The Rules, according to ESPN

After the Washington Post's Thomas Boswell wrote a column with 10 improvements baseball could make, I went through each one and gave my thoughts. In its latest issue, ESPN the Magazine looks at 31 new rules for sports in 2010, so I'll give it the same treatment.

Rule: Universal instant replay. Their gist: Because of the advances in technology, all sports should adopt instant replay, with all scoring plays automatically reviewed (except in basketball). My take: Definitely. And with baseball's already-slow pace, reviewing home runs isn't a problem when you figure many will be confirmed or overturned in the time between the ball leaving the park and the next hitter stepping into the batter's box. Plays at the plate usually have some recovery period afterward, too, as the catcher gathers himself, the pitcher goes back to the hill, etc. (As for football, adjust the rule that a review has to be called -- or completed -- before the extra point is kicked. Use the time of the kick and subsequent commercial break to review the TD if need be. You could do the same if a team goes for two, or you could hold up the PAT try in that case.) The Mag also suggests challenges for all sports, with three per game and wrong challenges resulting in a penalty to be determined by sport. I'm not sure I like this for baseball, unless the penalty is something significant to make the decision to challenge a call a tough one.

Rule: Enforce them. Their gist: No more neighborhood plays on double plays at second base. The infielder must touch the bag and the runner must slide. My take: Absolutely. Take the gray area out of the equation. But if I had to rank the changes I'd like to see or the things I'd address if I were commissioner for a day, this would be near the bottom.

Rule: Make pitchers pitch and hitters hit. Their gist: No more Nomar (tugging at the gloves, etc., for two minutes before each pitch) and no more pitchers stepping to the back of the mound to lick their fingers. Award a ball (to the batter on pitchers' infractions) or a strike (to the pitcher on hitters' delays) to stop the practice. My take: Eliminating these little delays will help speeding up the pace of the game overall, so it's not a bad idea.

Rule: Limit catcher visits. Their gist: No matter who visits, the pitcher must be replaced on the second visit of the inning. My take: Already in favor.

Rule: Contract 40-man rosters. Their gist: The expansion of rosters from 25 to 40 in September means teams are playing a different game in the most important month, so in order to expand the rosters, teams must "concede defeat" in the pennant race. Then they may only use the players brought up in the expansion against other teams that have conceded. My take: I kind of like the expanded rosters, but I definitely see the point. But the season is already played under different rules -- DH and no DH, unbalanced schedules, different dimensions in ballparks, indoor and outdoor games.

Rule: Abolish the DH. Their gist, in its entirety: "Because having two leagues in the same sport with different ideas about who should hit is really, really (very) dumb." My take: YES, please.

Rule: Drop the dropped third strike. Their gist: The pitcher did his job, why is he penalized if the catcher can't do his? My take: I'm not even sure why this rule exists, and doing away with it would close membership to the club of pitchers who have struck out four batters in one inning.

Rule: Balance out the postseason. Their gist: Make it fair. Quoting Lastings Milledge (more teams should make it), Mike Lowell (the team with the best record should have more of an advantage) and Andy Pettitte (first round should be more than five games), the Mag proposes:

1. Add one more wild-card team in each league.
2. The two playoff teams in each league with the worst record (wild-card or not) meet in a best-of-three play-in series.
3. The day after the conclusion of the play-in series, the play-in winner meets the No. 1 seed. (This forces the play-in winner to start, at best, its No. 3 starter.)
4. All rounds after play-in series are best-of-sevens.
5. To further test teams' pitching depth, nontravel off-days during the postseason are eliminated.

My take: The off-days are a killer for the fans. And I do like this expansion of the postseason. It does give the teams that performed the best in the regular season a better advantage. Ignoring division or wild-card winners and forcing the two teams with the worst records to meet in the best-of-three play-in series is brilliant. I don't like the rule that two teams can't meet in the first round if they're from the same division. Who does that? It doesn't matter in the NFL -- though in that league, the top two records in each conference get the teams the advantage of a bye week. The team with the best record should get to play the team with the worst, no matter the division alignments. And please get rid of the idiocy of an exhibition game determining home-field advantage for the World Series. I'd prefer that over eliminating the dropped third strike rule or the neighborhood play.

