7 inning pitchers rule
 

Classic. Sale was cruising through 7 -- 12Ks, 4 hits, 1 run. Of course, he has to come out because oh my God he had thrown 114 pitchers. Reliever immediately gets tagged.

114 pitches is quite a bit in today's game. I wouldn't call it a 7 inning rule, but more of the pitch count rule. Yeah he was probably pitching well, but apparently he wasn't very efficient/the opponent made him work. With him being one of the best arms in baseball, and it being the regular season, I would have pulled him, too.

Through 7 innings, for a pitcher to justifiably continue, they should be at no more than 100 pitches. That's just today's game.

Now, the argument can be made that players today pitch too much when their young, and too little as they age. That's why arms get blown out more often in today's game. Not sure we'll ever see that theory tested, but it is an interesting theory.

And of course he didn't get any run support. This happens with him a lot; he pitches a gem and either doesn't get any run support and loses, or leaves with a lead and the bullpen blows it.

What would happen in today's game if you had a new rookie on your team named Warren Spahn and you were the manager?

Warren pitched more than 240 innings for 17 consecutive seasons and recorded 382 complete games. He also pitched effectively well into his 40s and never had Tommy John surgery.

After seven innings, if he told me he was okay, I would probably ignore the pitch count. Wouldn't you?

I also think there is an ample supply of relief pitchers capable of pitching two innings. With 7-8 one inning wonders in today's bullpens, there are over 200 candidates.:eek:

I would also add after seeing today's game evolve for more than sixty years, there will come a time in the not too distant future when starters will be pulled routinely before completing 5 innings. Perish the thought of having to face the leadoff man three times.

As a result starters will be able to qualify as losing pitchers, but will never be able to win a game. All will have records of 0-X. Imagine that on a Cooperstown plaque.;)

The NL they do things the opposite sometimes.....they afraid to pull a pitcher when he is at bat with bases loaded with 2 outs in a close ball game in the 5th inning....and he strike out...then in the 6th inning he comes into pitch and gets blasted...what was the purpose...might as well had a relief pitcher come in and had a 27 percent chance at least for a pitch hitter to bat instead of the starting pitcher....happened with jeff hoffman the other day against the marlins...they were afraid to pull this great pitcher in the 5th inning....

anytime i got a 27 percent chance or more to score 2 runs or more in a tie game or down by 2 in the 5th inning or later.....i would take the chance more than the zero times they do it in the NL if the pitch count is still low.. hench they afraid to sit the pitcher..while in the AL they are afraid to keep him out there

^^ Is the exact reason Young's career win record will never be broken!

These dudes are already on every fifth day as opposed to every fourth which was the norm for most of baseball history. And now for the most part they can't go past the seventh inning? I continue to find it baffling.

They can, but they don't because they cost so much money, are the riskiest for injury and have such good relief specialization . (well, when used properly which most managers still screw up)

Teams have figured out more and more how to optimize production. It's been shown that that even having a starter might be a bad idea for team wins relative to using a group of relievers who never face a lineup more than once per game. In 30 years, the starting pitcher may be as dead as the spitballer and the slap hitter

I know it's anecdotal but it seems I have seen innumerable games where the starter is on cruise control, gets yanked because of the pitch count, and the pen immediately gets shelled. Now I guess the comeback to that is yeah but the starter isn't nearly as effective past a point and might have been shelled anyhow.

You can just look at the long sample size of what a lineup does against the same pitcher in a given game on their 2nd 3rd and 4th time up and you will see a long term trend of batting average going up and up.

Heck its usually pretty hard for a pitcher to face the same lineup in back to back starts

Perhaps, but isn't that offset by the fact that your starters are better pitchers than your relievers, for the most part? There's a reason, presumably, you want more innings out of those top 4 guys than the rest of the staff.

Farrell is nowhere near the class of Billy Martin was in the early 80s in regards to the disregard of pitch counts. Now it becomes more apparent why teams have improved bull-pens as many batters work to stretch counts during each plate appearance.

