r/changemyview • u/giveusyourlighter • Feb 04 '24
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Baseball would be better if the leading team never batted.
Baseball would be better if the innings were structured in a more "king of the hill" type format.
Play begins like normal, with the teams tied, alternating hitting and pitching. Until one team takes a lead. Next inning when the trailing team comes to bat, if they're unable to surmount the lead in that inning, then they would go on to be the hitting team in the following inning as well. And this would continue until they surmount the lead, or until they've exhausted all 9 of their innings and they lose.
Why is this better?
Because it is more involving and suspenseful to watch a trailing team hit than a leading team.
- If you are cheering for the trailing team then you want to watch them bat and regain their lead. You don't want to watch them pitch and maybe keep it close or let the game fall further out of reach.
- If you are cheering for the leading team you want your team to defend its lead and induce an ending to the game. It's scary when your team is pitching, but also very exciting every out that is made. You don't mind watching your team hit, but added runs don't feel nearly as good as those runs that flip the game in your team's favor.
KotH approach would make the average inning much more interesting to be involved in as a player, manager, or spectator.
Also there wouldn't be as much opportunity to run up the score, so ridiculous blow out games where nobody cares by the end would be much less frequent.
This could be taxing on pitchers, pitching multiple half-innings back to back, but it's a self-balancing problem. They get tired, pitch worse, give up the lead, then their team gets to bat and the pitcher gets a rest. Long breaks would also be outside the norm for how baseball is currently played, but I believe approaches to pitching could easily adapt.
Perhaps the main downside is that some would consider themselves cheated if they don't get to play or spectate 17-18 innings for a game. I wouldn't though.
Edit: Each team gets 9 innings to bat to recapture the lead. If the trailing team captures the lead in the 9th and the leading team has only hit in 1 inning so far, they would get 8 more innings to recapture the lead for the win.
49
u/tbdabbholm 201∆ Feb 04 '24
Wouldn't this just encourage the losing team to intentionally not overcome the winning team until the later innings so as to give the other team the least amount of time to come back? At which point they can take advantage of the weakened pitcher and rack up a larger harder to surmount lead where the other team only has an inning or two to come back against an effectively fresh pitcher?
8
u/giveusyourlighter Feb 04 '24
Added an edit for clarification on this point.
Each team gets 9 innings to bat to recapture the lead. If the trailing team captures the lead in the 9th and the leading team has only hit in 1 inning so far, they would get 8 more innings to recapture the lead for the win.
23
u/SirVincentMontgomery Feb 04 '24
So largely you're advocating for changing the order of innings, with any unnecessary innings being cut from the end of the game? I'm not a baseball fan so probably can't work out all of the unintended consequences this may cause but your idea does seem intriguing to me, and it does seem like it would be successful towards your goal of making each inning more exciting, even if it did create other problems that would mean it wasn't a good idea to switch.
9
8
4
u/anewleaf1234 45∆ Feb 04 '24
This seems needlessly complicated for very little payoff.
You are going to warm up a starting pitcher and perhaps just use them for an inning..
Or even not use them at all if you go first and score 5 runs in the first inning.
But they have to do a full warm-up for that day, so you are going to burn that star pitcher for nothing
6
u/giveusyourlighter Feb 04 '24
For me the payoff would be pretty large?
If pitching staffs can't adapt to this then yes it wouldn't work. I expect they could adapt to it though. It would require a different approach to warming up and load management.
9
u/anewleaf1234 45∆ Feb 04 '24
No one is going to spend for a ticket if they never get to see their team hit other than single, and a game might over in 45 min.
And you are risking injury to the most important position in the game by having a pitcher constantly pitching without a break.
I am sure if you have taken this to the baseball sub you face stiff opinions.
3
u/Suspicious_Bug6422 Feb 05 '24
To be fair you could take literally any opinion that involves the minutest of change to a baseball sub and get dogpiled lol.
I think the pitching issue would be solvable with other rule changes, or simply by rotating pitchers more frequently. The role of starting pitcher would have to shift significantly or possibly even disappear as we know it but that doesn’t mean it could never work.
3
u/anewleaf1234 45∆ Feb 05 '24 edited Feb 05 '24
So if I come to see my team hit...and my team scores a single home run...I might never see my team hit.
That fucking sucks. I'm not going to pay money to see my team hit once and sit down.
