Manfred looking at relief pitcher limits in game

[Dick_Pole]

"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."

 

Ok, the way he said it was dumb, but I think what he was trying to get at here is that relief pitchers tend to pitch above their true talent level because of their limited and specialized roles. I can see the merits of wanting to expose Randy Choate's dumb career.

 

The argument "well, what about pinch hitters?" has been made. It's not the same thing. Realistically a team would have two, maybe three guys who are worthy of pinch hitting opportunities with a backup catcher and a utility infielder comprising the rest of the bench. But there are 7 or 8 relievers so a manager has a lot of potential to overuse/abuse pitching changes throughout the game.

 

To me, part of the charm of baseball is being able to manage limited resources in order to win a game. The 7-8 man bullpen is basically a bottomless pit in any game that the starter went at least 6 innings. Instead of a manager managing his bullpen for the next hitter, Manfred might be challenging him to manage for the next three hitters. I don't see anything all that wrong with that but judging the reaction in this thread I guess I'm in the minority on this one.

 

EDIT: I don't even care about the length of time pitching changes take. I just find it kind of lame that a pitcher comes in just for one batter....then the next pitcher is used in the same way.

[Orgfiller]

Max one pickoff throw to 1st is kinda stupid.

 

That would completely eliminate the strategy of the pickoff move. One throw over and then the runners take off every time.

[flafson]

Max one pickoff throw to 1st is kinda stupid.

 

Yup, might as well just ban pickoff attempts all together.

[Maahfaace]

My gawd Steve Philips is an idiot.....

 

"A New Idea

Commissioner Rob Manfred mentioned this week that MLB is looking at the possibility of limiting the use of relief pitchers in games. Citing the fact that pitching changes slow the game down and that the relievers are dominant, he confirmed that the subject has been talked about internally.

I am in favour of changes which can improve the pace of the game. But I am not in favour of tying the hands of a manager when he is trying to win the game. He should be able to use whatever personnel he has available in any way he desires.

There are all kinds of opinions out there as to how to improve the pace of play: limiting pitching changes, make pitchers face multiple batters, limit mound visits, shorten the game to seven innings, etc.

I have a plan which solves multiple problems that currently exist in the game today. My plan, hereby known as The Phillips Plan, will speed the pace of play, lead to fewer pitching changes and keep pitchers healthier while still playing a full nine innings.

It is a simple plan that changes only one main aspect of the game: instead of playing with four balls earning a walk and three strikes leading to a strikeout, the new plan will allow three balls for a walk and two strikes for a strikeout. Effectively, that starts every at-bat like the hitter has 1-1 count based upon the current rules.

 

Did you know that so far this year, 39.5 per cent of all plate appearances reach a 1-1 count? So effectively for 40 per cent of the plate appearances we would be eliminating the time taken for the first two pitches of the at-bat.

The remaining 60.5 per cent of plate appearances either end before a 1-1 count (on the first or second pitch of the at-bat) or the count reaches 0-2 or 2-0 on the way to the outcome of the battle between the hitter and pitcher.

Remember pace of game doesn’t necessarily mean the time of the game. It means how much time there is between the action on the field. By changing the balls-strikes from 4-3 to 3-2 it will reduce the time between the results of every at-bat.

Based upon my calculations the new count system (3-2) will lead to the same number of walks and strikeouts as we currently have but we will get there more quickly.

In addition to increasing the pace of the game, this Plan would significantly reduce the number of pitches thrown. If a starter were to face 28 batters in a game and the numbers tell us that 40 per cent (11 batters) of those plate appearances would normally reach a 1-1 count before ultimately reaching a result, then it means that on average a pitcher could save two pitches per plate appearances. That could shave 22 pitches off of a pitcher’s total for the game. Multiply that by two for each starter and we could save the time taken to throw 44 pitches with no change in the action on the field.

So the Plan speeds the pace of play and protects pitchers' arms. It will also reduce the number of pitching changes because starters will be able to go deeper in the game because of the fewer pitches thrown. The decision to remove a pitcher because of fatigue will be pushed deeper in the game. A decision normally made after six innings may not be considered until the 8th now.

