The MLB announced a few rules changes coming out of the Spring meetings between the MLB and MLBPA that will take effect either in 2019 or 2020, many of which have pace-of-play implications. Some of these changes are receiving unilateral support, while others are being picked apart by baseball purists, who say that Rob Manfred is “ruining the game.” Some people just hate change. We’ll break down the changes by when they’re being implemented, and hit on what they change, and pros and cons of each change. We’ll give each rule change a score out of 10 (based strictly on my opinion) and explain why I think it’s really good, slightly beneficial, slightly negative, or really bad.

Rule changes for 2019

Inning Breaks

What’s changing

The time between innings is going to be leveled in locally and nationally televised games, going to 2:00 no matter the TV situation from 2:05 for locally televised games and 2:25 in nationally televised games. The commissioner’s office will also retain the right to trim it to 1:55 if they think it should be shorter effective in 2020.

Pros

This will (very slightly) speed up games by taking out a few seconds every half-inning. Nationally televised games will go about 8 minutes faster from this while locally televised games only trim off a minute or two.

Cons

Advertising money. Commercial price goes up by the second, but it’s good to see the league understand that a little bit of revenue isn’t worth making the game slower than it needs to be.

Score: 6/10

This definitely doesn’t hurt, but between-inning times haven’t changed much in a long time, pretty much since games started being televised they’ve had about two minutes of break. It makes sure the time won’t keep going up though, so overall it’s not a big deal but it helps slightly.

Mound Visits

What’s changing

The mound visit limit of 6 that was imposed last season is being lowered to 5.

Pros

6 mound visits is a lot. Managers now manage their mound visits like coaches in football and basketball manage time-outs, making sure they have some at the end of games. Rarely will you see a team use all of them, and limiting it to 5 ensures that normally we won’t see more than 3 by any one team in the first 8 innings of a game.

Cons

Um… One less chance for a coach or catcher to have a mid-inning chat with the pitcher? You’d have to really look for a negative to find one on this that’s just refining a rule change made in 2018.

Score: 7/10

I see nothing wrong with this change, but it’s a small change so it won’t receive a great score due to the fact that it will only make a minor difference in games, and many games this will have no effect on at all.

Home Run Derby

What’s changing

The prize money was increased astronomically, with the winner receiving $1 million out of a total pool of $2.5 million for the competitors, compared to $125,000 out of $525,000 in 2018. The hope is that this encourages more stars to compete.

Pros

More money for mashing baseballs. This is the only guarantee we can make with this rule, we can’t be sure this entices players who are already making 8 figures every year to compete in a challenge that some think has a negative impact in second half performance because it’s like taking bad batting practice.

Cons

More money for mashing baseballs? I don’t know, I guess it’s another slight revenue hit for the league, but it’s more for the players, and if it works and the Home Run Derby improves and is more appealing to watch, could add a bit of money into the revenue stream. Tough to find an issue here.

Score: 6/10

Another rule change that’s just fine. Not going to upset anyone, and not even really a rule change just something they’re going to do differently. If this gets us a home run derby with Mike Trout, Aaron Judge, Giancarlo Stanton, Khris Davis, JD Martinez, Nolan Arenado, etc. then this score will prove to be too low.

All-Star Game

What’s changing

In an effort seen across all the major sports to improve their All-Star festivities, the MLB is changing the way player voting is done to a two-round process. The first round will be essentially how the voting is currently done, pick any major leaguer and vote for them, but now there will be an “election day” where the top 3 vote-getters at each position in both leagues will be voted on in a select time on a specific day to pick them. In the game, in the event of extra innings, every half inning will start with a runner on second base in hopes of increasing scoring to end the game faster.

Pros

The election day format should help the best players get spots on the All-Star team, which is good, and the hope is it gets fans more involved on social media, as that will likely be the easiest (if not only) way to vote. Long games result in fatigue, the leading cause of injury in sports, and no one wants to see players get hurt at the All-Star game, so trying to get it done as close to 9 innings as possible is good. The All-Star game rarely gets through 9 innings tied, so it may be years before we see this implemented anyway.

Cons

Until more information is released on the matter in April, it seems like this new way of voting could make the 1 player per team minimum lie more in pitching than in positional players, resulting in less deserving pitchers and more “well, we had to take someone from the Marlins” pitchers being All-Stars. We all want to see as many great players as we can, so maybe we pick starters, then make sure we get one player per team and actually get a good one, then fill the rest of the roster. Last year the Tigers sent Joe Jimenez to the All-Star despite Nick Castellanos continuing to improve and being more deserving of a spot, but the outfield was more crowded than relief pitching. I’m sure there were other 1-representative teams that also feel their best player didn’t go.

Score: 7/10

I love the runner on in extra innings rule, even if it’s causing an uproar of people saying that it “better not be used in games that matter.” I’m guessing that when more is explained with the new voting procedure that it will become clear that it’s been improved, and then this could be closer to an 8 or 9.

One Trade Deadline

What’s changing

The July 31st trade deadline has always been referred to as the “non-waiver trade deadline.” This distinction will no longer need to be made, as trades off of waivers will no longer be allowed from August 1st through the end of the season. Players may still be claimed on outright waivers, but not traded.

Pros

Less confusion. Casual fans see a trade deadline and think trades are done, but in 2017 there was a massive trade that sent Justin Verlander to the Astros on August 31st, and Verlander went on to play a large role in the Astros winning the World Series. Great players like Verlander won’t be put on waivers for another team to just take for nothing, so teams will know they have to make major trades by July 31st and fans can know where stars are going to be for the last two months of the season.

Cons

GM’s jobs are harder. There’s less pressure to get a good player on an expiring contract traded by the end of July when you can let the dust settle from one deadline before calling other GM’s and get some prospects for them in August. Now there’s going to be increased expectations, pressure, and stress for front offices in July to know where their team is headed and who they want to keep and who they’d be better off switching out for a player from another team.

Score: 8/10

While some think this could create a period at the start of August that becomes similar to the NBA’s “buyout market” which is basically a mini-free agency of players that non-contending teams either couldn’t trade away or took in trades because of other pieces involved being bought out of their contracts and contenders taking them for additional depth, I think it will lead to more teams being proactive about making trades in June or early July, where teams that know they’re in contention are able to get a player earlier, likely helping them more, and non-contenders get prospects into their system and try to get them familiar with their staff that much earlier. The trade deadline will still be wild, and yes SOME players will be put on outright waivers that in the past teams would have found a trade for in August, but not stars like Verlander and Justin Upton both leaving the Tigers in August of 2017.

Rule changes for 2020

Roster Size Change

What’s changing

Until September 1st, teams will be allowed to carry 26 players instead of 25 as they are right now (still getting an extra player added for doubleheaders), but in September instead of having a 40-man roster available, teams will have just two extra spots, being given 28 players available for the final month of the season.

Pros

More late-game substitutions. Having an extra roster spot could mean carrying a speedster on your roster for the use of a late-inning pinch runner or outfield defensive replacement. It means one more spot for a Rule 5 draft pick to be on the major league roster of a team that knows they won’t contend, so why not get a prospect who might develop into a great player in a few years (one player could even fit both of these categories). It could mean an extra relief pitcher, as changes we’re about to get to could leave teams wanting to make sure they have enough arms to not overwork anyone. This is great for the players union because that means 30 more major league players.

Cons

Less September call-ups. I see no issue with the 26th man on the roster, I don’t think teams are ever struggling to get 25 players playing time, so rosters aren’t getting too big by any stretch of the imagination. Less September call-ups will result in less overmatched players getting random playing time in meaningless games, but it will also mean fewer opportunities for someone who had a surprisingly good year in the minors to get a chance to show their skills against big-leaguers. I think 40 players is excessive, but you could reasonably fit more than 28, and I think they could have gone with 30 instead, both for round numbers and more opportunities for players.

Score: 9/10

The biggest issue is having less September call-ups, and no one needed 40 players on an MLB roster anyway. If the rosters went up to somewhere between 30 and 33 in September, I probably would have given this a 10. Adding a player will affect teams’ strategy, it allows more players to be in the MLB (making more money than in the minors), but adding one player doesn’t make a huge change that shakes up the league. 25 players felt like enough when teams averaged using fewer pitchers per game, but as more players are being used, it makes sense that more players should be available. All-around great move.

Roster Designations

What’s changing

This is technically a part of the aforementioned roster change rule, but it feels like it deserves its own conversation. Players will have to be designated as a pitcher or position player, announced by the team on the player’s first day on the active roster, and there will be official restrictions to when position players will be allowed to pitch. Teams will have a set number of pitchers allowed on the roster, that will be decided by a rules committee at a later date (likely 13 or 14). Positional players will be allowed to pitch only under the following circumstances:

They are designated as a “Two-Way Player.” Teams can only designate a player as two-way if they have a minimum of 20 MLB innings pitched and 20 appearances as a positional player/DH in the MLB (minimum 3 PA’s for an appearance to count) in the last season or earlier in the current season.

The game is in extra innings.

One team is ahead by more than 6 runs (at least 7 runs if you’d rather word it that way).

Pros

Clarity. Like the trading deadline change, the biggest benefit is having a more structured way of doing things. Positional players weren’t really pitching in circumstances other than these already, so it’s just making sure teams don’t throw winnable games to save their bullpen.

