|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Friday, August 31, 2012
Here is how you know it is stupid: If the rule didn’t exist and you proposed it today, the 30 general managers would laugh you out of the room. Yet a mechanism that trashes logic, strategy, fairness and integrity remains because of a toxic brew of tradition, laziness and partisanship. In interviews this week — in a sport in which it is hard to find consensus on anything — I heard pretty much unanimity that the rule is archaic and needs to be fixed. ...
And consider this: With a second wild card in each league this year, the chances for ties and play-in games become more likely. And those play-ins are played under September rules. So you can, say, have the Tigers and A’s in a one-game play-in to determine the second AL wild card and in this imperative game Detroit could have 36 players and Oakland 29. Could you imagine any other sport allowing this kind of unlevel field and opening itself up for the controversy/embarrassment that would arise when a should-not-be-on-the-roster, say, pinch-runner gets one team into the playoffs and knocks another out? ...
But even if you going to expand rosters and bastardize the strategy of the game, at least come up with a mechanism where each team has to play with 28 or 30 or 32. Or have a taxi squad of up to 40, but you have to declare 25 a day. The idea that playoff spots have been and will continue to be determined by Team A having more players than Team B is something so obviously unfair and unintelligent that tradition, laziness and partisanship can carry the day no longer.
bobm
Posted: August 31, 2012 at 11:02 PM | 68 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags:
rosters
|
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: OT: NHL is finally back thread (362 - 2:42am, May 24)Last: Robert in Manhattan BeachNewsblog: Mariners sending Jesus Montero to Triple-A (66 - 2:32am, May 24)Last: rb's team is hopeful for the new year!Newsblog: Richie Ashburn’s Widow in Tears Over His Endangered Gladwyne Grave (5 - 2:30am, May 24)Last: Sunday silenceNewsblog: [OTP-May] Politico: Congressional baseball game, May 1, 1926 (4284 - 2:17am, May 24)Last: Joe KehoskieNewsblog: Mets’ Ike Davis On Struggles: ‘I Can’t Do Any Worse’ (24 - 12:28am, May 24)Last: bobmNewsblog: OT: NBA Monthly Thread - May 2013 (1216 - 12:12am, May 24)Last: thokNewsblog: Demystifying Red Sox Ownership - What Do They Do? (WEEI) (27 - 12:06am, May 24)Last: KT's Pot ArbNewsblog: OMNICHATTER for MAY 23, 2013 (77 - 11:10pm, May 23)Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of AnaheimNewsblog: ESPN: Forging bond with Pete Rose has helped fuel Joey Votto's desire to be great (127 - 11:03pm, May 23)Last: Everybody Loves Tyrus RaymondNewsblog: OT: The Soccer Thread, May 2013 (1123 - 10:55pm, May 23)Last: puckNewsblog: Astros vendor brings snow cones into bathroom stall, gets fired (21 - 10:03pm, May 23)Last: Sunday silenceNewsblog: Leyland breaks his own rule, lets Verlander get win after delay (26 - 9:01pm, May 23)Last: the Hugh Jorgan returnsNewsblog: Daugherty: Brandon Phillips has been Reds' MVP so far (18 - 8:14pm, May 23)Last: TJNewsblog: Mitchell: Pedroia, Cano and Magical Thinking (23 - 8:03pm, May 23)Last: Robert in Manhattan BeachHall of Merit: 2014 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion (86 - 8:02pm, May 23)Last: Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong
|
|
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Bob Tufts Posted: September 01, 2012 at 09:43 AM (#4224335)If he wants everyone to play by the regular season rules, let's apply it to sportswriters and also cut down on the superfluous ink stained wretches that cover the All Star Game, playoffs and World Series.
As for his choice of words..stupid, laugh you out of the room, trashes logic, strategy, fairness and integrity, toxic brew of tradition, laziness and partisanship, archaic.....huh?
