Recently, I outlined the problem that September roster expansion poses for many players, coaches and managers. Though the focus now is on the postseason, CBA talks are nearing finalization, so now’s the time to address the subject. I have several suggestions on how to “fix” the competitive integrity in the month of September — along with the other issues I have mentioned.
To begin, the added depth and flexibility of September rosters does have some lessons. I believe first and foremost that a Major League season is too long and that the league should return to the 154-game season. It’s a physical grind to try to play 162 games in 183 days. I understand the revenue involved with TV rights, ticket and concession sales for each game, but other factors need to be considered as well.
Because our sport has made a significant effort to clean up the game with the banning of “amphetamines,” we have seen a dramatic decrease in players playing more than 135 games per season. I am by no means condoning the use of “greenies” to help players play more games — MLB should be commended for its efforts — but the use of the illegal drug was, at one point, simply a necessity for players to physically meet the demands of the game.
The onus on players is to play each game and produce; performance has always been judged by results and the ability to compete in each game. Good nutrition, proper sleep and body maintenance still make it nearly impossible for players to stay on the field in a capacity that is healthy. There is too much travel and there are too many games for these players to maintain a healthy lifestyle. I have the same argument when I view what the NFL has done to their players by adding Thursday night football. The demands of the game, coupled with short windows of recovery, force players to find “means” in which to compete, and those means sometimes toe the line of legality.
For baseball, I firmly believe it’s time to scale back the regular season. There is a precedent dating back to 1961, when baseball played 154 games, and returning to this schedule is imperative for the safety of the players.
In addition to that change, rosters for each MLB team needs to expand as well, from a 25-man roster to a 28-man roster. The increase in three players is significant enough to lighten the burden on starting pitching rotations and bullpens while also giving teams an extra bench player.
I understand that adding three players comes at a cost to Major League owners by increasing payroll, insurance, and pension, while also allowing more players to reach arbitration. However, the current situation harms the product that the league sells. It has been increasingly popular for teams to carry 13 members of the pitching staff, limiting many teams to a four-man bench. The shorter bench becomes a disadvantage (especially for National League teams) when a starting player is nursing a “day-to-day” injury; it becomes only a three-man bench while the injured player recovers.
Without the needed flexibility, the 15-day minimum disabled list stint means that regulars can be pushed harder than they should — possibly leading to more significant injuries — or be kept out longer than they ought to if a DL stint is required. An increased roster size could help prevent starting players from hitting the disabled lists while recovering, because teams will not have to worry about playing with a shorter bench. That would increase competition, especially when the games matter most down the stretch, and allow owners to keep their best players on the field longer.
Having the extra bench player could also allow National League teams can carry a DH-type of player over the course of the season, creating more excitement and helping to even the playing field for NL clubs competing in AL parks during interleague contests. When baseball moved the Houston Astros back to the American League, the NL and the AL were balanced out to include 15 teams apiece, but the byproduct became season-long interleague play.
There are more direct ways in which the financial shift could be offset, too. In order to make up lost revenue from subtracting eight games during the season, the postseason can expand to include a seven-game series after the initial Wild Card play-in games. Currently the division series is a five-game series. Adding two games can help offset some of the lost revenue, and a shorter regular season would leave plenty of flexibility to accommodate them. With some give in the schedule, baseball can also consider starting opening day later in April, or it can start the playoffs sooner so that the postseason doesn’t leak into November, thereby avoiding some of the weather challenges that arise on either spectrum of when season starts or finishes.
My final suggestion deals directly with September roster expansion. Under my proposal, teams would be able to call upon any members of their 40 man roster, but in a way that respects the integrity of the game is at stake in the season’s final month. It’s simple: only 28 of those players should be eligible for each game. Managers and front offices can determine which players will be the active roster on a given day, without being forced to follow the typical optional assignment rules. Pace of play in the month of September should increase, or at least stay status quo with the pace of the regular season, as opposed to games in which we see teams deploy 10 or more pitchers. To be fair to players that aren’t activated for a given night, no player would lose service time if they are placed in the pool of possible active roster members, and they would be allowed participate in all pregame work. The only detriment would be that they would simply not be allowed to dress for that night’s game.
Although this seems like a trite reason, having that many players on the bench during the game disrupts many players in-game behaviors, from warming up to finding a seat on the bench. For the final stretch run of the season, even the smallest of disrupted routines can be very important to players competing during the game.
