MLB considering 6IP minimum for starters

[nrockway]

17 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Every other sport has changed rules plenty of times due to technology and change in speed/skill/etc.

The idea that baseball should never change rules to accommodate the games changes is short sighted imo.

Give examples. This isn't a rule change to "accommodate" game changes, it's a rule change to hearken to a contrived sense of nostalgia about "the good ol days" where there simply weren't enough good pitchers to field a deep bullpen. It's the opposite of accommodating "game changes", it's saying that relief pitchers are too good now and we prefer watching big name star pitchers like Chris Flexen. This is probably just for marketing purposes, you might buy a starting pitcher's jersey but you're probably not going to buy the middle reliever's -- so why should he even play? 

A hypothetical example: Consider the NBA. The game has moved toward being "positionless" to the point where kids who watch the game don't even know what the 'shooting guard' is (ask some kids what position they think Michael Jordan played...they think he was a small forward). Does the NBA change the rules to say that only the point guard can carry the ball up the floor and begin sets? That centers are only allowed to stand near the rim because that's traditionally where they have played?

A real rule change that the NBA should make is to increase the size of the court and move back the three point line, especially in the corner. Or completely reimagine point totals, like maybe scoring should look more like the NFL. The major issue to correct being that the 3-point shot is too easy to make for how valuable it is. Those are rule changes, IMO, that would benefit the sport, not serve as some nostalgic gimmick.

Back to baseball, I can't really think of any existential problems about the sport except that it's slow-paced and nobody has attention spans anymore. I can sort of respect that they're willing to experiment and try to make the game better, but also don't fix what isn't broken. Baseball is fine, I think they keep trying to appeal to an audience that won't ever exist with these rule changes (going back to pitch clock, base path shortening). 

[chitownsportsfan]

Demographics of this board are showing in this thread. I'm 41. I've lived about half my life in a world where pitcher wins don't matter. Younger fans it's all they know. They don't care about 300 innings in a season or 20 wins or whatever they care about team wins and WHIP and K rate and so on.

This is like lamenting that there aren't any 50 save guys anymore and we need to change the rules to make that happen. Who fucking cares other than nostalgic old timers looking back with a biased eye?

[JoeC]

1 minute ago, chitownsportsfan said:

Demographics of this board are showing in this thread. I'm 41. I've lived about half my life in a world where pitcher wins don't matter. Younger fans it's all they know. They don't care about 300 innings in a season or 20 wins or whatever they care about team wins and WHIP and K rate and so on.

This is like lamenting that there aren't any 50 save guys anymore and we need to change the rules to make that happen. Who fucking cares other than nostalgic old timers looking back with a biased eye?

Yeah - shifts in the NHL used to last for several minutes at a time back before the ‘80’s. Back before the ‘70’s, you had to serve your full 2 minutes for penalties, regardless of whether the other team scored on the PP.

The NBA didn’t used to have a shot clock. You couldn’t play zone defense (note: I’m not sure if you can now, because I don’t follow the NBA whatsoever)

MLB didn’t have a DH, and pitchers pitched complete games, every 4 days. Hitters didn’t wear helmets.

Times change. I think this rule is dumb and unnecessary, but we’ll all move on after some pointless bellyaching.

[46DidIt]

6 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Other sports dictate this. 

What sport doesn’t allow a player to be removed? The only one I can think of is Buzkashi, although you have at least a decent chance of being removed by death or paralysis there

[JoeC]

3 minutes ago, 46DidIt said:

What sport doesn’t allow a player to be removed? The only one I can think of is Buzkashi, although you have at least a decent chance of being removed by death or paralysis there

Soccer limits the number of substitutions.

Hockey prohibits substitutions in certain situations (icing).

[southsider2k5]

9 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said:

Demographics of this board are showing in this thread. I'm 41. I've lived about half my life in a world where pitcher wins don't matter. Younger fans it's all they know. They don't care about 300 innings in a season or 20 wins or whatever they care about team wins and WHIP and K rate and so on.

This is like lamenting that there aren't any 50 save guys anymore and we need to change the rules to make that happen. Who fucking cares other than nostalgic old timers looking back with a biased eye?

Some rule changes make sense.  I get trying to speed games up, and I get player safety.  But forcing more pitchers to go longer into game in an era where we already have too many pitching injuries seemns pretty foolish to me.

[46DidIt]

Just now, JoeC said:

Soccer limits the number of substitutions.

Hockey prohibits substitutions in certain situations (icing).

Yeah soccer limits substitution but it doesn’t prevent you from removing a player. Icing? Come on man! This is like having a rule that goalie couldn’t be removed until the third period

[FT35]

On 8/15/2024 at 2:50 PM, JoeC said:

I think it should be tied to other rules.

The first time you put in a reliever before 6IP in a game, you lose your replay vchallenge.

The second time you put in a reliever before 6IP in the same game, you lose your DH.

(barring injury)

This is starting to sound like one of those new UNO games.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

1 hour ago, nrockway said:

Give examples. This isn't a rule change to "accommodate" game changes, it's a rule change to hearken to a contrived sense of nostalgia about "the good ol days" where there simply weren't enough good pitchers to field a deep bullpen. It's the opposite of accommodating "game changes", it's saying that relief pitchers are too good now and we prefer watching big name star pitchers like Chris Flexen. This is probably just for marketing purposes, you might buy a starting pitcher's jersey but you're probably not going to buy the middle reliever's -- so why should he even play? 

A hypothetical example: Consider the NBA. The game has moved toward being "positionless" to the point where kids who watch the game don't even know what the 'shooting guard' is (ask some kids what position they think Michael Jordan played...they think he was a small forward). Does the NBA change the rules to say that only the point guard can carry the ball up the floor and begin sets? That centers are only allowed to stand near the rim because that's traditionally where they have played?

A real rule change that the NBA should make is to increase the size of the court and move back the three point line, especially in the corner. Or completely reimagine point totals, like maybe scoring should look more like the NFL. The major issue to correct being that the 3-point shot is too easy to make for how valuable it is. Those are rule changes, IMO, that would benefit the sport, not serve as some nostalgic gimmick.

Back to baseball, I can't really think of any existential problems about the sport except that it's slow-paced and nobody has attention spans anymore. I can sort of respect that they're willing to experiment and try to make the game better, but also don't fix what isn't broken. Baseball is fine, I think they keep trying to appeal to an audience that won't ever exist with these rule changes (going back to pitch clock, base path shortening). 

You think the pitch clock hasn't been a good thing for baseball?

The NBA has made more rule changes than any sport to change how it is played an accommodate for changes. 

1 hour ago, 46DidIt said:

What sport doesn’t allow a player to be removed? The only one I can think of is Buzkashi, although you have at least a decent chance of being removed by death or paralysis there

Soccer and uh...... Baseball! Lol you sure you still watching baseball pal?

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

1 hour ago, chitownsportsfan said:

Demographics of this board are showing in this thread. I'm 41. I've lived about half my life in a world where pitcher wins don't matter. Younger fans it's all they know. They don't care about 300 innings in a season or 20 wins or whatever they care about team wins and WHIP and K rate and so on.

This is like lamenting that there aren't any 50 save guys anymore and we need to change the rules to make that happen. Who fucking cares other than nostalgic old timers looking back with a biased eye?

You're not much older than me, and baseball has changed dramatically from my younger years. I don't see age as the issue here. Even in 98, sps avg 6.1 ip per start. That's only .2 ip less than in 1979, 1964, 1955 etc. In 2024, it's 5.1. It was 5.7 in the 2010's. It's 5.0 in the 2020's.

The game has changed more in the last 15 years than it had in the 80 prior. 

Edited August 16 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[WhiteSox2023]

I absolutely love the pitch clock addition.  It’s not as good as watching a 1:53 hour duel between Mark Buehrle and Mark Mulder but it helps.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

15 hours ago, zisk said:

Wouldn't limiting pitching staffs to 11 guys accomplish the same thing? I must admit I hate

all the strike outs and pitching changes. Training your pitchers to throw as hard as possible 

all the time is why there are so many pitcher injuries. Starters are a stud if they pitch 200

innings now. Usually cutting 30-35% off a guys work load should reduce injuries. 

I'm fine with roster restrictions to force this too, but I think that has a harder time getting through due to injury risk caused by that. 

100 pitches isn't an injury risk but forces you towards endurance more than max knowing you have to get there.

[Quin]

Fine, here's my compromise:

If a team pinch hits before their opponent's starter exits, they lose the position.

Get ready for some crazy ball.

[The Mighty Mite]

3 hours ago, JoeC said:

Maybe this is the start of the standard 6-man rotation.

That’s the first thing I thought. As and old timer I think the game is in a good place right now and, I like the new rules which have sped up the game, I really think that we don’t need any more new rules, it looks like MLB isn’t happy with the bullpen starts which is why we will probably see 6 starters on a team soon.

3 hours ago, Dick Allen said:

Its a real cool idea that will never happen.

 

[Paulie4Pres]

Conservatism is such a terrible disease.

[greg775]

5 hours ago, nrockway said:

This isn't a rule change to "accommodate" game changes, it's a rule change to hearken to a contrived sense of nostalgia about "the good ol days" where there simply weren't enough good pitchers to field a deep bullpen.

Back to baseball, I can't really think of any existential problems about the sport except that it's slow-paced and nobody has attention spans anymore. I can sort of respect that they're willing to experiment and try to make the game better, but also don't fix what isn't broken. Baseball is fine.

NRockway: You tell me about the extinction of the starting pitcher as a player that matters AT ALL and how that is good for the game. Because of analytics, it was decided starters should not face hitters in their third time at the plate in a game. Certainly not a fourth time. So that led to the ridiculous starter who often can't even go long enough to be eligible for a win. W/L record means NOTHING. All that matters are K's and I guess to a certain extent ERA even though the stat mongers don't care 'much' about ERA. Nobody will answer my question about how you feel about no starting pitchers to enter the Hall of Fame in the future. NONE unless there are a few stragglers out there who have a ton of wins. Cause the W/L stat is THE only stat that matters for Hall of Fame inclusion.

So also answer me Rockway ... Is the game in a state of crisis when you have made insignificant the role of the starting pitcher?? WIth batting average also a stat 'ruined' by the philosophy of HR/K all that matters, you've got what, 6-8 hitters in each league over .300? Is it good for the game to have no 25-year-old starters and up to ever gain admittance to the Hall? All we will care about from now on is how many K's a pitcher has. And that's not going to be remarkable cause virtually every pitcher who manages to go five innings will have between 8-12 K's. Sickening. Please respond, people. The extinction of the starting pitcher in MLB is akin to dinosaurs leaving the earth. Significant.

[greg775]

6 hours ago, chitownsportsfan said:

Demographics of this board are showing in this thread. Who fucking cares other than nostalgic old timers looking back with a biased eye?

Respectfully you are wrong. The Hall of Fame is interesting to fans of all ages. Superstardom is interesting to fans of all ages. From now on we will have no Hall of Famers from the starting pitcher category. Why? Cause the W/L stat is now laughable. in the only stat that matters (K's), TONS of starters will have similar totals. They can go five innings and whiff 10 or so. Big deal. How bout the days when a pitcher could go 23-5 W/L for a season? Remember LaMarr Hoyt flirting with 30 wins? Days long gone by. Please people, comment on the demise of a category of player such as starting pitcher. Is it good for the game to switch from talking about pitcher superstars to all similar mediocres who can whiff 10 over 5 innings? Then take a shower and come back four days later? How bout starters who throw six strong innings, get out of a jam in the sixth, then breeze through the seventh and eighth and give way to a closer in the 9th. Never will happen again. Sad.

Edited August 16 by greg775

[southsider2k5]

14 minutes ago, greg775 said:

Respectfully you are wrong. The Hall of Fame is interesting to fans of all ages. Superstardom is interesting to fans of all ages. From now on we will have no Hall of Famers from the starting pitcher category. Why? Cause the W/L stat is now laughable. in the only stat that matters (K's), TONS of starters will have similar totals. They can go five innings and whiff 10 or so. Big deal. How bout the days when a pitcher could go 23-5 W/L for a season? Remember LaMarr Hoyt flirting with 30 wins? Days long gone by. Please people, comment on the demise of a category of player such as starting pitcher. Is it good for the game to switch from talking about pitcher superstars to all similar mediocres who can whiff 10 over 5 innings? Then take a shower and come back four days later? How bout starters who throw six strong innings, get out of a jam in the sixth, then breeze through the seventh and eighth and give way to a closer in the 9th. Never will happen again. Sad.

It's almost like things have changed in 40 years.  Why stop here?  Let's just go back the the deadball era and have them throw 85 for 400 innings.

[JoeC]

28 minutes ago, greg775 said:

NRockway: You tell me about the extinction of the starting pitcher as a player that matters AT ALL and how that is good for the game. Because of analytics, it was decided starters should not face hitters in their third time at the plate in a game. Certainly not a fourth time. So that led to the ridiculous starter who often can't even go long enough to be eligible for a win. W/L record means NOTHING. All that matters are K's and I guess to a certain extent ERA even though the stat mongers don't care 'much' about ERA. Nobody will answer my question about how you feel about no starting pitchers to enter the Hall of Fame in the future. NONE unless there are a few stragglers out there who have a ton of wins. Cause the W/L stat is THE only stat that matters for Hall of Fame inclusion.

