Super Reliever "phenomenon"

It's really hard to believe they tried to fix the supposed super reliever and used so little common sense.

Because of a few whiners, we have less control over our bullpens than ever.

They went from allowing relievers to appear in 12 different roles to two different roles? And no one sees a problem with that??? How many relievers in real life can only appear in two different situations?

What they should have done is forced us to carry a minimum of 14 pitchers and maybe limited pitchers to four or five roles.

Again they went from 12 roles to 2 roles. And people/ someone actually thought this was a good idea???

It makes me angry how little common sense was used.

I actually heard a manager suggest leaving ALL ROLES BLANK FOR BEST RESULTS.

And oh by the way, R1s can still pitch 170+ innings, you just don't control any of it ANYMORE. GREAT JOB GUYS.

I want to know who thought giving up ALL CONTROL of the pen was worth it to not even stop super relievers?

Also who thought going from 12 roles to 2 roles was a good compromise?

Also if a modicum of bullpen realism is the goal, WHICH MLB team made it through a 162 game season with less than 14 pitchers over the last two decades?

And which MLB RP only pitched in two roles for an entire season?

And who thought going from 12 to 2 was a good compromise instead of say 12 to 4 or 5?

Is it really that hard for them to use just a little common sense?

I don't want 14 pitchers on my roster, but understand your frustaration about them limiting the roles.

It was not a good idea.

Chip

Agree......l
They could have increased the salary of those RPs considered Super relievers
Consequently I plan to avoid those leagues.