by Gregg Pearlman
Because Barry Bonds drew so many intentional walks this past October, a number of folks have weighed in on the evils of the intentional walk and how it takes the excitement right out of baseball. The idea here is that those wretched few who tuned in to the 2002 World Series did so to watch Barry Bonds hit mammoth home runs, not to watch him start to unfasten his elbow armor before ball four is even delivered.
To those who feel that way, the enemy -- the stealer of excitement, the mocker of manfulness -- is the intentional walk. (Oh, that's not completely fair. I keep forgetting that when folks aren't complaining about intentional walks, they're blithely making definitive statements that Bonds is -- that's IS -- a steroid user and ergo a big fat cheater. But I digress.) Few strong efforts are made to examine why, at least in the case of Barry Bonds, these walks are issued so frequently. The answer is simple: Opposing teams fear Bonds; they do not fear the guy batting behind him, whoever that may be. Alex Rodriguez won the new Ted Williams "Splendid Splinter" Award for Batting Awesomeness, or whatever it's called. Never mind that Bonds' 2001 and 2002 seasons each have been called the best seasons ever by a hitter. But know this completely absolute fact: Opposing pitchers would still walk Bonds to get to Rodriguez.
Okay, maybe it's not a fact. I doubt we'll ever get to find out. Unless the Giants manage somehow to acquire a legitimately scary cleanup hitter such as -- let me throw my dart, blindfolded, and see whose name I hit -- Vladimir Guerrero, we won't know precisely how much Bonds scares opponents. But for now, the top candidates for batting behind Bonds (in no particular order) are Edgardo Alfonzo, Jose Cruz Jr., and Rich Aurilia. All are better choices than Benito Santiago -- or, at least, they're better hitters; who knows if they'd put up better numbers batting after Bonds than Santiago would? But all three candidates either are very good hitters or have had very good seasons. Doesn't matter, though: Bonds still will draw about a walk and a half per game. The only reason he didn't crack the 200 barrier last year is that his hamstring kept him out of the lineup for about 10 games.
He did draw 198, though. Of these, 68 were intentional -- breaking Willie McCovey's 33-year-old record by 23. Of the remaining 130, who's to say how many more happened by design? You sure can't assume that pitchers were trying to keep Bonds off the basepaths in all 130 cases.
The problem with the base on balls is that it's still perceived as "not manly" or something, as if either the pitcher doesn't have the guts to throw strikes, or the hitter doesn't have the guts to swing the bat. The walk is treated almost as a nonevent -- as if the batter doesn't even get a free pass to first base, from whence he's infinitely more likely to score a run than from, say, his seat in the dugout after making an out. In other words, walks are treated with such contempt that the batter may as well be hitting from the ladies' tees... and yet, from the point of view of the offense, walks are good.
"Oh, yeah?" I hear you say. (Well, not you, necessarily, unless you disagree with me, in which case: I'm not not listening!) "How good are walks when the next guy is the pitcher? How good are walks when the next guy's a weak hitter? How good are walks when they set up the double play, and then the next batter hits into one?" Well, those are all legitimate questions. One answer, though, is that the next guy up doesn't have to be the pitcher or a weak hitter, and he doesn't have to hit into a double play. In many cases, walks, especially intentional walks, are a function of the lineup the manager puts on the field, which itself is a function of the team built by the general manager. If these guys can't put up a reasonably dangerous hitter behind, say, a Barry Bonds, isn't that their fault? Or the fault of the hitter? Or nobody's fault, because nobody really can "protect" a Barry Bonds? One thing is for sure: Pinning your frustration on intentional walks is pointless.
In 2002, Jeff Kent did start to hit in earnest before he and Bonds switched places in the lineup, but when he batted fourth, Kent -- even in 2000, his MVP year -- didn't do much to keep Bonds from receiving tons of walks. Following Bonds after the switch, Benito Santiago didn't scare anybody, either. But Dusty Baker's choices were limited: Kent's early cold snap was beyond managerial control; Reggie Sanders was Reggie Sanders, which is to say that while he produced as expected, he was no Hank Aaron (nor could he be expected to be), and he sure wasn't someone whose presence would get Bonds more pitches to hit; and if Sanders wasn't, Santiago certainly wasn't; and finally, it's not as though the front office, perhaps despite major efforts, was able to secure the services of a genuine slugger.
