Atlantic League rules experiments

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,274
The Atlantic League, a minor league hotbed for innovation in baseball, will announce plans Wednesday to move the pitcher’s mound back 12 inches from home plate this season, according to two people with knowledge of the arrangement. The move represents one of the most stark rule changes proposed by baseball leadership in a generation and comes amid sweeping changes on the minor league leveldesigned to improve the on-field product.
The eight-team Atlantic League, which has franchises along the East Coast, will enact the change during the second half of its 120-game regular season, one person familiar with the matter said. It will be the first change of mound regulations in professional baseball since 1969, when MLB lowered the mound after a season in which seven starting pitchers posted sub-2.00 ERAs.
MLB officials pushed for the change after years of internal deliberations about altering the distance from the mound to home plate, one of the people familiar with the discussions, who spoke anonymously so as to freely detail the private sessions, told The Washington Post. It is geared toward increasing action on the base paths and cutting down on strikeouts and home runs.
“[MLB leaders] reached the conclusion that the things that drew us to the game in the first place are being eclipsed by absolute outcomes, and, frankly, people find it boring,” one of the people involved in the decision said. “Batters will hit the ball more frequently, and that’s really the root of what we’re doing here.”
The Atlantic League will also institute a “double hook” rule governing the designated hitter: Teams can keep a DH in their lineups as long as their starting pitcher remains in the game. When a manager goes to the bullpen, the new pitcher must bat or be substituted out of the game.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/04/14/atlantic-league-move-back-pitchers-mound/

mlb needs to stop screwing with the game.
 
Last edited:

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,274
Here is the official press release announcing the Atlantic league changes
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
8,469
New York City
I actually don't mind them using the minors as laboratories for various potential changes. Moving the mound back would be drastic but as someone who thinks the "three true outcomes" style of play is fairly boring I'm happy they're at least exploring ways to address that.

The DH rule thing, though, is bizarre. The DH rule as it stands is perfectly fine and there is zero need to complicate it. It's just a backhanded way of forcing teams to abandon the "opener" approach, which I oppose for the same reason I would oppose any artificial limiting of shifts - teams shouldn't be penalized for thinking outside the box and trying to take advantage of creative lineups, defensive positioning, or pitching approaches.

Edit: I also can't see the players' union ever agreeing to change the DH rule in that manner. It would be bad both for guys like JDM and for relief pitchers (since, if the rule accomplishes what MLB apparently wants it to, it would incentivize fewer relief innings). It would also pose concerns about the health and longevity of starting pitchers - you might have a guy who's pitched 95 pitches through 5 innings or whatever but because the DH is due up in the next inning, the team might take the calculated risk of leaving in the starter even if he is laboring, feels some minor pain, etc. So the rule would really benefit no one at all save for maybe a few old-timers nostalgic for the days when pitchers throwing nine innings was commonplace.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,837
mlb needs to stop screwing with the game.
It's exactly where they should be screwing with it. The have a lab to try things out. Who cares if 99 out of 100 of them don't work?

The DH one is interesting, but not needed. The mound one is at least trying to get at the way the game has evolved.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,091
How would moving the mound back cut down on HRs? I guess the speed of the ball upon contact would decrease, but not by much, and that would be offset at least some by the increase in contact rate?
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,674
Maine
I can get behind shifting the mound to see how it might impact the game. Guys are throwing harder and hitters are swinging harder than ever. Adding a foot between them could maybe off-set that a bit and make the game better.

The DH thing is dumb. As others have said, it's an attempt to curb the use of openers. I'm generally against rule changes that seek to counteract a strategic ploy that traditionalists bristle at. This is right up there with restricting shifts, only it will likely have more dire consequences for the health of pitchers. I can just picture managers leaving a laboring pitcher in because the DH is due up second in the next inning, and the guy ending up on the IL with an injury.
 

