Around Baseball 2014

[intentional wok]

I think too many breaks in play when the game should be most exciting IS a good reason. Why should that reason be disallowed? When a manager is allowed to change his pitcher whenever he wants, I find it interrupts the flow of the game. I know the manager is trying to win, but it doesn't make for very compelling viewing imo. The best strategies for winning aren't necessarily the best entertainment.

 

But this is what I'm saying - can you give me a good reason for tampering with the mechanics of baseball that isn't just entertainment value? You're suggesting that external issues should impact the actual rules of the game. Why is removing bullpen strategy a good thing, outside of impatience?

 

Obnoxious is a good way to put it. But I think it's silly to think it'll drive fans away. Why would that be the case? First, it's a zero-sum game: a blown lead by one team means a comeback by another team. Whereas, stalling in a game is not fun for fans of either side. Second, lead changes make the games interesting to the end. I've never heard of anyone driven away from a sport, whether baseball, hockey, football, whatever, because the game was too much in doubt till the end.

 

Even going on your Argument for Entertainment (which I fundamentally disagree with), a zero-sum is probably not a good thing for fans either. Most fans, in Toronto for example, tune in to watch the Jays play. Allowing the other team to come back against the Jays and win is bad TV. You're preventing the team from utilizing its roster smartly, increasing the chance that the game will get blown. This is terrible TV. No one wants to watch Dustin McGowan get lit up by two straight lefties he's being forced to pitch to because of Entertainment Value.

 

 

Earlier in this thread I did say that keeping the batter in the box and improving the pace between pitches is definitely the #1 thing to try to fix. I agree with you there.

Yeah. The #1 thing that should be fixed. Totally agree.

 

 

Yeah the pitching team would be at a slight disadvantage (compared to what they have now) if they couldn't get every single platoon matchup they wanted...but I don't see what is supposed to be so much the problem. Teams change sides, and when you're hitting, now you have the advantage.

 

The problem is that they aren't getting the matchups they want. They aren't allowed to utilize their 25 men as efficiently as they can because Entertainment Value dictates against it. The way the game is planned out by the manager is objectively changed for the worse as a game.

 

Also, advantages aren't always equal. Yes, the Jays might have an advantage whatwith their powerful lineup. But what about a team like the Royals? Or the Rays? Teams whose offensive output is not the strongest suit. Offensive advantage only helps in theory if all the clubs have an equal offensive output. If not, the advantage is hugely weighted in the favour of the team with the more potent bats.

 

There is more than one way to win a baseball game, including having a superb pitching staff. Your suggestion threatens to limit the extent to which a pitching-centric team can compete.

 

I think you're probably overestimating the effect a little bit here anyway. Games that are 4-3 today won't become 11-9 tomorrow just because teams lose a few platoon matchups. But again, as I said above, I've never heard anyone complain that a game had too many lead changes. Back and forth games are exciting, no?

 

It's not about 4-3 becoming 11-9 - it's about teams being hamstrung in being able to maintain a lead or hold the other team to only a small lead.

 

And how have you not heard anyone complain a game has too many lead changes? No one wants to see their home team lose a lead. No one in Toronto will be cheering if the Red Sox make a comeback against Brett Cecil in the 8th, man.

[King]

Jon Morosi ‏@jonmorosi 1m1 minute ago

#Reds announce 4-year deal with Devin Mesoraco.

[BlueJayWay]

But this is what I'm saying - can you give me a good reason for tampering with the mechanics of baseball that isn't just entertainment value? You're suggesting that external issues should impact the actual rules of the game. Why is removing bullpen strategy a good thing, outside of impatience?

I think we're gonna be talking a bit past each other because we don't see this the same way. I think the entertainment value of baseball is an important thing to keep in mind. Speaking personally, I don't need to see managers micromanaging their pens late in games in a way that causes these kind of interruptions. If they can be reduced with only a slight tweak in rules, then I'm fine with that.

 

Most fans, in Toronto for example, tune in to watch the Jays play. Allowing the other team to come back against the Jays and win is bad TV. You're preventing the team from utilizing its roster smartly, increasing the chance that the game will get blown.