These players were who they were. There's nothing they could have done, short of playing miles over their heads, to give Bonds more to hit. There's nothing more the on-field and off-field brain trusts could've done, either. Scary hitters don't grow on trees. Even if they did, would it make that much difference? Bonds would still reach base a hundred percent of the time when he walked, and thirty-something percent when he didn't.
When Bonds won the MVP in 1993, do you remember who batted behind him most of the time? I do. It was Willie McGee. Was there any reason to pitch to Bonds with McGee on deck that didn't exist with Kent -- the 2000 MVP -- batting behind him? I don't see how. Bonds didn't draw any 200 walks, of course, but maybe that's because opponents didn't know enough to be scared yet.
Hey, What if We Paint the Entire Body the Color of the Scab?
But let's look at Stark's ideas regarding the intentional walk, specifically "the only three that make any sense whatsoever." The first of these is, "a limit of one intentional walk per player per game."
According to Stark, Cardinals manager Tony LaRussa said, "The biggest hole in that one is, you can walk a guy intentionally in an unintentional way. Just have the catcher sit out there and throw four sinkers in the dirt."
Well, isn't this the hugest "Duh!" in the entire "debate" about intentional walks? Indeed, to me, it ends the debate. And yet Stark presses on, undeterred, and so do I.
Stark says, "OK, so we'll chalk this one up to: Swell idea. Well-intentioned. But essentially impractical, unworkable and unenforceable. So let's move onto...
"2. On an intentional walk, every runner gets to move up a base.
"With this idea, you have similar enforcement issues. And teams could still evade it with those four sinkers in the dirt. But we bet it would make the classic intentional walk, as we know it now, all but obsolete. After all, would a team be willing to pay this stiff a price for the privilege of walking someone like Bonds with first base open?"
Yes, if teams are already given to walking the guy with only a runner on first. Still, though, it doesn't matter -- as Stark says, you get around this heavy penalty by throwing your four sinkers in the dirt. Simple dimple.
LaRussa, via Stark, makes some great points: "When he gets on base, he creates an opportunity for them to score. He's not making an out. He's creating an opportunity for them to score a run and win a ball game.
"If you start paying attention to the entertainment value of one player and start messing with the game, you're really messing with the most important reason we're out there. When we're playing in San Francisco, we're there for the Cardinals to beat the Giants. We're not there for the Barry Show."
Stark's third suggestion is, "The hitter can decline the intentional walk."
"We can't find anyone with serious interest in this proposal," he says. "And you can see why. If we're working on speeding up the game, then any idea that would create the possibility for a 92-pitch at-bat wouldn't seem to fit the tenor of the times.
Major League Baseball executive Sandy Alderson is credited with the most cogent thought in the entire article: "The way it stands now, the best solution with Bonds is just to find a better guy to hit behind him. And not just in the fifth spot, but in the fifth and sixth spot. That's how you make teams pitch to him. You don't have to change the rules."
All right. I don't personally consider intentional walks exciting, but when they happen, you just start thinking about what that next batter needs to do, or whatever. You cannot get rid of intentional walks -- they'd happen anyway. Seems to me that the difference would be that the catcher wouldn't be able to stick his arm outwards, that's all.
Don't misunderstand: I don't think Stark or his suggestions are foolish. I do think that the ideas are not very well considered and don't address the "real truth" about Bonds, which is that maybe he wouldn't walk so much in a lineup of Hall-of-Famers at their peak, but short of that, he's gonna. Period.
ESPN.com's Rob Neyer, in his February 5 column, says, "You can't specifically legislate against the intentional walk.... If a pitcher wants to walk somebody, all he has to do is throw four straight pitches that are a foot outside rather than three feet outside and two feet high. So you can write any rule you like, but if the rule contains the word 'intentional' then it ain't going to work."
Neyer suggests "penalizing the defense for any walk that doesn't feature at least one strike," but also points out that of the 14,794 non-intentional walks in the major leagues last season, 3,013 of those -- 20 percent -- were four-ball walks. He further propounds this argument in his February 7 column, "An open letter to Sandy Alderson," suggesting that "For every walk, the official scorer must note whether or not the plate appearance included a strike. If there was not a strike, that walk will be recorded as a 'BB4,' which is shorthand for 'four-pitch walk.' And here's the catch: if the same hitter is walked on four pitches later in the game, he gets two bases rather than one, with any runners forced forward as necessary. If there's a runner on second, he moves to third. If there are runners on second and third, the runner on second moves to third and the runner on third scores."
