Instead of limiiting the number of pitchers, tie the DH to the pitcher. So when you remove the pitcher, you remove his associated DH. That keeps the game in place for ther purists. Managers can pitch as many guys as they want, but they will run out of hitters quick (or the pitcher will have to bat). It would accomplish forcing starters to go longer, and seems to me to keep the game more in line with traditional rules.
Good article. I think the step he missed after suggesting more reliever innings (and therefore more max effort innings) was to show the data for just starters (and excluding openers). Understandably, that's harder to parse, but it would drill down to confirm the hypothesis that (starting) pitchers don't cruise like they use to and/or changing speeds on the fastball is a less common approach.
Here's another thought: are there more classifications on pitches these days? Did there used to be just fastball, curveball, slider, changeup and knuckle? At what point was there tracking of 2 seam fastball or distinguishing that from a cutter? Split fingers (forkball) and screwball came along. Sinkers. Very recently the sweeper was categorized but I'm guessing guys had been throwing a pitch like it before as a version of a slider. My point is that it's possible the minimum hasn't changed as much as implied in the article, rather the classification of the pitch is different.
Also possible is the study and development of pitches provides more options to pitchers. It's always useful to change speeds which a couple decades ago would be accomplished by Cliff Lee with subtle differences in fastball speed but now it's done through spin so all the fastballs are intended to induce late swings and are thrown hard.
It's probable there are a multiple factors which supports the point: pitching has changed without rule changes and the only way to slow that down or even reverse the trend would be with rule changes.
My closest fandom to what you describe as the "James Harden Experience" was being a Packers fan growing up in the 90s/00s. Brett Favre, I am certain, singlehandedly won more football games than any other player. But I'm sure he also LOST more games singlehandedly than anyone else, too. But that ride resulted in more team success than the Harden Experience, so at least I have that.
I wanna like James Harden because he gets so much criticism. But man. He embellishes every bit of contact. And he kicks his legs forward on any semi-contested three, to try to draw a foul. If he did this in pick-up games, there would either be fighting or rude words exchanged.
It is interesting to think which players would be the best at pick up games. LeBron would be unbelievable. I don’t know about Harden. None of those fouls would matter. And his own team might kill him for being a ball hog. I guess you see a little of it in the All-Star game. But the players are all trying not to get hurt.
I remember one time in a pick up game a guy called me for over the back. I was like WTF? After that I started calling everything. Three seconds, traveling, etc. Just to prove the point. I was probably being an asshole, but I got a kick out of it.
Wait, there are so many Mookie Betts ROOKIE cards that Mike Schur (a man with plenty of dollars) can't possibly collect them all?
I guess the baseball card industry is doing just fine, but that just sounds like a terrible situation to me. When I started collecting when I was like 12, there were like 3 rookie cards for a player (Topps, Fleer, Donruss), and football just had 1. Building sets and collecting all the cards (not just rookie cards) for my favorite players was attainable. Would it actually be fun to collect in an environment where these goals are unattainable for kids?
So you can still build base sets, that's not too hard and is attainable, but getting every card of one player? Or even just every rookie card of one player? Yeah, that's nearly impossible. I have over 1,500 different Mike Piazza cards and that's a small fraction of what's available (and Topps still puts cards of him and other retired players in certain products).
You have no idea! Got back into collecting in 2002 with the birth of my older son. Off the top of my head, here are the sets Topps puts out: flagship (what you and I collected as kids, released in 3 batches, Series 1, 2, and Update series), Heritage, Stadium Club, Allen & Ginter, Gypsy Queen, Archives, Pristine, Museum Collection, Bowman, Bowman's Best, Triple Thread. There's a ton I'm forgetting, then a lot of those releases have separate chrome releases. And that's just Topps, who has the MLB licenses. Paninni (Donruss) puts out a ton of releases too, but has to alter uniforms so logos aren't shown and lists teams simply by city name. Those count as rookie cards too (they all get a RC logo on them now). Plus, for each set the base card has countless numbered parallels, a black border limited to 100 copies, a blue border limited to 50, a red border limited to 25, etc and the prized 1/1 card. So even in a single product release, a player can have a dozen or more different rookie cards. Trying to get one of each is known as chasing the rainbow.
