- Let the batters self-pitch (and increase the number of fielders)
- Increase the number of outs per inning to four
- Add more teams
- Add another base
- Let the fans in attendance vote on close plays
- Bury land mines in the basepaths
I honestly don't remember what moved me to write the article. I framed it as a reaction to the American League adopting the DH rule, but that rule had already been in place for more than a decade. Maybe it was because my friend was putting together a baseball-themed insert, and need articles. Whatever.
My mind drifted back to this article when I saw this in Sports Illustrated today. MLB is considering a rules change that's pretty much on par with the ones I suggested. They want extra innings to start with a runner on second base. The theory -- and I'm sure they're right -- is that scoring in extra innings would become more likely and games would become shorter.
As an aside, I note that I saw a comment on Facebook from someone arguing that it won;t shorten games. The argument there was that each team gets that extra run, so nothing is accomplished. The argument is flawed because the extra run isn't assured. This rules change introduces an extra source of variance, which would surely lower the average number of innings needed to determine a winner.
This would be the most significant rule change in well over a century, and it would be terrible. They may as well just settle tie games with a home run derby.
If I hadn't heard of the proposal, and you added it to your list and asked me which one is actually being considered, I would not have guessed right.
ReplyDeleteHowever, your changes were intended to make the game more exciting. The new rule would make the game less exciting by reducing extra inning play, which are some of the most exciting parts of baseball.
Did someone in MLB management say, "Hey, baseball isn't stupid enough. I can fix that."?
Interesting thought experiment. Suppose we take the six idea above and add the runner on second base at the start of extra innings, then consider how likely each is. Of course, we're putting aside the fact that we know they're considering the runner-on-second thing.
DeleteI think they could go into three broad categories:
Category 1, or reasonably likely includes "add more teams." MLB has added more teams since the article was published, and I would assume they're always considering adding new teams.
Category 2, or very unlikely, contains self-pitching, increasing the number of outs and the runner-on-second thing. All of these would be an affront to the game, and fundamentally change it. Especially the self-pitching, which would remove one of the sport's most essential mind games. All of these become more likely if used just for extra innings.
Category 3, or Not on your life includes fan voting, landmines and an extra base. The extra base is the most likely of the three, but too many stadiums have been built around the idea of a square infield. Moving to a pentagon shpe would require too much retro-fitting. Fan voting would simply be irreconcilable with the impartiality that umpires should have. And landmines might present a safety issue.