Manfred proposes a Golden At Bat

[MNBrew]

10 hours ago, patrickgpe said:

I admit it’s controversial. But everyone can admit it’s a better idea than a golden at bat 

There's nothing good about either.  It's like asking a parent to pick their favorite child, except at the opposite end of the spectrum.  They're both galatically stupid.  Rob Manfred's tenure cannot possibly end soon enough.  What an absolute idiot . . . yet again!

[JosephC]

So when we had the designated hitter argument, the biggest pro was "I want to see pitchers pitch, and hitters hit.  I do not want to see pitchers hit."  Of course, the same thing could be said for other positions.  Who wants to see defensive catchers hit?  Who wants to see defensive shortstops hit?  Almost every lineup has a player who is in there only because of his defensive ability.  Why not have a second designated hitter?

Baseball as a money-making venture (not the game itself!), by it's very nature, has a major problem in that it's star players are not active participants in a large percentage of the game.  If you are an NFL fan, and tune into a Chiefs game, you get to see Patrick Mahomes is on the field and an active participant roughly 50% of the time.  If you are an NBA fan, the star player is on the court 90% of the time.  Nobody pays their money to watch Aaron Judge play the outfield.  So if you watch a 3 hour baseball game, you only get to see Aaron Judge perform at the plate for roughly 7-8 minutes.

Over the last few years I've become convinced that it's only a matter of time until baseball resets the lineup and starts at the top of the batting order every half-inning.  People can think that it won't happen because pitchers and bottom of the order hitters will scream bloody murder.  Baseball historians will throw all their record books away (can you imagine Juan Soto's season statistics with 1400+ plate appearances?).  But if MLB, MLBPA and television think that, ultimately, there is more money to be made, then they will do this "for the good of the game."  (Even though it is not good for the game, just good for their pocketbooks)

I am older but still think I likely have 15-20 years left in me.  I expect to see this happen before I kick the bucket.  And when it happens, I'll be glad that I stopped watching many years earlier.

[endaround]

Manfred overseeing MLB playing in minor league stadiums playing by minor league rules.

[owbc]

1 hour ago, JosephC said:

So when we had the designated hitter argument, the biggest pro was "I want to see pitchers pitch, and hitters hit.  I do not want to see pitchers hit."  Of course, the same thing could be said for other positions.  Who wants to see defensive catchers hit?  Who wants to see defensive shortstops hit?  Almost every lineup has a player who is in there only because of his defensive ability.  Why not have a second designated hitter?

Baseball as a money-making venture (not the game itself!), by it's very nature, has a major problem in that it's star players are not active participants in a large percentage of the game.  If you are an NFL fan, and tune into a Chiefs game, you get to see Patrick Mahomes is on the field and an active participant roughly 50% of the time.  If you are an NBA fan, the star player is on the court 90% of the time.  Nobody pays their money to watch Aaron Judge play the outfield.  So if you watch a 3 hour baseball game, you only get to see Aaron Judge perform at the plate for roughly 7-8 minutes.

Over the last few years I've become convinced that it's only a matter of time until baseball resets the lineup and starts at the top of the batting order every half-inning.  People can think that it won't happen because pitchers and bottom of the order hitters will scream bloody murder.  Baseball historians will throw all their record books away (can you imagine Juan Soto's season statistics with 1400+ plate appearances?).  But if MLB, MLBPA and television think that, ultimately, there is more money to be made, then they will do this "for the good of the game."  (Even though it is not good for the game, just good for their pocketbooks)

I am older but still think I likely have 15-20 years left in me.  I expect to see this happen before I kick the bucket.  And when it happens, I'll be glad that I stopped watching many years earlier.

Overall I think baseball is more exciting than cricket, but cricket does have the advantage of letting you see the best batters hit for a longer period of time. 

Maybe you just let Aaron Judge keep batting until you get him out?

[AKCheesehead]

After some thought I've come up with some ideas for this.  Golden batter once per team per series, and same applies for the yang to its yin, the golden pitcher.  Both must be declared prior to the series start. The golden pitcher can operate outside of the restrictions of the minimum batter rule, and doesn't impact the pitcher he replaces nor his own eligibility for the rest of the game if he only faces the golden batter.  One caveat though, in order to use the golden batter or pitcher, he must have cut an 80's pro wrestling style promo on the other team's golden player, brother.

Aside from that, I like all of Underachiever's ideas.  Particularly the Designated Goon.  So many great potential candidates, including some sneaky under the radar low-cost ones for a cash strapped team like the Brewers. 

[dlk9s]

Just so we're clear, it's not a ghost runner. The runner physically exists.

[TURBO]

20 minutes ago, dlk9s said:

Just so we're clear, it's not a ghost runner. The runner physically exists.

This!

It always irritates me when the term ghost runner is used.  Have these people never been kids playing baseball?  Geez.

[StearnsFTW]

On 12/3/2024 at 11:13 AM, AKCheesehead said:

I HATE the ghost runner. 

Agreed, but it's not nearly as stupid as this idea.

[BlazingGunz]

They are jealous of Banana Ball and how successful that has been.   May as well incorporate the fan makes the catch its an out rule too while we are at it..smh

[mtsportsfan]

This is a absolute idiotic idea! Why don't get the strike zone figured out first! I mean there is tinkering around with things , but this like asking a five year old what he would like to change!  Wait , I have a idea! How about a salary cap and floor! 

[MNBrew]

On 12/3/2024 at 12:46 PM, Brock Beauchamp said:

I'm not anything close to a baseball "purist" and this idea is dodgy at best.

