Why don't we make the game more exciting by bringing in the courtesy runner too? With all these throw-away roster slots, the game will have to go back to a 10-man pitching staff, which solves the LOOGY problem too!

The only issue he addresses that seems worthy of consideration is the mid-inning pitching change. I don't like the idea of these automatic 1-0, 2-0 count types of things. If you want to discourage them, I'd rather see an ascending scale of batter's faced - the first guy must face at least two batters, the next three, etc. You can't fault a manager for pulling a guy getting shelled, but I can see trying to discourage the one pitcher for one batter types of pitching changes.

Then again, maybe it was just Tango trying to be funny.:)

Why don't we make the game more exciting by bringing in the courtesy runner too?

Let's have also dinosaurs chase those courtesy runners. Look how successful the Jurassic Park movies were, despite the poor acting. Fans will scream for basebpath carnage.

Has it become hopelessly passe to argue that the DH is an abomination and should be purged from the sport? I rarely hear the argument being made as such, although I don't hear much clamor from NL fans wanting to adopt it.

Charlie Finley would have loved it.

The rule is simple: Any 4-0 walk, intentional or not, results in a two-base penalty.

This is unfair to guys who struggle with control who are having a bad day. Yeah, life's not fair, but you're penalizing a guy having a bad day. The point of this penalty is to stop teams from doing something, but this is something that you just simply stop doing. I guess you could throw a meatball down the middle, but that's likely to have a result too extreme for goal you're trying to achieve.

So, if No. 8 hitter Adam Everett is up with men on base, you can bring in your floating DH to bat for him.

But you don't know that he's coming to bat with the bases loaded until after the previous batter's AB is over. So you either have to gamble that he will and put the DH on deck, or have him come to the plate cold turkey (well, you could give him some time to warm up, but that would defeat the time saving rules that you're trying to put in).

The first pickoff throw, per batter, is a freebie. Any other pickoff throw is treated like a pitchout: a called ball, if the runner is not picked off.

I prefer Bill Jame's idea of limiting the number of pickoff attempts. It's a more subtle way to speed up the game.

You put a commit line thirty feet from home plate. Once a runner crosses that line, it becomes a force play at home plate. Now, the catcher simply needs to touch the base, and not worry about tagging the runner.

You're zapping out the excitement of a play at the plate. I love baseball, but the one of the last things it needs is less excitement.

#4, there was a long thread about that a week or two ago.

This is a rule with no downside.

Being stupid on its face is the downside.

I prefer Bill Jame's idea of limiting the number of pickoff attempts.

Let's just get rid of lead offs, so there is no need for pickoffs. Only the very fast will try to steal.

>>It's a more subtle way to speed up the game.
<<<

Forget subtlety -- if speeding up the game is what we want, let's just play seven innings.

All those suggestions suck.

I mean, after yesterday's Jays game, the morning show on Fan radio talked about how they missed at the fundamentals, and how steals and bunts aren't being taught... if that's what fans want, they want a low scoring environment. If they want that and massive power, well... that's just not how it works.

I don't want to get into the DH debate today, all the points are already out there. People just need to decide what scoring environment they want: low means shorter games, more steals and bunts, high means longer games, more pitchers, more dingers, and less smallball.

Right now, we're stepping down from a high scoring environment, so maybe these tactics will revive naturally.

Forget subtlety -- if speeding up the game is what we want, let's just play seven innings.

It's not about speeding up the time of the game so much as it's about getting rid of all the dead time in a game, which makes the game seem slow. It'll make the game a little quicker, but it'll also keep the excitement going, which is the point. Pickoff attempts are boring unless they're really close or the runner is thrown out, most of the time they're just boring.

This is unfair to guys who struggle with control who are having a bad day.

There's already a penalty for throwing four balls, and a pretty harsh one - the batter gets to go to first base. That's enough in and of itself that the intentional walk is deployed pretty rarely. There's really no need to go any further.

If you want to make pitching changes less onerous, put restrictions to make the team make the change faster. Many psychologists say that rewards are more motivating than punishments. How about rather than penalizing teams for making pitching changes, you reward them for making fast pitching changes. If the reliever is ready to pitch in less than 90 seconds from the last previous pitch, the batter starts out with a strike. Less than 60 seconds and they start with 2 strikes on the batter.

That is idiotic of course. But, you could cut almost a minute out of each pitching change if you just made the teams be proactive. There's no reason for a manager to need to walk out and get the ball from the pitcher. There is no reason for a pitcher to have to walk or jog in from the outfield bullpen, or even take all 8 warm up tosses, if they know ahead of time what they want to do. Of course that is a minute less ad time to sell, and a minute less of people consuming beer at the ballpark, so there's little motivation to make that happen.

It's not about speeding up the time of the game so much as it's about getting rid of all the dead time in a game, which makes the game seem slow.

Then make the batters stay in the box, get rid of the additional TV time between innings, etc. Don't change something that will eventually reward another team with an unfair competitive imbalance by not being able to check the runner.

>>>Pickoff attempts are boring<<<

So are uncontested steals, which is what limiting pickoffs will lead to.

Then make the batters stay in the box, get rid of the additional TV time between innings, etc. Don't change something that will eventually reward another team with an unfair competitive imbalance by not being able to check the runner.

No disagreement there.

So are uncontested steals, which is what limiting pickoffs will lead to.

Only if the catcher doesn't throw to 2nd.

The DH-related suggestions would add a level of complication that I don't like, and I don't see any exigency for the others except:

1) The hit-batter misconduct rule is intriguing, except that most HBP are fairly harmless, and the penalty (free pass) is already pretty much a disincentive. If accidental injuries from HBP are a really extreme problem, then how about putting the pitcher who injures a batter on a disqualified list (with pay) for as long as said batter goes on the DL? You might want some sort of limit, 60 days or something like that in extreme (Conigliaro-type) cases. And of course there's potential for abuse, as in a case where Josh Beckett hits Wilson Betemit and the Yankees decide that Betemit has to be hospitalized forever.

2) The only other suggestion I like is the mid-inning reliever penalty, but I would go further; I don't think the increased counts are a disincentive. I'd say, no mid-inning changes unless the pitcher is injured (and if he's relieved mid-inning, he goes straight to the DL). But this raises a lot of problems: do you want 8 or 10 runs to score just because somebody doesn't have good stuff today? (That won't speed up a game.) How much of a problem do mid-inning pitching changes create? You could institute the extreme penalty only for the second pitching change of an inning, but that's rare anyway; the Rangers and Blue Jays used 16 pitchers yesterday, but only one half-inning saw three different pitchers used.

It's not about speeding up the time of the game so much as it's about getting rid of all the dead time in a game, which makes the game seem slow.

Most dead time is created by TV. If we quicken the pace of the game, the powers that be will create more deadtime for TV. Don't ruin the game by trying to break this unbreakable dynamic.

Only if the catcher doesn't throw to 2nd.

Which he won't do if the runner is taking a 25-foot lead.

I still don't get why baseball gets all the focus in terms of speeding things up. It's really not any slower-paced than football or basketball.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Most dead time is created by TV. If we quicken the pace of the game, the powers that be will create more deadtime for TV. Don't ruin the game by trying to break this unbreakable dynamic.

TV deadtime is between innings and during pitching changes. Not during an AB.

Which he won't do if the runner is taking a 25-foot lead.

Game. Set. Match. If I was arguing a point I thought of myself, I'd feel really foolish right now. But since I was talking about a point someone else made, I only feel like half the fool I usually do.

Only if the catcher doesn't throw to 2nd.

If the runner isn't checked, there isn't going to be any sense in throwing down to second, even if the runner is painstakenly slow.

