ADVERTISEMENT

MLB - Minimum Innings Requirement for Starting Pitchers Considered

Robo umps calling balls and strikes will happen first, possibly by the start of the 2026 season after they perform some more testing next year in mlb spring training and the minor leagues.
 
Last edited:
PSUSignore said:
This is dumb. What problem does it solve? Who cares how many innings they go, there are rules about rosters and it should be up to the managers how to use the roster.
Click to expand...
It solves this problem "For the last several years, Major League Baseball has grappled with the idea that it wants starting pitchers to be much more of a "main character" type player, the way they were decades ago."

The league wants their SPs to be the attraction. They want SPs looking for complete games. They're tired of seeing guys with shutouts being pulled after 5 innings and 80-90 pitches. MLB needs stars more than ever right now.

I fully get not liking the idea but it makes sense.
 
Phillies pitchers were going deep in games prior to the All Star break, and it looks like some of their arms are burnt...at least not as sharp, and in a few cases pitchers on the DL. That was a self inflicted strategy, but let the managers (and pitchers) decide. I don't know what this will accomplish.

And playoff and WS baseball is built on the generous use of relief pitchers. That might be best reason to implement this new rule, as the regular season vs playoff/WS runs dynamic are so different, but I say leave it alone. The other recent rule changes have worked out better than I thought they would, but I don't like this new proposal. Why penalize a team with deep relief pitching?
 
LandoComando said:
It solves this problem "For the last several years, Major League Baseball has grappled with the idea that it wants starting pitchers to be much more of a "main character" type player, the way they were decades ago."

The league wants their SPs to be the attraction. They want SPs looking for complete games. They're tired of seeing guys with shutouts being pulled after 5 innings and 80-90 pitches. MLB needs stars more than ever right now.

I fully get not liking the idea but it makes sense.
Click to expand...
Makes no sense at all. Absolutely asinine idea. Far too many pitching arm injuries already. Why don’t we just dispense with managers altogether and let the commissioner’s office make the onfield decisions?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BOSCO2
bvillebaron said:
Makes no sense at all. Absolutely asinine idea. Far too many pitching arm injuries already. Why don’t we just dispense with managers altogether and let the commissioner’s office make the onfield decisions?
Click to expand...
I mean, many managers aren't making decisions as it is. Just using a pitch count set by ownership. Why are there more arm injuries today with pitch counts then in past?
 
LandoComando said:
I mean, many managers aren't making decisions as it is. Just using a pitch count set by ownership. Why are there more arm injuries today with pitch counts then in past?
Click to expand...
Pitchers are playing ball 12 months a year as kids, working out more and throwing much harder thus putting more stress on the body. As a result more injuries.
 
mhlarch said:
Phillies pitchers were going deep in games prior to the All Star break, and it looks like some of their arms are burnt...at least not as sharp, and in a few cases pitchers on the DL. That was a self inflicted strategy, but let the managers (and pitchers) decide. I don't know what this will accomplish.

And playoff and WS baseball is built on the generous use of relief pitchers. That might be best reason to implement this new rule, as the regular season vs playoff/WS runs dynamic are so different, but I say leave it alone. The other recent rule changes have worked out better than I thought they would, but I don't like this new proposal. Why penalize a team with deep relief pitching?
Click to expand...
I don't like the idea of forcing a starting pitcher to go 6 innings. An alternative might be that managers aren't allowed to use more than 4 pitchers in a game. That would speed up the game and encourage managers to keep starters in the game longer.

Back in the 70s and 80s starting pitchers like Gaylord Perry & Catfish Hunter would throw 25-30 complete games. Today a pitcher could lead the league with 2 complete games.

It's not just pitchers. Position players used to play hurt. Today a hangnail puts them on the IL for 10 days.
 
bvillebaron said:
Don’t think so.
Click to expand...
My brother played baseball at UVa in the 90s. Growing up he was in baseball from March-October then had practice and training all winter. In warmer states they played all year round. So, yes, that's true since at least the 80s.
 
