I don’t think it’s a bad idea but not every injury requires an IL stint. What if you feel a blister coming on? They get him out of the game but it doesn’t necessarily mean IL
The carve-outs feel a little gimmicky. For one thing, earned runs can actually change if an official scorer goes back later and alters a decision. Further, 100 pitches is a completely arbitrary number with no data behind it. Maybe we need some actual scientific study first that offers some objective information.
I cannot help but think making the change would immediately increase arm injuries. And they'd have to introduce some kind of pitch number exception. If a guy gets tossed around, ends up at 120 pitches by inning 4, it's in no one's best interest for that guy to throw another 40 pitches to get to six innings.
UGH. This is video-gamifying baseball. And also killing the great tradition of the fireman who comes in with the bases loaded and a one-run lead to get his team out of the jam. No thank you.
Interesting idea. Yet I'm not sure we'll see improvement in the terrible attrition rate of pitchers until we see a culture change that prioritizes athletes' health over velocity. The way things are going, baseball is witnessing a football- like toll of mangled bodies and spent careers all for the sake of a whiff of televised glory.
Who wants to watch pitchers hit? They're terrible at it. Always have been, always will be. If baseball has a run-scoring problem (and it does), having pitchers hit is a terrible way to fix it.
Cool idea by Max Bay. I know you have also heard the pitch clock (River Ryan mentioned) and the lack of sticky stuff are also being blamed. Hard to prove, but I agree the push to keep adding velocity seems like the biggest culprit.
How about limiting the number of pitchers on the roster? Would that motivate teams to teach length instead of lightning? I don’t know the answer to this … but Three True Outcome Ball is not the aesthetic that drew me to the game back in the (1970s) day. I understand the short term benefit of WINNING THIS GAME is benefited by having a parade of fire breathing dragons coming out to the mound every inning. But there’s the long game/short game struggle. In the short game … players and teams are judged by their performance right now. Velocity, spin, launch angle, and so on … that’s what drives production, so of course that’s what guys do. But the long game … I wonder. I coached high school baseball the past four seasons … and beyond my kid … nobody watched baseball. Ever. They watch basketball … football … Formula One (!) … but no baseball. I started watching in the mid seventies … I’m not going anywhere. But the kids? Well, two of my three do … but their friends? Nope. Baseball has to address the aesthetics or they risk becoming a secondary sport if they lose the kids.
There is so much idiocy here. Throwing more will not reduce injuries. Throwing less will reduce injuries (as would throwing less hard). The problem is specialization from an early age. 10 year olds are being told they have to play ball year round in order to get to the next level and become the next Corbin Burnes or Max Scherzer or Nolan Ryan. Parents buy into this. Why do coaches say this? Because they are running a business that relies on parents paying money to them to play year round baseball. Of course, this is not limited to baseball. This is true for basketball, tennis, volleyball, etc... Those coaches don't care about kids' health, they care about making money to support themselves. I have read multiple articles where pitchers of yesteryear back this up when asked how they could pitch in 4 man rotations and not have arm injuries. Once of the answers is that they played baseball during baseball season, and then were on the track team and then took the summer (or winter or both) off to just be kids. This is supported by research. The more you throw, the more fatigued you get. The more fatigued you get, the harder you are on your arm. The harder you are on your arm, the more likely you are to get injured. There are also just so many pitches a person can throw before getting injured. Of course, that number may be more for Nolan Ryan than it is for me. Hence, forcing players to throw 6 innings may make some fans happier, but it isn't going to solve the problem of arm injuries. It will make them worse. If MLB wants to solve this problem, it needs to go talk to elementary school parents about having their kids only play baseball during little league season, or on the school team, and then see where we are 15 years later. It's long term thinking. People hate that.
Also, why do I care how long a starting pitcher lasts? Logically, I should probably cap my pitchers at about 30 pitches and have a constant stream of fresh arms. They will probably last longer and give up fewer runs. The goal is to win games.
Idiocy is a very strong (and unnecessary) word. Much of what you say is true, and of course pitching more innings at 98 MPH would lead to more injuries, but the objective (as Molly’s post makes clear) is to de-emphasize velocity. Would that make a difference? Maybe, who knows? As for starting pitching, that’s part of the 150 year old tradition of baseball. You have no obligation to care about that, but many fans do.
I think you’re on the right track with the specialization argument. Several years ago I read a very informative article about NBA players blowing knees out very early in their careers. As I recall, they interviewed orthopedic surgeons who said for the first time in their careers they were doing knee replacements 20 and 30 year olds. They blamed this on the same phenomenon. Jumping up and down on hard wood floors year around instead of only for three months (then moving on to baseball and track and soccer or whatever).
