Manfred does not think innings breaks or the mound-visit rule has been disruptive on the fieldGETTY IMAGES
MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred called the league's pace-of-play initiatives a "positive," as he does not believe they have been "disruptive on the field," according to a Q&A with Ken Rosenthal of THE ATHLETIC. Below are excerpts of the Q&A, some of which have been edited for brevity and clarity.
Q: How would you assess the way the pace-of-play initiatives are going?
Manfred: I’m positive about how they’ve gone for two reasons. No. 1, the threshold matter on any rule change is, “Has it been disruptive on the field?” I don’t think either the (changes in) innings breaks or the mound-visit rule has been disruptive on the field. People adjusted. And we reversed the trend (on time of game). We had been going up every year. We’re down right around three hours right now. I see that as a positive.
Q: Do you still believe a pitch clock is necessary?
Manfred: The clock probably would be a positive on pace of game. I am thinking about what our strategy should be for the next offseason. Some of the things we have seen this year suggest that maybe we should be thinking a little broader than just pace.
Q: Competitive balance is always a hot topic. Five teams are on pace to lose 100-games and a sixth is close to that pace. The record for a single season is four. How much does this concern you?
Manfred: We’ve had 12 different [World Series] winners in 17 years. Twenty-seven of 30 teams have made it to the playoffs over the last decade even though we have the most selective playoff system in professional sports. Our record on competitive balance is pretty good. Do I like teams losing 100 games? We’ve never liked teams losing 100 games. Obviously that’s not great for the fans in those markets. It does concern us. But frankly, the increase from four to five (100-loss teams) is hardly seismic.
Q: How do you view legalized sports gambling for baseball? Is it an opportunity? Is it a threat? Is it both?
Manfred: We were not out there saying, "Let’s have legalized sports betting." We watched the progress of the litigation that we brought (along with the three other major professional leagues and NCAA) to prevent sports betting and came to the realization there was an "L" out there. Once we came to the realization that there was a loss possible, we talked to people in other countries where sports betting had become legal. The advice we got consistently was, “If it’s coming, you need to protect yourself.” That answers the threat question. I do believe we will -- of necessity -- have to be more vigilant about monitoring integrity issues. That includes weighing in with regulators as to what kind of bets ought to happen, monitoring gambling activity (THEATHLETIC.com, 5/30).
