OK, so if you’re looking for a 5,000-or-so word essay about all the changes in baseball this year, how they work, why they’re being put in place and what the hopes and concerns are around them … yeah, I’ve got the story for you.
I think a player like Joey Votto has described this better than anyone. He’s been playing in MLB for 17 years now. When asked what the major differences are now from 2006, he’d tell you that it’s that the games take so much longer now.
I was reading MLB.com's summary of the changes, and they state: "Pitchers will also be limited to two disengagements from the mound (i.e. pickoff attempts or step-offs) per plate appearance with a runner on first." Does this mean no disengagements are allowed with the bases empty?
There is a Substack called “The Advanced Scout” by Noah Woodward where he dives deep into potential new strategies resulting from the rule changes. His latest is on the back-pick throw by the catcher trying to nab a base runner who has taken too big of a lead. That might be interesting to watch if the size of the leads starts to increase due to these rule changes.
One thing that I haven't seen brought up much, but I think is going to end up being a huge net negative to the pace of play is commercials. I have a very hard time thinking the league is going to have fewer commercials, so now if we get lightning fast innings, it's going to turn into basically a 1:1 ratio of game to commercials and that's 1,000% going to turn away fans
I will not rest until I've convinced every single person on planet Earth that baseball needs to fundamentally change the entire process surrounding relief pitchers. You want to talk about bringing the game to a screeching halt...
Let's begin here: stop having managers walk to the mound. Why is this practice still tolerated? It's lunacy. Football coaches don't walk to the huddle and remove the QB. Make a call from the dugout. It's the 21st century.
Next, bring back bullpen carts. It is beyond silly we ask people to watch players walk ~400+ feet to reach the mound several times a game. I don't need giant hats on top of the carts (though I also don't *not* need those hats...) - but let's cut this practice out. Get the relievers to the mound post-haste!
With the endless pitching changes that are now infecting baseball - I suspect this could eliminate... 8-10+ minutes of dead-time out of the game.
But I wouldn't stop there. Oh, no - I'm zeroing in on a sacred cow, my friends! Stop letting pitchers warm-up once they reach the mound. Oh, I know all the reasons why we shouldn't... and I buy none of them! They've been throwing in the pen so their arms are warm. And any issue navigating a new mound should be part of the game.
Let me propose a scenario most would find silly: end of the game; score tied; the Chiefs have set-up a potential game-winning field goal and... we all sit around while Harrison Butker take 5-6 practice kicks - because he needs to experience the conditions of the field and there might a breeze, and... Or the Warriors are down two and call a time-out to run a final play. They're going to bring in their 3-point specialist - but not before he takes several practice shots - you know, to make sure he's comfortable with the sightlines and the give of the rim....
Why do we all just readily accept that watching someone warm-up *while a game is in progress* is agreeable? There is literally no other sport where this happens. None. Hell, baseball doesn't even allow offensive subsitutions this latitude. They put guys in COLD to bat in high-leverage situations all the time, and we never think maybe he should get 8-10 minutes of batting practice before he pinch-hits.
The amount of wasted time around relief pitchers absolutely derails momentum and ruins the drama, and it needs to be fixed.
And, oh by the way - you know the problem baseball has with these robot-armed bullpens that throw gasoline and essentially make late innings a foregone conclusion... We've potentially solved that issue, too, as we stop coddling relief pitchers and throw them into much harsher, less predictable circumstances. Again, exactly what we do with pinch-hitters!
Come on, people! Join me on this crusade!! If enough of us show our commitment, maybe Joe will see it and write a column about his brilliant readers' plan to revitalize the game of baseball!
LOVE the no warmups on the game mound - I've been saying that for years. Unfortunately it's add revenue...
A few more for you:
- no mid-inning pitching changes, except for removing the starter
- Hybrid DH (DH is tied to the starter and has to leave the game when the starter leaves), relief pitchers hit for themselves (or get PH for) from there
- Limit to 6 "active" pitchers in uniform per game. A starter plus 5 relievers should be more than enough to get it done and adds some strategy to who you activate and scratch.
Tom Hitchner's comment is well made. What was it that made the games go longer over the years? And as Joe's column today pointed out, umpires always had the power to speed up games. What changed? Baseball was called a game of inches. Now it will be called a game of seconds.
What I find interesting is that so many fans seem up in arms about the pitch clock under the guise of being purists or traditionalists, without recognizing the length of games expanding from hitter and batter delays is a recent phenomenon. The clock will force a return to the game we know well.
I am a traditionalist and disliked the same list as you including the wild card. But it’s because I love the game that I am in favor of the pitch clock. And fans also don’t seem to know they’ve used it in 8000+ games and 80% of active players have already had experience with it. And hardly any players are complaining! The fans are complaining supposedly on behalf of players who aren’t objecting!
