This is an ongoing series in which I examine elements of the mechanics of professional sports that could use modernization or improvement
-
For as poorly as the game of baseball has handled issues from Pete Rose to steroids to the lost World Series in 1994 to the ridiculous notion of the All-Star Game determining home field advantage in the Series, overall, the game has done a remarkable job of staying true to its history. Because so relatively few rules changes have impeded the game over the decades, statistical analysis between eras is much easier to accomplish in baseball than any other sport. And while some would decry the advent of the designated hitter, the wild card, the 162-game schedule, height restrictions on the pitching mound, outlawing the spitball, etc., most changes have had a negligible to positive impact on the game. But there are still a few more that would improve the game for me.
First – and I think we can all agree on this – strike zone variation between umpires is infuriating, and must be stopped. QuesTec’s Umpire Information System was supposed to cure this, but it hasn’t. What needs to happen now, since we have the technology available, is to utilize computers to determine if a pitch was within the strike zone or not, and whether or not a batter has swung at a pitch. A home plate umpire would still exist for the purposes of at-the-plate calls, and overruling the computers in an extraordinary situation where it is deemed necessary. But these guys are so bad at calling balls and strikes, and we have the technology to fix that problem, what’s the hold up?
Second, replay must be instituted on more than just fair-foul home run calls. With the emergence of a number of cutesy outfields in some of the newer ballparks with various quirks and kitsch, there is a greater need for video replay. Tag plays, trapped catches, and close plays at the plate all could use some video mojo as well.
Finally – and I’m bracing myself for a firestorm of venom here – it’s time that the National League adopts the designated hitter.
No, really, I mean it.
I have absolutely no idea what the appeal of the NL’s style of ball is, but I can tell you that watching pitchers attempt to hit and flail away like Special Olympians does not entertain me at all. For every Carlos Zambrano who can jack a handul of homers a year and actually appear competent at the plate, you have fifty Bartolo Colons who will pull a muscle doing something they shouldn’t be doing. Pitchers are paid a lot of money to hone their craft and eat innings for their teams. Batting shouldn’t be and isn’t a part of it.
What irritates me further about the NL style of play is that it can diminish the odds of a pitcher going deep into a game. NL starters average roughly a third of an inning less than AL starters (a disparity that would be even greater if the NL guys had to face a DH every nine hitters instead of a pitch-tard). I hate the idea of a pitcher who is absolutely tearing it up on the mound being forced to the bench so some scrub can come in and blow the game. I know a lot of NL fans call this phenomenon “strategy”, and call it the mark of a good manager to be able to make the right judgments in those situations. I call it BOREDOM to watch a pitcher try to hit. And, sorry, I’m not impressed by the double-switch. It’s not quite as perplexing a concept as some National League enthusiasts would suggest.