So also answer me Rockway ... Is the game in a state of crisis when you have made insignificant the role of the starting pitcher?? WIth batting average also a stat 'ruined' by the philosophy of HR/K all that matters, you've got what, 6-8 hitters in each league over .300? Is it good for the game to have no 25-year-old starters and up to ever gain admittance to the Hall? All we will care about from now on is how many K's a pitcher has. And that's not going to be remarkable cause virtually every pitcher who manages to go five innings will have between 8-12 K's. Sickening. Please respond, people. The extinction of the starting pitcher in MLB is akin to dinosaurs leaving the earth. Significant.

It's this statement that's just flat out false.

The HoF has always been a comparison to peers, and it has always evolved, sometimes slowly, to accommodate the evolution in the game. Otherwise DHs and Closers would forever be excluded.

[Texsox]

7 hours ago, chitownsportsfan said:

Demographics of this board are showing in this thread. I'm 41. I've lived about half my life in a world where pitcher wins don't matter. Younger fans it's all they know. They don't care about 300 innings in a season or 20 wins or whatever they care about team wins and WHIP and K rate and so on.

This is like lamenting that there aren't any 50 save guys anymore and we need to change the rules to make that happen. Who fucking cares other than nostalgic old timers looking back with a biased eye?

Whoa. I want a 145 game season, seven inning double headers, and all short inning pitchers. It's the kids that want this long ass season. 

[chitownsportsfan]

6 hours ago, Quin said:

Fine, here's my compromise:

If a team pinch hits before their opponent's starter exits, they lose the position.

Get ready for some crazy ball.

every 3rd inning you get the wild card: anything from a fan pitching to a race in the OF for a run occurs. go wild. 

[Quin]

17 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said:

every 3rd inning you get the wild card: anything from a fan pitching to a race in the OF for a run occurs. go wild. 

Sunday games are now Bananaball.

[greg775]

9 hours ago, nrockway said:

Back to baseball, I can't really think of any existential problems about the sport except that it's slow-paced and nobody has attention spans anymore.

Well, that's a huge problem, lol. Because of it being slowpaced and trying to win over people with short attention spans, the league faces some huge issues regarding its future. ... I'm not all for rules changes. The thing with the pitchers, I'd prefer figuring a way for the next generation to return to 8 inning starters without making some dumb rule starters have to go six. Six frankly doesn't satisfy greg. I want eight innings to be common on a good night (with no rule in place) and let the closer close. The more relievers you need to use the worse the game is. Baseball is loaded with incompetent relief pitchers. Finding a way to limit mound usage to 3 pitchers MAX per game would be beneficial. Even better would be starter goes eight on a good night with a Gossage closing it.

Edited August 17 by greg775

[greg775]

3 hours ago, JoeC said:

It's this statement that's just flat out false.

The HoF has always been a comparison to peers, and it has always evolved, sometimes slowly, to accommodate the evolution in the game. Otherwise DHs and Closers would forever be excluded.

Not false. .

I'm talking about starters right now and only starting pitchers.

Under the current mindset caused by excessive analytics, starting pitchers age 25 and up have no shot at the Hall. Only stat from a starter of value now and in the future is gonna be Ks vs walks issued. And tons of starters will have a lot of Ks. In the former days, W/L was the first stat to look at for a starter; number of saves for a reliever.

[greg775]

3 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

Let's just go back the the deadball era and have them throw 85 for 400 innings.

No, let's go back to when a starter can manage an entire game (Buehrle cough cough; Seaver cough cough; Hoyt, Jenkins, Stieb). Starting pitching was artestry not just bringing heat like today, It is even surprising Sox are even giving slowballer Drew Thorpe a chance at starting with the current mindset. I was reading some analytical mumbo jumbo about how the author was surprised we aren't at the point starters are flamethrowers who go 3 innings max, ideally recording 8 outs minimum by K. Go 3 flamethrowers per game three innings each. See if a hitter or two can connect for a HR and that's your 2 hour game. Let's say 3-1 or 4-2 with 3 homers in the 3-1 game and four homers in the 4-2 game.

Edited August 17 by greg775