Let the Manager do his job. If the guy ain’t got it by the third inning, out he goes. I’m somewhat of a baseball Geek (for 60 years). Watching a starting pitcher was never a priority for me. I wanted my team to win and I wanted the manager to make that happen.

The next thing ya know they’ll be forcing the designated hitter on the NL. OH. Already happened? I never could figure out why pitchers (supposedly) couldn’t hit. As a Philly fan I was very happy to have Steve Carlton up to bat.

I'd rather see capable hitters at the plate. Carlton was an exception.

But I agree with you on the minimum 6 innings proposal. It isn't well thought-out.

Who has more time for batting practice than pitchers? OTH, the DH puts both Harper and Schwarber in the lineup. That works for me.

*except Shohei Ohtani.

would be firmly against this concept.

Also would hurt teams with several injuries to their starting rotation pitchers.

I think the innovation of using “openers” who might only pitch an inning or two, or one time through the lineup, is a good one. Gives managers who are short on strong starters a way to make their teams more competitive. It’s up to opposing managers to come up with ways to counter that tactic.

Baseball shouldn’t be imposing a rule that a starter has to get shelled before his manager can replace him.

It’s kind of ridiculous now. I get that the quantitative analytics suggest they do things the way they do, so the only way to bring back hall of fame level starting pitchers would be some constraints on what the analytics suggest. Constraints means rules. I’m open minded. The carve outs seem like reasonable starting point.

Rather than require a pitcher go 6 innings, just make it so that he can't get the win unless he goes 6 innings.

That said, Mighty Manfred has already fucked with baseball enough. What could possibly go wrong with forcing a pitcher to go six innings? He may have to throw 200 pitches, and be down by 25-30 runs. The fans will looooovvve it, and so will the sacrificial victim’s surgeon.

Another example of the laptop brigade trying to fix what they f***ed up in the first place.

If it were up to me I would ban all electronic communications including instant replay. Let boys play ball and let the managers manage!

They did that 131 years ago. I don't think the laptop brigade had anything to do with that.
In those days, a laptop was the blanket you wore on your legs to keep warm on a horse drawn carriage

I don't see how increasing the distance to home plate would have a positive effect on the injury rate.

The over emphasis on velocity, especially with young kids, will still be in place.
Emphasis on spin rate won't change.
Pitch clock will remain or even be shorter.

Baseball rewards velocity and spin. Statcast, a tool of the "laptop brigade", measures these parameters among many others.
Increasing distances, base size, wider base paths, goosing the baseball, etc., are just tinkering around the edges.

I understand it is impossible to put the genie back in the bottle. I am admittedly nostalgic for the times when managers had more autonomy. Instead of classic Earl Weaver we get instant replay.

Look, we agree that too much emphasis is placed on velocity and spin. I don't think Greg Maddux would get a sniff today, because 91 was about his top speed. Guy could throw a golf ball into a soup can and he wouldn't have gotten past college baseball.
That has to have something to do with all this elbow damage, especially given hardly anyone putches 9 innings anymore.
But, moving the mound back had nothing to do with analytics. It was done in the 1890s. Nobody was using advanced metrics then.
It was actually done for the fairness to batters, because guys were hitting 85/86 by then and from the old distance that was like 93 to 95 today. The game became a groundout or bunt single game because nobody could catch up to a pitch that short a distance. The game got boring & people stopped attending.
Interestingly though, I found this about the experiments in the minors with pushing the mound back (which I didn't know was happening).

"no meaningful differences in measures of rotational motion or acceleration for pitchers throwing from distances as far as 63 feet, 8 inches"

I find the same sort of verbiage in the 3 studies I have been able to access. A few definitions are in order.

"Velocity is the change in position (location) of an object per unit time."
"Acceleration is the change in velocity of an object per unit time."

When we say, "He throws a 95mph fastball!", we are referring to the velocity as measured by Statcast. Statcast measures velocity the moment the ball leaves the pitcher's hand. Assuming the same mechanics, this wouldn't change if the pitcher was in center field.

F = ma Newton's 2nd law states force is proportional to what is required for an object of constant mass to change its velocity. Rearranging gives a = F/m. The F is initially the force applied by the pitcher's throwing motion. After the ball(m) leaves his hand that force(F) is no longer applied. Now the ball is acted upon by the forces of gravity and the resistance of the space through which the ball travels. More distance means more time the ball is acted on by the negative forces of gravity and resistance.
Again, measuring the moment the ball leaves the pitcher's hand there would be no difference in a = F/m from 60' 6" or from center field.

Forcing a pitcher to go 6 innings, even with the exceptions, is stupid.
The pitch clock is a boon to the game.

they might as well fold up the tent and end the silly game completely!

"Restore the prestige of the starting pitcher?" Bullshit. Manfred wants more scoring.

"Nanny State" isn't the right word, but you get the idea. And the meddling is making it easier for large market teams to dominate.

Common sense for one, common hatred for the other.

I’ll admit I think the pitch clock and throw over rules turned out to be good this year.

Both plusses!