There are two issues here - the role of the starter with the parade of hard-throwing relievers, and the injury problem. An alternative to the “brute force” approach of having a 6-inning minimum would be to have the manager identify, say, 5 pitchers that could be used in the game. Other pitchers on the active roster would not be eligible to pitch in that game (barring verified injury, extra innings or perhaps a “mercy rule” if there is a large late-inning deficit). That would encourage longer outings by the starter but not prohibit other strategies such as an “opener” followed by a longer stint, or a couple of 3-4 inning pitchers if desired. However, I think the injury problem goes back to players who are too young throwing too many pitches and are surgeries waiting to happen.
Yeah, the double hook is a better idea than some wonky minimum-6-innings requirement (with exceptions and clauses). The min. 6 innings thing is heavy-handed and may play out as artificial. But I think another good idea, one that I keep harping on whenever Molly or Poz or Calcaterra or anyone thoughtful about baseball writes about this topic, is combining the double hook with instituting the following:
A Day of Game-Eligible Pitcher List.
Along with the lineup card, each manager submits such a list to the umpire chief. Five pitchers, or six, or even four? Five seems best from the gut, but who can say? And of course you add a blowout clause, and injury clause with mandatory IL stint, and whatever other tweaks, but I love this idea hypothetically. Anyway, you institute both new rules, and it would be great for broadcasters ("as he so often has done over the course of his career, Joe Kelly is coming in from the bullpen to try to protect this two-run Dodger lead, and now Dave Roberts has a decision to make down the line: he needs nine outs, but the only eligible pitcher he's got left after Kelly is Evan Phillips, who has not pitched more than one inning in a game this year..."). It also allows teams to still carry as many pitchers as they want on their roster.
I see the game-eligible pitchers list - paired with the double hook - as a complement to the lineup card, not an intrusive invasion into the flow of the game. Anybody with any thoughts? Agreements, disagreements, suggested modifications?
Since I remain among those who dislike the DH for removing strategy from the game, I don't think starting pitchers should HAVE to go six innings. But ....
I think the problem is that pitchers in recent years have been treated differently--I don't want to say coddled. But they can pitch fewer innings and throw harder. If the pitch clock is affecting them, then they need to adapt to the pitch clock. But this all goes to the important point about baseball that makes the playoff system such a crap shoot and the Dodgers so frustrating: the regular season is not a sprint. It's a marathon. And these pitchers are throwing as if they are sprinting.
An allegory. Remember Bruce Froemming? It would not be uncharitable to say that Bruce was ... pudgy. One night, he and his longtime crew chief, John Kibler, were in a Cincinnati rathskeller, downing ribs and beer, because that's what you do in Cincy. A group of young guys noticed and recognized them, and started riding them about being out of shape. Kibler finally pointed at Froemming and said, "He could beat any of you in a 100-foot dash." Oh, really? Substantial money was put on the table. They went outside. The most athletic of the younger guys was ready to go. Froemming BURIED him. Because no umpire in a game has to run more than 100 feet, usually, so he was trained to run that far. But 105 feet might have killed him.
Pitchers, take heed. It's a 162-game season. Don't throw at 100 mph in April. Keep something in the tank.
I hate the idea of the double-hook; it basically means that when a team is down, you make it harder for them to catch up. If the goal is to make the game more exciting, it seems counterproductive.
Yes! I was thinking the same thing. If my team has clawed its way back from a disastrous start to make it 9-8 in the ninth, do I want to see some bench player coming up to bat or David Ortiz?
Folks, the DH is better for baseball and it is here to stay. Stop looking for backdoor ways to make it go away.
yeah I can't imagine having to watch a pitcher who's just having a bad game have to stay in and pitch simply because the owners think it's important to the legacy of the position. Every pitcher has a bad game which is why you have a bull pen. watching a pitcher have a bad game is torture for the player & the fan.
I don’t think it’s a bad idea but not every injury requires an IL stint. What if you feel a blister coming on? They get him out of the game but it doesn’t necessarily mean IL
The carve-outs feel a little gimmicky. For one thing, earned runs can actually change if an official scorer goes back later and alters a decision. Further, 100 pitches is a completely arbitrary number with no data behind it. Maybe we need some actual scientific study first that offers some objective information.
Hadn't thought of your first point before, thanks. As far as your second point: Amen!