Comfortably Lomb

Koko the Monkey
SoSH Member
Feb 22, 2004
12,958
The Paris of the 80s
How much more will the ball move with another foot of distance between the mound and plate? Why not lower it instead of moving it back?

I think they were on the right track nerfing the ball but just didn't go far enough. Part of the reason pitchers are striking out so many is every batter wants to launch the ball all the time.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,837
How would moving the mound back cut down on HRs? I guess the speed of the ball upon contact would decrease, but not by much, and that would be offset at least some by the increase in contact rate?
They're not trying to cut down on HRs, they're trying to cut down on strikeouts.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,234
They're not trying to cut down on HRs, they're trying to cut down on strikeouts.
Wouldn't lowering the mound also reduce overall pitchers' effectiveness, including K's? A comparable 33% reduction like the one after 1968 (from 15 to 10) would leave the mound at 6.67 inches, maybe that's just untenable?
 

Marceline

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2002
6,441
Canton, MA
There are 2 separate rule changed meant to change 2 separate things.
Yes I understand that, but it's still a contradiction with the stated goal. If you want to encourage more hitting the ball in play and less strikeouts, why also implement another rule which simultaneously reduces that and (arguably...I know we've been through the DH discussion) makes the game more boring?
 

Pablo's TB Lover

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 10, 2017
5,959
I don't know how many bonafide ML pitchers pass through the Atlantic League, but wouldn't pitching from a 61 foot mound kind of mess up their development quite a bit if MLB does not end up incorporating this change at the big league level in the future? Pitchers are very idiosyncratic as it is, like a developing golfer trying to find their perfect swing. Wonder if 12 inches would make a big deal in ball placement in the zone?
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,091
They're not trying to cut down on HRs, they're trying to cut down on strikeouts.
From the OP:
MLB officials pushed for the change after years of internal deliberations about altering the distance from the mound to home plate, one of the people familiar with the discussions, who spoke anonymously so as to freely detail the private sessions, told The Washington Post. It is geared toward increasing action on the base paths and cutting down on strikeouts and home runs.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
How does moving the mound cut down in home runs? The batter gets to see the ball for a longer time. Pitchers also need to compensate by throwing the ball higher so it still breaks crossing the plate. The entire stupid concept is to increase hitting, so how does that decrease hard hit balls or make the launch angle more shallow?
 

czar

fanboy
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
4,312
Ann Arbor
I don't know how many bonafide ML pitchers pass through the Atlantic League, but wouldn't pitching from a 61 foot mound kind of mess up their development quite a bit if MLB does not end up incorporating this change at the big league level in the future? Pitchers are very idiosyncratic as it is, like a developing golfer trying to find their perfect swing. Wonder if 12 inches would make a big deal in ball placement in the zone?
I would actually assume this modification would be less drastic for pitcher mechanics than lowering the mound. Really, the main change for a pitcher is a slight change in vertical target to account for the extra drop associated with the extra foot (for a fastball, this is an inch or so, for a curveball this may be 3-4 inches depending on spin rate).
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,829
Unreal America
Like the NFL? Oh wait. They make multiple changes every year
Like the NBA? Oops, they've changed so many things
Like the NHL? Nevermind.

So the MLB should be sacred and stand by while the other leagues move ahead?
Agree, the MLB has been paralyzed for far too long. Making changes to improve the game on the field is precisely what they should be doing. The game needs more action. I don't know if the pitching mound distance change will do that, but its the Atlantic League and worth a shot.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,877
Boston, MA
Yes I understand that, but it's still a contradiction with the stated goal. If you want to encourage more hitting the ball in play and less strikeouts, why also implement another rule which simultaneously reduces that and (arguably...I know we've been through the DH discussion) makes the game more boring?
The thinking is probably that teams will want a deeper bench of position players to act as pinch hitters/double switches. Having more hitters means you carry fewer pitchers, which also cuts down on openers and fresh arms every single inning.
 

