MLB To Experiment With New DH Rule, Mound Distance During 2021 Atlantic League Season

[ohiodevil]

The Atlantic League will be trying out these new rules this season for the MLB....I am not a fan of the new DH rule, but kinds 50/50 on moving the pitching rubber back.

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2021/...edium=facebook

[kq76]

I was so incredibly happy when I saw the news this morning. I still am! To think that MLB is actually going to try something that I (and others!) have been campaigning for for so long is just so awesome!

EDIT: The option they chose was my former favourite option, the SP-only DH. I think the personal bodyguard option is slightly better now due to the use of openers, but they're so similar I really don't mind. They're both so much better than the DH system we have now. Here's a comparison I did between SP-only and the existing systems. Notice it's score is 33 vs the current DH's -5.

EDIT: Matt, you once told me that it'd just be too much to implement in the game. Well, you might want to start taking another look at it soon, just in case.

[kq76]

I said this back in 2014:

Originally Posted by kq76

I'm a fan of these compromise solutions too. My predicton is come 2023 (the DH's 50 year anniversary), MLB will adopt a hybrid compromise solution:

the SP-only DH.

With it the DH is in effect for the SP, just like the AL now, but once the SP is taken out the DH must be either double-switched or taken out as well. After that, the relievers can bat for themselves (which likely won't happen, but can if you don't want to deplete your bench) or you can have pinch hitters bat for them, just like the NL now. This way fans of the DH don't have to watch bad pitchers hit yet anti-DH fans still get their increase in late inning moves. And maybe more importantly, you get the increased offense that drive ratings/revenue while you lessen the risk of those precious SPs from injuring themselves. Yes, it doesn't solve everyone's problems with the DH like the "nine men field, the same nine men should hit" argument, but it's a compromise that in the end will I think be palatable to both camps.

EDIT: You can read more about this solution at BeyondTheBoxscore.

https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/...7&postcount=21

2023 is only 2 years away!

[BBGiovanni]

Originally Posted by kq76

I was so incredibly happy when I saw the news this morning. I still am! To think that MLB is actually going to try something that I (and others!) have been campaigning for for so long is just so awesome!

EDIT: The option they chose was my former favourite option, the SP-only DH. I think the personal bodyguard option is slightly better now due to the use of openers, but they're so similar I really don't mind. They're both so much better than the DH system we have now. Here's a comparison I did between SP-only and the existing systems. Notice it's score is 33 vs the current DH's -5.

EDIT: Matt, you once told me that it'd just be too much to implement in the game. Well, you might want to start taking another look at it soon, just in case.

I hate, hate the DH. I would be *elated* to see either of those variations in the NL instead of the extra player AL rule. My personal favorite is home-manager-chooses, but I'm afraid in practice modern managers won't dare to make SPs bat or just be too risk-averse to try it.

And I'd LOVE LOVE LOVE check boxes in OOTP for all of them

[Zorian77]

Originally Posted by BBGiovanni

I hate, hate the DH. I would be *elated* to see either of those variations in the NL instead of the extra player AL rule. My personal favorite is home-manager-chooses, but I'm afraid in practice modern managers won't dare to make SPs bat or just be too risk-averse to try it.

And I'd LOVE LOVE LOVE check boxes in OOTP for all of them

If the DH was a manager chooses thing, in practice it would likely become a front office chooses. And the front office would probably never want their pitchers batting. Maybe in 1% of cases?

I think the DH for the starting pitcher only is a decent compromise. My only real complaint with it is it would make it a lot more difficult for DHs to make the hall of fame. On the other hand, it already is harder for DHs to make the hall of fame. I expect Edgar and Ortiz will be it, and then no one else that was almost exclusively a DH for a long time.

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by Zorian77

If the DH was a manager chooses thing, in practice it would likely become a front office chooses. And the front office would probably never want their pitchers batting. Maybe in 1% of cases?

I think the DH for the starting pitcher only is a decent compromise. My only real complaint with it is it would make it a lot more difficult for DHs to make the hall of fame. On the other hand, it already is harder for DHs to make the hall of fame. I expect Edgar and Ortiz will be it, and then no one else that was almost exclusively a DH for a long time.

I'd be curious to see how the player's association feels about it. DH's would basically become part-time players, getting 1, 2, maybe three ABs a game. IMO, it would be better to just eliminate the DH completely.

[BBGiovanni]

Originally Posted by Zorian77

If the DH was a manager chooses thing, in practice it would likely become a front office chooses. And the front office would probably never want their pitchers batting. Maybe in 1% of cases?

Yes, that too. I don't imagine the room full of Ivy Leaguers with spreadsheets is going to spit that result out very often Maybe a little more than 1%, if you're going to force an old guy into the field (like Nelson Cruz in the World Series a while back). I've never studied how often PCL NL teams bat their pitchers, but I imagine it's not common.

[Michael Hopcroft]

I like the DH rule as it is. An SP-only rule would cost hitters valuable plate appearances, and I can't help but think of Edgar Martinez under these rules being a muss less significant asset under such a system.

[pilight]

Originally Posted by Zorian77

I expect Edgar and Ortiz will be it, and then no one else that was almost exclusively a DH for a long time.

You think the PED police will let Ortiz in?

[kq76]

Originally Posted by Michael Hopcroft

I like the DH rule as it is. An SP-only rule would cost hitters valuable plate appearances, and I can't help but think of Edgar Martinez under these rules being a muss less significant asset under such a system.

I don't think so, at least not "much less". Less, sure, okay, but not much less. If they're that good of offensive players, they'll be switched to 1B or some other position.

When we talk about HoF-worthy DHs, we're usually only talking about 2 players in the 48 year history of the DH anyway. Both probably would have played more in the field under the SP-only DH. They were both such good hitters that there's just no way you'd take them out of the lineup. They might have even had a more convincing case for hall induction had they done so.

Plus, a decrease in the PAs for a full-game DHs would be, IMO, made up for by the increase in use of bench players like we see in the NL. I'd much rather see a capable pinch hitter available to come into the game rather than yet another pitcher. More players like Lenny Harris and Matt Stairs? Yes, please!

[BBGiovanni]

Originally Posted by kq76

I don't think so, at least not "much less". Less, sure, okay, but not much less. If they're that good of offensive players, they'll be switched to 1B or some other position.

IMO that goes clearly under the "feature, not a bug" heading

Originally Posted by kq76

Plus, a decrease in the PAs for a full-game DHs would be, IMO, made up for by the increase in use of bench players like we see in the NL. I'd much rather see a capable pinch hitter available to come into the game rather than yet another pitcher. More players like Lenny Harris and Matt Stairs? Yes, please!

On any given day, a review of the AL box scores will show you maybe 1 guy like that (Nelson Cruz, maybe Khris Davis). Most of the time you'll see backup IF, 5th OF, and other detritus that would otherwise not be playing at all. By OPS, DH ranked above only 2B and C in the two months of the 2020 T-Ball tournament. In 2019 they were only ahead of SS, CF, 2B, and C. Weirdly it was 1st overall in 2018, but in 2017 it was back down in 7th of 9 positions, a whole .002 ahead of league SS. Which makes some sense, because think of all the games you've seen the DH hitting in the 7 hole. Reggie Jackson and Edgar Martinez are not the people filling these jobs.

Anyway, I was thinking again about your posts and realized how interesting this idea makes the DH/SP decisions. Usually you hope your SP can make it out of early jams and save your bullpen, but now the early hook also means the early hook for a hitter too, possibly in the middle of the order. So for the rest of the game, the batting order looks different than it did. It might be more interesting than no DH at all, honestly. I still can't imagine the baseball cartel having the required imagination to do this, even in the NL, but I guess the ATL scheme makes the chances something higher than zero.

[dkgo]

Originally Posted by Michael Hopcroft

I like the DH rule as it is. An SP-only rule would cost hitters valuable plate appearances, and I can't help but think of Edgar Martinez under these rules being a muss less significant asset under such a system.

So what? No one is entitled to be a significant MLB asset.

I think the DH for starting pitcher only rule and then pinch hitters is ideal and adds to the strategy of the game. AL managers really do nothing. It gets more players into each game as well.

[kq76]

When I was first reading/thinking about the SP-only DH, I'm pretty sure openers weren't a thing yet. But now, after reading the comments to Jayson Stark's Athletic articles on the topic (1, 2), I appreciate it even more.

A few people made the point where you used to look forward to marquee starting pitcher matchups. Like on Youtube the other day, MLB was advertising Kershaw vs Darvish. Maybe they're not as good as they once were, but they're both names any MLB fan should know and it gets you interested in the game because you have an expectation that it should be at least a competitive game, if not better. We've gone away from that lately.

I applaud the Rays ingenuity. I really do. But, I think openers have hurt the game a bit. I appreciate how it gets your opponent to set their lineup one way and then you might turn to a pitcher of the opposite handedness. That's fine. But I think it'd be only fair if it also forced you to lose your DH or at least switch him to the field. If the other team is to be disadvantaged, so should you.

Stark relayed that one AL executive complained that if he's down 4-0 and they remove their pitcher that it will make it even harder for them to come back. Well, 1) I don't think it hurts that much. A little, sure, but it's certainly not crippling. But more importantly, 2) develop/acquire better SPs then. I feel like that exec is just being a cry baby over it. The opposite might just as likely happen that his team is up 4-0, the other team pulls their SP, loses their DH, and it's just a little bit harder for them to come back.

He also complains that it eliminates late game drama and that's just absurd. If anything, if creates more late game drama! Late inning AL games are far too often a bore to get through. NL games are far more likely to be exciting in the late innings. I've watched enough games of both, I know. I'd much rather watch the late innings of an NL game than the same of an AL game.

I feel more sympathy for Adam Dunn (and FWIW, when he was referring to Ortiz I have to imagine he was also thinking of himself). But I don't think Dunn was thinking straight. First he was a big proponent of the idea, then he flipped and was a staunch opponent. I don't mind someone changing their mind, I just don't think he gave the idea that much thought before he was asked his opinion on it. Dunn's biggest problem with it seemed to be that David Ortiz would no longer ever get to bat in late innings. Then he was worried Ortiz would never get to bat if the SP was yanked early enough. And neither is true, Ortiz would more likely be switched into the field. I don't think Stark explained that to him.