He adds, "There wouldn't be so many intentional walks if the hitters weren't so dangerous, and the hitters wouldn't be so dangerous if some existing rules were enforced more than they've been. Body armor for batters was supposedly restricted last year, but then we see Barry Bonds wearing a gauntlet that looks like it could deflect bullets. Umpires are supposed to be calling the high strike, but most of them still have a ways to go. And hitters continue to abuse the batter's box, either destroying the lines or simply ignoring them. There's supposed to be a policy that prevents players from bulking up on steroids, but there's little reason to think the policy will be effective, even if it's enforced."
Much as I like Neyer, I think he's reaching. I don't think Bonds is reaching base more often because of the body armor: Unlike Craig Biggio of the Astros, for instance, Bonds has never calmly and ostentatiously stuck a protected forearm in the path of a pitched ball, then skipped happily to first base. (In any case, can you picture Bonds skipping happily? I can't.) Body armor keeps batters from being hurt by inside pitches; how it contributes to walks, especially intentional walks, I don't know.
I agree that the high strike needs to be called, which is to say that the strike zone, as written, needs to be enforced. Where this ties in with intentional walks, however, I'm not certain.
Batter's-box abuse was covered earlier, but that last bit... well, it's become almost impossible for baseball columnists to mention steroids without it being inherently a shot at Bonds, but that's beside the point -- the point being, if you want to paint the hitters with so broad a brush ("... the hitters [are] so dangerous"] and then cite steroids, a little proof wouldn't hurt.
When all is said and done, the solution for the "problem" of intentional walks is that there is no solution. At least not a good one. A guy like Bonds can't be the standard-bearer for the case against, because there's probably nobody who could hit behind him and provide enough "protection" to keep Bonds' walk rate under, say, 120 per season. I want to see Bonds hit too, but even so, to those who hate the intentional walk, my advice would be: live with it. The walk itself isn't exciting, but the situation it sets up often is. And if you have a normal human batter who you feel is drawing too many intentional walks, back him up with someone just as scary. Or just know that the walks are going to happen, and adjust your strategy accordingly.
Meanwhile...
In "Get your rule changes!" Stark offers up 20 legitimate suggestions plus five whimsical ones. Lest you think this is all his doing, Stark says he polled players, general managers, scouts, agents, and broadcasters, so blame them. (I'm abridging somewhat, getting rid of some anecdotal material, etc., in the name of "a pretense at brevity.")
1. Use instant replay: "White Sox GM Kenny Williams says he would love to 'give our manager one of those little challenge flags.' OK, baseball can't use replay for everything. Nobody wants to wait 10 minutes to confirm a foul tip. But replay would work great to decide whether balls are fair or foul, out of the park or off the wall. And why not? Nobody uses long division if they have a calculator handy. Technology marches on. Use it."
I agree somewhat. No, I don't think managers should get the opportunity to request a replay judgment, at least not like in the NFL, but certain calls absolutely should be subjected to replay review. It just comes back to the fact that it's way more important for umpires to get a call right than to massage their egos.
2. Stay in the box: "We'd allow a hitter to step out once per at-bat to regroup -- but that's it. Other than that, the hitter has to keep one foot in the box for the entire at-bat, or it's an automatic strike. And if both feet are in, the pitcher had better be ready to pitch, or it's an automatic ball."
Eh. I'm pretty sure most hitters "step out" while keeping one foot in the box anyway. I'm a believer in the hitter and pitcher being able to "ice" each other. (Not only that, but if, during an intentional walk, a hitter deliberately steps out three times, thus making the count 3-2....) On the other hand, I don't like the idea of a hitter stepping out after every pitch, including pitches during which he doesn't even move, to adjust his gloves, cup, etc. That's just annoying.
3. Establish visiting hours: "Padres GM Kevin Towers proposes a limit of five visits per game by managers and coaches (not counting injury visits when accompanied by a trainer). If a game goes extra innings, everybody gets two extra visits. And there should be a one-minute limit to any visit."
