Pros and cons of better-rested players

You probably heard that Commissioner Rob Manfred didn'€™t dismiss the notion of a 154-game schedule. Which is great. A slightly shorter schedule isn't an inherently terrible idea, and we should all appreciate a commissioner who keeps an open mind about non-terrible things.

As Dave Cameron points out, though, we'€™re highly unlikely to see a shorter schedule. Because, dollars. You know baseball teams aren'€™t giving back any money to the broadcast rights-holders. Ergo, you'€™re not shaving five percent off the regular season.

But if the goal is to give the players a break, there are other ways. Cameron:

Look, the traditionalists might be aghast at the thought of mandating days off for players, but it'€™s far from the end of the world. I was actually surprised to find that 35 guys played in at least 155 games last season. And 56 played in at least 150 (including Salvador Perez, which is a different sort of story). If you just give a player two games off per month, he'€™s almost certainly not going to play in 150 games (because of a minor injury, or paternity leave, whatever). And yet nearly 60 players last season were essentially given no time off at all.

Actually, it'€™s more than that. You have to figure many more players would have similar numbers if not for injuries.

And that'€™s the question, right? You want to see Andrew McCutchen and Mike Trout and Casey McGehee at their best; actually, you really just want to see them, at all. And the idea, I think, is that a) they'€™ll play slightly better with a bit more rest, and b) they'€™re less likely to get hurt with a bit more rest.

What I don'€™t know is if that idea is actually true. We'€™ve heard about THE GRIND ... but we'€™ve not seen much about its practical impact (there is this Russell Carleton piece from last year).

Let's grant the premise, though. Let's say everyone'€™s better off with McCutchen playing 140 games rather than 155. Well, you know, except for the little kid who shows up for his one game of the season and doesn'€™t get to see his hero. Let'€™s grant the premise.

If true, then why not let the teams figure this out? Let them push for 26-man rosters in the next Collective Bargaining Agreement, and then let them bench McCutchen and his cohorts every so often. Dave'€™s 30-man roster sounds perfectly fine in principle, and he'€™s perfectly aware of the potential pitfalls. I just think he might be underestimating the ability of smart teams to game the system, resulting in more specialization and more pitching changes and more roster manipulation than we'€™ve got now. And we'€™ve got plenty of those already, thank you.