LandoComando said:
It solves this problem "For the last several years, Major League Baseball has grappled with the idea that it wants starting pitchers to be much more of a "main character" type player, the way they were decades ago."

The league wants their SPs to be the attraction. They want SPs looking for complete games. They're tired of seeing guys with shutouts being pulled after 5 innings and 80-90 pitches. MLB needs stars more than ever right now.

I fully get not liking the idea but it makes sense.
Click to expand...
So it doesn't solve anything, got it. MLB wanting to improve their league's "brand" by artificially manufacturing some star power isn't a problem that justifies forcing certain types of roster usage on a team/player/manager. Go for it and get ready for pitchers to start suing MLB over arm injuries from overuse because MLB forced them to pitch more innings than they or their managers may have wanted. But I'm sure MLB will force a "no sue" clause down their throat in any collective bargaining agreement.
 
PSUSignore said:
So it doesn't solve anything, got it. MLB wanting to improve their league's "brand" by artificially manufacturing some star power isn't a problem that justifies forcing certain types of roster usage on a team/player/manager. Go for it and get ready for pitchers to start suing MLB over arm injuries from overuse because MLB forced them to pitch more innings than they or their managers may have wanted. But I'm sure MLB will force a "no sue" clause down their throat in any collective bargaining agreement.
Click to expand...
Did you read the restrictions around the rule?
And we completely disagree. The short starts are negatively impacting the quality of the game but disagreements on that is fine.
MLB has a lot to fix and while I agree this isn't the top priority I do believe it would help sell the product.
 
As a fan, I find the game more interesting when starting pitchers pitch more innings. That said, I'm not sure I would favor such a rule. As stated earlier, everyone is throwing in excess of 97 MPH these days. That wasn't the case years ago. I have to believe that's a key factor in all the injuries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bob2022 and knickslions
LandoComando said:
This is how much of a joke MLB has become IMO. I fully support this but I have zero doubt it won't actually happen.

www.cbssports.com

MLB reportedly weighing six-inning requirement for starting pitchers: How mandatory outings could work

Starting pitchers are averaging about 5 1/3 innings per appearance in 2024
www.cbssports.com www.cbssports.com
Click to expand...

So, wait ... MLB is a joke because they suggested they're considering something new, which is something you fully support ... and you're convinced it won't happen? Uh, OK.
 
LandoComando said:
That's been true since the 80s
Click to expand...

False.

Even in the South, kids are throwing, on average, much harder, with much better pitch design, than they did "back in the day." They're much more advanced at a much earlier age today than they were back in the 80s ... due to more training, more instruction and more playing time.

These facts are indisputable.

And nowadays, everywhere else they're either playing or training for baseball year 'round. Spring baseball, summer baseball, fall baseball ... winter training/showcases.

As someone who played in the 80s/90s and now has 2 boys going through it, there is a clear differentiation in commitment (and training) .. and it's not just in cold weather areas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: knickslions
bdgan said:
I don't like the idea of forcing a starting pitcher to go 6 innings. An alternative might be that managers aren't allowed to use more than 4 pitchers in a game. That would speed up the game and encourage managers to keep starters in the game longer.

Back in the 70s and 80s starting pitchers like Gaylord Perry & Catfish Hunter would throw 25-30 complete games. Today a pitcher could lead the league with 2 complete games.

It's not just pitchers. Position players used to play hurt. Today a hangnail puts them on the IL for 10 days.
Click to expand...
I happened upon, what I think was a 30 for 30 about the 86 Mets ... watched portions of the Stros/Mets playoff series ... those guys were terrible compared to today's athletes. It looked like, what is today, bad adult league baseball.
 
Having grown up playing and watching in the "olden days," and having been one of those SPs who wanted to throw every pitch of every inning of every game I could, I emotionally long for SPs going deep into games, like they used to.

