There have been a ton of rule changes in the past 20 years -- some for the better, and some.... not so much. But just yesterday I saw this speculation for a new rule change that I find, well, interesting, to say the least. It would definitely be different from every single rule change we've ever seen in the MLB, but I think the 21st century is getting be known for that kind of thing.
This definition of the potential rule comes straight from Sports Illustrated:
Most probably haven't heard of the proposal for a "Golden At-Bat," but the basic concept is that a team could choose one at-bat in every game to use its best hitter regardless of where they are in the lineup. So if, say the New York Yankees had the bases loaded and two outs in the bottom of the ninth, they could bring up Aaron Judge to the plate even if it wasn't his turn in the order. It would be a one-time replacement, not a substitution like a pinch hitter.
I'm not going to get too passionate about this one, but to me this looks like one very simple equation:
More Excitement = More Non-Baseball Fans = More Money
I think it takes even more strategy out of the game. Batting lineups wouldn't mean anything anymore, since you can bat Shohei Ohtani twice in a row. A true baseball fan would appreciate those tense low-scoring games, and likely be excited by them, especially if a favorite pitcher is throwing the ball great that day. Of course, the rule hasn't been imposed yet, but based on the track record of our current commissioner, anything's possible.
Reigning World Series MVP Freddie Freeman has this to say about the rule:
"I'm old school, you know, even as a young guy. I like baseball. I'm a baseball purist. So I'm gonna go no."
I kind of agree with Freddie's point here. I don't think we need a whole bunch of new rules for the game to be great. I would prefer the opposite. It was great before Freeman was playing in the majors. And Freddie's been one of the best hitters this game has seen the last decade, and he says no to it.
Pertaining to the rule, Carlos Correa said:
"My relievers are going to hate me if I say I agree with that one. I can't agree with that one because the relievers are going to be under really, really high stress all the time, and then the injuries are going to go even higher."
Roger Clemens says, 'This would be the dumbest rule implementation in the history of professional sports.'
As for me, I really don't agree with this rule change. However, if the players want it, that's one thing -- Which brings me to a point where I can get really hot at times, and that is that nobody gives a fig about what the players say. Granted, sometimes they say things that are pretty silly from time to time, but they still need a voice, especially when considering rule changes. After all, they are the ones playing the game. Otherwise it takes the fun out of baseball, and that's the number one priority.
I saw that they may just incorporate the Golden At-Bat for the All-Star Game. But picture this: You're making your first All-Star appearance (and quite possibly only). You're on deck, ready to get your only All-Star at-bat. And then you get pinch-hit for by Aaron Judge, who already got a chance to hit. Imagine that, ruining your whole experience.
The rule isn't going into effect yet, and maybe never will. But a different new rule seems to be closer to the game than the 'Golden At-Bat,' and maybe this is why the whole Golden AB idea began, to draw negative attention away from this one. And this possible rule change is the addition of an automated strike zone. I strongly dislike that one. Umpires are important, and even though they make some very bad calls sometimes, that can end up effecting the outcome an entire game (I think back to the NLDS of 2021), I still don't think we should replace man with machines. I'm a hard no whenever rule changes (and many changes outside of sports) of that regard are brought up.
I think that there's going to be a ton of backlash on the Golden AB rule, and that it probably won't get implemented. However, the automated strike zone scares me. That seems like the kind of rule where the players won't get a say, and it may get put in the game no matter what they think. If un-wanted rules keep being put 'into play,' maybe we see another lockout? I don't know. I guess only the future can tell.
So there it is. More potential and uneeded rule changes to the game of baseball. Please let me know in the comments what you think -- if you agree with me, disagree, where you think the game is headed. I like seeing what others think of this sort of thing. No matter what happens though, y'all have a great week, thanks you as always for reading, and happy collecting!
