What is the 3 Batter rule? TV on Basilio today

#1
S

Savannahbayvol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
1,068
Likes
3,041
#1
tclub.team

The Tony Basilio Show

TonyBasilio.com is the companion web site to The Tony Basilio Show. The show is broadcast live from Knoxville, TN, home of the Vols! On the website, you will find a variety of blogs by our show personalities. Check out our streaming audio and show archives at TonyBasilio.com. Want to chime...
tclub.team tclub.team
 
  • Like
Reactions: UTSimSinAZ, BruisedOrange and WillisWG
#2
#2
It's the rule that was implemented in MLB a few years ago that basically requires a reliever to face a minimum of 3 batters once brought in. It prevents a reliever from coming in to face one batter (right on lefty, or vice versa) and then making another change. It accomplishes a few things, primarily in MLB's case, quickening the game. However, it also creates a competitive component that requires more strategy on who you bring in in certain situations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: savannahfan, Element01, BruisedOrange and 5 others
#3
#3
cncchris33 said:
It's the rule that was implemented in MLB a few years ago that basically requires a reliever to face a minimum of 3 batters once brought in. It prevents a reliever from coming in to face one batter (right on lefty, or vice versa) and then making another change. It accomplishes a few things, primarily in MLB's case, quickening the game. However, it also creates a competitive component that requires more strategy on who you bring in in certain situations.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I'm all for it then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: savannahfan, FabSmokyVol and cncchris33
#11
#11
cncchris33 said:
I think it's just as arguable that it adds strategy. As with any rule change, strategy is baked into both sides of the argument.
Click to expand...
Yep but a move like this is would be a change for change's sake. The thinking for MLB change was to speed up and maintain the pace of the game for the "fans", for me the speed/pace of college ball is fine. No reason to limit managerial flexibility and strategy at this level. That's just my thoughts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs, HeadVol77, chuckiepoo and 1 other person
#12
#12
My argument against the rule being applied to college ball would be that (compared to MLB) there's just not enough talent in the pool for the number of college teams. Implementing that rule in college ball would further the domination of the large$t programs who can $tack a roster, while diminishing the ability of le$$er schools to compete.

I imagine it would also restrict the development of young pitchers. Currently, you can bring in a youngster to face one batter they're well suited for, experience the inner nervousness and crowd awareness of pitching at this level, and develop incrementally as opportunities present.

If their "first opportunity" to pitch at this level requires facing 3 batters instead of just one, well... you just can't do that with a young pitcher in the SEC. It also means fewer pitchers get to pitch in any single game. So the young pitcher's college experience might be to pitch in only a very few non-conference games early in the year, then sit for the rest of the season.

I'm sure there are also some legitimate arguments for the proposal, these are just the first ones that jumped out at me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs, HeadVol77, WillisWG and 1 other person
#14
#14
BruisedOrange said:
My argument against the rule being applied to college ball would be that (compared to MLB) there's just not enough talent in the pool for the number of college teams. Implementing that rule in college ball would further the domination of the large$t programs who can $tack a roster, while diminishing the ability of le$$er schools to compete.

I imagine it would also restrict the development of young pitchers. Currently, you can bring in a youngster to face one batter they're well suited for, experience the inner nervousness and crowd awareness of pitching at this level, and develop incrementally as opportunities present.

If their "first opportunity" to pitch at this level requires facing 3 batters instead of just one, well... you just can't do that with a young pitcher in the SEC. It also means fewer pitchers get to pitch in any single game. So the young pitcher's college experience might be to pitch in only a very few non-conference games early in the year, then sit for the rest of the season.

I'm sure there are also some legitimate arguments for the proposal, these are just the first ones that jumped out at me.
Click to expand...
With the 34 player roster limit, teams will not be able to stockpile talent. The roster limit actually helps the little guys.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BruisedOrange, HeadVol77, chuckiepoo and 1 other person
#16
#16
Christian Lowe said:
They can also call up anyone from minor league at any time when someone is injured so it’s not quite the same is it?
Click to expand...
Neither is only having to cover a 72 game season. The whole point of the three batter rule was to shorten the game. Possibly necessary for MLB, certainly not necessary for college.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs, WillisWG and knoxvol52
#18
#18
chuckiepoo said:
MLB manages with a 26 man roster over an extended season. Not necessary.
Click to expand...
A 26-man roster but multiple levels of minor leagues to stockpile available talent, ability to sign FAs at any point, and a trade deadline to acquire talent.