But again, a rule like this wouldn't hurt the Jays generally or help anyone else generally. However much it increases the chances of the other team coming back (probably only slightly anyway), it increases the chances of the Jays coming back when they're trailing. The way things are now, it's (slightly) harder for a team to become back against the Jays, but also (slightly) harder for the Jays to come back. And that would be true for every other team in MLB as well.

 

I'm sure if the Jays were leading in the 9th inning of a game, they'd love to put their entire 25 man roster out on the field to cover all the ground. But they're not allowed to do that either and neither is anyone else.

 

Like when you say this:

 

Allowing the other team to come back against the Jays and win is bad TV.

Well, if the Jays allow the other team to come back, playing the rules that everyone else is, that sucks for them I guess. How is that different from the state of affairs right now? That's sports. There's no rule that says our guys always have to have the good things happen to them.

 

The problem is that they aren't getting the matchups they want. They aren't allowed to utilize their 25 men as efficiently as they can because Entertainment Value dictates against it. The way the game is planned out by the manager is objectively changed for the worse as a game.

Yeah, sometimes you can't always get the matchups you want. That's sports. Sometimes you're down in the ninth inning with two out and bases loaded and it's Ryan Goin's turn to bat. Sometimes the other team can't always get the matchup they want against you.

 

Right now, actually, teams aren't allowed to use their 25 man roster as efficiently as they could. For example, once a player's out of the game, he can't come back. I'm sure a manager would love to have a good pinch hitter on the bench that he could use several times in a game, as the need arose. But if he pinch hits and then is replaced in the field, he's done for the day. I think limitations of this sort makes it more interesting.

 

 

Also, advantages aren't always equal. Yes, the Jays might have an advantage whatwith their powerful lineup. But what about a team like the Royals? Or the Rays? Teams whose offensive output is not the strongest suit. Offensive advantage only helps in theory if all the clubs have an equal offensive output. If not, the advantage is hugely weighted in the favour of the team with the more potent bats.

 

There is more than one way to win a baseball game, including having a superb pitching staff. Your suggestion threatens to limit the extent to which a pitching-centric team can compete.

This is kind of a good point, but no one is forcing franchises to be built a certain way. No matter what the rules are, it's going to disadvantage somebody at some time, right? If you have a superb pitching staff it's still a superb pitching staff.

 

To turn your example around, the rule that stops teams from using the same pinch hitter over and over is limiting the extent to which a hitting-centric team (or team with one or two really good hitters on the bench) can compete. But everyone knows what the rules are when they build their team and when they go out and play.

 

 

It's not about 4-3 becoming 11-9 - it's about teams being hamstrung in being able to maintain a lead or hold the other team to only a small lead.

 

And how have you not heard anyone complain a game has too many lead changes? No one wants to see their home team lose a lead. No one in Toronto will be cheering if the Red Sox make a comeback against Brett Cecil in the 8th, man.

Here you're talking about fans complaining when a team plays badly and loses, haha. No of course they wouldn't be cheering. The fans would curse Brett Cecil for serving up that bomb to Hanley Ramirez which blew the game. Just like what would happen now. No one would complain the Jays lost because of that stupid baseball rule whereby a ball hit over the fence scores all the runners.

[intentional wok]

I think we're gonna be talking a bit past each other because we don't see this the same way. I think the entertainment value of baseball is an important thing to keep in mind. Speaking personally, I don't need to see managers micromanaging their pens late in games in a way that causes these kind of interruptions. If they can be reduced with only a slight tweak in rules, then I'm fine with that.

 

Fair enough. If you value the entertainment factor more than anything, and that factor involves watching an uninterrupted game regardless of outcome, there isn't much I can say to convince you. To each his own. But even if I grant that entertainment value is more important than the rules of the game, I still think your suggestions are problematic.

 

But again, a rule like this wouldn't hurt the Jays generally or help anyone else generally. However much it increases the chances of the other team coming back (probably only slightly anyway), it increases the chances of the Jays coming back when they're trailing. The way things are now, it's (slightly) harder for a team to become back against the Jays, but also (slightly) harder for the Jays to come back. And that would be true for every other team in MLB as well.

