The rules and technology MLB should implement now
Commissioner Rob Manfred has seemed pretty open to experimentation in Major League Baseball, already implementing and expanding replay and even tinkering with ways to speed up the game. With a seemingly forward-thinking boss, it appears the league is open to new ideas.
Welcome to the Yardbarker roundtable, where we have some ideas for Manfred and MLB. Some of these are to improve the game, others are to make things more clear and some are downright absurd in a fun way.
Time to make the game better: What technological advancements would you like to see MLB make soon (robot umps, expanded replay, etc.), or what is one rule MLB should add that would make the game better? Or perhaps the one rule the league should do away with? Or a rule it should borrow from another sport?
Phillip Barnett: Instead of robot umpires, how about robot players? Every team has to design its own robot to play any position the team desires. That robot has to play a single inning every game. Want a power-hitting robot that comes in when the team is trailing a run? Want a robot that comes in and closes out games? Is your center fielder nursing a hamstring injury? What could make baseball more exciting than a robot with a 120 mph fastball intentionally walking another robot coming into the game with 87 homers on the season? Bring the robots, baseball. I think we need them.
Shiloh Carder: Here is my off-the-wall suggestion that will absolutely never happen. Never. One flaw in baseball is that the superstars don't get to have that clutch moment as often as they should. In basketball, if you are down one you can have your best player handle the ball and make a play. In football, you can be down and have your quarterback drive you down the field. In baseball, you could need a big hit at a big moment and whomever is next in the batting order is in that spot.
I'd love it if each manager had some sort of move where they could, just once a game, take his best hitter and place him in the biggest moment. Kind of like castling in chess. For instance, say the Pirates are down 2-1 in the eighth or ninth inning with two on and two out. Due up is shortstop Jordy Mercer. Pittsburgh manager Clint Hurdle should be able to break out his "castling" move where he can switch Mercer with, say, Andrew McCutchen in the order. Now that same situation would have the Pirates' best hitter at the plate and not the No. 8 hitter.
That would give baseball the clutch moment where a team's best player is in there to make a big play. Like the Patriots have the ball in Tom Brady's hand or the Cavaliers have it in LeBron's. Again, it would never happen, but I'd love that rule.
David Matthews: It's not the extra-innings rule that was used in the World Baseball Classic earlier this spring (and has been used in international baseball and will be tested in the low minors this year), that's for sure. To make things easier, and because it'd be a good win for the Players Association, let's add the DH to the NL, finally. It'd boost offense and let the pitchers pitch and the hitters hit. Does this mean the Cubs could use their best defenders in the outfield and still have Kyle Schwarber hit four or five times a game? Why, yes, I suppose it does.
Demetrius Bell: I may be in the minority here, but I got some of what I wanted when MLB did away with the four-pitch intentional walk in favor of a signal. Yeah, it's always an amazing moment when someone takes advantage of a pitcher getting lazy with the free pass, but it didn't happen enough for me to mourn the loss of the four-pitch intentional walk. With that being said, I feel like this is a logical step toward robot umps coming into the game, and I, for one, would welcome our new robot overlords with open arms.
Jamie Neal: I want to see a virtual strike zone so that the pitchers aren't subject to different umps calling things the way they see fit. We have the technology to do it; why not make the game consistent and easy rather than allowing catchers to fool umpires with their framing of pitches?
Matt Whitener: It kills the traditionalist in me that partially loves to debate ball/strike calls, but this is a fairly easy one in my opinion: Digitize the strike zone. It's ridiculously contradictory to sit at home and watch balls be judged as strikes that simply are not. If a chip could be inserted into baseballs and the umps handed a zone reader of some sort registers if the ball crossed into the strike zone or not, it could really simplify an essential part of the game. They can review if a puck crosses into the net in hockey or if a basketball left a player's hand before game clock ticked down via technological advances, so the same should be done in baseball too.
More must-reads: