I can easily believe he doesn't hate baseball. That would involve having a human emotion.

Misers and coupon-clippers and superheroes save things. Which one do you suppose Manfred believes he is...? Focus group results pending, of course.

You guys are being unfair to him, he loves baseball, with the love brought to you by CampingWorld.

If Manfred wants to save baseball, then he should address the biggest threat facing the game today, which is Rob Manfred.

He doesn't hate baseball, but he is considering it.

"I don't hate the game. I am only trying to make changes within it to appeal to those who already hate the game."

Manfred has certainly obliterated MLB's long-lasting problem of no Official Gaming Partners™.

“It became necessary to destroy baseball to save it.”

Abusers always say that about their victims.

There is a huge untapped market of people who hate baseball but aren't watching it. If we appeal to them by making them hate it more we could pick them up.

I asked Manfred to name the biggest mistake he’s made—one decision he’d like to have back. He laughed. “I have to narrow it down to one?” he said. “You know, I think people who can’t admit they’ve made mistakes, particularly in a job like this, are a little dangerous.”

Ummm ... so what was his biggest mistake? Or is he a "little dangerous?" Fine reporting there accepting the weasel "I'll admit I've made mistakes" without admitting to what those mistakes were.

No. People who cant admit they made mistakes are dangerous.

People who wont tell you what those mistakes are, are cool people.

Why don't we try to list Manfred's mistakes and failures:

1) Complete mismanagement of the pitch clock/pace of play issues. If I remember, he tried to implement it, and didn't get cooperation from the umpires, who are direct employees of the league. Now he's pissed away 5 or 6 more years without it.
2) Continued inability to resolve the Hall of Fame situation, such that every year when Hall of Fame voting comes around, instead of this being a celebration of baseball the primary narrative is the still unresolved issues regarding the steroid era.
3) Mismanagement of the "trash can sign stealing" narrative around the Houston Astros.
4) Mismanagement of the Oakland A's, Tampa Bay Rays, and Baltimore Orioles situations.
5) Poor implementation of replay review.
6) Implementing the stupid "pitchers must throw to 3 batters" rule instead of something that makes more sense.
7) Implementing the stupid "ghost runner" rule. I mean, if you must do something like that, do something more interesting like remove 1 fielder.
8) Contracting the minor leagues, instead of figuring out a way to increase baseball's appeal via the grass-roots.
9) Inability to figure out how to utilize the best player of his generation, Mike Trout, in a way that penetrates the national media.
10) Continued failure to keep the game from turning into a pure TTO-ball exhibition, thus dampening fan interest.

How is my list? What have I missed? What do I have that shouldn't be listed as a mistake/failure?

1). I don't think he's mismanaged that. The solution has now been identified and will be with us as early as next year. That's not bad. Furthermore, every player that comes up is already used to the rules. Have you noticed how fast the new minor league pitchers and hitters are ?
2). If you are talking about PEDs, and I assume you are - it's been clunky but the writers have mostly gotten this right
3. Astros should have lost the trophy. They should have let the Supreme Court handle it - they aren't afraid of big issues
4). As bad as team ownership is - manfred is not alone in failing to solve these problems over the last 125 years
5) agreed
6) that doesn't bother me - I rather quite like it
7) agreed
8). This looks terrible but was probably long overdue.
9). Trout doesn't want to be that guy
10) when they outlaw shift and teams figure out it's a lot easier to steal bases now with the bigger bases, things will get better but yes it's taken too long

I don't think he's mismanaged that. The solution has now been identified and will be with us as early as next year

Bullocks. It's been mismanaged for years. We don't need a pitch clock, we just need the umps to enforce the existing rule. It's right there in the darn rule book. Just enforce the f*cking rule.

It's right f+cking here:

8.04 When the bases are unoccupied, the pitcher shall deliver the ball to the batter within
12 seconds after he receives the ball. Each time the pitcher delays the game by violating this
rule, the umpire shall call “Ball.”

JUST ENFORCE THE EXISTING RULE.

This is not that hard. So yeah, it's been mismanaged.

