iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

John From Albany @johnfromalbany.bsky.social · 06/10/2026

Cautious Optimist -- Restoring the Competitive Balance Between Pitchers and Hitters and Making Baseball more enjoyable as well

With the agenda of the upcoming CBA lengthening by the day, I'd thought I'd get ready for my coverage of it, by adding a potential rule change that everyone should agree to, though no one will My goal is simple and fair and unimpeachable. Right now, pitchers have an unfair advantage over hitters. Not only is it unfair; it is killing the game. I urge negotiators on both sides to recognize the injustice and the damage it has wrought, and to take a small win while they can by adopting my suggesting and making baseball fun again. I mean not as much fun as the Banana Guys, but more fun than a barrel of monkeys. Hear me out, then feel free to ignore me. Too many pitchers? Not enough hitters? Half of every major league team's roster is set aside to pitchers. Half of the team's spots are set aside for players that play the same position. There are lots of reasons behind this distribution of resources. The obvious one is that everyday position players, in general, and in the absence of injuries and an occasionally needed day off, are physically capable of playing every day. Most are even capable of playing both ends of a double header. Not so pitchers, especially starters. Most teams adopt the 100 pitch guideline or some variant of it: to wit, a starter shouldn't be expected to go through the line-up more than twice; or not pitcher shall be asked to go beyong 5 or 6 innings. An especially poor performance may send a starter packing sooner, and only a truly stellar or unusually efficient one may keep him around longer, but for the most part the days of pitchers tossing complete games are only a memory. Whether a starter meets the baseline performance to warrant invoking the 100 pitch rule or not, he's not expected to pitch again for the better part of a week's time. Relievers are by and large able to pitch more often than that, but only because they pitch an inning or so at most. Those who are asked to pitch 2, let alone 3 innings during one outing, are put on ice (often literally) for several days before they are called upon again. Healthy Yes, but the Collateral Consequences Create An Imbalance We should distinguish between the 'health' reasons for having so much of the roster taken up by pitchers with what the consequences of doing so have been on the game itself, in particular on batting averages, runs scored, and perhaps even the enjoyability of the game. One way to think about the latter is to imagine what the games would be like were teams permitted fewer pitchers on the roster. Let's say 10 in total. We have to look at this potential rule change from both the perspective of pitcher workload and its distribution on the one hand, and the likely impact it would have on hitters and their performance on the other. Pitchers would be asked to go deeper in games, pitch more often than they currently do, and this would be true of both starters and relievers. It is reasonable to assume that at the outset of this experiment, pitchers would be less effective overall, and for several reasons, not the least of which would be that they would back off from the current 'full effort' on every pitch approach that dominates the sport now, and which, arguably, is responsible for so many arm injuries among pitchers. Pitching would become more of an art than it is now and pitchers would be more strategic, likely throw more strikes, do less nibbling on the corners and focus more than they do now on inducing soft contact. Pitchers would also be evaluated differently than they are now and this would likely be reflected in how they are compensated. Strikeouts would be less valuable than they are now, and even if ERAs were to rise, length would be more important than it is now. This would presumably be true throughout the league and no team in particular would be disadvantaged by the rule. More balls would theoretically be put in play. It would behoove a team to put as good a defense on the field as possible, and outfielders who could cover a lot of ground would command premium pay. The hitters would be the obvious beneficiaries. First of all there would be more of them on a roster. With only 10 pitchers per team that would leave spots for 16 position players. This would allow managers to make more strategic pinch hitting decisions, and roster architecture would change as well as there would be room for more 'one offensive tool' players. These guys would be like closers, or situational relievers. There would be a few occasions when their skills would be needed; otherwise there would be no reason to call upon them. This new level of specialization would lead to less well rounded ball players overall. Baseball game scores could approach your average lower scoring college football game. There could be more action as well as more runs, but would the game be better for it? I don't know. It would be different, that's for sure. Two things come to mind when I play out this experiment and other variations of it. The first is that there is something special about the game that is a collateral consequence of the distribution of resources between pitchers and hitters that baseball currently implements. And that is the remarkable experience of seeing hitters and pitchers facing one another when each is most able to perform at his greatest ability. That is the nature of the competition we are treated to most of the time. If it is less often than we would like it is largely because the season is too long. On the other hand, I have to confess that while I love the idea of both hitters and pitchers facing off at their respective best, the game that emerges from their doing so is somewhat less exciting on a day to day basis than I wish it were. Don't get me wrong. I love it this way, especially during the playoffs as every face off between a pitcher and a hitter is a real test of the mettle of each. The Rays 1-0 win over the Yankees having held the Bronx Bombers to one hit was just outstanding baseball -- on both sides, by both teams. But I wouldn't enjoy watching a 100 games a year that followed the same script, let alone 162 games that did so. The fact is that the current distribution of position players and pitchers gives the team with the better pitching staff a non-trivial advantage: one that would be even larger than it is were relievers no longer required to face three batters. So I'd invite you to think about how the game could be changed to keep its most compelling feature of ongoing face to face - mano a mano-- battles, while reducing the extent to which the odds favor the pitching staff as much as they do now. Let me throw out the change I would like to see. Like most of my nascent ideas, this one is currenly only half baked. With that qualification in place, here's my suggestion -- which I believe is directionally correct, if not the best ultimate solution to what I take to be a genuine problem with the National Pasttme: the unfair advantage pitchers have. I propose that the roster distribution remain in place. However, prior to every game, the manager designates three players, either starting or on the bench who can be allowed to hit for another player in the lineup one additional time. For example, Andy Greene might designate Soto, Benge and Lindor. Each would bat at their normal spot in the lineup, but Greene could put either of them up at a crucial time in the game instead of the batter due up -- according to the lineup card. Green could use each player only once in this capacity. In effect the top third of the team's hitters or some similarly talented group of players could bat one more time. This gives the manager an opportunity to match up his best players against an army of relievers each giving it all for only one inning and maybe evening things out just a little. There are of course technical issues that would need to be worked out, but nothing that could not be with a little imagination and time. Effectively this increases the bench and does so with the best talent the team has to offer. I can also imagine strategic decisions being made that are offset or nullified by strategic responses. A team holding out an Aaron Judge's extra at bat until the 9th inning if needed can be outmaneuved by a manager's decision to walk him at that time or bring in a righty or the like. I think the best part of baseball is the one on one challenge, but as it is currently configured the rosters give pitchers an edge and that can be addressed by giving the offense a chance to use its three best players one more time each to match the maximum effort relievers brought into the game. I know it's sacrilege but I like it, like it, yes I do. What's not to like.?

000