Bunk. Most visits, at least by pitching coaches, are really brief -- like, "Get the damn ball down. See ya." About all the umps can and/or should do is give it the old "Okay, break it up." Plus, what's to keep the trainer from running out to the mound whenever the manager or coach wants to cry injury?
4. Toughen up the save rule: "All saves are not created equal. So naturally, we got a bunch of suggestions aimed at pampered closers. Our favorites: Relievers shouldn't get a save unless they face the tying run. And relievers shouldn't get a win if they blow a save. But nobody should ever again be allowed to earn a 'save' in a 26-7 game."
Agreed, to a point. First, if the reliever blows the save, who should get the win? Second, the save rule -- though defined better and making more sense than the rules involving starters being credited with victories -- is a joke, mainly because it tends to lock managers, like a Dusty Baker, into the "closer mentality" instead of putting the guy out there who can best do the job under the circumstances. Also, it sort of handcuffs both management and players during salary negotiations -- I mean, if you want to give a free-agent closer $48 million dollars for 48 saves, that's your business, but you should know what kinds of saves we're talking about. If 40 of those come with a three-run lead and a one-two-three ninth, life hasn't been all that tough for the closer.
Over the years I've done what I consider to be a relatively uncomplicated thing that tries to take into account game situation, score, etc., and awards "save points" based on "complexity" (and subtracts "blown save points"). In other words, Major League Baseball, as always, should listen to me.
5. Ban the fake-to-third, throw-to-first move: "If it were up to us, we'd wipe out the balk rule entirely, since 50 percent of all balks are essentially examples of umpires trying to demonstrate how smart and attentive they are. But if we're going to keep it, then please make that horrendous fake-to-third, throw-to-first pickoff move a balk. We don't care if the pitcher is on the rubber, off the rubber or lying in a deck chair. That move deceives runners more than all but about six balk calls we've ever seen."
Is he kidding? Aside from Jose Uribe and Barry Bonds, I'm not sure I've ever seen anybody fall for that move.
6. Three pickoffs and you're done: "Speaking of pickoffs, two of our poll-ees suggested that pickoff throws be limited to three per runner, per base. Think of the dramatic possibilities after a pitcher had used up his second move. Would he dare use up that (gasp) third throw, knowing it would be an invitation to the runner to take a 40-foot lead on the next pitch? Or were those first two throws a set-up, daring that runner to guess there's no way he'd make that third move -- and get picked off? Sounds like fun to us."
This is one of those things where you just can't fix the rule to everybody's satisfaction, or maybe at all. I kind of like the idea of limiting pickoff throws, but, as Stark says, three unsuccessful throws means that the runner can do whatever the hell he wants.
7. Five for fighting: "Hockey and football teams are allowed to deactivate players for a specific game." I might be interested to see something similar in baseball. Granted, I don't think it'd be fair to, say, deactivate yesterday's starting pitcher and replace him with a lefty pinch-hitter or something. Also, it'd depend on how many "reserves" you can keep on the inactive roster. Can't be too many. Stark continues: "So here's a baseball variation suggested by one club official who prefers to remain nameless: Limit a team to five relief pitchers per nine-inning game. Obviously, all limits are off in extra innings, but this could be a change that works for everybody: It would be a guaranteed night off for that tireless right-hander who had already pitched three straight days. And it would spare us the thrill of the in-and-out bullpen parade -- left, right, left, right ... oops, we're out of pitchers."
Bad idea. I don't like the lefty-righty-lefty-righty thing either, but to cure it, managers need to realize that the lefty-righty thing simply isn't the final word on platoon advantages.
8. It takes two: "In the same vein, Brewers GM Doug Melvin suggests that when no one is on base, a relief pitcher should have to face a minimum of two hitters instead of just one. Nothing worse than a 1-2-3 seventh inning featuring three different relievers."
Get outta here. Sure, it's better that Melvin specified that the bases should be empty, but it's not worth limiting a manager in that way just to shave a minute off the final time of game.
9. Let's not see you in September: "Why do teams play with a 25-man roster all year and then, in the most important month -- September -- get to expand the roster to 40? If September provides a club with the opportunity to check out a Francisco Rodriguez or a Brandon Phillips, fine. If it allows a team to add a backup catcher or extra bullpen arm, no problem. But when it's hard to tell the Tigers' active roster from the Lions' active roster, that's going too far. Shrink that September roster to 30 -- tops."
Nah. Even in the throes of a pennant race, the September call-ups are a good thing when you need the occasional pinch-runner, to spell a regular for a few innings, or to use an early pinch-hitter without burning a valuable bench player (unless you're the Giants, in which case you probably have no valuable bench players). The main thing is, tighten up that loophole that allows a team to cash in on a Francisco Rodriguez when it damn well shouldn't.
10. Unify the numbers: "Once upon a time, baseball had two separate and distinct leagues. They had their own offices. They never played each other. For a while, they even had their own rules. But now -- in an age of interleague play, one umpiring workforce and no league offices -- it's time to consolidate the stats."
No, the issue is that there shouldn't be interleague play. That's the stupid part.
11. Waive the waiver system: "As long as we're on this subject, another constructive proposal by Doug Melvin would make the waiver system more like the draft. Now, if a player gets placed on waivers by an AL team, all the other AL teams have to pass on claiming him before even the worst team in the NL gets a shot at him. If we're striving for competitive balance in an interleague age, shouldn't that system be trashed? Give teams an opportunity to claim a player according to their record -- worst teams first, regardless of league. Or alternate leagues like the draft. But to give the Yankees first shot at a player who could legitimately help the Pirates is absurd."
Here I pretty much agree. Even without interleague play, it's all Major League Baseball. There used to be some stigma attached to being "waived out of the league," but I don't see how that can be true anymore. And the point about the Yankees snarfing up a player who really would be of no use to them -- at the expense of a National League team who really could use him -- is well taken.
12. Erase the runner's box: "A bunch of players grumbled about the continued existence of that 'runner's box' along the last 45 feet of the first-base line. In theory, the runner is supposed to stay within the lane of those two lines. In reality, said Astros catcher Brad Ausmus, 'if the runner stays in the runner's box, he can't actually ever legally touch first base.' Plus, said Texas' Doug Glanville, that lane 'is in foul territory. So as a right-handed batter, you have to run across the field to get foul, then loop back to touch the base, which is in fair territory.' If it's interference, it's interference. Do we really need that line to establish whether it is or isn't? And let those right-handed hitters cut across the grass to get to the line while we're at it."
Well, the whole point of the box is to make sure people don't interfere with thrown balls. I do feel it's not exactly kosher to do that. However, Stark and the others have a point, especially since, seemingly half the time, interference isn't called when it should be, or is called when it shouldn't be.
13. Define the true meaning of sacrifice: "Marlins utility dynamo Andy Fox wonders why hitters don't get a sacrifice when they hit a ground ball to the right side to move a runner -- or when they hit a ground ball with the infield back to score a run. Good question. We've seen scorers give sacs to guys who clearly were bunting for a hit. So why wouldn't they have the discretion to give 'sacs' to guys who obviously are hitting a ball to the right side to advance a runner?"
First, scorers have to be smarter about that: if a guy's bunting for a hit, no sacrifice – it's usually easy to tell the difference. But the main reason not to have 'sacrifice ground outs' is that you can't be sure these were intentional. Ditto sacrifice flies, of course. (The "intentional/unintentional" thing, evidently, is why sacrifice bunts are not counted against the hitter in calculating on-base percentage, while sacrifice flies are. I happen to think that's foolish. Irrespective of intent, a sacrifice bunt is still a plate appearance, one in which the batter gets out. Who would grouse to the rules committee about losing the on-base percentage title because of a sacrifice bunt?)
14. Dump the designated pinch-runner: "If we're trying to speed up the game and make it more athletic, why defeat both purposes by allowing some half-crippled pinch-hitter to pinch-hit in a blowout, then have to pinch-run for him? Another cool Doug Melvin idea would ban pinch-running for a pinch-hitter -- unless he represents the tying or go-ahead run. Besides moving the game along, it would force managers to save certain hitters for certain situations, knowing they couldn't get them out of the game if they reached base. Strategy: good. One-dimensional hitters: bad. That's our motto."
