First wild-cards, what's next?

[Eric]

Historically baseball hasn't really changed their rules much.
They added divisions in 1961.
They added the DH in 1973
They added wild cards in 1995

What are your thoughts about the next change in baseball.

I think that people will be complaining that extra-inning games
will take too long. Look at the All-star game. So MLB will add a
rule that after 12 innings, the game will be decided by a Home
Run Hitting Contest.

[spleen1015]

Women will be allowed to play in 2009.

[Florida Tiger]

* Run the bases clockwise every other inning.

* Rotating players, just like they do in volleyball, after each out: pitcher goes to third, first baseman becomes pitcher, catcher becomes first base, etc.

* Sudden death extra innings, starting with a runner on second. Coin flip determines which team bats first. Starting in the 11th inning, the defense has to remove one player from the field for each extra inning. Team with the first run wins.

* Celebrity pinch runners in the 6th inning: Gary Coleman, Barry Williams, Madonna, etc.

I might submit these to Vince McMahon so he can start the XBL.

[CMH]

Originally posted by Eric
Historically baseball hasn't really changed their rules much.
They added divisions in 1961.
They added the DH in 1973
They added wild cards in 1995

What are your thoughts about the next change in baseball.

I think that people will be complaining that extra-inning games
will take too long. Look at the All-star game. So MLB will add a
rule that after 12 innings, the game will be decided by a Home
Run Hitting Contest.

more than likely the next big change will have the All-Star Game winner take sole possession of home field advantage in the World Series.

this will:

1. make the game more meaningful -- as it should be
2. make sure there is an outcome -- even if it has to be settled after the season
3. demand more strategy when removing or inserting players out of and into the lineup.

besides that (b/c that has already been discussed):

I would guess that MLB might consider goin to a 4 divison format. They will never go back to 2 for several reasons concerning money and revenue. But a 4 division set-up may help more teams contend in the season and give MLB a couple more years to figure out how they can deal with the Rich vs. Poor problem effectively.

[sixto]

Originally posted by spleen1015
Women will be allowed to play in 2009.

Women are allowed to play now.

I think interleague play was historically more significant than anything except the DH.

The NL will add the DH eventually, despite cries that if anything it will go the other way. They're not taking that spoon out of the mouths of Frank Thomas et al. That will be the next big change. Baseball players will continue to get stronger, the balls will continue to be thrown out after 2 or 3 pitches, keeping balls in play hard and flying far, and bigger ballparks will continue to be replaced by smaller ones. In 10 years a player capable of hitting only 20 HR will be called a "benchwarmer."

As soon as there are 15-20 more Barry Zitos in the league, threatening to push offense down again, baseball will implement some sort of rule to benefit hitters...composite bats, perhaps, or balls that are harder still, or balls without seams or something. Enough fans will be seriously injured by foul balls that nets will also be erected over the lower decks of most stadiums like in hockey.

6

[VT Os fan]

Originally posted by Eric
Historically baseball hasn't really changed their rules much.
They added divisions in 1961.
They added the DH in 1973
They added wild cards in 1995

What are your thoughts about the next change in baseball.

You forgot about interleague play. Was that in '99?

The rules of the game haven't really changed in 100 years, just some of the ecoutremants: livelier ball in the 20s, black players in the 40s, astroturf in the 60s. The only significant rule change was the addition of the DH in the 70s.

The next siginifcant change will be to totally outlaw artificial turf. Except, of course, on the skulls of elderly broadcasters.

[TheDude]

I would have to say that I like the idea of making the All-Star game mean something. The World Series home field advantage would probably be enough to make it a competitive game, but it will never be the way it was. Managers won't tell players that aren't theirs to do dangerous or out of the ordinary things. The players in the All-Star game are their respective teams largest investments, and the managers will not take any blame for getting someone injured. Baseball is about baseball, unless money could be lost, then it's ONLY about money.

[delusional]

Salary cap

[CMH]

Originally posted by TheDude
I would have to say that I like the idea of making the All-Star game mean something. The World Series home field advantage would probably be enough to make it a competitive game, but it will never be the way it was. Managers won't tell players that aren't theirs to do dangerous or out of the ordinary things. The players in the All-Star game are their respective teams largest investments, and the managers will not take any blame for getting someone injured. Baseball is about baseball, unless money could be lost, then it's ONLY about money.

maybe we should just drop the stars and start goin for the cheap, least expensive players. this way managers wont care what happens to 'em.

no?

[twins15]

Or, the team with the better record should get home field advantage. They don't play the same competition, but I think that that would make the most sense.