Craig Calcaterra

Mike Pelfrey

Rosenthal proposal: make relievers face more than one batter per appearance


UPDATE: I was remiss in not noting that this was not, actually, Rosenthal’s idea. He notes that Theo Epstein proposed it first. But hey, history remembers the popularizers more than the innovators!

While we’re talking innovation this morning, let us look at Ken Rosenthal’s latest idea:

Here’s an idea that could both increase offense and improve the pace: Require relievers to face more than one batter per appearance. Make it at least two, or even better three.

Rosenthal sketches it out, and argues that it would cut down on game times, given that pitching changes are a big driver in that department. And that reliever specialization is a big factor in decreased offense. Lefty specialists, 100 m.p.h-throwing shutdown men, etc.

He’s right, I think. I’d have to think about how this would affect roster construction and stuff before I make my mind up about it, but it’s a reasonable idea on its face.

What say you?

Must baseball “change or die?”

dodgers shift

Pete Beatty of Vice Sports has a thought-provoking column up about how baseball cannot become hidebound and beholden to purists if it wishes to maintain its vitality and relevance into the future.

As a general proposition, I totally agree. While I think changes should be made prudently and deliberately — testing things out at the minor league level first, trying the least obtrusive means of solving a problem first before going with more radical innovations, etc. — I think change in the game can be good and should not be rejected simply because something new or different is being proposed. This applies to baseball and everyday life.

But I do take issue with one of the examples Beatty offers in the service of his argument: the suggestion by Rob Manfred that baseball may consider a rule against defensive shifts, which we have discussed around here a few times already:

While Manfred only indicated a willingness to consider a ban on extreme defensive realignments, baseball traditionalists immediately freaked out. Of course, that baseball superfans don’t care for (even the suggestion of the possibility of future) change is less news than a law of nature—if you revise it, they will complain.

While I agree with Beatty’s notion that innovation should be explored and embraced, the shift thing is not an instance of innovation being shouted down by purists. Quite the opposite, actually. Extreme defensive shifting is innovation. No, it’s not a rule change and yes, it’s been around a long time — Boudreau shifted on Williams back before your daddy was born — but the degree to which it has been employed in recent years is most definitely an innovation. The people who are angry about it are hitters and fans who somehow think it unsporting that the fielders aren’t standing where they have come to expect them to stand over the past 150 years of baseball history.

Indeed, the attitude of those who would seek to ban the shift is far more akin to one of the very examples Beatty holds up as silly, antiquated and quite properly changed in the name of innovation:

In fact, one of the few baseball traditions older than traditionalism is the sport’s track record of reinventing itself. If you think Daisuke Matsuzaka takes too long between pitches, it’s probably for the best that you missed game 3 of the Atlantics versus Excelsiors series in 1860, when the starting pitchers combined for 665 pitches in three innings. In the seminal 1845 rules of baseball, there were no such things as called balls and strikes. Batters were free to lay off as many bad pitches as they wanted.

Unsurprisingly, the golden era of 100-pitch innings didn’t last long, because it made baseball no fun to watch or play.

That old, thankfully abandoned rule was all about hitters demanding that they be given a ball that they can properly drive and the notion that it was unsporting and wrong for a pitcher to attempt to frustrate the batters’ intention. When one thinks about it, that’s not unlike a lumbering lefty’s lamentations about grounding the ball to the far right of second base and, somehow, quite unsportingly, being thrown out on a 6-3 play.

Keith Law Ranks the Farm Systems: Yay for Chicago! Boo for Detroit!

cubs logo

It’s that time again: the week when Keith Law releases his prospect rankings. His content this week — along with Jonathan Mayo and Jim Callis of’s rankings, the Baseball America rankings and a couple of other lists — truly helps form the basis of most fans’ understanding of prospects and the minors in general. Because let’s face it, we just don’t get to see those folks as much as they do.

Law kicks off his content this week with a top-to-bottom ranking of all 30 farm systems. As a rule he limits his analysis to players who are currently in the minors and who have not yet exhausted their rookie of the year eligibility. The top system: the Chicago Cubs. The bottom: the Detroit Tigers.

If you want to know the reasons and the rankings of everyone in between you’ll have to get an ESPN Insider subscription. Sorry, I know everyone hates to pay for content on the Internet, but Keith and others who do this kind of work put a lot of damn work into it and this is what pays their bills. Indeed, I typically don’t like to pay for content myself, but I do pay for an ESPN Insider subscription. It’s worth it for Law’s work alone. And though he drives me crazy sometimes, Buster Olney’s daily column/notes thing is also worth the money over the course of the year.

The Braves DFA’d Jose Constanza to make room for Dian Toscano

braves logo large

The Braves have announced that they’ve designated outfielder Jose Constanza for assignment. They did so to make room for outfielder Dian Toscano, whose signing was officially announced today, even though the deal was more or less done in December.

Toscano, whose deal is worth $6 million, is 25. He’s not considered a major prospect. More of a fourth or fifth outfielder type. So, basically, he’s a more expensive Jose Constanza. So: progress?


Baseball is in The Best Shape of its Life. And isn’t dying, you guys.

Money Bag

It’s quite a treat that I get to use my two favorite cliches in one headline, but it’s pretty apt!

As Major League Baseball’s Rob Manfred, now chief operating officer, succeeds retiring Commissioner Bud Selig on Sunday, MLB is heading into a new season in its best financial shape in years. In fact, some sports economists argue the sport is gaining ground financially on the National Football League, the most lucrative and popular professional sport.

An expert they quote says that baseball will catch the NFL in terms of revenue sometime in the next two to three seasons due to the highly-lucrative MLBAB digital business and the growth of regional sports networks.

Of course, this is just financial, and that’s just part of the equation. No one is suggesting that baseball will eclipse the NFL in popularity. Indeed, it’d be folly to suggest such a thing. And obviously baseball has a lot of challenges ahead, such as appealing more to younger demographics and ensuring that it does not put too many eggs in the cable TV basket.

But many will, despite the data, suggest that baseball is somehow in trouble when the ratings for some random playoff game falls short of a “Big Bang Theory” re-run. That’s just how life works.