The Crane Pool Forum

I just caught the tail end of what Gelbs is saying...

They're considering a rule that starting pitchers have to go 6 innings or 100 pitches, whatever comes first, unless there's an injury that puts the pitcher on the IL?

I didn't hear whether or not they'd be allowed to take the pitcher out for just plain suckiness.

I mean, what if he gives up six runs in the first inning on only thirty pitches?

Okay, they can take the pitcher out after four earned runs.

So that means the official scorer can have an impact on what happens on the field.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2024 2:34 pm I just caught the tail end of what Gelbs is saying...

They're considering a rule that starting pitchers have to go 6 innings or 100 pitches, whatever comes first, unless there's an injury that puts the pitcher on the IL?

Don't like it. Just let the teams strategize and let the game evolve naturally to counter every new move.

What happens when a pitcher simply doesn't have it on that day and gives up six runs in the 1st inning? Does he have to stay in the game? And give up 20 more runs? And the only way out is to feign an injury that would reqiure that he then miss at least his next start, maybe two starts?

Benjamin Grimm wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2024 2:34 pm ... unless there's an injury that puts the pitcher on the IL?

And what if there's not a full blown injury that requires putting the pitcher on the IL, but instead, a developing medical issue that's not enough to IL the pitcher but that could worsen and lead to a serious injury unless the pitcher is removed?

Or what if the pitcher is developing a blister and if he's not removed immediately, the developing blister could morph into a serious finger injury that would cause the pitcher to miss one or even several starts?

It's maddening to read granular proposed rule changes to fix what the guys making the rule changes largely broke with previous rule changes.

I don't disagree, but what rule change has led starters to pitch fewer innings?

Expanded rosters and universal DH, among other things.

Chicken or egg? It looks like rosters were expanded because pitchers were already pitching less innings, leading to larger bullpens ... and smaller position-player benches.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/408 ... tommy-john

MLB acknowledges that adding such a rule would not be as simple as forcing every starter to pitch at least six innings every time out -- exceptions would have to be included.

The objective is to prioritize starting pitching, not to leave a struggling starter in to reach the innings threshold while his ERA skyrockets or at the risk of injury. So the league's conversations have included carve-outs, instances when pitchers would not have to pitch the required six innings. Some instances when a starter would be allowed to leave early might include:

He throws 100 pitches

He gives up four or more earned runs

He gets injured (with a required injured list stint to avoid manipulation)

Outside of those exceptions, pitchers would have a mandate to make it through at least six innings. That would force teams to rethink their pitching staffs to meet the new standards.

I took a look at the 120 Mets games played so far this year. (Relatively small sample size, but it's what I have available to me.) That's 240 starting pitchers.

In 94 of those 240 starts, the starter pitched fewer than six inning and gave up fewer than four earned runs.

So under that rule, most of those starters would have stayed in the game longer. (I assume some of them may have reached the 100 pitch count.)

That's a higher number than I would have guessed.

I looked at the numbers for previous seasons, where the denominator would be 162 * 2, or 324.

In 1970, only 45 of the 364 starters pitched fewer than six innings while giving up fewer than four earned runs.

In 1980, it was 69. It was 50 in 1990, 50 in 2000, 54 in 2010, and 161 in 2021. (I skipped over 2020 for the obvious reason.)

122 in 2022, and 117 in 2023.

Benjamin Grimm wrote: ↑Thu Aug 15, 2024 3:51 pmI skipped over 2020 for the obvious reason.)

Trump.

You know what modern baseball is missing? flagging mid starting pitchers struggling to get through the order a third time.

I can't wait until Buck Showalter sees his pitcher at 99 pitches against Juan Soto in the 5th and has him throw one in the dirt so he can pull him.

Whatever system they have, somebody will try to game it.

I think there would have to be a pitch limit in an inning, which is something Gary and Ron discussed.

I like the intent, but I'm not so sure it would work out in practice.

The problem is that organizations coddle pitchers from the beginning, and they don't build up pitch counts and innings counts in the minors. You'd have to blow up their whole minor league development system.

I think Gary and Ron were talking about that. That they would have to allow for a few years of preparation before this new rule went into effect.

There are so many exceptions it would be a clusterfuck of a rule. The blister situation. A guy who's on a pitch count coming back from injury. I don't see how it could work.

If MLB really wanted to promote length from their starting pitcher, the only practical way I can see to do it is to tie your DH to the starter. Jose Quintana starts the game. JD Martinez is his DH. So long as Quintana is in the game, so is Martinez. If he gets taken out, Martinez is similarly out of the game.

The next time the DH spot comes up, the hitter represents the current pitcher. If Martinez spot comes up while Reed Garret is pitching, now you bat Ben Gamel. He's tied to Garret the rest of the way. In other words, not every reliever gets a DH, but every DH turn at bat is tied to the current pitcher.

Or you can just take the DH rule entirely out of play when the starter comes out, forcing a similar effect, except bench players would be forced to generally pinch hit for the pitchers as their turns come around. it would also incentivize you to carry more bench players, which would further incentivize you to get more length out of your pitchers.

Or you can eliminate the DH rule entirely, get all that effect, and return to the pitcher that 2.5 or so soft outs per game he used to have available to him when facing his opposite number.

In Michael Chabon's Summerland, the villain is Coyote, the trickster god of Navajo lore, but it's made clear that he is also the one the Norse called Loki and the Muslims call Shaitan and the Christians blah-blah-blah, but the point is that among the corruptions he's brought into creation is the DH rule, sold to the naïve as a thoughtful innovation but acting as a Pandora's Box (or perhaps Trojan Horse) to release all sorts of deleterious consequences on baseball and on existence.

Edgy MD wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2024 3:54 pm Or you can eliminate the DH rule entirely, get all that effect, and return to the pitcher that 2.5 or so soft outs per game he used to have available to him when facing his opposite number.

Where do I get to vote "yes" on that?
Later

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/texa ... -injuries/

ban foul balls on two-strike counts,

This would seem very radical, and take a lot of fun out of the game

metirish wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 8:31 am https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/texa ... -injuries/

ban foul balls on two-strike counts,

This would seem very radical, and take a lot of fun our of the game

That idea is really fucking stupid, so I'm sure Manfred is considering it.
Eliminating the DH is still the best option (for everything)
Wasn't this the thread that led to a thread about no Mets starter would win 10 games?
Later

Just what baseball needs: a higher strike out rate and fewer balls put in play!!

Exactly, few things in this game better than a pitcher and hitter going at it in a long at bat

MFS62 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 8:54 am

metirish wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 8:31 am https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/texa ... -injuries/

ban foul balls on two-strike counts,

This would seem very radical, and take a lot of fun our of the game

That idea is really fucking stupid, so I'm sure Manfred is considering it.
Eliminating the DH is still the best option (for everything)
Wasn't this the thread that led to a thread about no Mets starter would win 10 games?
Later

eliminate teh pitcher altogether and just have a pitching machine operator with a glove for comebackers.

Just saw something I didn't realize about the new "3 batter minimum" relief pitching rule.
from the rule book:

In an effort to reduce the number of pitching changes and, in turn, cut down the average time per game, MLB instituted a rule change that requires pitchers to either face a minimum of three batters in an appearance or pitch to the end of a half-inning, with exceptions for injuries and illnesses. If a pitcher faces one batter to end an inning, he may be removed, but if he is brought back for a second inning, he must still face two more batters for a total of three.

So, if a reliever pitches to one batter to end an inning, and starts the next inning, if he gets out the first batter and then the mgr wants to use a lefty/lefty matchup, he can't. The reliever must pitch to that second batter in the inning.

Didn't know that.
Later