Same thing with the batters--it is already in the rulebook that they are not permitted to call time, they have to stay in the box, and if they aren't in it with both feet when the pitcher delivers, it's an automatic strike. Just ####### enforce it. There isn't a damn thing the MLBPA can do about it.

It's a simple policy directive: Enforce the existing pace-of-play rules, and do not grant time unless there is some very obvious reason the game cannot continue.

Even if the pitch clock is necessary despite the existing rule, Manfred has failed to make it happen...

January 2015: "One change that isn’t likely to [be discussed at an owners quarterly meeting and thus] take place for next season is the addition of a pitch clock, due to a lack of support from both the league and its players.

January 2018 (emphasis added): "Pace of play has been one of the chief initiatives for MLB commissioner Rob Manfred since he succeeded Bud Selig, with a pitch clock among the potential rules changes most frequently discussed in recent months. Today, both Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic (subscription required/recommended) and Jerry Crasnick of ESPN.com are reporting that the Major League Baseball Players Association is expected to reject Manfred’s latest pace-of-play proposal, but that Manfred will likely exercise his power to unilaterally implement the new measure despite a failure to reach agreement with the union.

Bill James advocated a couple years back for a pool of bonus money to be paid out to players after the season, based on their team's average time-of-game being below a certain threshold (it could be 3:00 this year, 2:50 next, 2:40 after that... so on.)

It's an interesting idea, but it fails because there's no way to commit enough money to those bonuses to make the players care. But if you established a significant pool of pace-of-play bonus money and offered it to the umpires based on the average time of the games they officiate...

Pace of play doesn't need gimmicks, or weird incentive structures, or anything else. What it needs is for the commissioner to make it a priority and stick with it for a few years so that holdouts get with the program instead of hoping everyone will forget about it like they always do.

The ghost runner rule was stupid, but the commissioner could implement it unilaterally, or at least without any pushback. So we get the ghost runner rule but nothing ever happens with pace of play.

Universal DH is stupid, but teams aren't persistently sending up the pitcher to hit when nobody's looking. It's a one time rule change that teams obey. So we get a universal DH, but nothing ever happens with pace of play.

The problem isn't that a weak leader does nothing. It's that he does stupid things because they can be done easily, and doesn't do smart things, because he isn't strong enough to make them stick.

And further to add..

I think if you did enforce the pace of play rules stringently from both the pitching and batting side, the game would play more traditional. No more rearing back and hurling every pitch at 100% effort, no more swinging from the heals on every pitch. The game becomes a more fluid contest instead of stop and start.

I could be talking out of my arse about this, but I'd at least like to see what happens.

Why don't we try to list Manfred's mistakes

Any list that doesn't start with "Bulldozing the iron curtain between Major League Baseball and Big Gambling" is burying the lede.

He doesn't hate baseball, but he is considering it.

This gave me a good chuckle.

Any list that doesn't start with "Bulldozing the iron curtain between Major League Baseball and Big Gambling" is burying the lede.

QFT

The considerable snark is appreciated but our greatest fear going forward should be the determination of Manfred, on behalf of the equally soulless owners, to effectively devalue the regular season in favor of a six-week long postseason tournament.

The problem isn't that a weak leader does nothing. It's that he does stupid things because they can be done easily, and doesn't do smart things, because he isn't strong enough to make them stick.

excellent summary of this entire nonsense. In a nutshell.

Just like with larger bases. Or stealing first. Or two throws to first. Or automatic intentional walk. Or oversize bats. These are all distractions from the main problem.

Bill James advocated a couple years back for a pool of bonus money to be paid out to players after the season, based on their team's average time-of-game being below a certain threshold (it could be 3:00 this year, 2:50 next, 2:40 after that... so on.)

They could make it part of baseball's post season awards that interrupt the playoffs. Like make the announcement during the 7th inn. stretch of world series game 3. "And this years winner of the Bud Light, Pound Em Into the Ground for the least time spent scratching their balls is....