I'm fond of saying if pitchers had eleven fingers, the "barrier" would be at 121 pitches
I cannot help but think making the change would immediately increase arm injuries. And they'd have to introduce some kind of pitch number exception. If a guy gets tossed around, ends up at 120 pitches by inning 4, it's in no one's best interest for that guy to throw another 40 pitches to get to six innings.
Doesn’t the proposal that Molly mentioned include a 100 pitch count limit?
Each time you have a pitching change, the other team is credited with a run.
There. I fixed it.
UGH. This is video-gamifying baseball. And also killing the great tradition of the fireman who comes in with the bases loaded and a one-run lead to get his team out of the jam. No thank you.
What about ruling that the maximum pitch is, say, 97, and any pitch over that speed is a ball?
Interesting idea. Yet I'm not sure we'll see improvement in the terrible attrition rate of pitchers until we see a culture change that prioritizes athletes' health over velocity. The way things are going, baseball is witnessing a football- like toll of mangled bodies and spent careers all for the sake of a whiff of televised glory.
I think we can do better.
Lastly, how about just losing the DH, period.
Who wants to watch pitchers hit? They're terrible at it. Always have been, always will be. If baseball has a run-scoring problem (and it does), having pitchers hit is a terrible way to fix it.
Cool idea by Max Bay. I know you have also heard the pitch clock (River Ryan mentioned) and the lack of sticky stuff are also being blamed. Hard to prove, but I agree the push to keep adding velocity seems like the biggest culprit.
How about limiting the number of pitchers on the roster? Would that motivate teams to teach length instead of lightning? I don’t know the answer to this … but Three True Outcome Ball is not the aesthetic that drew me to the game back in the (1970s) day. I understand the short term benefit of WINNING THIS GAME is benefited by having a parade of fire breathing dragons coming out to the mound every inning. But there’s the long game/short game struggle. In the short game … players and teams are judged by their performance right now. Velocity, spin, launch angle, and so on … that’s what drives production, so of course that’s what guys do. But the long game … I wonder. I coached high school baseball the past four seasons … and beyond my kid … nobody watched baseball. Ever. They watch basketball … football … Formula One (!) … but no baseball. I started watching in the mid seventies … I’m not going anywhere. But the kids? Well, two of my three do … but their friends? Nope. Baseball has to address the aesthetics or they risk becoming a secondary sport if they lose the kids.
There is so much idiocy here. Throwing more will not reduce injuries. Throwing less will reduce injuries (as would throwing less hard). The problem is specialization from an early age. 10 year olds are being told they have to play ball year round in order to get to the next level and become the next Corbin Burnes or Max Scherzer or Nolan Ryan. Parents buy into this. Why do coaches say this? Because they are running a business that relies on parents paying money to them to play year round baseball. Of course, this is not limited to baseball. This is true for basketball, tennis, volleyball, etc... Those coaches don't care about kids' health, they care about making money to support themselves. I have read multiple articles where pitchers of yesteryear back this up when asked how they could pitch in 4 man rotations and not have arm injuries. Once of the answers is that they played baseball during baseball season, and then were on the track team and then took the summer (or winter or both) off to just be kids. This is supported by research. The more you throw, the more fatigued you get. The more fatigued you get, the harder you are on your arm. The harder you are on your arm, the more likely you are to get injured. There are also just so many pitches a person can throw before getting injured. Of course, that number may be more for Nolan Ryan than it is for me. Hence, forcing players to throw 6 innings may make some fans happier, but it isn't going to solve the problem of arm injuries. It will make them worse. If MLB wants to solve this problem, it needs to go talk to elementary school parents about having their kids only play baseball during little league season, or on the school team, and then see where we are 15 years later. It's long term thinking. People hate that.
Also, why do I care how long a starting pitcher lasts? Logically, I should probably cap my pitchers at about 30 pitches and have a constant stream of fresh arms. They will probably last longer and give up fewer runs. The goal is to win games.
Idiocy is a very strong (and unnecessary) word. Much of what you say is true, and of course pitching more innings at 98 MPH would lead to more injuries, but the objective (as Molly’s post makes clear) is to de-emphasize velocity. Would that make a difference? Maybe, who knows? As for starting pitching, that’s part of the 150 year old tradition of baseball. You have no obligation to care about that, but many fans do.
I think you’re on the right track with the specialization argument. Several years ago I read a very informative article about NBA players blowing knees out very early in their careers. As I recall, they interviewed orthopedic surgeons who said for the first time in their careers they were doing knee replacements 20 and 30 year olds. They blamed this on the same phenomenon. Jumping up and down on hard wood floors year around instead of only for three months (then moving on to baseball and track and soccer or whatever).