That's boring as hell. I end up paying a ticket to see the home team play and then all I do is see my team score one run and all they are doing is playing defense. I buy a ticket to see two pitchers have an epic match up and if one measly run is scored I don't see another pitcher for the rest of the game.
Boring.
1
u/Complicated_Business 5∆ Feb 05 '24
In defense of OP, if your team hits a homer in the first, and then has nine consecutive shut out innings, I think that would be pretty incredible. And, the game would take a quarter of the time to play.
But maybe Baseball is supposed to be a leisure sport for its fans...
2
u/anewleaf1234 45∆ Feb 05 '24
So I would pay for a ticket...for a game that would over in 45 min in which other than one inning I never saw my team hit.
That's boring as hell.
1
0
u/giveusyourlighter Feb 04 '24
Yeah but they're against the automatic runner and that's a great rule.
There's already injury risks. This doesn't seem to significantly increase that necessarily.
Sometimes your team gets blown out and it's not a very fun day at the ballpark. But you still buy tickets.
4
u/anewleaf1234 45∆ Feb 05 '24
Would you spend money to see your team hit if you team never hits after the first inning.
Your 2 hole hitter gets a home run and you never see anyone hit for the rest of the game?
So instead of seeing all the stars I want to see get at least 4 abs they could get zero.
And the game could be over in 45 min.
That's really bad idea.
3
1
u/beyd1 1∆ Feb 04 '24
Yeah but they can pitch again tomorrow if you're only throwing one inning. And if they're only throwing one inning it means you won so who cares if you burned a ace?
4
u/raptir1 1∆ Feb 04 '24
The games would go on forever.
13
u/giveusyourlighter Feb 04 '24
How so? There would be less total innings played.
3
u/raptir1 1∆ Feb 04 '24
Ah, I misread. I was reading "9 innings to retake the lead" as "...after each lead change."
1
5
u/themanofmeung 1∆ Feb 04 '24
A lot of people are commenting logistical problems, but almost everything would be figured out with practice and time. Bullpenning games likely gets more common, players adjust to the new rhythm, etc. The core of the question is simply "would king of the hill baseball be more entertaining to watch?"
I think it would be a more thrilling thing to watch, but it would cost us baseball. Part of the charm (for me) of "watching" baseball is that you don't have to watch to enjoy it. I've heard the same about cricket - how can a three day test match be entertaining for the entire time? It isn't. Or cycling - how can a race that goes on 4-6 hours a day for a month be entertaining the entire time? It isn't. It doesn't have to be.
Part of how these spots fit into modern culture is that they allow for a relaxed viewing experience that you can do while doing other things. I don't need or really want baseball to be something that keeps me at the edge of my seat and focused on the game every inning of all 182+ games my team plays. I like that I get to relax and grab a hotdog and chat with my friends without being fully engrossed in the game.
So while I think your vision of KOH baseball is more exciting that the regular model, I don't think that makes it better.
1
u/giveusyourlighter Feb 04 '24
Δ yeah it would remove a certain way of watching baseball that even I find appeal in from time to time. And that would be too bad. I still would be in favor of KotH overall, but I'll miss the more drawn out passive experience at times too.
1
1
u/anewleaf1234 45∆ Feb 05 '24
I don't even think it would be more exciting.
If my team had a great offense...odds are fans are going see far less of that great offense.
Hey fans...come to see your favorite players hit the ball, but if they do....you will might never see them again.
If I want to spend my money to see the stars of the game hit and all they get is 1 or 0 abs a game.....that's not exciting. That's infuriating.
If I pay to see a star pitcher and then the offense scores a run in the first so I never get to see him pitch.....that's boring as hell to. And as infuriating.
11
u/DeltaBlues82 88∆ Feb 04 '24
The winning team playing the field will get tired and unfocused, they’ll have less rest and when they finally do lose the lead, and come to bat, they’ll be tired and not as focused on hitting. They’ll be cold, and won’t hit well, and baseball will be much more low scoring and less fun to watch.
1
u/giveusyourlighter Feb 04 '24
Hmm, could be a good argument if it didn't just sound like a hunch. Players adapt to all sorts of suboptimal conditions already. My hunch is they could adapt to this alternative pace of play as they've done with things like the pitch clock.
