OF Line in MLB Parks? Other crazy rules....

[AlaskanTigersFan]

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6856840/2025/12/03/mlb-vanishing-doubles-triples-rule-change/?campaign=15944149&source=athletic_targeted_email&userId=27759195 - Proposed by the athletic.com, they think there should be an OF line that determines the depth of how deep OF'rs can play. (TLDR) The theory behind this is that there are fewer doubles and triples now than there ever has been. So forcing outfielders to play more shallow (just by a couple feet) could create thousands more doubles and hundreds more triples a year...... Thoughts on this?

Also, last year, they floated the idea to bring in a batter that could pinch-hit one time (even if they were already in the lineup) in a game at any point. But teams only get one chance..... I believe the Savannah Bannanas do something like this but I know it was floated around MLB last year to make the game "more exciting" before they instituted the pitch clock.

I'd love your thoughts on this? For the first idea, I don't like the line personally. I think advanced data has made an adjustment and we just kind of have to live with that..... As for the miracle pinch hitter, I'd love to see that option available only if a game goes extra innings! So from inning 10 on (in the regular season only!). I think that'd add some excitement and also speed up some games too. 

What do you guys think? Or are there any other rules that are kind of crazy that you'd think of.... ?

[CMRivdogs]

It was a good article. Not a big fan of the proposal. They need to deaden the ball possibly lower or move the mound. 

Don't punish athleticism

[AlaskanTigersFan]

18 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

It was a good article. Not a big fan of the proposal. They need to deaden the ball possibly lower or move the mound. 

Don't punish athleticism

I'd love to see the mound moved back 6 inches or so. I think that'd give more reaction time for hitters. Not sure what would be better to help hitters, lower a mound or move it back a little. 

[gehringer_2]

12 minutes ago, AlaskanTigersFan said:

I'd love to see the mound moved back 6 inches or so. I think that'd give more reaction time for hitters. Not sure what would be better to help hitters, lower a mound or move it back a little. 

time the is most valuable commodity for a hitter. Moving the mound back would probably fix more than things than any other single strategy, but the ball would have to be deadened as well because contact will go up.

[Sports_Freak]

Silly idea. Next, we'll hear a rule proposal that says outfielders have to have their back to home plate. 😅😅

[oblong]

I don't like rules put in place because we got smarter and somehow that means the quality of play went down.... it's a variation of the shift.  

As for the special pinch hitter.... I'd say instead of the ghost runner try that.  Preference is not do anything but if I had to pick between the two, I'd go with the special pinch hitter.

 

[gehringer_2]

29 minutes ago, oblong said:

I don't like rules put in place because we got smarter and somehow that means the quality of play went down.... it's a variation of the shift.  

As for the special pinch hitter.... I'd say instead of the ghost runner try that.  Preference is not do anything but if I had to pick between the two, I'd go with the special pinch hitter.

 

yeah - wrong analysis, wrong answer. The issue is too few balls in play. With more balls in play, BaBIP takes care of XBH automatically.

[Tiger337]

3 hours ago, Sports_Freak said:

Silly idea. Next, we'll hear a rule proposal that says outfielders have to have their back to home plate. 😅😅

Only when Paddack is on the mound.  

[Sports_Freak]

36 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Only when Paddack is on the mound.  

I remember several years ago, a Tiger pitcher went on the IL with a stiff neck. People said it was from watching his pitches get hit 450 feet.  Lol

[AlaskanTigersFan]

1 hour ago, Sports_Freak said:

I remember several years ago, a Tiger pitcher went on the IL with a stiff neck. People said it was from watching his pitches get hit 450 feet.  Lol

Musta been Mike Morath.... lol. Every game I went to of his, he got shelled except for the one game he took the perfect game into the 8th. I was in a suite that game invited by Fox Sports. I was also at Galleraga's Perfect Imperfect game too. I must be bad luck.... fml. 

[casimir]

I’m sorry, but this golden at bat or specialty pinch hitter or whatever name they have for it is an absolute horse**** idea.

[casimir]

On second thought, no, I’m not sorry.

[Screwball]

Why do they continue to try to do stupid things. This is baseball. It isn't difficult.

[Graterol]

I like the proposal or some variation. Limiting shifts and pitch clock have worked. Finding a way to get more balls in play would help the game. Athletic CF still would make plays and would be equally valuable relative to their peer groups.

[gehringer_2]

8 minutes ago, Graterol said:

pitch clock have worked

although the pitch clock was only needed to  force a return to what used to be.  Making guys play faster was actually retro.

[HeyAbbott]

1 hour ago, casimir said:

I’m sorry, but this golden at bat or specialty pinch hitter or whatever name they have for it is an absolute horse**** idea.

I agree. That's why Manfred will adopt it.

[chasfh]

I don’t like any rule changes that upset the basic integrity of the game. Not all rules changes do this, but some do.

The Golden At Bat would upset the basic integrity of the game, if a team can just bat any guy out of order any time during the game. I think that’s a bad rule change.

One recent rule change, the pitch timer, actually supports the integrity of the game since it enforces the already-existing time limit between pitches.

Some recent rule changes, such as slightly larger bases and the three-batter-minimum rule, I think affect the integrity of the game some, but not enough to matter so much. Others, such as the elimination of throwing pitches during intentional walks, I think do upset the integrity of the game since, in this example, there are well known instances of batters reaching out and putting pitches intended to be balls into play.

