BlueJayWay

You're a guy and you go with a name like BlueJayBambi?

Earlier in the offseason I had a dream that Stroman missed the whole year with TJS. Looks like I wasn't all that far off. Feels snakebit being a Jays fan.

Sadly predictable...

Oh, was that the Curt Schilling/evolution thing or something else?

No kidding. I never had anything against Orioles fans at all until I started to read Orioleshangout a bit a couple years ago. I wonder if a lot of their fans are like that or it's just the particular culture over at that board. But yeesh.

Definitely could be, of course.

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

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. 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: 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. 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. 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. 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.

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. I understand you can't completely stop the mid inning pitching changes, but I'd like to see less micromanaging and more baseball being played. 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. 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. This pitching change thing is side issue that I wouldn't mind if they addressed as well... 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. 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?

Number 1 wouldn't really make much difference, but the other three are good. Number 2 especially I just can't believe hasn't been addressed by MLB before now. To me, it's the dead obvious first thing you would do to help this issue.

Changing it two strikes and three balls and foul strikes is fundamentally changing the dynamics of the game. It tilts the game way toward three true outcomes. I don't want to change anything like that, and I don't think it's needed, I just want teams to stop screwing around and just play baseball. Having pitchers face some minimum number of hitters greater than one is turning the rulebook on its side? I don't see how that is. Every time there's another one of these mid inning changes is more time spent, you know, not playing baseball.

Yeah that's just it. It's really annoying in a game I don't have a rooting interest in, a bit less so if it's a Jays game because I'm more concerned with them just winning the game. If they have to make a bunch of changes to get the platoon advantage then so be it. But if they changed the rule it would affect everybody and it would make a better paced game imo.

Well let's say if the regular rule would be 'new pitcher has to face minimum three hitters', then maybe an exception could be made in that case. If a RP comes in and walks the first two guys, he can be lifted without facing a third hitter. I'm just so sick of the one and done thing we see now. This kind of rule might bias toward the batting team but of course that's no net advantage to anybody over time.

Anything that cuts down on the LOOGYs I'm fine with. Well, that's you, but for me there's nothing worse than an inning that should have tension being constantly interrupted.

Our long national nightmare is finally over.

I think eliminating shifts is a solution in search of a problem. Not really needed. I like the idea of making relievers face more than one hitter, though. Anything that helps cut down on mid inning pitching changes is fine with me. As for the pitch clock, if they just kept the damn batter in the box and enforced the rules already in the book then it probably wouldn't be needed. To me, it's a last resort.

At least he's on the way out...

my god I hope you're kidding? You don't really have a source, right? gonna have a heart attack...

Oh, we've been noticed by the hive, have we?

Ed Rogers is the point man on this. Probably doesn't know who Jeff Hoffman is...

Yeah I heard an update on the fan saying 4 mill for one year, and I almost couldn't believe it.

A s*** ton of games and four playoff berths. Would we could have a six year run like that.

They think the man in white is a real thing. It's just taken as a given over there that the Blue Jays are master sign stealers. Oh and that half the team is on undetectable, powerful Canadian steroids.

Orioles fans even think Stroman is in play here. Pretty hilarious.