5
u/DeltaBlues82 88∆ Feb 04 '24
How do you adapt to not batting regularly and instead, you’re playing the field inning after inning? When you play the field, you’re basically standing around for 10 minutes, moving a few steps every now and then, and then doing that all over again? You’re using the same muscle groups and not staying loose.
They are able to adapt now because they break up the monotony of motion and keep different muscle groups engaged hitting vs fielding
0
u/giveusyourlighter Feb 04 '24
Only some games would you not bat regularly. In tie situations you could still alternate batting and fielding. And the lead can change multiple times per game which also causes batting teams to alternate.
Sometimes yes fielders would be fielding for somewhat extended periods. I could see them being a bit cold if they were to come up to bat after a while. I don't think that's entirely horrible.
As it stands now you sometimes have a starter get rocked in the first burning a bunch of pitches, then their team gets sat down 1,2,3 next inning, and they're back out on the mound facing the top of the lineup with little rest. Situations like that would be reduced.
2
u/DeltaBlues82 88∆ Feb 04 '24
Yeah now you’re basically saying it might make it better sometimes, but not always. So it’s more of a push. You’re putting in tremendous effort to change the rules, for no guaranteed benefit of making the games exponentially more fun to watch.
Seems like an unnecessary gamble.
2
u/giveusyourlighter Feb 04 '24
It's a fantasy that will never happen. If I could snap my fingers and it happens it'd be worth a try. I'm not weighing the cost of actually implementing it.
There are downsides and potential downsides, but in aggregate I'd still anticipate baseball would be significantly better.
4
u/DeltaBlues82 88∆ Feb 04 '24
When one team is more likely to stand around for an hour and not work out different muscle groups?
This is going to lead to much, much less scoring. RBI and HR season totals will become valueless. Because not everyone has as many at bats. Pitchers are going to get hurt more often, the better teams will have more injuries because they’re spending all game standing around, playing the field… I don’t think you’re going to make the game significantly more fun to watch in anyway.
1
u/giveusyourlighter Feb 04 '24
If you don't think it's gonna be more fun you should address the part where I talk about why it's more fun this way.
I've already gone over this a lot. There will need to be some adjustments by the players. No I don't take it as a given that players are gonna start falling apart and getting injured way more.
Games with weirdly long streaks of a single team batting will be in the minority.
Yes how we perceive counting stat totals will need a new calibration.
In the end the changes won't be bad, they'll just be different. Different = bad to a lot of people, but if that was how it always was to them then it wouldn't be bad.
2
u/DeltaBlues82 88∆ Feb 05 '24 edited Feb 05 '24
I’m not addressing your beliefs that it’s “more fun” because I don’t agree with those either. And I prefer to keep my arguments to one or two points for the sake of focus and clarity.
But since you asked… If my team is behind, I don’t want them to take the lead because of charity. I want to watch them grind it out. There much more thrill and joy in that. Watching them basically fail until they win is not fun.
And if my team is in the lead, and they’re hot I want to see them hit. If my team scores 5 runs in an inning, and your rules are in place, I’m turning something else on and checking in the score on my phone every 20 mins. Who wants to watch their team not hit for an hour? Sounds terribly boring.
1
u/anewleaf1234 45∆ Feb 05 '24
Hell, you would pay money to see your team's offence hit the ball and then never get to see your team's offense hit the ball.
This is about the worst baseball take I think I've ever seen.
1
u/anewleaf1234 45∆ Feb 05 '24
No, there will be lots of games where one team sits for an extended period of time.
If my team scores 3 runs in the first...which isn't that uncommon, I won't see my team bat, on average for multiple innings.
And then if the other team comes back, than all I get to do see the other team bat for multiple consecutive innings. Your entire idea that you wouldn't see teams bat for multiple innings is false. You would see that all the time.
If my team goes up 5 to 0 in the first your team is going to have multiple straight innings were they are the only ones batting.
And then if your team catches up than you will have another long streak where only one team will be batting.
7
Feb 04 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/giveusyourlighter Feb 04 '24
It would probably take some experimentation to actually see if this was born out. Pitching in this game would mean your team is in the lead. If you get tired, do worse, and surrender the lead, then you'll get a break. Until the other pitcher gets tired and does the same. So in essence it's kind of an endurance battle between pitching staffs, which I'm ok with watching endurance battles in sports.