Look, the game has featured one-dimensional players forever. Seems to me that if a team wants to burn two substitutes at once, it should be able to. It's not like it takes hours for all this to transpire. The pinch-hitter, upon being announced, doesn't run to the batting cages under the stands and hit for 10 minutes before striding up to the plate, all warmed up; the pinch-runner doesn't run foul-line-to-foul-line sprints to prepare for the task at hand. This just ain't no big twig.
15. But add the designated fielder: "Doug Melvin (who obviously needs his own column) also proposes adding a minimum-salaried 26th roster spot for a 'designated fielder.' This guy would make the minimum -- but would never be allowed to bat (all season). Unlike the DH, the DF wouldn't play the whole game in the field. He would be a defensive specialist who would go into a game late and occupy a lineup spot -- except that when his turn came up, you'd have to pinch-hit for him. So he'd be the defensive equivalent of the closer. He'd just move around a lot more."
This may be the silliest rule change I've ever seen proposed in (apparent) earnest. Imagine being that guy. You'd be treated kind of like a placekicker, like you're not even really a player.
16. Ban all body armor: "Baseball did a great job last year of cracking down on all those hitters heading for the plate in football pads. But it's time to go further. Unless a guy has had a broken bone in his hand or arm within the past five years, or a deep bruise (authenticated by the surgeon general) within the past 30 days, no armor whatsoever should be permitted for any hitter. Sorry, Barry. Even you."
Sorry. Stark is wrong. A hitter should be able to wear any and all armor he wants. The umpire needs to be on the ball enough to know when a guy's doing a Craig Biggio -- i.e., sticking his pad in the way of the ball for the express purpose of being hit. His teammate, Jeff Bagwell, has had his hand broken at least twice by pitches; are you going to tell me he shouldn't be able to protect that obviously vulnerable body part?
17. Invent the "team" error: "When a 40-foot pop-up lands in the infield between four different men wearing the finest gloves money can buy, don't you just hate it when that's scored a (chuckle) 'hit?' When a routine fly ball in the alley drops between two outfielders who forgot to call it, doesn't it curdle your blood when the hitter gets a (gasp) 'double?' Absurd! If a ball should be caught, it should be caught. And if it isn't, it's an error -- even if it's a 'team' error. Case closed."
This is hardly a major issue, but still, the "team error" call could get overused, especially with a popular player involved. Consider Willie Mays and George Theodore in the '73 World Series. Mays clearly made at least one horrible play... but Theodore got hung with the error because Mays was Mays and Theodore was "Stork." In Stark's world, the Mets would have been charged with "team errors" -- again, solely because Mays is Mays. Can't you see hometown official scorers awarding a team error to protect a player who's trying to set a consecutive-game errorless streak or something?
18. Enforce the batter's box: "This, technically, isn't a rule 'change.' But explain to us again why some hitters are allowed to rub out the back line of the batter's box and camp out practically in the catcher's lap. We don't get it. If we're not going to enforce that batter's box, why waste the chalk? And on a similar note, if a hitter wants to stand so close to the plate that his elbows are actually in the strike zone, he forfeits the right to take his base if he gets drilled. And the umpire would announce that before the pitch."
This needs some expansion. Yes, I agree about hitters rubbing out the chalk. That's bunk. Just be in the damn box, okay? Will that extra inch really give you an edge? But if a hitter has body parts in the strike zone, he's risking those body parts, right? If Barry Bonds gets drilled in the butt, should he "forfeit the right" to take his base because his elbow is in the strike zone? (And let me be the first to point out the inevitable jokes about umpires not knowing an ass from an elbow.) Or if he's hit in the helmet by a pitch thrown behind him? Doesn't this just give the pitcher the right to go headhunting with impunity?
19. The phantom must go: "Two different club executives grumbled that middle infielders are now allowed to roam farther and farther off the bag while 'turning' two. So we risk hearing from the heavily funded Shortstop Lobby by proposing: No more phantom tags. If you don't touch the base, you don't get the out."
I'm very much okay with this. I get the reasoning for the phantom tag: trying to prevent injury. That's fine. But how often does a guy get racked up on a double-play ball? When Alex Rodriguez took out Jeff Kent a few years back, that hurt Kent and the team, to be sure, but that's the risk these guys take. I don't mean to be insensitive, but the phantom tag is a joke -- especially since umpires actually do enforce the penalty sometimes. ("Sometimes," here, usually can be defined as "when it would screw the Giants.")
