Skip to main content

20 replies

Mr. Selig, our readers have some advice

RJMRJMHSBaseballWeb member since 2007
From boston.com (Boston Globe)

Mr. Selig, our readers have some advice
by Peter Abraham, Globe Staff July 20, 2010 02:00 PM

Monday we asked the readers of Extra Bases what change they would implement were they named commissioner of baseball for one day.

There was a terrific response and I encourage you to read through the comments on that post. Many folks want a salary cap, balanced schedules, quicker games and the DH in the National League. Oh, and more days games in the postseason.

I was surprised at how many people are down on interleague play.

Here are the best of the dozens of answers we received:

1) Change the wild card to two teams. These teams play one game the day after the season ends. The winner advances to play the team with the best record two days later. This would put the wild card team at a severe disadvantage, which they should be.

2) Let the managers have one or two instant reply challenges per game, much like head coaches in the NFL have. It could not be used for balls and strikes but close plays at a base.

3) Allow Pete Rose to be voted into the Hall of Fame. I wouldn't reinstate him, but rather allow him to appear on the ballot for the HoF. If he is voted in, allow him to be enshrined. If he isn't voted in well, no dice.

4) I would restore full power to the commissioner. The current position as appointed by the owners simple has too much influence from the big market ownerships. Let the role truly be what it was intended to be, with the best interests of the game at heart. True change starts there.

5) Fix the draft with respects to "overslotting" and foreign players. The one way low-money teams are supposed to be competitive is through the draft. However, with high prospects demanding more and more money, low-money teams don't always take the best player available, instead going for a cheaper prospect. Rich teams also benefit through signing foreign players that don't have to go in the draft.

6) The very first thing I would do is threaten to drop ESPN as a broadcast partner unless they fire Joe Morgan. The man is absolutely insufferable to listen to.

7) The Commission should penalize the markets that do not use the luxury tax subsidies to invest in their ball clubs by withholding the next year's subsidy.

8) Improve the quality of on-field officiating and predicate salary and job security via ongoing grading by supervisors, peers, players, and coaching staffs, weighted accordingly.

9) Why not just create a hand-signal for intentional walks? It seems like a waste of time to throw four way outside pitches when everyone knows the intent is to walk the batter. It may not shorten games substantially, but it would help a little.

10) The compensation rule for free agents should be eliminated or vastly altered to actually reward teams losing the best players, and to not punish those players. I'd suggest supplemental picks with the order based on the average annual value of contract, and with a minimum contract value for compensation, either tied to previous salary, or to an average recent-salary threshold

11) Have the MLB champion play the Japanese champion in a best-of-seven true World Series.

** The dream is free. Work ethic sold separately. **

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

zombywoofzombywoof1,000+ posts
#13.MLB should also drop FOX, that scumbag McCarver for being a complete moron as well as silver-spoon boy Joe Buck. Who else could compare the Yankee front office to Nazi Germany. McCarver don't know when to shut up. These two doing national games is a disgrace. During a Yankee game this year with Buck & McCarver, they did a half inning of silence for Harwell. It was the best half-inning ever called by those two clowns. Total silence. It must've been killing McCarver.

Along with dropping FOX, #4&6 make sense. #7 the best proposal here. #11 makes no sense at all because Japanese baseball is no better than the minor leagues in the U.S. The best players in the world play MLB so the World Series is fine the way it is.
Last edited by zombywoof
EH Emanski's Heroes1,000+ posts
A few things I would do (some are similar to RJM's ideas, some aren't).

1. I don't like the idea of another wild card team. In fact, in many cases the wild card team is the second best team from a league (for example, right now the two best teams in the AL are NYY and TB, but TB would be a wild card). I would consider doing away with divisions and just take the four best records in each league. If the season ended today, the Red Sox would miss the playoffs despite having a better record than the AL Central leading White Sox. If anything, in order to punish the #4 team and reward the #1 team, then in the first round, the #1 team gets the first and last two games of the five game series at home.

2. Doing away with divisions would lead to my next change, which is sending an NL team back to the AL. The most obviously candidate would seem to be the Brewers, since they were most recently in the AL anyway. Sure, this would mean that there would always be at least one interleague series going on, but....

3. I would make both leagues use the DH. I don't need to see pitchers hit. If they happen to come up with runners on base, then they bunt. Yippie! If not, they look totally clueless in most cases and seek the quickest u-turn possible. Pitchers hitting really don't add any intrigue and/or sophistication to the NL. Let's be honest, the double switch isn't all that complicated. Besides, this would allow pitchers to go deeper into games because you don't have to hit for the pitcher in the 6th inning. And double switches are even worse because not only are you removing your best pitcher, but you're also removing one of your starting position players. Now the fans, who want to see the best players, get to watch a middle reliever and a fourth outfielder. Awesome.

4. I would at least consider contracting two teams. The Marlins would be the easiest target. I'd let the state of Florida have one team and they could do whatever they wanted to with that team. They would have the rights to all of Florida, plus Puerto Rico, so they could play some games in Miami, some in Tampa, some in Orlando, and a few in San Juan. I'm not sure who would be next, but if I went this direction I think you could get rid of the worst 50 players in the league, which would improve the quality of baseball.

5. I would shorten the season to 150 games and consider doubleheaders once a month (April through August). That would slice 17 dates off the schedule. Of those 17 dates, I would add 7 off days during the year, and shorten the season by ten days so we're not playing the World Series on Halloween or in October. Yeah, I know the owners aren't going to give up dates because of the ticket revenue, but I'm making these changes in a perfect world.

