Post Your Suggested Rule Changes

[YourHouseIsMyHouse]

So, as a runner, once the pitcher has thrown over 3 times, I can get as big a lead as I want, right?

The pitcher can still step off the mound.

[gil4]

I'll admit, the added strategy of an NL game is interesting, but I'm not paying to see players who are either going to bunt or strike out on 3 pitches every time.

 

Bill James had some interesting analysis of the "more strategy" claim. While there were more bunts and more pinch-hitters used in the NL, the variation in numbers between the teams was far greater. This is paraphrase of his conclusion, since I don't have the book in front of me: "If there is strategy in the act of bunting or in the act of using a pinch-hitter, then there is more strategy in the NL. If the strategy is in the decision whether or not to bunt or use a pinch-hitter, then there is far more strategy in the AL." His point is that most of the moves in the NL are automatic, leaving very little flexibility for actual strategic decisions.

 

I'd rather see guys who are paid to hit in the batter's box.

 

Like Drew Butera? (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

[DaveW]

The pitcher can still step off the mound.

And? The runner won't have to be worried about him throwing over at that point. I understand its annoying when a guy throws over a bunch, but it really is pretty rare.

If you are trying to say they need to say they need to do it to speed up the game I could somewhat understand, but in the same post you said they need to expand instant replay which ends up slowing up the game significantly more then the 3 throw over rule.

[YourHouseIsMyHouse]

And? The runner won't have to be worried about him throwing over at that point. I understand its annoying when a guy throws over a bunch, but it really is pretty rare.

If you are trying to say they need to say they need to do it to speed up the game I could somewhat understand, but in the same post you said they need to expand instant replay which ends up slowing up the game significantly more then the 3 throw over rule.

I'd rather have time going into getting a call right that could change the game than having to watch a pitcher and runner play games with each other. You say that it's really rare which is a pretty invalid point. If it never happens anyway, what is the harm of having that rule? It's just a formality to prevent the 9 time occurrences that DO happen. Seriously, no one likes when it happens. Even fans in attendance start booing after around the 3rd time. Stepping off the mound is completely different than trying to fake out a runner with a windup and a pickoff. It's much less time consuming and the pitcher can still throw over if the runner refuses to budge.

[powrwrap]

And? The runner won't have to be worried about him throwing over at that point.

Once the pitcher steps off the rubber he is considered an infielder holding onto the ball. He could throw over without being charged with a throw over. Or he could run at the runner and then throw.

[boballison]

The DH as we have known it for 40 years needs a makeover. An earlier poster referenced Bill James' analysis of baseball purists wanting to keep the "strategies" in the game, but aptly pointing out how it mostly preserves predictable and boring non-strategy. How about reconsidering the DH in terms of adding strategies instead of adding offense as was the case in '73?

 

Get rid of the "professional DH" by reconsidering the DH as a "designated pinch hitter" for the pitcher's batting slot only, but adding 2 components:

 

1) Once the DPH hits for the pitcher, he (the DPH) is no longer eligible unless he goes into the game at a position and the new pitcher is slotted into the batting position of the player who is being replaced by the DPH - nothing more than the double switch that purists love.

 

2) Reserve to the judgement of the manager, whether a DPH is used every time the pitcher's slot comes around.

 

The result is that the game situation would drive and dictate the strategy of whether to use a player off the bench - thus losing him for the rest of the game unless it is a double switch - so the manager may elect to allow the pitcher to bat with 2-out and the bases empty to preserve his bench's potential for a more critical spot or he could bring in a real hitter with 2-out and the bases juiced in the 6th inning of a 1-1 tie without losing his pitcher. The manager, and by extension, the fans are constantly evaluating each at bat situation for the pitcher - use a hitter and lose him most of the time or stick with the pitcher who could also bunt men over efficiently rather than burning the bench for a low priority situational strategy. Another example would be pitcher leading off in a close game - later innings, but the pitcher is still effective; bring in a DPH who is a swift, OBP type guy to get an inning started BUT keep your pitcher or bring in a big thumper DPH to get someone in scoring position BUT keep the pitcher.

 

The strategy scenarios would multiply, not decrease - and from a purist standpoint it would not create one-dimensional DH's getting 500 at bats, but more use of benches which would need more multi-dimensional players, while valuing pitchers who had enough skill to bunt rather than watching them strike out.

 

Just my thoughts

[lecroy24fan]

I have two rules I'd like to propose:

 

1) Ban the Wave. It is pathetic , but even worse when it is a 1-0 game that I'm trying to watch and can't see because people are standing up when every pitch happens. Or the person starting the wave is incessantly screaming in my ear.

 

2) Ban wedding proposals. The first time was pretty good, but it happens at every game now.

[Curt]

1. Improve umpiring accuracy and consistency (and call "high" strikes)

2. Eliminate instant replay

3. Reduce time between innings

4. Eliminate pre-recorded music played over PA

5. Batter must receive permission from umpire to step out of batters box after non-batted ball

6. Eliminate DH

7. 99 cent hot dogs all the time!

 

Not necessarily in that order.

[Snortwood]

-Expanding the major league roster to 26.

 

How about this - in an effort to shorten the season, so as not to have to schedule games in November which, global climate change and all that aside, is probably not the best plan for most places north of St.Louis at that time of year based on our weather experiences to-date - increase the roster to 26 but only from Mother's Day thru the last weekend before the All-Star Game, AND schedule a split doubleheader every Saturday during that stretch. That would shorten the season by one week. Teams could carry an extra pitcher without damaging their bench. During that stretch all players on the roster get double-time credit for major league service.

 

Point being - if MLB wants more playoffs, and they don't want to have games amidst swirling snow, do something to get the season moving along. And since you pretty much can't schedule double-headers without an agreement with the player's union, give them something back - more playoff $$s, of course, and more playing time service during that stretch that will shorten the time players have to be in the majors to be arbitration eligible (Super 2s?) and shorter routes to pension-eligibility.

[DAM DC Twins Fans]

WOW--lots of good ideas. Being a traditionalist--the first thought I had is not there. That is BAN INTERLEAGUE games. I know thats a problem since next year, there will be interleague every day. But you have two teams fighting for a division title playing different schedules--say Tigers and Twins. Add 2 teams--go back to 4 divisions of 8 teams and the 4 division winners make the playoffs. Every division team plays the same number of games against the teams in the other division of the league. So both Twins and Tigers play the Red Sox and Yanks the same number of games. NO WILD CARDS.

 

Speed up games by enforcing the 25 second pitching rule and reducing the ad time for bullpen calls (I would like to see the time between half innings go back to ONE MINUTE but I know that will never happen with TV).

 

Allow trading of draft picks--why not be like other sports.

[Curt]

... BAN INTERLEAGUE games...

Wow. I can't believe I didn't remember that one.

 

8. BAN INTERLEAGUE games

9. No Carew Blue allowed

[Mike Sixel]

Can someone explain why I'd not want to watch Strasburg pitch live and in person? How is it more entertaining not to watch interleague games? I really, really, don't get that one at all.

 

Oh yea, all uniforms have to have names on them....why would you have a sport where if you are a casual fan, you have no idea who is in the game? It really does not help the game at all not have names, but it certainly doesn't help the game. I get it is tradition, but really, how would it negatively impact anyone to have names on shirts?

[Mike Sixel]

Why do teams need to play the same schedule? The "team" they play at any given time is not the same team. They don't face the same lineups, they don't face the same pitchers, there are likely to be injuries altering the whole roster.....the fairness issue is not really an issue, not across 162 games. If it is all about fairness, you should be proposing eliminating playoffs, as they are AWFUL at determining the "best" teams.

[Curt]

Can someone explain why I'd not want to watch Strasburg pitch live and in person?

Go ahead and want it. Nobody is suggesting a rule against it.