MLB is going into its second year exploring how to make the game better and more exciting. One of the biggest issues concerns the length of games and pace of play.
One idea that is being discussed revolves around pitching. Multiple pitching changes, especially in the later innings, is a root cause of both issues listed above.
Through the 2021 season, teams were able to have as many pitchers on their roster as they wanted. Most teams had between 12 – 15. These numbers could vary throughout the year.
Going into the 2022 season, MLB is limiting teams to a maximum of 13 hurlers. But they are also continuing to explore reducing those number even further to 11-12.
It is believed that by having fewer pitchers, teams will make fewer pitching changes during games.
It will put more stress on roster building and possibly impact the type of relievers teams sign. It may also impact organizations which are experiencing different situations with their starting pitching rotation.
Should teams be able to stay at the 13-pitcher limit or should their arms be reduced even more for the sake of the game?
Today’s blog addresses this dilemma and allows readers to share their thoughts in more detail. And hopefully, to actively engage with others by responding to their posts and creating back-and-forth discussion threads. The more the merrier!
For this one blog only, you’ve got 10 sentences max to share your thoughts. Of course, you can respond to as many other readers as you want.
TT will supply the ammunition. One thought-provoking question. Several options provided. One hard choice to be selected. One vote.
Ready?
(Please follow the rules at the link above in order to be published.)
What did you miss on our Twitter feed yesterday? (And why aren’t you following TT yet?)
- Where does Miggy rank on the list of baseball’s greatest first basemen?
Get your Totally Tigers fix beyond this blog. We publish breaking news, national stories of note, videos, observations and polls throughout the day. Every day.
Click here: https://twitter.com/totallytigersbb or simply enter “totally tigers bb” (make sure you add the “bb”!) in the search box at twitter.com and click on “Follow.”
Totally Tigers 
Don’t see your comment? Have you checked the rules for posting? Comments are only approved if they address today’s topic, do not exceed the 3-4 sentence length and meet all of the other requirements posted under the link at the top of the page. This also means NO CAPS. Please make sure to check them out!
LikeLike
If MLB is going to legislate the number of pitchers which a team can have on its roster, what is MLB going to do with players who are both hitters and pitchers, like Shohei Ohtani ? Ohtani appeared in 155 games in 2021 for the Angels, appearing in 23 games as a pitcher. Since 14.8% of his appearances (23/155) were as a pitcher will the Angels be able to carry 13.48 pitchers (13.48 rounds down to 13.0. ? ) In other words, shouldn’t the Angels be allowed to carry Ohtani PLUS 13 other pitchers ?
LikeLiked by 6 people
Decreasing pitching spots on the roster sounds like an unlikely solution. Besides the fact that the players’ union would cause a stink, I am confident teams would find a work around by yo-yoing relievers with options between the big club and AAA. Unfortunately, it the entire culture of slow actually needs to be addressed– batters out of the box, pitchers fiddling, mound visits, replays, time between innings for commercials. Hey I am a college football season ticket holder and hate the four hour length of those games and there are only eight home games a year. The average MLB game is three hours, 10 minutes and of course there are ten times as many contests. This is suited to gamblers, retirees (my hand is up), and really zealous fans, but not younger folks and regular fans. There is way, way, way too much dead time that should require a comprehensive solution. Hard time clocks, minimum # of batters faced, fewer replays, fewer mound visits, less time between innings.
LikeLiked by 7 people
Hooray for DVR’s. I fast forward through all that stuff.
LikeLiked by 4 people
When I am short on time, or already know the score but want to see the action, I even hit my 30 second button to skip hearing the talking heads who are usually uninteresting anyway.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Limiting the size of the roster makes sense, but teams should be free to construct their roster as they see fit. Top down, one-size-fits-all solutions never work, and usually create more problems than they pretend to fix. How about limiting the roster to five pitchers? With a 5-man rotation, pitching changes would be eliminated altogether.
LikeLiked by 3 people
What does a team do when it wants to go to a 6-man rotation? With so few relievers, the hitting lines will start to look Ruthian!
LikeLiked by 2 people
With modern attempts to reduce pitchers’ innings pitched, along with the increased major injuries to pitchers, I think it would be extremely unwise to limit the amount of pitchers that each team has. To shorten the games…eliminate batting gloves.
LikeLiked by 5 people
One side effect of reducing the number of pitchers on a team is it will drive up the salaries of all pitchers.
LikeLike
Someone did a study that shows that the length of games has not increased that much from the 1960s to today, if you take out the extra 1 minute between each half inning. That is a total of 18 minutes so TV can have more commercials. Length of games are 3:10:46 today, while in the 60s it was 2:58, 12 minutes longer.
LikeLiked by 6 people
If they reduce the pitchers too much you would have to change the way they are instructed at the lower levels of the organization from the get go. How many innings would be too much on an arm? Today’s game is not what it was 30 or 40 years ago when pitchers went 9 innings frequently. To simplify things, once the catcher throws the ball to the pitcher, he sets up and throws. If the batter is not ready that’s his problem. A hitter should only need maybe 2 or 3 seconds to ‘catch his breath’ between pitches when the ball is on its way back to the pitcher. Instead of shaking off the catcher, Maybe the catcher should actually call the game and the pitcher go with the request of catcher.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Teams are built considering the DH. 13 has developed into a paradigm number for both leagues hence the move to 26 man rosters. It is a self-leveling number want an extra position player then give up a pitcher. Staffs are built now with a solid eye on the injury demon unless you pitch for Cleveland whose pitchers no matter who seem able to exceed 100 pitches routinely. 11 and 12 man staffs occurred when schedules were different, double headers were routine, complete games were common not now when none of these are usually true. If it ain’t broke don’t try to fix it. Thinking it will reduce game length is a pipe dream. TV is the biggest culprit and the biggest supplier of funds, so I doubt they’ll be changing anytime soon.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I think it might be more effective to limit the number of pitching changes a manager can make. Say, three. Starter for five innings, a middle reliever for two innings, and a two-inning closer. Of course, any given pitcher could pitch more innings and you could add additional pitchers for extra innings. I’ve been checking the number of pitchers used during games and found as many as 12 between the two teams in one 9-inning game. Ten pitchers are common. Most changes are mid-inning and that has to add a good deal of time to the game. As far as to play stoppage, no sport is as bad as college basketball at the end of a game.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Manfred needs to quit trying to make changes, starting to think he is the worst commissioner ever with his apparently endless ideas to change the game (although Bowie Kueen and Bud Selig weren’t exactly winners either). Both MLB and the Player’s Union need to start the talks up again. That anti-trust thing they have needs to be repealed as well (although guess the changes of that happening are 0.000000000) Holly can they bring a federal mediator in? (although I realize that would be some common sense thing that neither side would agree to)
LikeLiked by 2 people