 

It's actually not harder for the Jays to come back. It's easier for them than for other teams because of their potent lineup. It will, however, be harder for them to maintain the reclaimed lead once it's their turn to pitch.

 

But even granting that the (dis)advantages are completely equalized, it doesn't follow that the rules are then good rules. The pitching staffs of both teams are being saddled with a disadvantage. It fundamentally changes the balance of the two sides of the game.

 

I'm sure if the Jays were leading in the 9th inning of a game, they'd love to put their entire 25 man roster out on the field to cover all the ground. But they're not allowed to do that either and neither is anyone else.

 

Well... no. There are positioning rules that prevent that. There's nothing preventing the team from replacing their outfielders with pitchers if they choose to. I'm really not clear on the argument you're trying to make with this comment. Can you clarify it?

 

Well, if the Jays allow the other team to come back, playing the rules that everyone else is, that sucks for them I guess. How is that different from the state of affairs right now? That's sports. There's no rule that says our guys always have to have the good things happen to them.

 

The difference is that if the Jays lose a lead now, it's because the pitcher Gibbons wanted screwed it all up. Not because a rule said a guy suddenly needs to put in a certain amount of work. In no other aspect of the game is this kind of thing enforced. The problem is that the rule removes control for personnel decisions. Would you balance it out by banning pinch hitting during the three-batter stretch, or banning pinch hitting altogether?

 

Yeah, sometimes you can't always get the matchups you want. That's sports. Sometimes you're down in the ninth inning with two out and bases loaded and it's Ryan Goin's turn to bat. Sometimes the other team can't always get the matchup they want against you.

 

Again, this isn't the point. No - you can't always get the matchup you want, but there's a difference between setting a batting lineup before the game and being prevented from reacting to the game because bullpen usage comes with red tape that the other parts of the team don't. Gibbons is free to swap Goins for whoever else is on the bench. He's not stuck with using him if he's got resources available. This freedom is allowed by the rules, so it's not unfair. Strict, but not unfair. A minimum workload for a RP would be unfair in the current environment of the game.

 

Right now, actually, teams aren't allowed to use their 25 man roster as efficiently as they could. For example, once a player's out of the game, he can't come back. I'm sure a manager would love to have a good pinch hitter on the bench that he could use several times in a game, as the need arose. But if he pinch hits and then is replaced in the field, he's done for the day. I think limitations of this sort makes it more interesting.

 

They do, but losing a player due to a replacement is a consequence of the manager's decision and it's only limited to that player. Putting a restriction on a relief pitcher means that the entire bullpen is unusable for three entire plate appearances. The offensive equivalent would be to force a pinch hitter to play the position of the guy he's replacing during the next inning and not permitting another PH in this spot for x amount of game time, which would be ridiculous.

 

This is kind of a good point, but no one is forcing franchises to be built a certain way. No matter what the rules are, it's going to disadvantage somebody at some time, right? If you have a superb pitching staff it's still a superb pitching staff.

 

But your proposed rules will force franchises to build themselves a certain way. You can't create rules that greatly favour one style of play and then expect teams to try and win in a completely counter-intuitive way.

 

And a superb pitching staff becomes less superb if it can't be used efficiently. There's nowhere to go but down when imposing the disadvantage you're suggesting.

 

To turn your example around, the rule that stops teams from using the same pinch hitter over and over is limiting the extent to which a hitting-centric team (or team with one or two really good hitters on the bench) can compete. But everyone knows what the rules are when they build their team and when they go out and play.

 

But this limitation is totally congruous with the rest of the ruleset of the game. There's no specific restriction being imposed on the lineup that isn't also being imposed on the opponent's pitching staff - that is, you can use a guy at any time and remove him just as quickly if you'd like. Or you can keep him in for 20 more innings if you want. Whatever. But you will lose his services for the rest of the game if you remove him, which is how the game functions for every body on the field. It's completely fair.

 

Your example doesn't even work, though, because the same rule that says the same pinch hitter cannot be used over and over also does not permit the same relief pitcher to come in later on after he's been taken out.

 

Here you're talking about fans complaining when a team plays badly and loses, haha. No of course they wouldn't be cheering. The fans would curse Brett Cecil for serving up that bomb to Hanley Ramirez which blew the game. Just like what would happen now. No one would complain the Jays lost because of that stupid baseball rule whereby a ball hit over the fence scores all the runners.

