With another year of uneventful MLB GM meetings over in Chicago, the final verdict was an unsurprising “business as usual” approach. Most notably, the general managers passed on the expansion of instant replay in the game.
That this was not a heated debate was a bit of a surprise, considering the outcry that came from numerous missed calls in the 2009 postseason. The MLB as much as admitted the problem when they adjusted the umpire roster scheduled for the World Series, relying instead on an experienced team to stem the tide of negative feedback coming from the early-round blunders.
However, like a number of topics of discussion in this sport, issues are slow to be acknowledged and even slower to be addressed. Modern technology is met with skepticism and reservation.
The oldest major sport is ever-unflappable in their willingness to dismiss change—slow to accept solutions that other younger pro sports have embraced and perfected.
There is a need for paradigm shift, and it made me ponder: "If I were Commissioner of baseball, what would I do to improve the game?
Now, I love baseball, but I am not blind to the cancers that threaten its very existence. I cringe at the black eye that performance-enhancing drugs has created, and shake my head at the greed by both players and ownership, which has alienated the common fan with skyrocketing ticket and concession prices.
I recognize these things as major problems, which only time and probably a whole economic reformation can truly fix. Among the sweeping changes, ticket revamping or implementation of HGH testing require complicated fixes that would take some time and multiple steps to solve.
But, there are some improvements that could be enacted right away, or at the very least, during the next session of collective bargaining. So, perk up your ears, Mr. Selig, I have come up with seven slips of paper for the office suggestion box.
Instant replay on all calls except balls and strikes
This one is obvious and discussed ad nauseum since the postseason began. First, I want to absolve the umpires of some of the blame. Granted, they have missed glaring calls and made potentially game-changing mistakes. But, to be fair, umpires have always missed calls. The game is fast, and the calls are often very close.
The difference now is that the entire viewing audience now sees all of them. From five different angles. In close-up and freeze frame. In HD and streamed from the Internet. The average viewer is more equipped to determine a call than the umpires are.
The fan is living in 2009 with all the technology it affords, but the umpires may as well be living in 1909. It is time to give the umpires at least as much chance as the average viewer to get it right. If they still get it wrong, we can crucify them without remorse. But let’s at least put the tools in their box.
Firstly, what should be reviewed? Now it’s home runs only, but it should be expanded to include: line plays, plays at the bases, plays at the plate, tag-ups, and balls trapped/caught. It should not include balls and strikes, or check swings, which are nuanced or interpreted aspects of the game.
Saying only home runs are reviewable is like saying the run scored on a play at the plate is less important than a ball hit over the fence. It just makes no sense.
Let’s also dispel the ridiculous rumor that it will lengthen the game. When there is a close call, the umpires still often confer, and the manager often comes out to argue. This takes time.
But time is better spent on getting the call right. Almost any fan would prefer for the call to be right over the game ending five minutes earlier. As an added bonus, networks will make more money on the added commercial break and replay sponsorship.
Now to the method. Having the umps run into the umpires room to watch the video, as is done with home run calls, is ridiculous. Either have a device on the field, like they do in the NFL, or have a dedicated official review the replay locally at the stadium or at a central headquarters for all games played. It’s simple, effective, and efficient.
If MLB officials still insist on resisting, at least do us this favor: When games are really vital, as in the postseason, implement expanded replay there. If you don’t care about getting it right in the regular season, at least get it right in the postseason.
We will suck it up for the extra five to 10 minutes to get the calls right. At least it’s better than having the whole offseason to complain about how your team got robbed.
Let’s be honest. Baseball is a precise sport. The calls are "yes" or "no," "safe" or "out." Football has so many factors weighed into whether to overturn or uphold a call. Replay is made for baseball.
We know that the GMs recently muted any further discussion to expand replay for 2010, but I beg Bud Selig and the owners to reconsider. Give the fans what they want—mistake-free baseball!
Increase the 25 man active roster
The active major league roster with its maximum of 25 players is outdated. Blame it primarily on the philosophy of pitching staffs in modern baseball. Years ago, four starters and a handful of long relievers made up a staff.
But, due to greater specialization of roles—the shift from four-man to five-man rotations, adherence to pitch counts, and emphasis of short relievers, specialized lefties and setup men—it has gotten to the point where teams often carry 12 or even 13 pitchers.
This creates a situation where teams have virtually no bench. This is especially problematic in the NL, where pinch hitting is part of the game. Gone are the days of teams carrying a third catcher, utility men, or “professional pinch hitters.”
It also makes it far more remote that a team can carry a prospect at the major league level to get acclimated to the majors. That spot is too valuable and is better used for relievers.
Players are often shuttled between Triple-A and the big club to make room for a pitcher in a taxed bullpen. Pinch runners are rarely used, and catchers are rarely pinch hit for in fear that the backup will get hurt during the game.
In short, the manager must constantly play the numbers game. I don’t know what the sweet spot is. I am thinking 27, maybe 28. But the increase would give managers the flexibility they once had.
The bottom line is you’re not just adding players. You’re readjusting to accommodate the science of pitching, which has affected the way the sport as a whole looks at it.
Implement a worldwide draft
Right now, most foreign-born players are exempt from the first-year amateur draft, which U.S. born players must enter. Nearly 40 percent of all professional baseball players on major and minor league rosters are not subject to the draft.
This double standard has been a topic of discussion for awhile and should be addressed as soon as possible.
The earliest it should be covered would be during the next round of labor negotiations in 2012. Collective bargaining is the only way this will be solved. Ideally, it should be at the forefront in 2012. If tabled in lieu of more pressing financial concerns, it could prompt a future strike or lockout.
Even if both sides agree to the idea of a worldwide draft, some of the finer details must be hammered out. Would it be a true worldwide draft, or would countries that have professional leagues, such as Japan and Korea, get service time credited for their years playing there? After all, Japanese players are under team control for years before they can be outright free agents.
An 18-year-old from a Latin American country should not get the same consideration as Ichiro, a pro player for year, in the U.S. Minimum age or equivalent level of education may also need to be established, similar to what the NBA has in place.
Though not the first though when admonishing Major League Baseball for the inequalities of small market versus big market teams, it is a glaring example. Small market teams cannot compete with the likes of the Yankees or Red Sox when it comes to high profile foreign-born free agents. Just watch the Aroldis Chapman sweepstakes this offseason. My money is not on KC or San Diego.
Implement a draft slotting system
Not completely off the topic of a worldwide draft, a slotting system would also prevent some of the inequality between the haves and have-nots. There should never be a situation where a team passes on drafting a player because they do not believe they can meet his asking price. This surely caused some sleepless nights for the Nat’s organization when deliberating over whether they should sign Stephen Strasburg.
This is another heated topic that should be tackled in the next collective bargaining agreement after the 2011 season. The MLPA will fight this, fearing a cascading effect on lower salaries overall. But it will no doubt clearly lower salaries for first-year players.
The positive effect is clear. Regardless of the team, the signability of a player will not be a significant factor when deciding on whom to draft. The player will get a set amount based on their draft slot or position.
MLB teams have already reviewed a suggested draft figure per pick, and it was loosely followed during the 2009 amateur draft. But until it is mandated and enforced, you will have many players looking to negotiate above the selected amount. Too many players do not come to agreement on a contract and end up re-entering the draft the next year.
The one hurdle, other than the obvious challenges to get consensus during labor negotiations, will be to come up with a way to treat a college player different than a high school player.
A raw high school talent may take three years or more to make it to the majors. Whereas a polished college talent like Strasburg is likely to spend less than one year in minor league baseball from the time he drafted to his initial call-up to a major league roster.
There must be a different scale to adjust to this, or fewer players will elect to go to college and instead declare for the draft directly.
Stop with the Warnings: Let the players police themselves
This one's easy—no major rule changes, shifts in revenue, or collective bargaining concessions. Simply sit down with the umpires and instruct them to de-emphasize the policing of bean balls.
For years, baseball players have been able to police themselves in regards to intentionally throwing at batters. There were unwritten rules: “You hit my best; I will hit yours.” The bad outweighs the good in the current approach by issuing all of these “proactive” warnings.
An umpire must surmise intent on a given pitch; then he proceeds to warn both benches. That now restricts the pitcher on the team with the hit batter, making it difficult to throw inside. This makes it tougher to establish the strike zone, which allows batters to cheat out over the inside of the plate and reach balls on the outside corner.
At the very least, how about just warning the bench of the responsible pitcher? Or, if an umpire is absolutely convinced it was intentional, then he should forgo the warning and throw the pitcher out. Otherwise, keep the mask on, and leave the players on the field alone to police themselves.
Every year, the officials sit down before the season and receive instruction on points of emphasis for the upcoming season. For 2010, let’s put the warnings away, and let the pitchers pitch.
Re-introduce single admission doubleheaders
Old-time baseball fans talk about going to the ballpark on a Sunday afternoon and settling in to see not just a matinee, but two games. The doubleheader—unique to the sport of baseball—has gone the way of the stirrup socks, bullpen carts, and the eephus pitch.
But, why?
Scheduled doubleheaders have mainly been phased out for monetary reasons. A single-admission doubleheader can't net the same revenue as two separate admission games. The economics are clear, but I say dollars be damned. At least for a couple days a year.
Doubleheaders create excitement and challenge the manager to use his roster intelligently, while rewarding the avid fan and honoring the game's history. It is the only major sport that can really support the logistics of two games in one day.
Finally, it gives MLB precious days back that can be used to start the playoffs nearly a week earlier.
I appreciate the concern by owners and schedule makers, but how about just two scheduled doubleheaders in each stadium per season?. The novelty alone will make it a quick sellout in most cities.
Turn the division series into a best of 7
The baseball season is a true marathon. To win a division and produce the best record over that time is an achievement. The trend has been the wild card winner is the “hot” team, which finishes strong at the end.
The potential is too great that the division series is controlled because of a hot No. 1 pitcher down the stretch. This plays right into the hand of the wild card winner. The best of seven series is a truer indicator of the superior team and more fully utilizes an entire team’s roster.
Although it has been a topic of debate at the GM meetings, MLB should NOT follow suit with the NBA and NHL and expand the number of teams in the playoffs. Those sports dilute the regular season by allowing too many teams to make the playoffs each year.
Baseball has it right in adhering to a construct that allows only eight teams into the postseason. By creating compelling pennant races in September, it retains the emphasis on the regular season, which has been there for baseball for over a century.
However, I am all for taking the lead from the NBA and adding games to the first round, therefore protecting the elite seeds.
The argument against would be that baseball is already bleeding into the cold weather of November and competing with the NFL. I can’t argue that the postseason was meant to be over in October. This was especially true this year, with an all-East Coast, cold weather World Series.
My answer would be simply to reduce the number of off days in between postseason games. There should never be a day off between games that take place in the same city. This is contrary to the normal baseball flow to begin with. Days off should only occur on travel days.
Additionally, by introducing a handful of doubleheaders per team, the baseball season can end nearly a week earlier. Keep in mind, you would need only to extend the playoffs for up to three more days.
Not only would you be able to increase the number of games in the first round, but also you would be able to end the playoffs more than a week ahead of the 2009 pace.
So, that’s seven tangible improvements to reflect the needs of the modern game. Some mundane, some substantial, but all of them will improve the game, making inroads to a more proactive, custodial approach to the game we love.
Read more MLB news on BleacherReport.com
- Login to post comments