Quite a lot of HBPs result from batters crowding the plate and not making much effort to get out of the way if it is going to hit them somewhere relatively painless. The proposed rule changes would only make this worse.

I think all the dithering around between pitches is a real killer. I would make rule that once a batter enters the box to start at at-bat, the pitcher is entitled to throw a pitch at any time, unless the umpire has called time for the batter. Then instruct the umps to be stingy with calling time for the batter.

And concurrently enforce the 20-second rule for pitchers.

I still don't get why baseball gets all the focus in terms of speeding things up.

Because sportswriters want to get to the bar. Most other sports events earlier than baseball games do. Whenever some whiney sportswriters (or stadium employees who blog) have to stay late, they start calling for the game to be sped up.

An expanded strike zone would pick things up a bit. I like OBP as much as the next guy but today's postage stamp-sized strike zones and the institutional emphasis on taking pitches leads to far too many good, hittable pitches passing by batters looking for freebies from the umps.

A correction if I may:

Which he won't do if the runner is taking a 25-foot lead.

I said:

You can also put a commit line, whereby if a runner takes a lead that crosses that line, the pickoff penalty rule no longer applies. This way, if a guy takes an overly aggressive lead, then the pitcher won't be penalized for trying to pick him off. It's a dare by the runner to pick him off, and in this case, we want to see the pitcher trying to pick him off.

As you were...

I can't believe Tango would come up with something this stupid.

You can also put a commit line, whereby if a runner takes a lead that crosses that line, the pickoff penalty rule no longer applies. This way, if a guy takes an overly aggressive lead, then the pitcher won't be penalized for trying to pick him off. It's a dare by the runner to pick him off, and in this case, we want to see the pitcher trying to pick him off.

Well, then there's no point to the three-pickoff-throw rule. The whole idea of pickoff throws is to keep the runner close, so if we're going to make a rule that requires the runner to be close, you're not penalizing the pitcher for throwing over.

I have to confess that practically none of these ideas appeal to me in any way.

The exceptions are concerning the mid-inning pitching changes and the pick-off throws. I actually don't mind the idea of limiting pick-off throws -- though you would need a "commit" line that, if the runner lead off past it, the pitcher would be allowed to throw down there. And there should be no restrictions on catchers throwing.

As for the mid-inning thing ... it seems that you could come up with a rule to address La Russaisms without incurring the count penalty.

Neither of these are a big deal, I don't think, just tinkering. I don't think excessive pickoff attempts or multiple mid-inning pitching changes are fun, but that's mostly an aesthetic preference.

I didn't think anything else these suggestions address even needed to be addressed.

Adding an extra line on the field so that we can introduce a complicated rule concerning pickoff throws seems extremely dubious to me. Are pickoff throws even a problem anymore? Hardly anyone is stealing bases these days.

TV deadtime is between innings and during pitching changes. Not during an AB.

But if you speed up individual at bats, you speed up the entire game. Networks/MLB won't just accept short telecasts and happily move along. They will use it to slot more commercial time between innings.

Multiple mid-inning pitching changes already carry a penalty: use of roster spots. I disagree with the conventional wisdom that teams forgo a larger position player bench in favor of more specialist relievers, but its not like there isn't a downside already.

Let's have also dinosaurs chase those courtesy runners. Look how successful the Jurassic Park movies were, despite the poor acting. Fans will scream for basebpath carnage.

I'm thinking a pack of velociraptors could be let loose on the field during a Red Sox-Yankees game.

But if you speed up individual at bats, you speed up the entire game. Networks/MLB won't just accept short telecasts and happily move along. They will use it to slot more commercial time between innings.

I don't agree that they will, and even if they do, that's still a trade I'll take. If I'm at the ballpark, that means my time in line to get a beer and food between innings will be eaten up more by TV breaks, and if I'm at home I'll have more time to do whatever it is I do during commercials.

