On Friday, MLB announced the first rule changes of the Rob Manfred era, and they didn’t seem like terrible ideas. In the latest effort to “address this industry goal to quicken the pace” of baseball, the Pace of Game Committee issued the following new rules:
- Umpires will enforce Rule 6.02(d), which requires hitters to keep one foot in the box during an at-bat, subject to certain exceptions.
- Timers will be used to ensure that the game resumes promptly at the end of inning breaks.
- Managers will no longer come out of the dugout to initiate a replay challenge. A manager will also keep his challenge after each call that is overturned. Last year, a challenge was retained only after the first overturned call.
As far as reducing wasted time, putting the onus on the hitters instead of the pitchers makes more sense to me. For as long as I can remember there has been talk of using pitch clocks similar to basketball’s shot clocks. Indeed, pitch clocks have recently made their way into professional baseball – the Arizona Fall League used them in select games last year, and they will be used in AAA and AA leagues this year. That’s a more troubling development, since the ability for the pitcher to adjust the pace of his delivery is a key strategic element of the game.
There’s also a strategic element to the batter stepping out of the box, but simply making him keep one foot in is less radical than a damn timer would be. Under the new rule, the batter can still step out if he asks for time and the umpire grants it. Even if the batter doesn’t call time, as a strategic matter he could still take his time getting into his stance while keeping one foot in the box. The actual pace quickening might be fairly marginal, although we’ll know more in a few months.
One of the most appealing aspects of baseball compared to other sports is that the winning team can’t just run out the clock. They have to make all their pitches and record 27 outs. The “one foot” rule strikes a pretty decent balance between allowing teams to adjust the pacing of the game, and nudging players in the direction of less diddling around.
Despite my aversion to clocks, using a timer during between-inning break does not raise any red flags. It sounds like there’s going to be plenty of discretion with enforcing this rule, e.g., when the pitcher or catcher were at bat or on base when the previous inning ended. As long as clocks aren’t a part of gameplay itself, I think I can keep my composure.
The last rule that keeps managers in the dugout while they wait on a replay is eminently sensible. Rarely is a new rule in any facet of life so uncontroversial and practical. Three cheers for doing the obviously right thing so expediently!
It’s hard to say now what the unintended consequences of the first two rules will be, but overall the announcement wasn’t something to make baseball fans tear their hair out and/or rend their garments. That’s something of an accomplishment. Fans could be forgiven for fearing the worst about new MLB rules just one month after Manfred said he was open to eliminating defensive shifts to “inject additional offense in the game.” I don’t mean to be obvious, but banning shifts is an idea of such mindboggling idiocy that I’m proud of us for not storming MLB headquarters and burning him at the stake (a penalty I suspect Manfred would be open to for any player who fails a PED test).
Manfred’s openness on defensive shifts would be like Adam Silver announcing he’s open to lowering NBA hoops to nine feet and widening the rims to 36 inches. That would certainly inject additional offense into the game…at the expense of making the game stupider. A couple of days later, Manfred tried to moderate his earlier comment, but it still sounded like he doesn’t fundamentally understand how competitive sports work (emphasis mine):
“You never know whether people are going to adjust, maybe a lot of hitters went home this winter and they figured out how to go the other way against the shift and it’s going to self correct and we’re not going to need to make a change. But we look at these things. We think it’s smart to pay attention. We think it’s important to think about possible solutions, even if it turns out we don’t have a problem.”
You don’t need to be an expert on human nature to understand the incentives at play here – hitters that want to beat the shift will make adjustments. Hitters that are content with batting averages hovering around .200 will not adjust…and have to find other ways to make a living. Or maybe they won’t – if they’re playing in a league in which the commissioner is open to changing the foundational rules of the game, maybe hitters shouldn’t bother making adjustments.
Are we even sure the shift is as detrimental to hitters as commonly thought? Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman makes a couple of great points about the impact of the shift and what a hitter can do beat it:
[T]he impact on offense is tiny. The Wall Street Journal calculated last September that as of that date, without [the shift], the overall major league batting average for the season would have been .254 instead of .252. […]Batters have some obvious remedies. One is to bunt to the third-base side, which can succeed with great ease when the shift is in operation. Last year, reports the website Inside Edge, there were 50 bunt attempts against the shift—and 27 went for hits, a stunning .540 average. Bunting is a skill so simple that even feeble-hitting pitchers are expected to master it.
Doesn’t sound like MLB would “need to make change” if hitters would just trying bunting. I’m sure even Prince Fielder could figure it out with a little practice.
While we’re on the subject of criticizing Manfred, aren’t the two goals he’s interesting in achieving – quickening the pace of the game, and injecting more offense – at odds with each other? Games with a lot of runs scored tend to be significantly longer than pitching duels. Doesn’t Manfred know how baseball works?
Maybe I’m being uncharitable. The new pace of play rules aren’t that bad, and Manfred has yet to put anything truly moronic in place. But the fact that he’s open to truly moronic rules – and seems to have some big blind spots as to the nature of the game he oversees – does not inspire confidence.
(Image: Patrick McDermott/Getty)
Add The Sports Daily to your Google News Feed!