I love September — the drama of the season unfolding, the surprise of a new player making their first mark, players and teams chasing down goals. My goal isn’t to subtract from that by any means, but to serve the best interests of Major League Baseball, its players and its coaching staffs, now and in the future. The final month of the season should not take place with changed personnel rules when history is at stake. Without taking away from a player earning a chance to compete at the Major League level in September, it needs to be recognized that we also should not take away from how the game is played for the previous five months. As great as the drama of September baseball already is, I would love nothing more than to see baseball implement some changes in the final wave of CBA negotiations to improve this game I so deeply care about.
You can tell this is from a players perspective.
Owners wouldn’t give way to 8 less games and 3 roster spots and only have 8 teams get an extra game (or two if split) in the wild card round.
No owner would sign off on this.
I get the physical grind, I still believe the solution is to start the season a week earlier and spread days off more in the regular season (making it 162 games in 190 days) allowing for 28 off days in 6 months, which is basically one off day per week.
I believe the 154 game schedule could work, if the television revenue from the first two playoff rounds were to be shared amongst all teams. It’s only losing 4 home dates; if it meant we could go to a format that has the weakest division winner plus three wild cards playing in best of three series rather than a single game, and then expand the divisional round to a best of seven…that would make sense to me. Two more teams get in, and with a best of three, there’s less of a starting pitcher issue for a one-game shot.
The owners aren’t going to give up revenue, which is what your proposal does, nor should they. It is the players primarily who want to scale back the schedule, and if they do the lost revenue should come out of the players’ pockets. And if they’re smart they’ll go for it, because while it’ll hurt them for a little while they’ll all make back the money in the end anyway, and have a shorter schedule to boot.
Not sure how much it would take out of their pockets….it adds potentially 14 games of shared revenue and with the games being postseason, they would stand to make a reasonable amount. TV revenue is where it’s at, but the low end teams wouldn’t have much viewership happening at season’s end if the teams are out of it.
Additionally, I love seeing things from a players perspective and love what Spils has shared 🙂
I still remember that granny he hit
I’m not opposed to a 28 man roster but what about what the NBA does with having 15 but only 12 active? You could have a roster of 28 but only 25 active for a given day. Day game after a night game? Activate an extra catcher. Bullpen stressed the night before, swap out fresh relievers. The Dodgers essentially did a similar thing this year shuttling rookies back and forth so much.
I’d like to see a similar thing for September call ups. Something like all 40 guys can be on the roster but only 30 can enter the game a given night. Just an idea. Thoughts?
I read the same scenario; roster of 28, maybe even 29, 25 eligible for any given night, posted apx 8 hours before game time. I think it would be a perfect solution. This way, the starting pitcher would be the only rotation pitcher on the roster. This would then allow an extra bullpen arm or two, and 2 – 3 bench players more. Do this, MLB.
I like this solution.
You don’t have to use all of the slots either.
So basically you’d have 4 automatic healthy scratches each game (i.e. the starting pitchers), right?
Now if you used the reserve spots differently, like for bullpen arms and bench bats, how would those players be compensated as opposed to the players who are active in every game?
I’m all for giving the younger players an opportunity at the major league level, but you don’t need to use the entire 40-man roster in a single game.
If I was an owner being petitioned by the union to reduce the games to 154, I would counter back saying that all existing contracts’ salaries should be proportionally reduced.
This is a game and people are being paid large sums of money to push their bodies to the limit for entertainment. Deal with it.
idk about u but it’s senseless to whine about millionaires vs billionaires… just doesn’t register
I’ve seen some talk about having rosters expanded early in the season as well.
Neither side is gonna give up something for free
I think a large part of the point here is that the on-field product — the performances the owners are paying the players to deliver — can suffer. It’s not just a failure to “deal with it.”
I think the argument that on-field performance can suffer is a typical union rationalization by Spilborghs to reduce schedule with no impact to players compensation. The 162 game schedule has been in place for 55 years with significant improvement in travel, accommodations, training staffs, diet, and medical personnel as well as superior athletes. Although I am OK with increasing roster size, but adding 3 players per team (12% increase) = 90 additional players in the league diminishes the quality of play when we already see players hitting around the Mendoza line or pitching with 5+ ERA. If there are 90 players out there who are MLB quality, I would rather see the league add 2 expansion teams moving to 8 divisions and eliminate all wild card teams.
I’m not advocating for or against, just pointing that out. But more players on the roster could improve the quality of play — better matchups, healthier players.
There would be an impact to player compensation in one way or another. Less playing time = lower arb salaries. If playing time were truly diffused more, and more matchup-capable players could be carried, then perhaps lower-tier FAs would not be valued quite as highly in free agency. Etc.
“…could improve the quality of play…” is a huge stretch in my opinion and once the owners agree to expand to 28 there is very little chance that the union would ever agree to go back. If there were to be an increase I think owners will only agree to add one spot. Right now teams are using the AAA and AA rosters as “taxi squads” with my favorite team, Dodgers, running players back and forth almost weekly, sometimes with players only on roster for a couple of days without ever getting into a game. I believe that MLB needs to expand to 32 teams, 8 divisions, that would eliminate WC teams/games from playoffs.
Been wracking my brain to think of a good argument against this concept, but I can’t come up with it. The question is where those two new franchises would be located, where they wouldn’t become small-market doormat teams. The two largest metro areas without a MLB team in or nearby are Charlotte and Portland.
How about the fact that we already have at least 4 teams that aren’t MLB quality?
If you are asking me, the answer is MLB needs to share more revenue.
With a 28 man roster and being able to change it daily, I fail to see how the number of pitching changes in September would be reduced.
I’d like to see a limit of 3 pitchers per inning (not counting an injury). Wouldn’t have an impact on 99% of innings but would cut out the 5 pitchers to 5 batters we’ve seen somewhat recently
Why? If teams are willing to sacrifice and have less pinch-hitters, why should they be punished?
I’m talking about September games where teams have 25 bullpen options. It’s not exciting to watch 27 pitchers pitch to 27 batters just to get the lefty righty advantage. The game grinds to halt from the 6th inning on in September. Again 3 pitchers per inning is a lot and would hardly come into play in everyday play. Can you explain being how they’re punished in my scenario?
Ryan has certainly thought this through, but as JFactor pointed out, the owners would be giving up revenue for all 30 teams for 8 games while 8 teams would get 2 extra games. I also have major reservations about expanding the rosters as I would expect even more pitching changes. I would like to see some way of requiring a pitcher to face a minimum number of batters, and/or cap the number of relievers that can be used in a game. To help with Ryan’s concern about players playing through nagging injuries, what about allowing each player a small number of personal leave days where he could be replaced without going on a dl. This seems fair as almost everyone gets at least a few vacation days in our jobs.
Always enjoyed watching you play, Ryan.
A 28 man roster would probably spell the end of starting pitchers. If you could have twelve or thirteen rested pitchers every day you could just mix and match your way through every game.
Since this would all have to be collectively bargained anyhow, maybe the international draft the owners so desperately want would be a good tradeoff for many or all of these requests. I don’t have the slightest idea whether MLBPA supports Spilborgh’s agenda but it seems like it wouldn’t be too far off base.
I’m not a fan of a 28-man roster available for a game but I wouldn’t mind having a bigger roster but allow teams to scratch a few guys (SP’s that there’s 0% chance are going to pitch, day-to-day injury guys, etc.) and have 25 (or even a couple less if we want to preserve roster construction strategy) usable players available on a given day.
Realistically, on a given day, a position player will pitch before your two least rested starters and most likely before the third least rested guy. Tomorrow’s starter will only get burned in the 16th inning or maybe if today’s SP gets scratched a couple hours before the game. Depending on bullpen usage in the previous few games, normally the manager is going to want to avoid using a couple of his relievers if possible. That basically means that a team carrying 12 or 13 pitchers is only anticipating using less than half of them unless the game turns into a slaughterfest or someone gets hurt.
Because of this a 28 man active roster available in a certain game is a no-go for me because the game is going to be unrecognizable when they have to charter a second plane to carry around the whole bullpen – everything we hate about roster expansion will get spread through the whole year. However, having 45-50 on the secondary roster, 28 or 30 on the active roster, and only “dressing” 25, maybe even 23-24, on a given day… anyway, it sounds like it would work to me. It would allow them to carry more swingman and role player types rather than reluctantly losing them due to roster space when a guy out of options comes off the DL.
I’d also like to see the progression from 0.000 to 6.000 altered so that it is more or less automatic and won’t encourage teams to keep guys down to retain them, but that’s a whole new topic.
Subtracting games and adding players makes zero sense. There was a time in the 80’s where there were 24 man rosters. The reason we are having roster issues in today’s game is because of starting pitchers are not getting the job done. 10 and 11 man pitching staffs were the norm less than 20 years ago. Pitchers are paid so much money, pitches thrown relate to $$$ instead of wins for the team thus the short pitch counts. I agree the season is too long and should be shortened but all the roster proposals I have read are just eyewash. 28 man roster and only 24 are active?? Depending on the league; four regular starting pitchers inactive, 10 or 11 pitchers in bullpen and 3 or 4 bench players for each game… problem NOT solved. Shorten the season and everyone will get the needed rest where roster expansion isn’t needed. The month of September is another issue completely.
These are all good, well reasoned points. But as others have said…..they come down to the CBA.
Almost every suggestion would be undoubtedly pro player.
The owners aren’t going to give back 4 home dates every year in exchange for what amounts to 1/7th of a playoff game.
If he had suggested moving the wild card round to a best of seven and expanding the playoffs even further-you might get somewhere……unfortunately this is pretty much a non starter financially on the owners side of things.
These are all well thought out responses. But increasing the roster to 28 will only feed the pitch count frenzy that has led to more trips to the DL (and yes, I understand that it’s also a function of agents and guaranteed contracts). With 28 players we’ll see the onset of pitchers getting changed with every batter; I remember when the big battle was between carrying a 10-man or 11-man staff. A 15 man staff? At some point, to quote Don Drysdale (may he rest in peace), the front office suits have to realize that you build it up; you don’t wear it out.
And yes, abandoning pitch-count religion will probably shorten careers; I admit that. But like NFL running backs, 4 years making 5 million ain’t bad.
Dropping the regular season to 154 makes sense, as does expanding the first round of playoffs; how about a 3-game series between the wild card entrants; that one-game thing is from hunger.. That should balance the books (with expanding the Division series).
My biggest hope of the new CBA is that it establishes an International Draft. The current system is unreasonably punitive to low market teams, while really not providing a real deterrent to the big boys
Alternatively the series length should be considered. Instead of standard 3 and 4 game series, I would like to see 4 and 5 game series. It would prevent a lot of unfair “missing the ace” series that happens frequently throughout the year and it should help reduce travel days. To do this you would have to restructure the schedule a bit.
18×4 = 72 division games (9 home, 9 road)
8×10 = 80 out of division games (4 home, 4 road)
1×10 = 10 interleague games versus (5 home, 5 road) based on record (World Series rematch, and then by playoff finishers, then record).
I think this is a well thought out piece. However like most people on here I don’t think MLB will go back to 154 game season.
Creating a 28 man rotate can serve and facilitate and sustain a team for a 162 game season. To help matters MLB should bring back DoubleHeader nights.
Further to this article I believe the present postseason structure is flawed. I maintain that 5 teams from each league should make the postseason however; there is no real reward for CHC or TEX for being the best team in the league.
There should be a new structure in which the best team in the league has automatic slot in the Pennant 7 game series. While the other 4 teams battle in 3 game series; winners of each advance and play a 5 game series to figure out who will compete with the best team in the league. This way it’s fairer to the best team in the league and also the wild card teams, they would get more than a singular game. As the point of the postseason is that the best team built for the postseason should win it all; not have a singular on off game and be knocked out.
I don’t think rigging the playoffs for the best team is anything close to fair. Not when you’ll often have the best team with 99 wins and the wildcard team with 98 wins.
CHC had 103; and SF and NYM had 87
It’s not rigging; it’s rewarding the best team with the best record the best opportunity to win.
And I seriously doubt that the best team in the league will end up with 99 wins with the WC team ending up with 98 wins “OFTEN”. Your logic is also flawed
Are you High? Just last year the “best” team had 100 wins (St Louis), the 2 Wildcard teams? Pittsburgh at 98 wins and Chicago with 97. Very often there is little separation between the team with best record and the Wild Card team.
My logic is flawed if I got on a rocket and flew to Planet Your-Ideas-Suck but here on Earth W/C teams are almost always right behind division leaders and quite frequently W/C’s are way better than other division champs.
Your Postseason suggestion will never happen, also, even if you reward the “best” team in this way, how many weeks off will that be? not playing competitive games for extended periods of time matter.
In my suggestion of the postseason structure the Wildcard series would be 3 straight games at the divisional winners. 3 games done in 3 days, running parallel. Although another way to save time would be to have a doubleheader on day 2; so if game 3 is required it would be an evening game. So that’s 2 days for 3 games.
Then Day 4 of Postseason would start the 5 games series between the winners. So the time lag for the best team in the league playing a competitive game would be at best one week.
And this postseason the Cubs showed the best attitude in working in drills and exercises and freshening their thoughts on how to play the 5 game series against the Giants. This week would allow the best team in the league to be well rested and well prepared. Yes counter argument states they won’t have competitive game experience for a week, but I think managers would take the opportunity for a well rested team to attack the opposition in the 7 game series in the Pennant and then the World Series.