Tony C

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 13, 2000
13,694
Like the NFL? Oh wait. They make multiple changes every year
Like the NBA? Oops, they've changed so many things
Like the NHL? Nevermind.

So the MLB should be sacred and stand by while the other leagues move ahead?
Agree, the MLB has been paralyzed for far too long. Making changes to improve the game on the field is precisely what they should be doing. The game needs more action. I don't know if the pitching mound distance change will do that, but its the Atlantic League and worth a shot.
Thank you! I really appreciate that they're trying to do something to address what is clearly an issue (boredom!). I'm not sure I see the logic in 61 feet making a difference, but is it too optimistic to assume they've done some studies in re how/why it'd reduce home runs? If all it does is reduce Ks, then it'd be a mistaken step -- one toward making games even longer and probably more boring.
 

Awesome Fossum

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,892
Austin, TX
It certainly seems unlikely the the optimal place for the mound in terms of maximizing balls in play is exactly where it is now. Regardless, that's why they're testing it. If it doesn't work or even makes the problem worse, no big deal.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,837
If all it does is reduce Ks, then it'd be a mistaken step -- one toward making games even longer and probably more boring.
Isn't the thinking that fewer K's, more balls in play shortens games? And more balls in play shouldn't be more boring should it?
 

santadevil

wears depends
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
6,472
Saskatchestan
The other unspoken benefit is that the pitcher gets another split second to defend themselves on a come backer.

I've thought for a long time that moving the mound back slightly would be a good thing to get more action and I don't think it would to too tough an adjustment for most pitchers to adapt to that extra distance.

But I do think it will also shorten outings by pitch number for many pitchers. That magic number of roughly 100 pitches, could possibly go down more than a fractional amount. I could see 90, or 95 being the new "standard" amount when pitchers fatigue. I'm also betting there would be a noticable jump in pitching injuries too.
 

allmanbro

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
362
Portland, Maine
The official press release mentions strikeouts and contact, not HRs. They want more "Action" not more strikeouts and HRs. I don't know--we're not really disagreeing.
A couple lines of thinking might connect this to HR specifically: by cutting down on Ks, hitters might feel less like they have to go all-in on those few times they can make contact, so the hitting strategy shifts towards line drives for singles/doubles. You could also think that this move would need to be paired with a substantially more deadened ball - both lead to more balls in play, but one helps hitters, and one helps pitchers. So if you do both, you don't also see the major swing in the total amount of offense that you would if you did one alone (as major of a swing anyway).
 

Tony C

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 13, 2000
13,694
Isn't the thinking that fewer K's, more balls in play shortens games? And more balls in play shouldn't be more boring should it?
I don't really know. My hope is they've gamed it out such that you are correct, but I also logically think that more balls in play would make it more like a softball game. Fun to watch in that lots of action, but also would tend to stretch out games since I think there'd be a lot hits per game.

Dunno...but I"m hopeful...and agree with allmanbro that more batted balls combined with a deader ball might be a good combo.
 

allmanbro

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
362
Portland, Maine
I don't really like the double hook rule, but it might mean fewer mid-inning pitching changes, which would be OK by me - probably not by a lot.

This might be an interesting wrinkle: instead of saying you only get to DH for the starting pitcher, why not say "you can only DH for one pitcher" - so then you could have an opener, then put in the DH with the bulk reliever. This might mean the bulk guy stays in longer rather than the SP, but I don't care whether the one who pitches most of the innings is the starter. You could also make the rule more general: you can only DH for one individual player, not just pitcher. Then, if you have a really weak hitting catcher and a good DH, you could DH for the catcher because you know that allows you to have the DH all game.

I don't think there are actual problems this would solve, but it might make for interesting strategy. I've also always thought it was weirdly arbitrary to stipulate that the DH has to hit for a pitcher, since that's what teams would basically always do anyway.


