Proposal, six-inning minimum for MLB starting pitchers

This report about a six-inning minimum proposal by MLB, from Jesse Rogers at ESPN, was published last week, but I haven’t had a chance to address it until now. There’s been some discussion of this topic in this FanPost by venkn, but I wanted to weigh in and bring it to the front page, so here goes.

Here’s how it was reported by Rogers:

The commissioner’s office wants starting pitchers to spend more time on the mound — pitching deeper into games — and less time in the operating room undergoing surgery on their arms. Baseball also wants more balance in a sport that has revolved around strikeouts in recent seasons.

“We are interested in increasing the amount of action in the game, restoring the prominence of the starting pitcher and reducing the prevalence of pitching injuries,” an MLB official told ESPN. “There are a whole host of options in addressing those issues.”

First of all, my answer is right below the headline to this post:

oh, man, is this a bad idea.

Let me elaborate. Yes, it’s a good idea to have fewer pitchers injured. How MLB thinks that by making them throw MORE innings, this would happen, is a head-scratcher.

Also, from Rogers:

The primary goal of a minimum-innings rule would be to immediately restore the prestige of the starting pitcher. Fans would be able to tune in to a game knowing that he would be on the mound for the majority of it.

Do fans really care about that? Are there that many “star” starting pitchers where this makes a difference in whether a fan “tunes in” or not? (Never mind the fans actually at the game, who, presumably, are there to watch it regardless and don’t suddenly leave just because a starting pitcher has been taken out.) I don’t think this is a factor at all in modern baseball; it’s not as if complete games have been a thing up until recently and suddenly disappeared. Complete games began to decline in the 1980s and have been mostly absent for at least 20 years. My response is, “So what? It’s still baseball, a nine-inning game, just approached differently.”

One of the suggestions made in Rogers’ article is telling:

The belief is that pitchers would have to stop relying so heavily on max velocity and would set up their training around navigating longer starts, rather than overpowering stuff. And, in theory, starters pacing themselves to pitch deeper into games could help curtail the alarming rate of major arm injuries suffered by pitchers — and also give hitters a better chance at the plate.

I addressed this sort of thing in an article on this topic here last month. To sum up an argument I made over several paragraphs which you can read at the link, the bottom line is that batting lineups back in the 1960s and 1970s (the era it seems MLB wants to nostalgically go back to) had a pitcher batting most of the time, plus many teams had one or two other really bad hitters who were deemed important to start because of their defense. (See the article for examples.) Thus:

Pitchers like Fergie Jenkins would hold back some of their best stuff in the early innings, so they could get outs in the seventh, eighth and ninth. This is why Fergie often gave up solo homers in the early innings. He figured he could gain strength after that and retire the tired hitters later in the game.

Now, flash forward to today. The starting pitcher of today is trained to go all out with his best stuff from pitch number 1, all the way until he runs out of gas, with around 100 pitches being used as a benchmark for most starters. That’s because hitters are SO much better today than they were 50 years ago. There aren’t automatic outs in most lineups. Hitters are in better shape and have more tools to recognize pitches than they did half a century ago. If a 2024 starting pitcher held back some of his best stuff for later innings, he’d likely get pounded out of the game in the second inning.

Rogers’ article says:

“You would have to push command over stuff,” Arizona Diamondbacks GM Mike Hazen said. “Pushing [pitching to] contact would be the biggest thing to prepare guys to throw six innings on a consistent basis.

“There would have to be some pullback on velocity, though that’s a tough thing, because that’s where you get outs.”

Ah, ha. Yep. Whether you like it or not, velocity is “where you get outs” in modern baseball. Some top starters today have the sort of command where perhaps they can get outs without throwing 95+. The Cubs, in fact, have a couple of guys like that in Justin Steele and Shōta Imanaga, whose peak velocity is around 92-93. But even that is faster than Jenkins threw back in the day. You cannot ask modern pitchers to dial back on velocity — I’ll just repeat my statement that they’d get pounded out of the game in the second inning. Yes, even with these “exceptions” cited by Rogers:

Some instances when a starter would be allowed to leave early might include:

* He throws 100 pitches

* He gives up four or more earned runs

* He gets injured (with a required injured list stint to avoid manipulation)

The last one is problematic, because there are times when a pitcher leaves a game with an injury that proves not to be serious enough for an IL stint. And yet, with a proposal like this, MLB would mandate such a stint? Bad, bad idea.

This, to me, appears to be a solution in search of a problem. Modern fans haven’t been conditioned to think, “Hey, such-and-such starting pitcher is going today. Let’s go to the game!” (Or watch it on TV.) They have other reasons to follow their teams — great hitters, great defense, yes, even great relief pitchers. And with the rule changes of last year — the pitch timer, restricting defensive shifts and larger bases — the game has become faster-paced and better to watch.

This proposal should never see the light of day.


www.bleedcubbieblue.com/2024/8/19/24223638/mlb-six-inning-minimum-starting-pitchers-proposal-bad-idea