 

Yeah, they would, because the rule forced Cecil to pitch to Ramirez. If Cecil coughs one up without the RP rule, it's because it was Gibbons' decision to have him pitch to Ramirez. But if Cecil comes in to face Ortiz and then coughs one up to Ramirez, who he was forced to face because of a rule, the outcome is partially due to the fact that Gibbons wasn't able to use his personnel as effectively as he would have wanted to. Gibbons had no way to counter this, even though baseball completely hinges on pitch-by-pitch strategy.

 

Look, I get that you value the speed and entertainment value of the game. But what you're suggesting is not congruous with the way the rest of the game works. It actually breaks the game a little bit by implementing restrictions into a play environment that is inherently based around adapting to the implications of every single pitch.

Edited January 27, 2015 by intentional wok

[Spanky__99]

Wow!

[burlingtonbandit]

whoever actually read those posts deserves a prize.

[Spanky__99]

whoever actually read those posts deserves a prize.

 

What do I get?

[intentional wok]

whoever actually read those posts deserves a prize.

 

This is the most disheartening thing I've read all day.

[burlingtonbandit]

This is the most disheartening thing I've read all day.

 

haha didn't mean to offend. It just looked so hard to read because of all the quotes and writing in between everything.

[burlingtonbandit]

What do I get?

 

The opportunity to trade me all your good players in fantasy hockey.

[Spanky__99]

I think what they're doing is appropriate. He's an entitled twat, best thing to do is humble him right now. An in person apology at this point down the road would just seem like special treatment.

 

I'd put him on the bus in spring training and make him ride to every away game with the kids.

 

I think he's owed significant $ in bonuses for passing Mays in career HR too (needs 660). I'd definitely consider just releasing him outright if he looks like garbage in spring. He probably will look like garbage too.

 

They're certainly f***ing with him, lol.

 

http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/story/_/id/12231547/new-york-yankees-devising-legal-arguments-alex-rodriguez-able-collect-bonuses

 

Why am I laughing...he's my 3rd baseman? #LoD

[intentional wok]

haha didn't mean to offend. It just looked so hard to read because of all the quotes and writing in between everything.

 

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/27302033.jpg

[Spanky__99]

The opportunity to trade me all your good players in fantasy hockey.

 

Shouldn't this be the other way around? *shakes fist* It's my gift!!!

[RealAccountant]

I'm convinced Shields is going to be a RedSox

[Sammy225]

I'm convinced Shields is going to be a RedSox

 

I have a feeling that SD would be the best fit for him. They get him i think they are a playoff club not to mention their rotation is thin. I don't know if the money is there for them but also him saying he wants to pitch in the west makes me think he is going to the NL like everyone else.

[BlueJayWay]

Fair enough. If you value the entertainment factor more than anything, and that factor involves watching an uninterrupted game regardless of outcome, there isn't much I can say to convince you. To each his own. But even if I grant that entertainment value is more important than the rules of the game, I still think your suggestions are problematic.

Okay....

 

 

It's actually not harder for the Jays to come back. It's easier for them than for other teams because of their potent lineup. It will, however, be harder for them to maintain the reclaimed lead once it's their turn to pitch.

Yeah, it seems you keep insisting on seeing this from a 'Blue Jays in 2015' perspective rather than MLB as a whole. I guess it might be slightly harder to maintain a reclaimed lead once it's the Jays turn to pitch, but again, that would be true for all the teams.

 

If a side effect of the proposed rule change is that it might increase offense a little in the later innings, then yes, I agree it might. But every team in baseball would be playing under the same rules, so what's the problem? Do you think it's unfair?

 

But even granting that the (dis)advantages are completely equalized, it doesn't follow that the rules are then good rules. The pitching staffs of both teams are being saddled with a disadvantage. It fundamentally changes the balance of the two sides of the game.

 

Yes, the pitching staffs are saddled with a little bit of an disadvantage. I think you're probably overestimating the shift. But in any case, I don't really see anyone complaining about too much offense in baseball right now anyway. The rule would apply to all the teams, just like all the other rules.

