Off-Topic Forum

I would get rid of the 1 game wild card playoff make it at least 2 out of 3

A shorter season would be my top pick for a rule change. I'd put it at 141 games so that no team can finish at exactly .500. You either had a winning season or a losing season. The revenue generated by those extra 21 current games is the main reason that will probably never happen. Also, if it were to happen, ticket prices would go up (and probably food/drink and souvenirs).

Next would be to get rid of the DH. That is possible, but it's been a talking point for so long that I don't see that happening either. I do like the idea of switching it during inter-league play so that the DH is used in NL parks instead of AL parks.

My last pick for a rule change would be to stop changing the rules or talking about changing them every single year. Let them play ball and let us enjoy watching it.

Seems that many of us agree the season should be shorter.  The only way I see them doing this is if they can add more playoff series to counter the loss of revenue.  The three pitch rule I think is great.  I remember when I was young, 80's, the starting pitchers tried to got 7 or more innings just about every start.  Now the starting pitchers barely make it past the 5th and then they trot out reliever after reliever for the next 4 innings.  

I seem to be in the minority about expanding the DH.  My biggest problem is seperate rules for each league though.  I am fine with discontinuing it but I don't see them ever agreeing to that, but I do see a possibilty of them expanding it.   

I used to have a problem with payroll disparity on one hand and now I have changed my view.  I used to hate the top tier teams that "overspent".  Now I have changed my thinking and am tired of low budget teams that aren't willing to spend.  When these teams are getting luxury tax money and the money isn't going towards aquiring or keeping talent then I have lost all remorse for their situation.  When teams complain about not having enough money to spend, the first thing I think is then maybe your city or ownership group shouldn't have a team.  There are at least 5 - 10 cities in North America that have population densities larger than current teams in the MLB.  MLB should set a minimum cap and keep the luxury tax and if you go under the minimum two years in a five year span, your team is taken away and put up for auction.

Make pitchers throw four pitches for an intentional walk.

Isn't that the rule now?

Vice versa. Interleague play and the World Series use the norm for the home park - games played at American League stadiums use the DH for both teams, while games played at National League stadiums do not.

Any new stadium being built must have a retractable roof - no more rain outs!

I can agree with that. Baseball is really the only major sport played outdoors that won't play in more than a light drizzle. The problem with that is it would take decades to get every team in a stadium with a roof. Most stadiums aren't completely replaced for several decades after being built. A lot of the current stadiums are either pretty new, or have been renovated somewhat recently but aren't structurally built to handle adding a roof to them. I've only been to 2 MLB games in my life so far, but the 1st one was in Cleveland at what was then called Jacob's Field (now named Progressive Field). The game got rained out as the remnants of Hurricane Katrina came through the area. I was lucky enough to have time in my itinerary to stick around for the game being re-scheduled to noon of the next day. Jacob's Field was pretty new at the time. My 2nd MLB game was at the current Busch Stadium in 2013. It's going to be a LONG time before they rebuild that stadium too. I'm pretty sure that neither could support a retractable roof right now. Yankees Stadium is also pretty new. Several MLB teams have somewhat new stadiums and those would all be in the same situation: not old enough to replace and not strong enough to support a roof addition.

Shortening the season would help alleviate the pressure of re-scheduling rain-outs though. I'm sure that un-intentional double-headers are a pain for the teams to deal with as it changes all the plans for both teams. Even worse if the rained-out game is the last in a series. Not just the travel plans for both teams. But the visiting team also needs the hotel rooms for another night.

So pitching changes are perceived as slowing down the game. I get that. Relief pitchers get eight warmup pitches on the field before facing a batter. Apparently, relief pitchers aren't adequately warmed up until after those eight pitches.

What if pitching changes could only occur if the pitcher was adequately warmed up in the bullpen and not allowed any warmup pitches on the field? That would definitely speed up the game a bit. But is that feasible? Is there a downside to this that I haven't considered?

The problem with that is bullpen pitchers are throwing to the backup catchers, not the one in the game calling the pitches. THAT is why relief pitchers get so many throws to home plate before facing a batter. They need to know where the catcher wants the ball for each type of pitch. AND the catcher needs to know what to expect from the newest pitcher throwing it to him. See the downside yet? If not, the only other option is to do a double-switch and replace the pitcher and catcher at the same time. The starting catcher is behind the plate b/c he's the best at that position for the team. If a back-up comes in for just one pitcher, what happens when that pitcher leaves the game?! The catcher is the main reason for delays in pitching changes. No team wants their starting pitcher AND starting catcher to leave the game at the same time!