sanchez-usatsi.png
USATSI

Welcome to Snyder's Soapbox! Here, I pontificate about matters related to Major League Baseball on a weekly basis. Some of the topics will be pressing matters, some might seem insignificant in the grand scheme of things, and most will be somewhere in between. The good thing about this website is that it's free, and you are allowed to click away. If you stay, you'll get smarter, though. That's a money-back guarantee. Let's get to it.

Phillies starting pitcher Cristopher Sánchez left the dugout Saturday night and headed to the mound for the ninth inning to a rousing ovation in Citizens Bank Park. Watching at home, even though I'm not a Phillies fan, I was pretty pleased. Just one outing after having allowed seven runs on 12 hits in 4 2/3 innings, Sánchez was going for the complete game. It wasn't a no-hitter or even a shutout -- he had allowed a solo homer earlier -- but it was a starting pitcher going out to finish the job on his own. He did finish it, becoming just the third pitcher this season to throw multiple complete games. He's tied for the MLB lead with two. 

Because I can't stay out of my own way -- hey, I've never suggested I'm immune to my own Soapbox-like criticism -- I went to glance at the social media reaction. I shouldn't have, but I couldn't help it, because I knew some nonsense would be out there. After all, a report broke just two days earlier that Major League Baseball was toying with requiring starting pitchers to finish six innings every start (with a bevy of exceptions). 

Sure enough, I saw what I expected to see. There were some people proclaiming this is a good illustration at why the proposed six-inning minimum for starting pitchers is such a good idea. 

Huh? 

How? 

The sentiment behind the thought was fine. Many baseball fans want the starting pitcher to return to being a main character and things like complete games, shutouts and no-hitters are really fun. Even seeing pitchers get the chance at these things is exciting theater and all too often in recent years we've seen pitchers pulled instead. I'm all for pitchers getting the chance to finish these things. 

But the six-inning minimum would have zero impact on complete games and it's lunacy to suggest otherwise. There isn't a minimum in place and Sánchez still threw a complete game. If anything, this was proof that we don't need a minimum, right? See, we don't need a minimum because this dude just threw a complete game! 

Setting a minimum on innings will absolutely not increase the number of starts that go past the sixth. It would only increase the number of starts that last through the minimum. Once the minimum threshold is cleared, that's it. He's out of there. The pitchers finishing seven innings, eight innings and even complete games are not doing so because they were forced to get through the sixth.

A minimum would also very likely increase the number of runs allowed in the fifth and sixth innings as tiring pitchers see the lineup for the third time in the game as their teams are forced to push them through the sixth. 

I, too, yearn for the days of the starting pitcher being a badass workhorse expected to finish at least seven innings and probably more. I miss complete games. It makes sense that we don't see pitchers completing 20 games a year anymore, knowing what we know about the third time through the order splits and how good so many relievers are. But can't we get a league leader in complete games around 7-8 with a handful of pitchers completing four, instead of a high-water mark of two (2)? 

This seems to be one aim of the proposed rule, only it doesn't address complete games at all, as some people insist it does. A minimum is going to do force bad starters to get beat up in the fifth and sixth innings. 

I guess that isn't so bad. More run scoring through the middle innings can be fun. There's also another positive impact here. A huge one, actually. 

Assuming the only exceptions are as reported -- injury (requiring a stint on the IL if the pitcher is removed early), at least 100 pitches or at least four earned runs allowed -- this seems to mean that we're done with two total eyesores: the opener and the bullpen game.

Praise be! 

One of my curmudgeony things here at the ripe old age of 45 is I absolutely loathe teams planning for a listed starting pitcher to only last one or two innings. It's one of those things where I don't really have much backing to the stance other than "it just feels wrong" (again: curmudgeon), but that's all I desire to have here. Openers are stupid! Bullpen games suck! 

The six-inning minimum wipes these out and that's a thing of beauty. 

The proposed rule is years away from implementation and we can't be sure it'll ever happen. When it does, it won't increase seven-inning outings and it definitely won't increase complete games. It will, however, put an end to openers and bullpen games. Even if I think it's a misguided tweak, simply eliminating the one-inning starts might be enough for me to call it a net positive. 

Ah, what the hell? Bring it on!