In the other DH thread, I suggested allowing teams to DH for any player, but stipulating that you have to replace the DH when you replace the pitcher. @DourDoerr pointed out that this might limit pitching changes because it would burn the through the bench - you have to replace the DH every time you replace the pitcher (assuming you always DH for the pitcher). I am now thinking that that idea would be a more natural way of doing this than the one they are testing - and would not force pitchers to hit.
 

Awesome Fossum

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,892
Austin, TX
I'd think if you went with that rule, teams would almost definitely use an opener. Bat your opener 9th, let him pitch until his spot comes up in the batting order, and then switch to your "starter"/DH combo. Basically manufacturing another inning or two before you need to start dealing with a pitcher hitting.

Conversely, if you have to pair your DH with your true starter, seems like he ought to hit at or near the leadoff spot.
 

Awesome Fossum

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,892
Austin, TX
For the record, I'm in favor of getting rid of the DH and cutting down the roster size. The roster size is what allows people to specialize, and it's the specialization that gives us LOOGYs, pitchers that can't swing a bat, and batters that can't play the field. Imagine a version of baseball where you have a 14- or 12-man active roster. Suddenly it's like high school, where you count on your best players for everything.

Not really a serious suggestion for MLB -- just imagine MLBPA's reaction -- or even the Atlantic League, but if anyone ever makes a run at a women's pro league or something truly independent, I think it would be a good idea.
 

Sad Sam Jones

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2017
2,494
Obviously, if MLB adopted that DH rule, they would throw out the current details and start from scratch. However, as it's currently written, the rule blocks any early inning platoon shenanigans since it requires the DH to bat at least once unless the opposing team has changed pitchers. The original rule had no requirement, so Earl Weaver started taking advantage of it in September 1980 by listing a starting pitcher who wouldn't be playing that night as his starting DH and waiting to make sure the starting pitcher was still in the game when the Orioles reached that spot in their lineup. Then Weaver replaced him with who he wanted DH'ing since he used a strict platoon at DH. The first time Weaver did so with Steve Stone, who had already flown to Toronto for the next series, so he wasn't even in the country when he was in the starting lineup. Weaver turned in a lineup with a starting pitcher at DH 21 times that month and Sparky Anderson (whose team the strategy was unveiled against) responded by doing the same later that month against the Orioles. MLB changed the rule that winter.
 

Sad Sam Jones

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2017
2,494
For the record, I'm in favor of getting rid of the DH and cutting down the roster size. The roster size is what allows people to specialize, and it's the specialization that gives us LOOGYs, pitchers that can't swing a bat...
The DH rule exists because pitchers already couldn't swing a bat. The concept of a designated hitter in the pitcher's spot was first proposed at the major league level in 1891.
 

Awesome Fossum

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,892
Austin, TX
I don't think we can deny that pitchers have gotten worse at swinging the bat over time. Maybe they weren't good in 1891, but they were at least competent.

https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2013/1/17/3884274/a-brief-history-of-pitchers-hitting

Regardless, the point is that specialization in sports is an output of the roster size and substitution rules. And there's nothing inherently wrong with specialization, as long as we're happy with the impact on game. American football has even more flexible roster and substitution rules, and it's doing just fine. There have been some drawbacks, like kickers getting too good, but most of the extreme outcomes (50-yard passes, turnovers, sacks) are great for fans and the non extreme outcomes (three yard run) are kind of boring. You could drastically change the roster and substitution rules there as well and make Tim Tebow a Hall of Famer and Tom Brady useless, but that would be an uglier game.

But if we look at baseball and decide that we want less of the extreme outcomes (strikeouts, home runs) and more of the non extreme outcomes (balls in play), the roster size is a way to get there without over-engineering the rule book.

And conversely, if we decide that we DO like home runs and strikeouts, we can go the other way. Expand the rosters and let 27 pitchers try to throw 105 mph to every single batter. DH for everybody. Free pinch runners. No more watching Manny play the outfield or Danny Espinosa try to hit or Prince Fielder run the bases.

