The real lesson of that England v France game was the impact pressure has on players, make the game meaningless and look what these guys can do, but add pressure and England can go 12 minutes with only 2 completed passes
This is not the first time it won’t be the last time that a discussion of how baseball has changed is causing a lot of angst. It reminds me of whatTy Cobb and other established players thought when Babe Ruth changed the game.And theoretically he changed the game way more than what the game has changed now. I remember the good old days in the 60s and 70s when starters went for a much longer time. I like to see more balls in play and fewer strikeouts. They did make a fairly major change to the game when they lowered the mound. What was it in 1968? And they seem to change the strike zone occasionally or at least they call the strike zone differently occasionally and it seems some years the balls have a different resiliency or something that causes a spike in Home runs or a big reduction. Who knows how the game will evolve from here. If pitcher injuries continue to escalate the problem may solve itself. At some point in time you’re gonna run out of decent pitchers and hopefully they would put out less than the max on every pitch.
I think they could speed up the return to pitchers not giving the max on every pitch. Limit the number of pitchers on the roster to 11 or 12. I’m not talking about reducing the entire roster keep it the same – you have more infielders, outfielders, etc. But you have less pitchers and naturally they will have to preserve their health someway. Put in some mechanism to keep from getting around the roster limit by shuttling players for the minors to the majors on a daily basis.
There seems to be some assumption in the last two articles that the endless stream of relief pitchers make it more difficult for runs to score, or that having more is better. I don't think the numbers bear this out.
For instance, from 1976-1985 the ERA of relief pitchers was 91.6% of starter's ERA, and relief pitcher had 14.3% more K/9. From 2016-2026, Relief pitching was at 95.6% of starters ERA, and the K rate was 8.8% higher.
So the idea that multiple robot relief pitchers are making the game harder doesn't seem to hold up at all. In fact, the more you use, the more likely you are to find one who doesn't have it.
My suggestion for a more fun game: rotate like in newcomb. In the second inning the pitcher moves to catcher, the catcher to first, around the horn, shortstop to left...right fielder pitches.
Next: If pitchers were forced to complete every game, baseball would be unrecognizable. The amount of runs scored per team per game would resemble the total amount for both teams now. The average margin of victory would be much larger, and the games would be less compelling. Sure, if you want to make 1930 look like 1968 in terms of run scoring, and no lead ever to be safe, this is the thing for you. But I wouldn't call it baseball.
So many things here. But the first is the Williams Wood thing. Yes, they use more pitchers now than in 1941. But when you do the raw numbers, you have to remember that Williams played only 7 other teams in a year, and now they play 29. They play 8 more games now as well. Teams in 1941 had 4 man rotations and an average of 10 pitchers on a staff. Teams didn't move pitchers up and down from the minors routinely during the season, and there weren't as many injury changes either.
All of this contributing to these numbers. Wood would easily face over 4 times the amount of pitchers as Williams in a season even if relief staffs were used the same way in both eras. There are 377 pitchers on opening day rosters of teams that Wood will play. For Williams it was 70.
There are just more players and teams now to begin with, and the pitching changes add to that.
Pitchers also face more players. Despite having only 1 complete game and throwing less than 65% of the innings of 1949 Warren Spahn, Tarik Skubal face 216 different hitters in 2025, while Spahn faced 140 in 1949 - with a large percentage of those players being pitchers.
My understanding about why the England-France game was so good was that their best players were sitting, particularly France's entire starting defense, at least initially. That's how England was able to run up a 4-0 lead (which they almost blew!). If so, then the equivalent to make baseball more engaging and exciting is not to force the starters to pitch the entire game, but instead to basically only allow pitchers who are not that good. Your hitters will still be the world-class mashers they've always been, but your pitchers will be like whoever is on the AA staff or something. Still decent, guys who know how to throw strikes, not just coaches lobbing it in for BP or whatever, and some of whom are actually quite good on their way up the ladder, but definitely not as good as Skubal and Skenes and Cole and Ohtani and Miz and what-not.
I don't see how that could ever work, but then neither would the pitchers-going-the-distance requirement, so it hardly matters.
Christy Matthewson discussed a lot or the stratery of this in his "Pitching in a Pinch." I would even be willing to allow ONE reliever. After that, you either have to put people on the DL or forfeit.
What might work is a version of what MLB is already doing, which is saying, "Hey, you bring in a reliever he's gotta face three guys. No more Tony Fossases." Just expand that but in a slightly different way. Tell teams "You can only use five pitchers in a game." Or three. And then let them figure out the rest.
"You have to finish the game" will never happen and it also decreases strategy. This increases strategy. And probably scoring. That's the sweet spot, as Keith Hernandez said.
@Joe, What if MLB required starting pitchers to complete at least six innings? Otherwise, they're not eligible to pitch for 10 days (which is a more enforceable way of preventing them from making their next start). The only exception would be injury... but removing the pitcher for injury would trigger automatic placement on the 15-day IL.
Admittedly, I haven't thought this through completely, but I would imagine this would discourage starting pitchers from throwing quite as hard so they could get through the six innings without being gassed at the end... which would also help to protect them from injury... and it would encourage more "pitching" rather than "throwing" since getting through six innings without getting hit hard would require the pitcher to show batters a different look each time at bat, reward pitchers with a deeper repertoire of pitches, etc.
Your idea and all these subscribers who are liking your idea are ignoring the biomechanics of the pitching arm and should be required to read Jeff Passan's book The Arm. My Reds were in Colorado for a weekend series and sure, it is fun to see players have a bit more pop! But if you start mandating the use of Starting Pitchers leaguewide, you are tampering with men's lifelihood. If y'all need baseball to be F U N, start supporting the Savanah Bananas. MLB has evolved to be the sport that it is, if we agree that HRD is fun, then why don't we have teams supply their own pitchers to lob pitches that hitters can launch moonshots?
I'm reminded of the old story from business school. You know, about the marketing strategy team at Proctor and Gamble who are working late night, struggling with how to increase stagnant toothpaste sales. Cleaning staff comes in to empty the wastebins, overhears the conversation, and says "why don't you make the hole bigger?"
Saturday night I was not only thinking about baseball during the soccer game, I was actually watching baseball during the soccer game……might have been Skubal’s last outing in the Old English D. I’m sure those prospects the Tigers will get will turn out great….
The real lesson of that England v France game was the impact pressure has on players, make the game meaningless and look what these guys can do, but add pressure and England can go 12 minutes with only 2 completed passes
Excellent
This is not the first time it won’t be the last time that a discussion of how baseball has changed is causing a lot of angst. It reminds me of whatTy Cobb and other established players thought when Babe Ruth changed the game.And theoretically he changed the game way more than what the game has changed now. I remember the good old days in the 60s and 70s when starters went for a much longer time. I like to see more balls in play and fewer strikeouts. They did make a fairly major change to the game when they lowered the mound. What was it in 1968? And they seem to change the strike zone occasionally or at least they call the strike zone differently occasionally and it seems some years the balls have a different resiliency or something that causes a spike in Home runs or a big reduction. Who knows how the game will evolve from here. If pitcher injuries continue to escalate the problem may solve itself. At some point in time you’re gonna run out of decent pitchers and hopefully they would put out less than the max on every pitch.
I think they could speed up the return to pitchers not giving the max on every pitch. Limit the number of pitchers on the roster to 11 or 12. I’m not talking about reducing the entire roster keep it the same – you have more infielders, outfielders, etc. But you have less pitchers and naturally they will have to preserve their health someway. Put in some mechanism to keep from getting around the roster limit by shuttling players for the minors to the majors on a daily basis.
Has the answer to the batter on the cover of FIFTY SEASONS been revealed? I submitted my guess a few days ago but have heard nothing.
Yes, it was revealed in the comments several times in the obsession post that Joe made just before this one
Earle Combes
There seems to be some assumption in the last two articles that the endless stream of relief pitchers make it more difficult for runs to score, or that having more is better. I don't think the numbers bear this out.
For instance, from 1976-1985 the ERA of relief pitchers was 91.6% of starter's ERA, and relief pitcher had 14.3% more K/9. From 2016-2026, Relief pitching was at 95.6% of starters ERA, and the K rate was 8.8% higher.
So the idea that multiple robot relief pitchers are making the game harder doesn't seem to hold up at all. In fact, the more you use, the more likely you are to find one who doesn't have it.
My suggestion for a more fun game: rotate like in newcomb. In the second inning the pitcher moves to catcher, the catcher to first, around the horn, shortstop to left...right fielder pitches.
Next: If pitchers were forced to complete every game, baseball would be unrecognizable. The amount of runs scored per team per game would resemble the total amount for both teams now. The average margin of victory would be much larger, and the games would be less compelling. Sure, if you want to make 1930 look like 1968 in terms of run scoring, and no lead ever to be safe, this is the thing for you. But I wouldn't call it baseball.
So many things here. But the first is the Williams Wood thing. Yes, they use more pitchers now than in 1941. But when you do the raw numbers, you have to remember that Williams played only 7 other teams in a year, and now they play 29. They play 8 more games now as well. Teams in 1941 had 4 man rotations and an average of 10 pitchers on a staff. Teams didn't move pitchers up and down from the minors routinely during the season, and there weren't as many injury changes either.
All of this contributing to these numbers. Wood would easily face over 4 times the amount of pitchers as Williams in a season even if relief staffs were used the same way in both eras. There are 377 pitchers on opening day rosters of teams that Wood will play. For Williams it was 70.
There are just more players and teams now to begin with, and the pitching changes add to that.
Pitchers also face more players. Despite having only 1 complete game and throwing less than 65% of the innings of 1949 Warren Spahn, Tarik Skubal face 216 different hitters in 2025, while Spahn faced 140 in 1949 - with a large percentage of those players being pitchers.
My understanding about why the England-France game was so good was that their best players were sitting, particularly France's entire starting defense, at least initially. That's how England was able to run up a 4-0 lead (which they almost blew!). If so, then the equivalent to make baseball more engaging and exciting is not to force the starters to pitch the entire game, but instead to basically only allow pitchers who are not that good. Your hitters will still be the world-class mashers they've always been, but your pitchers will be like whoever is on the AA staff or something. Still decent, guys who know how to throw strikes, not just coaches lobbing it in for BP or whatever, and some of whom are actually quite good on their way up the ladder, but definitely not as good as Skubal and Skenes and Cole and Ohtani and Miz and what-not.
I don't see how that could ever work, but then neither would the pitchers-going-the-distance requirement, so it hardly matters.
Christy Matthewson discussed a lot or the stratery of this in his "Pitching in a Pinch." I would even be willing to allow ONE reliever. After that, you either have to put people on the DL or forfeit.
What might work is a version of what MLB is already doing, which is saying, "Hey, you bring in a reliever he's gotta face three guys. No more Tony Fossases." Just expand that but in a slightly different way. Tell teams "You can only use five pitchers in a game." Or three. And then let them figure out the rest.
"You have to finish the game" will never happen and it also decreases strategy. This increases strategy. And probably scoring. That's the sweet spot, as Keith Hernandez said.
@Joe, What if MLB required starting pitchers to complete at least six innings? Otherwise, they're not eligible to pitch for 10 days (which is a more enforceable way of preventing them from making their next start). The only exception would be injury... but removing the pitcher for injury would trigger automatic placement on the 15-day IL.
Admittedly, I haven't thought this through completely, but I would imagine this would discourage starting pitchers from throwing quite as hard so they could get through the six innings without being gassed at the end... which would also help to protect them from injury... and it would encourage more "pitching" rather than "throwing" since getting through six innings without getting hit hard would require the pitcher to show batters a different look each time at bat, reward pitchers with a deeper repertoire of pitches, etc.
Canada could have given is Neil Young, or Rush, or at least The Tragically Hip. I'm not a beliber.
Your idea and all these subscribers who are liking your idea are ignoring the biomechanics of the pitching arm and should be required to read Jeff Passan's book The Arm. My Reds were in Colorado for a weekend series and sure, it is fun to see players have a bit more pop! But if you start mandating the use of Starting Pitchers leaguewide, you are tampering with men's lifelihood. If y'all need baseball to be F U N, start supporting the Savanah Bananas. MLB has evolved to be the sport that it is, if we agree that HRD is fun, then why don't we have teams supply their own pitchers to lob pitches that hitters can launch moonshots?
I'm reminded of the old story from business school. You know, about the marketing strategy team at Proctor and Gamble who are working late night, struggling with how to increase stagnant toothpaste sales. Cleaning staff comes in to empty the wastebins, overhears the conversation, and says "why don't you make the hole bigger?"
Why not make the ball bigger?
Saturday night I was not only thinking about baseball during the soccer game, I was actually watching baseball during the soccer game……might have been Skubal’s last outing in the Old English D. I’m sure those prospects the Tigers will get will turn out great….