I think the game would be much livelier and more interesting if so many innings weren't pitchers' duels.
Suppose for the first 6 innings the opposing team got to pick which player would be the pitcher. (Nobody could be required to pitch more than 2 innings if they and their coach disagreed.)
Each position player would have to be more of a utility player, since he'd never know from inning to inning where he'd be. Except for the late inning closers, of course--that's still enough of a tradition that we should probably keep it.
This opens more opportunities for strategy: who do you pick as pitcher, and how do you defend against losing (e.g.) your best catcher to the pitcher role for an inning?
And there'd almost certainly be more hits, more infield and outfield play--a livelier game. What's not to like?
She doesn't like the idea.
2 comments:
It ain't never gonna happen. It's way too far from the current rules, and much of the appeal of baseball is to its timelessness, history, continuity, etc. Golf also has a keen awareness of history, but not many other sports do.
There are occasional moments every season when a position player pitches for an inning or so, and even more occasionally, a player who makes himself over (usually a knuckleballer) to keep a career alive. Certainly, there is more position changing in baseball than in football. But there is a progression in those changes, from more difficult fielding positions to easier ones, starting with catcher and shortstop, ending with RF or 1B.
Yes, that's probably right. The tone of the game would be entirely different.
Post a Comment