But I despise the no throw automatic walk. The ball is the game. THROW THE BALL. And I HATE the zombie runner, which is certainly NOT for the fans, but for the ease of managers and GMs managing arms. H A T E I T.
Where does Theo rank among baseball executives all-time? Off the top of my head, only maybe Branch Rickey compares when looking at the effect he’s had on the game.
I don't know if he's the greatest executive of all-time - but I'm not sure there's an executive who can list enough pivotal transactions and milestones to out-rank the 1-2 emotional punch of breaking the streaks in Boston & Chicago. He's baseball royalty, really. (And I'm an Astros fan.)
I am all in on the pitch clock, especially the part involving the batters. It is easy to put a couple of videos of mind numbingly slow pitching sequences, but game after game, the batters slowed it down more than pitchers. A Jayson Stark article yesterday had 75+% of the penalties called against batters rather than pitchers. Mike Hargrove wouldn't even be among the slowest batters today. Now, if they can just get the umps to give less time outs, the game will move.
Mixed feelings about the bases and the limited throw overs. I am OK with the bases, but the base stealing success rate was already at an all time high, and it didn't make stolen base attempts go up. They might go up now - but probably not nearly as much as people expect, for a couple of reasons that I will mention later. I do wish there were three throws allowed rather than two. It usually only comes up in a game situation. Either way, I will say this: It will at least stop (or at least drastically slow) the number "pickoff attempts" that are not really attempts, just a lazy slow throw to waste time. They can't afford that now.
I don't like the shift ban, especially the feet on the dirt thing. Infielders (including some of the best ones) have been playing deeper than the dirt for the 50 years I have been watching the game. Heck, a lot of the old artificial turf fields didn't even have dirt except surrounding the bases. The Royals used to have a line drawn delineating the infield from the outfield, but it was much further back than the dirt is now.
The reason that I don't like the shift ban is that I think it is at cross purposes to the other changes. They want shorter games with more action. I still think the games will be shorter, but I am not sure about the action with this change. It rewards the otherwise limited pull power hitter, and gives less advantage to the contact action guys. (Sometimes teams got a little shift happy, shifting against opposite field hitters. Luis Arraez, among others, said thank you.) They had slowly been moving some PAs from the former to the latter over the last couple of seasons, leading to less home runs and less Ks after Ks had gone up for 15 straight years. That trend will reverse now, and if there were a prop bet on more K/9 this year, I would place a decent sized bet on that.
I think the shift ban will temper the affect of some of the other stuff. Games will be shorter, but might have even less action, which was also a big part of the problem.
Which brings me to the steals. With so many roster spots going to pitchers, teams have thin benches, and less spots for fast contact action guys. That extra spot on the bench will go to a lefty power pinch hitter, not a fast guy who can pinch run and steal a base. Add to that more PAs in the starting lineup going to those kind of guys, and it tempers expectations for the extra steals or any kind of moving runners type strategy.
I have never liked the zombie runner. I did a study showing how few innings it actually saves the average team over the year. It was something like an inning every 14 games or so. 11 or twelve innings per season. (Forgive me if I don't do the whole chart again). It does limit marathon games, but count me among those that like one occasionally (In innings, not necessarily in time). But the real reason for the rule is this: It keeps teams from having to carry as many long relief capable guys and focus on the one inning "robot" pitchers, as I think Joe called them. I don't like that reason, and I don't like teams (even when it is mine) winning games in extras without a hit.
Thanks Joe. So well said. Sent the Esquire article to a ton of friends who love baseball. So many people have knee jerk reactions to these changes, but if you slow it down and really look at them they make sense. Especially the clock. The clock is new, the pace is old. I'm so excited to once again be watching the game I fell in love with.
Now that I’ve had a chance to read the Esquire article - which surgically addresses pretty much anything worth addressing in the as-expected engaging style - I have an idea. How about if we add another 1,00 words or so sprinkled in that add no insight or entertainment? Like what Joey Votto had for lunch the day Joe spoke with him, or how many times Joe and Theo Epstein traded messages before they could settle on a time to talk, or the names and ages of any cousins Raul Ibanez has and what they think about Raul.
Or how about if we take some classic movie and add another 20 minutes that do nothing to advance the plot or the characters or make anyone laugh or cry or think? Maybe the lead character brushing her teeth, or waiting for a bus or talking with some stranger about the weather?
I’m so glad MLB is finally doing something meaningful about pace of play and seems committed to figuring out a way to accomplish it without sacrificing the essence of the game.
I think a player like Joey Votto has described this better than anyone. He’s been playing in MLB for 17 years now. When asked what the major differences are now from 2006, he’d tell you that it’s that the games take so much longer now.