I'm going to keep dreaming that the "double hook" rule becomes a reality in the next Collective Bargaining Agreement. (When the starting pitcher leaves the game, you also lose the designated hitter.) I know it's doubtful, but maybe the JoePos clout will get decision makers thinking about it.
Three pitchers seems like few enough. You could allow more, but the guy replaced immediately goes on the 15 day DL. (My feelings about renaming the DL indicate my age).
BR John, take me back! I suspect you are referring to THE Nashville Fairgrounds Flea Market, ground zero for my pro sports interest. My fairgrounds days date to about 1979, but I can probably narrow your purchases down to four vendors if this was at the fairgrounds: Larry Mudd, Ed Gaddy, The Great Escape, or the guy my brothers and I called "The Nashville Sounds Guy" because of his hat. $20 was my monthly limit, so I never spent $20 on a single card. Many of us had our interest in sports sparked by radio, tv, or the local team. Nashville didn't have any pro sports in the 1970s and 1980s, but I suspect many fans, like me, had an early brush with pro sports via the card vendors at the flea market. And, I suspect there was a fairgrounds flea market in lots of small or mid-size towns across the country and across your readership.
MLB would be better off if they made a few adjustments to get more balls in play and extend the number of innings that starters could pitch. They could do this with a couple of adjustments:
1) Move the mound back some distance. I don't know if it should be 62 feet, 65 feet, 70 feet, etc. This would cause the batters to have more time to get bat on ball. The 100+ mph arms race and the max effort would be discouraged, because at a certain mound-plate distance they just can't blow batters away.
2) Mandate a minimum bat handle width (Bill James suggested this once) wider than are currently used. This would reduce the bat speed and torque so that not every batter could jack 25 HRs. Launch angle would need to be re-thought, as a lot of hitters would need to adjust to a more contact approach, a la Rod Carew. This could also be done with deadening the ball. More balls in play.
MLB's evolution (de-evolution?) toward max effort, multiple-reliever, launch-angle, three-true outcomes seems, to me, to have a parallel to the NBA's evolution to games being a 3-pointer contest. The mid-range game has disappeared, and to my eyes, it's to the detriment of the product on the court. Both sports could adjust to be more entertaining.
I think a solution would just be to limit the number of pictures on a roster. Start at 10 then maybe move it down to nine after a year or two. See what that does. Maybe even down to eight. Pitchers will have to adjust and the basics of the game will stay the same in terms of dimensions. Baseball became the wonderful game it is largely because of the fortuitous dimensions of 60 and 1/2 feet and 90 feet. Those dimensions just work out perfectly.
Problem with moving the mound back, as they experimented with in the atlantic league i think, is that pitchers lost the ability to throw strikes. Some of that was probably a learning curve but most of it was the ungodly amount of movement on the breaking ball. Yes the fastball might get easier to hit but a hitter would have next to no chance on a good slider or curve.
I’d like to see that data. If the mound were 80, 90, 100 feet from the plate would every pitcher throw a perfect game with unhittable breaking pitches? No. The farther the mound from the plate, the easier it is to hit the ball, despite breaking balls. The closer to the plate the harder to hit. There’s an optimum distance to encourage more contact, they just need to find it. There’s no way that 60.5 feet is the optimum distance now.
Putting 10-15 feet of resilient netting on top of all the outfield fences would turn cheap homers into doubles and triples caroming around the outfield.
If the rule is two pitchers only, how could a position player pitch? Wouldn’t that be a third pitcher?
And if that was a loophole, just play a pitcher in left field just before you need him. Or play a pitcher in left all the time, so you would always have access to one.
Hey, I think it would be fun to see teams adjust to this rule. I’m a big believer in allowing some experimentation. Some teams might go for offense and put all full-time players in the field. Others might go defense and sneak a couple pitchers out there. It would be fun to watch.
I am a Rays fan and I like the way they experiment. I like the pitch clock and bigger bases but I think the fielders should be able to play wherever the team wants them to. If you can’t bunt shame on you.
