September Rosters

[Guest Edgy DC]

Some would say that September roster expansion is a damper on the baseball games late in the season. Those people have probably seen Tony LaRussa manage. Others feel the way that Ron Neyer feels: You play five months under one set of rules to get in a position for the playoffs, and if you do, you fight through the last month under a second set of rules.

Options include:
[list:okz3rrrj][*:okz3rrrj]Can the tradition in its entirety.[/*:m:okz3rrrj]
[*:okz3rrrj]Cut the number back to 30.[/*:m:okz3rrrj]
[*:okz3rrrj]Allow the roster to expand, but only allowing 25 (or so) guys to be active on any given night.[/*:m:okz3rrrj]
[*:okz3rrrj]Start the minor league season a month or so later. Allow teams 30 guys at the top of the year and shink that number by one every week. No roster expansion in September. Minor league playoffs start a week before the big leaguers.[/*:m:okz3rrrj][/list:u:okz3rrrj]

How feel you about this tradition?

[MFS62]

I think the current setup stems from a time when a player didn't get three option years like today(able to be yo-yo-ed several times in each year), but three actual options- period.
And major league teams used the September callups to check on the progress of the player during each year.

I like being able to see the prospects I've been following all year. And I'm willing to endure the LaRussa-esque machinations of September games to see them. Of course, all this is a distant rumor to Mets fans, since most of the players I would have wanted to see (Capt Kirk, Lutz, Ratliff, Martinez and Mejia specifically) all ended their seasons on the DL.

Later

[bmfc1]

I thought that one of the reasons for this practice was to give fans of teams that are out of the race a chance to see the prospects and perhaps get some hope for the next season.

Whatever the rationale, I can't get past the fact that you're playing under different rules when the games matter most. No question that the rosters should be greater than 25 for April.

[Ceetar]

http://www.tedquarters.net/2011/09/15/why-do-rosters-expand-in-september/

not that helpful, but it's been going on for over 100 years.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I'd say let the roster go to 27 for April through August, and then to 30 for September.

[metsmarathon]

expanded april rosters makes all the sense in the world to me.

[Frayed Knot]

If they're going to keep it there definitely should be a limit, even if for no other reason that it's another loophole the richer teams can exploit over the budget clubs. Remember when MLB wouldn't let the Expos bring up anyone one September because it meant added salaries, travel, hotels, etc.? Now most teams aren't in that boat but it's still a consideration especially since the only theoretical upper limit is 40.
30 should be the ceiling and I'd argue for less.

I've thought about the hockey-style rule where the roster is larger but only the set amount "dress" for each game. The problem with that is that the previous and following night's pitchers are going to be the most widely used to fill that quota. I think the idea sounds better than it would actually play out in reality.

I'd be more in favor of a couple extra to start the year before reducing it week by week as was suggested and then fewer add-ons in Sept. I also like the idea of dangling this 'extra-jobs' carrot as an exchange for giving up the DH but I know that's just a fantasy.

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: I'd be more in favor of a couple extra to start the year before reducing it week by week as was suggested and then fewer add-ons in Sept. I also like the idea of dangling this 'extra-jobs' carrot as an exchange for giving up the DH but I know that's just a fantasy.

That'd be perfect, but the biggest concern I have with that discussion is that I'd worry the debate would push back the agreement of the CBA and could prompt a strike/lockout.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I'd say let the roster go to 27 for April through August, and then to 30 for September.

Why's that?

[Benjamin Grimm]

The advent of the 12-man pitching staff has resulted in the five-man bench. I'd like to see the seven-man bench come back, and while I'd much prefer if it came through a return to the 10-man pitching staff and more complete games, I don't see that happening. So the 27-man roster is another way to get there.

And maybe, just maybe, that could be the leverage required to rid ourselves of the DH as well.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Do AL rosters actually earn more than NL rosters? I'd suggest that having one less starting player is offset, on average, by needing a deeper bench and bullpen. I'd suggest that, but I have no idea if it's true.

[Frayed Knot]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: The advent of the 12-man pitching staff has resulted in the five-man bench. I'd like to see the seven-man bench come back, and while I'd much prefer if it came through a return to the 10-man pitching staff and more complete games, I don't see that happening. So the 27-man roster is another way to get there.

One of the good things about keeping the roster limited is that it rewards the all-purpose player at the expense of the specialists and I'm afraid that expanding things permanently is just going to result in 14-man pitching staffs and not expand the bench at all. IOW, more specialists and more 3-1/2 hour games (4-1/2 if the game involves the Yanx, the Sawx, or Tony LaRussa).

[Benjamin Grimm]

I miss the third-string catcher.

[Frayed Knot]

So do I, but I also like the fact that there needs to be a trade-off if you want to keep one (or find a 3rd-string C who can contribute elsewhere).
Tweaking rosters up early while pitchers are still ramping themselves up & then late to get a look at some prospects is OK with me, I just don't want it all year.

[Guest Edgy DC]

It's funny. If Tim Byrdak played in the seventies, his career would have been 67% shorter. If Ron Hodges played in the aughts, his career would have been 67% shorter.

[RealityChuck]

I have no problem with the callups. It doesn't make any difference -- teams in the middle of the race aren't going to give the rookies much playing time, and teams out of contention can check out the future under major league conditions.

I doubt that it makes more than one or two games' difference. What's far worse is the unbalanced schedules due to interleague plays: all teams in a division should play the same number of games against the same opponents.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Problem is that it does make a difference under games like last night's, where managers have no constraints from swapping guys mid-inning left and right.

Another problem, as mentioned above, is that it allows the final games in a pennant race to be decided under different rules than the majority of the season was played under.

[Frayed Knot]

Edgy DC wrote: Problem is that it does make a difference under games like last night's, where managers have no constraints from swapping guys mid-inning left and right.

Like the Yanx using [crossout]seven[/crossout] - nope, miscounted, it was eight - different pitchers today and made five separate mid-inning pitching changes - all in a game where they gave up 2 runs.
The result was a 3 hour-20 minute, 8-1/2 inning game where a total of 6 runs were scored.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Yeah, that's a problem.

[Frayed Knot]

btw, that's eight different pitchers over eight innings - in the first game of a DH!!