The Easy Starting Pitching Solution

MLB is now considering more rules changes to “reemphasize” the stature to their starting pitchers and to prevent teams from going through a myriad of pitchers throughout a game.  In many instances, MLB teams now employ an “opener” which is a strategy where a relief pitcher starts the game to face the toughest hitters in the opposing lineup before being replaced by another pitcher who then pitches the bulk of the game; this is sometimes referred to as a “bullpen game” when multiple relievers are used after the opener.

In order to remove the use of openers and to restore the prominence of starting pitchers in the game, MLB is now contemplating mandating that starting pitchers must remain in the game unless one of the following triggering events occurs:

• Once they throw 100 pitches, or
• Give up four or more earned runs, or
• Due to injury, which would require a mandated stint on the IL to avoid manipulation.

In the opinion of BP, we think the game does not need further on the field rule changes, since as noted earlier MLB has implemented more rule changes in recent history than ever before.  Instead, one simple roster fix would bring an immeasurable sense of balance back to the game in terms of the use of pitchers as well as offensively. That easy solution……

limit the number of pitchers on a team. 

The current rule requires that a team may carry up to 13 pitchers at a time on their 26-man roster.  Instead, if let’s say that number was reduced to 10, teams could no longer trot out an opener as well as a myriad of pitchers throughout the game.  If limited to only 10 pitchers, teams would look to their starting pitchers to pitch seven or eight and dare we say even nine inning games once again.  Based on a starting rotation of five players, teams would no longer have a bullpen of eight, but rather only five.  In that instance, they could no longer regularly use relief pitchers almost daily to get an out or two, but rather would have to carefully decide when and how long to use each pitcher.  This would greatly reduce the number of pitching changes and would naturally allow starters to pitch much further into games as seen in years past.

Another benefit would be that there would be somewhat of a de-emphasis on pitchers throwing as hard as they could, with no concern about getting tired, since a new fresh arm was ready to take their place in the next inning.  That would change, since with less pitchers, each would need to shoulder more innings, and would have to pace themselves throughout a game.  There would be a return to pitchers finessing and working the corners of the plate, rather than simply trying to overpower the batters

Another benefit is that the offensive output would likely rise, since batters would be seeing a starter for much of the game, rather than just facing a new fresh arm inning after inning later in the game.  Therefore, strikeouts would likely go down from the record levels we have seen lately and balls in play, which provides the most excitement for the fans, would obviously increase.  Baseball offensive output would also increase, since there would be additional choices of bench players that managers could use for pinch hitting scenarios and the opposing side would now only be limited to less pitching moves to counter those additional bench players.

If we are also asking starting pitchers and even relievers to pitch more innings throughout a game and the season, it also makes sense to not put any additional stress on their bodies.  That means eliminating the pitch clock, since even a few seconds of additional rest might not seem like a big deal to the average fan, but to pitchers the ability to breathe a bit between pitches would both benefit their health and their careers.

This solution makes so much sense, since there would not have to be any in game rule changes, only roster changes.  In summary it would require starters to pitch longer as well as relievers.  There would be fewer pitching changes, so the pace of the game (something MLB seems intent on improving) would only get better, there would ultimately be more offense, less strikeouts and more balls in play.

The question is would MLB enact this solution?  We ultimately believe the answer is likely not.  In this case, we think it would be the players’ union and not the owners that would have a problem with what we are suggesting.  The reason the players would object is that this proposed roster change eliminates three pitchers per roster, or league-wide would remove 90 pitching jobs.  On the other hand, the value of the existing pitchers and their contracts would likely go up over time.  It is difficult to say how the players union would react to this proposal but de-emphasizing pitching over hitting might be too hard of a pill for them to swallow.

It was not that long ago that teams typically carried 10 pitchers and 15 field position players, when the rosters were 25.  Then analytics (which we are definitely not against) determined that having a starting pitcher throw five or six innings maximum followed by a myriad of relievers as the best way to win a ballgame.  It is hard to argue with the analytics, but maybe watching multiple pitchers, excessive strikeouts, less offense and balls in play is not visually as exciting from a fan perspective.

This roster proposal is such a simple fix and makes so much sense, so we know that MLB would never adopt it.