Quote:
Originally Posted by slugger922cubs
Oh my because giving them live situations to bunt a guy over from second to third or the situational hitting of driving a runner home from second are totally bad things this gimmick would ruin. No way starting with a runner on second increases the leverage to test players physical and mental endurance. Nope makes everything nil and worthless.
For real do you realize that pretty much everything you said is made possible by starting extras with a man on second. Those are all arguments for the rule. No more wasting PAs in the 14th with no one on in Appalachia just because. Its not a gimmick. Its not a shootout, 3v3 hockey, starting every possession on the 25 yd line, or a HR derby. It would literally be the closest special OT format to how any sport is actually played in regulation in any American sport. Literally all is pretty much saying is every inning starts off with a free double and higher leverage.
|
I think that an argument can be made that the proposed rule change regarding place a runner on a second in order to resolve a tie is too much of a deviation from the normal rules. In short, the normal rules of baseball do not provide teams with a free base runner (even walks and hit by pitches are earned) so you are essentially playing a different game. Imagine an extra inning game being decided by a HR derby which is completely different from normal baseball. In other words, you would use something that is a diluted form of baseball to settle a normal baseball game. When there is too much deviation between the normal rules and "sudden death" overtime rules, it calls into question whether a team legitimately won a game because you are creating an artificial substitute of the normal rules in order to hasten an outcome. You wouldn't settle a tie with a hot dog eating contest.