FanPost

FanPost Friday Response: Baseball Rules Proposals

Hello, Cubs fans!

This is a response to the FanPost Friday call to "write your own baseball rules".

In a previous FanPost at BleedCubbieClue, I had proposed alternatives to the DH issue. I'm not against DH's but I also feel starting pitchers should have the right to hit if they wish to and like the idea of strategy and double switches (being a Cubs and Phillies fan gives me an NL mentality). So I proposed a "DH" compromise:

DH Compromise:

Either

a) Teams can have a DH but the pitcher is added to the lineup as a 10th batter.

b) Teams can have a DH but they can't DH for the pitcher, it must be for a different defensive player. If every team starts DH'ing for their catcher or some other position, then we'll ban DH'ing for that position.

Other changes I would make:

Hit Batters/Beanballs:

I remember a BCB article that hit batters/beanballs have gone up recently. Pitchers intentionally throwing at hitters isn't good for the game. One more reason to have pitchers hitting is pitchers may think twice about hitting batters if they have to bat themselves. MLB has for a while allowed umpires to throw pitchers (and their manager) out of a game for intentionally throwing at batters. On the other hand, I feel this is too much of a penalty, especially if the hit batter was not intentional.

The problem is there really is no way to truly measure whether a pitcher meant to hit the batter or not. Sure, there are some cases where it's obvious but other times it isn't. Also, there are times where the umpire gives a warning to both teams after a hit batter and any hit batter, intentional or not, is an automatic ejection, which is clearly unfair. So there needs to be some middle ground between just giving the batter first base and throwing the pitcher/manager out of the game.

So my proposals:

a) If a pitcher hits a batter, the batter gets second base. It's a two base penalty instead of one. If there is one base runner, that base runner goes to third (or stays on third if he's already there). If there are two runners on base, the lead runner scores and the trailing runner goes to third. If the bases are loaded, two runs score and the runner on first goes to third. The penalty is more severe so pitchers will think twice before they hit someone intentionally but if it is by accident they aren't just thrown out (a pitcher can still get tossed if it is blatantly obvious).

b) If a pitcher hits a batter, the batter gets first but every runner on base advances one base (equivalent of a balk). So if you hit a batter when there is a runner on third, you just gave up a run. This in most cases is less of a penalty if you feel the first penalty was too severe although in some cases it would be more severe and if there are no batters on base this penalty is no worse than the current penalty where as in the first case the batter always gets to second.

Player Ejections:

Speaking of players getting ejections, in baseball players in my opinion get ejected/thrown out of games too easily. In addition to being thrown out for hitting a batter after a warning to both clubs, they can be thrown out without warning for arguing with an umpire. This doesn't happen in other sports. In basketball, you are given a technical foul first and you normally need to get two technical fouls to get ejected. In soccer, it's a yellow card and two yellow cards equals a red card. When's the last time you remember a football player being ejected for arguing with a referee? Why do baseball umpires get to throw out baseball players more easily for the same offenses than other sports? We pay to see Kris Bryant and Anthony Rizzo, not for umpires to throw them out of games. I'm not saying players should be able to verbally abuse umpires without penalty but umpires shouldn't just get to throw players out without warning either. It doesn't happen in other sports, it shouldn't happen in baseball.

So for a player or manager to be thrown out for arguing with an umpire, they must be given a clear visual warning first. If a player has been warned, they then can be thrown out of the game for arguing with an umpire (second offense). Now in basketball there is an in game penalty (free throw) when this happens in addition to the technical foul. So when a player commits this offense (first or second), if the offense happens when the team is batting they are charged an out (if that out would be the team's third out, the inning is over). If the offense happens when the team is in the field or after the team batting has made their third out, the team batting or that is about to bat gets an extra out. Now you can say this affects the actual game but having the player thrown out of the game usually does more. I mean, if Javier Baez gets into an argument with an umpire, would you rather lose Baez for the entire game or lose an out? I'll take the out.

Extra Inning Games:

Now these marathon games that go way more than 9 innings, although very infrequent, can cause problems for teams. Here are some ideas that could help.

They should have the ability to have players re-enter games if games go extra innings. I don't know if you want to go full free substitution or limited substitution (one re-entry per player, two re-entries if it goes 18 innings, three if it goes 27, etc). But this would prevent teams running out of players if games do go too long.

One idea that can shorten the length of games is to make it that beginning of the 10th inning the home team bats first in every inning and it's sudden death, first to score wins. I don't know how much this would shorten games but it eliminates the case where the visiting team scores and the home team scores the same in an inning and the game continues.

Also, after a certain point in the game (13th, 14th, 15th? inning), the players are too exhausted and/or you wind up with bench warmers playing (maybe even position players pitching). Also, if it's a night game, the game can go well past midnight and most fans have left. You can easily point to last year's World Series Game 3 which went 18 innings and 7 hours, 20 minutes (luckily it was in Los Angeles and started early there). The Red Sox and Dodgers combined to use 46 out of a possible 50 players. Clayton Kershaw was forced to pinch hit. At some point, you have to say enough is enough. Why have the game determined by tired or bench players?

So after maybe 14 innings (that number can be adjusted), the game becomes a suspended game. If the two teams are playing each other the next day, they will complete the suspended game following that game. If the two teams aren't playing the next day, but have a series remaining at the same location, it will be completed following the first game the two teams next play. If the two teams aren't playing the next day, don't have a series remaining at the same location, but have a series remaining at the other location, it will be completed following the first game the two teams next play. Now if the two teams play a marathon in the last game they play that season, they will have to "reschedule a makeup". Yes, that will be a headache and a nightmare. But if the teams have gotten to that point, it's already a headache and a nightmare. Maybe the teams could keep playing if it is a getaway game but suspend the game if it isn't. But if you can prevent teams playing at 1am or having to use position players as pitchers some of the time, why not?

So those are some of the rule change ideas I would have to fix some of the problems I see in baseball.

FanPosts are written by readers of Bleed Cubbie Blue, and as such do not reflect the views of SB Nation or Vox Media, nor is the content endorsed by SB Nation, Vox Media or Al Yellon, managing editor of Bleed Cubbie Blue or reviewed prior to posting.