Cons

Lack of flexibility. By these rules, Shohei Ohtani couldn’t have been granted two-way status at the start of last season due to the fact that he hadn’t been a two-way player in the MLB before then. The Rays currently are trying to develop Brendan McKay as a two-way player. It doesn’t seem like a player designated as a pitcher would be allowed to play in the field (or at DH), so the only way to get someone a two-way designation would be to get them 20 innings pitched in the circumstances when positional players are allowed to pitch, which would result in random times of being called in, it wouldn’t allow them to have a schedule like the Angels had for Ohtani last season to manage pitching and hitting, and would be awful for that player’s development. I understand what the MLB is trying to do with this one, but they need to work on the qualifications for being designated a two-way player before this rule is good.

Score: 3/10

It doesn’t have enough practicality to overcome the damage it will do if it’s not changed to anyone trying to become a two-way player in the MLB. Teams aren’t throwing positional players on the mound when they’re up 8-5 in the 8th inning. They’re doing it at times that it will still be allowed, and when a player is gifted enough to be able to pitch and hit effectively in the major leagues, they don’t need additional barriers to make that work. Simply having the talent to do so is enough of a challenge. I haven’t heard a lot of complaining about this rule, but there should be.

Batter Minimum for Pitchers

What’s changing

The minimum amount of batters faced is changing from one to three, except in the case of injury or the end of an inning.

Pros

With a 3-batter minimum, we won’t have a 4-batter half inning that takes more than 15 minutes. It prevents an endless run to the bullpen and is effectively going to make it very rare that we see half-innings with more than 2 pitchers. Mike Petriello of MLB.com wrote a more detailed article on this rule, where he explains things such as how this doesn’t kill the short reliever strategy, it merely alters how managers will use their bullpen. Also, given the nature of the end of an inning allowing a pitcher to come out means there still could be appearances in which someone is brought on to get one out.

Cons

There’s now less room in the league for relievers who are used only with strict platoon splits, usually a left-handed pitcher who almost exclusively faces left-handed hitters. This might not be such a bad thing, as it means that in order to be a major league pitcher, you have to be able to pitch at least passably to all MLB hitters.

Score: 9/10

Another great move by the MLB. Some will complain that it kills strategy, but that’s just not an accurate way of looking at this rule. The most common complaint about rules changes is that they “ruin the sport” by “going too far from the history of it,” but short relief appearances weren’t very popular more than 30 years ago. They had been steadily increasing in popularity until about 2015, and the average relief appearance length has actually been going back up in the last 3 years, although some of that is due to shorter starts, especially including the use of an opener for the first inning and then a long reliever who’s more like a traditional starter for the next 4 innings or so. That didn’t really happen before 2018 though, and the relief length was going back up a bit before that. This move will be looked on fondly in the future.

Injured List

What’s changing

The minimum amount of time spent on the injured list is going back up from 10 to 15 days.

Pros

We’ll see a lot less of teams putting relief pitchers that aren’t actually injured on the injured list. With the 10-day minimum, the bottom 2 or 3 relievers in the majors and the top reliever or 2 in the minors became somewhat interchangeable, and if you used one of them 2 games in a row you would just put them on the injured list to get a fresh arm from AAA. When the 10 days were up, they came back up to the big league bullpen. This made it hard to follow who was in the majors and who wasn’t sometimes.

Cons

What MLB was trying to avoid when they lowered the limit to 10 days was players staying on the major league roster when hurt and teams either playing shorthanded or players playing when they’re not fully healthy. We’ll have to monitor the situation to see if this actually happens or if teams just decide it’s worth letting players have a little extra time when they’re hurt to get back into the action.

Score: 6/10

This probably helps the league as a whole, as teams will have more reason to not shuffle relievers between the majors and AAA. If it sees an unintended side effect of having players trying to play through injuries, it won’t be worth it. We’ll give players and coaches the benefit of the doubt that they know what’s good for the players and know that an injury risk that could end a player’s season or even impact the rest of their career isn’t worth the negative of missing 2 weeks.

 

Overall, there are a few rules that we need to see what happens with them, how teams decide to set up and strategize with them in place before passing too much judgment. There were a few small rules that didn’t change much but made things slightly better, and a few that look controversial but the league will look back on as changes that helped the game. Some of the rules going in for 2020 are still going to be receiving tweaks before they’re ever implemented, and hopefully they don’t accidentally kill the chance of a two-way player ever making the MLB again by trying to prevent positional player pitching in meaningful innings. The league and players union did a good job of coming together and making productive tweaks to the system that help all parties involved. That’s how these meetings should work, and that’s a sign of a healthy league. Until next time,

CM

Info on rule changes courtesy of Major League Baseball.