i have several problems with a game in any age division that finishes with a score of 38-2.
more than that, i have big problems with what should have been a fairer mercy rule that could have been invoked here and perhaps help make a decent game out of what was a humiliating rout for both teams.
but such a rule couldn't be used because it doesn't now exist.
in rob currier's description and reaction to his bears' team's recent 38-2 demolition by the champion indians, he doesn't say if the managers or umpires invoked the division's mercy rule, which says that a 33+ division game ends after 5 innings if one team is leading by 12 or more runs. the leading team is then declared the winner.
i'm guessing that that's what happened, and that the indians scored all 38 of their runs in five or fewer innings. knowing indians' manager jim bonaparte as i do, i'm guessing too that his team stopped taking extra bases and stealing them soon after it was clear that a rout was on.
but neither a rout nor slamming on the brakes early makes for a good game.
now, i know mercy-ruled games well: this season, my 55+ red hot peppers have been involved in four of them out the 10 games we've played. we won two of those games; we lost two. (in the 55s, a mercy rule is invoked after one team leads by 10 runs after five innings.) i disliked the rule when we won; and i disliked it when we lost. and i have yet to meet a player in the 55s who likes the rule.
however well meaning the mercy rule was when the board adopted it (i'm guessing it was created to prevent the kind of rout that occurred this past weekend; irony exists everywhere, even in baseball), the fact is, our rule runs against the nature of the game, it's ahistorical, it doesn't promote good games, and it doesn't give players on both teams their money's worth.
there is in baseball a fine thing called a "comeback." sure, when a cdmsbl team is down 12-2 after five, a rally is a long shot. but it's happened. that's part of what makes baseball great. but our mercy rules kill that possibility. a mercy rule is also a real pain for guys who have to drive more than, say, 15 or 20 miles to play a game. they get to the field and 90 minutes later, they can be headed home, having hardly worked up a sweat.
then there's the money angle: when players start a season, they eye 15 or more 7-inning games. it can't be pleasant for teams like the very talented 55 giants (who have an overwhelmingly victorious record over the past three years, something like, i'm guessing, 45-3) to know that while they anticipated 15 seven-inning games in april, the reality is that they'll probably mercy rule half of their games. the flip side is true for teams at the bottom of the standings, who face the same problem. they could use the extra innings of play to get sharper. and just have more fun.
a fairer mercy rule could and should be designed to fix some of these issues. i'd urge us all to think of one.
i have one here. is it "the answer?" probably not. but i'm hoping that it'll get us all thinking of a better rule.
for me, a better mercy would have one simple but important change:handicapping.
specifically, i suggest we add a "six man at-bat per inning" modification. i'm not wedded to six. it could be nine, eight, or five or four. it's essentially a handicapping rule. many sports do that, including golf, bowling, auto racing, wrestling, weight-lifting. no reason we can't.
the point of a handicapping mercy rule is to set up a full game for everybody, to give everyone his money's worth, to allow for comebacks.
with this new mercy rule, all games would run seven innings. when a team leads by 10 or 12 runs by the fifth inning, then the leading team gets to bat only six guys to complete its half of the next inning. (or, again, some other number the rule-makers decide on. and those numbers could be changed so that if a team leads, say, 15-0 after 1, then the six-man-at-bat rule would apply starting the second inning.)
with this rule, there's no such thing as 10, 12 or 15 men coming to the plate in a rout. however many runs the leading team scores in their six at-bats (or eight or seven etc.) is however many they get for their half of the frame. that way, innings would have a guaranteed end-point, so the losing team would know that it'll get one or more innings at the plate.
it's possible, but probably not likely, that the losing team would rally and tie or go ahead of the team that had been leading.
if so, good. that's a comeback, a handicapped one, sure, but then you've got a real game. if that happens, the teams go back to regular rules.
the odds are, that won't happen. but what will happen is that both teams will get what they paid for: seven innings of baseball.
i'm guessing that one major problem with the bears-indians game was that the indians stayed on offense for a long time, and the bears often went 3 and out. with this redesigned mercy rule, that wouldn't happen. the game would have been tighter, moved faster, more bears' batters would have gotten the chance to hit and the game could have gone seven innings.
anybody else think of another way to modify our mercy rules? to give us seven-inning games?
I almost missed my game today it took so long to read this! This may just be your longest post ever!
First off you have met people who support the mercy rule you just didn't discuss it with them. I am firmly in favor of it regardless of whether i am winning or losing. In almost every instance i have been involved in where the mercy rule was invoked there was no chance of a comeback. At that point the game lacks any intensity and frankly it lacks fun (for me anyway).
As far as the idea of limiting batters or whatever that brings me back to t-ball where there was a 5 run rule. It may make games slightly less lopsided but you aren't really playing the game of baseball when you drastically change the rules.
I have brought up the idea before of a new division aimed at parity for those who just want to play competitive games. It would be in addition to the existing ones and would most likely lead to contraction as some teams would fold as players enter this new division instead of playing on perennial cellar dwellers. The idea would be to take all of the interested players and form "equal" teams that would most likely lead to more competitive games and less mercy rules. It would allow people to play in two divisions without being far older than the typical player. The following year all new teams get picked.
Keep in mind this would bring a new set of issues for the league to run it. Who would manage the teams? It would have to be someone aligned with the idea that this is more of a "rec" division (hopefully not a wreck division!). Would their be minimum playing times? What happens when a player doesn't like their role? Ideally everyone involved would look at it as an opportunity to play more baseball.
In the spirit of true competition, I don't like the proposal. In the case of Bears v. Indians, the Bears would have benefitted from the rule, to be sure. But having a team lay off the gas just to keep the game competitive doesn't feel like sportsmanship. And if, for some reason, the Indians suffered a rash of injuries or all fell asleep just because of at-bat limitations and the Bears managed a comeback win, I would have forfeited the win - we didn't deserve it. It was our job to get batters out and we failed to do so with alarming frequency.
I still maintain that all divisions could benefit from a restructuring that utilizes the EPL's promotion-relegation system which feels more like competition then John's proposal of forcing parity. When a team improves on the field, they are rewarded with promotion and when they decline they are penalized with relegation. At least this way, the determination is made with on-field results and not arbitrarily by trying to predict what teams will do based on roster. Plus, it makes regular season games really mean something. If you don't want to be relegated, have a roster of players who show up to play every game.
It takes some creativity and for managers to own what happens to their respective teams - but that requires people to man up and take accountability.
