MLB (Manfred) pondering the idea of a Golden At-Bat

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
22,773
Rogers Park
Of the rule changes that have been implemented or proposed, here's my power ranking. I'm sure I'm leaving a few out, so feel free to add.
  • The good:
    • Three-batter rule for relievers. A legitimate improvement.
    • Pitch clock/pickoff limitations. Almost an unalloyed good.
    • Bigger bases. Very subtle difference, mostly positive.
    • Challenge system. Obviously the implementation is sometimes wanting, but this improved the sport.
  • The mixed:
    • Roster limits on pitchers and position players. Doesn't the three-batter rule do pretty much everything we need here?
    • Infielder positioning rules. Adds complexity to the rulebook for a subtle gain, but I do think that the shift-caused BABIP Crisis was something that needed addressing. I wonder if just saying that infielders needed to have their feet on the dirt (in either direction) at the time of the pitch would have sufficed.
    • The Ohtani rule. I feel like this is fine, but in its violation of the sense of what it means for a player to be "in the game," it points down the primrose path to things like Golden At Bat.
  • The intriguing:
    • Lose DH when you pull SP (the "double hook"). Has some baseball logic to it that makes it feel as much like a return to the traditional game as an aberration.
    • Ball-strike challenge system. Clearly better than straight robo-umps, but I think the game theoretical dimensions need worked.
  • The bad:
    • The Manfred Man. I get that extra innings pose real logistical and roster challenges that need addressing, but I think that the league not using this in the postseason speaks volumes. It also points down the primrose path to things like...
  • The insane:
    • Golden At Bat. What even is this? This completely jettisons the entire sense of the sport. Where does the lineup pick up again after such an AB? It makes our statistical comparisons insane. If you GAB a hitter who is on base, do you PR for them but leave them in the game? If you GAB for another player, are they removed? WTF?
 

plolli

New Member
Jul 31, 2005
7
This has to be the most ridiculous suggestion I have ever seen. It makes the ghost runner (which I hate) look inspired by comparison. At least that doesn't take away the possibility of heroic feats from the 26th (or 27th) player on the roster. This must have been meant for an April 1 posting.
 

InsideTheParker

persists in error
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
42,583
Pioneer Valley
And better yet, let's have the fans at the stadium vote on WHICH player will get the Golden at Bat.
Yeah, as I said, Bill Veeck:
Grandstand Manager's Day" – involving Veeck, Connie Mack, and thousands of regular fans, enabled the crowd to vote on various in-game strategic decisions (i.e., steal, bunt, change pitchers) by holding up placards: the Browns won, 5–3, snapping a four-game losing streak
(Wikipedia)
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
75,039
The Manfred Man in regular season games is awesome. I hated hated hated the idea when it was announced, but in practice I am a big fan.

Which is solely a comment on that, not this, which if instituted might be the end of me paying attention to MLB.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
20,579
The Manfred Man doesn't bother me, as it just helps push a tied regular season game towards its conclusion. NFL overtime has its quirks, and don't get me started on the gimmick that NHL uses to end games that are tied.

But this idea is just dumb. I do want MLB to work on reducing the impact of "three true outcomes" in baseball, but this phony nonsense does nothing of the sort.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,986
Not here
What a profoundly stupid idea.

Also, the NY Times bought the Athletic? When did that happen?
 

glennhoffmania

ass to the commish
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
8,413,829
NY
I've been impressed with how stupid most of the recent rule changes have been. It takes a lot of work to make baseball less appealing. This one would be by far the worst thing ever.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,986
Not here
Of the rule changes that have been implemented or proposed, here's my power ranking. I'm sure I'm leaving a few out, so feel free to add.
  • The good:
    • Three-batter rule for relievers. A legitimate improvement.
Fucking hate it. I get the desire to not go batter by batter, but really, fuck this rule. It sucks. It should be at most two batters.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
22,773
Rogers Park
Fucking hate it. I get the desire to not go batter by batter, but really, fuck this rule. It sucks. It should be at most two batters.
Two would be fine with me. My case for it is that the old way gave baseball the same problem as the clock sports (excepting soccer), which is that the pace of play slows to a crawl at what should be the most exciting moments.
 

Sin Duda

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
1,203
(B)Austin Texas
To be clear I think this is a dumb idea but I can sorta see where Manfred is coming from here. Baseball is a tough sport to market. Your most marketable star hitters only come to the plate 4ish times per game vs. a star QB in football or a great basketball player who is involved in like 40-50 plays.