I also realize, with the stress on the bodies from today's throwing regimens and mechanics (and, most importantly, INTENT), forcing pitchers to go longer is a powder keg waiting to explode.

Pitchers aren't going to ease up so they can go longer ... they aren't going to untorque and reduce spin rates so their bodies can withstand the pounding of extra pitches. They're going to continue to try to find more velo, and more spin ... while throwing deeper into games with more tired bodies.

I get it. I hate pitching changes. I hate guys who are still doing well being pulled early/earlier in games ... but I don't know how you address that ... you can't put the genie of higher velo/spin back in the bottle because it wins ball games.
 
PurposePitch said:
So, wait ... MLB is a joke because they suggested they're considering something new, which is something you fully support ... and you're convinced it won't happen? Uh, OK.
Click to expand...
No, MLB is currently a disaster not because of the proposal. I don't believe MLBPA will agree to it--confused by your confusion
 
PurposePitch said:
False.

Even in the South, kids are throwing, on average, much harder, with much better pitch design, than they did "back in the day." They're much more advanced at a much earlier age today than they were back in the 80s ... due to more training, more instruction and more playing time.

These facts are indisputable.

And nowadays, everywhere else they're either playing or training for baseball year 'round. Spring baseball, summer baseball, fall baseball ... winter training/showcases.

As someone who played in the 80s/90s and now has 2 boys going through it, there is a clear differentiation in commitment (and training) .. and it's not just in cold weather areas.
Click to expand...
Again, I grew up playing in the 80s and 90s as did my brother--his kids play now (one HS/one college)--his season lasted just as long and was all year round. In the 80s and 90s.
 
LandoComando said:
No, MLB is currently a disaster not because of the proposal. I don't believe MLBPA will agree to it--confused by your confusion
Click to expand...
You posted an article about something MLB was considering ... and then said "this (meaning the proposal) is how much of a joke MLB has become." So, unless you're speaking a language other than English, you just stated that the proposal is evidence of how much of a joke MLB has become. But then you stated you support the proposal.
 
LandoComando said:
Again, I grew up playing in the 80s and 90s as did my brother--his kids play now (one HS/one college)--his season lasted just as long and was all year round. In the 80s and 90s.
Click to expand...

It wasn't at all the same. The actual commitment to it (time, effort, etc.) is much stronger now. Equating year round play then to now is silliness.
 
PurposePitch said:
You posted an article about something MLB was considering ... and then said "this (meaning the proposal) is how much of a joke MLB has become." So, unless you're speaking a language other than English, you just stated that the proposal is evidence of how much of a joke MLB has become. But then you stated you support the proposal.
Click to expand...
Yes, "this is how much of a joke they've become" that they even have to get teams to do this to make the game decent again.
 
PurposePitch said:
It wasn't at all the same. The actual commitment to it (time, effort, etc.) is much stronger now. Equating year round play then to now is silliness.
Click to expand...
It's not though. Again, grew up with around it. My brother played in the ACC as does his son now. Saw exactly what both did to get to that level. Top kids have always done this. It isn't new.
 
LandoComando said:
It's not though. Again, grew up with around it. My brother played in the ACC as does his son now. Saw exactly what both did to get to that level. Top kids have always done this. It isn't new.
Click to expand...

You're either lying or uninformed.

I know plenty of parents who played, and have kids playing now, from the South ... who played/play MLB, minors and/or high-level D1 ... and you're the only person I've ever met/talked to about it who is trying to claim "samesies." And this includes current coaches/instructors/trainers who are working with the kids (and did the work themselves when they were younger).

It's a silly stance.
 
LandoComando said:
It solves this problem "For the last several years, Major League Baseball has grappled with the idea that it wants starting pitchers to be much more of a "main character" type player, the way they were decades ago."

The league wants their SPs to be the attraction. They want SPs looking for complete games. They're tired of seeing guys with shutouts being pulled after 5 innings and 80-90 pitches. MLB needs stars more than ever right now.