@13 You asked what is on your list of Manfred mistakes that shouldn't be included, so I'll bite.*

2) Continued inability to resolve the Hall of Fame situation, such that every year when Hall of Fame voting comes around, instead of this being a celebration of baseball the primary narrative is the still unresolved issues regarding the steroid era.

Manfred is guilty of many mistakes and failures, but any Hall of Fame questions, issues, or arguments is not one of them. The Hall of Fame is not run by, owned by, or affiliated with MLB. It is its own organization, and it makes its own rules. MLB, and Manfred, have no control over its operating decisions. If "resolution" desired, its up to the Hall itself to reach one, not to MLB, and certainly not to Manfred.

A snippet from the Hall's mission statement: "The National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum is an independent, non-profit educational institution dedicated to fostering an appreciation of the historical development of baseball and its impact on our culture by collecting, preserving, exhibiting and interpreting its collections for a global audience as well as honoring those who have made outstanding contributions to our national pastime."

*I am not a Manfred apologist.

I stand by my list, but add as suggested

0. Bulldozing the iron curtain between Major League Baseball and Big Gambling.

On the other hand:

but any Hall of Fame questions, issues, or arguments is not one of them

True leaders can and do lead without legal authority. Manfred could have, say, spurred a meeting/conference between the Hall of Fame, noted baseball historians, senior sportswriters, living Hall of Famers, and perhaps some noted current players, to find a solution. What I mean by a solution is something (I don't know what, exactly) that resolves the voting in such a fashion that every year around Hall of Fame voting time the discussion does not revolve around steroid-era players and what to do with them. In my mind, this is a very corrosive thing for baseball - instead of the Hall of Fame voting being celebratory, it drags baseball around once more in the history of a sordid era from it's past. Every year. How could a situation like that not be detrimental to the game? Isn't that part of the Commissioner's job, to make sure the game of baseball has positive publicity which leads to increased fan interest, and therefore fatter owner's pocketbooks?

Despite the concerns of MLB about time between pitches the fact is the shorter time between the pitches and would result in less chances to wager on the result of the next pitch. Therefore there would be a reduced revenue opportunity between for MLB's partners....um clients.

2) Continued inability to resolve the Hall of Fame situation, such that every year when Hall of Fame voting comes around, instead of this being a celebration of baseball the primary narrative is the still unresolved issues regarding the steroid era.

This is more the fault about the people generally obsessing about in-or-out election to the HOF. The obsession exists independent of steroids issues, i.e. threads here would still often devolve into "what does this do for his HOF chances" or "how will HOF voters treat this" even if Clemens/Bonds, etc were all enshrined. People who are shaping the narrative are not hindered at all by Manfred if they want to focus on a celebration of baseball. They don't want that. Apparently people would rather talk about Jack Morris than Greg Maddux.

8.04 When the bases are unoccupied, the pitcher shall deliver the ball to the batter within
12 seconds after he receives the ball. Each time the pitcher delays the game by violating this
rule, the umpire shall call “Ball.”

JUST ENFORCE THE EXISTING RULE.

Amen!

Same thing with the batters--it is already in the rulebook that they are not permitted to call time, they have to stay in the box, and if they aren't in it with both feet when the pitcher delivers, it's an automatic strike. Just ####### enforce it. There isn't a damn thing the MLBPA can do about it.

Double amen!

You'd have a week of ######## and then everyone would adjust. This could have been solved 10 years ago.

Despite the concerns of MLB about time between pitches the fact is the shorter time between the pitches and would result in less chances to wager on the result of the next pitch.

The former CEO of William Hill US stated at a major gaming conference in Las Vegas a few years ago that he made this very point as forcefully as he could to MLB. he said the pace was ideal for in-game betting - so why mess with a good thing?

You'd have a week of ######## and then everyone would adjust. This could have been solved 10 years ago.

Yes, and Manfred had the power to do it back in 2018 and he didn't do it.

OK here is my updated "top 10" list, ordered based upon what I think is causing the most damage to the long-term health of the game.

