• Featured |
  • Burton DeWitt
  • Vin Diec
  • Trevor Freeman
  • Diane M. Grassi
  • Gabe Kahn
  • Ryan McGowan
  • Kris Pollina
  • Matt Waters
  • Ray Yocke
  • -----------
  • Write for SC
  • Get Featured
  • Nominate
• blog |
• Journals

• NFL
• NBA
• MLB
• NHL
• College
• Other

• forums + |
  • Chat Room
  • Message Boards
  • Philly Message Boards
  • Photo Pool
• Submit |
• Help

Is It Time For Baseball Rule-Changing?

By YanksWS96, Section MLB
Posted on Fri Aug 25 2006 at 9:33 PM EST
More on: (all tags)

by Matt Wells

There are some rules in the current game of baseball that are etched in stone.  For every homerun hit, you travel around four bases.  Four balls equals a walk, three strikes equals an out, and three outs means that the other team must come up to bat.  There are nine innings in a regular game that is not shortened by rain or lengthened by extra innings.

Other baseball rules, though not necessarily permanent, have helped shaped the game to what it is today.  A five-inning game is an official one in tomorrow's boxscores.  A batter can run to first on a swinging third strike if there was a wild pitch or passed ball on that third strike (remember A.J. Pierzynski in last year's playoffs?).

Here are some rules (or changes to stats) that should at least be looked at, if not changed, in the coming years in the game of baseball:

A closer must pitch at least one inning to record a save

Does this made-up scenario make sense?  To start the bottom of the ninth inning, the Giants lead the Marlins 5-1.  With two outs in the inning, Miguel Cabrera hits a three-run homer to cut the score to 5-4.  Giants closer Armando Benitez enters the game, throws one pitch, gets Mike Jacobs to ground out, and he gets the save.

That's right.  One pitch.  One out.  One more save to add to one's stats.  This rule needs to be changed.  Should closers be allowed to enter the game in a scenario much like the one above?  Absolutely.  Should they be rewarded by recording a save?  Absolutely not.  It should be 1/3 of an inning added to one's stats...that's it.

Boston's Jonathan Papelbon and New York's Mariano Rivera appear to be the only two closers in the game today who are capable of throwing more than one inning of relief in order to record a save (perhaps that is why Papelbon has, in a way, burnt out of late...too many innings?).

Does this mean that Rivera, Trevor Hoffman, Hall-of-Famer Lee Smith, and other superior closers should have their stats re-examined to get rid of saves that did not last at least one inning?  Of course not.  I just think it's time to stop rewarding closers for picking up a save for retiring one batter.

In order to record a win, a starter must pitch at least 6 innings

Yes, I know...five innings constitutes an official game.  Five innings marks the halfway point of the contest.  However, a starting pitcher that throws 65 pitches in five innings before being lifted for a pinch hitter is in line to get a win?  Where's the exertion?

I've heard it a thousand times from those used to the way the game used to be played: "In my day, a pitcher pitched a whole game, whether it was nine innings or fifteen innings.  The only way they came out of that game was if their arm had detached itself from the body."  We all know that, nowadays, it's very difficult for a pitcher to go more than nine innings, though there have been some pitchers in the past few years to pitch ten innings in a game (St. Louis's Chris Carpenter and Toronto's Roy Halladay come to mind).

In today's game of baseball, a "quality start" is a game in which the starter pitches six or more innings and allows three or fewer earned runs.  Here's my rule change: a quality start should be seven or more innings and a win should be at least six.

Pitchers are getting rewarded for pitching 1/2 of a game.  When was the last time you got rewarded for doing 1/2 of your homework?  When was the last time you got a raise at work for doing 1/2 of your work?  Exactly.

Do away with the designated hitter...altogether

There might be a reason why the American League continuously scores more runs and why pitchers may have more success in the National League than in the American League (see mbarone's story for more on that. ).  It's called the designated hitter.

The DH could be one of the reasons why the American League has won every All-Star game since 1997, with the exclusion of that dreadful tie in Milwaukee.  It could also be behind the 8-0 record of American League teams in the last two World Series (won by the Red Sox and White Sox, respectively).  Yes, I know that both the All-Star Game and the World Series have games played in National League Parks, but the American League holds a distinct advantage when the All-Star Game or the World Series is played in an American League Park.

The point is this: you're paying big league pitchers good money to essentially throw a ball hard in an attempt to get the other team's hitters out...that's it.  American League pitchers already have to bat in National League parks when interleague play is upon us every summer.  They don't complain about it; they know it's a part of playing in a National League park.  Have you heard pitchers new to the National League complain about hitting?  I didn't think so.

The American League is spoiled, simply put.  Obviously, the offensive numbers would be dumbed down with the pitcher batting ninth in the order.  Former NL managers, such as Jim Leyland, Buck Showalter, and Terry Francona would know what to do.  The squeeze bunt and the sacrifice would become commonplace in the National League.  Wouldn't you like to see more strategy and just a little less power?

I know what the next question is: what about the career DH's?  Edgar Martinez's career probably wouldn't have been as proficient; however, couldn't he have just played third base or first base, which he did for a combined 591 games over his career?  David Ortiz?  He can play first base.  So can Jason Giambi.  If you have more than one first baseman like the White Sox, perhaps a trade would be in order.

This is a call for more strategy.  Let the pitcher hit in the AL.  Maybe it will balance out the playing field (no pun intended).

Copy off of football: go for the instant replay

In football, each team gets three challenges that can be used over the course of the game in order to try to reverse a call on the field that went against them.  It's time baseball used that premise to "second guess" umpires.

Here's a new rule: each manager (or team) gets one "challenge" in a nine-inning game.  The challenge may not be used on calls regarding balls and strikes.  However, plays where homerun balls that appear to be foul and plays where players are called out when they clearly beat the throw may be challenged.  If the game were to go into extra innings, each team would get another challenge for the remainder of the game (think of NFL overtime).

If a challenge is upheld (the play stands), you lose nothing.  No, they won't take a run away or something stupid like that.  The only negative is that your challenge is gone.  However, you keep that challenge if the play is reversed.  It could determine the ballgame.

Real-life example: April 3, 2006.  It's opening day at Shea Stadium for the new-look Mets as they host the Washington Nationals.  With the Mets up 3-2 in the top of the 8th, Alfonso Soriano, who started on first base, is waved home by the third base coach on a hit by Ryan Zimmerman.  Soriano slides into home and is called out, even though Met catcher Paul LoDuca clearly dropped the ball.  The Nationals go on to lose by a run.

If challenges are allowed, the Nationals, if they saw what happened, could have challenged the play (under my new rule, of course), had the call reversed after the umpires looked at TV replays, the Nationals would have tied the game, and perhaps they would have won the game.  No instant replay = no win.

Every sport has instant replay.  Football has it (as mentioned above).  Basketball has it regarding last-second buzzer beaters.  Hockey has it when determining whether the puck crossed the goal line.  Now, it's baseball's turn.

Establish a limit for the time taken by a batter in between pitches

You've seen it happen.  You're at a baseball game in the middle of July; the temperature is nearing 100 degrees.  The batter steps in, swings and misses, and backs out of the batter's box.  He then looks around, glances at the third base coach, looks in the dugout, taps dirt out of his spikes, looks at the third base coach again, and steps back into the batter's box.  That's a good 30 seconds or so right there.

Now, imagine this.  A time limit is established in baseball where a batter can take no longer than 10 seconds to get ready for a pitch.  That's shaving 20 seconds off in between each pitch.  Let's figure an average of three pitches per batter...or 60 seconds (1 min.) saved per batter.  Multiply 1 minute by, say, 60 batters in a game (for example's sake), and you get 60 minutes (1 hr.) shaved off of the regular time of a game.  Suddenly, a 3-hour game becomes a 2-hour game.

Aren't you sick of Yankees/Red Sox games taking nearly 5 hours to complete?  At least this new rule would hurry things up, if only a little bit.

-----------------------------------------------------------

To some of you, these rule changes might not make any sense.  Things might be fine the way they are; there's nothing wrong with the status quo.  However, in five years, if you are getting bored of the same old game of baseball, remember these rule changes, for you may be seeing them if the game is in need of a little tune-up.