 

I don't feel like going through it all line by line, because it seems to just be a variation on the same thing and this is already getting way too long, haha. So to try to cut this shorter:

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I can tell, what you don't like about such a proposed rule is that it limits a manager's ability to make use of the roster he has. It ties his hands and makes it a bit harder to close out a lead or keep a deficit small in the late innings. Is that right?

 

If that's what you're saying, then I agree. It probably does do that, a little bit. But I don't see what the problem is supposed to be if it's applied to all the teams, which it of course would be.

 

 

Well... no. There are positioning rules that prevent that. There's nothing preventing the team from replacing their outfielders with pitchers if they choose to. I'm really not clear on the argument you're trying to make with this comment. Can you clarify it?

 

Sure. I think this might be the crux of the issue. What I mean is that there are already limits to what a team can do in a game. There are rules in baseball like in any other game. How would a relief pitcher minimum batter rule (or however it would be done) be any different?

 

I'm just going to comment on a couple of things because it'll get repetitive if I go through every single thing...

 

 

 

Gibbons is free to swap Goins for whoever else is on the bench. He's not stuck with using him if he's got resources available. This freedom is allowed by the rules, so it's not unfair. Strict, but not unfair. A minimum workload for a RP would be unfair in the current environment of the game.

Why would a minimum for a RP be unfair? I could say that that is also strict, but not unfair. It applies to everybody.

 

 

The offensive equivalent would be to force a pinch hitter to play the position of the guy he's replacing during the next inning and not permitting another PH in this spot for x amount of game time, which would be ridiculous.

I guess that would be the offensive equivalent. I don't see why that would have to be ridiculous on the face of it, but such a rule is not needed anyway because it doesn't stop the game for several minutes in the middle of an inning.

 

 

But your proposed rules will force franchises to build themselves a certain way. You can't create rules that greatly favour one style of play and then expect teams to try and win in a completely counter-intuitive way.

 

And a superb pitching staff becomes less superb if it can't be used efficiently. There's nowhere to go but down when imposing the disadvantage you're suggesting.

The rule applies to everybody. If team A has a superb pitching staff and team B's staff is trash, then it's still true in a relative way. I'm not sure what you mean there's nowhere to go but 'down'?

 

 

 

But this limitation is totally congruous with the rest of the ruleset of the game. There's no specific restriction being imposed on the lineup that isn't also being imposed on the opponent's pitching staff - that is, you can use a guy at any time and remove him just as quickly if you'd like. Or you can keep him in for 20 more innings if you want. Whatever. But you will lose his services for the rest of the game if you remove him, which is how the game functions for every body on the field. It's completely fair.

Right. I'm not sure what you're arguing here. The same restrictions apply equally to both teams - as would be the case for the RP thing. To use your last sentence, if the manager chooses to bring in a RP in the middle of an inning, he has to face the next X number of hitters, which is how the game functions for the other team as well.

 

Your example doesn't even work, though, because the same rule that says the same pinch hitter cannot be used over and over also does not permit the same relief pitcher to come in later on after he's been taken out.

Yeah. Sorry I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. There's a restriction - if you remove a player from the game (say a guy after he pinch hits) or a relief pitcher is replaced, then he can't come back in later. But that restriction applies to everybody. In a way it forces a less than efficient use of a roster - if you had a guy like Rajai Davis on the bench, you'd love to be able to pinch run him every inning and keep bringing him back as needed, but you can't. But that's the restriction and it applies to every team.

 

 

But if Cecil comes in to face Ortiz and then coughs one up to Ramirez, who he was forced to face because of a rule, the outcome is partially due to the fact that Gibbons wasn't able to use his personnel as effectively as he would have wanted to.

Yes, you're not wrong. The outcome is partially because Gibbons was somewhat restricted in that scenario. Of course, if he didn't want Cecil facing Ramirez, then he could have had a righty in before, who would have had to face Ortiz. It's a pick your poison, and fun to debate about.

 

But the larger point is this: there are many situations where teams aren't able to use their personnel as effectively as they would want (see Raja Davis example above) because the rules of the game don't allow them to.

 

To go back to that Ortiz hypothetical, let's say you bring in Cecil to face him, and he walks him. Now you have Hanley coming up. Let's say the Jays had a really good ROOGY type guy on the roster who would be perfect for that situation to close the game out, but you've already used him the last inning and he's out of the game. So now you have the choice of leaving Cecil in there or going to somebody like Dustin freaking McGowan. Whether you leave Cecil in and he gives up the bomb, or you go to McGowan and he gives it up, you could say that 'Gibbons wasn't able to use his personnel as effectively as he would have wanted to.' He really wanted super ROOGY in there. But those are also the rules of the game and everybody plays under the same. If that situation happened in real life, Jays fans wouldn't be like "Oh what a dumb rule that baseball has that stopped us from bringing ROOGY back in!", they would curse Cecil/McGowan for giving up the dinger or Gibbons for not using the guy he didn't.

 

 

Sorry this ended up being longer than I expected. I just want to say that there are restrictions in baseball, just like in any sport and in any game. They aren't necessarily bad things.

Edited January 27, 2015 by BlueJayWay

[LunchBox]

whoever actually read those posts deserves a prize.

 

Intentional wok- the new Moogy- making compelling points but in the form of dissertations and without an obvious personality disorder.

[intentional wok]

without an obvious personality disorder.

 

My girlfriend would laugh right in your face at this comment. I'm basically a child in a man's (bigger child's?) body.

[LunchBox]

My girlfriend would laugh right in your face at this comment. I'm basically a child in a man's (bigger child's?) body.

 

Nevertheless, awareness of how others perceive him:

intentional wok- 1

Moogy- 0

[Deadpool]

My girlfriend would laugh right in your face at this comment. I'm basically a child in a man's (bigger child's?) body.

 

That's the only way to live life, man!

 

Obligatory "Phrasing!" on the "child in a man's body", natch...

[TwistedLogic]

Stephen R Brooks | ‏@sbrooksbaseball (2:44 PM):

First day of new turf install.

 

[Laika]

I am soooooo excited about the new turf!

* said nobody ever

[bronson44]

Intentional wok- the new Moogy- making compelling points but in the form of dissertations and without an obvious personality disorder.

 

Looks like your boy could be heading back to the ALE:

Orioles, Pirates Discussing Travis Snider Trade http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/?p=46437

[jaysfan2014]

Travis Snider to the O's?

 

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/orioles/blog/bal-orioles-rekindle-trade-talks-with-pirates-about-snider-20150127-story.html

[LunchBox]

Looks like your boy could be heading back to the ALE:

Orioles, Pirates Discussing Travis Snider Trade http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/?p=46437

 

Never felt any shame for keeping the LunchBox handle even after Snider fell short of expectations. However, after the events of the last few weeks and the new Oriole presence on the board, if Snider becomes an O I'll probably do the fashionable thing and shorten my screen-name to LB, like my irresolute predecessors BTS, GD and RKF.

 

Under no circumstances will I change the Snider-Lawrie pedo-stache avatar though.

[intentional wok]

Alright, apologies to everyone getting sick of my f***ing dissertations. I can't help myself. I promise this will be the last one since I think I've made all my points.

 

Yeah, it seems you keep insisting on seeing this from a 'Blue Jays in 2015' perspective rather than MLB as a whole. I guess it might be slightly harder to maintain a reclaimed lead once it's the Jays turn to pitch, but again, that would be true for all the teams.

 

If a side effect of the proposed rule change is that it might increase offense a little in the later innings, then yes, I agree it might. But every team in baseball would be playing under the same rules, so what's the problem? Do you think it's unfair?

 

YES. It would be unfair because the bullpen is expected to perform with restrictions that no other player on the team has to. It's not about if every team has to use the same rules, it's the rules themselves. The 7-9th innings suddenly become the hurdle-jumping innings for every team. Universal restrictions do not necessarily equal fair rules.

 

It is fair in the vague, external sense that every team has to play with the rules. But it isn't fair within the actual game itself that the relief staff should be hampered with rule-enforced disadvantages their opponents can immediately and obviously capitalize on. I know you already agree with me because you say this:

 

Yes, the pitching staffs are saddled with a little bit of an disadvantage. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I can tell, what you don't like about such a proposed rule is that it limits a manager's ability to make use of the roster he has. It ties his hands and makes it a bit harder to close out a lead or keep a deficit small in the late innings. Is that right?