(1) Complete mismanagement of pace of play issues, starting from before 2015.
(2) Bulldozing the iron curtain between Major League Baseball and Big Gambling.
(3) Continued failure to keep the game from turning into a pure TTO-ball exhibition (with 13+ pitchers per team!) thus dampening fan interest.
(4) Contracting the minor leagues, instead of figuring out a way to increase baseball's appeal via the grass-roots.
(5) Mismanagement of the Oakland A's, Tampa Bay Rays, and Baltimore Orioles situations.
(6) Implementing the stupid "pitchers must throw to 3 batters" rule instead of something that makes more sense, such as an ineligible list for subsequent games for pitchers taken out too early.
(7) Implementing the stupid "ghost runner" rule. I mean, if you must do something like that, do something more interesting like remove 1 fielder.
(8) Mismanagement of the relationship between MLB and the Hall of Fame.
(9) Poor implementation of replay review.
(10) Mismanagement of the "trash can sign stealing" narrative around the Houston Astros.

(6) Implementing the stupid "pitchers must throw to 3 batters" rule instead of something that makes more sense, such as an ineligible list for subsequent games for pitchers taken out too early.

This seems like an innocuous and largely unnoticeable way to deal with the parade of anonymous relievers. An ineligible list seems like a much more cumbersome way to deal with the problem, and would probably just amount to the same thing - teams would leave a pitcher in for three hitters in order to avoid the penalty.

Why do you think this is damaging the long-term health of the game?

Bulldozing the iron curtain between Major League Baseball and Big Gambling.

Rob Manfred discussing gaming in MLB.

Why do you think this is damaging the long-term health of the game?

It's just a dumb solution to the problem and the longer it stays around the more a dumb solution gets ingrained.

Why is it dumb?

a) It doesn't directly address the bigger issue of mid-inning pitching changes.
b) 3 batters is way too few as a target.
c) The rule never really deals with what happens if a player claims injury? Ooh I strained my forearm!

But more specifically, the 3-batter-rule violates what I think of as a principle in the construction of the rules of baseball, which is: You can do "it", but you will pay for "it" later. E.g., I can pinch-run this guy, but that means I cannot use him as a pinch-hitter later. I can take this pitcher out, but I cannot put him back in later. The "3 batter rule" violates this principle, because, well, if Tony LaRussa really, really, really wants to use Rick Honeycutt to pitch to just Eddie Murray, I think we should let him, but he should have to pay for it somehow, for example not letting Tony LaRussa use Rick Honeycutt for the next 4 games. If a pitcher "just doesn't have it", well, we have to watch him or her walk (or even hit) 3 batters in a row before he/she can be taken out.

a) It doesn't directly address the bigger issue of mid-inning pitching changes.

But it does! It severely limits the number of mid-inning pitching changes a manager can make.

c) The rule never really deals with what happens if a player claims injury? Ooh I strained my forearm!

Has this been an issue? Have there been any pitchers who claimed they needed to come out before facing three batters due to injury? I haven't heard of it happening, but I really don't know.

The "3 batter rule" violates this principle, because, well, if Tony LaRussa really, really, really wants to use Rick Honeycutt to pitch to just Eddie Murray, I think we should let him, but he should have to pay for it somehow,

But he does! It means that Rick Honeycutt has to face Cal Ripken and Doug DeCinces as well. I think the three-batter rule is an elegant solution to the problem it directly addressed, namely the LOOGY. You have to pay for using your LOOGY by letting him face the next couple guys in the order.

But it does! It severely limits the number of mid-inning pitching changes a manager can make.

I'm probably missing something obvious, but why not limit the number of mid-inning pitching changes... by limiting the number of mid-inning pitching changes?

If a manager were limited to two mid-inning pitching changes, they'd get back the tactical option to use a LOOGY if the deemed it necessary and worth forfeiting future options.

Maybe the end result of this isn't reviving the careers of the likes of Jesse Orosco, but it seems like a much more direct way to address the root of the problem.

I've never thought that there's a mid-inning change problem. The problem is the mid-inning changes begin when they've already take two hours to play six.

If a manager were limited to two mid-inning pitching changes, they'd get back the tactical option to use a LOOGY if the deemed it necessary and worth forfeiting future options.

So the guy who follows the LOOGY just stays on the mound till the end of the inning, whether that's two more batters or 15? I don't think that's a very tenable solution. It also doesn't address any of Doug's concerns in post 37.

So the guy who follows the LOOGY just stays on the mound till the end of the inning, whether that's two more batters or 15? I don't think that's a very tenable solution.

was just about to say this. You could have something like 1 pitching change after every 3 batters or something. BUt it seems like just creating more rules ontop of rules. Not aesthetically pleasing.

I've never thought that there's a mid-inning change problem.

I remember the last game I watched in person, last month, the first 6 innings were "OK", but then came the parade of relievers, most of them replaced mid-inning. I think the A's used 6 pitcher that game. And that isn't unusual.

Not aesthetically pleasing.

Well, my favorite solution is: if the pitcher is taken out in the middle of an inning, and/or doesn't pitch at least N innings (N=2? N=3?) without finishing the game, the pitcher is ineligible (and costing a roster spot) for the next M games (M=4?). The manager can do whatever he/she wants, but will pay for it in subsequent games. Naturally mid-inning pitching changes and LOOGY's will become rare, but not perhaps extinct.

Well, my favorite solution is: if the pitcher is taken out in the middle of an inning, and/or doesn't pitch at least N innings (N=2? N=3?) without finishing the game, the pitcher is ineligible (and costing a roster spot) for the next M games (M=4?).

So it's Game 4 of the World Series. A team is up 2 games to 1 trying to take a commanding 3–1 lead. Manager brings his closer in for a 5-out save, but the guy relinquishes the lead and the game goes to extras, at which point the closer is removed. And a rule like the above would mean he's now ineligible for the rest of the series. This doesn't seem better to me.

I've never thought that there's a mid-inning change problem. The problem is the mid-inning changes begin when they've already take two hours to play six.

Agreed! I don't think mid-inning pitching changes are (or were) a problem. I think PITCHING CHANGES are a problem. If you make it more costly to make pitching changes (e.g. decreasing the number of pitchers allowed on the roster), there will be fewer pitching changes and thus fewer mid-inning pitching changes.

The other problem with mid-inning pitching changes is the wasted time. If pace of play is sped up through enforcement of a pitch clock, I'm not going to mind a two minute break in the 7th or 8th inning.

The three batter minimum is a dumb rule because it's putting a Band-Aid on someone whose arm has been chopped off. You might stop a little bit of blood, but you're not addressing the issue in any real way.

Manager brings his closer in for a 5-out save, but the guy relinquishes the lead and the game goes to extras, at which point the closer is removed.

Well, maybe you adjust the rule a bit for extras, or postseason series. Or maybe you just make the rule N=2 innings. A rule like this would mean you wouldn't want a closer who couldn't throw N=2 or N=3 innings every once in a while, which is the idea. The intent of the rule is to get rid of pitchers who throw max effort all the time, and because of that cannot pitch more than 1 inning. I think baseball would be a better game all around if those kind of pitchers just weren't in the game. Goose Gossage could, Mariano Rivera could (though he didn't do it very often), Lee Smith could I think, probably Trevor Hoffman, but a lot of the relievers they are putting out there now can't throw more than 1 inning if their life depended on it, at least as they are throwing now.

Why not just treat a mid inning pitching change like a balk? That’s a price to pay that is easy to administer, doesn’t seem too stiff to totally eliminate at, but is stiff enough to mostly eliminate it.

treat a mid inning pitching change like a balk?

That's an interesting idea, but there are a lot of managers who will, say leave the pitcher in for the one batter (say to preserve a righty/right or lefty/lefty matchup) and then take the guy out, whether there are men on base or not. So I don't know if it would help enough, maybe it would be enough of an incentive that managers would never plan on that.

The larger point I think is that Manfred (especially now that he has total control of the minor leagues) has all the power to try things (e.g. different minor leagues can try different things) and largely hasn't, or has but too little and too late. He appears to think he has all the time in the world, when the truth is the exact opposite.