I fully get not liking the idea but it makes sense.
Click to expand...
No. This is dumb. You can't compare today to decades ago....for basically anything.
This is a solution looking for a problem.
MLB itself has driven changes that probably put pitchers at more risk. For example, the pitch clock. Baseball is a maximum effort sport, meaning that every pitch is maximum effort from the pitcher. When you give max effort, you need recovery time. Mandating 100 pitches and compressing those max efforts into a shorter time period is a recipe for arm problems.
Further, the requirement of an IL stint and missed time for an injury is also dumb. Over the course of a season, especially if forced to pitch to 100 pitches, you can have minor ailments, like back or arm stiffness that necessitate removal from that game to prevent further injury, but are likely to resolve before their next start.
What if it's 100 degrees and the pitcher overheats? What if a pitcher starts to feel ill with a virus during the game? put him on the IL? Ridiculous

Arbitrary rules like this should be avoided at all costs
 
PurposePitch said:
You're either lying or uninformed.

I know plenty of parents who played, and have kids playing now, from the South ... who played/play MLB, minors and/or high-level D1 ... and you're the only person I've ever met/talked to about it who is trying to claim "samesies." And this includes current coaches/instructors/trainers who are working with the kids (and did the work themselves when they were younger).

It's a silly stance.
Click to expand...
When I played hockey I had all of that year round. Maybe it depends on where you grew up but again I don't think this is as drastic as a change as you believe. Worst case they were playing March-September.
 
heckmans said:
No. This is dumb. You can't compare today to decades ago....for basically anything.
This is a solution looking for a problem.
MLB itself has driven changes that probably put pitchers at more risk. For example, the pitch clock. Baseball is a maximum effort sport, meaning that every pitch is maximum effort from the pitcher. When you give max effort, you need recovery time. Mandating 100 pitches and compressing those max efforts into a shorter time period is a recipe for arm problems.
Further, the requirement of an IL stint and missed time for an injury is also dumb. Over the course of a season, especially if forced to pitch to 100 pitches, you can have minor ailments, like back or arm stiffness that necessitate removal from that game to prevent further injury, but are likely to resolve before their next start.
What if it's 100 degrees and the pitcher overheats? What if a pitcher starts to feel ill with a virus during the game? put him on the IL? Ridiculous

Arbitrary rules like this should be avoided at all costs
Click to expand...
Obviously there would have be consideration for situations. I get your point but I see the upside
 
LandoComando said:
Did you read the restrictions around the rule?
And we completely disagree. The short starts are negatively impacting the quality of the game but disagreements on that is fine.
MLB has a lot to fix and while I agree this isn't the top priority I do believe it would help sell the product.
Click to expand...
Yeah I read them. So now the commissioner’s office has decided that 100 pitches is the correct number and that a team has to be in a 4 run deficit before a starter can otherwise be replaced. It takes a special kind of stupid to think this is a good idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AvgUser
bvillebaron said:
Yeah I read them. So now the commissioner’s office has decided that 100 pitches is the correct number and that a team has to be in a 4 run deficit before a starter can otherwise be replaced. It takes a special kind of stupid to think this is a good idea.
Click to expand...
It takes a special kind of stupid to think that the way baseball is going in the right direction
I understand not liking the proposal--I understand the arguments being made about deep bullpens and managerial decisions
I also understand that the game is losing popularity and why they believe this could benefit it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W

An Essential Read By Lee Smith: Ukraine’s Deadly Gamble

Replies
59
Views
3K
Current Events Board
WeR0206
W
J

Brave New Amerika 2021: no historical precedent...therefore no safe prediction on what happens next

Replies
32
Views
2K
Current Events Board
m.knox
M
B

For my friends on the left wondering why everything they were told and believed RE Covid turned out to be wrong....

Replies
84
Views
9K
Current Events Board
interrobang
I
BornALion

Breneman Article (link)

Replies
1
Views
1K
Penn State Football
T J
T J
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back