I read this article a few years ago about Martin:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul...chers-20110719

The repeated fouling off of pitches can create some drama in a really intense matchup (in late innings of a playoff game for example), but otherwise is IMO a significant part of why games go on too long.

Not to mention the dilution of the game-used ball market.;)

Must your foul sense of humor pervade every thread?

Less than 40% of your pervasiveness.:D

this is starting to be not true! so many relievers have become specialized on doing one thing (get leftys out for example) that it is probably easier to win if you threw 4 relievers at a lineup every game.

much less fun to watch tho

I am sure you are right. I liked watching games, though, much more when the presumption was that your starter was going as deep as he could, when there weren't long delays between every pitch, when batters weren't intentionally trying to jack the pitch count, when there weren't 10 pitching changes a game, etc. Without looking it up I am guessing games are a half hour longer than they were in the 70s on average, if not longer.

Amen, brother.

Perhaps they could just keep playing during the commercial breaks and then just show the actual pitches after the ad, like they do in golf. A pitcher walking around the mound, a batter adjusting his batting glove after every pitch and a golfer walking 200 yards between shots are all equally exciting, almost as exciting as 8 hours of coverage for the two minute Kentucky Derby.:rolleyes:

Oh, I am by no means in favor of watching this happen. But it's probably optimal for winning.

IMO, they need the pitch clock like in the minors to help speed things up.(and ditch replay with the exception of plays at the plate and calls involving borders, like homers and fouls...etc)

I think I would also be in favor of a maximum number of fouls until it counts as a K.

Seriously?

Sure, why not? You can't bunt foul on strike three. So why not speed the game up by saying you can't foul off more than, I don't know, five pitches? 10 pitch at bats. Move it along.

10 pitch at bats and you're going to have 1-0 games, which will even further destroy baseball's fan base. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison, either. It is MUCH easier to make contact with a bunt, therefore you should be able to put the ball in play on 3 attempts or less. Fouling of a pitch with a full swing is a strategy for batters to stay alive while attempting one of the most difficult things in sports: hitting a baseball pitched by a MLB pitcher.

And people need to stop looking for ways to change the game in order to speed it up. The game isn't the problem. Advertising and money are. I'm sure back in the day they didn't have 3-4 minute commercial breaks every half inning. Plus, they already changed the game with the intentional walk rule, and games are still 5 minutes longer on average this year than last year.

If you can't work a walk or put a ball in play within 10 pitches I have no problem calling you out. With an unlimited number, teams just use it as a way to jack up a pitcher's pitch count, and it's mostly boring and time consuming.

If a foul ball didn't count as a "pitch", the strategy you describe would be less popular.;)

Any breaking ball that hits the ground before reaching or going by the catcher should not be counted as a pitch either and the pitcher who threw it should have to pay for the inevitable replacement ball.:mad:

Pitch counting devices should only go to 60 and then back to 1. Pitchers with maximum pitch counts of say 90, would then be able to stay in the game indefinitely.:p

Pitcher's gloves should have implanted microphones so that when they cover their lips in mound conferences with the catcher, we can hear what they are saying.:(

The strike zone above home plate should be made of glass. After each pitch if the glass is not broken by either the ball or the bat, it is a "ball". If it is broken, a new strike zone is employed. This would eliminate the need for three umpires and possibly four, if all the other call are made in New York, as if they were challenged.:eek:

When managerial wisdom reaches the point of not allowing the starting pitcher to face the leadoff man twice, the winning and losing pitchers shall be determined by spinning a roulette-type wheel that includes a slot for every pitcher on the roster. This should be done before the game, and the winning and losing pitchers would then be required to actually play in the game. The final score could be used to award the W and the L.:cool:

Irrelevant statistics of the past, such as complete games and shutouts, shall be expunged from all records. The pitchers of the future need to play in a safe zone without being intimidated by concepts they are unable to grasp.:D

And finally all players shall go to Cooperstown five years after they retire to pick up their participation trophies.:)