Two years ago, MLB instituted a new rule where a relief pitcher had to face a minimum of three batters, or finish an inning. It was presented as an idea to speed up the game, with the hope of cutting down on mid-inning pitching changes. Unintended consequence or not, it severely cut down on LOOGY deployment. The Terry Collins special of using three or more relievers per inning became much more of a rarity. Or so it seemed.
Before looking at the numbers, it should be noted that some teams were backing away from the LOOGY gambit before the rule change went into effect. Even with my distaste for the LOOGY – especially the way Collins utilized it, where every Roger Bernadina of the world was treated like Freddie Freeman – my preference would have been for the game to find its own equilibrium rather than have a new rule eliminate strategy.
Another thing before looking at the numbers. We don’t have a perfect way to analyze this, at least not one known to me. Ideally, we’d look at mid-inning pitching changes and just compare those raw numbers before and after the rule change. But “mid-inning” is not anything that shows as an option at either Baseball-Reference or FanGraphs. There’s also the case of fewer games played during the Covid year of 2020.
Instead, we’re going to look at all games where a pitcher threw 0.2 or fewer innings. It’s not perfect, as it’s not unusual for a pitcher to throw 1.1 or 1.2 innings. And it doesn’t take into account guys who came in mid-inning, got three outs and were then removed mid-inning in the next frame. But it should put us in the right ballpark.
Since Collins was referenced earlier, let’s start with looking at these 0.2 or fewer outings beginning with a few years before he took over the Mets:
| Year | Short appearances | Short/Team Games Played |
|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 178 | 1.1 |
| 2010 | 168 | 1.0 |
| 2011 | 193 | 1.2 |
| 2012 | 210 | 1.3 |
| 2013 | 204 | 1.3 |
| 2014 | 181 | 1.1 |
| 2015 | 164 | 1.0 |
| 2016 | 170 | 1.0 |
| 2017 | 209 | 1.3 |
| 2018 | 142 | 0.9 |
| 2019 | 146 | 0.9 |
| 2020 | 47 | 0.8 |
| 2021 | 116 | 0.7 |
The two years before Collins took over had an average of 1.049 of these short outings per game. In the seven years that Collins was manager, there was an average of 1.174 short outings per game. In the two years Mickey Callaway managed, it was 0.889 and the two years under Rojas, with the new rule, it was 0.734 short outings per game.
With the new rule, we’ve seen the short outings cut nearly in half from where they were in the height of Collins’ matchup masturbation years. It’s hard not to notice that the year when they had the fewest of these short outings was the year when Jerry Blevins got hurt early and they went most of the year without a LOOGY, at least until the bitter failure of Eric O’Flaherty late in the year. And 2015 turned out to be the season with the most wins and best winning percentage in this 13-year look. Of course, it’s not the only reason, nor the main one. But it’s difficult not to consider it a contributing factor.
We see a dropoff of these short outings when Callaway replaced Collins and another drop when Rojas and the new rule came in. There were always some fans who felt like Sandy Alderson was the reason behind Collins’ fetish with playing matchups. This look seems to contradict that belief, as the raw number of these short outings dropped by 67 when Callaway took over and Alderson was still here.
The Mets had fewer of these short outings both before Collins was hired and after he was let go, even before the rule change. And we can look at 2019 and 2021 and see that we’re looking at a difference of 30 fewer short outings per year.
As stated earlier, my preference would be not to have the 3-batter rule. But if you think this is a good idea – whether that to be to speed up the game or get rid of crappy lefty relievers – do you think it goes far enough? Yesterday, my proposal was to make it four batters or the end of the inning for a reliever. My reasoning for that is that managers still feel emboldened to carry multiple lefty relievers because they can still use them in a game where they can pitch around one righty batter. But if you up the requirement to four batters, you have to ask yourself if you’re willing for your lefty reliever to potentially face a RHB, this time with a runner on base.