You can also put a commit line, whereby if a runner takes a lead that crosses that line, the pickoff penalty rule no longer applies.

Iamgine the controversey if this was implemented. Was Johnny Met over that line or not? Did Johnny Met try to fool the pitcher that he was over the line to elicit a throw? Is that legal? Imagine the blather from the TV announcers:

Jim Kaat: "Back in my day, we didn't need a sissy line that told us where the baserunner was. We practiced until we could feel the runners in our eyelids and our eyelids told us when they had crossed the line."

Joe Morgan: That is right, Jim, which is why I used to put stinky cheese in my socks -- to block the pitchers' eyelids."

The only way to make this "Commit Line" work would be to dig moats and fill them with orcs, alligators, and vicious horny toads. That way we'd know exactly what side of the line the runner is on, and the announcers could not talk about how they were tougher in their day. There is only one thing bad enough to build moats like that: Killdozer.

1: yes, that sounds fine to me
2: no, too much penalty for just plain sucking
3A: huh? no
3B: huh? no
4: no, ditto #2
5: commit line, eh? I thought we were trying to speed things up; so, no
6: catchers already can't be pushed over by a batter while there's a runner on third, which is the analogy with hockey, and QBs are fragile and catchers are not, so that analogy doesn't work; as for the rest of it, I'm good with a change in the icing rule because I don't care...wait, wasn't this supposed to be a baseball discussion?

Which he won't do if the runner is taking a 25-foot lead.

I'm not in favor of such a rule, but everyone that I've read suggesting such a rule has included the caveat that penalties only be applied when a pickoff is unsuccessfull. A runner taken such a brazen lead would still get picked off.

A runner taken such a brazen lead would still get picked off.

Not if the pitcher isn't allowed to throw over there any more.

The "three pickoff" rule is a dumb one. Pitchers really don't waste a lot of time throwing over to first.

If they want to speed up the game, enforce the rule about batters stepping out, and the rule about pitchers wasting time between pitches. They don't need to introduce any new rules.

The thing about the multiple relief-pitcher changes would be OK, I guess. The others are all somewhere in between bad and God-awful.

I particularly dislike the plate-blocking one, since there's already a rule on the books to deal with that situation, and baseball could correct the "problem" simply by enforcing the rules that already exist (i.e. not letting catchers block the plate).

The "three pickoff" rule is a dumb one. Pitchers really don't waste a lot of time throwing over to first.

Really, and the example used has been out of date for at least six years, and more likely sixteen. Yet somehow still I don't think he's having us on.

Not if the pitcher isn't allowed to throw over there any more.

If you're referring to the Bill James suggestion (mentioned in number 6), that rule was similar to Tango's in that after 3 throws the pitcher is charged a ball if unsuccessful. He's still allowed to throw, he'll just get the penalty if the runner makes it back. Thus no 25 foot leadoffs. At least that's how it was suggessted in the New Historical Abstract.

The pitcher is never not allowed to attempt a pickoff, at least if I'm understanding the rule correctly. If the attempt is unsuccessful after a certain point (one per batter, two per inning, whatever), he is charged with a ball. If the runner is 20 feet off the base, I imagine most attempts would be successful.

I like the idea of no more than 1 mid-inning pitching change per game. That way the managers will save it in case soemone's getting shelled or for a particular matchup.

I agree the batter should not be allowed to leave the box, nor the pitcher the mound, once the at bat has begun.

How about limiting trips to the mound for catchers also. No more than 1 per IP, or 3 total per game? If you can't figure out your signs too bad.

How about limiting trips to the mound for catchers also. No more than 1 per IP, or 3 total per game? If you can't figure out your signs too bad.

Whenever this gets to an annoying level in a game (say, when Jason Varitek is catching and the bases are loaded), I always wonder why there's a rule preventing the guy standing on third from stealing home.

If there wasn't one, you'd just throw to third before going to the mound.

I can't believe Tango would come up with something this stupid.