Maybe in blowouts, the 2-pitcher limit would be removed. If a starter gets bombed early and allows 9 runs in the first 3 innings, it probably wouldn't be good to limit the team to 2 pitchers.
I too worry about Misiorowski blowing out his elbow. I think everyone's fixation on the radar gun is a detriment and that returning to longer starts would be a good thing. Guys would have to learn how to pace themselves and use craftiness -- actually pitching, not just throwing hard at maximum effort. It kills me to think we will not see another Scherzer or Verlander because nobody has their stamina to get past five or six innings on a regular basis.
As an aside, it's interesting to me what pitchers remember about themselves -- or don't. Years ago at a NatsFest I was able to get Tanner Roark to sign a ticket I had saved from one of his 2014 starts. I'd kept it because he'd pitched a CGSO, which was already becoming a dinosaur at that point. But when I asked him if he knew why it was a significant game he had absolutely no recollection. And it was the only complete game he ever pitched!
So many gems, but my favorite part is the Cavs breakdown, as an avid Nets fan this was such a good description of Harden and the whole team! More Joe on Basketball please!
Another Nets fan! I thought my son and I were the only ones. As soon as they acquired Harden I sensed doom for the team. Plus, I found (and still find) him unwatchable. Although perhaps not as unwatchable as the team these last two seasons, for obviously different reasons.
Agreed! that is exactly why I wanted them to try to win this year, I believe in Jordi and the lottery is a 50/50 draw which historically the Nets have had terrible luck. I have lost all trust in Marks.
They won too many games in 2024-25. They played too hard for Jordi. It was bad enough to not get Flagg or Harper or Kon Knueppel but for some reason I find it particularly painful to watch VJ Edgecombe play for the Sixers knowing he was in reach if they had lost a few more of the meaningless games they won.
I love baseball today, but I do think a long term shift back to more starting pitching would make the game even better.
Also, like you, my NBA fandom is fickle. This Pistons team got me somewhat interested again starting last year. That is, until I watch games. The NBA is (old man yelling at cloud) almost unwatchable to me. Flopping and foul-baiting have reached EPL levels, and the refs are clueless to it. The 3 pointer has made the game fundamentally different and, IMO, more boring. It's certainly made it subject to much greater variance from game to game, with more blowouts. Even when my team is winning or the game is close, it's just hard for me to watch. Oh well, back to the Stanley Cup playoffs!
I could have written this very comment, you have put my thoughts into words better than I could have. I might add 2 calls that that drive me crazy….the late whistle for a foul call after the ref waits to see if the shot goes in or not and….the offensive player pushing the defender away with a shoulder to “create some space” and the ref calling a foul on the defender…only of course if after waiting to see if the shot goes in or not. When the Pistons get knocked out I will be done watching.
There is a long history of this crap in the NBA. Remember Tim Duncan – he would get the ball down low, raise his arms as if to shoot, lose the ball, thrust both hands into the air, then bug his eyes out and blow out his cheeks while he stared at the ref? Or magic Johnson would run down the lane and lose the ball and throw his arms up in the air to get a call? They’ve all done it.
I think the absolute worst is when they shoot the three and kick their leg out and then fall down, and the referee rewards them with three free throws. Why not make flopping a technical foul? And reviewable?
For me it's actually the LACK of particular calls: traveling is non-existent, and getting more egregious; push-offs are now allowed, i guess?; and 3-seconds is just gone. Remember the absolute furor about Jordan '96 vs Utah/Bryon Russell? Now that pushoff is just basically legal. BAH!
Instead of limiiting the number of pitchers, tie the DH to the pitcher. So when you remove the pitcher, you remove his associated DH. That keeps the game in place for ther purists. Managers can pitch as many guys as they want, but they will run out of hitters quick (or the pitcher will have to bat). It would accomplish forcing starters to go longer, and seems to me to keep the game more in line with traditional rules.