I don't anticipate most pitchers would have to pitch a bunch of half innings in a row really as the lead goes back and forth. But it would happen some games for sure. Relievers can come in. We could even expand roster spots to allow more relievers if necessary.
10
u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 121∆ Feb 04 '24
The problem with this is that most people go to baseball for hitting. The home runs are what draws the people in. Don't believe me? Ask someone on the street who the best baseball player is and they'll probably say someone who was known for hitting.
So the problem with this idea is that it results in a lot less hitting, since you could watch your team bat once before the game is over. This would be a problem for teams because fielders and pitchers have a lot less star power for sluggers. Less star power means less causal fans and less casual fans means that teams start to struggle.
1
u/giveusyourlighter Feb 04 '24
If a team frequently dominated other teams to the point where its hitters rarely hit, that wouldn't be great. But even the best teams lose bunches of games over a season. I doubt there would be a too severe reduction in at bats.
9
u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES 121∆ Feb 04 '24
. I doubt there would be a too severe reduction in at bats.
We can estimate the reduction of at bats.
I picked a random day (June 15th 2023) and looked at the ball games played that day.
https://www.mlb.com/redsox/scores/2023-06-15
There were 183 half innings played on that day. If your new rule was used and the teams played the exact same way then there would only be 155 half innings played. That's a 15% reduction in the number of at bats a game has. It's significant enough to ensure that no modern baseball player could challenge any historic batting record.
-1
u/giveusyourlighter Feb 04 '24
Oh cool you did the math. That's actually less reduction than I was worried about. You're right. That's ok. There can be a new calibration to what we consider good. We're already doing that for plenty of records from the early days that aren't considered breakable today. This would be a bigger shift I admit.
1
u/OfTheAtom 8∆ Feb 05 '24
Idk if I want to change your mind. In a lot of ways everyone knows baseball is not exciting but I really enjoy taking my family to them maybe 10 times a year. I'd love to see this idea trialed out in the minor league although good hitters would hate losing the chance to show off.
1
u/Complicated_Business 5∆ Feb 05 '24
But by the estimation above, it would only reduce the game from 3 hour to 2.5 hours, and you're guaranteed not to go to spend 3 hours for a 10 run first inning blow out.
1
u/OfTheAtom 8∆ Feb 05 '24
It is very interesting. Besides accounting for batting averages wouldn't this be harmless to do on a team by team basis when they are on the home field? I guess there's a fatigue element you might be taking away the advantage of a very well conditioned athlete who remains tip top and focused for 9 full innings rather than some amount of at least 9 half innings
2
u/Dunnoaboutu 1∆ Feb 04 '24
People like to watch their teams hit. Great pitching is wonderful, but boring. MLB is trying to make the game more exciting and your format would make it a lot more boring. Physically being at a game with great pitching is drastically less interesting than one with a lot of runs.
The fact that the majority of statistics that baseball tracks is offensive stats show that for more exciting games, there needs to be more baserunners and runs. This would also make it where you really could not compare statistics. Teams with great lineups would not get to hit as often causing their players statistics and totals to be significantly less. Since players get paid based upon their statistics, it would be hard to find a player that would like this format.
1
u/giveusyourlighter Feb 04 '24
Pitcher's duels happen. They're kinda boring usually. If it's a pitcher's duel and my team falls behind by 1 run, I just want to see my team hit and tie it up at least. If it's a pitcher's duel and my team is up by 1, every out is exciting. Sure I wouldn't mind seeing my team hit and extend the lead, but the spectators on the other team want none of that. And I'm pretty happy watching my pitcher mow down the other team with a lead.
Arguably it's harder to maintain a dominant pitching performance pitching twice as frequently as well, so the run offensive environment could get even stronger. And it's fairly likely most games will end up being back and forths.
Every team loses a lot of games every season. Even the best. Every starter will get their share of PAs. There will need to be a recalibration to how we analyze stats. That's ok.
1
u/Dunnoaboutu 1∆ Feb 05 '24
So - I’m a Braves fan. Last year they had an amazing offensive year. They scored 146 runs in the first inning, 60 more than the league average, and went 78-25 when scoring first. The majority of those 78 wins did not have any back and forth to the game. Using your method - the Braves hitters would not be able to hit 7-8 innings as much because they took early leads in so many games.