 

If that's what you're saying, then I agree. It probably does do that, a little bit.

 

This is exactly my beef.

 

But I don't see what the problem is supposed to be if it's applied to all the teams, which it of course would be.

 

Again, yes, it's fair because it's applied to each. But the issue is that the rule is itself unfair within the game those teams will be playing. This is the important distinction - it's not that everyone is subject to the same rule, it's that the rule shifts the balance of the game and actively places a disadvantage on the bullpen. It is an artificial conceit because there are no other rules quite like it within the game. This obviously leads to your next question:

 

What I mean is that there are already limits to what a team can do in a game. There are rules in baseball like in any other game. How would a relief pitcher minimum batter rule (or however it would be done) be any different?

 

Because the rules of the game all work in sync with one another. Players can be swapped in or out at any time and for any length of time. This is because the game works on a move-by-move basis. Each pitch has ramifications on the defensive alignment. Each new batter brings an entirely new challenge, which becomes complicated if there are runners on base (including the ability of those runners and whatever combination of bases they're standing on). Also, because every play - every pitch - comes with such an significant element of chance, the game is also about making small moves and adjustments to bolster the percentages in your side's favour.

 

So, why then is a RP rule unfair? Because it removes the intricacy of management on which the rest of the game is built. It restricts decision making. It essentially forces the manager to miss three turns. It inherently rewards the opposing team and punishes the team who is going to the bullpen.

 

I guess that would be the offensive equivalent. I don't see why that would have to be ridiculous on the face of it, but such a rule is not needed anyway because it doesn't stop the game for several minutes in the middle of an inning.

 

Here is the problem. Your argument for this rule is based on your perception about the pace of the game, not its mechanical necessity to the game. The RP rule is not needed because a baseball game cannot be stopped. The broadcast sure can, and I don't blame you for getting impatient (I hate ads too), but you're introducing a rule because you're impatient. You don't feel the need to add batting lineup restrictions, but only because you're not put out by the pace of a pinch hitter swap. Every argument you're making is to justify a reduction in watching commercials, which are totally external to the game itself.

 

If team A has a superb pitching staff and team B's staff is trash, then it's still true in a relative way. I'm not sure what you mean there's nowhere to go but 'down'?

 

I mean that a disadvantage is a disadvantage. A team will not ever be better off with a disadvantage. They're inherently less likely to succeed. Disadvantages aren't going to foster bullpen success. At the absolute most hopeful best, it can only be a neutral change. More likely (so likely that it's pretty much a certainty) is that teams are going to get burned over and over and over again. It's giving the offensive team the baseball equivalent of a NHL penalty shot - a situation in which they are disallowed from adapting to the game as it is normally played.

 

 

Right. I'm not sure what you're arguing here. The same restrictions apply equally - as would be the case for the RP thing. To use your last sentence, if the manager chooses to bring in a RP in the middle of an inning, he has to face the next X number of hitters, which is how the game functions for every body on the field. It's completely fair as well.

 

No. It's not fair. No position player is forced to put in x amount of work. This is not how baseball works - the restrictions DO NOT apply equally.

 

 

Yeah. Sorry I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.

 

You argued that it's unfair that a manager can't re-use the same pinch hitter in different slots in the order. I'm saying that it's not unfair because the one-use-per-player rule is universal through the game. Once a guy is in – relief pitcher, pinch hitter, defensive replacement, whatever – he stays in for as long or as short a time as he's needed.

 

There's a restriction - if you remove a player from the game (say a guy after he pinch hits) or a relief pitcher is replaced, then he can't come back in later. But that restriction applies to everybody. In a way it forces a less than efficient use of a roster - if you had a guy like Rajai Davis on the bench, you'd love to be able to pinch run him every inning and keep bringing him back as needed, but you can't. But that's the restriction and it applies to every team.

 

Correct. Exactly. The natural restrictions of the game do in fact force an certain use of the roster. But the difference between these restrictions and the proposed RP rule is that the restrictions are universally applied from the start of every game. The RP rule only restricts the bullpen, and nothing can balance that. And no, before you say it again, “everyone facing the same rule” doesn't balance it. Baseball is not bullpens vs. bullpens. It's bullpens vs. hitters, and the hitters will get the edge every single time by the definition of this rule.

 

Also, before anyone suggests that a PH must at least have one more plate appearance or some such, know that the opposing bullpen can easily counter the eventuality. Using Adam Lind as the PH for an example – if he were forced by the rules to require another plate appearance (despite there being a RHH still on the bench), the opposing bullpen prepping a LOOGY for Lind now gets an artificial advantage. It would just be another type of unfairness, this time against the hitters. Since the dynamics of a baseball game are about two completely differently-performing forces going against each other, the only way to balance it all is to just ensure that the personnel rules remain constant for both sides.

 

 

Yes, you're not wrong. The outcome is partially because Gibbons was somewhat restricted in that scenario. Of course, if he didn't want Cecil facing Ramirez, then he could have had a righty in before, who would have had to face Ortiz. It's a pick your poison, and fun to debate about.

 

It's pick your poison, yeah, but it's still just ends up being deciding when to let the rule-dictated disadvantage affect your team.

 

But the larger point is this: there are many situations where teams aren't able to use their personnel as effectively as they would want (see Raja Davis example above) because the rules of the game don't allow them to.

 

But these rules are applied to every facet of the game, and are completely fair.

 

To go back to that Ortiz hypothetical, let's say you bring in Cecil to face him, and he walks him. Now you have Hanley coming up. Let's say the Jays had a really good ROOGY type guy on the roster who would be perfect for that situation to close the game out, but you've already used him the last inning and he's out of the game. So now you have the choice of leaving Cecil in there or going to somebody like Dustin freaking McGowan. Whether you leave Cecil in and he gives up the bomb, or you go to McGowan and he gives it up, you could say that 'Gibbons wasn't able to use his personnel as effectively as he would have wanted to.' He really wanted super ROOGY in there. But those are also the rules of the game and everybody plays under the same. If that situation happened in real life, Jays fans wouldn't be like "Oh what a dumb rule that baseball has that stopped us from bringing ROOGY back in!", they would curse Cecil/McGowan for giving up the dinger or Gibbons for not using the guy he didn't.

 

Yes, Gibbons would be completely able to use his personnel effectively. He coult totally bring in McGowan if he wanted to. That's the point. He can make the decisions he wants when he wants, with the only caveat being that once a player exits the game he is done for the day (which universally applies to every player on the field). If McGowan botches it, or if Cecil botches it because Gibbons doesn't trust McGowan, the point is that he was free to make that decision to have the man he wants facing Ramirez.

 

If your argument that a RP rule would be no different than standard player-swap rules, that's a weak support. The player-swap rule applies to every player on the two rosters. The RP rule applies to only about half of them. Standard player rules are about resource management. The RP rule is just an enforced imbalance.

 

Sorry this ended up being longer than I expected. I just want to say that there are restrictions in baseball, just like in any sport and in any game. They aren't necessarily bad things.

 

But the restrictions in baseball are crucial to how the game plays and for equal treatment for every player on the field. The restriction you're proposing imbalances the game, and, by your admission, all for the sake of eliminating too many commercial breaks. It is a bad thing.

[bronson44]

Never felt any shame for keeping the LunchBox handle even after Snider fell short of expectations. However, after the events of the last few weeks and the new Oriole presence on the board, if Snider becomes an O I'll probably do the fashionable thing and shorten my screen-name to LB, like my irresolute predecessors BTS, GD and RKF.

 

Under no circumstances will I change the Snider-Lawrie pedo-stache avatar though.

 

I'll have to finally park my Snider jersey.

[LunchBox]

I'll have to finally park my Snider jersey.

 

I'm going to wear mine as a designated eating uniform. Get it nice and stained, wear it to steakhouses and such.

[Angrioter]

Navarro+ for Snider

 

 

Do it Alex, do it!!

[jaysfan2014]

Navarro+ for Snider

 

 

Do it Alex, do it!!

 

Too much. The O's themselves don't want to pay 2 prospects: