Tom Verducci proposes the 'Bonus At-Bat'

[Dick Whitman]

The actual piece is behind a paywall, but in this week's Sports Illustrated, baseball writer Tom Verducci writes that he favors a once-a-game "bonus at-bat" to "modernize" baseball. In essence, a team would get to denote a player, like David Ortiz in the World Series, to bat during a crucial situation instead of the batter actually at the plate.

Here is a synopsis that mentions it:

http://mlb.si.com/2013/10/30/world-series-sports-illustrated-cover/

First of all, I think the idea is insane. Second of all, however, Verducci's status as a contributor to MLB Network makes me wonder if this is not a bit of a trial baloon being floated by Major League Baseball. Time will tell.

Does anyone actually like the idea?

 

[ColdCat]

how about modernizing the game by getting rid of pitchers batting in the National League first?

 

[IllMil]

Horrendous.

 

[MileHigh]

Yeah, there are other things such as realignment and having the same rules for all teams than this stupid suggestion.

 

[poindexter]

That would be awesome to see how long it takes to watch Ortiz get ready for an at-bat outside his regular rotation. Yaaawwnnn.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Verducci writes that it would add excitement by making sure that the best players are in the game at the most important times, deciding it.

It reminds me of all the contrived ways that NASCAR engineers exciting finishes.

 

[Captain_Kirk]

Sure. Also, how about we allow NFL teams to have one play a game where a player is allowed to wear a jet pack to block a FG or XP. And if they can ever figure that flubber thing out, could install something similar for basketball.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Having a good #5 hitter is just to much to ask, I guess.

There are a hundred things that could happen (the DH being the obvious one) before this needs to.

 

[da man]

Verducci writes that it would add excitement by making sure that the best players are in the game at the most important times, deciding it.

It reminds me of all the contrived ways that NASCAR engineers exciting finishes.

Debris on the field?

 

[H.L. Mencken]

What is with SI greats lighting their credibility on fire when they reach their 50s?

 

[LongTimeListener]

The NFL should adopt the old Pro Bowl rule where in the fourth quarter, after every score, the winning team kicks off. Even after the trailing team just scored. That would make for a lot more close finishes and higher ratings.

 

[MisterCreosote]

Every team in every sport should get a Teen Wolf.

 

[poindexter]

Verducci needs to quit reading Slate.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

Ridiculous proposal in every possible way. Verducci probably wouldn't vote for a steroid user to be in the Hall of Fame because they "tainted" the sport, then he comes up with this lulu.

 

[MileHigh]

The NFL should adopt the old Pro Bowl rule where in the fourth quarter, after every score, the winning team kicks off. Even after the trailing team just scored. That would make for a lot more close finishes and higher ratings.

There is a rule in the high school football rule book – been in there for years and still is there – that the team that just got scored on has the choice of kicking or receiving the ensuing kickoff.

 

[HanSenSE]

The NFL should adopt the old Pro Bowl rule where in the fourth quarter, after every score, the winning team kicks off. Even after the trailing team just scored. That would make for a lot more close finishes and higher ratings.

There is a rule in the high school football rule book – been in there for years and still is there – that the team that just got scored on has the choice of kicking or receiving the ensuing kickoff.

A standard rule in most prep all-star games. Always a thrilling sight, seeing out-of-football-shape players on the field for 20something plays in full gear when it's 100+

 

[Steak Snabler]

Next they'll propose that the All-Star Game winner determine home-field advantage in the World Series.

 

[MankyJimy]

The actual piece is behind a paywall, but in this week's Sports Illustrated, baseball writer Tom Verducci writes that he favors a once-a-game "bonus at-bat" to "modernize" baseball. In essence, a team would get to denote a player, like David Ortiz in the World Series, to bat during a crucial situation instead of the batter actually at the plate.

Here is a synopsis that mentions it:

http://mlb.si.com/2013/10/30/world-series-sports-illustrated-cover/

First of all, I think the idea is insane. Second of all, however, Verducci's status as a contributor to MLB Network makes me wonder if this is not a bit of a trial baloon being floated by Major League Baseball. Time will tell.

Does anyone actually like the idea?

I don't think it's the worst idea. I would like to see MLB try it for a season and see what happens.

Now, what would happen if the player that gets the bonus at bat gets on base and is still on base when his turn to bat comes up?

 

[HanSenSE]

The actual piece is behind a paywall, but in this week's Sports Illustrated, baseball writer Tom Verducci writes that he favors a once-a-game "bonus at-bat" to "modernize" baseball. In essence, a team would get to denote a player, like David Ortiz in the World Series, to bat during a crucial situation instead of the batter actually at the plate.

Here is a synopsis that mentions it:

http://mlb.si.com/2013/10/30/world-series-sports-illustrated-cover/

First of all, I think the idea is insane. Second of all, however, Verducci's status as a contributor to MLB Network makes me wonder if this is not a bit of a trial baloon being floated by Major League Baseball. Time will tell.

Does anyone actually like the idea?

I don't think it's the worst idea. I would like to see MLB try it for a season and see what happens.

Now, what would happen if the player that gets the bonus at bat gets on base and is still on base when his turn to bat comes up?

Ghost runners.

 

[Starman]

The NFL should adopt the old Pro Bowl rule where in the fourth quarter, after every score, the winning team kicks off. Even after the trailing team just scored. That would make for a lot more close finishes and higher ratings.

There is a rule in the high school football rule book – been in there for years and still is there – that the team that just got scored on has the choice of kicking or receiving the ensuing kickoff.

Pretty sure that was a universal rule in all of football -- not sure if it has ever been changed -- that the team scored upon has the option of whether to kick off or receive.

Over the decades I suppose it was probably changed since in practice, virtually nobody in such a situation ever elected to kick off. However, if you go back to the 20s and 30s, you read game stories in which it happened fairly often.

Cumberland, in the famous 222-0 loss to John Heisman and Georgia Tech, kicked off after 5 of the 32 GT scores. Possibly indicating it wasn't really that good an idea.


http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/f4/ot-georgia-tech-vs-cumberland-1916-222-0-play-by-play-20599.html