip that process.  What about running out of options?  Then it's right back to umps controlling every at bat.   Umps should be begging for this system.  No more grief from fans and players.  No more guess work and stress.  No more embarrassment.  It will make their job behind the plate a walk in the park. 

[Bertz]

Yeah I need to noodle on this more but I think I like it.  Maybe combine it with some other carrot or stick?  i.e. you can remove a pitcher without hitting any of these thresholds, but if you do then double hook or reliever limits kick in or something else.  Maybe a combination of things.

[thawv]

2 minutes ago, Cuzi said:

What is the purpose of getting rid of the opener? Do double headers not exist any more in this world where a bullpen game would be necessary at some point in the schedule?

This is trying to fix a problem that is fixed by removing the damn umpire from calling balls and strikes. Its not like doing that removes the home plate umpire from the field. You still need one there to call plays at the plate.

With the proposed new pitching rule, would the opener no longer be used is my question.  I would assume that is the case. 

Of course they need the automated strike zone.  It's complete BS that MLB still allows these guys to control at bats and quite often the outcome of games

 

[squally1313]

Feel like the initial push to put minimums on how long pitchers had to pitch was to speed up the game and I think the pitch clock pretty much already solved that problem? If we're just looking for more offense I feel like there has to be a better way than mandating a pitcher but also having like seven exceptions that you'd need to track. Move the mound back, flatten it, juice the ball, ABS would help, etc.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I'm not inherently opposed to the 6 inning minimum, and I think the whole suite of options discussed are generally trying to get to the right outcomes.  I think double hook DH and the longer reliever minimums discussed might be a little better carrot to try first.  The third time through the order penalty weighed against losing the DH and having to insert a reliever that has to go 5+ hitters may be enough to tilt the scales enough to restore SPs as main characters without needing a harsh SP minimum that also has 4 exceptions in its hypothetical version.

[Rcal10]

I think they are actually trying to lessen the amount of pitching injuries. If a pitcher knows he has to go 6 or throw 100 pitches maybe he doesn’t go max effort on every pitch. Maybe coming out and throwing as hard as he can for as long as he can is the reason for so many pitchers getting injured. By mlb saying someone has to go 6 innings that may alter a pitchers plan. I honestly don’t know, but I thought I read somewhere they were trying to limit pitchers injuries with this move. I guess it would also mean less innings for the pen. Which could help the pen guys too. Again, don’t know. To me they are trying to fix a problem most of us don’t really think mlb has. And instead of fixing the strike zone they are doing this. 

[Rcal10]

2 hours ago, thawv said:

With the proposed new pitching rule, would the opener no longer be used is my question.  I would assume that is the case. 

Of course they need the automated strike zone.  It's complete BS that MLB still allows these guys to control at bats and quite often the outcome of games

 

No, there couldn’t be an opener. But another problem with this idea is when a guy comes back from injury. Often a first start for someone is hoping to get 75 pitches or 5 innings, something like that. Now it has to be 6 or 100. Honestly, to me mlb is trying to fix a problem that doesn’t exist. Just get the automatic balls and strikes taken care of and I will be happy. 

[Bertz]

1 hour ago, Transmogrified Tiger said:

I'm not inherently opposed to the 6 inning minimum, and I think the whole suite of options discussed are generally trying to get to the right outcomes.  I think double hook DH and the longer reliever minimums discussed might be a little better carrot to try first.  The third time through the order penalty weighed against losing the DH and having to insert a reliever that has to go 5+ hitters may be enough to tilt the scales enough to restore SPs as main characters without needing a harsh SP minimum that also has 4 exceptions in its hypothetical version.

Yeah I think this is the way.  Make 6 innings not a mandate but a threshold that you're rewarded for crossing.  If your starter fails to make it six, you lose the DH and the first guy out of the pen must be a long reliever.  It feels like that has some real teeth but doesn't introduce any icky safety concerns.

If you want to employ an opener?  That's fine but you need to weigh that cost against playing NL Baseball for a day.  Want to rotation some inefficient 4 IP/start guy?  Cool but you need to plan for a consistent piggyback.

It is a shame that there are not good short term rewards that could be implemented.  I feel like anything they did wouldn feel too video-gamey.

[CubinNY]

5 minutes ago, Bertz said:

Yeah I think this is the way.  Make 6 innings not a mandate but a threshold that you're rewarded for crossing.  If your starter fails to make it six, you lose the DH and the first guy out of the pen must be a long reliever.  It feels like that has some real teeth but doesn't introduce any icky safety concerns.

If you want to employ an opener?  That's fine but you need to weigh that cost against playing NL Baseball for a day.  Want to rotation some inefficient 4 IP/start guy?  Cool but you need to plan for a consistent piggyback.

It is a shame that there are not good short term rewards that could be implemented.  I feel like anything they did wouldn feel too video-gamey.

whatever they do has to coincide with an automatic strike zone. 

[squally1313]

9 minutes ago, Bertz said:

If you want to employ an opener?  That's fine but you need to weigh that cost against playing NL Baseball for a day.  Want to rotation some inefficient 4 IP/start guy?  Cool but you need to plan for a consistent piggyback.

I guess I don't really see why these are problems that need to be fixed? Like, there are already built in downsides to these things. You can only carry 13 pitchers, reliable relivers don't grow on trees, either way you're taxing the pen and, eventually, having to throw your worst relievers. 