Wobbit felt like that idea would never fly because it meant subjecting relievers to pitch counts that managers/teams would find unacceptable. He said, “But if that same guy was forced to face another hitter, and that hitter went deep, we could be passing 35 pitches… too many for some guys, especially guys who pitched yesterday.” That certainly makes sense on the surface. But my opinion is that concern is greatly exaggerated. Let’s run some numbers.
Last year the Mets had 136 instances where a pitcher faced exactly four batters. How many of those do you think were 35 pitches or more? Not once did that happen last year. How many do you think were 30 pitches or more? Again, that didn’t happen one time. How many of those 136 instances do you think were 25 or more? Exactly two of them. Trevor May threw 28 pitches on August 12 and Jeurys Familia had 26 on July 16.
There were 2,180 pitches thrown in those 136 instances where a pitcher faced exactly four batters, for an average of 16 pitches per outing.
Now, you can say there’s some survival bias going on there, that if a pitcher threw 25 pitches to three batters, he wasn’t going to be allowed to face a fourth. That’s reasonable – let’s examine that. If we look at the Mets pitchers last year who faced exactly three batters, there were 173 times it happened. How many threw 25 or more pitches? You guessed it – none. How many threw 20 or more pitches? Two – Edwin Diaz threw 20 on Jun 18 and May threw 20 on May 14.
The Mets are just one team. It’s certainly possible that if we looked at every MLB team, we’d see some instances of pitchers throwing 35 or more pitches in a 4-batter appearance. But we’re likely still looking at something that doesn’t happen the overwhelming amount of time, like 99% or greater.
My opinion is that anything that limits the number of short appearances is a good thing. We should look to attack that problem through multiple ways. We should have teams carry multiple relievers who can go multiple innings. And we should carry relievers who can regularly face more than one or two batters per game, regardless of which hand they use to throw.
The three-batter rule has moved us in that direction. If we upped it to four batters, we would see even more movement. And the end-of-inning clause still allows a place for the specialist, at least one who’s very, very good in his job. We need more lefty relievers like 2021 Aaron Loup and fewer like Scott Rice. The 3-batter rule was a good start in that regard. Making it four batters would be even better.
I like the 4 batter idea that you proposed yesterday with the example that you mentioned about making it tougher to pitch around more than one RH hitter. I think it adds strategy to the game by forcing the manager to think 4 batters ahead, as well as creating a need to have pitchers who can handle hitters from both sides of the plate.
Your point about the number of pitches made me look up the average pitches per plate appearance on baseball reference and for the full season of 2021 it was 3.91 league-wide which is right in line with the metric you came up with on the 4 batter innings.
Much like you, i like that relievers are staying in there longer but don’t like the fact that it’s a requirement instead of something that managers naturally gravitate to because it’s good strategy.
Instead of a 4-batter rule, my way to increase reliever outings is to reduce of roster manipulation. Right now, if you have a long man or reliever that’s too taxed, teams will simply send him down and replace him with a fresh arm, so instead of 7/8 man pens really right now teams are essentially operating with 10/11 relievers because of the ability to DL/option/swap. Taking away roster flexibility will force managers to keep pitchers in longer and not burn (or carry) a reliever for 1/2 outs because they can call up someone fresh for the next day.
Not sure what the optimal number should be, but maybe a hard cap of 3 options per 2 week period could be instituted, and also optioned players must stay down 14 days instead of 10 days would reduce the manipulation. Players going on the DL would be exempt from the cap of course but i’d like to see it bumped up back to 15 or 14 days as well instead of the 10 day DL.
Note that this would also have an effect on SPs as well and managers coaxing longer appearances from them because you can’t keep asking your bullpen guys to pull in 5-6 innings multiple nights a week if there’s no cavalry ready to jump in behind them.
Also, looking at the worse case situation:
With a 3 batter rule a reliever that doesn’t have it could potentially still be bailed out by someone afterwards and the team could get thru an inning unscathed.