I immediately went on IBOOKS and pre-ordered 50 seasons
Apropos of pitching vs. max effort throwing: https://www.mlb.com/news/pitch-velocity-keeps-rising-with-mlb-pitchers?partnerID=web_article-share
Good article. I think the step he missed after suggesting more reliever innings (and therefore more max effort innings) was to show the data for just starters (and excluding openers). Understandably, that's harder to parse, but it would drill down to confirm the hypothesis that (starting) pitchers don't cruise like they use to and/or changing speeds on the fastball is a less common approach.
Here's another thought: are there more classifications on pitches these days? Did there used to be just fastball, curveball, slider, changeup and knuckle? At what point was there tracking of 2 seam fastball or distinguishing that from a cutter? Split fingers (forkball) and screwball came along. Sinkers. Very recently the sweeper was categorized but I'm guessing guys had been throwing a pitch like it before as a version of a slider. My point is that it's possible the minimum hasn't changed as much as implied in the article, rather the classification of the pitch is different.
Also possible is the study and development of pitches provides more options to pitchers. It's always useful to change speeds which a couple decades ago would be accomplished by Cliff Lee with subtle differences in fastball speed but now it's done through spin so all the fastballs are intended to induce late swings and are thrown hard.
It's probable there are a multiple factors which supports the point: pitching has changed without rule changes and the only way to slow that down or even reverse the trend would be with rule changes.
My closest fandom to what you describe as the "James Harden Experience" was being a Packers fan growing up in the 90s/00s. Brett Favre, I am certain, singlehandedly won more football games than any other player. But I'm sure he also LOST more games singlehandedly than anyone else, too. But that ride resulted in more team success than the Harden Experience, so at least I have that.
I wanna like James Harden because he gets so much criticism. But man. He embellishes every bit of contact. And he kicks his legs forward on any semi-contested three, to try to draw a foul. If he did this in pick-up games, there would either be fighting or rude words exchanged.
It is interesting to think which players would be the best at pick up games. LeBron would be unbelievable. I don’t know about Harden. None of those fouls would matter. And his own team might kill him for being a ball hog. I guess you see a little of it in the All-Star game. But the players are all trying not to get hurt.
I remember one time in a pick up game a guy called me for over the back. I was like WTF? After that I started calling everything. Three seconds, traveling, etc. Just to prove the point. I was probably being an asshole, but I got a kick out of it.
Wait, there are so many Mookie Betts ROOKIE cards that Mike Schur (a man with plenty of dollars) can't possibly collect them all?
I guess the baseball card industry is doing just fine, but that just sounds like a terrible situation to me. When I started collecting when I was like 12, there were like 3 rookie cards for a player (Topps, Fleer, Donruss), and football just had 1. Building sets and collecting all the cards (not just rookie cards) for my favorite players was attainable. Would it actually be fun to collect in an environment where these goals are unattainable for kids?
So you can still build base sets, that's not too hard and is attainable, but getting every card of one player? Or even just every rookie card of one player? Yeah, that's nearly impossible. I have over 1,500 different Mike Piazza cards and that's a small fraction of what's available (and Topps still puts cards of him and other retired players in certain products).
You have no idea! Got back into collecting in 2002 with the birth of my older son. Off the top of my head, here are the sets Topps puts out: flagship (what you and I collected as kids, released in 3 batches, Series 1, 2, and Update series), Heritage, Stadium Club, Allen & Ginter, Gypsy Queen, Archives, Pristine, Museum Collection, Bowman, Bowman's Best, Triple Thread. There's a ton I'm forgetting, then a lot of those releases have separate chrome releases. And that's just Topps, who has the MLB licenses. Paninni (Donruss) puts out a ton of releases too, but has to alter uniforms so logos aren't shown and lists teams simply by city name. Those count as rookie cards too (they all get a RC logo on them now). Plus, for each set the base card has countless numbered parallels, a black border limited to 100 copies, a blue border limited to 50, a red border limited to 25, etc and the prized 1/1 card. So even in a single product release, a player can have a dozen or more different rookie cards. Trying to get one of each is known as chasing the rainbow.
I'm going to keep dreaming that the "double hook" rule becomes a reality in the next Collective Bargaining Agreement. (When the starting pitcher leaves the game, you also lose the designated hitter.) I know it's doubtful, but maybe the JoePos clout will get decision makers thinking about it.
a) That Ernie Banks card is GORGEOUS
b) Am I crazy to think he looks less hopeful than wary?
