How one potential rule could change MLB starting pitching forever

GOING INTO THE 2023 season, Major League Baseball implemented the most extreme set of rule changes in the history of the game. The league instituted a pitch clock, eliminated the shift, enlarged the bases and placed a limit on pickoff throws. The changes have been significant leading to shorter games and more action on the basepaths. While fans are still getting used to those headline-making adjustments, the league is already identifying its next set of goals aimed at improving the product on the field.

The commissioner’s office wants starting pitchers to spend more time on the mound — pitching deeper into games — and less time in the operating room undergoing surgery on their arms. Baseball also wants more balance in a sport that has revolved around strikeouts in recent seasons.

“We are interested in increasing the amount of action in the game, restoring the prominence of the starting pitcher and reducing the prevalence of pitching injuries,” an MLB official told ESPN. “There are a whole host of options in addressing those issues.”

The league has discussed a limit to the size of pitching staffs and the double-hook DH, according to sources familiar with the discussion. There is some belief around the game, however, that one idea could be a panacea: requiring starting pitchers to go at least six innings every time they take the mound.

ESPN spoke to executives and players around the league about what such a change would mean for the future of baseball.

Would it lead to more scoring and fewer injuries? Would pitchers have to pitch differently to survive? And how would executives make adjustments in their own organizations leading up to such a drastic change?

---

THE PRIMARY GOAL of a minimum-innings rule would be to immediately restore the prestige of the starting pitcher. Fans would be able to tune in to a game knowing that he would be on the mound for the majority of it.

“I do that anyway,” Kansas City Royals starter Seth Lugo said with a smirk. “We all want to go at least six.”

But in reality, starting pitchers are increasingly unlikely to reach that goal. In 2014, starting pitchers averaged just under six innings per start (5.97), according to ESPN Stats & Information. This season, that figure stands at 5.25 and is down to 4.3 in Triple-A.

MLB acknowledges that adding such a rule would not be as simple as forcing every starter to pitch at least six innings every time out — exceptions would have to be included.

The objective is to prioritize starting pitching, not to leave a struggling starter in to reach the innings threshold while his ERA skyrockets or at the risk of injury. So the league’s conversations have included carve-outs, instances when pitchers would not have to pitch the required six innings. Some instances when a starter would be allowed to leave early might include:

• He throws 100 pitches

• He gives up four or more earned runs

• He gets injured (with a required injured list stint to avoid manipulation)

Outside of those exceptions, pitchers would have a mandate to make it through at least six innings. That would force teams to rethink their pitching staffs to meet the new standards.

“You would start to think about a repertoire that would get you through the lineup three times,” Chicago Cubs pitching coach Tommy Hottovy said. “You would want to develop that ability between now and when they implement the rule.”

In the same way that the pitch clock was tested throughout the minors before being brought to the majors, a six-inning requirement for starters would take years of advance notice before arriving in MLB. The process for teams would also need to begin at the lower levels, in finding out which pitchers have what it takes to succeed in the new role of a starter and by pushing younger pitchers harder before they arrive in the majors.

“I think we would look to build up pitch counts a bit sooner than we currently do in the minor leagues,” Los Angeles Dodgers GM Brandon Gomes said.

The league believes a trickle-down impact on the amateur world would also take place — especially if teams begin to prioritize command and efficiency.

“The broader question of simply developing pitchers to pitch deeper in games is one that we talk about all the time within the industry, and it’s something that probably doesn’t get fixed if we attempt to address it only at the professional levels,” an NL assistant general manager said. “I think teams would approach their top prospects the same but maybe invest a bit more in the middle draft rounds to guys they think can command the ball with upside.”

---

PROPONENTS OF A six-inning mandate hope the biggest impact would take place behind the scenes. The belief is that pitchers would have to stop relying so heavily on max velocity and would set up their training around navigating longer starts, rather than overpowering stuff. And, in theory, starters pacing themselves to pitch deeper into games could help curtail the alarming rate of major arm injuries suffered by pitchers — and also give hitters a better chance at the plate.

“You would have to push command over stuff,” Arizona Diamondbacks GM Mike Hazen said. “Pushing [pitching to] contact would be the biggest thing to prepare guys to throw six innings on a consistent basis.

“There would have to be some pullback on velocity, though that’s a tough thing, because that’s where you get outs.”

To make up for no longer being able to rely on max velocity to overwhelm hitters, the hope is that pitchers would then focus on the finer points of the craft to outmaneuver batters.

“It’s different pitch mixes, different attack plans, different looks,” Chicago Cubs GM Carter Hawkins said. “It might weed out the guy that isn’t as efficient.”

While executives were more than willing to dive into a hypothetical of how this rule would play out, they aren’t sure if pitchers can “go backward” from the current state of pitching, as one assistant GM put it.

“The genie is out of the bottle when it comes to max velocity. I’m not sure it can go back in, no matter the rules.”

Some execs mentioned specific smaller changes they would be interested in exploring before something so drastic. Hazen pointed to a five-batter minimum for relievers that could organically force managers to leave starters in the game longer, as well as give more recovery time to relievers who might pitch longer in each game but not as often.

If the league did go forward with an inning minimum, one possibility would be pairing it with incentive for teams. Would habits change if teams were given an extra draft pick (or more) if their starting staff totaled 900 innings or more, while requiring starters to go six innings each time out?

“Incentivization is great in theory,” said one assistant GM. “But in reality, managers aren’t going to be making in-game decisions based on his team gaining an extra draft pick six months later. But if the rules force us there, that’s another story.”

At a minimum, the rule would keep managers from deciding to pull a starter who is going well just because analytics say it’s time. Also, openers would be eliminated from the game.

The league isn’t yet at the experimental stage for these ideas, but conversations have begun. As we learned with the implementation of the last set of rules, MLB is willing to take seismic action when the league believes it is for the betterment of the game. The goal is to see a star pitcher on the mound for as long as possible as frequently as possible — and a six-inning minimum is a potential path to making it a reality.

“It’s interesting,” Hazen said. “The pitch count being at around 100 pitches has been there for about 20 years. From an efficiency standpoint, it’s just a lot harder to pitch deep now. We would need to find a different way to train them. The carve-outs are the largest variable, but this sport always adjusts. We would have to.”