Well, he is Canadian.

With respect to the mid-inning pitching changes, just a small tweak would be appropriate. The first pitcher brought in, in the middle of an inning, has to face two batters. The next pitcher has to face three. And so on.

You don't have to worry about someone being left out there to get shelled, if he is only facing 2, 3 or 4 batters at most. If you get to the point where you are making your fourth mid-inning change, the game is probably out of hand, and you are now warming up your 5th outfielder to take the mound. There could be an exception for injuries, crafted to avoid phony injuries.

I don't like any rule changes that "start" a batter with a one ball or two ball count. That is too radical for me. By contrast, charging a ball if a pitcher fails to deliver in time is not much different from the "hand to mouth = ball" rule.

I also don't like multiple penalties for intentional walks. I love those rare situations, in an extra inning game or the ninth inning, when a guy gets on third with less than two outs, and the manager rolls the dice, and walks the next two batters. I don't care if it is the dumbest play in "the Book", I just love watching the manager give it a shot.

All of the permutations of the rules to limit pick off throws just seem too complicated. Adding an extra line to the field just plain bothers me.

I don't like any rule changes that "start" a batter with a one ball or two ball count. That is too radical for me. By contrast, charging a ball if a pitcher fails to deliver in time is not much different from the "hand to mouth = ball" rule.

I don't understand the "by contrast". These are all free balls and free strikes (batter takes too long to get in the box), and act as disincentives for everyone to stop the dead time, and play ball.

The "must face x batters" needs a "health exception", meaning that some manager will abuse it, and therefore means that you need to modify it so that the pitcher must miss at least the next game.

If we can agree that we need a disincentive, it's just a matter of an appropriate measure.

I love those rare situations, in an extra inning game or the ninth inning, when a guy gets on third with less than two outs, and the manager rolls the dice, and walks the next two batters.

Certainly, I love these rare occurrences. But, I hate the not-so-rare occurrences of walking a great batter as a decided advantage to the defense. I'm not sure how this benefits the fan. And the purpose of the walk rule is to act as a disincentive to the pitcher, to force him to throw strikes. For it to be an incentive in certain cases can't be a good thing.

If you're referring to the Bill James suggestion (mentioned in number 6), that rule was similar to Tango's in that after 3 throws the pitcher is charged a ball if unsuccessful. He's still allowed to throw, he'll just get the penalty if the runner makes it back. Thus no 25 foot leadoffs. At least that's how it was suggessted in the New Historical Abstract.

That's what I was referring to, I forgot he had the ball penalty. It might be worth the penalty depending on who the batter and runner are.

For it to be an incentive in certain cases can't be a good thing.

By that argument, the gambit in chess should be outlawed as well.

(Hey, if hockey applies, then so does chess.)

The "must face x batters" needs a "health exception", meaning that some manager will abuse it, and therefore means that you need to modify it so that the pitcher must miss at least the next game.

Easy modification: Add the minimum number of batters to the next pitcher's minimum. And if the umpire thinks the injury is fake, run the pitcher and the manager, and suspend them both for a game.

I don't understand the "by contrast". These are all free balls and free strikes (batter takes too long to get in the box), and act as disincentives for everyone to stop the dead time, and play ball.

There is a difference. One is organic to the action on the field -- the pitcher has to be on the mound for the hand-to-mouth rule to apply. The 20 second delay rule requires the batter to be in the batter box. The other is a ball-strike penalty for violation of a substitution rule. Baseball has never had those, and I hope never will.

I hate the not-so-rare occurrences of walking a great batter as a decided advantage to the defense.

That has been a part of the game for many, many decades. It requires a team to make sure it has enough good players that they can't be defeated by taking the bat out of one player's hands. It is also a wonderful insult to the next batter who comes to the plate. If he can't come through, he looks like he deserved the insult.