I know this sounds radical and the kneejerk reaction is that it is too different. But it solves so many of the problems without changing the results on the field. Whether a club spends $25 million on a starting pitcher or they have a young ace, the value of the asset is undeniable. Why not put the Plan in place, which protects the best players so they stay on the field more predictably?

At the very least, the Plan should be implemented in the lower minor leagues. It would protect young pitcher's arms and allow them more opportunities to learn critical pitches. Plus it could be a testing ground to confirm my belief that it wouldn’t negatively impact the game. "

 

 

http://www.tsn.ca/matter-of-time-until-jays-shift-sanchez-to-bullpen-1.530814

[Grant77]

I was just about to post the Phillips thing. What a goof.

[jaysblue]

My gawd Steve Philips is an idiot.....

 

"A New Idea

Commissioner Rob Manfred mentioned this week that MLB is looking at the possibility of limiting the use of relief pitchers in games. Citing the fact that pitching changes slow the game down and that the relievers are dominant, he confirmed that the subject has been talked about internally.

I am in favour of changes which can improve the pace of the game. But I am not in favour of tying the hands of a manager when he is trying to win the game. He should be able to use whatever personnel he has available in any way he desires.

There are all kinds of opinions out there as to how to improve the pace of play: limiting pitching changes, make pitchers face multiple batters, limit mound visits, shorten the game to seven innings, etc.

I have a plan which solves multiple problems that currently exist in the game today. My plan, hereby known as The Phillips Plan, will speed the pace of play, lead to fewer pitching changes and keep pitchers healthier while still playing a full nine innings.

It is a simple plan that changes only one main aspect of the game: instead of playing with four balls earning a walk and three strikes leading to a strikeout, the new plan will allow three balls for a walk and two strikes for a strikeout. Effectively, that starts every at-bat like the hitter has 1-1 count based upon the current rules.

 

Did you know that so far this year, 39.5 per cent of all plate appearances reach a 1-1 count? So effectively for 40 per cent of the plate appearances we would be eliminating the time taken for the first two pitches of the at-bat.

The remaining 60.5 per cent of plate appearances either end before a 1-1 count (on the first or second pitch of the at-bat) or the count reaches 0-2 or 2-0 on the way to the outcome of the battle between the hitter and pitcher.

Remember pace of game doesn’t necessarily mean the time of the game. It means how much time there is between the action on the field. By changing the balls-strikes from 4-3 to 3-2 it will reduce the time between the results of every at-bat.

Based upon my calculations the new count system (3-2) will lead to the same number of walks and strikeouts as we currently have but we will get there more quickly.

In addition to increasing the pace of the game, this Plan would significantly reduce the number of pitches thrown. If a starter were to face 28 batters in a game and the numbers tell us that 40 per cent (11 batters) of those plate appearances would normally reach a 1-1 count before ultimately reaching a result, then it means that on average a pitcher could save two pitches per plate appearances. That could shave 22 pitches off of a pitcher’s total for the game. Multiply that by two for each starter and we could save the time taken to throw 44 pitches with no change in the action on the field.

So the Plan speeds the pace of play and protects pitchers' arms. It will also reduce the number of pitching changes because starters will be able to go deeper in the game because of the fewer pitches thrown. The decision to remove a pitcher because of fatigue will be pushed deeper in the game. A decision normally made after six innings may not be considered until the 8th now.

I know this sounds radical and the kneejerk reaction is that it is too different. But it solves so many of the problems without changing the results on the field. Whether a club spends $25 million on a starting pitcher or they have a young ace, the value of the asset is undeniable. Why not put the Plan in place, which protects the best players so they stay on the field more predictably?

At the very least, the Plan should be implemented in the lower minor leagues. It would protect young pitcher's arms and allow them more opportunities to learn critical pitches. Plus it could be a testing ground to confirm my belief that it wouldn’t negatively impact the game. "

 

 

http://www.tsn.ca/matter-of-time-until-jays-shift-sanchez-to-bullpen-1.530814

 

http://replygif.net/i/1166.gif

[RealAccountant]

Barker made a good point on the radio about defensive shifts. If there is a change its there.

[jays_fever]

lol lot's of beer leagues start their counts 1-1 to get all the innings in and well it works since all you're really trying to do is hit the first strike you see.

 

50 bucks says that's where this goof got this idea and thought he'd run it by the MLB

[Sammy225]

My gawd Steve Philips is an idiot.....

