MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred was on ESPN Radio’s Mike & Mike Thursday and was presented with some ideas fans had about improving baseball. One such idea regarded restricting the use of relief pitchers and, well, here’s what Manfred said:
“I am in favor of something like that. We (MLB) spend a ton of time on this issue in the last few months… You know the problem with relief pitchers is that they’re so good. I’ve got nothing against relief pitchers but they do two things to the game; the pitching changes themselves slow the game down and our relief pitchers have become so dominant at the back end that they actually rob action out of the end of the game, the last few innings of the game. So relief pitchers is a topic that is under active consideration. We’re talking about that a lot internally.”
Okay, so basically, Manfred is saying that relievers are so good nowadays that there’s less action at the ends of the games… Isn’t that the point of having good relievers?
Aroldis Chapman and Craig Kimbrel, two of the best closers in the game, are being paid around $11.3 million this season. What are they being paid to do? Shut down the game. That’s their job, and that’s a good thing.
Manfred has made it known publicly that one of his ideas of improving the game of baseball would be to have more offense. Another example of this would be his recent remarks about making the strike zone smaller. However it is the very reason relievers exist to prevent offense late in games.
When the Mets are winning 3-2 in the top of the 9th inning, I want to see Jeurys Familia out there to lock down the win. Mariano Rivera, Trevor Hoffman, Rich Gossage, Rollie Fingers, John Franco, and Dennis Eckersley were all pitchers their fans wanted to see come in to seal the win. Closers were originally called firemen because if there was a fire, they would come in and put it out.
I don’t know what sort of rules Manfred would implement to restrict the use of relievers. I do know that if I were at a game, and my team was winning late, I would want my team’s closer in there. If some rule prevented him from pitching I would be furious. I would then be doubly upset when an average reliever gave up the lead and my team lost.
Mr. Manfred, I have a question for you: If you want to restrict the use of the best relievers in the game because they prevent offense in the 8th and 9th inning, what are you going to do about the best starters in the game who prevent offense for the first seven innings? Are you going to implement a pitch count for Clayton Kershaw? Or how about an innings limit for Jake Arrieta? A speed limit for Noah Syndergaard?
It seems that part of this argument is that he wants baseball to be “more exciting,” and he seems particularly concerned about protecting the “late inning comeback” for all the excitement it brings to the game and the fans. That at this point, with teams having such good relievers, he fears that excitement might be lost. If your team is losing to the Yankees late, you might lose interest in watching the game because you don’t think your team has a shot.
Good point, Mr. Manfred. I love watching the Mets come back and win late in games (or at least I did when they used to do that). However, why is the comeback exciting? Would the comeback be as exciting if it were against mediocre relievers? I believe a big part of the reason these comebacks are so exciting is because of these fantastic relievers. It’s because you don’t think your team has a chance of coming back, but then they do.
The Yankee’s one-two-three punch at the end of games is deadly. Andrew Miller (5-1, 1.31 ERA), Dellin Betances (2-4, 2.49 ERA), and Aroldis Chapman (3-0, 2.22 ERA) cover the last couple innings for the Yankees, and usually, when the Yankees have a lead late, they win.
Usually.
Those pitchers have very good ERA’s. But they have ERA’s. People score off them. They walk people, they allow hits, they lose games. It happens. I’m willing to bet good money that those games they blew, the other teams’ fans were exponentially more excited about the comeback than if it were against Joe Shmo.
Mr. Manfred, you and I agree that baseball would be more exciting if the games were shortened. I believe, however, there would be other ways to go about shortening the game, without interfering with how managers manage their teams. For instance, umpires could be better at keeping batters in the batters’ box. Or how about limiting the amount of mound visits a team is allowed over the course of the game. Maybe even bring back the bullpen carts so relievers don’t have to run in from the bullpen.
Perhaps the managers and pitching coaches must run to the mound for visits, while making sure there are proper medical facilities available.
Of course none of this particularly increases the chance of a comeback, however if the games were shorter, it would presumably elevate the amount of excitement and interest throughout the game, and fans wouldn’t be as tired at the end.
People often tag me as being a purist or a traditionalist. Mostly, that is true. However I’m not as far on the scale as some, as I generally gravitate to changes that just plain make sense. In my opinion, restricting the use of relievers just does not make sense. In addition to my above points, the players’ union would be against it because it would affect their jobs and salaries.
I am as concerned about baseball losing fans as Rob Manfred is. I’m tired of my friends bothering me about the start of the football season in the middle of baseball’s playoffs. However, I am not willing to fundamentally change how the game is played or managed to hold on to some fans. Most people that don’t like baseball cite how long it is as the reason they don’t watch. Let’s fix that with less extreme measures first, and if that doesn’t work, then we can talk about changing the game itself.
Baseball is an almost perfect game in a vastly imperfect world. It’s a beautiful sculpture with some blemishes, but if you want to fix it, don’t use a chainsaw when all you need is a chisel.