I don't really see the unfairness. The A's can call up enough players to have 36 on the roster if they want. In fact, in that situation, the A's might well do that before the play-in game for all we know. In reality, a team can only put 9 players on the field at a time. Past the first 2 or 3 extra bench players, the additions above 25 men are unlikely to have much impact on the game.
And, suppose you have that rare instance of a 16+ inning game. Is it more fair to lose because a position player forced to pitch gives up a run?
I think fans like the Sept. call up period because they get to see previews of their team's prospects. If you have teams playing out the string, that creates some degree of fan interest that wouldn't normally exist.
I'm pretty sure most GMs recognize that by the end of August many bullpens are fried, and are glad to have a few extra arms when your team falls behind in a 20-2 game.
First, would the play-in game be counted like a regular season game, or do the teams go to 25 man playoff rosters?
Second, roster size after September 1 is a choice. If your team wants to set it's roster at 29 and I want to set my roster at 36, you don't get to cry that I have an unfair advantage because I have seven more players available.
The Astros might as well complain they are at a disadvantage against the Nationals because Washington has better players than they do.
EDIT: RC's to AROM and Nixon
Does he actually give examples of when this has happened?
I don't really like contending teams expanding their rosters but the benefits to non-contenders is so obvious that I don't want to see a change.
You're limited to the extent you can do that, since your post-season roster is based on your active roster (plus DL players) as of August 31.
Plus the K-Rod rule (if that still exists). You can replace DL guys with anyone who was in your organization.
So for the wild card game, you can certainly deactivate 3 of your starting pitchers (the guys who you would never put in, even in extra innings) and pick 3 AAA players. Maybe an extra catcher, a pinch runner, and a pinch hitter.
I'm guessing it's a cost thing - you have to pay each player the pro-rated MLB minimum, which is almost $3000 a game. Not really worth it for the 15th man out of the bullpen or your third pinch runner.
Remember, I'm only asking about teams in a race. I can see why teams that are out of it or have the division wrapped up wouldn't call up the extra bodies
I think that if they go to 40 man to start the season, they can reduce the number of spring training games and allow the season to end in October still.
I thought the rule was that it had to be a pitcher for a pitcher or position player for a position player. That is why the roster construct on August 31st was so important?
That is what I thought. So the scenario in post 14 wouldn't work unless you had some position players on the DL(and I believe the rule is that those players had to be on the 25 man roster as of August 31st) so there is no practical way to do what 14 was posting. (deactivating three of your starting pitchers to get a deeper bench)
They can be on the 25 or the DL on August 31.
Only if you are a fan of the Mets, Cardinals, Red Sox or Phillies.... :)
(and apparently the Rockies and Yankees this year)
It dates back to way before the divisional era. The rule has been around almost forever, although the roster size limits have varied over the years.
There used to be a 28-man limit for the first 30 days of the season, from 1957-1967 I believe.
I'd favor MLB going to a 23-man roster. It worked for Dan Okrent after all.
I've been proposing that baseball go to a 27/28 man roster, but only have a 25 man available roster for each series. (other words, like hockey you have two or three healthy scratches per series...obviously most of the time it will be a couple of starting pitchers that won't be used in the series, but sometimes you have day-to-day injuries that you would like to fully rest the player without being tempted to use them in a necessary pinch hit role)
If you want to squawk about teams that have extra role players available, why don't you also whine about teams that decide to "rest" their key guys down the stretch despite being the opposition for a team fighting to make the postseason? Is there any question that had Game 162 at Tampa Bay been, say, Game 50 or Game 100, that the pitcher who started the ninth inning for the Yankees would have been named Mariano Rivera instead of Cory Wade? Or that Jeter, Cano, Teixeira, Ganderson, and Swisher would all still have been in the game instead of coming out mid-game when the Yankees took a 7-0 lead? (One or two might have come out, but certainly not all five.)
It cuts both ways, Mr. Sherman.