 

"A New Idea

Commissioner Rob Manfred mentioned this week that MLB is looking at the possibility of limiting the use of relief pitchers in games. Citing the fact that pitching changes slow the game down and that the relievers are dominant, he confirmed that the subject has been talked about internally.

I am in favour of changes which can improve the pace of the game. But I am not in favour of tying the hands of a manager when he is trying to win the game. He should be able to use whatever personnel he has available in any way he desires.

There are all kinds of opinions out there as to how to improve the pace of play: limiting pitching changes, make pitchers face multiple batters, limit mound visits, shorten the game to seven innings, etc.

I have a plan which solves multiple problems that currently exist in the game today. My plan, hereby known as The Phillips Plan, will speed the pace of play, lead to fewer pitching changes and keep pitchers healthier while still playing a full nine innings.

It is a simple plan that changes only one main aspect of the game: instead of playing with four balls earning a walk and three strikes leading to a strikeout, the new plan will allow three balls for a walk and two strikes for a strikeout. Effectively, that starts every at-bat like the hitter has 1-1 count based upon the current rules.

 

Did you know that so far this year, 39.5 per cent of all plate appearances reach a 1-1 count? So effectively for 40 per cent of the plate appearances we would be eliminating the time taken for the first two pitches of the at-bat.

The remaining 60.5 per cent of plate appearances either end before a 1-1 count (on the first or second pitch of the at-bat) or the count reaches 0-2 or 2-0 on the way to the outcome of the battle between the hitter and pitcher.

Remember pace of game doesn’t necessarily mean the time of the game. It means how much time there is between the action on the field. By changing the balls-strikes from 4-3 to 3-2 it will reduce the time between the results of every at-bat.

Based upon my calculations the new count system (3-2) will lead to the same number of walks and strikeouts as we currently have but we will get there more quickly.

In addition to increasing the pace of the game, this Plan would significantly reduce the number of pitches thrown. If a starter were to face 28 batters in a game and the numbers tell us that 40 per cent (11 batters) of those plate appearances would normally reach a 1-1 count before ultimately reaching a result, then it means that on average a pitcher could save two pitches per plate appearances. That could shave 22 pitches off of a pitcher’s total for the game. Multiply that by two for each starter and we could save the time taken to throw 44 pitches with no change in the action on the field.

So the Plan speeds the pace of play and protects pitchers' arms. It will also reduce the number of pitching changes because starters will be able to go deeper in the game because of the fewer pitches thrown. The decision to remove a pitcher because of fatigue will be pushed deeper in the game. A decision normally made after six innings may not be considered until the 8th now.

I know this sounds radical and the kneejerk reaction is that it is too different. But it solves so many of the problems without changing the results on the field. Whether a club spends $25 million on a starting pitcher or they have a young ace, the value of the asset is undeniable. Why not put the Plan in place, which protects the best players so they stay on the field more predictably?

At the very least, the Plan should be implemented in the lower minor leagues. It would protect young pitcher's arms and allow them more opportunities to learn critical pitches. Plus it could be a testing ground to confirm my belief that it wouldn’t negatively impact the game. "

 

 

http://www.tsn.ca/matter-of-time-until-jays-shift-sanchez-to-bullpen-1.530814

 

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/idjut.gif

[fatcowxlive]

No way the MLBPA will approve this, this will lower the value of relievers. I wouldn't worry, both the PA and Comissioner will bring up stupid things that won't fly because it's almost CBA negotiations season.

 

I do however approve the no commercial breaks. If you're warming in the BP you should be brought in with no need to warm up even more. Only in case of an injury. speeds up the clock by at least 1 minute each switch

[fatcowxlive]

Barker made a good point on the radio about defensive shifts. If there is a change its there.

 

I think something will happen to shifts. MLB always wants more offence and the MLBPA is always up for improving value of players. Preventing extreme shifts like only 2 people on each side of the infield before the pitch is thrown will probably happen. It gives the space to do a 'wheelplay' type of play where as the pitch comes in the infielders can shift into an extreme shift, but liners and hard hit balls will be hard to make on the move

[KevinGregg]

I think something will happen to shifts. MLB always wants more offence and the MLBPA is always up for improving value of players. Preventing extreme shifts like only 2 people on each side of the infield before the pitch is thrown will probably happen. It gives the space to do a 'wheelplay' type of play where as the pitch comes in the infielders can shift into an extreme shift, but liners and hard hit balls will be hard to make on the move

 

Absolutely horrible idea. Players can stand where ever the hell they want and that is fantastic. Want 9 infielders and no one in the outfield? fine.

