MLB pondering a six-inning minimum rule for starting pitchers

[True Dough]

Would you be in favor or opposed to this idea?

The primary goal of a minimum-innings rule would be to immediately restore the prestige of the starting pitcher. Fans would be able to tune in to a game knowing that he would be on the mound for the majority of it.

In 2014, starting pitchers averaged just under six innings per start (5.97), according to ESPN Stats & Information. This season, that figure stands at 5.25 and is down to 4.3 in Triple-A.

MLB acknowledges that adding such a rule would not be as simple as forcing every starter to pitch at least six innings every time out -- exceptions would have to be included.

The objective is to prioritize starting pitching, not to leave a struggling starter in to reach the innings threshold while his ERA skyrockets or at the risk of injury. So the league's conversations have included carve-outs, instances when pitchers would not have to pitch the required six innings. Some instances when a starter would be allowed to leave early might include:

He throws 100 pitches

He gives up four or more earned runs

He gets injured (with a required injured list stint to avoid manipulation)

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/40847173/mlb-rule-changes-2024-six-inning-starting-pitcher-injuries-tommy-john

[BOSSHOG]

1. Initial thought. NO

Let the Manager do his job. If the guy ain’t got it by the third inning, out he goes. I’m somewhat of a baseball Geek (for 60 years). Watching a starting pitcher was never a priority for me. I wanted my team to win and I wanted the manager to make that happen.

The next thing ya know they’ll be forcing the designated hitter on the NL. OH. Already happened? I never could figure out why pitchers (supposedly) couldn’t hit. As a Philly fan I was very happy to have Steve Carlton up to bat.

[True Dough]

8. I don't think MLB has been hurt by the DH rule applied to both leagues

I'd rather see capable hitters at the plate. Carlton was an exception.

But I agree with you on the minimum 6 innings proposal. It isn't well thought-out.

[BOSSHOG]

10. I always thought

Who has more time for batting practice than pitchers? OTH, the DH puts both Harper and Schwarber in the lineup. That works for me.

[True Dough]

14. No pitcher is going to match their output

*except Shohei Ohtani.

[yourout]

2. Terrible idea. Will really hurt the small market teams that struggle to find enough good pitching as it is

[True Dough]

3. I'm sure Tampa in particular

would be firmly against this concept.

[WestMichRad]

16. This!

Also would hurt teams with several injuries to their starting rotation pitchers.

I think the innovation of using “openers” who might only pitch an inning or two, or one time through the lineup, is a good one. Gives managers who are short on strong starters a way to make their teams more competitive. It’s up to opposing managers to come up with ways to counter that tactic.

Baseball shouldn’t be imposing a rule that a starter has to get shelled before his manager can replace him.

[anciano]

4. No.

[Drum]

5. Noooooooo n/t

[Dave in VA]

6. Nope!

[Wounded Bear]

7. Sounds like a really bad idea...nt

[Lucky Luciano]

9. I preferred when pitchers tried to have complete games...or just one closer for 1 or 2 innings.

It’s kind of ridiculous now. I get that the quantitative analytics suggest they do things the way they do, so the only way to bring back hall of fame level starting pitchers would be some constraints on what the analytics suggest. Constraints means rules. I’m open minded. The carve outs seem like reasonable starting point.

[Silent Type]

11. Only if they go back to one-platoon football.

[Cartoonist]

12. Here's my idea

Rather than require a pitcher go 6 innings, just make it so that he can't get the win unless he goes 6 innings.

[rsdsharp]

13. The rule is already 5 innings. I don't think that would change much.

That said, Mighty Manfred has already fucked with baseball enough. What could possibly go wrong with forcing a pitcher to go six innings? He may have to throw 200 pitches, and be down by 25-30 runs. The fans will looooovvve it, and so will the sacrificial victim’s surgeon.

[Lucky Luciano]

15. They had exceptions to the rule discussed above...like 4 earned runs.

[rsdsharp]

17. Thanks. I should have read it. I still think it's a bad idea.

[retread]

18. I put this idea with lowering the mound, increasing the distance from the mound to home plate, banning the shift, etc.

Another example of the laptop brigade trying to fix what they f***ed up in the first place.

If it were up to me I would ban all electronic communications including instant replay. Let boys play ball and let the managers manage!

