The Double Hook

For the past few years, MLB has been using the Atlantic League as a sort-of petri dish to experiment with some potential new rules.  Among the rule changes that have been tried in the Atlantic League are automated umpires, limiting infield shifts and banning mound visits, as well as two that have made their way to the Majors: the between-inning clock and the three-batter rule for relievers.

Earlier this week, they announced the experimental rules they'll be using in the Atlantic League during the 2021 season--moving the mound back one foot (only in the second half of the season) and the "double-hook" designated hitter rule.  Personally, I'm not a fan of either one.

I'll start with the "double-hook."  The whole idea behind it is to incentivize teams to keep their starting pitchers in longer.  Under this rule, when a team takes out its starting pitcher, it will also lose the DH for the remainder of the game.  Once they go to the bullpen, they'll either have to use a pinch hitter or make the reliever hit every time the DH spot comes up for the remainder of the game.

So, in a way, it combines both the AL and NL styles of play into one.  At the start of the game, you'll have an AL-style lineup with the DH.  Then, once you get into the bullpen, it turns into a National League game with pinch hitters and double switches.  What it doesn't make clear is what happens when a starting pitcher has to be taken out because of injury or when a team uses an opener (although, in that case, I'd imagine it'd apply the same as it would later in the game).

In a way, I get what they're trying to do here.  The number of relievers teams carry and how frequently they go to the bullpen has gotten out of control!  Way too many teams decided to take advantage of the 26th man this season to add another arm to the bullpen, giving them NINE! relievers and, depending on which league they're in, either three or four bench players (one of which obviously has to be the backup catcher).  So the bench options are ridiculously limited, which is less of a problem in the AL with the DH.

There are a few reasons why I take issue with this rule.  The biggest is that you can't combine styles!  AL lineups are built with the DH in mind.  It's typically a power hitter in the middle of the lineup.  It's somebody you're very unlikely to pinch hit for over the course of a game.  Pitchers, meanwhile, bat ninth and are widely considered to be guaranteed outs who you pinch-hit for regularly later in the game.

Then there's the universal DH.  It's likely coming to the Majors full-time next season.  Once that happens, pitchers won't be batting in either league.  At all!  Knowing this, why would you even think about a rule that requires teams to drop their DH and put their pitcher in the lineup?  It doesn't make any sense!

Now, I'm sure teams will find creative ways around this.  They'll make pitching changes in innings when the DH is due up eighth or ninth.  They'll double-switch the DH into the field and have the pitcher hit for somebody else.  Or, if the DH is due up second, they'll do what some National League teams do (and I think is the point of this rule) and nurse the starter through that last inning, just so they don't lose the DH until after his next at-bat.

But the "double-hook" is also very limiting.  If teams need to keep guys available to pinch hit for the pitcher, they may not be able to pinch run or put in a defensive sub when they otherwise want to.  The whole point of the DH is to replace a weak hitting pitcher in the lineup with a much stronger hitter!  That's been the case ever since the DH rule came into existence in 1973.  Now all of a sudden, the DH and starting pitcher are being linked together as if they're one in the same!

At some levels, you can list the starting pitcher as both the pitcher and DH, allowing him to stay in the game if he's no longer pitching.  In the pros, of course, that's not even really worth considering.  These guys are paid way too much money for their arms.  It's simply not worth the risk to have them stand at the plate and risk potential injury.

That risk of injury is why I don't like the idea of moving the rubber back.  The rubber has been 60 feet, 6 inches from since 1893.  There's a reason that distance hasn't changed over the past 128 years.  In fact, the only major change to the mound that's ever been made was in 1969, when they reduced the height from 15 inches to 10.  Again, there's a reason for that.

When they lowered the mound, it was in response to the ridiculous pitching stats put up in 1968.  They felt they had to do something to help the hitters.  And it feels like that's exactly what they want to do here.  The research they cited noted that the average fastball velocity has risen from 91.6 mph to 93.3 mph over the past 10 years.  Their theory is that a hitter's reaction time to a 93.3 mph fastball from 61 feet, 6 inches is the same as it would be to a 91.6 mph fastball from 60 feet, 6 inches.

It's obvious to see what their goal here is.  They want fewer strikeouts and more balls put in play, and they think moving the rubber back is a way to achieve that.  The MLB release said that the change is "expected to be meaningful without being disruptive" (although I'd argue that it would be disruptive to pitchers) and that one foot "would be the minimum interval needed to evaluate a change in mound distance."

We're only talking about one foot here, which might not seem like that big a deal.  It is.  MLB's analysis indicated that there's no increased risk of injury throwing from 61'6 as opposed to 60'6, but I'm not sure I agree with that.  Yes, it's only a foot, but there's no doubt pitchers would put a little extra on their fastballs so that they didn't lose that extra 1.5 mph on the way to home plate.  Likewise, they'd have to adjust their arm angles to make sure their breaking balls still move the way they want them to over those extra 12 inches.

Whether or not it actually does make a difference in terms of velocity or spin rate or movement, there's no doubt it'll have a psychological impact on pitchers.  I'm also skeptical about the conclusion that it wouldn't lead to more injuries.  I simply can't see how that's true!  Pitchers get injured because of the repeated stress they put on their pitching arms.  Adding even a foot to the pitching distance puts that much extra stress on their arms!

Frankly, both of these experimental rules feel like change for the sake of change.  And fortunately, I don't either of them making their way to Major League Baseball anytime soon.  Although, I also said that about the dumb free runner in extra innings.