from Amazon
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
How can you tell if a change in rules is a good change?
Easy. If you always had this rule in place, would you ever go back to the original rule?
Ask NHL fans if they would like to abolish reviews on goals. Of course the review rule on HR is needed. Once it’s in place, twenty years from now, the clear majority will not say “get rid of the review rule”.
The DH is another matter. Clearly, it’s not working. Has there been any change in rules in baseball that after 35+ years, it still has not been accepted by the clear majority, or at least reviled by the vocal minority? That’s why I support the “home manager” discretion of whether to have DH or not. You will always have that vocal minority, but at least this way, you are reducing them to a tiny minority, like the tiny minority that prefers things simple in the good ole days (that never were other than in selective memory).
Would you go back to a time where you have 4 teams make the playoffs, or 2 teams? The wild card is a good rule for a 30-team league, if you are going to have playoffs.
If you limited mid-inning relief changes in some form (say by making it a 1-0 count count when the 2nd mid-inning reliever comes into the game at any point not just the same inning, 2-0 the third time, and 3-0 the fourth and subsequent times) say in 1972, would we today say “man, I wish they would remove the disincentive, so we can have more mid-inning relievers come into the game”? No, certainly not. No one would say that. So, this makes this a great rule.
What about stopping a regular season game after 12 innings (tie), or going to Olympic-style OT in 1976? Would the fan complain, and want the game to be prolonged? Of course not, since most fans actually leave the ballpark already. They have already voted with their feet that they do NOT want to see games that go on too long (in the regular season). So, some sort of accelerated end to a ball game would be a good rule.
But, MLB is unique in that they think they need to bend over to the vocal minority that has seen Field of Dreams once too often. The common man will break a lifetime contract of love with his spouse and turn over 50% of his assets before agreeing to prevent runners from bowling over a catcher.
Before you complain about proposed rule changes, or what I’ve said here, think first and ask yourself the question: “If we always had this rule in place, would I ever go back to the original rule?”