|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
| Manfred was a guest Thursday on ESPN's Mike & Mike where he was presented nine suggestions from fans for improving baseball. One suggestion was some sort of restriction on the use of relief pitching in an inning or game. "I am in favor of something like that," Manfred said. "We (MLB) spend a ton of time on this issue in the last few months." "You know the problem with relief pitchers is that they're so good. I've got nothing against relief pitchers but they do two things to the game; the pitching changes themselves slow the game down and our relief pitchers have become so dominate at the back end that they actually rob action out of the end of the game, the last few innings of the game. So relief pitchers is a topic that is under active consideration. We're talking about that a lot internally." |
Am I missing something?
I'm all for limiting mound visits in general (way too many catcher/pitcher discussions are allowed especially during playoffs) and something moderate and reasonable here, especially since it will protect reliever arms.
But his second point makes no sense about them being too good. I cant think of a single thing that can or should be done about that part.
Maybe next we can ban every all-star player. They're too good and dominate the game which takes the excitement out of things.
Then we can get rid of the break between every inning since that slows the game down. Wait... no, we can't. That's the opportunity for commercials. Cha-ching.
I'm all for limiting mound visits in general (way too many catcher/pitcher discussions are allowed especially during playoffs) and something moderate and reasonable here, especially since it will protect reliever arms.
But his second point makes no sense about them being too good. I cant think of a single thing that can or should be done about that part.
* The Yankees just lost a ton of leverage if they intend to 'sell' parts of their bullpen.
I don't think anything like that is being discussed.
The point is they're trying to find a way to stop teams from overmanaging in the last few innings and bringing in specialists to get 1 out and then making another pitching change immediately after.
We see it all the time. Mound visit, starter/reliever taken out, LOOGY brought in, throws one pitch and gets a ground out, mound visit again, new reliever.. which basically slows the game down quite a bit.
That said, you can't take that right away from a manager. I think that's ridiculous. Some things just need to be left alone. This is one of them.
What they should really be focusing on is how disastrous replay has been. It should be there but the whole system really needs to be fixed. There are so many unnecessary reviews happening and taking far longer than they should.
Quote:
I don't know about prohibiting "too many" mid-inning pitching changes in one game... but relievers are definitely over-used during the course of a season, and too many managers have gone bat-shit crazy with lefty/lefty and righty/righty matchups.
I'm all for limiting mound visits in general (way too many catcher/pitcher discussions are allowed especially during playoffs) and something moderate and reasonable here, especially since it will protect reliever arms.
But his second point makes no sense about them being too good. I cant think of a single thing that can or should be done about that part.
I f a hitter is allowed to bat from either side of the plate in order to optimize his match-up with the pitcher (or a different handed PH could be used), why should the pitching staff not be afforded the same opportunity?
Because the hitter isn't being replaced by another hitter at that point. If the pitcher wants to switch arms to throw with, he's allowed to - he just doesn't get any warmups and stop the game like a replacement pitcher would in that spot.
Cy Young's record might then get broken someday! Baseball Fever - Catch it!
good one!
I doubt this is really that much of a problem though. The games are still going to take 3+ hours.
Baseball is a game rooted in American society, and it's been called the thinking man's game, and for many years it has lauded for the fact that it's the only of the major sports that doesn't have a clock. The length of game is a big issue. The key part of this story is here
The Commissioners of all sports are very aware of how the game appears on TV (or tablets, phones, etc). Football is damn near the perfect game for broadcast. Baseball, not so much. I know, as a Generation X'er, get off my lawn. But this is reality and in sports marketing they will need to cater to the younger viewers and in some cases that will fundamentally change the way the game is played in order to compete for the most $$ from advertisers and broadcasters.
The one guy actually said "Wait. A team can win by as many runs as possible? That must suck for the players and fans". I told him blowouts like this weren't common.
Heck, I told my kids to remember the night. They got to see an inning with 12 runs scored, an inning with 9 straight hits, and a grand slam to cap it off. In all my life, I hadn't seen that happen!
Quote:
In comment 13040587 MetsAreBack said:
Quote:
I don't know about prohibiting "too many" mid-inning pitching changes in one game... but relievers are definitely over-used during the course of a season, and too many managers have gone bat-shit crazy with lefty/lefty and righty/righty matchups.
I'm all for limiting mound visits in general (way too many catcher/pitcher discussions are allowed especially during playoffs) and something moderate and reasonable here, especially since it will protect reliever arms.
But his second point makes no sense about them being too good. I cant think of a single thing that can or should be done about that part.
I f a hitter is allowed to bat from either side of the plate in order to optimize his match-up with the pitcher (or a different handed PH could be used), why should the pitching staff not be afforded the same opportunity?
Because the hitter isn't being replaced by another hitter at that point. If the pitcher wants to switch arms to throw with, he's allowed to - he just doesn't get any warmups and stop the game like a replacement pitcher would in that spot.