And then finally, he had a problem with Lenny Harris being "as valuable" as David Ortiz? Well, I don't think that's quite true. Ortiz is still likely to get 2, 3, 4, or more PAs a game while Harris is likely to get only 1 or 2. Sure, Harris might get more chances at the game winning RBI and get celebrated after the game, but no one in their right mind isn't going to still appreciate what an Ortiz would do in his numerous PAs.

Nah, the more I think about this, the more I love it.

[pgjocki]

Originally Posted by pilight

You think the PED police will let Ortiz in?

I sincerely hope not; and yes I'm a bitter St. Louis fan.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[cephasjames]

MLB roundtable: Is the experimental 'double hook' rule a good idea?

It's too much of a gimmick

this is too messy

the "double hook" is too cute for its own good

another instance where MLB is trying too hard to fix a "problem" when the solution (in this case, universal DH) is actually pretty straight forward

Everything about pitcher usage these days tells us teams will prioritize the better matchup on the mound over trying to squeeze one more at-bat out of their DH

[Kobeck]

Originally Posted by kq76

When I was first reading/thinking about the SP-only DH, I'm pretty sure openers weren't a thing yet. But now, after reading the comments to Jayson Stark's Athletic articles on the topic (1, 2), I appreciate it even more.

A few people made the point where you used to look forward to marquee starting pitcher matchups. Like on Youtube the other day, MLB was advertising Kershaw vs Darvish. Maybe they're not as good as they once were, but they're both names any MLB fan should know and it gets you interested in the game because you have an expectation that it should be at least a competitive game, if not better. We've gone away from that lately.

I applaud the Rays ingenuity. I really do. But, I think openers have hurt the game a bit. I appreciate how it gets your opponent to set their lineup one way and then you might turn to a pitcher of the opposite handedness. That's fine. But I think it'd be only fair if it also forced you to lose your DH or at least switch him to the field. If the other team is to be disadvantaged, so should you.

Stark relayed that one AL executive complained that if he's down 4-0 and they remove their pitcher that it will make it even harder for them to come back. Well, 1) I don't think it hurts that much. A little, sure, but it's certainly not crippling. But more importantly, 2) develop/acquire better SPs then. I feel like that exec is just being a cry baby over it. The opposite might just as likely happen that his team is up 4-0, the other team pulls their SP, loses their DH, and it's just a little bit harder for them to come back.

He also complains that it eliminates late game drama and that's just absurd. If anything, if creates more late game drama! Late inning AL games are far too often a bore to get through. NL games are far more likely to be exciting in the late innings. I've watched enough games of both, I know. I'd much rather watch the late innings of an NL game than the same of an AL game.

I feel more sympathy for Adam Dunn (and FWIW, when he was referring to Ortiz I have to imagine he was also thinking of himself). But I don't think Dunn was thinking straight. First he was a big proponent of the idea, then he flipped and was a staunch opponent. I don't mind someone changing their mind, I just don't think he gave the idea that much thought before he was asked his opinion on it. Dunn's biggest problem with it seemed to be that David Ortiz would no longer ever get to bat in late innings. Then he was worried Ortiz would never get to bat if the SP was yanked early enough. And neither is true, Ortiz would more likely be switched into the field. I don't think Stark explained that to him.

And then finally, he had a problem with Lenny Harris being "as valuable" as David Ortiz? Well, I don't think that's quite true. Ortiz is still likely to get 2, 3, 4, or more PAs a game while Harris is likely to get only 1 or 2. Sure, Harris might get more chances at the game winning RBI and get celebrated after the game, but no one in their right mind isn't going to still appreciate what an Ortiz would do in his numerous PAs.

Nah, the more I think about this, the more I love it.

thanks for your insights. I have not really thought about it but I agree with you. DH needs this modification and the rule implemented universally.



promotes old school starters rolling at least twice thru the lineup, hopefully 3 times. Also promotes late game strategy and uses more of the bench making team depth more important

[cephasjames]

Originally Posted by Kobeck

thanks for your insights. I have not really thought about it but I agree with you. DH needs this modification and the rule implemented universally.



promotes old school starters rolling at least twice thru the lineup, hopefully 3 times. Also promotes late game strategy and uses more of the bench making team depth more important

One of the points the opinion piece I linked to made is that teams prioritize good pitching matchups over batting. Thus pitcher-only DH won't promote starting pitchers going deeper.

It's not about better or old school SPs. It's about analytics. The point of the game is to win. If taking a starter out after 5 innings/2 times through the order produces a better chance of winning, that's what teams are going to do. It's really no different than when teams kept starters in for 8-9-10 innings because they thought it was the best way to win.

From the inception of the game teams have done what they thought would get them a W.

[Kobeck]

I read that... by now is like 4 article down...

rereading now...


yes they all agreed with what you said

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Kobeck

thanks for your insights. I have not really thought about it but I agree with you. DH needs this modification and the rule implemented universally.

The DH needs to go the hell AWAY!