[Bertz]

2 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

I guess I don't really see why these are problems that need to be fixed? Like, there are already built in downsides to these things. You can only carry 13 pitchers, reliable relivers don't grow on trees, either way you're taxing the pen and, eventually, having to throw your worst relievers. 

I'm not much of a traditionalist, but I'm very much of the mind that baseball loses something when the starting pitcher isn't the main protagonist of the day.  

There's some non soft factors too like the impacts on strikeouts and injury rates.

[squally1313]

4 minutes ago, Bertz said:

I'm not much of a traditionalist, but I'm very much of the mind that baseball loses something when the starting pitcher isn't the main protagonist of the day.  

There's some non soft factors too like the impacts on strikeouts and injury rates.

Eh. I think when people picture the starting pitching showdown, they're picturing the elite guys who definitely still exist. You put in rules where there's suddenly 150 pitchers in baseball that have to throw 100 pitches every time out, feel like you're going to have a lot Shawn Estes flashbacks. I also don't buy the injury rate argument. Unless you tell these guys that certain outings will be thrown out in their statistics, most every pitcher out there is still going to go balls to the wall no matter what. 

I just think it's too dramatic by a pretty substantial amount. You end up in a world where starting pitchers and relievers have to be brought up with almost totally separate development programs. Any injury more than a couple weeks probably requires multiple rehab starts. Etc. Just go with the double hook.

[chibears55]

I have to doubt very much that owners would be ok with this, let alone the players union. can you imagine their big money SP is getting hit early and has to throw way over 100 pitches to get through the 6th inning. Any of their starters for that matter, we'll  e seeing alot of blowouts and high scoring games throughout the season. 

Also there would be no more opener, what would be the point if he has to go 6 innings.

 

Just leave it alone

[Cuzi]

The players union can't stop rules being changed. So whether they like it or not, their opinion means nothing.

[Rcal10]

3 hours ago, chibears55 said:

I have to doubt very much that owners would be ok with this, let alone the players union. can you imagine their big money SP is getting hit early and has to throw way over 100 pitches to get through the 6th inning. Any of their starters for that matter, we'll  e seeing alot of blowouts and high scoring games throughout the season. 

Also there would be no more opener, what would be the point if he has to go 6 innings.

 

Just leave it alone

What are you talking about. The exceptions to going 6 innings has if the pitcher gets to 100 pitches or gives up 4 runs. So if a pitcher gets blown up in the 3 rd inning and gives up 4 runs he can be taken out. If a pitcher labors through 4 innings and then in the 5th gets to 100 pitches he can be taken out. A guy doesn’t have to throw 120 pitches to get through 6 innings. A starter who gives up 5 in the 1st doesn’t have to stay in the game to get 6 innings. 
I agree they should just leave it alone. I really don’t think they are solving a problem with this idea, because I don’t feel there is a problem to solve. But your scenarios have been accounted for if they did change the rule. 
Honestly all I want is a proper strike zone called automatically.

[Derwood]

Sounds like we'll see a lot of fake injuries

[jersey cubs fan]

14 minutes ago, Derwood said:

Sounds like we'll see a lot of fake injuries

As stated above, if the pitcher leaves early because of injury the player has to go on IL stint. You could fake it, but you’d be disadvantaged 

[Derwood]

2 minutes ago, jersey cubs fan said:

As stated above, if the pitcher leaves early because of injury the player has to go on IL stint. You could fake it, but you’d be disadvantaged 

That seems like a dumb rule considering that you aren't running an MRI or X-Ray on the guy on the mound mid-game. Pitchers leave games all the time for shoulder tightness or a blister or whatever without having to go on the IL

[jersey cubs fan]

3 minutes ago, Derwood said:

That seems like a dumb rule considering that you aren't running an MRI or X-Ray on the guy on the mound mid-game. Pitchers leave games all the time for shoulder tightness or a blister or whatever without having to go on the IL

A) I don’t really think that happens “all the time” 

B) When guys leave a game for injury reasons they often miss time because of the injury. You aren’t removing the option of pulling a guy for health reasons. 

[Derwood]

2 minutes ago, jersey cubs fan said:

A) I don’t really think that happens “all the time” 

B) When guys leave a game for injury reasons they often miss time because of the injury. You aren’t removing the option of pulling a guy for health reasons. 

You're creating a situation where the manager and trainers have to make a real-time decision about sending a guy to the IL in the middle of a game. How is that a good thing?

[thawv]

18 hours ago, Rcal10 said:

No, there couldn’t be an opener. But another problem with this idea is when a guy comes back from injury. Often a first start for someone is hoping to get 75 pitches or 5 innings, something like that. Now it has to be 6 or 100. Honestly, to me mlb is trying to fix a problem that doesn’t exist. Just get the automatic balls and strikes taken care of and I will be happy. 

I could be wrong, but I would think that it's common sense to allow ramping up starts for this situation.  I would think the same goes for the first month of the season.  Make it like 85 pitches or whatever they decide on.  But I like the idea of keeping a guy in who's on cruise control opposed to just pulling him at 90 pitches. Everything else seem like it will be the same.  

[thawv]

8 hours ago, Derwood said:

That seems like a dumb rule considering that you aren't running an MRI or X-Ray on the guy on the mound mid-game. Pitchers leave games all the time for shoulder tightness or a blister or whatever without having to go on the IL

I think that if a guy gets removed due to an "injury," he has to miss his next start opposed to the DL. 

[Wilson A2000]

I would be interested to know what percentage of starts this proposed rule would have affected over the last few years