-- MWE
Most teams only bring up a couple of guys, that is standard operating procedure, very rarely are you going to see a team bring up even 5 guys.
I massively disagree, with the increased pitching staff size, you have lost the specialist that used to make the game more fun. Benches are now composed of utility players who can adequately play multiple positions instead of a designated pinch hitter, a designated runner or defensive specialist. There is no way to stop the increase of the pitching staffs, but you can make the bench larger and more interesting.
Sure there is. Make a rule: no more than 11 pitchers on the roster at one time.
When the league is using 12 as the standard, the rule would have to be at least 12 and probably 13. Just because we want only 11 doesn't mean it's practical for the league to enforce 11.
They could if they wanted to.
Teams would just have to use RPs for more than 1 IP, and rotate the last 2 spots in the BP with the AAA-shuttle.
It would reduced the efficiency of bullpens, but who cares?
There isn't? Just cap the pitchers on the roster at 10 or 11.
Again, I don't see that happening. Teams routinely use 12 men on their staff, you will not get support from the owners, players or coaches for a cap below what is being currently used.
Absolutely nothing wrong with that.
If I recall correctly, when he wrote about this in the New Historical Abstract, he wanted 18 or 20 man rosters because he basically wanted versatility forced onto the rosters and fifth starters/backup shortstops to merge into two-headed baseball cerberuses. This seems infeasible.
The players should either be indifferent (why do they care if there's an extra hitter or pitcher?) or in favor of it (7th RPs always make the minimum, but if you could bring back platoons, platoon players should make more).
The owners would do it b/c they thought fewer RPs, and fewer pitching changes would lead to a more entertaining game, and thus improve ratings and revenue.
I think Bill was right about big rosters, but I also agree with you that it's likely infeasible (the number one reason being the players' union). However, I would love to see an 11 pitcher cap like Dan and snapper proposed. I would think that a handful of two-way players would pop up (heck, there would be demand for Micah Owings). Plus, versatile pitchers with stamina would be at a premium. Every team would need to carry two or three guys that could three innings in a pinch. Only the best LOOGYs, if any, would stick around. In addition, teams would also get to carry an extra position player or two. There would be new strategies to pursue (stick a pitcher in the outfield for a batter or two, and then switch back; should teams carry an extra speed specialist, glove guy, or pinch hitter?; hopefully more platoons). I do wonder what a player like Micah Owings would need to do to qualify as a two-way player and an exemption to the 11 pitcher cap. Would he need to maintain some ratio of appearances in the field to games pitched?
Which is what I ultimately would like to see. (My proposal was a 25 man series roster, a 28 man active roster that you can have 3 healthy scratches per series, and a limit on the number of pitchers on the 25 man roster is 10.
Are you going to treat the 3 "scratches" as on the MLB rosters? Because the owners are not going to like the extra expense of 3 more MLB salaries and benefits, plus travel, etc.
I've thought of that before, and I think the basic rule would probably be plate appearances x 3 vs innings pitched. (maybe times 2.... I do think 1 for one is to stringent)
I know the owners would hate it. So I know it would never happen, but yes I would treat the scratches as on the major league roster for salary purposes. The most useful thing of the "healthy scratch" idea is to not even bother with your non-used starting pitchers in the series. Every series you would be putting two of your starting pitchers on the healthy scratch(except in four game series which is a problem with this scheme) You would still have a full bullpen, a third catcher if necessary and room for a specialist player or two.
That is what you are trying to accomplish, I'm trying to accomplish more position players available in the lineup. I don't care one bit about the excessive overmanagement of the pen.
And how is that enforced? Can a minor leaguer with 1 inning in the OF and 52 IP be a backup OF, and "Oops", he might have to pitch if the pen is depleted?
You're position is determined by whichever ratio is greater between innings pitched vs plate appearances(times two or three even)
Only reason I want expanded rosters is that the bullpens have expanded, and nothing is going to put that genie in the bottle. I would like more bench players to go back to being a specialist instead of relying on a large contingent of multi-position utility players. Only reason I've ever proposed the scratch concept is that a lot of people still prefer the illusion of a 25 man roster.