It's amazing they still call it 'hardball'

Other than when I posted the All-Star stuff, I suspect this is my first double-entry day since starting this site. I'll admit I haven't updated this nearly as much as I would've liked, but I hope things change once I learn to organize my time more. And when I get my new computer and Casey and I are no longer sharing one in a house with wireless high-speed internet, her iPod and The Sims on her Mac.

---------------

I wonder what Bob Gibson would say today. Or Don Drysdale. Or any other tough pitcher from baseball's heyday who knew how to pitch inside, to intimidate and, when necessary, back up his teammates.

There was an incident in last night's Mets-Rockies game that started with a hard slide at second base and ended with Braden Looper's ejection. On a ball hit to the right of shortstop Wilson Delgado, Rockies rookie catcher J.D. Closser slid hard into second baseman Joe McEwing, taking out his legs, requiring McEwing to be helped off the field and taken to a hospital for X-rays. There was little chance McEwing would've even attempted a double play, but that's not Closser's concern. He has to go into second hard and make sure that he does what he can to help his team by turning a potential two-out grounder into a fielder's choice forceout.

But the Mets, too, have a right to their view of the play, and they felt Closser went a little too far -- too far past second base, for one thing. As Mets manager Art Howe said, "I don't think it was a clean play. He [Closser] was airborne and Joe was on the shortstop side of the bag. I don't know if he touched the ground till he touched Joe." The photo seems to back up that claim. Taken from the third-base photo box, it clearly shows Closser in mid-slide, already even with the bag. I watched several replays last night, and I don't remember seeing Closser even touch second base. At that, the umpires are allowed to use their discretion and call the batter-runner out at first, though they rarely do. It wouldn't have applied in this case, anyway, since McEwing didn't even attempt to get off a throw.

When Closser came to bat again in the eighth, Looper threw one behind him. It was low, and had Closser not hopped backwards into the pitch, it would have gone behind him. I don't think he was trying to get hit, but that's beside the point. Closser had barely turned to first base -- he hardly looked at Looper, showing no anger, as if to show he understood it was part of the game -- when home plate umpire Lance Barksdale ejected Looper from the game. Howe argued -- "He threw it behind him!" he yelled, sprinting from the dugout -- but, obviously, it didn't do anything. Barksdale, who maybe at this point understood, or realized something, didn't eject Howe. Whether or not Howe went far enough to warrant an ejection, I have no idea.

Looper's ejection was unwarranted. In today's soft game, a warning would've been appropriate, but who cares if the umpire felt Looper was throwing at Closser? Why does he need to eject him right there? The Mets should have the right to answer what they see as a dirty play that injures one of their players. If you have to issue a warning after that, fine, but at least let the Mets send their message, even the score. In my mind, Barksdale showed no awareness of the game situation. If he did it in an effort to "get control" of the game, that's ridiculous too. He hadn't lost control of it. But in the second game of a day-night doubleheader, when the pitching staffs of both teams are clearly going to be stretched (and the Mets had already lost Mike DeJean in the first game on a ball hit off his shin), Barksdale has to show more understanding of the situation.

What pissed me off from Closser's standpoint is his lame excuse and clear lie. "I know the guy got hurt," he said. "But I don't feel like I slid past the bag or anything like that. I just slid into second. I don't know if he's going to be able to turn a double play right there. I'm just trying to slide in and break up a double play. He's standing on the bag like he's going to take it, so I don't know."

What he should have said was, "I was just sliding hard into the bag. It's too bad he got hurt, but I'm just playing the game hard." If he didn't realize he slid way past the bag, it's amazing he can even find the base if his sense of direction is that messed up. Even the photo shows him, butt still an inch or so off the ground, already even with the bag, well on his way past it.

I think baseball's gotten too soft. Barry Bonds dresses up like a 12th Century knight every time he goes to bat, and then he complains when pitchers throw at him or a strike is called inside. Hey Barry, if your elbows are over the plate when you stand in the box, a pitch beneath your arms can still be a strike.