6. I'm in agreement regarding Joe Morgan, Tim McTalksalot, and Joe Buck.

I also agree with zombywoof, no need for the MLB champ to play the Japanese champ.
Last edited by Emanski's Heroes
RJMRJMHSBaseballWeb member since 2007
First, these weren't my ideas. I copied them from a Boston Globe article. All the suggestions have merit worth discussing.

As for #11 Japanese ball is considered better than minor league ball. It's considered between AAA and MLB. But given the success of Japan in the WBC I can see where someone would suggest a series. It would be nice to see US players want to play and play like it matters. The problem is how long it would make a playoff season that's already too long.

I believe #1 has some real merit. A one game playoff is like playing Russian Roulette with your season. When the winner goes on to the first round he won't be able to use his #1 pitcher twice like the other team. #1 probably wouldn't pitch until game four.

I beleive the Red Sox have rostered up to finish in the wild card position yet be able to compete with the Yankees in a series. They can't outspend them to compete for first. But they can (injuries aside) outpitch them in a series. The #1 option would harm the Red Sox.

As for your ideas, divisions will never be eliminated. It guarantees more pennant races and fan interest late in the season. Schedules would have to be balanced which leads to more travel (issues with the MLBPA) and more expense (issue with the owners).

The season won't be shortened because players won't take less money. Doubleheaders are a thing of the past since it eliminates gate revenue. Most rain makeup doubleheaders are now day-night separate admission.

A rule I would like to see is teams always play on holidays. I remember when Memorial Day, the 4th and Labor Day were doubleheaders. Now if it's a Monday or Thursday travel day teams might not even play.
Jimmy03Jimmy031,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Emanski's Heroes:

3. I would make both leagues use the DH. I don't need to see pitchers hit.


The overall OPS (on-base percentage plus slugging percentage) for Major League DHs is below the league average for all other players. (Based on DH's with at least 150 at bats who have played as DH more than they have played any other position. Source: SI)

Disregarding all the traditional arguments agains the DH, bottom line, teams, with a couple of exceptions that prove the rule, are filling the spot with mediocre hitters who are not fullfilling the intended goal of the rule.

Designated HItter? Should be changed to Designated Batter.
Get rid of the DH and play Baseball.
Last edited by Jimmy03
zombywoofzombywoof1,000+ posts
quote:
Get rid of the DH and play Baseball.


The DH isn't going anywhere. The union will never put it up on the table for negotiations and you can't blame them because if they did, a lot of people would lose their jobs. If anything, the NL would have to adopt the DH rule and then both leagues will play under the same rules.
EH Emanski's Heroes1,000+ posts
Actually, everything I've seen or read says the DH was initially proposed in the early 1900's for just that reason. It wasn't implemented until the 70's, and even then was put in place because of the dominance of the pitchers (which is a roundabout way of saying "hmmm, how can we create more offense? I know...take that guy who really sucks at hitting and replace him with a real hitter").

Besides that, I really don't see the "major" strategy involved with the pitcher hitting. Are there runners on base and less than two outs? If so, then you bunt. If not, he either 1) swings at the first three pitches, missing by a foot, and makes a u-turn or 2) takes until he gets two strikes, hoping for a walk, then finally swings at a pitch and misses by a foot.

Later in the game, if the pitcher's spot comes up and it's not a bunt situation and the game is close, you pinch hit. Or if you were going to remove the pitcher anyway, you pinch hit. If you already pinch hit for the pitcher and it's late, then consider inserting the new pitcher in the place of your last hitter to bat in the inning. If you bring a reliever into a game in the middle of an inning, and the pitcher's spot is due up in your team's next at bat, then consider a double switch. I really don't see how this is overly complicated.

It would be somewhat more complicated if managers were more inclined to not tie their "closers" to save situations, and rather use their best relievers in the highest leverage situation (and also if they weren't so married to the idea that late inning relievers can only pitch one inning). But that's generally not the case.
Last edited by Emanski's Heroes
Jimmy03Jimmy031,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Emanski's Heroes:
Actually, everything I've seen or read says the DH was initially proposed in the early 1900's for just that reason. It wasn't implemented until the 70's, and even then was put in place because of the dominance of the pitchers (which is a roundabout way of saying "hmmm, how can we create more offense? I know...take that guy who really sucks at hitting and replace him with a real hitter").


According to Charles O. Finley, the primary advocate and leader of the group of owners who pushed for the DH, the primary purpose of the DH was to increase revenue by selling more tickets to fans would pay to see aging stars extend their career and and to see "an explosion" in offense.

At the time interest in night games, also instituted to increase revenue, was waning and Finely brought back the concept of the DH that was proposed and properly discarded years earlier. He also tried to get a designated runner instituted, but fortunately the owners weren't greedy enough to buy that one.

Now, according to the American League and MLB, none of their studies indicate that the rule met it lofty goal.
RJMRJMHSBaseballWeb member since 2007
quote:
Originally posted by Bulldog 19:
quote:
The union will never put it up on the table for negotiations and you can't blame them because if they did, a lot of people would lose their jobs.


How do you figure? Teams would still carry 25 on a roster. Who is "out of a job" because the NL doesn't use the DH?
I can't speak for someone else. But I understood his statement. Based on what was said I believe he meant older, established hitters would be pushed out of baseball. While there would still be the same number on the roster the replacement would likely be a young pitcher.

Add Reply

Post
.

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×