It looks to me like he just has the sun in his eyes. I was just struck by how absolutely young he looks. He looks 13 years old in that picture to me.
Yes - shockingly young
Three pitchers seems like few enough. You could allow more, but the guy replaced immediately goes on the 15 day DL. (My feelings about renaming the DL indicate my age).
BR John, take me back! I suspect you are referring to THE Nashville Fairgrounds Flea Market, ground zero for my pro sports interest. My fairgrounds days date to about 1979, but I can probably narrow your purchases down to four vendors if this was at the fairgrounds: Larry Mudd, Ed Gaddy, The Great Escape, or the guy my brothers and I called "The Nashville Sounds Guy" because of his hat. $20 was my monthly limit, so I never spent $20 on a single card. Many of us had our interest in sports sparked by radio, tv, or the local team. Nashville didn't have any pro sports in the 1970s and 1980s, but I suspect many fans, like me, had an early brush with pro sports via the card vendors at the flea market. And, I suspect there was a fairgrounds flea market in lots of small or mid-size towns across the country and across your readership.
MLB would be better off if they made a few adjustments to get more balls in play and extend the number of innings that starters could pitch. They could do this with a couple of adjustments:
1) Move the mound back some distance. I don't know if it should be 62 feet, 65 feet, 70 feet, etc. This would cause the batters to have more time to get bat on ball. The 100+ mph arms race and the max effort would be discouraged, because at a certain mound-plate distance they just can't blow batters away.
2) Mandate a minimum bat handle width (Bill James suggested this once) wider than are currently used. This would reduce the bat speed and torque so that not every batter could jack 25 HRs. Launch angle would need to be re-thought, as a lot of hitters would need to adjust to a more contact approach, a la Rod Carew. This could also be done with deadening the ball. More balls in play.
MLB's evolution (de-evolution?) toward max effort, multiple-reliever, launch-angle, three-true outcomes seems, to me, to have a parallel to the NBA's evolution to games being a 3-pointer contest. The mid-range game has disappeared, and to my eyes, it's to the detriment of the product on the court. Both sports could adjust to be more entertaining.
I think a solution would just be to limit the number of pictures on a roster. Start at 10 then maybe move it down to nine after a year or two. See what that does. Maybe even down to eight. Pitchers will have to adjust and the basics of the game will stay the same in terms of dimensions. Baseball became the wonderful game it is largely because of the fortuitous dimensions of 60 and 1/2 feet and 90 feet. Those dimensions just work out perfectly.
Problem with moving the mound back, as they experimented with in the atlantic league i think, is that pitchers lost the ability to throw strikes. Some of that was probably a learning curve but most of it was the ungodly amount of movement on the breaking ball. Yes the fastball might get easier to hit but a hitter would have next to no chance on a good slider or curve.
I’d like to see that data. If the mound were 80, 90, 100 feet from the plate would every pitcher throw a perfect game with unhittable breaking pitches? No. The farther the mound from the plate, the easier it is to hit the ball, despite breaking balls. The closer to the plate the harder to hit. There’s an optimum distance to encourage more contact, they just need to find it. There’s no way that 60.5 feet is the optimum distance now.
Putting 10-15 feet of resilient netting on top of all the outfield fences would turn cheap homers into doubles and triples caroming around the outfield.
It's interesting how different sports work. The NFL has always seemed to be very good at making rule changes to maintain/improve entertainment.
The NBA has been OK at doing it.
MLB has been very slow about making changes.
If the rule is two pitchers only, how could a position player pitch? Wouldn’t that be a third pitcher?
And if that was a loophole, just play a pitcher in left field just before you need him. Or play a pitcher in left all the time, so you would always have access to one.
“Ball hog” is a great term, by the way!
Hey, I think it would be fun to see teams adjust to this rule. I’m a big believer in allowing some experimentation. Some teams might go for offense and put all full-time players in the field. Others might go defense and sneak a couple pitchers out there. It would be fun to watch.
