WBC Shows Futility Of Proposed Rules Changes
March 21, 2017 at 3:44 p.m.
By Mark [email protected]
As part of an overall effort to shorten games, Major League Baseball (who runs the WBC), is looking at implementing new rules that, starting with the 11th inning, puts runners on first and second at the start of an inning.
Ironically, that’s the first time I’ve ever used the initials “WBC” and it not stand for Westboro Baptist Church. So there’s something else for me to like about the tournament.
Anyway, in last night’s semifinal game between Netherlands and Puerto Rico, the game went into the 11th inning tied at 2-2. The Netherlands' 11th went like this – sacrifice bunt by Stijn van der Meer to move the runners to second and third; intentional walk to Yurendell de Caster to load the bases (all four pitches were thrown, no intentional base on balls?signal to save time here); first-pitch, inning-ending double play grounder by Curt Smith.
The Puerto Rico 11th went: bunt by Yadier Molina to move the runners up; intentional walk to Javier Baez to load the bases; sacrifice fly by Eddie Rosario, driving in Carlos Correa for the 4-3 win.
The WBC is marketed (aka “sold to we fans”) to be of equal importance to the World Series, but because of the enormous monetary investment in the athletes involved, we see restrictions placed on pitching. So the need to keep games from going deep into the night is very real, and very necessary.
I like that a spring training game, if tied after 10, is called a tie and everyone goes home. The only people who remember spring training games are the people taking vacations to go there, and they know what they’re getting into before they pack their bags.
But of all the things to reduce the time a game is played ... never mind, I don’t really like any of the proposals.
The powers that be in MLB’s Park Avenue offices in New York City (say it like they did in the salsa commercials for full effect, please) will also try the rule in regular-season games in the minor leagues to see how it would work out in the long term.
But as last night’s “high stakes” game showed us, starting out the inning with two runners on automatically means the game becomes amazing predictable. Bunt the runners over, then hit away with the next two guys to try and push the run over.
It’s my understanding that if implemented, the runners-on rule would only apply to regular-season games. In other words, different rules would apply once the games become anything but routine.
That would make a bad rule worse.
Any baseball coach worth his salt has a back-up to the back-up plan in case a game goes really long, and knows which position players on his bench can come in and throw an inning or two if need be.
But I propose a different solution. If a game goes more than 12 innings, both teams can call up one pitcher for 48 hours, similar to adding a pitcher for a doubleheader. The key here is two days, not two games. If there’s an off day, that’s when players are supposed to be resting anyway.
As I write this, I try to imagine how different each of the last two World Series final games would have looked had a ‘runners-on’ rule been in effect. Two seasons ago, in the 12th inning of Game 5, Kansas City scored five runs in the top of the inning. Imagine if the Mets could start off the bottom of their inning with two on and not do a dang thing?
Or last year’s Game 7. The Cubs pushed across a pair of runs in the top of the 10th, and then held off the Cleveland rally. Both of those innings look much different, and are less dramatic, with runners on to start an inning.
The only truly effective way to reduce the time a game is played is to have less time between innings. That won’t happen. It was made longer to accommodate more commercials, which in the long run results in more revenue for broadcasters, teams and players. No one will sacrifice that for the good of the game.
So we’re left with screwing with the rules to try and cut seconds, rather than minutes, off the game.
Clowns to the left of us, jokers to the right, and we fans know where we fit in.
Latest News
E-Editions
As part of an overall effort to shorten games, Major League Baseball (who runs the WBC), is looking at implementing new rules that, starting with the 11th inning, puts runners on first and second at the start of an inning.
Ironically, that’s the first time I’ve ever used the initials “WBC” and it not stand for Westboro Baptist Church. So there’s something else for me to like about the tournament.
Anyway, in last night’s semifinal game between Netherlands and Puerto Rico, the game went into the 11th inning tied at 2-2. The Netherlands' 11th went like this – sacrifice bunt by Stijn van der Meer to move the runners to second and third; intentional walk to Yurendell de Caster to load the bases (all four pitches were thrown, no intentional base on balls?signal to save time here); first-pitch, inning-ending double play grounder by Curt Smith.
The Puerto Rico 11th went: bunt by Yadier Molina to move the runners up; intentional walk to Javier Baez to load the bases; sacrifice fly by Eddie Rosario, driving in Carlos Correa for the 4-3 win.
The WBC is marketed (aka “sold to we fans”) to be of equal importance to the World Series, but because of the enormous monetary investment in the athletes involved, we see restrictions placed on pitching. So the need to keep games from going deep into the night is very real, and very necessary.
I like that a spring training game, if tied after 10, is called a tie and everyone goes home. The only people who remember spring training games are the people taking vacations to go there, and they know what they’re getting into before they pack their bags.
But of all the things to reduce the time a game is played ... never mind, I don’t really like any of the proposals.
The powers that be in MLB’s Park Avenue offices in New York City (say it like they did in the salsa commercials for full effect, please) will also try the rule in regular-season games in the minor leagues to see how it would work out in the long term.
But as last night’s “high stakes” game showed us, starting out the inning with two runners on automatically means the game becomes amazing predictable. Bunt the runners over, then hit away with the next two guys to try and push the run over.
It’s my understanding that if implemented, the runners-on rule would only apply to regular-season games. In other words, different rules would apply once the games become anything but routine.
That would make a bad rule worse.
Any baseball coach worth his salt has a back-up to the back-up plan in case a game goes really long, and knows which position players on his bench can come in and throw an inning or two if need be.
But I propose a different solution. If a game goes more than 12 innings, both teams can call up one pitcher for 48 hours, similar to adding a pitcher for a doubleheader. The key here is two days, not two games. If there’s an off day, that’s when players are supposed to be resting anyway.
As I write this, I try to imagine how different each of the last two World Series final games would have looked had a ‘runners-on’ rule been in effect. Two seasons ago, in the 12th inning of Game 5, Kansas City scored five runs in the top of the inning. Imagine if the Mets could start off the bottom of their inning with two on and not do a dang thing?
Or last year’s Game 7. The Cubs pushed across a pair of runs in the top of the 10th, and then held off the Cleveland rally. Both of those innings look much different, and are less dramatic, with runners on to start an inning.
The only truly effective way to reduce the time a game is played is to have less time between innings. That won’t happen. It was made longer to accommodate more commercials, which in the long run results in more revenue for broadcasters, teams and players. No one will sacrifice that for the good of the game.
So we’re left with screwing with the rules to try and cut seconds, rather than minutes, off the game.
Clowns to the left of us, jokers to the right, and we fans know where we fit in.
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092