Noo Rulz

[Frayed Knot]

Starting in 2019 (that's like, now!):



- Between inning breaks drop to 2:00, down from 2:05 in local telecasts (BFD!) but, more significantly, also down to 2:00 from 2:25 during network games (which I assume means ESPN SNB, and FOX Saturday games)

No word on post-season games so I'ma just gonna assume that they'll stay at their current (interminable) 2:55/per



- Mound visits are dropping from six to five with the same stipulations as last year. Prior to 2018 they were capped at 60 per/game unless Jorge Posada was catching in which case triple digits were needed



- There will one and only one trade deadline: July 31st!!!! So while roster claims can still be made there will be no such thing as August waiver deals.



- Various changes to ASG voting (which doesn't really interest me a whole lot). Basically there'll be two rounds: one to cut down to three per position (or 9 for OFs) and then a second round to determine the starter

Also ASG extra innings will begin with the runner on 2nd base gimmick. And they're upping the HR Derby prize money, hoping to discourage "name" sluggers from skipping it a la the NBA dunk contest







For 2020:



- Regular season roster sizes increase to 26 with a likely cap of 13 designated as pitchers. Then in September the limits will be 28/14

So no more NFL-sized benches during the pennant race



- Pitchers will need to face a minimum of three batters and/or complete a half-inning.

And the DL/IL time for pitchers will be upped to 15 games rather than 10 so as to discourage roster manipulation [ex: be put on the IL with no actual injury just to skip a start]















So, if nothing else, at least the two sides are talking and are getting some of the minor points taken care of in advance of dealing with the big issues between now and the end of the 2021 season

[kcmets]

Not crazy about the three batter minimum thing.

[Frayed Knot]

Neither am I. If you're going to change pitchers in the middle of an inning I'd prefer just to see them done more quickly like with no (or fewer) warmups after getting on the mound.

But it will cut down on dead time ... so there's that - although appearances of 3 or fewer hitters dropped from 2015 to 2018 [14.1% from 17.1% despite there being more relief appearances

overall] so maybe teams were already starting to move away from the religion of L/R matchups for every AB.







But other than that, the tightened (however slightly) commercial breaks are welcome, and I assume the league will have to give back some cash on the network end of things so this at least shows that they're

not totally averse to such things.

I love that they didn't declare 'MISSION ACCOMPLISHED' with the six mound visit limit last year and quickly dropped it even further after there were no fatalities as a result.

Kind of indifferent to the ASG and trade deadline changes.

OK with the 26 man roster but LOVE the 28-man limit in September.

[batmagadanleadoff]

The 26 man roster was long overdue. Expanded reliever use had shrunk MLB benches to about four players. Ridiculous.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=4313 time=1552592980 user_id=68]
The 26 man roster was long overdue. Expanded reliever use had shrunk MLB benches to about four players. Ridiculous.

[Edgy MD]

I'd rather that trend be responded to by one team zagging while everybody else was zigging. Twenty-five is plenty. Twenty-six will be more of a license for increase reliever use and increased specialization.



I'd rather see roster sizes be trimmed to about 16.

[Ceetar]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=4314 time=1552593130 user_id=68]
=batmagadanleadoff post_id=4313 time=1552592980 user_id=68]
The 26 man roster was long overdue. Expanded reliever use had shrunk MLB benches to about four players. Ridiculous.

[Edgy MD]

Yup. They're attempting to solve problems when they aren't even sure what the problem is. They don't realize they're probably making more problems.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

I'd hate for the rules to box in teams -- and their fans -- those 2 or 3 times a year when you bring in a guy who just doesn't have it that day. For example, you're up by one, the reliever throws 8 straight balls, but instead of going to the pen like you should if you were trying to win, you've got to purposefully let the ineffective guy pitch to a 3rd batter.



Or fake an injury (count on it).



Would potentially upset the balance between O&D by taking away one of the biggest "surprises" a D can provide while not also limiting the "matchup" advantage the offense can muster. Seems sketchy and dumb to me

[Vic Sage]

Edgy MD wrote: I'd rather that trend be responded to by one team zagging while everybody else was zigging. Twenty-five is plenty. Twenty-six will be more of a license for increase reliever use and increased specialization.

not if, as reported, they limit pitchers to 13/26 (or 14/28). Then its specifically making room for more bench players (laying the groundwork for the inevitable DH to come)

[Edgy MD]

I'd hate for the rules to box in teams -- and their fans -- those 2 or 3 times a year when you bring in a guy who just doesn't have it that day. For example, you're up by one, the reliever throws 8 straight balls, but instead of going to the pen like you should if you were trying to win, you've got to purposefully let the ineffective guy pitch to a 3rd batter.

