I wish to demonstrate I am not simply opposed to rule changes in and of themselves by suggesting rule changes I would favor.

Charlie, Rich, Michael, and I discussed baseball rule changes on the latest episode of the Charles C. W. Cooke Podcast. I played the role of curmudgeon, in opposition to most of MLB’s recent innovations.

As I mentioned on the show, I hate the pitch clock less in practice than I hate it in theory. I simply was not as bothered by the pace of play as much as MLB insisted everyone was. Three hours for a baseball game is reasonable to me, and that’s around what most games were before the rule changes. (When pointless replay reviews make the games take longer, nobody complains about that, even though we all know a safe/out call at first base in the third inning really doesn’t matter that much to the outcome of the game.)

But I wish to demonstrate I am not simply opposed to rule changes in and of themselves by suggesting rule changes I would favor. First, let’s consider alternative ways to address pace of play.

One would have been to enforce the rules already on the books before the pitch clock. Rule 5.07(c) of the 2019 Official Baseball Rules said, “When the bases are unoccupied, the pitcher shall deliver the ball to the batter within 12 seconds after he receives the ball. Each time the pitcher delays the game by violating this rule, the umpire shall call ‘Ball.'” The 2019 rule book also already had the rule that the batter must keep one foot in the batter’s box and must enter the box “promptly” when at bat. Delaying the game at bat resulted in an automatic strike.

Of course, these penalties were almost never called. But in the winter meetings, MLB could have convened the teams and umpires and made clear that this rule was going to be a point of emphasis for the next season. There would still be no clock, and if the pitcher took 13 seconds, it would probably be fine. But everyone would be on notice, and the umpires would be encouraged to be more zealous in enforcing the rule. Would this be more arbitrary and ambiguous than a pitch clock? Yes. Baseball has many arbitrary and ambiguous components of its gameplay, and these rules were already there and could have been enforced.

A second way I would have preferred MLB address pace of play instead of the current pitch clock is to do it more similarly to how cricket has addressed its pace of play. In cricket, each side has a running clock, never displayed on broadcasts but known to the teams and umpires, of how long they are taking to bowl. From that, they calculate an “over rate,” which is the number of overs bowled per hour. If the bowling team’s over rate is too slow in most forms of T20 cricket (the shortened form of the game that lasts about as long as baseball), it faces the penalty of having a fielder removed for the last few overs of the innings.

This style of rule could have been implemented in baseball with a few modifications. The pitching team could have a “pitch rate” calculated in a similar way: a clock visible to the teams and umpires that would run continuously when the ball was live. Divide that time by the team’s pitch count to get the pitch rate. MLB could set the pitch rate at, say, 15 seconds per pitch. If, by the start of the eighth inning, a team’s pitch rate was above 15 seconds per pitch, it could be penalized by beginning the count for each batter at 1-0.

The advantage of this system compared to the current pitch clock is that it allows teams more flexibility in how they pace the game. Rather than taking a set amount of time for each and every pitch as the current rule mandates, teams would need to take a set amount of time on average over all their pitches. So, if a starting pitcher is breezing through the bottom of the lineup in the third inning, his pitch rate might only be eleven seconds. This would accumulate “saved-up” time so that if, in the fifth inning, he faces a bases-loaded two-outs jam in a tie game, he can bear down and take 18 seconds per pitch if he wants. Teams could also put in relievers that they know tend to work faster or slower based on where the team’s pitch rate is, which would create incentives for relievers to specialize in working fast and give them a new way to add value to the team.

Enough on pace of play. There are two rule changes that are top of mind that I want to see MLB make:

1. The running lane to first base. The running lane begins at 45 feet from home plate (halfway to first) and is entirely in foul territory. There is a good reason for that: You don’t want the runner to potentially interfere with a play on a ball in fair territory. The problem is that first base is in fair territory. So the runner is expected to run in foul territory to reach a target in fair territory. This rule is regularly waived because on most plays, there is no possible interference because the ball is hit somewhere else on the field. Even so, there are problems of collisions with fielders at first base because first base is the only square base runners may overrun with no penalty. There’s a ready solution here, already implemented in lower levels of baseball: the orange safety base in foul territory for the runner, immediately next to the white base in fair territory for the fielder. MLB should adopt it as well and then enforce the running-lane rule so that runners must run entirely in foul territory to first base. First base is different from the other bases in the rule book, so it should also look different on the field. This would prevent injuries and offensive interference and erase any confusion about where runners are supposed to go.
2. The dropped third strike rule. Just get rid of it. If the catcher doesn’t catch strike one, it’s strike one. If the catcher doesn’t catch strike two, it’s strike two. If the catcher doesn’t catch strike three, it should still be strike three, which means the batter is out. In fact, nearly every time there’s a dropped third strike, the batter is out, either because he was easily thrown out at first or because he doesn’t even attempt to advance and gives himself up. Just make it automatic, like it already is on strike one or two. With fewer than two outs, runners already on base could still advance just like they could on any other passed ball or wild pitch. There is no reason to treat the third strike differently. An SABR article looking at the history of the rule concludes, “It could be abolished and few would notice. . . . It is a quirky rule, seemingly without purpose, a vestige of baseball’s earliest days.” By that it means that its roots are in a pre-baseball game made by a German guy in a book from 1796 where you let people try to get on base after the third miss because you feel bad for them. This idea was brought over to baseball when a third strike was considered a fair ball at a time when balls caught on a hop were still considered outs. Then there was a mistake in rulemaking in the 1860s where they forgot to consider the third-strike rule when they redid the catch rules. It’s interesting history, but the dropped third-strike rule has basically nothing to do with baseball as it has been played since the 1890s, and it should be eliminated.