[fatcowxlive]

Absolutely horrible idea. Players can stand where ever the hell they want and that is fantastic. Want 9 infielders and no one in the outfield? fine.

It's not my idea, I really could care less if there's a shift or not I'm saying ideas if they want to eliminate it.

[Dick_Pole]

Somebody needs to do some SEO so the first 20 pages when you Google "The Phillips Plan" is nothing but pics of Steve Phillips eating a bunch of dildos.

[burlingtonbandit]

Funny thing is they say they want to speed up the game and increase offence. Well if you increase offence thats going to slow the game down. That 1-1 idea is so f***in bad. Such a massive fundamental chance to the game and all that would do is increase strikeouts.

 

Seems like a few minor changes can be made to speed the game up. Reducing warm up pitches, eliminating throwing pitches on intentional walks, and finally speeding up the review process. So many times you can make the decision if its out or safe in like 20 seconds yet the review takes 5 min.

[burlingtonbandit]

Not even sure why MLB wants to speed up the game considering how much $ are in the TV contracts. You would be reducing commercial time which just decreased the value of the product. I agree being at the games can be long but when I watch on TV I really don't notice the time much.

[KingKat]

If you want to speed up the game, the worst thing you could is suppress defensive strategies like shifts and pitching specialists. Better run prevention makes the game shorter not longer. Focus on eliminating actual dead time instead of penalizing strategic progress.

[Dick_Pole]

If you want to speed up the game, the worst thing you could is suppress defensive strategies like shifts and pitching specialists. Better run prevention makes the game shorter not longer. Focus on eliminating actual dead time instead of penalizing strategic progress.

 

Let's say MLB puts in a minimum three batter rule for pitchers and works out all the kinks surrounding that, injury exceptions or whatever. How does that penalize strategic process? If anything I would think it increases strategic process because right now that strategic process is mostly limited to switching pitchers of opposite handedness to take advantage of left-left or right-right matchups. There's really not much thinking involved in that.

 

Now using an example. If there's two left-handed batters coming up and a real lefty-masher after them, does the manager take the risk of putting in his LOOGY or does he stick with what he has, or put in someone else? Or even better, does he use his reliever that has enough talent to get all three batters out? I find that thought process to be much more strategic.

[nmrch]

Homeruns are way up in the last couple of years with the juiced balls, and offence is picking up, what problem is the MLB trying to solve? And the idea that relievers hurt with the excitement at the end of games makes no sense. What is Manfred talking about? An ace bullpen can keep the score closeif you're behind and give your offence a chance to come back just as likely as it is to close the door on the other team when you're up 2 in the 6th inning.

[nmrch]

Seems like a few minor changes can be made to speed the game up. Reducing warm up pitches, eliminating throwing pitches on intentional walks, and finally speeding up the review process. So many times you can make the decision if its out or safe in like 20 seconds yet the review takes 5 min.

 

And limit pitcher-catcher meetings to 1 per inning and maximum of 5 for the game. Same thing with those manager-pitcher meetings and the pitching coach- pitcher meetings.

[Grant77]

Let's say MLB puts in a minimum three batter rule for pitchers and works out all the kinks surrounding that, injury exceptions or whatever. How does that penalize strategic process? If anything I would think it increases strategic process because right now that strategic process is mostly limited to switching pitchers of opposite handedness to take advantage of left-left or right-right matchups. There's really not much thinking involved in that.

 

Now using an example. If there's two left-handed batters coming up and a real lefty-masher after them, does the manager take the risk of putting in his LOOGY or does he stick with what he has, or put in someone else? Or even better, does he use his reliever that has enough talent to get all three batters out? I find that thought process to be much more strategic.

 

I get what you're saying, but I still can't support any changes. I like that baseball is still played the same way as it was over 100 years ago. I like that anything can happen, every decision can be questioned.

 

Changing the fabric of the game just doesn't sit well with me. I don't even agree with the recent ones made for 'player safety' so you can imagine how I'd feel about a change made for sponsors.