If we always had the 4-0 rule as in the article, would someone suggest that:

You know, we gotta be permitted to walk Bonds and Pujols more easily... let's allow intentional walks with only a one base penalty, which may turn into an incentive to walk the batter.

...and would you then support that rule change?

It seems that alot of the objections are based not on the silliness of the proposal, but on the basic position to not change any rule that one now considers as part of the fabric of the game.

You can do that to every rule, flip it so that the rules in the proposal were the existing one, and the current rules we know are the ones being proposed. Larussa begging for a rule change to bring in his LOOGY? "Yeah, great idea. Let's do it." Pitchers wanting to keep Willie Wilson and Vince Coleman more at bay by throwing over forever? "Yeah, great idea. Let's do it." Let the pitcher hit the batter in the head without being ejected so that they can reclaim the inside of the plate? "Yeah, great idea. Let's do it."

That's the implication here, that either you like the rules as-is for the basic "tradition" of it and will object on that basis, or that the rules as being proposed would be overturned for the rules that we know because those rules we know make more "sense" (even though they would be seem to be a tough sell on their merit).

It's like the replay rule, that you only overturn on "clear evidence". If it's close, then you let the existing call on the play stand.

I'm not sure how this benefits the fan.

We're supposed to outlaw anything that fans don't find exhilarating regardless of its impact on the competition?

It seems that alot of the objections are based not on the silliness of the proposal, but on the basic position to not change any rule that one now considers as part of the fabric of the game.

Well, one of my objections is that every one of those rule changes would increase offense. The game's got too much offense as it is.

My other objection is that you're fixing something that isn't broken. I don't see baseball as being that slowly-paced, at least not any worse than other sports.

We're supposed to outlaw anything that fans don't find exhilarating regardless of its impact on the competition?

This should go without saying, but I guess I'll say it: I'm only talking about what I said.

My other objection is that you're fixing something that isn't broken.

Right, the tradition aspect of it, and to only make a change for clear improvement, rather than possible improvement. That should be made more clear by the posters who object, that even if the rules were flipped around, they'd object to flipping them back anyway.

Right, the tradition aspect of it, and to only make a change for clear improvement, rather than possible improvement.

The flip side of the argument is that these suggestions are just change for change sake, and don't represent any kind of improvement at all.

Not change for change sake, but change to tackle one particular issue to improve, while at the same time, possibly worsening some other aspect.

Didn't the NFL introduce a new rule that the receiver must have both feet inbounds, even if pushed out? Or the 3-point rule in NBA? Or the 4-on-4 in the NHL overtime? These could all be "change for change's sake", or they could all be to tackle a particular issue that may end up with some really good (or bad) results.

That's all I'm doing here, looking at a couple of things that could be improved upon.

Objecting on principle of tradition is fine. Objecting on the merits is fine.

But, if we always had the 4-0 rule, and then Larussa proposed the LOOGY rule, and one would object to that because one finds it silly, that doesn't make sense. It's as if whatever rule is in place is fine, and whatever new rule is silly, regardless of which rule is in place and which is proposed! One should simply say "Tradition" and move on. It doesn't need any support beyond that.

It's as if whatever rule is in place is fine, and whatever new rule is silly, regardless of which rule is in place and which is proposed! One should simply say "Tradition" and move on. It doesn't need any support beyond that.

Well, yes, I'd say that, in order to change the way something is done, you need to show that the change is necessary, and that the old way of doing things isn't working.

If the idea is to speed up the game, well, as many on this thread have said, there are multiple unenforced rules on the book designed to keep the game moving. Before introducing new rules, doesn't it make sense to try enforcing the existing rules, to see if that works?

I don't really like the DH as that is all he does in a game. It is also quite painful to watch pitchers bat.

I propose that we keep the DH, but require that the only available DHs are those who have fielded a minimum of 1/2 the team's total innings played(or at least 5 or 6 innings in 1/2 the games). Therefore, players like Ortiz and Hafner are required to field in 1/2 their team's games. It would require a variety of players to DH and the pitcher would have to bat in at least game one of the season.

