Is “6 IP Minimum” A Rule With Potential Legs?

We’ve heard about it, but only in whispers like David Forst “floating a concept” to Marcus Semien. No parameters have been laid out for actual consideration nor will it be voted on anytime soon.

The issue is that MLB is tired of the “openers” and “bullpen games” and 5.1 IP starts followed by a parade of 100 MPH throwing relievers. So they are starting a possible future preamble to a potential eventual conversation...about forcing starting pitchers to throw at least 6 IP “or else!”

The questions here are what is the “what else,” what should or shouldn’t it be, and what makes the most sense: no change, a little change (and if so what) or changes so bigly they will rival the ghost runner at 2B in extra innings?

Preface: Chasing After Unwanted Results

MLB seems unable to create the game it wants naturally, so it is in an endless loop of reacting to undesirable outcomes by force-feeding reversals. Games are too long, so let’s make the pitcher throw the ball within 15 seconds, even though replay reviews sometimes take 3 minutes in order to still get the call wrong. Too much striking out, so let’s make the bases bigger to encourage “small ball” running — I’m assuming the next rule change will be letting the oven mitts be up to 5 feel long. (“He takes his lead from 1B, just 2 steps and a reach from 2B...”) Batters aren’t very good at hitting the other way anymore, so make fielders stand there anyway. And so on.

Don’t get me wrong, I like some of the changes. I abhorred the shift, both aesthetically and in terms of how dull it was making the game on balls in play. Walks and strikeouts bore me compared to dazzling fielding and the nuance of “small ball”. Games were in fact dragging too long, even if I don’t agree that a pitch timer was the needed solution.

So here we are talking about forcing starting pitchers to stay in the game longer while they’re at it. Is this just chasing after the undesirable “fresh arm/super reliever” phenomenon, or is it a return to the game the way it was conceived and was always supposed to be?

To examine this, I will look at different aspects of the rule as it could evolve, with my own analysis of whether these would be good changes and/or good reasons for a change.

1. “6 IP, or 100 pitches, or 4 runs”

One whispering has been the idea a SP might be required either to throw 6 IP, or 100 pitches, or give up 4 runs, before he can yanked (unless there is an injury). Personally I find these arbitrary numbers to be a poor way of legislating endurance.

One pitcher’s arm may be “done” after 98 pitches, another after 102 and the 100 pitch threshold is purely a number, one that doesn’t take into account the idea of “high stress pitches” or a specific high pitch inning, or that pitcher’s recent health history.

Similarly, looking at numbers of runs, which is probably aimed at allowing for “he just doesn’t have it today” early hooks before 9-10 runs are run up, similarly ignores that a pitcher can have one bad stretch that includes a grand slam or he can struggle from the first batter on with little hope of reversing fortune.

These are just not good ways to evaluate whether it should be ok to pull a SP before the 18th out, and I would be against using any convenient round numbers to play god with a pitcher’s health or the flow of a given game.

2. “Lose The DH”

Now here’s an idea that might have some merit. The DH is, officially, a batter in the lineup who hits for the pitcher. So it actually makes some “baseball rule” sense if upon removing the SP you were to lose the DH as well. Yank Joey Estes and you just yanked Brent Rooker. Ruh roh.

Now if you want to be technical, by the spirit of the rules if you’re going to link the DH with the SP you should also link him with each reliever, because that’s still for whom the DH is hitting.

So really, the DH should be out of the game once the SP is removed even if that happens in the 7th or 8th. But to my understanding, the proposed rule would only extend to the SP for the first 6 IP, after which point the DH is safe and secure the rest of the way.

Even if this doesn’t quite match the spirit of the rule, it does make sense. The goal here isn’t to get rid of the DH — we just finally doubled his presence by bringing his services to the National League — it’s to incentivize teams to try to coax 6+ IP out of their SP.

This rule would definitely be impactful because a SP pulled in the top of the 6th has a DH due to bat probably in the 6th and 8th, or the 7th and 9th. As you approach the 18th out you are talking about a point in the game where the DH, usually one of the team’s better hitters, is very likely to come up twice more, certainly at least once in the late innings.

I like this way of incentivizing because it never forces a manager to leave a pitcher in against his better judgment. The manager has free rein to make a chance anytime for any reason, just with consequences on the order of a “double switch” or putting the DH in the field.

It should be noted that there are ways to “game” this system. You could have a bullpen game in which your DH was your 26th player who would never actually start a game at DH, then replace him with your real DH when you pull your “opener” after 1 inning. So perhaps safeguards would have to be designed to prevent this kind of chicanery. Or you just live with it.

Is It All Necessary?

Are we chasing a problem or creating a solution for an imaginary blight? Is it so bad when a SP goes 5.2 IP and turns it over to the bullpen for a “10 out save”? What is it that is harming the game: is it the “opener” and the “bullpen game,” is it the use of 4-5 relievers at the end of a game, is it the reluctance of metric-obsessed front offices to let a pitcher pitch a 3rd time through the order? Or is there no problem at all?

I think these are very fair and open questions. I personally don’t care for openers or bullpen games, but am not terribly bothered by whether a SP records 17 or 19 outs. Also, given that the threshold for qualifying for a win is 5 IP I’m a bit unsure why a “6 IP minimum” rule is being discussed and not a 5 IP minimum. That would be more in keeping with baseball pedagogy over the years.

And how much are we trying to force feed the game we want by reacting with rule changes? Should we put a limit on “triple digit velocity pitches” and call a balk if you throw 3 in a row? Should the “3 batter rule” be amended to include a “3 reliever rule” except in extra innings or drizzly weekends? Should we just lower the mound so the pitchers are throwing from slightly underground? (Suddenly Tyler Rogers can’t get a contract.)

Ultimately, what I have offered are probably a lot more questions than answers. But if you find the questions interesting, please weigh in with your thoughts whether they come in the form of answers, reactions, ideas, or even just more questions.

We aren’t close to any rule changes yet, I don’t think, but I do believe this is a conversation that has legs — and we all know the bases are closer than ever.