I didn’t and still don’t like the infield shift rule. I think that undermines the integrity of managerial fiat during the game, since the solution to it could have been teams figuring out how to staff their rosters to hit around shifts and keep defenses honest by hitting more the other way. I think that could have and should have been the solution. Instead, Baseball chose to continue to encourage hitters to pull every single at bat because Chicks Dig The Long Ball, and The Long Ball generates beaucoup revenue. The business trumped the integrity in that instance. (Business usually Trumps integrity, doesn’t it?)

Which brings us to this proposed rule. I definitely believe Jayson Stark’s (who else?) hair is on fire about the whole doubles things. Doubles are +15% more prevalent than they were in the 40s through 70s, and about the same rate as in the 80s and into the 90s. So they had already been at an historic high in the past 30 years.

If reduced doubles is a problem at all, the problem is not that hitters suck now and need special help. The problem is that fair territory in the newer ballparks is way smaller than it used to be. That’s also why there are way fewer triples, and why there will never be another .400 hitter. The alters configuration of the parks have led to these changes in outcomes.

But, also, Jayson Stark (again, who else?) is engaging in not a little intellectual dishonesty by pointing out how a 2016 line drive over a 35-year-old Granderson’s head was a double while a similar 2025 line drive was caught by a 23-year-old Angel Martinez, and oh my god, isn’t that awful? As if that should be the object lesson we need to accept to make this change.

Basically, in historic terms, there is no doubles problem, and triples have been shrinking ever since they decided to bring outfield fences closer than 500 feet, so that part is definitely never going to change back to what it was during the dead ball.

If Baseball were to put an actual line in the outfield that restricts where outfielders can play, I think I would be offended to see it.  I believe the bigger problem they have to solve is not where outfielders should and should not position themselves, but how batters can put more balls in play in the first place, instead of striking out so damn much. Fix that, and the doubles “problem” will fix itself.

[Shelton]

These rule changes can be evaluated under the Potter Stewart test for pornography. 
 

restricting the shift - seems fine to me

three batter minimum - seems fine to me

pitcher that bats can stay in the game as DH after he stops pitching - ehh, fine

line in the outfield to regulate depth - no ****ing way

placed runner on 2b in extras - yep

pitch clock - oh hell yes

larger bases - uh huh

[Shelton]

I think an easy adjustment that would tilt the balance slightly toward hitters is to actually require three batters for RP, and not let them out of that requirement by ending an inning. 
 

For SP you could have a nine batter minimum.

[chasfh]

17 minutes ago, Shelton said:

placed runner on 2b in extras - yep

Starting with the tenth inning? I have long believed the tenth inning should be played straight, and the zombie runner starting in the eleventh inning.

[Tiger337]

The extra inning baserunner rule is horrible and nobody can change my mind on that!.  It upsets the integrity of the game more than anything else they have done.  To me, it just completely changes the basic flow of the game. It even wrecks the beautiful statistical balance of the game where every event is accounted for.   I understand the argument about preserving pitching staffs, but I'd rather see a game end in a tie than watch an inning starting with a runner on base.  They should at least try having a couple of real innings before they start the undeserved baserunner thing.  Maybe start that in the 12th or 13th inning. 

As far as the other changes that have been made, I can live with them.  They don't hurt much and some have helped.  In particular, the pitch clock makes it a better game without compromising integrity as it's enforcing rules already in place.  

I wasn't aware that there was a "doubles problem".  What's the problem? Are there too many or too few?  The problem is too many strikeouts, too many home runs and basically not enough balls in play.  If anything, there  there is singles problem  

[Tiger337]

3 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Starting with the tenth inning? I have long believed the tenth inning should be played straight, and the zombie runner starting in the eleventh inning.

12th inning.  And that's the most I'll give you!

[chasfh]

1 minute ago, Tiger337 said:

The extra inning baserunner rule is horrible and nobody can change my mind on that!.  It upsets the integrity of the game more than anything else they have done.  To me, it just completely changes the basic flow of the game. It even wrecks the beautiful statistical balance of the game where every event is accounted for.   I understand the argument about preserving pitching staffs, but I'd rather see a game end in a tie than watch an inning starting with a runner on base.  They should at least try having a couple of real innings before they start the undeserved baserunner thing.  Maybe start that in the 12th or 13th inning. 

As far as the other changes that have been made, I can live with them.  They don't hurt much and some have helped.  In particular, the pitch clock makes it a better game without compromising integrity as it's enforcing rules already in place.  

I wasn't aware that there was a "doubles problem".  What's the problem? Are there too many or too few?  The problem is too many strikeouts, too many home runs and basically not enough balls in play.  If anything, there  there is singles problem  

This is a defensible position—certainly far more defensible than batting eight guys in a batting order! 😉

It wouldn't kill me to have games end in ties—they already do that in the NPB in Japan, calling a game a tie after 12 innings, and I saw one while I was there. Maybe it's because it was September and playoff positions were basically already determined, but I knew by the end of the tenth that, based on the way the players on the field looked to be phoning it in, the game was definitely going to end up in a tie.

I don't love super long extra inning games, and I gotta be honest, with the advent of the zombie runner, I don't miss those. I would say, though, that if Baseball truly believes in the integrity of the zombie runner rule, they should use it during the playoffs. If they table the rule during the playoffs, though, that tells me they don't really believe in the integrity of the rule, that instead they believe that no zombie runner is "real baseball". Otherwise, they wouldn't be making that change. Pick a lane, Baseball.

[chasfh]

9 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

12th inning.  And that's the most I'll give you!

Hey, look, we're wearing him down! 😂

[Tiger337]

The eight guys batting is more of an intellectual exercise than something I favor.  How about, instead of having a DH, they automocally put the 9th runner on base.  That will create more run production opportunities to the top of the order and create excitement!  That should make all you kids happy.  😃