Warren Newson wrote:
One Post wrote:
Warren Newson wrote:
One Post wrote:
Caller Bob wrote:
Nardi wrote:
Minor changes won't slow the bleeding.
They are letting the nerds ruin the game again
Nerds aren't ruining the game, they are just optimizing outcomes under the rules. You want different outcomes, change the rules.
Limit teams to 4 pitchers per game and you'll see teams running phalanxes of Mark Buerhle clones out there. Leave the rules as they are and you'll continue to see 5 relief pitchers per team each night each stomping around the mound for 35 seconds or so to gear themselves up for the next 99 MPH fastball.
I'm all for limiting the number of pitchers a team can use per game, but it's only going to possibly solve some of the game's problems. For instance, I don't think it will have much of an impact on these three outcome at bats.
Two of the three outcomes are walks and K's. Both of them almost by definition are going to run up the pitch count of whoever is on the mound. If your team is counting on you to go 7+ innings, you can't run up a 110 pitch count in the 5th inning trying to whiff every batter. Pitchers will have to throw more strikes, and likely more hittable strikes to get deeper into games. So most certainly it will have an impact on two of the three outcomes.
The problem is, the three outcomes are coming more from the hitting side than the pitching side. Batters are going to the plate with the goal of hitting a homerun or walking, and not particularly caring if they strike out. You can have a league full of Buerhle's and that doesn't really change. However, as Big W said, I think limiting a team to four pitchers might help move the game along.
Pitchers force the action, hitters react.
The thought would be that right now, hitters sell out for HRs because the likelihood of stringing together 3-6 hits multiple times a game isn't a likely occurrence when you have a starter that you see 2x at best and then a wave of relievers throwing no more than 16 pitches each, all in excess of 97 MPH or that have remarkable movement. The thought then is that hitting an HR is by far your most viable scoring option.
You change the action that pitchers are forcing: more hittable pitches, fewer pitchers in a game, and this opens up greater possibilities for 3-6 hit rallies multiple times in the game, and lessens the dependence on the HR. There is also a secondary effect in that if you have more balls in play and more rallies that result in runs, you are going to be more motivated to develop excellent defensive players. Excellent defensive players can most definitely hit HRs, that is a thing, but you'll see fewer HR hitting defensive butchers in the game, because before maybe they had 1-2 defensive chances a game, now you are not only increasing their defensive opportunities, but the risk of error on those opportunities is higher because you have a more ball in play centric game.
None of this matters because the rule change isn't going to happen, but I really think it would be the most dramatic and effective way to reduce reliance on three true outcomes, speed up the pace of play, and encourage development of more well rounded and more diversified pitchers and hitters.