During Thursday’s game, Steve Gelbs mentioned an article that was posted on ESPN.com by Jesse Rogers, in which it was stated that MLB was considering a radical rule change, one which would require starting pitchers to go six innings. It prompted a lot of discussion among the broadcasters and those of us in the Game Chatter. So, it seemed worthwhile to discuss it here, too.
Here’s how Rogers put it:
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.
For many years, MLB did very little tinkering with the rules but it’s a new day and everything is now fair play to address. Some are turned off by this and that’s a reasonable take. My preference is for MLB to address things that are outside of the ability of teams and players to change. The perfect example of this was the pitch clock. Pitchers couldn’t make batters get in the box and batters couldn’t make pitchers throw the ball. This is where the league needed to step in. And the pitch clock has been a great addition to the game.
For an example of the opposite side of the coin, MLB instituted a rule which said that a reliever had to face at least three batters, unless he concluded an inning. This was an attempt to curtail the mindless Terry Collins move of chasing the platoon advantage at every possibility with multiple mid-inning pitching changes. Without a doubt, this was a problem. Yet, here, this was completely in the realm of teams to change by themselves. And the LOOGY usage – outside of Collins and his ilk – was actually in decline throughout baseball when this rule went into effect.
My opinion is that this rule has made the game better. It’s a shame that it was necessary but it seemed like the teams would have gotten close to the point we’re at now without the rule. So, we have to ask ourselves a question: Is it better for a rule to be enacted to help push teams in the right direction, if it speeds up the desired result?
It seems like reasonable people can disagree on this question. And to me, this is exactly where we are in regards to starting pitchers getting pulled too soon. The only difference is that we have yet to see any MLB team moving voluntarily in this direction, like multiple teams were with limiting their LOOGY deployment before the three-batter rule came into play.
One of the most encouraging things that ensued in the discussion between Gary Cohen and Ron Darling were points that we’ve made here at Mets360 – both in articles and comments – for years now. First was Cohen saying that 100 pitches was completely arbitrary. And Darling followed that up by saying that you can’t apply limits to all pitchers equally because all pitchers are different.
It’s too bad that it took an ESPN article for these things that appeared to be insane to me (and others) to be mentioned by the team’s broadcasters, allegedly the best in the business. By not articulating any dissent of any degree to how teams handle their starters, Cohen, Darling and the rest of the broadcasters were essentially giving their tacit approval to the team’s approach to starters.
One of the things that make the Mets’ booth so good is that they’re not afraid to criticize when it’s justified. Plenty of times they’ve gotten on players and umpires and even official scorers throughout the years. So, in this climate – why were they reluctant to criticize the 100-pitch boogeyman and the application of this rule so strictly to all pitchers in all situations?
Was this something they decided to do themselves? Or was it dictated to them by management? I’m not sure which one would be more disappointing.
But now that the cat’s out of the bag – let’s hear the team’s broadcasters call out what they perceive to be sub-optimal removal of starting pitchers as freely as they do bad fundamentals, poor umpiring or shaky official scoring decisions. And who knows – maybe discussing these things in terms of being mistakes – we can end up with better SP usage without needing an MLB rule to get us there.
*****
One of the things we discussed in the chatter was the impact this proposal would have on openers and bullpen games. In Rogers’ piece, he explicitly said, “At a minimum, the rule would keep managers from deciding to pull a starter who is going well just because analytics say it’s time. Also, openers would be eliminated from the game.”
While this current trend is annoying and frequently baffling, I don’t see the need for a rule change. Baseball, like the government, already has too many rules .
Would love for Mets pitchers to throw 6 each time out but they simply don’t. And the exceptions to the rule, 100 pitches and 4 earned runs are often why a pitcher gets taken out. But what is the point of it – still trying to make the games shorter? Hate the must throw to three batter rule for relievers because again who cares? If a manger wants to use three pitchers to get out of an inning, that might come back to haunt a team when they run out of pitchers toward the end of a game. Pitch clock has shortened games and I am on board with that. Couldn’t stand seeing David Wright step out and tighten his batting gloves in between each pitch.
