What rules would you change?

[yankthis]

If you could arbitrarily change or add one rule in baseball, what would it be?

 

I would eliminate the ridiculous ceremony of making four tosses for an intentional walk. Instead either the catcher would step up in front of the plate and motion for the batter to take first base, or have the pitcher remove his glove and wave four fingers.

[Youk Of The Nation]

I would change the ground-rule double scoring to umpire's judgement. A lot of ground-rule doubles would be singles or triples based on where they hit the ground (for example, a ball bouncing a few feet past first base in Fenway and into the stands), and I hate seeing guys get to second base on balls like that.

[Kimmi]

The only rules that I can think of right now that I have issues with are scoring or stat rules, the first one being with how "wins" are awarded to pitchers.

 

As far as the actual playing of the game on the field, I can think of anything off the top of my head, though I'm sure my memory will be jogged when I see it happen.

[Kimmi]

I would change the ground-rule double scoring to umpire's judgement. A lot of ground-rule doubles would be singles or triples based on where they hit the ground (for example, a ball bouncing a few feet past first base in Fenway and into the stands), and I hate seeing guys get to second base on balls like that.

 

The ground rule double scoring was huge in keeping the Sox alive in the 2004 ALCS. I'm not sure how I feel about this. I understand the frustration on balls where the hitter clearly would have only had a single, or when a runner on first would have clearly made it home, but I'm hesitant to leave too much to the umpire's discretion.

[bosoxmal]

I would not have let Rich Hill get away! Or opted to stick with Buch!

[Youk Of The Nation]

I would not have let Rich Hill get away! Or opted to stick with Buch!

 

Okay, but this is about the rules of baseball.

[moonslav59]

I'd expand the active roster to 27 players and the 40 man roster to 45.

[jacksonianmarch]

I'd have a travelling roster of 29 players with the need to designate 25 active for each night. No need for the other 4 starters to be active when there is no chance in hell for them to pitch. It allows for more opportunity and the 25 man roster was created at a time where a team only needed 8 pitchers. It's an antiquated system.

[sk7326]

On the field: Really the sport has roster rules exactly backwards. Start the minor league season LATER. You really should have your 40 man roster in April, not September. Go to automated ball-strikes calls. Umps are lousy at it, it's an impossible job for humans to do. Also - the strike zone is in the rule book, that umps interpret it their own way is a mistake.

 

Off the field: Allow trading draft picks. (Hell, abolish the draft - but that's never going to happen) Abolish salary limits. Get rid of draft pick compensation for free agents.

[moonslav59]

I like the 29 man roster with daily 25 players designated idea.

I'm all for the auto strike idea.

You could probably also put a sensor in the first baseman's mitt and first base bag to make calls at 1st base automated as well.

[Kimmi]

I would get rid of instant replay altogether.

 

Absolutely no on automated balls/strikes calls.

[Northern Star]

I would change the ground-rule double scoring to umpire's judgement. A lot of ground-rule doubles would be singles or triples based on where they hit the ground (for example, a ball bouncing a few feet past first base in Fenway and into the stands), and I hate seeing guys get to second base on balls like that.

 

So something else umps can screw up and potentially affect outcomes of games with. No thanks.

[Northern Star]

I would get rid of instant replay altogether.

 

Absolutely no on automated balls/strikes calls.

 

I wouldn't get rid of it altogether because then we're cheating another Galaraga out of a perfect game again somewhere down the road. I don't know the balance between too much replay and not enough, but it should be there for the huge calls that umps get wrong that cost teams games. It's a long season and it all evens out, but making the playoffs often comes down to the difference of one game.

[sk7326]

I would get rid of instant replay altogether.

 

Absolutely no on automated balls/strikes calls.

 

Strike zone is in the rule book - the technology is here to do something consistent right now. It is an imposible job for home plate umps to do. Following their success rate on mlb's gamecast is remarkably funny.

 

You would still need home plate umps for swing/no swing, foul tips and plays at the plate. But we have technology to outsource the part of the job they are worst at.

 

I admire that Vasquez is an elite pitch framer - but if you think of it, pitch framing is only a thing because home plate umpires for the most part are lousy at their job.

Edited May 15, 2016 by sk7326

[Northern Star]

Strike zone is in the rule book - the technology is here to do something consistent right now. It is an imposible job for home plate umps to do. Following their success rate on mlb's gamecast is remarkably funny.

 

You would still need home plate umps for swing/no swing, foul tips and plays at the plate. But we have technology to outsource the part of the job they are worst at.

 

I admire that Vasquez is an elite pitch framer - but if you think of it, pitch framing is only a thing because home plate umpires for the most part are lousy at their job.

 

Maybe we can also automate the batters, and then there would be no strikeouts at all.

[sk7326]

Maybe we can also automate the batters, and then there would be no strikeouts at all.

 

Why would you do that. One issue is about administering the rules properly. I am amazed that folks get all bent out of shape about PEDs but not about umps being doing an essential job badly. Batters want a consistent strike zone - virtually nothing would change about the game aside from the horrible balls and strikes calls which you are not allowed to question.