For the most part, umpires wait until a clear retalitory beanball before doling out warnings to either side. But why? Why is there a need for warnings? Ejections should clearly come if there are fights, but if the Red Sox plunk Jeter and the Yankees respond by hitting Manny Ramirez, the Red Sox should make the next decision on their own. If they throw a ball at A-Rod's head, they know they'll have to deal with the Yankees going after David Ortiz or someone. I don't think teams will go much farther than one intentional beanball each for fear of losing players to ejections or injuries.

Clearly, all this policing is the result of Bud Selig's Disney-fying baseball and the politically correct, anti-violence, baseball-as-a-product television era we're in. It's bullshit. There are inherent risks in any job, and one of the risks of being a professional athlete is the chance that you could get hurt playing the game. Roger Clemens may be an asshole for throwing at Mike Piazza's head, but the Mets were pansies for whining about it for two years and waiting for Clemens to come to bat in a regular season game at Shea Stadium and leaving it up to Shawn Estes to do the dirty work. The next inning, or whenever his next at bat was, Jeter should've been on his back and it all would've been over and done with. Maybe the gods would've been happy too, and maybe the Mets' karma would've changed. Maybe Piazza's bat never would have broken in Game 2 of the World Series, he would've homered, Clemens would've lost, and the Mets would've won the series in six games.

What?? It could've happened.

---------------

After watching the replays during tonight's Mets pregame (which disclosed that McEwing was placed on the DL with a fractured fibula), Closser did indeed touch the base. In fact, his slide consisted of a jump in the air (to block any throw or view of first) in which he came down directly on top of the bag and McEwing's legs. So his comments are even more bullshit. McEwing, too, may have indeed gotten a throw off toward first, but I don't remember exactly because I was focusing on Closser's positioning on the slide. I will correct myself, however, and say that the possibility that McEwing could've been making or prepared to make a throw to first was greater than I first thought. But still, it was a bad slide, a terrible slide, if not dirty.

On whining Yankees and intentional walks

Why does everything have to be a conspiracy for the Yankees? Derek Jeter has his shoulder separated in an accident in Toronto last year, and players -- even their upstanding manager Joe Torre -- question whether the Blue Jays catcher may have intentionally driven his shoulder into Jeter's.

Ridiculous.

Then Jorge Posada accidentally has his nose broken while sliding into second. The Angels' shortstop's relay throw to first in a double-play attempt is low, it ricochets off Posada's hand and hits him in the face, requiring surgery. And Torre questions why "he had to go so low" with the throw.

Ri-cock-ulous.

Joe was a catcher, maybe he doesn't realize that it's a bang-bang, split-second decision -- nay, a reaction -- in taking the toss from the second baseman, making the pivot, and firing to first in hopes of getting two outs on one pitch. Like there's any way the Angels middle infielders were thinking, "If we get a double-play ball, I'm going to try to sidearm the throw to first in hopes of embedding the ball in some guy's face."
I doubt that.

* * * * *

What to do about Barry Bonds? For some reason, this guy has become the most feared hitter since ... I don't know. Is it the Babe? Is it Ted Williams? Not even Ted Williams was walked this much in his career. There's talk here and there of whether or not the rules should be -- or could be -- changed to at least discourage intentional walks, if not outlaw them.

I think there's a simple solution, along the lines of those who say ban them outright. What MLB can do is make a rule prohibiting catchers from standing up before a pitch has crossed the plate (or at least before it has left the pitcher's hand). Sort of like making the the catcher's box (see the June 27, 2000 note) extend upward, rather than just horizontally on the ground. A catcher cannot stand up to call for four balls outside the strike zone. That way, an intentional walk has to start with the pitcher in his crouch. Managers won't order pitchers to throw three feet outside, because the catcher won't be able to get to it as easily and it increases the risk of a wild pitch. Because so many intentional walks happen with runners already on base -- often on second and/or third -- a wild pitch would be very dangerous.

Changing the rule to prevent catchers from standing could essentially do away with the standard intentional walk as we know it and force pitchers to pitch around a batter if they wish to walk him. In doing so, this would increase the chances of a potential mistake -- a change up hanging over the heart of the plate that could be crushed into the bleachers. Sure, many of the best control pitchers can fire one six inches outside that Bonds or any other hitter wouldn't think of touching, but there will still be enough who come close enough to induce swings or throw wild pitches outside or in the dirt. It'll make the game more exciting and intentional walks less obvious.

At least that's the way I see it.