But that's nothing compared to the 2020-specific rules that will definitely require some getting used to. Some of these changes, obviously, were implemented as part of MLB's safety protocol. For others, though, this might be the test run on their way to becoming permanent. Depending on the rule, that could either be a good thing or a bad thing.
Universal DH: Sorry National League purists, but this one's been on its way for a while. (And, frankly, with very few exceptions, no one wants to watch pitchers hit!) It had been mentioned in any return-to-play scenario, so it seemed like a certainty regardless of how long the season ended up being. The real question is whether this is a one-year thing or if the 2019 season marked the last time pitchers regularly hit for themselves (which would make Anibal Sanchez the answer to the trivia question).
If I had to guess, I'd say it only lasts for this year, but with an asterisk. National League owners have always thought that they have the advantage in interleague games and will want to go back to "NL ball" in 2021 (as will a good number of NL fans). However, that might be its swan song. With the CBA set to expire after next season, I can see the universal DH being implemented permanently when the new one takes effect.
Which, frankly, is long overdue. NL purists, you're just gonna have to suck it up. And, after this season, when come to realize the DH is NOT the root of all evil, you'll probably sit there wondering what took so long.
Extra Innings: I sure hope this one is limited to 2020. I'm not opposed to the international/college tiebreaker rule in general. I just never thought I'd see it in an MLB game! Because that's the absolute LAST place where it belongs!
The thought process behind it wasn't terrible. They did it to make sure there aren't any of those crazy long games that we all love. Again, it's all in the name of health and safety. If the season wasn't starting three months late and in the middle of a pandemic, this never would've even crossed anybody's minds. But, even though it's being done with player health and safety in mind, I still wish it hadn't.
My biggest problem is that they'll be putting a runner on second base as soon as the game goes into extra innings. I'd be a little more OK if they started it, say, in the 12th. Let them play the 10th and 11th like normal, then go to the tiebreaker rule after that. Then it would serve its purpose of making the games shorter while not having as much of an impact. Because how many extra-inning games are decided in the 10th anyway? Give them an inning or two to determine a winner instead of immediately going to the tiebreaker.
Three-Batter Minimum: This is the only one of this year's new rules introduced in Spring Training that actually made it to the start of the season. I loved it then, and I love it now. The parade of relievers had become interminable! Something had to be done about it! This rule change certainly has its critics. And there's definitely some doubt about how much it'll actually help make games shorter. But teams were already preparing for it to take effect this season, so it made sense to keep the new rule in place.
Position Players Pitching: Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't also keep the new rule limiting position players pitching. Especially because it's another health and safety thing. Pitchers won't be hitting because of the increased injury risk in the short season. But position players are just as susceptible to injury when they're asked to pitch. Maybe the thought process was that there will be fewer long extra-inning games with the tiebreaker rule, so teams will be less likely to run out of pitchers. That doesn't change the fact that the new rule is a good one, though.
Expanded Rosters: Everyone agreed that this was going to be a necessity, so no problem at all. I like it how they'll gradually reduce the roster from 30 to 28 to 26 as the season goes on, too. Although, they won't have the 13-pitcher maximum that was supposed to be put in place this season, which I think is a mistake. At the beginning, I can see teams carrying 16 or even 17 pitchers on the 30-man rosters. Which is exactly what the problem with the 40-man September rosters was!
A three-man taxi squad on road trips makes a lot of sense, too. I'd imagine most teams will carry a third catcher, an extra reliever and a utility guy on their taxi squad. With no Minor League seasons, teams won't have guys available to just call up from Triple A whenever they need a player. And the last thing you want is a replacement having to fly commercial and meet the team on the road. So, allowing teams to three extra guys so they already have a replacement with them in case it's needed was very smart.
Regional Schedules: There was really no other option than making the schedules regionally-based. There's only 60 games, so you can't play everybody. And having teams flying all over the country doesn't sound like the smartest idea, either. With that being said, though, the schedule could end up having a big impact on who makes the postseason. Because, like in the NFL, strength of schedule suddenly becomes a consideration.
With the Easts playing each other, that means the Yankees and Rays will get 13 games against the Orioles and Marlins. But that'll be balanced out by the remaining interleague games being against the loaded NL East. And the NL East teams will play a majority of their games against each other, the Yankees, and the Rays.
You won't be able to say the division winners didn't earn it, though. That's what happens when they play each other and nobody else. Except everyone's competing for the same wild cards, which will give some teams an inherent advantage over others if they play in a weaker division. Likewise, strength of schedule might come into play for home field advantage in each league (which might take only 35-36 wins).
Postseason: Of course, if the players had just agreed to one of the owners' proposals, they would've gotten expanded playoffs for this season and next season (and likely beyond that), so there would've been five wild cards at stake instead of just two. Now, I'm vehemently opposed to the idea of expanded playoffs, so, in a sense, I'm relieved it's not happening. That seems like a lost opportunity for the players, though. And in a crazy season like this, it might've been beneficial. Because the best team may not be among the top five after 60 games, but they'll almost certainly be among the top eight.
No comments:
Post a Comment