Atlanta Braves 2 Out Magic: Could that Dynamic Part of Baseball Change?

Just when we thought we had heard all we could about pace of play in Major League Baseball, someone has swooped in with another doozy of an idea. An idea that could have led a different outcome for the Atlanta Braves if it were in use today.

It’s the 6th inning of game involving the Atlanta Braves and Phillies in September. The score is tied at 3 a piece, and the Braves are the home team. In the bottom of the 6th, with 2 outs, Freddie Freeman socks a solo shot to left-center to put the Braves up 4-3. Then the Braves take the field for defense and we go to the top of the 7th.

Wait. WHAT?!

Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t tell you? There’s a new rule in Major League Baseball. You know – The Catch-Up Rule?

OK, so it’s not a real rule … yet. But If it were up to a couple of academics – a university professor and a computer scientist – according to them, they have solved the problem of games that last too long and that have apparently lost its competitive edge.

Jason Gay, a columnist for the Wall Street Journal, ran a piece this week about this very thing. Gay’s credits include Vogue, GQ, Rolling Stone, and Outside. He was named Sports Columnist of the Year by the SPJ (Society of Professional Journalists) in 2016. He was also a finalist for the Thurber Prize, which is awarded for achievements in American Humor.

However, Mr. Gay is merely the conveyor of the idea in this instance, not the curator. Steven J. Brams (the Professor and Game Theorist) along with help from Aaron Isaksen (computer scientist), have formulated a plan to fix baseball!

I never thought I’d say this, but it’s worse then the whole “starting a runner on second base in the 12th inning” thing  [ed. note: or the 10th inning, which is already a thing in minor league ball].

So let’s at least see what on earth these yahoos are talking about…

Here is how it works:

“When the game is 0-0 or tied, baseball is played exactly as it is today—three outs per side. But when the at-bat club has or takes a lead, it gets two outs instead of three. For example: Your team is in a scoreless contest. Then your slugger hits a home run to go up 1-0. Now your inning ends at two outs. Not three. As long as you keep a lead, your at-bat innings are two outs. That’s it. Tie game, three outs a side. Get the lead, play with two outs. If you take the lead with two outs, the lead stays, but the inning ends.” – Jason Gay, Wall Street Journal

Hey, while we’re at it, can we go ahead and start hitters with a 1-1 count and you’re out on a second fouled ball? Oh, and if you hit more than 2 homers in a game, it’s an out for the team.

What’s that you say? You don’t have any more position players? Oh, that’s too bad. Guess you’ll have to take an out when that spot comes up in the order.

Look, this isn’t a bash on Gay here, he actually writes a nice piece, these aren’t his ideas, after all. However, he does seems to champion it though. He even goes as far to include sabermetric-like evidence from the two academics. Apparently studies were done on over 50 years of baseball encompassing entire seasons, even post-seasons.

Uh, that’s a lot of research.

According to that research, the average margin of victory went “from 3.21 runs to 2.15 runs”. What about time shaved off of games? They covered that too.

Meanwhile, there was a dramatic reduction in the length of game. Because fewer outs are necessary, outs-per-nine-innings dropped from 52.5 to 45.9—a drop that Brams and Isaksen believe shaves 24 minutes off a nine-inning baseball game.

No kidding? Really, that’s fascinating. No, seriously, Captain Obvious:  who would have thought that if YOU ELIMINATE OUTS YOU WOULD DROP IN OUTS-PER-NINE YOU’LL SAVE TIME!!!

Mind-boggling.

This line really struck a chord with me, though.

The Baseball Haves were not so advantaged over the Have-Nots.

The baseball … WHAT?!

OK. Wait just a galldurn minute here. Are we seriously taking the “everyone gets a trophy” stance here? Did we just seriously crossover to the “this isn’t fair” territory? So what, the losing team is losing so we’re going to pity them? They’re going to cry and take their ball and go home to cry to mommy? This is BASEBALL!

I was raised constantly being told “Tough! Life isn’t fair, so get over it”. I know it sounds horribly cliche, and it is, but it’s also true. If you didn’t like something, then DANGIT, you did something about it. If you were losing, you played better. You’re supposed to learn from losing.

OK. I think I’m done with this part of the rant. Maybe …

Why Stop Here?

Anyway, back to the article. A friend of mine said this today about the article.

Hmmm … interesting, on all counts, indeed. Yes, baseball is the only one of the 4 major sports to not have a time limit. It was one of the last sports to jump on the replay bandwagon (which is still flawed).

I was willing to at accept experimentation of a pitchers clock in the minor leagues. But somethings are so fundamental to history, you can’t change them. And it’s not even about can’t or won’t, it’s about whether or not you should change it.

It’s been 1, 2, and 3 outs for almost 150 years, not 1, 2, and eh, you have a lead, so you only get 2 chances to try and score. You’re done, my turn to hit … YAYYYYY!!!

It’s like we’re 6 again in our friends backyard.

You’ll be at the plate and you let a center-cut lollipop go by and not even swing it. It’s called a strike. Then, you yell out at the pitcher and catcher and say, “nuh-uh … I never swung the bat. It’s not a strike, it’s a ball”.

That is what this is.

Tom Hanks’ Jimmy Dugan would be rolling over in his fictitious grave right now. There’s no crying baseball?  With this, the crying is already assumed!