Don’t think we need any more rule changes unless they really improve the game. Kudos to the announcers for telling like it is – it’s why they are considered one of the better broadcast teams.
It seems that this rule would not (necessarily) be about shortening games but rather to re-emphasize SP, not much different than the rule changes made to re-emphasize stolen bases.
I like the 100 pitch minimum or 4 runs scored rule. It is a reasonable solution. 100 pitch count has no correlation concerning injuries.
The injury part of the rule concerns me because if the pitcher gets a minor injury and should be removed but instead pitches through it then it could result into a major injury. The mandatory IL isn’t a reasonable solution. Maybe a medical examination immediately after the removal might be called for. If it is bogus then the manager and the player would be subject to a suspension.
Unlike you, I think the IL stint is a reasonable solution.
One thing the article by Rogers discussed but wasn’t mentioned here is that even if this proposal gets greenlit, it won’t appear in the majors immediately. They’ll test it out in the minors for a few years before it takes place in the majors.
Analytics show that non elite pitcher do much worse the third time through the order. With 8 man BPs it might make sense to pull the starters. Also it’s alarming how many starters go on the IL or worse miss the season, maybe less innings is a good thing.
It’s mid August and the Mets already have had 36 players throw a pitch.
5 years ago In 2019, the Mets got thru the season rotating thru 30 players.
just 10 years ago in 2014, they were able to go through a whole season with just 22 players pitching.
Look back 30-40 years ago and you’ll routinely only use less than 20 players to pitch, sometimes as low as 15 guys.
Part of the lack of emphasis of SP these days is also because of the now seemingly endless churn of bullpen guys which allows for the quick hook of SPs. We all know too well that if a low leverage guy has to be overextended and soak up innings, and even if he pitches well, his fate is a trip back to the minors.
Rather than these (what i consider) rigid rules for SPs, and then having to come up with all these exceptions with arbitrary thresholds, i think we could nudge baseball towards more SP usage with season roster and transactions limits. If managers know that they won’t be able to replace bullpen guys because they decide to abuse them, then maybe they’ll be more encouraged to leave SP deeper into games.
And us fans will also not have to suffer thru the constant churn of random no-names pitchers who have no business being at the big league level.
On the surface, I’m not opposed to the idea of regulating transaction limits like you propose.
One thing that we would need to know is how many of these roster moves currently for all MLB teams are made because of injuries, compared to those made for roster manipulation. And while we want to cut down on roster manipulation, we still need to be able to do that to some degree. If Player A goes on the 60-day IL and a team calls up the future version of Matt Festa, they shouldn’t be forced to carry Matt Festa for more than a couple of games.
Agreed, but if you push your pitchers further (not just starters) you never get to Festa. Shorter version of my comment below. Should have done this one first, apologies,
I don’t think there should be any exceptions for injuries. It’s fairly obvious there is a correlation between chasing velocity/going max effort and injury. Having a roster limit with say penalties (could be draft, monetary, etc) for exceeding will force teams change their development approach and instead of choosing guys for upside simply because they have velocity, maybe teams will start to look towards “softer” throwers who can end up being more durable.
Just read an interesting article in The Athletic (paywall). The gist is this: since the Mets ravaged the league in June hitting fastballs like mad, the MLB has adjusted and since then, they have seen more breaking pitches than any team in baseball, by some margin. As a result, the hitting has dropped off dramatically.
So throw harder and faster = hit better
Throw slower and curvier = hit worse
Imagine an NBA team using 15 point guards in a season, which would mean having to constantly use G league or worse, players? Sounds unwatchable. The Mets will almost certainly use 40 pitchers this season. And half of them, predictably, have been unwatchable. Why this mess exists is a much longer discussion than a post comment, but we are now here. The rules seem okay with me, and it’s a shame that MLB has to institute rules to force teams to operate with season long intelligence but there is no evidence the teams a capable of doing it themselves.
And right on time, Severino throws a 4 hit shut out with a bit more than 110 pitches. I love that he sent Mendoza back to the dugout. Easy conversation to imagine:
Mendoza: (looks at Severino)
Severino: I recommend you head back to the dugout
Mendoza: (almost gets a word out)
Severino: I said turn around, now.