Some of those are going to be hard sells.  I'd like to see a universal DH, only to streamline things.  I like the idea of a 3 batter minimum...that would help speed the game up a bit.  Those are the two rule changes that I don't expect to be agreed upon.  I could see some of the others happening, though.

I think the anti-tank rules are too harsh as proposed. Roster expansion is a great idea, and contracting roster expansion in Sept. is also good. The three batter minimum is weird and I think the hardest sell.

Three batter minimum is not going to fly, so many bullpen lefties would be without a job then.

11 minutes ago, GermanSoxFan said:

Three batter minimum is not going to fly, so many bullpen lefties would be without a job then.

Would they though? Haven’t loogies become less common? 

My thought was it may lose relief pitchers jobs by making it more likely teams are back to 12 pitchers as getting an additional bench bat you could “stack” against a reliever would be more advantageous.

The DH I see as more likely than we think because I think it is most pro Player, I don’t see why AL teams would be against and several NL teams want to see it (cubs, Mets).

Overall this is interesting.

I could see a 3 batter minimum OR finish the inning rule.  It will speed up the game because of fewer mid-inning pitching changes.  It might even add some offense.  I like the 26 man roster too and it might lead to more pinch hitters, pinch runners, defensive replacements, or platoons.  That adds more strategy to the game which to me is good.

Pleased to see there is nothing especially horrible on there such as starting an extra inning with runners on. What a stupid, stupid idea that was. 

Edited February 6, 20197 yr by Swingandalongonetoleft

Universal DH makes too much sense. In over 1900 plate appearances, pitchers had a combined .115/.146/.150 slash line - good for a -23 wRC+. That is absolutely insane. There is no way that is good for the game of the game. 

18 minutes ago, CWSpalehoseCWS said:

Universal DH makes too much sense. In over 1900 plate appearances, pitchers had a combined .115/.146/.150 slash line - good for a -23 wRC+. That is absolutely insane. There is no way that is good for the game of the game. 

But my friends who follow NL teams say it leads to more "strategy"

16 minutes ago, Quin said:

But my friends who follow NL teams say it leads to more "strategy"

While it does lead to more "strategy" it doesn't make the game any more fun or watchable...

I think three batters is too many, but I like the idea. 2 would eliminate the one batter specialists without punishing a team too bad for throwing a guy who flat out doesn't have it that night. 

I like the idea of a 3 batter minimum, same as the amount of minimum batters for an inning.

7 minutes ago, yesterday333 said:

While it does lead to more "strategy" it doesn't make the game any more fun or watchable...

Any dingleberry with a spreadsheet can determine when to pinch hit for a pitcher and play match ups

Hypothetically, if the DH were added to the NL tomorrow, how quickly would Carlos Gonzalez, Jose Bautista (despite the low average, still had some pop and about an 18% walk rate), and Evan Gattis sign?

Edited February 6, 20197 yr by soxfan2014

Does anyone else feel like "Rewarding small market teams who are competitive" would just be another way to funnel unexplained draft picks to St. Louis?

5 hours ago, CWSpalehoseCWS said:

Universal DH makes too much sense. In over 1900 plate appearances, pitchers had a combined .115/.146/.150 slash line - good for a -23 wRC+. That is absolutely insane. There is no way that is good for the game of the game. 

Wow, that is great.  Do you mind sharing where you found that?

24 minutes ago, turnin' two said:

Wow, that is great.  Do you mind sharing where you found that?

Link

 

I saw it in a tweet earlier, but I found it also in a Ben Lindberg article of The Ringer/Effectively Wild podcast. Looks like it’s a article from the middle of the year, so it could be even worse than that. 

3 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

Does anyone else feel like "Rewarding small market teams who are competitive" would just be another way to funnel unexplained draft picks to St. Louis?

St Louis found a way to stay competitive every year without spending a fortune or engage in the baseball-ruining practice of tanking and now, inexplicably, they are hated for it.

The Sox, Astros, Braves, Cubs, Padres...every team that has clearly lost intentionally...should be penalized severely. If I were in charge I'd start confiscating picks and banning these teams for international signings. This has spiraled so far out of control now.

6 hours ago, 103 mph screwball said:

I could see a 3 batter minimum OR finish the inning rule.

I think this is the way to go, and I like it for the reasons several have stated already. I also like the idea of a universal DH and a single trade deadline.

I don't like rewarding winning teams in the draft, as it will reduce parity. That said, a lottery system was all the NBA needed to stop tanking, that would likely work with MLB as well.

7 hours ago, GermanSoxFan said:

Three batter minimum is not going to fly, so many bullpen lefties would be without a job then.

Literally that is the single biggest thing the game needs to do if it doesn't want to die.  The whol enter for one batter thing costs the game SO much time.  Imagine all the vistis, and warm ups.  There needs to be a 3 batter minimum or something to keep the game flowing.  If a RP can't get out RH hitters then he shouldn't be in the league, and vice versa

3 batter minimum needs to happen if we don't want our lovely game to die of boredom.  Also the pitcher batting is just straight stupid and boring.  I'm in favor of universal DH

6 minutes ago, cjgalloway said:

Literally that is the single biggest thing the game needs to do if it doesn't want to die.  The whol enter for one batter thing costs the game SO much time.  Imagine all the vistis, and warm ups.  There needs to be a 3 batter minimum or something to keep the game flowing.  If a RP can't get out RH hitters then he shouldn't be in the league, and vice versa

I think its a much, much larger problem that half the league doesn't even try to win and would frankly rather lose.

I would think the MLBPA would propose some sort of draft reward system contingent on free agency spending. That doesn't necessarily reward winning teams while encouraging the worst teams with the lowest payrolls to spend in free agency, thus likely increasing parity.

6 hours ago, yesterday333 said:

While it does lead to more "strategy" it doesn't make the game any more fun or watchable...

I agree.  The pitcher hitting almost always leads to an out.  The only time strategy comes into play is when there is at least one runner on and less than two outs.  Otherwise, most pitchers go up and there and flail wildly or watch the strikes go by.