Among the many proposed MLB rule changes that might seem a bit drastic, one is possibly requiring a team to leave in a pitcher for a minimum of three batters -- injury being the obvious exception.
On the surface, I liked this one.
First off, pitching changes have gotten pretty excessive, particularly in the postseason when the goal is to capture the eyes of the nation and hopefully win over some casual or previous non-fans as newly-minted die-hard baseball fans.
Secondly and quite frankly, it's annoying to see something like three straight pitchers facing just a single batter and then being pulled.
Next, people often mention the LOOGY (left-handed one-out guy), but the thought process was that he could be used during a part in the batting order that goes left-right-left and just pitch around the right-hander. Further, if one is so awful at pitching to right-handed hitters that he can't possibly be trusted to face one without blowing the game, should he even be in the majors in the first place?
Those were my thoughts and I stand by most of them. I discussed the matter with two former major-league relievers, however, and they made me wary of some things.
"Trying to speed up baseball to attract a targeted fan base is ridiculous when people don't watch for other reasons," said one former big-league reliever, suggesting that lapsed fans were never driven away from the game due to pace of play issues.
This is a very salient point. While multiple pitching changes in an inning are boring and tedious, I'm not sure there's a huge demographic of fans who used to love baseball but stopped caring because they saw three pitching changes in the eighth inning of a playoff game. That doesn't seem to even be possible.
Another former reliever approached this from a player's perspective and noted who this rule would harm the most: relievers.
Think about close games. Is a manager really going to risk leaving in a lesser reliever for three batters in a one-run game when he's got an all-world closer sitting there? We'd see an uptick of multi-inning saves at the expense of the rest of the bullpen. We'd see a lot more cases like Andrew Miller going through an injury-plagued and disappointing 2018 that very likely was caused by his overuse in 2016-17. Look at Josh Hader last August (4.73 ERA) and September (4.40) likely due to all his multi-inning use in the first half of the season.
With a minimum of three hitters faced, managers won't trust lesser relievers in close games and instead would lean much more heavily on their horses.
Some might think this is good, but consider how much a disaster free agency can be for players now. All that use -- and some could argue overuse -- while salaries for those guys presumably won't increase. We'd likely see an uptick of long guys like Miller and Hader who look like world-beaters for stretches but then break down. Meantime, the lesser relievers are getting used less and less frequently -- and only in so-called trash time -- and, as such, won't be getting paid as much.
Maybe make the minimum two hitters or just leave it the way it is. It's not like the game is broken. After discussing the possible rule change with two former big-league relievers, I have a change. I've changed my mind. Leave this issue alone.
