Proposed MLB rule changes

[BrassBulls12]

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/25935056/mlb-players-discussing-rule-changes-alter-game 

• A three-batter minimum for pitchers

• A universal designated hitter

• A single trade deadline before the All-Star break

• A 20-second pitch clock

• The expansion of rosters to 26 men, with a 12-pitcher maximum

• Draft advantages for winning teams and penalties for losing teams

• A study to lower the mound

• A rule that would allow two-sport amateurs to sign major league contracts

 

I was interested to see how others thought of these potential rule changes. I think the pitch clock is the closest to happening. I am a fan of the three batter minimum, not so much for the universal DH, I would rather the opposite but I understand the entertainment and economic value of both leagues having the extra hitter. The draft rules would be interesting to see play out. 

Edited February 7, 2019 by BrassBulls12

[JTrue]

12 hours ago, BrassBulls12 said:

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/25935056/mlb-players-discussing-rule-changes-alter-game 

• A three-batter minimum for pitchers - Not a fan. Too much of an impact on the game itself. Completely destroys LH relief pitching. Starts to have an impact on your batting order so you make it impossible to deploy a pitcher for a key matchup. 

• A universal designated hitter - I get it. Everyone at every level uses the DH except the National League. But I prefer pitchers hitting. Might have something to do with the Cubs having had Rick Sutcliffe, Kerry Wood, Carlos Zambrano, and Jake Arrieta over the years.

• A single trade deadline before the All-Star break - There's no rational argument for why this isn't already a thing. Allowing teams to trade for players when the season is 75% over is stupid. And the waiver trade deadline is even more ridiculous.

• A 20-second pitch clock - Do it. Most guys have already been exposed to this in minor leagues. It's not too much to ask that you get on the mound and throw the god **** ball.

• The expansion of rosters to 26 men, with a 12-pitcher maximum - Meh. Another utility outfielder/pinch runner doesn't matter to me either way.

• Draft advantages for winning teams and penalties for losing teams - I'm not sure how this works. You let good teams get better and bad teams stay worse? The Red Sox get the first pick in the draft this year? 

• A study to lower the mound - If you're really trying to suppress pitching advantages, it all comes down to how relief pitchers are being used. I think limiting the number of active pitchers is a better place to look. 

• A rule that would allow two-sport amateurs to sign major league contracts - Who cares? If you want to give an 18 year old a major league contract, fine. It's your money.

 

I was interested to see how others thought of these potential rule changes. I think the pitch clock is the closest to happening. I am a fan of the three batter minimum, not so much for the universal DH, I would rather the opposite but I understand the entertainment and economic value of both leagues having the extra hitter. The draft rules would be interesting to see play out. 

 

[Apis Bull]

Any proposed unwritten changes to the unwritten rules?

[BrassBulls12]

8 minutes ago, JTrue said:

A three-batter minimum for pitchers - Not a fan. Too much of an impact on the game itself. Completely destroys LH relief pitching. Starts to have an impact on your batting order so you make it impossible to deploy a pitcher for a key matchup. 

This is why I like it. I'm not a fan of the one batter specialists. I heard Smolts talk about pitchers today not striving to be great because the pitchers aren't asked to be great. I think that has some play here even though it was said about a different hypothetical rule change proposed by Bill James. I also like the effect it would have on length of game. 

[chapelbull]

10 hours ago, Apis Bull said:

Any proposed unwritten changes to the unwritten rules?

Yes,

1. You will be allowed to bunt to break up a no hitter IF the pitcher runs a faster 60 than the batter.  

2. Moonwalking is not only allowed, but encouraged for all home run trots

3.  Sign stealing is allowed from 2nd base, but runner must use Morse Code to relay signs to batter

[BrassBulls12]

Not that I agree but here is one take on the DH rule 

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2819857-mlb-must-finally-add-designated-hitter-to-nl-after-46-year-mistake

Anyone who's anti-DH is most likely a National League fan who much prefers the bunts, double switches and other strategic elements that come hand-in-hand with pitchers hitting for themselves.

No matter your preference, you're not wrong. That's the thing about preferences; they're nice and subjective.

But if we're going to shift this discussion over to what's best for baseball, a fundamental problem with the anti-DH position arises. Once you get past "Because I like it," there aren't many objective arguments in favor of pitchers hitting for themselves.

The big one in favor of a universal DH is that pitchers are insultingly bad at hitting. This was true even as far back as the 1800s, when an article in Sporting Life (h/t SABR's John Cronin) posited: "Every patron of the game is conversant with the utter worthlessness of the average pitcher when he goes up to try to hit the ball."

 

I feel like the two bolded statements work against each other. 

Edited February 8, 2019 by BrassBulls12