I was reading MLB.com's summary of the changes, and they state: "Pitchers will also be limited to two disengagements from the mound (i.e. pickoff attempts or step-offs) per plate appearance with a runner on first." Does this mean no disengagements are allowed with the bases empty?
There is a Substack called “The Advanced Scout” by Noah Woodward where he dives deep into potential new strategies resulting from the rule changes. His latest is on the back-pick throw by the catcher trying to nab a base runner who has taken too big of a lead. That might be interesting to watch if the size of the leads starts to increase due to these rule changes.
One thing that I haven't seen brought up much, but I think is going to end up being a huge net negative to the pace of play is commercials. I have a very hard time thinking the league is going to have fewer commercials, so now if we get lightning fast innings, it's going to turn into basically a 1:1 ratio of game to commercials and that's 1,000% going to turn away fans
I will not rest until I've convinced every single person on planet Earth that baseball needs to fundamentally change the entire process surrounding relief pitchers. You want to talk about bringing the game to a screeching halt...
Let's begin here: stop having managers walk to the mound. Why is this practice still tolerated? It's lunacy. Football coaches don't walk to the huddle and remove the QB. Make a call from the dugout. It's the 21st century.
Next, bring back bullpen carts. It is beyond silly we ask people to watch players walk ~400+ feet to reach the mound several times a game. I don't need giant hats on top of the carts (though I also don't *not* need those hats...) - but let's cut this practice out. Get the relievers to the mound post-haste!
With the endless pitching changes that are now infecting baseball - I suspect this could eliminate... 8-10+ minutes of dead-time out of the game.
But I wouldn't stop there. Oh, no - I'm zeroing in on a sacred cow, my friends! Stop letting pitchers warm-up once they reach the mound. Oh, I know all the reasons why we shouldn't... and I buy none of them! They've been throwing in the pen so their arms are warm. And any issue navigating a new mound should be part of the game.
Let me propose a scenario most would find silly: end of the game; score tied; the Chiefs have set-up a potential game-winning field goal and... we all sit around while Harrison Butker take 5-6 practice kicks - because he needs to experience the conditions of the field and there might a breeze, and... Or the Warriors are down two and call a time-out to run a final play. They're going to bring in their 3-point specialist - but not before he takes several practice shots - you know, to make sure he's comfortable with the sightlines and the give of the rim....
Why do we all just readily accept that watching someone warm-up *while a game is in progress* is agreeable? There is literally no other sport where this happens. None. Hell, baseball doesn't even allow offensive subsitutions this latitude. They put guys in COLD to bat in high-leverage situations all the time, and we never think maybe he should get 8-10 minutes of batting practice before he pinch-hits.
The amount of wasted time around relief pitchers absolutely derails momentum and ruins the drama, and it needs to be fixed.
And, oh by the way - you know the problem baseball has with these robot-armed bullpens that throw gasoline and essentially make late innings a foregone conclusion... We've potentially solved that issue, too, as we stop coddling relief pitchers and throw them into much harsher, less predictable circumstances. Again, exactly what we do with pinch-hitters!
Come on, people! Join me on this crusade!! If enough of us show our commitment, maybe Joe will see it and write a column about his brilliant readers' plan to revitalize the game of baseball!
Viva la revolution!
LOVE the no warmups on the game mound - I've been saying that for years. Unfortunately it's add revenue...
A few more for you:
- no mid-inning pitching changes, except for removing the starter
- Hybrid DH (DH is tied to the starter and has to leave the game when the starter leaves), relief pitchers hit for themselves (or get PH for) from there
- Limit to 6 "active" pitchers in uniform per game. A starter plus 5 relievers should be more than enough to get it done and adds some strategy to who you activate and scratch.
Not much to add as far as rule changes, but just wanted to say these are both fantastic posts.
Tom Hitchner's comment is well made. What was it that made the games go longer over the years? And as Joe's column today pointed out, umpires always had the power to speed up games. What changed? Baseball was called a game of inches. Now it will be called a game of seconds.
What I find interesting is that so many fans seem up in arms about the pitch clock under the guise of being purists or traditionalists, without recognizing the length of games expanding from hitter and batter delays is a recent phenomenon. The clock will force a return to the game we know well.
I am a traditionalist and disliked the same list as you including the wild card. But it’s because I love the game that I am in favor of the pitch clock. And fans also don’t seem to know they’ve used it in 8000+ games and 80% of active players have already had experience with it. And hardly any players are complaining! The fans are complaining supposedly on behalf of players who aren’t objecting!
But I despise the no throw automatic walk. The ball is the game. THROW THE BALL. And I HATE the zombie runner, which is certainly NOT for the fans, but for the ease of managers and GMs managing arms. H A T E I T.
Where does Theo rank among baseball executives all-time? Off the top of my head, only maybe Branch Rickey compares when looking at the effect he’s had on the game.
I don't know if he's the greatest executive of all-time - but I'm not sure there's an executive who can list enough pivotal transactions and milestones to out-rank the 1-2 emotional punch of breaking the streaks in Boston & Chicago. He's baseball royalty, really. (And I'm an Astros fan.)
Theo is going to sail into Cooperstown.
I am all in on the pitch clock, especially the part involving the batters. It is easy to put a couple of videos of mind numbingly slow pitching sequences, but game after game, the batters slowed it down more than pitchers. A Jayson Stark article yesterday had 75+% of the penalties called against batters rather than pitchers. Mike Hargrove wouldn't even be among the slowest batters today. Now, if they can just get the umps to give less time outs, the game will move.
Mixed feelings about the bases and the limited throw overs. I am OK with the bases, but the base stealing success rate was already at an all time high, and it didn't make stolen base attempts go up. They might go up now - but probably not nearly as much as people expect, for a couple of reasons that I will mention later. I do wish there were three throws allowed rather than two. It usually only comes up in a game situation. Either way, I will say this: It will at least stop (or at least drastically slow) the number "pickoff attempts" that are not really attempts, just a lazy slow throw to waste time. They can't afford that now.
I don't like the shift ban, especially the feet on the dirt thing. Infielders (including some of the best ones) have been playing deeper than the dirt for the 50 years I have been watching the game. Heck, a lot of the old artificial turf fields didn't even have dirt except surrounding the bases. The Royals used to have a line drawn delineating the infield from the outfield, but it was much further back than the dirt is now.
The reason that I don't like the shift ban is that I think it is at cross purposes to the other changes. They want shorter games with more action. I still think the games will be shorter, but I am not sure about the action with this change. It rewards the otherwise limited pull power hitter, and gives less advantage to the contact action guys. (Sometimes teams got a little shift happy, shifting against opposite field hitters. Luis Arraez, among others, said thank you.) They had slowly been moving some PAs from the former to the latter over the last couple of seasons, leading to less home runs and less Ks after Ks had gone up for 15 straight years. That trend will reverse now, and if there were a prop bet on more K/9 this year, I would place a decent sized bet on that.
I think the shift ban will temper the affect of some of the other stuff. Games will be shorter, but might have even less action, which was also a big part of the problem.
Which brings me to the steals. With so many roster spots going to pitchers, teams have thin benches, and less spots for fast contact action guys. That extra spot on the bench will go to a lefty power pinch hitter, not a fast guy who can pinch run and steal a base. Add to that more PAs in the starting lineup going to those kind of guys, and it tempers expectations for the extra steals or any kind of moving runners type strategy.
I have never liked the zombie runner. I did a study showing how few innings it actually saves the average team over the year. It was something like an inning every 14 games or so. 11 or twelve innings per season. (Forgive me if I don't do the whole chart again). It does limit marathon games, but count me among those that like one occasionally (In innings, not necessarily in time). But the real reason for the rule is this: It keeps teams from having to carry as many long relief capable guys and focus on the one inning "robot" pitchers, as I think Joe called them. I don't like that reason, and I don't like teams (even when it is mine) winning games in extras without a hit.
One of the most memorable games I’ve attended was in Atlanta. Smoltz vs Glavine. That game flew by because they controlled the tempo.
Great thought provoking article. Add a share button to this one and you’ll get promoted.
Giants Guarda today: 2:13.
How refreshing!
Thanks Joe. So well said. Sent the Esquire article to a ton of friends who love baseball. So many people have knee jerk reactions to these changes, but if you slow it down and really look at them they make sense. Especially the clock. The clock is new, the pace is old. I'm so excited to once again be watching the game I fell in love with.
Now that I’ve had a chance to read the Esquire article - which surgically addresses pretty much anything worth addressing in the as-expected engaging style - I have an idea. How about if we add another 1,00 words or so sprinkled in that add no insight or entertainment? Like what Joey Votto had for lunch the day Joe spoke with him, or how many times Joe and Theo Epstein traded messages before they could settle on a time to talk, or the names and ages of any cousins Raul Ibanez has and what they think about Raul.
Or how about if we take some classic movie and add another 20 minutes that do nothing to advance the plot or the characters or make anyone laugh or cry or think? Maybe the lead character brushing her teeth, or waiting for a bus or talking with some stranger about the weather?
I’m so glad MLB is finally doing something meaningful about pace of play and seems committed to figuring out a way to accomplish it without sacrificing the essence of the game.
Preach Joe!
Love the clock. The runner on 2nd? Whole other deal.