College teams are about to be stuck at 34 from start to finish with no relief to account for injury, illness, or otherwise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HeadVol77, chuckiepoo and tbwhhs
#19
#19
WillisWG said:
Yep but a move like this is would be a change for change's sake. The thinking for MLB change was to speed up and maintain the pace of the game for the "fans", for me the speed/pace of college ball is fine. No reason to limit managerial flexibility and strategy at this level. That's just my thoughts.
Click to expand...
I think that's a fair opinion to have, but it's a different opinion than the previously stated idea that it removes strategy from the game. Just like in MLB, the strategy just changes/shifts. How do you construct your lineup and stack right-handed bats and left-handed bats? Who are you going to bring in if they have to face multiple batters that will hit from both sides?
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo
#20
#20
knoxvol52 said:
With the 34 player roster limit, teams will not be able to stockpile talent. The roster limit actually helps the little guys.
Click to expand...
True. But it also places a premium on "already developed" talent. So even if development of players shifts to the smaller programs, they will still have to labor under the same restrictions on incremental player development. Maybe the 3 batters rule would work out to produce better pitchers sooner, but you'd also have more guys with big potential developing slower and without the benefit of top coaching that they would receive at bigger programs with a 40-man roster.

I guess it's like building battleships: improve the armor, diminish the speed. Bigger guns, more explosives ready to go off in the hold.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HeadVol77, chuckiepoo and knoxvol52
#21
#21
Christian Lowe said:
In a 34 player era, the 3 Batter rule is probably necessary.
Click to expand...
I don’t think so based on what I’ve read. D1 Baseball did an extensive analysis and discovered that most D1baseball teams only play about 24 players any material innings or ABs during a season. Coaches love to stockpile talent for obvious reasons but 34 is more than enough IMHO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs, Cosmo Kramer, chuckiepoo and 1 other person
#22
#22
Heard a point in one of the games towards the end of the season that I found I agreed with, which is the game leans towards offense way too much to implement any rules that negatively impact pitching at this point.
 
#23
#23
cncchris33 said:
I think that's a fair opinion to have, but it's a different opinion than the previously stated idea that it removes strategy from the game. Just like in MLB, the strategy just changes/shifts. How do you construct your lineup and stack right-handed bats and left-handed bats? Who are you going to bring in if they have to face multiple batters that will hit from both sides?
Click to expand...
I don't see it as a different opinion since iterates what I first stated "removes a game strategy" and in my 2nd post "no reason to limit managerial flexibility and strategy". Just added why MLB pursued and added that I saw no need to change the pace of the game at this level. I like the game played as is.

What would be next to speed the game up? Limit the number of times a pitcher can throw to first to hold the run? No thanks. We're fine. Leave the game alone. Play ball.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs and chuckiepoo
#24
#24
WillisWG said:
I don't see it as a different opinion since iterates what I first stated "removes a game strategy" and in my 2nd post "no reason to limit managerial flexibility and strategy". Just added why MLB pursued and added that I saw no need to change the pace of the game at this level. I like the game played as is.

What would be next to speed the game up? Limit the number of times a pitcher can throw to first to hold the run? No thanks. We're fine. Leave the game alone. Play ball.
Click to expand...
The way you stated it ("removes a game strategy") made it sound like it's simply an attempt to dumb down the game, which may just be my interpretation of your opinion because you didn't acknowledge the other side of the coin, which was my contention that it replaces one strategy with another rather than simply removing it.

Your second response seemed to more clearly state that it was a matter of personal preference that the game just not be altered, which I'm fine with.

To be clear, I have no strong preference for one solution over the other. For me, I've seen it work both ways and neither is a deal breaker for me, but I can respect the opinion of those who don't want to see a change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo and WillisWG
#25
#25
cncchris33 said:
The way you stated it ("removes a game strategy") made it sound like it's simply an attempt to dumb down the game, which may just be my interpretation of your opinion because you didn't acknowledge the other side of the coin, which was my contention that it replaces one strategy with another rather than simply removing it.

Your second response seemed to more clearly state that it was a matter of personal preference that the game just not be altered, which I'm fine with.

To be clear, I have no strong preference for one solution over the other. For me, I've seen it work both ways and neither is a deal breaker for me, but I can respect the opinion of those who don't want to see a change.
Click to expand...
it would not change my viewing habits
 
  • Like
Reactions: chuckiepoo and cncchris33
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top