September Call-ups

[Frayed Knot]

This seems like it's starting to become a topic of conversation around baseball and the media covering it.
By tradition teams have been able to expand rosters - theoretically up to their 40-man limit - once September 1st rolls around. But lately folks are starting to question how fair it is to play the final crucial month under what is essentially a different set of rules than what governs the first 130+ games.

So, if given dictatorial powers over MLB, what would you prefer for the roster question over the final month?

[Vic Sage]

i think you should be able to have any or all of your 40-man roster at the BEGINNING of the season, in April, while guys are still getting into shape and pitchers are throwing fewer innings/pitches per game. You could give kids a longer look and give vets a running start. Then, you solidify the 25man roster on May1, and play with that roster through the rest of the season. I've never liked the big rosters in September, when some teams are just looking at their kids while playing teams competing for a post-season slot.

[Edgy MD]

I'm sort of wondering if perhaps it shouldn't be exactly the opposite --- start the season with a 40-man limit --- and cut that to 35, 30, and 25 at the end of each week. Start the minor league season with a week to go in April. Sort out who you really want on your team after seeing them in actual combat. Nurse the Beltrans through the beginning of the season and such.

ANNND... Vic beats me to the punch.

[seawolf17]

I'm with both of youse.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Yeah, I'd be in favor of keeping the 40 but limiting any day's roster to 25 (or maybe, 28). Also think expanded rosters make more sense in April but would render ST even more meaningless than it already is.

All that said, it's not high on my list of things that oughta be changed and people arguing for it tend to overstate its effects. It's a pretty minor thing.

[seawolf17]

The thing that I do like about it is that you do get the chance to reward guys who had good seasons, the Fred Lewis types who might otherwise get lost in the shuffle the following year.

All told, I'd really rather not change it because I don't think it *needs* to be changed.

[Vic Sage]

i do think having a level playing field is more important in September, when teams are in a race, than it is in April, where teams are just sort of feeling each other out. And minor leaguers having good seasons would rather be rewarded by being allowed to play for a job in April then get a meaningless cup of coffee in September. But i do agree that of all the things i'd want to fix about MLB, this is pretty low on the list.

[Guest Swan Swan H]

They did 28 man rosters for the first month of the season in the 50s and 60s - one article I found said it ended in 1968. This chart shows the roster limits over the years. The compiler of the list is named Clifford Blau, who lists himself as a SABR member. I assume this is accurate.

A couple of weeks ago I made myself crazy trying to think of the 25th man on the 1986 World Series roster. Only after I hit the Google was I reminded that they played with 24 all that year.

[MFS62]

I voted number three (limit per game), if only to deter any more of those seemingly endless ballgames in which managers tried to see how many players they could get into one game.

Later

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

I don't mind the September call-ups. It's something that seems unique to baseball.

[Edgy MD]

I'm not sure I see it as an uneven playing field. While it is changing the rules in the last month, it's a change everybody knows is coming and has equal time to prepare for.

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: I'm not sure I see it as an uneven playing field. While it is changing the rules in the last month, it's a change everybody knows is coming and has equal time to prepare for.

If anyone is actually going to help, they'd be up before the 1st.

Unless someone's arguing that resting your best relievers in favor of your 8th+ best relievers is an advantage?

[Frayed Knot]

The Giants used eleven pitchers in an 11 inning game the other night.
There were seven in-inning pitching changes and six of the pitchers threw ten or fewer pitches.
They lost anyway.
The DBacks used only six.
The game last 4:19

[Edgy MD]

I think it helps. Even if the September players aren't much good, they give a team a safety net. You can pull your pitchers for platoon matchups more liberally knowing you're less likely to run dry in an attrition war. You can pinch-hit your backup catcher knowing there's a third or fourth guy available if the catcher goes down. You can also carry a pinch-hitting slugger who is utterly useless on defense, without worrying about having to use him in the field.

[MFS62]

Hope this is the right thread for this.
After seeing the recent offensive futility, why wasn't Captain Kirk (The Dutch Treat) recalled?
He was on the Buffalo DL a while ago. Was it a season-ending injury?

Later

[Edgy MD]

Yes it was. He tore his plantar fascia, was sent to St. Lucie for rehab in August, and after a few days, he was shut down.

That makes four shutdowns.

[Guest Mets � Willets Point]

I may be wrong, but don't some sports - I'm thinking hockey and soccer - limit the number of players on the roster who can "dress" for a game? In a baseball scenario that would mean they could have 40 players but the manager would have to submit a list of 25 players to the ump that he wanted eligible for the game. Of course in a baseball scenario the immediate loophole that jumps out is that a manager will make all the pitchers in his rotation except for that game's starter ineligible so he can still pack the bench and the bullpen.

[Frayed Knot]

Mets � Willets Point wrote: I may be wrong, but don't some sports - I'm thinking hockey and soccer - limit the number of players on the roster who can "dress" for a game?

Yes.
Hockey does that I know of. Not sure about soccer.
In hockey you can carry up to X number of players (24?) but only suit up 20 for a game.

In a baseball scenario that would mean they could have 40 players but the manager would have to submit a list of 25 players to the ump that he wanted eligible for the game.

Not to mention take all the lefties out of one game then put them back in the next depending on opposing pitchers or staffs.
I like the idea in baseball that a set roster favors the generalists as opposed to having too many specialists. But your idea - or a version of it - is apparently one of the ones being discussed for future September rules. Maybe a team will have their 25-man roster from Aug 31st "frozen" so to speak and then can add up to 3, or 5, or whatever, per game after that from their pool of call-ups. Teams could then change those extra players from game to game but only among the call-ups, not the regulars.

Of course in a baseball scenario the immediate loophole that jumps out is that a manager will make all the pitchers in his rotation except for that game's starter ineligible so he can still pack the bench and the bullpen.

Gary talked about this kind of roster manipulation last night as apparently the one-game WC play-in game is going to be considered its own playoff "round" and therefore the surviving team can re-do its roster for the upcoming 3-of-5. So, yeah, the mgr can make all the starters except for that day's guy inactive and carry 4 more relievers and/or PH's/defensive replacements just for that one game.
I don't like that idea.

[metsmarathon]

i'm another (belated) vote for open 'em up in april, not september.