Yup.

Or fake an injury (count on it).

Yup.

Would potentially upset the balance between O&D by taking away one of the biggest "surprises" a D can provide while not also limiting the "matchup" advantage the offense can muster. Seems sketchy and dumb to me

Dixie Cup.

[Fman99]

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Or fake an injury (count on it).

This right here. Oh, I can't pitch to 3 guys, I'm hurt! Unless they stipulate mandatory DL time when this move gets pulled, you'll see it all the damn time.

[Edgy MD]

Mandatory DL time — which, of course, scrambles the eggs even further.

[smg58]

All this addressing of non-existient problems, and taking strategy away from the game. Like I said before, make sure player salaries go up proportionally with revenue, or we will have to wait more than a year between pitches.



Having said that, the fact that the two sides are at least talking is encouraging.

[seawolf17]

I have no issue with any of these except the three-batter thing, which is exceptionally stupid.

[Ceetar]

There were only ( with some error bars) 2.1 IP that would've been prevented by position players last year, and they were with 6 run leads.



The 'two-way' player thing makes no sense. There's literally no difference from a two-way player and a pitcher.

[Guest 41Forever]

=seawolf17 post_id=4347 time=1552656522 user_id=91]
I have no issue with any of these except the three-batter thing, which is exceptionally stupid.

Edited March 15, 2019 by Guest

[Benjamin Grimm]

Maybe I'm the only one, but I like the three-batter rule. It will probably add as much strategy (if not more) than it takes away, and seems likely to reduce one of the most tedious aspects of watching a game, the commercial breaks that comes again after a few pitches as the LOOGY is removed from the game. And yes, it might have been better to just find a way to make pitching changes quicker, but this rule is better than doing nothing.



Let's say Bryce Harper is at bat with two outs and two runners on base. Do you bring in a lefty to pitch to him, knowing that he's followed in the lineup by two right-handed hitters? And if you're the Phillies manager, do you intentionally put two righties after Harper in the lineup (rather than going right-left-right-left) to make that choice tougher for the opposing manager? Is this rule contrived? Sure it is, but not as much as some other things we've seen, such as the DH and the artificial turf of the 1970s and 80s. (Not to mention the start-the-inning-with-a-runner-on-second-base thing, which I hope we never see in a game that counts for anything.)

[Ceetar]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Let's say Bryce Harper is at bat with two outs and two runners on base. Do you bring in a lefty to pitch to him, knowing that he's followed in the lineup by two right-handed hitters?

Absolutely. The inning ends, and that means you get a new pitcher if you want one.



you don't though. You keep the lefty in, because you can now pull him whenever. If he walks the first righty the next inning, then you make another pitching change.



Resulting in, of course, a SECOND mid-inning pitching change.





Same if it's 2-out, no one on, batter in front Harper. You bring in the lefty. Either he gets the righty out, and can face Harper the next inning and be removed after (PITCHING CHANGE) or he let's that guy on base and faces Harper with only 1 on, but two outs. Maybe you don't do that in a 1 run game, but it'll be common enough.



Sure, there's some different strategy to it. But you're also taking some away.

[metsmarathon]

i kinda like the three batter rule as well.



it puts a bit more pressure on relievers to be effective, and on managers to know the effectiveness of their relievers on that day. heck, maybe starters will be relied on more heavily if managers don't want to risk an ineffective reliever. maybe relievers will learn to become more effective against both sides of the plate, instead of being able to focus on only one side.



if harper's at bat with two outs and two on, you get him out your job is done. better throw strikes. because if he's looking for a walk, you're in big trouble!



i know there's stats on how many pitchers pitches to fewer than three batters, but how many of those did so by closing out an inning? how many got pulled, mid inning, before facing three batters? i'm just curious how often the rule would have actually affected managerial strategy outcomes in the past season.

[Ceetar]

i know there's stats on how many pitchers pitches to fewer than three batters, but how many of those did so by closing out an inning? how many got pulled, mid inning, before facing three batters? i'm just curious how often the rule would have actually affected managerial strategy outcomes in the past season.