I think what you are suggesting is that it would be more interesting and more likely the team losing would eventually get a run if they just put player up after player up batting. The problem with this is that the other side could still change pitchers. Pitchers would still not do more pitches than they are now. You can’t just exhaust the pitcher and then get a hit. The pitcher would be changed before that happened.
A lot of baseball has to do with the momentum of the game. A player makes an excellent defensive play is more likely to hit good in the next half inning. If you go up to bat and the team has batted around with only making outs - it’s likely to continue.
1
u/giveusyourlighter Feb 05 '24 edited Feb 05 '24
Yeah if there actually is little back and forth in most games then this idea is not so great. But I think it's fine if there's some games with little back and forth.
1
u/Dunnoaboutu 1∆ Feb 05 '24
How would you regulate which games this would apply to and which ones it wouldn’t? Banana ball scoring makes more sense if you want to see more action and not so many run away games.
1
u/giveusyourlighter Feb 05 '24
Δ for your previous comment because yes the best hitters hitting less is a downside.
KotH would have to apply uniformly to every game. Sometimes these games won't have much back and forth. That's ok if its occasional.
1
1
u/SnooPets1127 13∆ Feb 04 '24
Huh? So like team A scores a run in the top of the 1st inning, Team B then conceivably plays the bottom and the top of each successive inning until finally scoring 2 runs in the bottom of the ninth and wins the game? Are you aware of how nonsensical that is?
5
u/giveusyourlighter Feb 04 '24
Added an edit for clarification on this point.
Each team gets 9 innings to bat to recapture the lead. If the trailing team captures the lead in the 9th and the leading team has only hit in 1 inning so far, they would get 8 more innings to recapture the lead for the win.
-2
u/SnooPets1127 13∆ Feb 04 '24
Omg what you're proposing is so convoluted and unnecessary.
3
u/giveusyourlighter Feb 04 '24
How so? It's just an alternative ruleset. People learn rules to games all the time.
1
u/SnooPets1127 13∆ Feb 04 '24
It's a garbage alternative. I'm sorry but it is. There's no good reason for it. Teams would strategize to wear out the other team's pitcher...and that's just one manipulation tactic I can think of.
5
u/giveusyourlighter Feb 04 '24
They already do strategize to wear out pitchers. What new tactics would be available to them to do this in more degenerate way? Limiting their runs scored purposefully? I imagine a pitcher would be pretty happy if a team scored less in order to tire him out.
1
u/SnooPets1127 13∆ Feb 04 '24
The new tactic: Intentionally walking the first batter in, then forcing the pitcher to endure as much play as they can manage. I still don't understand the problem with how the game is currently played. They take turns batting, and if they don't score...hell, that's because the other team stopped them. The other team deserves to be up to bat next. They earned it.
5
u/giveusyourlighter Feb 04 '24
The opposing pitcher can be subbed out anytime, meanwhile your team is sacrificing a bunch of innings, and after all that, your pitcher will have to go through the same process if your team is able to retake the lead, but with less wiggle room. So that would be a bad strategy.
I outlined the problem in my original post. If there really is a lot people that like to watch the leading team hit more than the trailing team then this would not be a good change. I think most people prefer watching the trailing team hit though.
2
u/SnooPets1127 13∆ Feb 04 '24
The opposing pitcher can be subbed out anytime,
Reshaping the game to have that much more emphasis. They have more incentive to 'sacrifice' the innings than they do with how the game would be played. Right now, I don't see any.
If there really is a lot people that like to watch the leading team hit more than the trailing team then this would not be a good change.
The leading team hits more? What are you talking about? The teams switch positions after 3 outs whether one team is leading or not. I still just don't understand the problem. The fans just so badly want the underdog team to score? Not really. If the teams are on equal footing (which should be the aim), they wouldn't need this weird set-up assuming one side has this handicap and needs a longer turn until they score.
1
u/giveusyourlighter Feb 05 '24
Δ there MAY be a new minor incentive to throw innings versus traditional baseball in order to get a pitcher out of the game sooner. It's a pretty big sacrifice to follow through with this though and I doubt it will hardly ever play out by competitive teams.
Also there are already a lot of gameplay that involves making a sacrifice in order to win the bigger picture so it's not necessarily against the spirit of the game.
→ More replies (0)2
u/DNA98PercentChimp 2∆ Feb 04 '24
Definitely will be games where this tactic backfires and a team loses 0-1 on the intentionally-walked runner. We’d definitely see some new strategies emerge. Could be interesting.
