Originally Posted by :
he MLB commissioner's office is reportedly considering a rule change that would require starting pitchers to play at least six innings per game.
MLB officials spoke to ESPN and expressed that the league is looking to both have starting pitchers spend more time in the game and also cut back on injuries. While these two viewpoints seem contradictory, the league also reportedly wants more balance in terms of strikeouts versus hits. A pitcher who knows he has to stay in the game longer may take some velocity off his pitches, making it easier for the batter.
"We are interested in increasing the amount of action in the game, restoring the prominence of the starting pitcher and reducing the prevalence of pitching injuries," an MLB official told ESPN. "There are a whole host of options in addressing those issues."
The alleged objective is to prioritize starting pitching but also avoid leaving in a struggling pitcher simply to meet the six-inning minimum.
To counteract this possibility, some caveats would have to be carved out. Some of the suggested exceptions would allow a pitcher to leave the game after:
Throwing 100 pitches
Giving up 4+ earned runs
An injury followed by mandatory time on the injured list
In regards to the minimum, Kansas City Royals starting pitcher Seth Lugo said "I do that anyway."
"We all want to go at least six," he added.
"It's such a bad idea," baseball analyst Gary Sheffield Jr. told Blaze News. "So bad that it would never be considered by the players."
Sheffield stressed that requiring such a pitch count would be extremely detrimental to young pitchers.
"At the velocities they're throwing these days most young arms would explode."
Arizona Diamondbacks General Manager Mike Hazen suggested pulling back on velocity would be an inevitable result.
"That's a tough thing, because that's where you get outs," Hazen explained.
According to Bleacher Report, MLB starters are averaging 5.25 innings in 2024 while Triple-A starters are averaging 4.3. This appears to reveal that development would be required in the minor leagues to extend the life of a starting pitcher another .75 innings in the majors.
Teams have become much more strict in terms of pitch counts for their starters in recent years, so much so that only 21 pitchers have thrown complete games in 2024. Just three pitchers — Kevin Gausman (TOR), Max Fried (ATL), Cristopher Sanchez (PHI) — have more than one.
Aside from the minimum-innings rule, the league has also reportedly considered limiting the size of pitching staffs and implementing the double-hook DH rule.
Currently being experimented with in the independent Atlantic League, the double-hook DH rule causes a team to lose their designated hitter if they remove their starting pitcher from the game.
Originally Posted by KC_Connection:
People cried and bitched about the pitch clock too until they realized it was the best thing to happen in baseball for years. Guarantee this would be similar if they ever had the guts to implement it.
People cried and bitched about the pitch clock? Huh? It was always thought to be amazing in terms of speeding up games in a sport that was too long. This is some major revisionist history.
This rule change is entirely different. It would truly alter the entire course of the game materially more than anything has possibly ever done. It’s colossally stupid and I’d bet a lot it’s never implemented as a result. [Reply]
Originally Posted by lewdog:
There isn't anyone who thinks this is a good idea.
Oh, probably BWillie.
Well within reason. If they surrender 6 ER or something then they are allowed out. It would really add to some excitement. I like making the pitchers wear it. [Reply]
I was a huge fan of the pitch clock after seeing it in the minors. This I'm not real sure about. It'd never happen but if you really want to do this without creating all these weird exceptions just make the rule so a team can only carry 11 pitchers. Force teams to have to think about how they're using their pitchers. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
People cried and bitched about the pitch clock? Huh? It was always thought to be amazing in terms of speeding up games in a sport that was too long. This is some major revisionist history.
Before it was implemented and everyone got to see it? Yes, absolutely, criticism of it was literally all I saw.
People apparently loved baseball players standing around scratching their balls even more than countless strikeouts and pitching changes.
Originally Posted by :
This rule change is entirely different. It would truly alter the entire course of the game materially more than anything has possibly ever done. It’s colossally stupid and I’d bet a lot it’s never implemented as a result.
The intent of this rule is the exactly the same intent as the pitch clock, to create more action in games and get to baseball as it was before analytics dictated every single move on the field.
And it wouldn’t alter the course of a game much at all provided those exceptions (4+ runs, 100+ pitches) are in place. It will just incentivize having good starting pitchers again instead of teams running out a barrage of relievers every game from the 4th inning on. [Reply]
Man, there was a game in the early 2000s where we pulled Miguel Ascensio up from AA or something insane and he walked a bunch of guys and gave up a bunch of runs...In the first inning. [Reply]
Originally Posted by scho63:
So what if a guy has to throw 150 pitches to get through the 6th inning?
One of the dumbest, possibly THE dumbest rule change in sports since women with dicks can box and fight women without dicks.
Originally Posted by :
To counteract this possibility, some caveats would have to be carved out. Some of the suggested exceptions would allow a pitcher to leave the game after:
Throwing 100 pitches
Giving up 4+ earned runs
An injury followed by mandatory time on the injured list
In regards to the minimum, Kansas City Royals starting pitcher Seth Lugo said "I do that anyway."
Do people just not read the articles posted here? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla:
Man, there was a game in the early 2000s where we pulled Miguel Ascensio up from AA or something insane and he walked a bunch of guys and gave up a bunch of runs...In the first inning.
Provided he allowed 4 runs in that first inning, he’d be gone with this rule anyway [Reply]
Originally Posted by tk13:
I was a huge fan of the pitch clock after seeing it in the minors. This I'm not real sure about. It'd never happen but if you really want to do this without creating all these weird exceptions just make the rule so a team can only carry 11 pitchers. Force teams to have to think about how they're using their pitchers.
If they don’t do this (or something like this like the double-hook DH rule to incentivize SP usage), eventually you’re not gonna see starting pitchers in their current form at all btw
Teams will ultimately just run out a rotation of 12 relievers who can pitch 2-3 innings every few days because the numbers will dictate that (they show a massive drop off for just about any pitcher in the league once they get through the order one time). [Reply]
I used to really enjoy baseball but MLB and their stubborn refusal to engage in meaningful revenue sharing has exposed itself as a stupid so called sport. MLB can KC to he to rot as far as I’m concerned. None of these stupid gimmicks are going to make a difference at this point. [Reply]