Or if a reliever gets the first out but gives up back to back scorchers i’d like the manager to have the option to yank him and go with someone else.
With a 4-batter rule, a reliever that doesn’t have it essentially has to give up a run before he can get yanked – do we really want to see that?
I agree with you on principle – we don’t want new rules telling us how to manage.
But that barn door has been opened and it’s likely to be used again when Manfred decides to ban the shift. I think 4 batters is better than 3 and it’s definitely better than banning the shift.
As for the specifics of your case – a guy who clearly doesn’t have it and you shouldn’t be forced to use him for an extra batter — I think that’s an extreme case not likely to happen too often in any given year. Again, from a theoretical POV, if you have one of your “pitcher doesn’t have it” games – is that worth 5 games where we don’t have matchup mania? Or is it higher? Is the tradeoff worthwhile at 10 or 15 games? There should be a number where the improved aesthetic outweighs the “hands tied” aspect.
I don’t disagree with you’ve said, but i still think limiting roster swaps is a better solution than 3->4 min batter because it also helps increase SP usage and it retains more manager flexibility in the situations, which are probably uncommon, that could arise in high tensions spots like in extra inning games or in a playoff chase
I could support the 4 batter “same inning” minimum for sure. The roster concept is also intriguing, but I have always wondered about the impact of having an expanded relief pool available. Moe of a hockey type of concept where a team carried say 28, but declared 25 for the game roster, with three “healthy” scratch pitchers. The prior game’s starter would be an automatic, followed by two bullpen arms. maybe even with some requirement…So, a multi-inning pen guy (6 outs) would need to go on for at least one game, or two consecutive appearances that exceeded 6 outs would require a scratch day, etc. That, combined with a 4 batter rule may minimize the mid-inning changes as well. I think managers get temped to use pitchers back to back days or 3 of 4 days based on “low pitch count” appearances. A 4 batter minimum appearance combined with an ability to rest multi-inning guys to protect health without compromising arms tomorrow could accomplish both goals of less mid-inning changes and more quality multi-inning relief appearances.
Lastly, to speed up the games and also deter mid-inning changes, how about only allowing mid-inning two warm up pitches on the mound, and then batter up. I never understood why a guy needs 8 pitches after warming up in the pen directly before entering the game. Two pitches is plenty to adjust, and if not, tough…you get 8 pitches between innings then.
Brian you convinced me that the four batter rule is better than the three batter rule with an exception. If the pitcher walks or hits two batters then the pitcher can be removed before he faces four batters. Brian, your research supported your theory. Great work!
I am honestly not a fan of most things done to shorten games. Part of the strategy of managing is how you use your roster. Use four pitchers in two innings or double switch a few times or need to pinch hit for your pitcher early in the game and you might start to run out of players. Good forbid you over use players and go into extra innings you might be in big trouble. The point is bringing in that lefty to face Freeman in a critical situation used to be a big move. Now it takes a lot of planning and you might end up with a poor match up if you can’t think two innings ahead. So 3 batters or 4 makes no difference. Is the goal to shorten games? Perhaps they should institute a mercy rule once you are behind by a certain number of runs. Yes that is sarcasm but at least you won’t be seeing position players throwing and inning or two. Perhaps we can ban position players from pitching. It is usual ugly and definitely does not shorten the game.
Brian’s researched shocked me. I honestly thought more pitches would have been thrown more often. Indeed perhaps a massacre would rarely happen (damn you, Brian). And yet, I feel the three-batter rule has changed the game, probably for the better. I would not want to see the manager’s hands tied further in that regard.
Regarding that rare occurrence when a pitcher might get hung out to dry in a prolonged inning over many pitches… I’m reminded of seeing Dale Rolf or the NY Rangers get pummeled into chopped meat by Dave Schultz of the Phila. Flyers (1974?)… the viewers had to watch it play out until the referees stepped in… that brutal spectacle never left me and soured me to hockey…