Quote:
In comment 13040624 Bill L said:
Quote:
In comment 13040587 MetsAreBack said:
Quote:
I don't know about prohibiting "too many" mid-inning pitching changes in one game... but relievers are definitely over-used during the course of a season, and too many managers have gone bat-shit crazy with lefty/lefty and righty/righty matchups.
I'm all for limiting mound visits in general (way too many catcher/pitcher discussions are allowed especially during playoffs) and something moderate and reasonable here, especially since it will protect reliever arms.
But his second point makes no sense about them being too good. I cant think of a single thing that can or should be done about that part.
I f a hitter is allowed to bat from either side of the plate in order to optimize his match-up with the pitcher (or a different handed PH could be used), why should the pitching staff not be afforded the same opportunity?
Because the hitter isn't being replaced by another hitter at that point. If the pitcher wants to switch arms to throw with, he's allowed to - he just doesn't get any warmups and stop the game like a replacement pitcher would in that spot.
the offense can also replace the hitter with one who bats form the other side.
they are, but that is different than a batter simply switching sides of the plate.
Starter is pitching a great game but the formula is Mr. X relief pitcher pitches the seventh inning, followed by Mr. Y followed by Mr. Z. That is formula no matter what.
Same with hitters. The binder says that hitter X has better splits when facing lefthander Y, except on Tuesdays at home during day games. So hitter Z who is in the middle of a hot streak or is hitting .350 sits while Mr. .200 average plays.
It's gotten stupid and is wrecking hitters and pitchers because of theories that have never been proven but allow the manager to rationalize in the post-game interviews.
Starter is pitching a great game but the formula is Mr. X relief pitcher pitches the seventh inning, followed by Mr. Y followed by Mr. Z. That is formula no matter what.
Same with hitters. The binder says that hitter X has better splits when facing lefthander Y, except on Tuesdays at home during day games. So hitter Z who is in the middle of a hot streak or is hitting .350 sits while Mr. .200 average plays.
It's gotten stupid and is wrecking hitters and pitchers because of theories that have never been proven but allow the manager to rationalize in the post-game interviews.
John Farrell is probably the worst manager, or at least worst game manager in history. He's already set Tazawa, Uyehara, and Kimbrel on the DL because he can't tell the difference between a 1 run lead and a 10-run lead so, in the 7-8-9 of every game hr runs his high leverage pitchers out there because...well, just because. Then, their arms fall off and the have to shake peoples' hands and wile their asses with the same appendage.
I f a hitter is allowed to bat from either side of the plate in order to optimize his match-up with the pitcher (or a different handed PH could be used), why should the pitching staff not be afforded the same opportunity?
Because a pitching change takes 5 minutes. A batter switching plate sides takes 3 seconds.
Teams overmanage the 7th and 8th innings is the point. People complain about replays and intentional walks - and that's fine, that should be addressed too - but those issues aren't common enough to drive the 3:05 average game times.
I like the idea of limited mid inning relief changes as well as pitcher/catcher meetings. And I like the idea of enforcing a pitch clock when no runners are on base in an inning (would also be rules for the hitter as far as staying in the box). Fix those two issues and you'll get game times back to 2:45
Starter is pitching a great game but the formula is Mr. X relief pitcher pitches the seventh inning, followed by Mr. Y followed by Mr. Z. That is formula no matter what.
Same with hitters. The binder says that hitter X has better splits when facing lefthander Y, except on Tuesdays at home during day games. So hitter Z who is in the middle of a hot streak or is hitting .350 sits while Mr. .200 average plays.
It's gotten stupid and is wrecking hitters and pitchers because of theories that have never been proven but allow the manager to rationalize in the post-game interviews.
Homer,
To your point, baseball went from a "thinking man's game" to a stat centric sabermetrics/moneyball focus. Teams have long since moved on from hiring former players or coaches in the GM role to putting in sabermetric statisticians. To be fair, a great deal of what they track makes sense and is ahead of "gut feeling". However, the paralysis by analysis causes these delays. Managers are being judged not just by Wins and Losses, but by playing the percentages and understanding how front offices now value the decisions being made. Hence, the Girardi binder.
The offshoot of all this, more matchup changes, more data points to review, more shifts, etc. That slows the game down. So while statistically it's "sound baseball", for the entertainment product, it's bad.
Manfred's other key phrase
So it's a bad thing that the Yankees collected 3 of the best relievers in baseball to be lights out? In 1990, we called the Reds bullpen "the Nasty Boys". Now, because of concerns around millennials getting bored and being able to market the game to them (ie- Fatman's anecdote above), this is a bad thing and time to change the game.
* The Yankees just lost a ton of leverage if they intend to 'sell' parts of their bullpen.
This rule isnt going to be implemented this year so, if ever, so, no, the Yankees do not lose any leverage.
