Players Union Agrees To Pitch Clock, Larger Bases, Restrictions On Shifts (As Early As 2023)

The Players Association submitted a new proposal to MLB during Sunday's bargaining session. The biggest news from that proposal, according to Evan Drellich of The Athletic, was "outside of core economics".

The players agreed, contingent on other things, to an element the league was seeking regarding on-field rule changes: the ability for the commissioner to put in a pitch clock, larger bases or restrictions on the shift, as early as the 2023 season. . . .

The commissioners office had recently asked the players for the ability to implement some major rule changes sooner than is currently allowed, dropping the time required from one year to 45 days. The players agreed to it in three areas that MLB wanted — the pitch clock, larger bases, and restrictions on the defensive shift — but not for the implementation of an automated strike zone, which MLB also sought. 

To say I am disappointed by the Players Association's agreement to a pitch clock, bigger bases, and banning shifts to some degree would be a gross understatement. When the players start colluding with the owners to wreck the game . . . 

I am not against a pitch clock in principle, but look at what MLB is doing here: it wants to make a new rule and have an actual countdown clock rather than simply enforce a rule that has been in the rule book for more than 120 years. Why is MLB doing all of this bullshit rather than telling umpires to enforce Rule 8.04?

8.04 When the bases are unoccupied, the pitcher shall deliver the ball to the batter within 12 seconds after he receives the ball. Each time the pitcher delays the game by violating this rule, the umpire shall call "Ball."

The 12-second timing starts when the pitcher is in possession of the ball and the batter is in the box, alert to the pitcher. The timing stops when the pitcher releases the ball. The intent of this rule is to avoid unnecessary delays. The umpire shall insist that the catcher return the ball promptly to the pitcher, and that the pitcher take his position on the rubber promptly. Obvious delay by the pitcher should instantly be penalized by the umpire.

There is nothing wrong with that rule. It's been around forever and it covers everything: the catcher promptly throwing the ball back to the pitcher, the pitcher getting back on the rubber quickly, an alert batter in the box, and the next pitch on its way. 

I suppose I can understand why MLB would not want to revise Rule 8.04 to 20 seconds (which is the time MLB has mentioned in recent years regarding pitch clocks). Because the first words out of any even semi-conscious reporter should be:

Wouldn't it be easier if the Commissioner simply insisted that the 12-second rule be enforced? In fact, why hasn't he never mentioned that rule publicly? And if he's so determined to speed up games, why is he agreeing to nearly double the time the pitcher can wait before delivering his next pitch?

Why do we need bigger bases? Is it so MLB can eventually slap larger advertisements on them?

Talk of banning shifts makes my goddamn blood boil. In fact, it's better if I don't think about this very much and just copy what I wrote last July, when the Commissioner Rob "Ruining Baseball Every Day" Manfred spoke about probably ending some of his dumb-ass rule changes for the 2022 season, but mentioned the possibility in the future of dictating where teams can put their fielders on the field:

Manfred said he remains serious about fucking the game up by other means, such as banning shifts:

Let's just say you've regulated the shift by requiring two infielders each side and second base. What does that do? It makes the game look like what it looked like when I was 12 years old. It's not change; it's kind of restoration, right?

I think front offices in general believe it would have a positive effect on the play of the game. I'm hopeful, without going into the specifics of rule by rule, that we will have productive conversations with the MLBPA about, let me use my words, non-radical changes to the game that will restore it to being played in a way that is closer to what many of us enjoyed historically.

How in the hell can requiring that two infielders remain on each side of second base be a restoration when that set-up has never been a rule, ever, in the entire history of the game?

And played in a way that we enjoyed historically? If I recall, there has never been a rule stipulating where a fielder can or cannot stand in fair territory. If Alex Cora feels like having all four infielders and three outfielders bunched together in a group-hug in the right field corner, then that should be his goddamn prerogative. It's horrible strategy, certainly, but it should be allowed.

Re-reading that really pisses me off. "It's kind of a restoration"? My fucking ass!!! 

Did you know that Manfred had not been Commissioner for even one week before he started talking about "eliminating shifts"? (Well, clearly, I kept thinking about it.)

I have always said I would stop this blog when I got tired of writing it. At a couple of points along the way, I thought I might have reached that point, but it turns out I was wrong. . . . Now I'm pretty much convinced it will end because I stop following baseball.

In the immortal words of Mr. Elia: "It's a disheartening fucking situation we're in right now".