Reese Kaplan -- The Rules They Are A'Changin'

In the slow build up to actual pitchers and catchers reporting word filtered out about various proposed rule changes to baseball, many of which are being hotly debated.  However, before we delve into the pros and cons of the various proposals, let’s not skate past some other things that have flown somewhat under the radar.

Assuming there is a no consensus on other changes to be made, the current collective bargaining agreement grants baseball commissioner Rob Manfred power to impose three changes he put forth last year:

• Adopting the minor league experiment of 2018 into law for exhibition games in 2019 – that when the score is tied after 9 innings, the 10^th inning shall start with a runner at 2^nd.  This change would apply to both Spring Training games and the All Star Game.
• Another minor league experiment, the major leagues would implement a 20-second pitch clock to help speed up the game.
• Teams via their managers, pitching coaches and catchers would be limited to just five mound visits per game.  This change is also geared towards speeding up the overall length of ballgames.

Personally, I have no problem with any of them and actually wouldn’t mind seeing the runner-on-second become the rule for regular season extra-inning games as well.  After all, baseball is an entertainment business and single games routinely run longer than NFL contests with extra inning affairs having no time limit whatsoever.  You’re competing for the entertainment dollar and the number one criticism of baseball is its glacial pace of play.

Now onto the proposed rule changes being discussed.  

Some are new, some are old, but all are worth mentioning:

• Adopting the DH to the NL as well.  The thinking here is that pitchers hit .115 with a .144 OBP in 2018, so having an additional hitter would make the game more interesting.
• Expanding the regular season roster from 25 to 26 players, but reducing the September roster from 40 to 28.  This one would make it easier to keep a bloated bullpen and a bench rather than having to choose one or the other.  The bigger issue to me is the reduction of the September roster to a mere two additional players when a team that is out of it might want to use that time to audition rookies for the coming season.
• There is a proposal to keep teams from intentionally tanking their season in order to maximize their draft position.  Numbers are being tossed around, but essentially it boils down to losing some of the preferential slotting and international money if you are deemed to be guilty of throwing in the towel in order to get first crack at the up and coming prospects.
• Reducing the number of mound visits down to a mere THREE per game.

Finally we come to the one generating the most disagreement.  It has been proposed that a new pitcher entering the game must face a minimum of three batters.  Again, the logic is about speeding up the game because each time a mound visit and pitching change is made it artificially prolongs the duration of the contest.  It would eliminate the use of the LOOGY and ROOGY types of situations where you bring in a specialist simply to get one critical batter at one point in the game.

A lot of questions are left unanswered, however.  For example, what if the new pitcher faces and retires the third out in the inning.  Can he not be removed from the game in the subsequent inning when it does not reduce the speed of the game itself? 

Another thought that occurred to me was the infamous Met game practice of moving a pitcher from the mound to an outfield position and then back to the mound again.  Would the pitcher qualify if he faces three batters but not necessarily consecutively?

Finally, what happens in the event of injury?  Suppose a pitcher faces one or two batters and doesn't feel right.  Are they prohibited from removing him?  If not, I would expect the number of phantom injuries that miraculously cure themselves the next day to materialize.

Obviously these ridiculous examples are just there to show the flaw in the overly simplistic logic of imposing a three-batter minimum, but what do you think of these proposed rule changes?