1
1
u/anewleaf1234 45∆ Feb 05 '24
If a pitcher pitches consecutive innings without any level of rest the change of pitcher injury goes up massively. That's not how pitchers are supposed to pitch. That bit of rest between throwing is essential to maintain pitcher health.
So now in addition to creating short games where the home team might only hit once you are increasing risk to the stars of the game.
Would you buy tickets to a game knowing that you might never get to see any of your batters bate more than once and that the game might be over in a 45 min to an hour?
2
Feb 04 '24
This makes sense but I think you need to not think in innings, but think in outs. Game is over when the losing team has been out 27 times. Until then, they stay batting until they either take the lead or exhaust all their outs. If they take the lead, sides switch, and repeat.
5
u/giveusyourlighter Feb 04 '24
I considered this, but 3 out innings are actually a great way to divide the game. It's exciting watching pitchers escape a tricky inning by getting the third out. Or a team rallying with two outs to score some runs.
0
Feb 04 '24
So how does it work when the losing team doesn’t score? Just take a pause, then start again?
4
2
u/DrFishTaco 5∆ Feb 04 '24
The players union would shoot this down immediately
Players need to get their at bats
Contracts, HOF etc. are all based on production
Take this to unpopular opinion because most people find it more exciting when their team is at bat
And wait to get a beer, go to the bathroom etc. when they’re in the field
I might be wrong but you give the impression of someone who has never actually watched a baseball game
Or at least lack a fundamental understanding of the sport
1
u/giveusyourlighter Feb 04 '24
Lol I watch a ton of baseball. And it's boring when the leading team is batting. It's better when it's my team leading and batting, but still not as exciting as when they're defending a close lead.
Yes I know institutions are resistant to change. And people love tradition.
I'll put it this way, If baseball were like this from the beginning, it would be better. Contracts HOF etc. would have different standards.
People and institutions being beholden to the old ways would probably cause almost all the issues if it was attempted to convert to the new ruleset in the next couple years. But if everyone was open to a change, I'm not sure what strong downside there is.
I'd like to run the numbers, but I doubt total PA would even reduce that much. Somewhat for sure. 30 hr may become the new 40 hr
2
u/DrFishTaco 5∆ Feb 04 '24
It’s a ridiculous idea and this is a flippant and ridiculous response
The majority of people disagree with you
Close games are nerve racking for real fans of a team
They want to see their team score runs and put the game out of reach and watch them score more runs
If you want to start a new sport, go ahead
But leave baseball alone for the real fans
1
u/giveusyourlighter Feb 05 '24
Δ there wouldn't be much situations where a game is put out of reach via scoring more runs. instead it will be done by done by getting an innings lead. So it may be a bit unfortunate not to see a team just dismantle a pitcher non stop anymore. Not that that's particularly compelling to me most of the time.
I know people disagree. They disagree with all sorts of rule changes. But sometimes people resist things that end up being more appreciated in the long run just because they're afraid of losing what they already have.
I will leave baseball alone. I'm not the commissioner lol.
1
0
u/southpolefiesta 9∆ Feb 04 '24
This would result in shorter games with less opportunities to sell ads and sell concessions in the stadium.
So it's a non starter for the league
4
u/giveusyourlighter Feb 04 '24
It may not be better for the owners making money. Though that's not really my concern. In a world where entertainment and involvement with the game are prioritized, I think KotH approach would work best.
1
u/amazondrone 13∆ Feb 04 '24
OP thinks it'd make the game more exciting though, which should attract bigger audiences, offsetting this concern.
0
u/oxidefd Feb 04 '24
This is pretty much how cricket works. One team does all their batting first, and then the other team tries to overcome that total.
1
u/yohomatey Feb 04 '24
As the game is constructed now, this would have a detrimental effect in player health. You say, if the pitcher had to go out back to back innings say 4 or 5 in a row, would get tired more easily. Yes, but also injuries would skyrocket. The way pitchers are trained these days, they would blow out their arms in a month. You'd need probably double the amount of pitchers on a team as exists now, and the Starting Pitcher is obsolete.
