I love baseball. I enjoy the game and I especially enjoy the games within the game. Nuance is what makes baseball fun and it is my opinion that baseball produces the best highlights and highest drama.
With that said, baseball needs a facelift, or at least a shot of botox. There are some things about baseball that drive me insane. My biggest pet peeve about baseball is the adherence to tradition for tradition's sake. The justification of rules and procedures based on "that is what we have always done" is typically useless and annoying. Change doesn't need to affect the heart of the game or the essence of what makes it good. You can clean up your house without moving.
So, let's tap the needle and start injecting (sorry, bad analogy for baseball). Here are some suggestions that I have to inject a bit of life into the game (or at least stop its wrinkled, weathered face from falling further):
Rules:
1) Instant Replay - stop dinking around and add a damn challenge flag already. Run it similar to the NFL. Not on balls and strikes, but everything else is available. Safe/Out, Homer/Not, Catch/Not - all is up for grabs for 2x per game for each manager. Add a monitor near the backstop and communication capabilities to an upstairs booth.
Now, my wife was quick on the draw with the most talked about argument: We don't need to lengthen a baseball game further. I agree completely, and here are my fixes for that.
2) Time Limits Between Pitches - 20 second maximums from the time the pitcher receives the ball to beginning of delivery. The penalty is an automatic ball. I think this rule is for anyone who has had to stomach a full 4 and 1/2 hour game between the Yankees and Red Sox (on roughly about 75x per year) with each pitcher coming off the rubber to the rosin bag and standing there for 10 minutes before checking the runner at first and starting the process all over again. Just stop. Also, while we are at it, let's quit condoning these A.D.D. batting routines and keep the hitters in the box. Are batting glove bands so poor that they need to be retightened after every look at a pitch? I don't think so. Get in there and hit. Umps need to take control and not allow hitters out of the box unless something actually relevant happens. This alone should save us time enough to install instant replay.
3) Stop with the meetings - No more catcher talking to the pitcher. No more infield meetings at the mound. No more pitching coach talks followed by polite buttslaps. This is not AA or the Elks Lodge - it is a baseball game. What the hell is all the talking about anyway? Candlesticks do make a nice gift (Bull Durham reference) but I really think we are past needing to be reminded of it every game. Also, why do we allow the pitching coach out there at all? Starting pitchers pitch every 5 days. Why can't you discuss mechanics on off days? Why do I have to be there for the assistant coach to tell his pitcher to bend his legs a few more inches? You don't see the NFL special teams coach talking to the punter on the field do you? Also, most of these meetings are admitted time wasters to get the guy in the bullpen more time to warm up. How about some better planning instead of further time wasting? Then, after the time wasting meeting, what does the relief pitcher do when he arrives at the mound... HE WARMS UP AGAIN! Let's go already.
4) Arguments are a goner - This one is a little more of a bummer, but I think its time has come. I sometimes love seeing an overweight old man stuffed in a too tight uniform getting all red faced by berating an authority figure. It makes for good viewing. However, you know what makes for better viewing? The baseball game itself. Seriously, NFL, NBA, or hockey would never allow this crap. Can you imagine the blowback if Belichick races on the field, stops the game for 10 minutes, and berates an official for a call that we KNOW was never going to be reversed in the first place? Wouldn't Goodell make sure that Bill's kids couldn't go to college with the amount of fines he would levy? NBA coaches get fined for discussing referees constantly, and they are doing it in the locker room after the game. Technical fouls for yelling at officials during the game cost you points in the NBA. In baseball, you berate the hell out of an official, delay the game, get tossed, and there is no penalty outside of enjoying a beer while watching the game in the clubhouse tv. Seems a little strange.
The above rule changes would add speed and accuracy to the game without really changing the essence of the game. It is still played the same but tweaked in a way that makes it bearable to watch for the average American attention span.
Innovations:
Run and Gun or Wildcat Offense in the NFL. Small Ball or Showtime in the NBA. These are dramatic changes to offensive systems in the league that created havoc based on innovative ideas. If you look at a baseball game, Abner Doubleday and the boys would pretty much have suited up and played the game the same way that Pujols and Halladay are playing today. There is some solace in that from a historical perspective but it seems strange that we haven't seen someone come in and try SOMETHING different.
There have been small changes recently mostly based on the advanced statistical knowledge that has created moneyball type of innovation and changes to defensive shifts and scenario analysis. However, what I am talking about are radical changes to the way the game is played. Here are some radical thoughts that could get the wheels rolling:
1) Speed Demons: College Sprinters run about 20 miles per hour. That means they could get 90 feet in about 3.1 seconds. Couldn't we teach at least a few of them to grab a bat and tell them to choke up? Well placed bunts and half swings with that kind of speed could create pressure on infielders. Once on base, continued bunts / steals / hit and runs could create enough distractions to pitchers to create more of a mess for the opposing team. Even if you don't fill your team with these guys, wouldn't an emphasis on a few spots for this type of athlete combined with a different style of hitting add a flavor to the game that would make it more interesting to watch?
2) Pitching Rotations: Why is the 5 man rotation the way to go? Why not 7? Why not 3? Why not have everyone in the rotation? My innovation here would be based on the notion that hitters get more comfortable on the 2nd or 3rd at bats against the same pitcher. Why let that happen? In my rotation, everyone starts and everyone should be prepared to pitch every 3 days for 3-5 innings. Starters are currently very highly paid to pitch every 5 days for 100+ pitches at a time. During their off days, they are working on their game and throwing bullpen sessions. Why not eliminate the bullpen session, allow them to affect more games by pitching more often, but don't allow them to pitch as many pitches or innings as a normal starting rotation. Situational substitutions occur throughout the game, not just when the starter comes out. You can still get your top guys more innings than your lesser talents by timing the appearances and the situations in which they pitch. Closers are out. If you want someone quality to finish a game, why can they only throw one inning? Change the thinking from MLB rotations to NBA rotations - some are crunch time guys, some are scrubs that only come in during blowouts. The upside is that everyone is available - if you need an out and haven't used Verlander in a few days, bring him out there. If you are down by 12 and just need to eat innings, bring anyone from the 2012 Twins rotation in.
Maybe I can understand why the innovations don't occur at the MLB level. The game is played a very similar way all the way up the minors to the majors, so tinkering at that point might be a little late (though for low budget teams, it might be worth it to play a little differently). Though, if you think about it, NBA and NFL players learn new systems and plays all the time, why not the MLB? Also, it would appear the ability to innovate at the lower levels, especially where defense is a little more suspect, would be totally plausible. At minimum, it would be a fun experiment, and who knows, you might be the guy that changes the game. Wouldn't it be worth it just to piss Bud Selig and all the other tradition over innovation types off?
JB3
No comments:
Post a Comment