I am a Rays fan and I like the way they experiment. I like the pitch clock and bigger bases but I think the fielders should be able to play wherever the team wants them to. If you can’t bunt shame on you.
Maybe in blowouts, the 2-pitcher limit would be removed. If a starter gets bombed early and allows 9 runs in the first 3 innings, it probably wouldn't be good to limit the team to 2 pitchers.
If this is the new reality of 4-5 heat throwers per game, they need to lower the mound or move it back.
I too worry about Misiorowski blowing out his elbow. I think everyone's fixation on the radar gun is a detriment and that returning to longer starts would be a good thing. Guys would have to learn how to pace themselves and use craftiness -- actually pitching, not just throwing hard at maximum effort. It kills me to think we will not see another Scherzer or Verlander because nobody has their stamina to get past five or six innings on a regular basis.
As an aside, it's interesting to me what pitchers remember about themselves -- or don't. Years ago at a NatsFest I was able to get Tanner Roark to sign a ticket I had saved from one of his 2014 starts. I'd kept it because he'd pitched a CGSO, which was already becoming a dinosaur at that point. But when I asked him if he knew why it was a significant game he had absolutely no recollection. And it was the only complete game he ever pitched!
incredible post.
So many gems, but my favorite part is the Cavs breakdown, as an avid Nets fan this was such a good description of Harden and the whole team! More Joe on Basketball please!
Another Nets fan! I thought my son and I were the only ones. As soon as they acquired Harden I sensed doom for the team. Plus, I found (and still find) him unwatchable. Although perhaps not as unwatchable as the team these last two seasons, for obviously different reasons.
There are about 9 of us!
These last 2 years, particularly this one have almost made me give up my fandom, almost.
It would be nice if they had a little better in the draft. The fall outside the top 4 this year was particularly disappointing.
Agreed! that is exactly why I wanted them to try to win this year, I believe in Jordi and the lottery is a 50/50 draw which historically the Nets have had terrible luck. I have lost all trust in Marks.
They won too many games in 2024-25. They played too hard for Jordi. It was bad enough to not get Flagg or Harper or Kon Knueppel but for some reason I find it particularly painful to watch VJ Edgecombe play for the Sixers knowing he was in reach if they had lost a few more of the meaningless games they won.
Soe true, although they probably would of lost the lottery anyways lol
I love baseball today, but I do think a long term shift back to more starting pitching would make the game even better.
Also, like you, my NBA fandom is fickle. This Pistons team got me somewhat interested again starting last year. That is, until I watch games. The NBA is (old man yelling at cloud) almost unwatchable to me. Flopping and foul-baiting have reached EPL levels, and the refs are clueless to it. The 3 pointer has made the game fundamentally different and, IMO, more boring. It's certainly made it subject to much greater variance from game to game, with more blowouts. Even when my team is winning or the game is close, it's just hard for me to watch. Oh well, back to the Stanley Cup playoffs!
I could have written this very comment, you have put my thoughts into words better than I could have. I might add 2 calls that that drive me crazy….the late whistle for a foul call after the ref waits to see if the shot goes in or not and….the offensive player pushing the defender away with a shoulder to “create some space” and the ref calling a foul on the defender…only of course if after waiting to see if the shot goes in or not. When the Pistons get knocked out I will be done watching.
There is a long history of this crap in the NBA. Remember Tim Duncan – he would get the ball down low, raise his arms as if to shoot, lose the ball, thrust both hands into the air, then bug his eyes out and blow out his cheeks while he stared at the ref? Or magic Johnson would run down the lane and lose the ball and throw his arms up in the air to get a call? They’ve all done it.
I think the absolute worst is when they shoot the three and kick their leg out and then fall down, and the referee rewards them with three free throws. Why not make flopping a technical foul? And reviewable?
For me it's actually the LACK of particular calls: traveling is non-existent, and getting more egregious; push-offs are now allowed, i guess?; and 3-seconds is just gone. Remember the absolute furor about Jordan '96 vs Utah/Bryon Russell? Now that pushoff is just basically legal. BAH!
100%. I failed to include those in my "NBA airing of the grievances," thank you for the strong additions! I'm sure there are others I've forgotten....