I’m sure the genesis of this idea was some marketing genius trying to figure out a way to get the Ohtanis and Judges into more game action. MLB might even have data which shows less interest/eyeballs (and potential less sponsor dollars) when the 7-9 hitters are coming up in an inning. By creating this new rule, the viewer never knows when Ohtani/Judge will come to the plate and therefore will pay attention longer/more consistently.
I think this is it, exactly. I've read that one of the casual viewer's drawbacks to baseball is the lack of the stars having a say in the end of a game like basketball and football have. I don't like the idea but I'm not gathering the torches and pitchforks. Yeesh. I could live with it just like I live with the extra inning Manfred Man extra runner (and am now glad they have it.)
 

Green Monster

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2000
2,293
CT
the fact that MLB only uses the Manfred Man in the regular season and not the playoff's tells you that the know its a stupid rule.

Question: Do the facts even support the idea that it shortens games? I mean its not like tie games are now over after 10 innings
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
10,020
the fact that MLB only uses the Manfred Man in the regular season and not the playoff's tells you that the know its a stupid rule.

Question: Do the facts even support the idea that it shortens games? I mean its not like tie games are now over after 10 innings
Yes. From a report before the 2023 season:
"Approximately 10 percent of regular season games go to extra innings, historically. Last year 223 of 2,430 regular season games went to extra innings, or 9.2 percent. With the extra-innings tiebreaker rule, only seven games have gone as long as 13 innings the last three seasons. There were 37 13-inning games in 2019 alone, the last year with "normal" extra-inning rules."
https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-ghost-runner-rule-league-makes-extra-innings-change-permanent-for-regular-season-games-per-report/
 

oumbi

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 15, 2006
4,599
The 30 MLB teams play about 2,430 total games in a regular MLB season. I do not think the Manfred Man reduces the time played significantly.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,986
Not here
the fact that MLB only uses the Manfred Man in the regular season and not the playoff's tells you that the know its a stupid rule.

Question: Do the facts even support the idea that it shortens games? I mean its not like tie games are now over after 10 innings
It pretty much eliminates those 16 inning games that fuck with travel schedules and destroy bullpens, which I think was the goal.
 

LogansDad

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
33,181
Alamogordo
It pretty much eliminates those 16 inning games that fuck with travel schedules and destroy bullpens, which I think was the goal.
And which I also think is a valid goal, as much as I dislike the rule.

Most of the other rules instituted recently have been good to great, but I'm also only 45 years old, so...
 

j-man

Member
Dec 19, 2012
4,298
Arkansas
baseball does need a joit
1 TB and the A'S have to go the other 28 teams could pick 1 TB or a's player
2 if that happened someone wouild have to move to the AL i wouild pick miami or pittsubuh
3 i know the MLBPA will push back on this but there has to be a limit on waiting for offseason signings i propose jan 15th if a player signs after jan 15 1y 25 mil is the most they can get if a team wants a player after jan 15th they lose a 1st round pick
4 if a team is up by more than 10 runs after 8 innings they can choose to stop the game and get 2 wins or ie a bouns win
5 no more opener ie what the rays do
6 unless a pitcher gets hurt the starting pitcher has to go 3 inn
7 replay are too long once a replay starts they have 45-60 sec to make the right call
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
16,981
Players would be fighting over those extra at-bats. And demanding their extra at-bat even though the score is 11-0. Sounds fun for the manager.
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,512
Yoknapatawpha County
The Manfred Man in regular season games is awesome. I hated hated hated the idea when it was announced, but in practice I am a big fan.

Which is solely a comment on that, not this, which if instituted might be the end of me paying attention to MLB.
Yeah, I've never really gotten the extreme reaction for the Manfred Man. I think its actually a decent common-sense improvement rule change that doesn't have any of the kind of ripple effects that other rule changes do.

Allow me to also agree that my time watching MLB would likely end with The Golden At Bat. It is really dispiriting this guy is so far away from understanding the game he's ostensibly at the head of. The idea it crawled out of the boardroom without anyone pointing out to him how awful a concept it is even more so. Awful.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
28,990
Unreal America
To be clear I think this is a dumb idea but I can sorta see where Manfred is coming from here. Baseball is a tough sport to market. Your most marketable star hitters only come to the plate 4ish times per game vs. a star QB in football or a great basketball player who is involved in like 40-50 plays.

I’m sure the genesis of this idea was some marketing genius trying to figure out a way to get the Ohtanis and Judges into more game action. MLB might even have data which shows less interest/eyeballs (and potential less sponsor dollars) when the 7-9 hitters are coming up in an inning. By creating this new rule, the viewer never knows when Ohtani/Judge will come to the plate and therefore will pay attention longer/more consistently.
Good point and I suspect this is the driving rationale behind this crazy idea.

It’s funny, I’ve always wondered why baseball even needed to institute a DH way back when. They could’ve just said that pitchers no longer hit and a lineup is 8 batters. That alone would have given good hitters more at bats every game.
 

