I was prepared to hate whatever was being proposed, but I actually like this sudden-death scenario. I like it more than the ITB rule that would be used in the previous inning.

I suggest just playing the damn baseball game.

I suggest just playing the damn baseball game.

Bravo!

I get the reasoning - that many of us can't stick around for a 16 inning game anymore (yeah, I'm old). When I was in my 20's I'd see a 20 inning game as a great thing. Now, I am happy with 7 inning double headers. For playoffs I like to have normal rules, but regular season, sure why not? Especially in the low minors where entertainment is everything.

I'm all for creative solutions to extra innings, especially in the minors, and I'm not in the least opposed to the ITB rule. In fact, I was initially skeptical but have been converted to thinking it's pretty great, even at the MLB level.

But I admit that I'd prefer actual runs being scored to win the game. And I'd have to imagine that I'd want to take defense every time if I had the choice - seems like runner on 1st, 0 out is not really all that close to a 50/50 proposition like you would want.

How about I watch zero innings?

This seems like a scenario where the defensive team will win something like 65% of the time that they make it to the sudden death tiebreaker.

I dont think so. Overall the odds of scoring a run is 41-44% for the last 70 years or so:

http://www.tangotiger.net/re24.html

but thats for the entire game. Given the situation you should be able to increase your odds with a pinch runner or an excellent bunter.

I'll admit I've enjoyed the runner on second rule. I wouldn't want it for post-season games but over the course of 162 it creates a bit of immediate drama.

If you thought relief pitchers had become over-specialized... here comes the Designated Sudden Death Closer.

I'm officially old. I really don't like any of these changes. Ah well.

I'm officially old. I really don't like any of these changes. Ah well.

I'll accept my "Get off my lawn" sign if that's what it takes to show I don't like these.

Why not just accept ties?

I think I will find the new rule entertaining and interesting. But when I step back and look at it, I think I would simply prefer that the game end in a tie. Either keep playing until someone is ahead at the end of a complete inning, or just declare it a tie after 9 or 10 innings.

Further, for the sake of standings treat a tie the same as a loss, except it's a loss for both teams. That is, statistically record it as a tie, but award the division championship to the team with the most wins. No half-wins for ties. You need to win the game for it to count in your favor.

Yeah, if you're going to go through all of this trouble, having ties is just the way to go.

For this new rule, though, a team can win a game 4-4, if I understand correctly. If the defense wins they're not going to grant them a run, are they?

A tie at the end of the game sounds like a poor experience for the fans in the stands.

For the minor leagues, just end in a tie after X innings (10, 11?) - that's probably where it matters most - you don't want prospects wasting their arms in a 15 inning game or pushing themselves...and in some cases you are dealing with bus travel and things like that, so there is a larger time crunch...and ultimately, no one really care who the AA East champions are.

For the Independent leagues, I'd take the same general approach, but I get that the standings "matter" a little more than in the affiliated leagues, and since its generally games not involving prospects or many future big leaguers, some experimentation is fine there...so despite my earlier statement, I don't much care what the Frontier league does if they think the game will be more entertaining.

For the Majors, leave it alone...how many ultra-long games are there really? Enough that they are fun for the fans...if you want to go to bed and watch the highlights in the morning, go ahead and do that - I'm already doing it for most Yankees-Red Sox 8 PM ESPN starts anyway...and the one or two games a year where Chris Davis or Anthony Rizzo have to pitch are fun...they are a feature, not a bug.

here comes the Designated Sudden Death Closer.

You'd want someone with a good pickoff move, right?

No half-wins for ties. You need to win the game for it to count in your favor.

One problem here is the incentive for collusion. This problem has long been known in contexts like chess and Magic tournaments - if a tie benefits nobody, the players will arrange for somebody to win, by a coin flip or some other such means if necessary. It would be harder in a team-sport rather than a tabletop-game context, but the possibility does exist.

Besides that, the teams would never agree to reduce the total number of wins in the league. The NHL loves having a league-wide .580 points percentage and two-thirds of the teams over .500.

If you thought relief pitchers had become over-specialized... here comes the Designated Sudden Death Closer.

The defending team will plug in their best remaining defenders although, given today's benches, after 10 innings of a tie game, they probably won't have any subs left anyway.

And there would be legit debate over whether to use your closer in the 9th, 10th or sudden death.

Anyway put me down in the "if you want to win, you have to out-score the other team" category and allow ties if you need to limit innings.

#15 Just break ties the way God intended. Penalty kicks. Won't take all that long.

How many pitching changes do you get in that final inning?

At what point do we stop calling this baseball?

We are a few years away from a little league style run rule at this point. Or maybe a tiebreaker where players line up against a pitching machine and see which side can hit more home runs.

Blernsball!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQF8rQaIjUE