Cleveland Indians: Expanded rosters would benefit the game

Deeper rosters would make for a more entertaining experience–and a good plan for the Cleveland Indians and their injury issues–allowing managers the ability to make more moves than they do now.

One way to identify yourself as old these days is to say you can remember when pitchers used to hit in the American League. That would be me. Those were also the days of four-man rotations, but even pitching on three days’ rest and getting lifted for pinch hitters late in the game, the Orioles in 1970 had sixty complete games.  Last year the Indians were the first team in four years to reach double figures.

More complete games meant fewer relievers.  Most teams carried a ten man staff, although some were still trying to get by with nine, and if an emergency starter was needed he came from the bullpen, not from the minors. So do the math. A ten man pitching staff and no DH with a 25 man roster means seven guys on the bench.  Today, the pitching staff is twelve men, maybe thirteen so with a DH that means the bench is at most four guys.  One of those guys is a backup catcher, who stays locked in a glass case because if you substitute your catcher and the second one gets hurt you have to use someone who doesn’t know what he is doing. So in reality, you go into a game with three guys available for substitution.

Except that you really don’t even have that. If you have three subs, that means either one infielder and two outfielders or one outfielder and two infielders. Even if you have two infielders, chances are only one of them can play shortstop, so you won’t use that guy in the middle of the game for the same reason you won’t use your backup catcher. The same goes for your backup center fielder.

So the average manager only has one or two moves he can make in the midst of a game. Chances are he won’t even make those moves, for the same reason that the last beer in the fridge never gets drank.  Now, it may seem like there’s already too much strategy in the game, but that all centers around the bullpen, and by about the third week of April those moves start to lose their mystique.

Is there a solution? Well, yes.  There’s nothing particularly sacred about the 25 man roster, unless you just don’t like change, in which case the wild card and interleague play probably pushed you over the edge a decade ago anyway.  If you believe, as I do, that baseball would be more interesting with a little more strategy during a game, then the obvious solution is to expand the rosters to 26 or 27 men.

The first objection to this would come from the owners, who would rant about the purity of the game but in reality just don’t want to add another million dollars or so to their payroll costs.  Seriously, though, in a world where Ian Kennedy can get fourteen million a year, should any concerns about payroll costs have any credibility?  Besides, with all the recent sports science about how rest improves the quality of play and reduces injuries, owners may find that an expanded roster means fewer guys on the DL, which may save them money in the long run.

With a bigger roster you would have your fifth outfielder on the big league roster, not stashed in Triple-A and getting bounced back and forth every few weeks.  Does anyone think that is the optimal scenario for a young player’s development?  We would also see less of the scam where one pitcher conveniently gets a sore arm on the exact day when another pitcher is ready to come off the DL.   In general, any rule that results in less dishonesty is a good thing.

The 25 man roster came into being in 1914.  At that point most teams had three or four relievers, who actually started a lot of games because there were so many doubleheaders.  That means there were as many as eight extra offensive players on a team.  For perspective, the NFL formed six years after that and imposed the first roster limit in 1925, with sixteen men to a team.  When unlimited substitutions were allowed in 1950, the roster was increased to 33 men, then to forty in 1964.  Now the NFL allows teams to dress 45 players and keep eight more stashed on a practice squad, giving them flexibility to replace injured players with guys who have at least seen the playbook.

That extra five guys gives NFL teams the flexibility to use five wide receivers on one play and three tight ends on the next, or four linebackers on one play and six defensive backs on the next, which makes every play a chess match all its own.  If the NFL had stuck to a roster of 33 or 40 men because it was stuck in tradition, we would still have every team line up for every play with two wide receivers, a tight end, and a fullback on offense and four linemen, three linebackers and four defensive backs on defense.  Does that seem like an improvement?

Next: McAllister with 14 starts? Hmmm..

That extra five guys gives NFL teams the flexibility to use five wide receivers on one play and three tight ends on the next, or four linebackers on one play and six defensive backs on the next, which makes every play a chess match all its own.  If the NFL had stuck to a roster of 33 or 40 men because it was stuck in tradition, we would still have every team line up for every play with two wide receivers, a tight end, and a fullback on offense and four linemen, three linebackers and four defensive backs on defense.  Does that seem like an improvement?

That extra five guys gives NFL teams the flexibility to use five wide receivers on one play and three tight ends on the next, or four linebackers on one play and six defensive backs on the next, which makes every play a chess match all its own.  If the NFL had stuck to a roster of 33 or 40 men because it was stuck in tradition, we would still have every team line up for every play with two wide receivers, a tight end, and a fullback on offense and four linemen, three linebackers and four defensive backs on defense.  Does that seem like an improvement?

Now, baseball won’t ever be that crazy because of the substitution rules, and nobody would want it to be, but one or two extra guys on the roster would enable managers to use their imagination a little bit, and it would give those with the most imagination a leg up on everyone else.  That seems like a good thing to me.