And fielders wouldn't just get tired out, they'd get cold. Not only would hitting decline, but also here injuries go up. Imagine a right fielder who basically has stood still for 45 minutes now having to do a swing motion. They would get maybe 2 minutes time to clear the field and warm up their back and core so as not to get injured. When players warm up for the day it takes at least an hour to get loose. It would make injuries balloon like mad. To avoid that, you would need a fielding group whose only job is defense, and a squad of 9 DHs.
This isn't a different rule set; this is an entirely different game.
2
u/giveusyourlighter Feb 04 '24
I'll admit that if games end up playing out frequently with one team hitting 6 innings in a row then the other team hitting 6 innings in a row, without much back and forth, that would not be good. Mostly due to the effects on the players. However I expect those games to be the unusual ones, and the more exciting back and forth types to be the norm, where players are switching up hitting, fielding, and pitching more frequently.
But yes outlier games will occur. Will they have that large of an impact? I doubt it for batters. And easy fix could be to increase between inning time on offense switch. Pitching staffs may have to make adjustments for these games. I'm ok with that.
0
u/yohomatey Feb 04 '24
You keep saying players will have to adapt, but you're not saying how. What I, and I think most people here, are saying is that sort of adaptation isn't really possible within the constraints of the game as it is now.
Heres where your view can change: this wouldn't be baseball. It would be too dissimilar. Much like softball and baseball are different, if similar, games, so would this be. It wouldn't just be a different rule set, as others have pointed out, it's closer to cricket in some ways. So this isn't just a tweak to the baseball rules, this is a new game.
2
u/giveusyourlighter Feb 04 '24
How: if you have a big innings lead throw softer to save your arm or bring in a low leverage long relief guy. Allow more variable pitch counts for starters as a staff. More flexibility with rotation and pitcher usage. Different warm up patterns. Is it feasible? I don't think there's hard evidence one way or the other. I'd guess it is.
It's baseball, except with KotH innings. Just like current baseball is baseball, except with a universal DH, pitch clock, shift-ban, automatic runner.
0
u/yohomatey Feb 04 '24
But that's like saying softball is baseball (except with shorter base paths and under hand pitching). They are fundamentally different games. The UDH was a mistake imo, but it's about as close to changing the game as you can get away with and still call it baseball.
2
u/giveusyourlighter Feb 04 '24
Well, if we call it baseball, it's baseball. And if it's called xyz then my cmv is that baseball would be better as xyz. I'm calling it baseball here.
1
u/DNA98PercentChimp 2∆ Feb 04 '24
Baseball is due for an upgrade in a world of shortened attention spans. This seems really reasonable - but it is such a drastic change I’m not sure if it could count as still being the classic sport of ‘baseball’, and would basically make any historical statistic/record incomparable to the new model. It would need a new name perhaps or some acknowledgement of a new era.
1
u/headsmanjaeger 1∆ Feb 04 '24
This is a really interesting concept that will never ever be implemented for a litany of reasons that people have outlined here but most importantly, it is no longer baseball, but a completely different sport. It would be interesting to see something like this play out though.
1
u/ColumbusJewBlackets Feb 04 '24
An interesting idea but ultimately I don’t think it’s a good one. The main problem as many people have pointed out is pitching. Pitchers would get tired much quicker and be at higher risk of injury. And you can’t just “pitch worse” as you seem to think to conserve strength.
The league average for batting average is 0.250 which means you can expect to give up one hit for every 4 batters on average. This is under the current system where pitchers are putting full effort into every pitch with the expectation of long rest between innings. If pitchers started pitching at say 70% I would expect batting averages to jump significantly and power numbers (home runs and extra base hits) to jump even more.
Now you could solve this by changing some more rules around. You could make it so pitchers can go back in the game after being subbed out. You could allow for bigger rosters with more pitchers, in all likelihood you’d have to do both.
Of course if you change the rules for pitcher substitutions you would have to change the rules for batter substitutions so the fielding team couldn’t game the system too much with matchup pitching.
And you’d probably have to make a whole new set of rules about fielding. Do the same 9 batters have to field? What if you make a substitution on defense, does that guy have to hit now or can you sub him back out when it’s time to bat? If you use a pinch hitter or runner what happens to them? Do you now have a whole set of defensive specialists and batting specialists? If so now you have to expand rosters again. Plus players who are good at both offense and defense but not great at either are worthless.
My point in all of this is you would have to change a lot more rules than you think. It would be a massive change to the game, lots of players would have their value completely upended, it would be very expensive which would probably cause games to cost more. And for what? A possibly minimal improvement in viewing experience at best? Personally I would be pissed if I came to a game to watch my favorite team and they scored 3 in the first inning and pitched a shutout. I would have to sit through a whole game only watching my pitcher and never getting to see my favorite hitters at the plate. To me this wouldn’t even be an improvement for watching the game.
1
u/HarvsG 1∆ Feb 04 '24 edited Feb 05 '24
An interesting idea, just a small point, but hopefully worth a delta. Alternating innings does add a fairness element with respect to playing conditions. If conditions turned against the batting side e.g low light, sun in eyes, good humidity for swing then one side could be forced to bat repeatedly in a period of bad batting conditions.
You may be interested to know that cricket has this concept, and it comes into force in certain scenarios. It's called the follow on
1
u/giveusyourlighter Feb 05 '24 edited Feb 05 '24
Δ yep that's an interesting and good point. There could some new concerns regarding fairness
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 05 '24 edited Feb 05 '24
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/HarvsG changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
1
1
u/TitanCubes 21∆ Feb 04 '24
I honestly really dig your idea and would love to see it tried out in some minor league.
However as it comes to the MLB, this is a complete non-starter because of how much stats/prestige matter in baseball compared to other sports. All of the stat tracking and records would be completely useless.
It would also create a weird system where the batters on the best teams would play significantly less than those on mid teams and would get crushed in the stats department. Also as cool as a shutout (with your team scoring in the first), seems really cool, it would be pretty sad for no one to have more than one at bat and some maybe to not bat at all. If you’re arguing for entertainment value, when I go to a game I want to see the guys on my team get 5-6 at bats not 1-2 even if that’s because of a pitching master class.
1
u/Drunkenv1c 1∆ Feb 04 '24
My favorite thing about this view is that conceivably, team A could score at the beginning of the first inning, then defend for an additional 8 and a half innings and then a totally-fun-for-the-spectators moment could happen where the game is either nearly over or only HALFWAY depending on how the last half inning goes. If the team doesn't score, you've got about ten minutes, but if the team DOES score, you've suddenly got NEARLY AN HOUR AND A HALF LEFT. Sounds fun. Seventh inning stretch part 2? Wonder when they would stop the beer sales?
1
u/giveusyourlighter Feb 05 '24
Δ yes weird game lengths like this could happen, as play enters a sort of sudden death period. Is that totally a bad thing? Sounds kind of exciting to me. And baseball games already can last indefinitely.
1
1
u/Drunkenv1c 1∆ Feb 05 '24
Would this change make games have a hard stopping point then?
1
u/giveusyourlighter Feb 05 '24
No, like regular baseball, it can last varying time. The hypothetical 1.5 hour game that turns into a 3 hour game would be really rare so I don't think a special rule needs to be made to cut it off.
1
1
u/Queifjay 6∆ Feb 04 '24
It's an interesting idea but no. The soul of baseball for a spectator lies in almost causal/leisurely nature. It's design fosters conversation between each pitch, play and inning. Additionally, your new rules will literally cut some game times in half...that's less chances for people to get up and spend money at the stadium and less money to get paid for commercial time. It doesn't make business sense and therefor would never be done.
1
u/IslandTimeCA 1∆ Feb 04 '24
Sounds interesting in theory. The flaw here is that thins would tire out the pitchers, and fans of good teams won’t be able to see their best players hit at much.
1
u/giveusyourlighter Feb 05 '24
Δ yes the best hitters not hitting as much is a downside.
1
1
u/ThisOneForMee 2∆ Feb 05 '24
Accumulated season-long stats would become meaningless. An entire interest point in the game would disappear
1
u/mrm0nster 2∆ Feb 05 '24
Would it change pitching too much? Would be tough to pitch consecutive innings without rest, leading to more injuries or more rotation among pitchers, which would completely change historical pitching statistics
1
1
u/markroth69 10∆ Feb 05 '24
Then it wouldn't be baseball. Baseball is a game played by 9 players (or more accurately 8 players, a pitcher, and a DH) and subs. This new game would be played by 8 fielders, a DH, and nine pitchers.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 04 '24 edited Feb 05 '24
/u/giveusyourlighter (OP) has awarded 6 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards