MLB's Opening Day has finally arrived, and the league is facing a number of issues as it heads into ’17. A plethora of young talent bodes well for the future, but concerns over pace-of-play continue to persist. THE DAILY caught up with four top MLB reporters -- Fox Sports' Ken Rosenthal, Yahoo Sports’ Jeff Passan, ESPN's Buster Olney and SI’s Tom Verducci -- to discuss. In Part 1, our roundtable addresses pace of play and Commissioner Rob Manfred’s tenure thus far. See tomorrow’s issue for part 2.
Q: Will any of the proposed pace-of-play rule changes really help the game?
Rosenthal: The 30-second limit on managers asking for reviews should help, as should the two-minute “guideline” for replay officials to render a decision. But data shows that replay is NOT the problem. The average length of review last season was the lowest in the three years the system has been in place. More significant changes are needed.
Passan: Sure, though with rule changes in MLB I've learned not to discount unintended consequences. I'm a fan of the pitch clock. I watch high school and college games, where pitchers don't futz around on the mound and batters know they need to stay inside the box, and there's a crispness to them that simply no longer exists in the major leagues. The clock parcels out harm equally. I firmly believe a 20-second clock not only would shave 10 minutes off every game, it would bring an urgency back to the action so sorely lacking. The strike zone is a different beast. On one hand, it grants pitchers a distinct advantage. At the same time, the offensive boom a smaller strike zone would seemingly herald would make games longer. And though MLB publicly argues this is a pace-of-game problem, not a time issue, executives at the highest levels have heard enough CEOs and sponsors allude to the length of the games themselves that the league cannot completely ignore the potential fallout.
Verducci: No. Fans will not notice an appreciable improvement in pace of action. These moves are too minor to make a major impact. And you will see relief pitching (game stoppages and reduction of balls in play) continue to grow this year. The only chance of improvement is if umpires really enforce the rule to keep batters in the box. They are empowered to call an automatic strike if the hitter dawdles. But experience tells me umpires do not want to play the heavy here. There will be no major change to improving pace of action until baseball adopts a pitch clock. The more pitchers and hitters dawdle, the more it is needed.
Olney: It's hard to know what has a real chance to be implemented and what doesn't. But generally speaking: If they can somehow get the players to agree to pick up the pace of action between pitches, that would make a big, big difference. And there are a lot of players who would love for that to happen.
Q: Grade Rob Manfred after two years as commissioner. Where does he need to improve?
Rosenthal: Solid B, maybe B-plus. I love the fact that he is so open-minded. He gets into trouble when he publicly states his willingness to entertain certain new ideas, and people jump all over him -- that’s the world we live in. But shoot, he got a labor deal done, and he is hellbent on improving the on-field product. We can debate the merits of his proposals, but he is on the right path.
Passan: I'd give him a B. I appreciate his open-mindedness on the game's evolution and his willingness to, at the very least, hear out novel ideas that may prove unpopular. His desire to create policy through data speaks to the logic with which he makes decisions. MLBAM has grown significantly under his stewardship. And almost everyone in the game agrees MLB came out of the new CBA in a position of great strength. Here is the question: Will that Basic Agreement be good for baseball, lowercase B? It's obvious that caps on international and amateur spending are good for MLB, as is the competitive-balance tax, which had an undoubted effect on the free agent market this offseason. Already, though, there is a burbling sense of discontent inside the union, and helping quell that through shrewd deal-making while implementing the changes he desires can take Manfred up a letter and into the conversation as one of the more effective commissioners ever. That won't be easy.
Verducci: Manfred gets a solid A, especially because with the last CBA he not only maintained labor peace but also scored a clear win over the union (hard cap on international signings, small increases in minimum pay and CBT thresholds that don't keep pace with growth, etc.). He threatened the union to unilaterally impose pace of action rules next year, an unprecedented show of power. He imposed the first disciplines under the joint domestic violence policy. One misstep: he went too easy on the Cardinals for the hacking scandal. The team lost no player from their system and no first round pick.
Olney: I'd give him a B+/A-. There clearly is a canyon between Rob and a lot of the players -- more specifically, what's behind his push for rules alterations and what the players perceive to be his motives. He's not entirely responsible for that, but I think it would behoove him to have semi-regular sessions team by team -- say, a couple per year, in addition to time spent around the batting cage when he's at a game. For years, he and Michael Weiner bridged that gap of perception through their mutual respect, which helped both sides -- management and the union. Under the current circumstances, it is important for Rob to develop a working rapport with the players.
