With pitchers and catchers set to report this week, we know baseball season is getting close! And this year we get the bonus appetizer of the World Baseball Classic! You also know baseball season is on the horizon because Commissioner Rob Manfred has once again popped up talking about the "problem" that is the length of games and his solutions for how to "fix" it.
Except, there's one flaw in Manfred's thinking. Baseball doesn't have a "problem." The fact that there isn't a clock (and never has been) is one of the things that makes the game so great. But because too many people think baseball is boring and takes too long, Manfred has made this whole "pace of play" initiative his primary mission. It started with the pitch clock two years ago, but with the average time of game slipping back over three hours last season, he's made some more dramatic suggestions for this season.
The first one I don't really have an issue with. The proposal calls for changing the size of the strike zone. According to the official definition of a "strike," is the bottom of the batter's knees. They'd like to raise it approximately two inches to the top of the knees. The reason is because the strikeout rate among Major League hitters has gone up every year for the last nine seasons. Umpires are increasingly calling the low pitch for a strike, which results in hitters swinging (and missing) at pitches out of the zone and striking out. By eliminating the low strike, you figure it'll lead to more contact or, at the very least, fewer borderline called strikes.
But that's the only proposal Manfred has brought to the Players' Union that I agree with. I'm vehemently opposed to his other suggestion--eliminating the intentional walk. There are a couple reasons why I think that's a bad idea. First of all, how much time are you really saving? There's maybe one intentional walk a game (if that), and it doesn't take very long for a pitcher to lob four pitches in the other batter's box. Meanwhile, a regular walk can take how long? Sometimes it's a couple minutes if it's a 3-2 count and multiple foul balls.
I also don't like the idea of eliminating the intentional walk because the intentional walk itself is not automatic. The pitcher still has to throw four pitches. There could be a wild pitch with a runner on third. You eliminate that possibility if you get rid of the intentional walk. You also eliminate the possibility of the pitcher leaving one a little too close to the plate and the batter getting a hit. I seem to remember Vladimir Guerrero hitting a home run while they were trying to intentionally walk him one time. And, frankly, other than the catcher remaining in his squat, how is pitching around a guy any different than an intentional walk? Yet, there are no calls to eliminate pitching around hitters.
Just when I thought his proposal about intentional walks was the stupidest thing Manfred could possibly suggest comes the announcement that they're going to use the international tiebreaker on an experimental basis in rookie ball this season. At some point in extra innings, each team will have a runner placed on second base at the start of each half-inning. The idea, obviously, is that the automatic leadoff runner will end up scoring, thus resulting in a quicker finish.
They'll be using the international tiebreaker during the WBC, just like they do in many of these tournaments (hence the name "international"). But, frankly, that's where it belongs. The very nature of tournaments like that require something like the international tiebreaker. The six-month grid of a Major League Baseball season is very different.
There isn't really anything wrong with the international tiebreaker. In fact, it can lead to some crazy finishes. One of the most memorable events from my trip to the 2015 Pan Am Games was the gold medal baseball game, when Canada won on a walk-off two-run throwing error that scored the winning run from first on a pickoff attempt after the USA intentionally walked the leadoff batter (there's that pesky intentional walk again). But, more often than not, the script is the same--sacrifice bunt, sacrifice fly, run scores. Does that actually add any excitement?
In that tournament setting, it makes sense. You need to keep the tournament on schedule, so you can't have a 15-inning game that takes five hours. It would also put those teams at an incredible disadvantage for the remainder of the tournament because of the toll it takes on their pitching staff (not to mention what it does to their position players). They can't call up more pitchers from the Minors the way Major League teams do every time there's a long extra-inning game, so a long extra-inning game in a tournament like that (where starting pitchers can really only pitch once and that's it) would effectively end their chances.
International tournaments is where it should stay, though. The tiebreaker rule doesn't belong in Major League Baseball. How many games became memorable simply because they wouldn't end? The 15-inning All-Star Game at Yankee Stadium. That 22- or 23-inning Padres-Rockies game last year or the year before. The Harvey Haddix perfect game loss. The longest game ever, that 33-inning Triple A game between the Pawtucket Red Sox and Rochester Red Wings that featured, among others, Cal Ripken Jr. and Wade Boggs.
Part of the fun of the long extra inning game is when it gets late and you start wondering who's left to pitch or, in the National League, pinch hit. Inevitably you see a starting pitcher pinch hit or middle infielder pitching. Joe Torre, in defense of the rule, has said trying to avoid seeing that scenario is one of the reasons why they put it in, but middle infielders often end up pitching in the eighth inning of blowouts, too. And if you don't want to see a utility infielder who hasn't pitched since high school step on the mound in the 14th inning, how about not using four different pitchers (to pitch to one batter each) in the seventh inning alone?
While we're on the topic, there are some things that they can do to speed up the game without fundamentally changing it. Like limiting the number of pitching conferences/changes a manager can make per inning or, even better, not letting the pitcher repeatedly throw to first however many times he wants before he even looks at the plate.
You can speed baseball up without changing it. Especially since it's a pace of play problem more than a time of play "problem." And my suggestions would at least eliminate things that actually bother people about the game of baseball. Seeing as I've never met a single individual who has a problem with the intentional walk or extra-inning games. But what do I know? I'm just a baseball fan.
No comments:
Post a Comment