20. No more Saturday night games: "A prominent GM who prefers not to get fined says it's time for all weekend games to be played in the afternoon, to make this sport as kid-friendly as possible. Since we work for a network that seems to enjoy Sunday nights, we'll make an allowance for one national TV game every week. But that's it. The same GM wants no night games starting after 7 p.m., and no postseason games starting later than 8 p.m. sharp -- all in the name of re-infusing kids with the love of baseball. Yeah, there would be short-term money lost. But we would make it back when the next generation pours through the turnstiles. We promise, Bud."
I agree with weekend (and holiday) games being played in the afternoon (and the hell with the ESPN exception). For selfish reasons, though, I'd rather see all weekday games be played at night. That's because, damn it, I'm gonna listen to daytime ballgames at work during the week, which will suggest to my bosses that maybe I care less about my duties than the Giants, which means that periodically I have pretend otherwise by walking away from the game for some pointless meeting or something. Maintaining that front is just too tiring.
As for night games, I'd be fine 6:30 starting times. Maybe even six. Starting times such as 7:30 don't sit well with me -- I'm not even crazy about 7:15 -- but seven o'clock I can live with. I'd be less stroppy about it if we were ever to see the return of the two-hour game.
"Now You're Just Being Silly!"
Stark winds up the piece with "Five more for fun":
1. No more out-of-the-baseline rule: Stark has former player Rico Brogna suggesting that a be allowed to run anywhere on the field if he wants. The scary thing is, I could see Major League Baseball adopting something this silly, and indeed you'd get an absurd amount of cheating. Don Hoak would be reborn.
2. Farm out the Brewers: Stark says, "The team with the worst record in baseball every year gets sent to Triple-A." A good Triple-A or Northern League team would take its place. It think it'd be funnier if the worst team had to release all its players. Even funnier if the best team had to release all its players.
3. No win, no welfare: "Or here's a variation on that same theme, from an anonymous agent: If a team has three consecutive losing seasons, it loses 50 percent of its revenue-sharing payout and all of its welfare check from the luxury-tax pool until it gets above .500 again. That might force the Pirates, Brewers and Tigers into Chapter 11. But if it didn't, we bet it would sure speed up their rebuilding programs.
Well, this is just chilling.
4. Get the fans in the game -- literally: Stark has Brogna proposing making fan interference legal. "Fans couldn't actually leave the stands [or use] any nets, traps or other contraptions not fitting the definition of 'baseball glove,'" but they'd have "the right to field any ball, fair or foul, that shows up near their seat. What sport has ever been fan-friendlier than that?"
Again, I could see MLB actually adopting something like this -- i.e., if you don't catch a ball because you can't wrestle it out of a fan's glove sticking 18 inches into play, tough darts. Of course, that'd be horrific, but still. In any case, I firmly believe that fans who interfere should be hustled out of there, maybe banned from the park for a while, maybe dismembered. To me the ones with absolutely no excuse are the dolts who lean over to grab "foul" balls. Man, if it ain't going into the stands, it ain't yours to grab.
5. Ban Thunder Stix: Or "any giveaway item which, if waved, banged or pounded, could cause significant permanent hearing loss." If the Giants had come up with the Thunder Stix, I wouldn't mind them. However, someone else did. Ergo, they must go.
But in terms of rule changes, the biggest concern over the last few years has been moving the game along. The fact is, I too would like to see quicker baseball games. I mean, gee, I love baseball, but, perhaps because I'm a veteran of computer and table-top baseball games that take half an hour to conclude, three hours is too long. (Comedian Rita Rudner, in a routine about a friend who experienced 36 hours of labor in childbirth, says, "I don't even want to do anything that feels good for 36 hours.") If three hours is too long, one might postulate that four hours is too long, too. I liked the days when ballgames could be counted on to end in less than two and a half hours.
Tragically, the time-saving suggestions in Stark's list, while fulfilling that purpose, would also take too much away from the game. No pinch-running for a pinch-hitter? No bringing in the lefty just to face Bonds? Yeccchhh. Penalize a team even further for deliberately giving a batter a free base? They've already put the guy on base -- that's penalty enough.
In other words, the game of baseball is just fine as it is. If you really want to change a rule, dump the designated hitter.