Pitchers will now be required to face a minimum of three batters or complete the half inning before another pitcher can come into the game. Gone are the days of bringing in somebody for one out unless it is the final out of the half inning.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/28124981/how-mlb-new-three-batter-minimum-rule-impact-game

I wouldn't be surprised if they don't roll with this, but we shall see. I hate it. Instead, reduce number of pitches on the mound to like two.

Be ready for lots of "injuries" delaying the game.

I like it strategically. I agree that I don't think you're going to get this across the board time saving, but I don't know that that's it's real intention.

I'm convinced this is what pushed Bochy into retirement after last season. No one changes pitchers based on lefty-righty matchups as much as Bochy did. It made the last few innings of games seem to take hours with all the pitching changes.

It's just going to make starting pitchers go deeper into games. Instead of coming out after 5 or 6 innings, they'll face another batter or two to start the next inning to get to a favorable matchup. I also think we'll see more relief pitchers going into the second inning. It'll be interesting to see how that affects numbers next year.

Quote:

---

It's just going to make starting pitchers go deeper into games. Instead of coming out after 5 or 6 innings, they'll face another batter or two to start the next inning to get to a favorable matchup. I also think we'll see more relief pitchers going into the second inning. It'll be interesting to see how that affects numbers next year.

---

I don't think so. OPS still skyrockets with the 3rd time through the order, so I don't think that will change.

They will just pick the best arm for the best single matchup and let the chips fall where they may against the other 2.

It will add more one inning starters, which will allow the true starter to go deeper without getting to a third time as fast.

It will end up increasing number of two out pitching changes to get your next guy in who will then get pulled the next inning.

It is stupidity.

Quote:

---

It will add more one inning starters, which will allow the true starter to go deeper without getting to a third time as fast.

---

I don't think so. It's still an innings thing and 162 takes out sequencing value as far as when that reliever comes in is concerned. Most starters are creatures of habit and will continue to want to start the game fresh.

Quote:

---

It will end up increasing number of two out pitching changes to get your next guy in who will then get pulled the next inning.

---

I don't think it will have a material effect on this, as the guy you have the LOOGY for will be up more likely with 0 or 1 outs rather than 2 outs.

A strange side effect might be things like...where a manager is willing is put a guy on base to consume the last "minimum" batter to change to a better match up. This is actually the strategic decision I like.

07ag said:

---

the thing they can do to speed up the game that would have the biggest effect is a thing they'll never do: shorten the commercial breaks between half innings. cut it down to two 30 second ads and you shave 20 minutes off a game

---

If teams had to choose between playing to an empty stadium or being broadcast on TV, they would choose the latter.

They aren't going to cut commercials - the broadcast is MLB's cash cow.

What's to stop a pitcher from faking an injury after the first batter? They can't force him to continue to pitch.

One theoretical solution is that a pitcher who is pulled before facing 3 batters in an inning could be made unavailable for the next game. As is, i'd bet teams could be fined for gaming injuries. Doubt either of those come into pay as a team won't want that image.

texagbeliever said:

---

One theoretical solution is that a pitcher who is pulled before facing 3 batters in an inning could be made unavailable for the next game. As is, i'd bet teams could be fined for gaming injuries. Doubt either of those come into pay as a team won't want that image.

---

Or, they could not institute this rule and not worry about it.

I loathe over-regulation...especially in sports.

I understand why they're doing it, but it ruins some of the strategy. However, the overall health of the game needs fewer pitching changes. This just means more thought to go into the line ups and the specialist to work on a pitch that works okay enough against the other side.

Gonna be some real nail-biting when these wild hairs come in and walk the first 2 guys. It will actually make the games longer.

In other news, Rick Honeycutt has decided to stay retired.

07ag said:

---

the thing they can do to speed up the game that would have the biggest effect is a thing they'll never do: shorten the commercial breaks between half innings. cut it down to two 30 second ads and you shave 20 minutes off a game

---

After watching some soccer with by brother-in-law over Christmas break, it really wasn't so bad seeing ads all over the ribbon boards, and on their jerseys. It was actually really nice to watch a full half not interrupted by commercial breaks.

I'm very much more on board with going to something more like that to reduce commercial time.

Between innings is a natural break. Cut a minute from that and you save almost 20 minutes every game.

LSCSN said:

---

Between innings is a natural break. Cut a minute from that and you save almost 20 minutes every game.

---

Agreed, but they won't cut the time because of the ad revenue. My proposition it to make up for it like soccer does.

I was just saying that approach isn't as bad as it sounds. I hardly even noticed the ads unless I looked for them.

Proposition Joe said:

---

Seems like the league is trying every little thing they can to speed up the game without doing the one thing that would truly speed up the game - enforcing a time limit in between pitches.

---

Absolutely. Go watch some games from the 80s on youtube. Those pitchers were much faster to the plate than they are today. Not even close.

Beat40 said:

---

LSCSN said:

---

Between innings is a natural break. Cut a minute from that and you save almost 20 minutes every game.

---

Agreed, but they won't cut the time because of the ad revenue. My proposition it to make up for it like soccer does.

I was just saying that approach isn't as bad as it sounds. I hardly even noticed the ads unless I looked for them.

---

Baseball isn't going to try and make up for the lost ad revenue.

They'll just use it as an additional source.

Proposition Joe said:

---

Beat40 said:

---

LSCSN said:

---

Between innings is a natural break. Cut a minute from that and you save almost 20 minutes every game.

---

Agreed, but they won't cut the time because of the ad revenue. My proposition it to make up for it like soccer does.

I was just saying that approach isn't as bad as it sounds. I hardly even noticed the ads unless I looked for them.

---

Baseball isn't going to try and make up for the lost ad revenue.

They'll just use it as an additional source.

---

Oh I agree they won't. They should if they truly are worried about the games being too long though. Even the NFL has gone to a split screen view during time outs and reviews at points in the game with commercials on the other side.

so what happens when the manager goes out to the mound once during the 1st batter in 7th inning... then again during the second batter of 7th inning.... does the pitcher still have to come out?