I would not object to the idea of limiting the September rosters to 30 or something though.
Your scratch concept may get some teams to add a pinch-runner or a platoon hitter, but it will absolutely definitely indubitably get them to add more situational pitchers. Every team would immediately go up to 8 bullpen arms, maybe 9. It very clearly would make all of these problems worse.
So, no position player is ever allowed to pitch?
Yeah, this definition of a "pitcher" thing is surprisingly tricky.
(edited to remove some unnecessary arguments)
Allow me please to dissent. I personally think it's long past time for MLB to expand its roster size.
When I watch MLB baseball, I want to see the best players optimally used; and seeing a pitcher play rightfield or a shortstop try to pitch doesn't fill that bill for me.
Obviously, this is a matter of personal preference; and I appreciate the fact that many baseball fans prefer a return to a game that once was, rather than the game that is today; just as there are many football fans who pine for the days when NFL players had to play sixty minutes on both side of the ball. And let me make it clear that all are entitled to their opinion on the subject; but count me on the side that prefers a larger, not smaller, roster.
DB
Including a couple guys on the DL, the Pirates are up to 32 players. Roster use is so flexible now, though, that there's only one callup who hasn't been in the majors before. If they called up the whole 40-man, there'd only be four who were new to the clubhouse.
Yes they are allowed to pitch, how they are classified as either a pitcher or hitter would depend if they have the larger number on plate appearance side or the innings pitched side.
If you have a limit of a 11 pitchers, it's about defining who is a pitcher and who is a "fielder" obviously if a guy never pitches, he's clearly a fielder. But if a guy goes out and pitches 30 innings and gets 30 plate appearances...how would you classify him for purpose of where he falls on roster construction? Is he a pitcher or a hitter. By saying to be classified as a pitcher his innings pitched needs to be greater than his plate appearances it's a nice neat line to draw.
Obviously I agree. Again, the only reason I propose the healthy scratch option is that it's a compromise position to the people who insist that baseball is 25 man roster size and that that is big enough.
I'm sorry for misunderstanding. I wonder if teams would actually use the 3 "extra" roster spots under the "scratch list" plan for more position players, or if they would load up on more pitchers. It's really not that hard to imagine a scenario where a team under the current roster rules would be better off dropping a LOOGY for an extra pinch hitter or LIDR wizard, but no one does it. I'm afraid that bullpens might grow by another pitcher before we see a team decide to trim the bullpen in favor of another position player.
In previous discussions about this plan, I was told that they probably wouldn't and instead would effectively go to a 13/14 man bullpen. That is the reason I think the limit on number of pitchers would have to be created also.
Ultimately if you increase the roster size by one player(to 26) with no limits, then you will probably see some teams add a second loogy while other teams will add a swing utility player that is a capable backup catcher. If you up it to 27 man roster, you most definitely will see an additional pitcher added to the team, basically the 4A pitcher that most teams keep in AAA now. You won't really see an additional bench player that will be used until you up it to 28 players(probably)
Even though my healthy scratch idea does the same thing(increases the roster to 28 men) I think the nature of having the ability to move people off of the roster will encourage a more traditional bench. Teams would obviously make two of the healthy scratches starting pitchers who won't be used in the series. The third spot would be the flexible spot for whatever purposes. In this scenario then the 25 man roster with a 12 man pitching staff would effectively have a 10 man pitching staff for a series and 15 spots for position players.
"Everyone used to wear them."
'Then everyone was a dope."
Damn straight!
A lot of the playing time for call-ups comes in blowouts or the last few innings of a "safe" lead. Can't really predict that, so you'd diminish the opportunity to evaluate call-ups, since clubs would presumably go with their A Team until they'd clinched a playoff spot or been eliminated.
-- MWE
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main