Batman Likes The Sox

Not postscient
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2003
2,700
Madison, CT
For any one AB per game the pitching team gets to send as many players from the roster as they like onto the field to try to record the out. The Flock of Fielders rule.

Looks like the Rays are going to use their Golden At-Bat... but wait here comes everyone on the Red Sox it's the Flock of Fielders counter-attack.
 

radsoxfan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 9, 2009
14,920
This is obviously insane.

I get that MLB owners wish they could boost individual star power like the top NBA guys, NFL QBs etc. Would probably sell better.

But it's baseball guys.... just doesn't work. Buy a team in another sport if it bugs you.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
10,020
Or the home run derby. What's next, HR with a Statcast measurement over 450' are worth two points?
 

DanoooME

above replacement level
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
20,879
Henderson, NV
You use the Golden AB, the next week you have to play a random fan from the stands at SS for the entire game AND that person is ineligible to be Golden AB'ed for. If you use it again before the week is up, go right down the defensive spectrum and pull a fan.
 

Dewey'sCannon

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
958
Maryland
To be clear I think this is a dumb idea but I can sorta see where Manfred is coming from here. Baseball is a tough sport to market. Your most marketable star hitters only come to the plate 4ish times per game vs. a star QB in football or a great basketball player who is involved in like 40-50 plays.

I’m sure the genesis of this idea was some marketing genius trying to figure out a way to get the Ohtanis and Judges into more game action. MLB might even have data which shows less interest/eyeballs (and potential less sponsor dollars) when the 7-9 hitters are coming up in an inning. By creating this new rule, the viewer never knows when Ohtani/Judge will come to the plate and therefore will pay attention longer/more consistently.
I hate this Golden AB idea.

If the intent is to try to get the "stars" to have more of an impact at the end of a game, then a somewhat less drastic idea would be to give each team the option of starting the 9th inning with the top of the lineup. Not that I'd be in favor of this, but a lot less hokey and contrived than the "golden AB."
 

BornToRun

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 4, 2011
18,133
I like the pitch clock and grew to like the extra innings runner but this idea is an affront to god and comes up only slightly short of adding ties to the list of things that should never happen in baseball.
 

cantor44

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2020
1,863
Chicago, IL
This feels like a rule in one of the backyard games my brother and I made up circa 1978. Or playing poker with jokers wild. Oy.
 

jose melendez

Earl of Acie
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2003
33,205
Geneva, Switzerland
The worst idea, which blessedly didn’t happen, was the sixteen team playoffs. 162 games to play for fucking seeding would have destroyed the game. This is merely idiotic.
 

wiffleballhero

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 28, 2009
5,081
In the simulacrum
Once you start down this stupid road, you might as well just eliminate the connection between the fielders and hitters altogether.

Baseball teams could be a line-up of four hitters who are all DH positions. Then you'd have 8 fielders who are all dynamic (regardless of their ability to hit MLB pitching) and then the pitchers.

We'd eliminate having to ever watch players like Schwarber try to field and eliminate all these shitty hitters. Everybody wins!

(I don't want this)
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
26,324
where I was last at
Perhaps if they adopt the Golden AB for the hitting team, the fielding team can counter with a veto and propose a Dead Wood bat, (but a non-pitcher) negating the GAB. This would force the hitting team to make a decision and veto the veto and put up another hitter (but not their 1st choice). Or perhaps as Soto is about to take the plate with the bases jammed down 3-2 in the 9th, Dave Roberts could Dead Wood him with preemptively.

It would inject a new level of managerial strategy into the game as the managers play 4-D chess and fans wonder WTF happened to baseball, and if there is a football game on.
 

HangingW/ScottCooper

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
2,835
Scituate, MA
Yes. From a report before the 2023 season:
"Approximately 10 percent of regular season games go to extra innings, historically. Last year 223 of 2,430 regular season games went to extra innings, or 9.2 percent. With the extra-innings tiebreaker rule, only seven games have gone as long as 13 innings the last three seasons. There were 37 13-inning games in 2019 alone, the last year with "normal" extra-inning rules."
https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mlb-ghost-runner-rule-league-makes-extra-innings-change-permanent-for-regular-season-games-per-report/
It seems about 8-9% are shortened significantly based on the post above yours.
It pretty much eliminates those 16 inning games that fuck with travel schedules and destroy bullpens, which I think was the goal.
And which I also think is a valid goal, as much as I dislike the rule.

Most of the other rules instituted recently have been good to great, but I'm also only 45 years old, so...
The dislike of this rule has nothing to do with its efficacy. It is absolutely eliminating those longer dog days extra innings games. However, it's making 10% of the games be played under different rules. Honestly, they might as well switch to a home run derby in extra innings.

If there's an insistence on this, I'd much prefer they have at least one clean inning and you start with the runner on second in the 11th.