Maybe we could skip the playoffs altogether and just say the team with the best record is the champion. Then instead of playoffs they could go on a barnstorming tour
I’d be up for shortening the season, if we expand the October playoffs. Come on, the one game Wild Card ‘playoff” is a joke. I don’t see how MLB sales it with a straight face. Yes, the games have been exciting, but it is not in-keeping with MLB’s tenants. And, I am not a big supporter of the 5 game first round playoff. The season, as long as it is, is predicated on a 5 man rotation and is all about endurance and steady play of months. But, MLB changes the dynamics once the playoffs start. Because of a one game playoff or all the TV days off, a team with two good starters can win the whole thing. If your team has an okay #1, but a strong #3, 4, and 5 starters you can easily win a playoff spot, winning roughly 60% of your games. But, if you get into a playoff when someone has a Clayton Kershaw your toast. When the playoffs allow a starting pitcher to pitch game one, three and then come in relief in game five that is not the same parameters as the regular season. Some playoffs the regular #3, 4, or 5 starters never even pitch.
A 28 man roster could work, but only if you have a 25 man active roster and you are required to name the 25 prior to each series. That would prevent teams from dumping a bunch of starters off the 25 prior to each game and adding a bunch of relievers. It also adds some bench depth for day-to-day players and limits the use of taxi squads.
For the purpose of service time you only acquire time if on the 25 man active roster.
So by shaving 4.9% off the schedule, players will give up 4.9% of their already bloated salaries? David Price is going to be willing to leave $ 1,519,000 on the table. Yeah, okay.
If the season is shorter, then the player salaries will come down. That will pay for the extra bench players. But if you make the season shorter, than slit of single-season records will be near impossible, if they aren’t already near impossible.
Move the regular season to 154 games then while they’re at it do something with that 1 and done wildcard game. That’s a complete joke
All good suggestions. Also, can we make the strike zone called by the computer? Way too many times are these umps influencing the count and ultimately the game. Get it right, MLB. Either that or don’t put the strike zone on the TV for us to see how terrible the umps are. How is that helping your sport?
Also, why are they still calling signs with fingers? Why are players able to steal signs? Get a Bluetooth headset for the pitcher already. Grow up MLB!
All DH or none. Make a sport that is easy to understand for new watchers. Us old guys are dying soon
Oh and the all-star game / home field advantage thing better be gone too or I’m switching to soccer
Computer? Never. Would kill the sport.
Bluetooth? You cannot be serious.
There’s no down side to having the All-Star game decide home field advantage. Which makes almost zero difference anyways.
Game 5 of the NLDS between the Dodgers and Nationals put the “DH in the NL” argument to bed for at least a decade.
For sure that was a manager’s game and a great argument against the DH.
Hoping all the above was satire. Wouldn’t miss that strike zone box though.
Ya, what’s wrong with having guys from the braves, twins, and Padres dictating home field advantage in the World Series.
Hey now, Crappy Teams Matter!
The comment at the beginning of this article that taking PEDs was “simply a necessity” to get through a 162 game is pitiful. Players today, for the most part, seem to be getting through it without resorting to PEDs. This revisionist excuse making for PED abuse completely undermines Ryan Spilborgh’s opinion about anything else.
Shorten the season, no. Increase the roster to 28 – 30 with 25 active each day, I am good with that. Of course the starting pitchers will be the inactive ones and the number of relief pitchers available to the manager will increase. Instead of X number of relief pitchers you will have X + 2 or X + 3, And yes they will be used, MLB will then push harder for a rule change to limit the number of relief pitchers used in an inning (outside of an injury of course), Still I like the expanded roster and use of a daily active roster,. Then limit or remove the September expansion. Oh, and no more addational playoff games. I like having a baseball season and football season. I do not want baseball to become a year round sport.
I’ll start thinking about expanded playoffs when we expand to 32 teams in the next ten years or so. Until then I’d only go for it with a shortened season. Reggie was Mr. October, Jeter was Mr. November… we don’t need a Mr. December.
I enjoyed the article, but I don’t agree with it. I don’t think having players sit out dilutes the product. I personally enjoy watching bench players and rookies get starts. With 162 games, there are plenty of chances to watch our favorite players play.
I don’t think roster expansion is realistic. The owners won’t go for it, and even if they did, it would just mean more pitching changes, which is ruining the live viewing experience.
If they want to “shorten” the season, they should add a bunch of double-headers on Saturdays, and expand the rosters to 40 on those days. Then mandate that during the four game series (Friday-Sunday), a player can only start 3 times.
I also think MLB should serious consider limiting teams to only have 5 pitchers per 9 innings (unless there’s an injury.)
Lastly, if baseball wants to help the players, they should limit regular games to 10 or 11 innings. If there’s still a tie at that point, the tie breaker could be most hits, total bases, fewest errors, etc. Extra innings games are brutal to watch, and they tend to exhaust rosters. I’ve never heard this suggested, but considering how quickly stadiums empty during extra innings, I know I’m not alone.