[Cyborg]

I get what you're saying, but I still can't support any changes. I like that baseball is still played the same way as it was over 100 years ago. I like that anything can happen, every decision can be questioned.

 

Changing the fabric of the game just doesn't sit well with me. I don't even agree with the recent ones made for 'player safety' so you can imagine how I'd feel about a change made for sponsors.

You dont care about player safety?

[Grant77]

You dont care about player safety?

 

I welcome equipment changes and things of that nature, but I don't support overreactions to fluke injuries that change the way the game is played.

[Jimcanuck]

Homeruns are way up in the last couple of years with the juiced balls, and offence is picking up, what problem is the MLB trying to solve? And the idea that relievers hurt with the excitement at the end of games makes no sense. What is Manfred talking about? An ace bullpen can keep the score closeif you're behind and give your offence a chance to come back just as likely as it is to close the door on the other team when you're up 2 in the 6th inning.

 

Juiced balls.... reminds me

 

My next door neighbour growing up in London, ON was a childhood friend and later a top executive with Rawlings. http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2004/06/28/smallb1.html

 

So anyway, he was on Saturday Night Baseball or something on a US network and was asked about juiced balls. This was back when Sosa and McGwire were having their HR title races. So Jon pulls out a Rawlings ball, cuts it in half, holds it up and says "see any juice?"

 

True story

[TheHurl]

I welcome equipment changes and things of that nature, but I don't support overreactions to fluke injuries that change the way the game is played.

 

said the NFL in 1970

[Grant77]

said the NFL in 1970

 

A chronic problem with concussions and Jose Batista glancing a player's foot with his arm are pretty different things. How often do serious injuries at second base really happen? Tejada was back to start this year just fine.

[Dick_Pole]

I get what you're saying, but I still can't support any changes. I like that baseball is still played the same way as it was over 100 years ago. I like that anything can happen, every decision can be questioned.

 

Changing the fabric of the game just doesn't sit well with me. I don't even agree with the recent ones made for 'player safety' so you can imagine how I'd feel about a change made for sponsors.

 

I look forward to a pitcher challenging Cy Young's 600 or so complete game record. And I'm only half joking with that. But seriously, the game of baseball has been changed in small increments so many times over the years, it has little similarities to the game played in 1916 outside of balls, strikes and distance between the bags. And some douchebag wants to mess with balls and strikes now too.

 

...and limiting relief pitcher changes actually makes the game more similar to the game 100 years ago. The 1916 Cubs, just as a random example, used 11 pitchers all year and 7 of them took the bulk of the work:

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/1916.shtml

[Grant77]

I look forward to a pitcher challenging Cy Young's 600 or so complete game record. And I'm only half joking with that. But seriously, the game of baseball has been changed in small increments so many times over the years, it has little similarities to the game played in 1916 outside of balls, strikes and distance between the bags. And some douchebag wants to mess with balls and strikes now too.

 

...and limiting relief pitcher changes actually makes the game more similar to the game 100 years ago. The 1916 Cubs, just as a random example, used 11 pitchers all year and 7 of them took the bulk of the work:

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/1916.shtml

 

I'm probably the biggest fan of that era on this forum, so I'm well aware of the differences. I worded my statement incorrectly I suppose. I mean to say that baseball has been played with the same rules regarding substitutions, though perhaps not in the same way.

[TheHurl]

A chronic problem with concussions and Jose Batista glancing a player's foot with his arm are pretty different things. How often do serious injuries at second base really happen? Tejada was back to start this year just fine.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/15/health/baseball-ryan-freel-cte-suicide/

 

I do somewhat agree that it's not football and it's not hockey, but having 1 guy found to have CTE after a suicide should be enough to put a league on edge. You must at least show that you are putting a best effort forward to protect players. Things like pitching helmets will eventually start in the minors and likely become a grandfathered rule.

 

As for the game being the same, the game is full of changes to take away the pitching advantages. From removing the doctoring of balls, lowering the mound, to the introduction of the DH.

[rancher]

The purpose of shortening the game is to complete the game coverage within the network allotted 3 hrs which, when allowed to exceed, costs revenue from the sponsors of the scheduled programs that follow. There has to be a better way than limiting relief pitchers.