Baseball is a game rooted in American society, and it's been called the thinking man's game, and for many years it has lauded for the fact that it's the only of the major sports that doesn't have a clock. The length of game is a big issue. The key part of this story is here
Quote:
This year, the average time of a game is 3 hours, 4 minutes. By comparison, in 2005 games averaged 2 hours, 49 minutes.
The Commissioners of all sports are very aware of how the game appears on TV (or tablets, phones, etc). Football is damn near the perfect game for broadcast. Baseball, not so much. I know, as a Generation X'er, get off my lawn. But this is reality and in sports marketing they will need to cater to the younger viewers and in some cases that will fundamentally change the way the game is played in order to compete for the most $$ from advertisers and broadcasters.
Good point. Not too long ago, 9 pitchers was standard. Many teams started April with 8 becuae of the light sked and rainouts, expanded to 10 in the heat of summer, then back to 9 in Sep
Homer,
To your point, baseball went from a "thinking man's game" to a stat centric sabermetrics/moneyball focus. Teams have long since moved on from hiring former players or coaches in the GM role to putting in sabermetric statisticians. To be fair, a great deal of what they track makes sense and is ahead of "gut feeling". However, the paralysis by analysis causes these delays. Managers are being judged not just by Wins and Losses, but by playing the percentages and understanding how front offices now value the decisions being made. Hence, the Girardi binder.
The offshoot of all this, more matchup changes, more data points to review, more shifts, etc. That slows the game down. So while statistically it's "sound baseball", for the entertainment product, it's bad.
Manfred's other key phrase
Quote:
relief pitchers have become so dominate at the back end that they actually rob action out of the end of the game, the last few innings of the game.
So it's a bad thing that the Yankees collected 3 of the best relievers in baseball to be lights out? In 1990, we called the Reds bullpen "the Nasty Boys". Now, because of concerns around millennials getting bored and being able to market the game to them (ie- Fatman's anecdote above), this is a bad thing and time to change the game.
As you point out, though, it gives a manager something to hang on to when the GM questions decisions.
1) Shorten the game - perhaps limit the number of pitching changes in an inning or something to that effect. This eliminates a ton of the lefty/righty switches and just bringing in 2-3 relievers in one inning. Maybe even limit the number of pitching changes for a game. I don't support these, but these are what I assume they would consider.
2) Preserve relievers - It doesn't seem like this was even a consideration and there doesn't seem to be overwhelming evidence that overall relievers are being abused to the point of harming themselves.
But, relievers are too dominant? Come on.
The one guy actually said "Wait. A team can win by as many runs as possible? That must suck for the players and fans". I told him blowouts like this weren't common.
Heck, I told my kids to remember the night. They got to see an inning with 12 runs scored, an inning with 9 straight hits, and a grand slam to cap it off. In all my life, I hadn't seen that happen!
My son's league has variations of all these. For tee ball and pee-wee the run limits in innings helps move a game along where kids have a hard time fielding. But, they still have a variation of run limits in the 11-12 year old division, which I don't like. And, I cringe when kids on our team are thinking about the mercy rule. The competitive kids don't want to get mercied. There are actually kids, though, who want to know how many runs until its over. Are you F-ing kidding me?! Why the F are you even playing?
Thankfully, while his team was not great, they were mostly the competitive kids and we played a ton of close games.
2) The magnitude of that activity is limited by the rules.
???
Ok, In hockey you can substitute freely except if you ice the puck. Better?
* The Yankees just lost a ton of leverage if they intend to 'sell' parts of their bullpen.
This rule isnt going to be implemented this year so, if ever, so, no, the Yankees do not lose any leverage.
I was kidding. Didn't mean to offend any Yankee fans.
The game has also changed markedly even from when I was a young man in the mid 1980s. In that era, it was great if you could knock out the starter and get to middle relievers, who were often barely above replacement-level. Nowadays, the pitching staffs are far deeper. You have teams with a 7th inning specialist, an 8th-inning specialist, and a closer, and all three are good enough to have been closers 30 years ago. So hitters almost never see a tired pitcher.
I think some adjustments in the rules would be fine. I don't love the idea of penalizing teams for their depth, but I think there's a way to limit pitching changes. Worth trying.
My modest proposal to restore some balance in the game is different: Move the mound farther from the plate. Maybe 2 feet. I don't know the exact distance. Pitchers are much bigger than they were 150 years ago when the rules were codified, their release point is much closer to the plate. Gloves are bigger, fielding is better. The game is tilted toward the team in the field.
If you move the mound back, it gives the hitter a little more time to react; more balls would be put in play; pitchers would probably have to work more on control and less on power.
Those effects would be there for every single hitter, all game long.
Maybe give the pitchers something back by raising the mound a little - some trial and error would probably be needed to figure out exactly what combination works best.
I think this change would increase offense while also probably shortening the game, because there'd be fewer swings and misses. I think it'd be a faster-paced game with more action, more like what fans saw 110 years ago.
And the change would probably be less annoying than limiting pitching changes.
Baseball has to make the same choice others have had in a different walk in life...which is most important, purity or money.