Well, yes, I'd say that, in order to change the way something is done, you need to show that the change is necessary, and that the old way of doing things isn't working.

And that's a perfectly reasonable position to stand upon, without needing further qualification.

Before introducing new rules, doesn't it make sense to try enforcing the existing rules, to see if that works?

Yes, absolutely.

One rule I'd definitely put in: I'd eliminate on-field warmups after pitching changes, except in the case of injury. There's really no need for them any more, IMO; the pitcher's been throwing in the bullpen for a while, usually.

I'd also implement rule 6.02(d) in MLB (it's been in the minors since last season) - make the batter stay in the box between pitches.

I don't really see any need for major changes in the way that the game is played. Yes, multiple late-inning pitching changes can be annoying, but if they help keep more games close longer (and my preliminary research into the way that bullpen usage has evolved suggests that may be the case), then I think the value outweighs the cost.

-- MWE

There's really no need for them any more, IMO; the pitcher's been throwing in the bullpen for a while, usually.

The bull pen mound is not an exact duplicate of the field mound. No two mounds, in fact, are the same. And they change during the game, as each pitcher digs, kicks and "manicures" The pitcher should be allowed to get the feel of the mound. That may require less than the traditional number of warm-up pitches.

In inning pitch changes could be modified by instituting a time limit for the new pitcher to be on the mound. Or, limiting the total number of warm up tosses a team gets per inning. Total of 12 warm ups. If the first pitcher uses 8, the second only gets 4, the third none.

If these changes were implemented, and Tango was given large sums of money for bringing them forth, would the newspaper headlines read: "Tango and Cash"?

I don't know what everyone is so worked up about. Using the NHL as a guide, the new rules will be in effect for about two weeks before the umps say "#### it" and everything goes back to the way it was.

This is how I’d fix baseball.

Separate it so that there’s a third league. This new league would consist of two teams, the Boston Red Sox and the New York Yankees. They play 162 games and then face the winner of the other two leagues in a Real Ultimate Baseball Power World Series Championship. ESPN could have a dedicated channel – ESPN Douche – showing only Sox/Yanks games, hyperventilating studio personalities, and features on Sox/Yank fans arguing on internet chatboards.

Then, I’d ban the DH. It’s too bad the people who like the DH are too stupid to appreciate how bad DH baseball is. I suspect it’s from watching too much AL baseball, it etches a dullness groove into the brain, incapacitating the intellect.

Kill the DH.

Let's allow steal attempts at first base. Not because it is fixes anything and I know it is not practical; but the image of Reyes dropping his bat and sprinting to first while the pitcher is in mid-windup amuses me.

I was just about to suggest that.

I have always seen the game as a sort of complicated version of tag, where you try to touch all the bases (the safe area) before being tagged by the ball or the ball beating you to the next base. With this in mind I would love to give the batter a chance to try and run to first whenever he wants, with no need to actually hit the ball. Once the batter is completely out of the box (another safe of sorts) he is capable of being tagged or forced out.

As a second part of this I would love to see them get rid of the 'time out' in baseball, except for the obvious occurrences. A base runner is always in play in this scenario. You wear 10 pounds of armor on your arm when you go to bat, you gotta keep it on while on the bases. I love the idea of the game being played constantly instead of being a series of starts and stops between at bats. Instead of stopping play after a runner decides he is content with a double lets make the defense stay on their toes the whole time.

This also speeds up the time between batters while increasing the running game.

If the game is tied after ten innings are complete, the game will be decided by a home run derby.

I'd love to see someone like the Atlantic League or Eastern League try hat one out.

I don't know what everyone is so worked up about. Using the NHL as a guide, the new rules will be in effect for about two weeks before the umps say "#### it" and everything goes back to the way it was.

Or they'll just make a rule in the middle of the playoffs because someone complained.