There's no right or wrong answer here, it's just a matter of what you prefer.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Obviously, if MLB adopted that DH rule, they would throw out the current details and start from scratch. However, as it's currently written, the rule blocks any early inning platoon shenanigans since it requires the DH to bat at least once unless the opposing team has changed pitchers. The original rule had no requirement, so Earl Weaver started taking advantage of it in September 1980 by listing a starting pitcher who wouldn't be playing that night as his starting DH and waiting to make sure the starting pitcher was still in the game when the Orioles reached that spot in their lineup. Then Weaver replaced him with who he wanted DH'ing since he used a strict platoon at DH. The first time Weaver did so with Steve Stone, who had already flown to Toronto for the next series, so he wasn't even in the country when he was in the starting lineup. Weaver turned in a lineup with a starting pitcher at DH 21 times that month and Sparky Anderson (whose team the strategy was unveiled against) responded by doing the same later that month against the Orioles. MLB changed the rule that winter.
Thanks for the knowledge.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,274
Pioneer league says "hold my beer"
View: https://twitter.com/jjcoop36/status/1387057212724416522?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1387057212724416522%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.redditmedia.com%2Fmediaembed%2Fmzqfqf%3Fresponsive%3Dtrueis_nightmode%3Dfalse

The Pioneer League has announced rules it will use for its first year as a Partner League. Instead of extra innings there will be a HR derby to settle ties. Each team can use a designated pinch hitter and a designated pinch runner.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,274
Honestly just give ties at this point, this is as much of a joke as the shootout in the NHL
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,674
Maine
Honestly it makes sense in minor leagues. Families are ready to get out of there, this can keep them in instead of bolting.
Yeah, and as this is an independent league, what they do may not trickle up to MLB anyway. These are the leagues that should be experimenting.

Can't say I'd get excited about a HR derby to decide a game (by comparison, putting a runner on 2nd to start the inning is a brilliant idea), but I can understand why a minor league would want to avoid extra innings and do it in an entertaining (to casual fans) way.

I do like the pinch runner/pinch hitter rules. How many times in his career might the Sox have benefited from being able to pinch run for David Ortiz without the risk of losing his bat for the rest of the game?
 

ndpope

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
87
Dedham, MA
Is it the first game of the season where the catcher drops the third strike with a runner on first and starts a 2-6-3 double play or will it take longer? I read this as a dropped third strike forces the occupied runner on first to take off for second. If the runner at first refuses to leave the bag, then one of them gets tagged out when the batter arrives.

Edit: incorrect scorebooking
 

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
14,540
South Boston
Is it the first game of the season where the catcher drops the third strike with a runner on first and starts a 2-6-3 double play or will it take longer? I read this as a dropped third strike forces the occupied runner on first to take off for second. If the runner at first refuses to leave the bag, then one of them gets tagged out when the batter arrives.

Edit: incorrect scorebooking
The batter doesn't have to run.
 

Sad Sam Jones

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2017
2,494
As noted in the first sentence, they already tested it in 2019. Running is optional and I don't recall ever hearing anything more about it, so I don't think had any impact. Both of these trial rules seem like solutions in search of a problem.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
As noted in the first sentence, they already tested it in 2019. Running is optional and I don't recall ever hearing anything more about it, so I don't think had any impact. Both of these trial rules seem like solutions in search of a problem.
So on a wild pitch on the first pitch to a batter he can take off for first base? I can see a parade of baserunners when a guy has Single A Control. Or is a knuckleballer
 

Heating up in the bullpen

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2007
1,082
Pittsboro NC
So on a wild pitch on the first pitch to a batter he can take off for first base? I can see a parade of baserunners when a guy has Single A Control. Or is a knuckleballer
That's the point, isn't it? You want to throw that filthy slider? Take your chances. The lords of the game want more offense, so they're coaxing pitchers to throw more straight cheese.