There are two issues here - the role of the starter with the parade of hard-throwing relievers, and the injury problem. An alternative to the “brute force” approach of having a 6-inning minimum would be to have the manager identify, say, 5 pitchers that could be used in the game. Other pitchers on the active roster would not be eligible to pitch in that game (barring verified injury, extra innings or perhaps a “mercy rule” if there is a large late-inning deficit). That would encourage longer outings by the starter but not prohibit other strategies such as an “opener” followed by a longer stint, or a couple of 3-4 inning pitchers if desired. However, I think the injury problem goes back to players who are too young throwing too many pitches and are surgeries waiting to happen.
Yeah, the double hook is a better idea than some wonky minimum-6-innings requirement (with exceptions and clauses). The min. 6 innings thing is heavy-handed and may play out as artificial. But I think another good idea, one that I keep harping on whenever Molly or Poz or Calcaterra or anyone thoughtful about baseball writes about this topic, is combining the double hook with instituting the following:
A Day of Game-Eligible Pitcher List.
Along with the lineup card, each manager submits such a list to the umpire chief. Five pitchers, or six, or even four? Five seems best from the gut, but who can say? And of course you add a blowout clause, and injury clause with mandatory IL stint, and whatever other tweaks, but I love this idea hypothetically. Anyway, you institute both new rules, and it would be great for broadcasters ("as he so often has done over the course of his career, Joe Kelly is coming in from the bullpen to try to protect this two-run Dodger lead, and now Dave Roberts has a decision to make down the line: he needs nine outs, but the only eligible pitcher he's got left after Kelly is Evan Phillips, who has not pitched more than one inning in a game this year..."). It also allows teams to still carry as many pitchers as they want on their roster.
I see the game-eligible pitchers list - paired with the double hook - as a complement to the lineup card, not an intrusive invasion into the flow of the game. Anybody with any thoughts? Agreements, disagreements, suggested modifications?
Love it; strategy plus the emphasis on longerhaul pitching. I think you should ring up Theo and get him on this one!
Since I remain among those who dislike the DH for removing strategy from the game, I don't think starting pitchers should HAVE to go six innings. But ....
I think the problem is that pitchers in recent years have been treated differently--I don't want to say coddled. But they can pitch fewer innings and throw harder. If the pitch clock is affecting them, then they need to adapt to the pitch clock. But this all goes to the important point about baseball that makes the playoff system such a crap shoot and the Dodgers so frustrating: the regular season is not a sprint. It's a marathon. And these pitchers are throwing as if they are sprinting.
An allegory. Remember Bruce Froemming? It would not be uncharitable to say that Bruce was ... pudgy. One night, he and his longtime crew chief, John Kibler, were in a Cincinnati rathskeller, downing ribs and beer, because that's what you do in Cincy. A group of young guys noticed and recognized them, and started riding them about being out of shape. Kibler finally pointed at Froemming and said, "He could beat any of you in a 100-foot dash." Oh, really? Substantial money was put on the table. They went outside. The most athletic of the younger guys was ready to go. Froemming BURIED him. Because no umpire in a game has to run more than 100 feet, usually, so he was trained to run that far. But 105 feet might have killed him.
Pitchers, take heed. It's a 162-game season. Don't throw at 100 mph in April. Keep something in the tank.
I hate the idea of the double-hook; it basically means that when a team is down, you make it harder for them to catch up. If the goal is to make the game more exciting, it seems counterproductive.
Yes! I was thinking the same thing. If my team has clawed its way back from a disastrous start to make it 9-8 in the ninth, do I want to see some bench player coming up to bat or David Ortiz?
Folks, the DH is better for baseball and it is here to stay. Stop looking for backdoor ways to make it go away.
Reverting to the 25 man roster is the easiest first step. It’s also incredible to consider the pitch counts of some of the all time greats. I’ve added this URL to this comment section (and this basic discussion) before; it provides insight to how the Mets handled Seaver, Ryan and Koosman: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/418425-jerry-koosman-tom-seaver-nolan-ryan-and-pitch-counts#:~:text=Seaver's%20limit%20was%20135%20pitches,it%2C%20and%20Rube%20knew%20it.
yeah I can't imagine having to watch a pitcher who's just having a bad game have to stay in and pitch simply because the owners think it's important to the legacy of the position. Every pitcher has a bad game which is why you have a bull pen. watching a pitcher have a bad game is torture for the player & the fan.