Alexander: How our readers would change MLB
We asked the question a week ago: What three changes would you make if you became the commissioner of baseball?
Trust me. The answers run the gamut.
None of our faithful correspondents (or yours truly, for that matter) figure to ever reach that corner office in midtown Manhattan, even as a visitor. But it’s a reminder that not all ideas come from within the power structure, as well as a reminder that in a number of ways, MLB – and specifically commissioner Rob Manfred – has lost sight of the game’s core constituency.
Take, for example, disenfranchised fans in so many minor-league towns across America, following the MLB takeover and contraction of the minors in December 2020. In Lancaster, for instance, the fans of the California League JetHawks never even got a chance to say goodbye before their team was liquidated.
“He left 40 small towns in this country with empty stadiums and without their teams,” David Diaz of Tehachapi wrote. “This is where families who don’t live in the big city would take their kids on a summer night. These were places where many foreign players got their first taste of what America truly is. These were the places where dreams were born.”
Jerry Carlson of Camarillo noted that additionally, the surviving teams in the California League found themselves downgraded from high Class A to low-A ball, swapping places with the Midwest League. Why?
Carlson also noted: “Inasmuch as MLB still enjoys an antitrust exemption, it is imperative that MLB enforce and re-establish a competitive playing environment. It means little if the Pittsburghs, Colorados, Oaklands of the world continue to be allowed to field teams that are not competitive.”
(And he suggests that a division winner shouldn’t have to face a divisional rival in the playoffs that “finished 10 to 15 games behind … the regular season outcomes have become almost meaningless.” I suspect Padres and Diamondbacks fans, to name two, would disagree.)
Others among our respondents noted such competitive imbalance, though the kneejerk reaction is normally to blame the teams that spend money on talent (i.e., try to win). But isn’t it possible that those who pocket revenue sharing checks rather than spend that money on payroll – like the Pittsburghs, Colorados and Oaklands of the world – are somewhat to blame for the imbalance?
Other suggestions:
• Dennis Arntz of Laguna Niguel, addressing the state of umpiring and particularly ball-strike calls, goes along with the idea of using the ABS (automated ball-strike) system and sending the call to the plate umpire via earpiece, which in fact is how the process worked when it was tested in the minors the past couple of seasons. Arntz also advocates that extra innings that go 12 innings without a winner should go into the books as ties and added: “All base tag plays should be like first base. Catch ball with foot on base, no need to touch runner.”
Bob Munson of Newbury Park suggested not starting the season until April 15 and ending it on Labor Day: “Less games means the $30 mil players will have to get by with $20 mil. Oh, the harshness of it all.”
But he added this rules quirk designed to re-emphasize starting pitching, which seems to be a priority given the suggestion that pitching staffs be reduced from 13 to 12. Munson’s idea: “The batting side gets an extra out for every pitching change. This means pitchers will be allowed to pitch out of a jam giving fans more action. This also means starting pitchers will throw more strikes (more action) to get to complete games.”
(Of course, there’s also the idea advanced a couple of years ago by Hall of Fame scribe Jayson Stark of The Athletic, the “double hook” rule: When you remove your starting pitcher, you lose the DH for the rest of the game. Would that also be considered the anti-Ohtani rule?)
Gary Engstrom of Seal Beach suggests a hard salary cap, as well as eliminating the strike-zone box shown on TV and the resulting second-guessing of calls: “Hey, players, know your umpires’ tendencies and swing accordingly.”
And he doesn’t seem to be a supporter of the rules tweaks designed to speed up the game. “If you can’t endure an extra half-hour of your time are you really a fan?” he asked.
Tom Power of Seal Beach criticized Manfred for “moving the All-Star Game from Atlanta strictly for political purposes” in 2021, and also for the Trevor Bauer suspension, though he added, “Unless there is something we don’t know, because why hasn’t a team signed him?” (Bauer has been asking that same question himself.)
Mike Zmudzinski, a frequent respondent to This Space, suggested rearranging the leagues and divisions into three groupings of 10 teams each, presumably by geography, as well as trimming the schedule back to 154 games and maintaining the current interleague scheduling policy. “I’m not sure how to figure out who goes to the World Series,” he wrote, “but there might be something in (the) MLB archives that alludes to that from when the (Pacific Coast League) was under consideration to be major league No. 3,” years before the Dodgers and Giants moved here in 1958.
And Bob Dipre had one and only one suggestion:
“My selection for Commissioner of Baseball is the first guy that commits to making Pete Rose eligible for the Hall Of Fame as a player. To not recognize the way Charlie Hustle played the game is just turning a blind eye to the truth. I loved to hate him when he came to L.A. but I always respected his love for the game.”
Then-commissioner A. Bartlett Giamatti banned Rose for life in 1989, though Rose accepted the ban on the condition that MLB not formally determine that he had bet on baseball as manager of the Reds. Part of the agreement was that Rose could apply for reinstatement, but commissioners Fay Vincent, Bud Selig and Manfred have all declined to revisit the ban – which, among other things, kept Rose off the Hall of Fame ballot.
Even today, when MLB and pro sports in general have commercial ties with gambling interests, I don’t expect Rose’s ban to end.
jalexander@scng.com