[ProfessorGAC]

20. Increasing The Distance To Home Plate?

They did that 131 years ago. I don't think the laptop brigade had anything to do with that.
In those days, a laptop was the blanket you wore on your legs to keep warm on a horse drawn carriage

[retread]

22. "Last season, 34.2% of pitchers to appear in an MLB game had Tommy John surgery at some point in their past."

I don't see how increasing the distance to home plate would have a positive effect on the injury rate.

The over emphasis on velocity, especially with young kids, will still be in place.
Emphasis on spin rate won't change.
Pitch clock will remain or even be shorter.

Baseball rewards velocity and spin. Statcast, a tool of the "laptop brigade", measures these parameters among many others.
Increasing distances, base size, wider base paths, goosing the baseball, etc., are just tinkering around the edges.

I understand it is impossible to put the genie back in the bottle. I am admittedly nostalgic for the times when managers had more autonomy. Instead of classic Earl Weaver we get instant replay.

[ProfessorGAC]

23. None Of That Addesses The Point

Look, we agree that too much emphasis is placed on velocity and spin. I don't think Greg Maddux would get a sniff today, because 91 was about his top speed. Guy could throw a golf ball into a soup can and he wouldn't have gotten past college baseball.
That has to have something to do with all this elbow damage, especially given hardly anyone putches 9 innings anymore.
But, moving the mound back had nothing to do with analytics. It was done in the 1890s. Nobody was using advanced metrics then.
It was actually done for the fairness to batters, because guys were hitting 85/86 by then and from the old distance that was like 93 to 95 today. The game became a groundout or bunt single game because nobody could catch up to a pitch that short a distance. The game got boring & people stopped attending.
Interestingly though, I found this about the experiments in the minors with pushing the mound back (which I didn't know was happening).

Studies by the American Sports Medicine Institute demonstrated no meaningful differences in measures of rotational motion or acceleration for pitchers throwing from distances as far as 63 feet, 8 inches. So there is scientific reason to believe this change will not pose a meaningful increase in injury risk to pitchers. That’s why MLB determined the pitching distance adjustment to be a worthwhile experiment.

[retread]

31. I am already deeper in this than I care to be. However,

"no meaningful differences in measures of rotational motion or acceleration for pitchers throwing from distances as far as 63 feet, 8 inches"

I find the same sort of verbiage in the 3 studies I have been able to access. A few definitions are in order.

"Velocity is the change in position (location) of an object per unit time."
"Acceleration is the change in velocity of an object per unit time."

When we say, "He throws a 95mph fastball!", we are referring to the velocity as measured by Statcast. Statcast measures velocity the moment the ball leaves the pitcher's hand. Assuming the same mechanics, this wouldn't change if the pitcher was in center field.

F = ma Newton's 2nd law states force is proportional to what is required for an object of constant mass to change its velocity. Rearranging gives a = F/m. The F is initially the force applied by the pitcher's throwing motion. After the ball(m) leaves his hand that force(F) is no longer applied. Now the ball is acted upon by the forces of gravity and the resistance of the space through which the ball travels. More distance means more time the ball is acted on by the negative forces of gravity and resistance.
Again, measuring the moment the ball leaves the pitcher's hand there would be no difference in a = F/m from 60' 6" or from center field.

[Ziggysmom]

19. Bad idea. I don't like the pitch clock, either.

[ProfessorGAC]

21. We Agree & Disagree

Forcing a pitcher to go 6 innings, even with the exceptions, is stupid.
The pitch clock is a boon to the game.

[Auggie]

24. NO! NO, NO, NO, NO!!!! If MLB does this, I'm gone.

[True Dough]

25. And if you're gone

they might as well fold up the tent and end the silly game completely!

[Auggie]

28. Exactly. Fuck 'em and their lies:

"Restore the prestige of the starting pitcher?" Bullshit. Manfred wants more scoring.

"Nanny State" isn't the right word, but you get the idea. And the meddling is making it easier for large market teams to dominate.

[BComplex]

26. Kind of off topic, but even baseball allows for carve-outs. Not abortion bans?

Common sense for one, common hatred for the other.

[Bristlecone]

27. Don't like the sound of it. But maybe they want to eliminate the notion of bullpen days.

I’ll admit I think the pitch clock and throw over rules turned out to be good this year.

[True Dough]

30. Agreed on the pitch clock and the pick-off rule

Both plusses!

[LuvLoogie]

29. Opposed