But even so, I'd like to see it in real life just to see how it plays out practically. Not in MLB, of course, but somewhere.

Either way, I applaud Manfred for actually trying to think creatively instead of boxing the sport into nostalgia and purity tests. Baseball should have been having these conversations decades ago; most will be crap and discarded (likely this one) but others were long overdue (the pitch clock).

Decades ago there was no need for a pitch clock.  I know that wasn't your focus, just an example you mentioned.

[Brock Beauchamp]

13 hours ago, MNBrew said:

Decades ago there was no need for a pitch clock.  I know that wasn't your focus, just an example you mentioned.

Games started getting longer around 2000, which (unfortunately) is two and a half decades ago.

But the pendulum on a lot of baseball's current problems started in the late 90s and continued to snowball for decades: longer games, less action, more reliance on homers, etc.

[Underachiever]

Two-platoon baseball. 

[Playing Catch]

Are we sure that this idea that baseball is a dying vestige of some bygone era correct? I mean there were twenty-six teams that averaged more than 20,000 in attendance last season. That's eighty-two events annually. Annual attendance in 2024 was just over 70,000,000 in MLB, 17th largest figure historically, and even on an average per game basis, far, far larger crowds than in any decade other than the 2000s and 2010s.

I'm not naive to the belief that baseball struggles on TV, but that's nearly true with everything these days.

Also, based on my career, I'm around tons of high school aged kids, and anecdotally, I'd say that while kids don't know much about baseball, they are very curious about it. They want to play it, pay attention to it. My impression is that it's kind of novel for them.

I get that owners and players want to expand the sport for money reasons, but they are going to have a hard time convincing me that it's in an adapt-or-die situation.

[owbc]

1 hour ago, Playing Catch said:

Are we sure that this idea that baseball is a dying vestige of some bygone era correct? I mean there were twenty-six teams that averaged more than 20,000 in attendance last season. That's eighty-two events annually. Annual attendance in 2024 was just over 70,000,000 in MLB, 17th largest figure historically, and even on an average per game basis, far, far larger crowds than in any decade other than the 2000s and 2010s.

I'm not naive to the belief that baseball struggles on TV, but that's nearly true with everything these days.

Also, based on my career, I'm around tons of high school aged kids, and anecdotally, I'd say that while kids don't know much about baseball, they are very curious about it. They want to play it, pay attention to it. My impression is that it's kind of novel for them.

I get that owners and players want to expand the sport for money reasons, but they are going to have a hard time convincing me that it's in an adapt-or-die situation.

I don't know what it's like in Milwaukee these days but in Seattle the weekend MLB games are absolutely overrun with families and children. I bet the demographic numbers would show that attendance is skewing younger while TV viewership is skewing older. 

Anyway...I think the underlying issue at hand here is that everyone knows that modern pitching is absolutely overwhelming the bottom quartile of batters, so pretty much every team is putting guys with .170 batting averages into the lineup. You often have the scenario where late in the game you have the 7-8-9 hitters coming up against a 102 mph fireballer and more often than not they get mowed down and can barely make contact. Ten years from now there will probably be 3x as many guys that can throw 102 mph and the middle infielders will still largely have the same physical build that is optimized for defensive run prevention. 

So, what do you do about it? The golden batter is just one of several dozen possible rule changes. There are plenty of softer ways to loosen the rules around pinch hitting that wouldn't be as extreme as a golden batter. 

[mtsportsfan]

3 hours ago, owbc said:

I don't know what it's like in Milwaukee these days but in Seattle the weekend MLB games are absolutely overrun with families and children. I bet the demographic numbers would show that attendance is skewing younger while TV viewership is skewing older. 

Anyway...I think the underlying issue at hand here is that everyone knows that modern pitching is absolutely overwhelming the bottom quartile of batters, so pretty much every team is putting guys with .170 batting averages into the lineup. You often have the scenario where late in the game you have the 7-8-9 hitters coming up against a 102 mph fireballer and more often than not they get mowed down and can barely make contact. Ten years from now there will probably be 3x as many guys that can throw 102 mph and the middle infielders will still largely have the same physical build that is optimized for defensive run prevention. 

So, what do you do about it? The golden batter is just one of several dozen possible rule changes. There are plenty of softer ways to loosen the rules around pinch hitting that wouldn't be as extreme as a golden batter. 

I'm all for lowering the mound or push it back a foot or so!

[TURBO]

1 hour ago, mtsportsfan said:

I'm all for lowering the mound or push it back a foot or so!

Lowering the mound would be fine if it makes sense, but lengthening the distance to home plate is a recipe for disaster with injuries  It's bad enough now already.

[duewizard]

9 minutes ago, TURBO said:

Lowering the mound would be fine if it makes sense, but lengthening the distance to home plate is a recipe for disaster with injuries  It's bad enough now already.

Agreed. Maybe changing the height of the mound from 10 inches to 7 could be interesting. 

[markedman5]

Much ado about nothing 

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/rob-manfred-addresses-golden-at-bat-rule-shoots-down-idea-of-using-it-in-mlb-games/

[mtsportsfan]

On 12/5/2024 at 6:28 PM, TURBO said:

Lowering the mound would be fine if it makes sense, but lengthening the distance to home plate is a recipe for disaster with injuries  It's bad enough now already.

Agreed ! But maybe pitchers will learn how to pitch instead of trying to throw everything 102 mph. 

[hawing]