MLB's competition committee unanimously voted to make the extra-innings automatic-baserunner-on-second a permanent rule for the regular season. There was much consternation on social media, which I guess goes without saying on pretty much any subject. A lot of people hate the rule.
I'm a die-hard baseball fan and I like it.
The biggest reason I've heard from fans who like it, and it's the main one I've come to vigorously support the rule after being lukewarm, at best, initially: People want to see the end of the game.
Putting an automatic runner on second base to start each half of an inning has been proven to increase scoring and, as a product of that, will get us to the conclusion of the game quicker, in terms of innings played.
Think about a weeknight or, arguably more importantly, a school night. At some point, people who have "normal" jobs or kids in school just need to go to sleep. One can create any argument around this, but at some point, it's reality. With a regular season that is 162 games, you're going to lose a sizable chunk of your audience when games go to extra innings. The deeper into extras they go, the more fans you lose before the conclusion. I just can't wrap my arms around the thought process that losing a large percentage of your audience before a game ends is somehow good for the overall health of the game.
Think back to watching some of those 14- or 15- or 16-inning marathon games pre-2020. How many fans were left in the crowd compared to the start of the game? Twenty percent? 10 percent? Less? All those fans left early, not because they don't like baseball enough, but because they actually have real-life responsibilities. And, sure, there could have been plenty of fun moments throughout the night, but, ultimately, the overwhelming majority of the fans at the game were forced to leave without having seen the winner of the game. What if we're talking about a family with multiple young children who just wanted badly to see one game this season and they were left taking the kids home without seeing a team win the game?
There are, obviously, baseball reasons to like the rule, too.
Once you get into the mid-teens in innings, every position player is worn down or has been replaced with lesser players and it's just not high-quality baseball. As one of my colleagues has pointed out on several occasions, it becomes nearly impossible to string hits together as a result, meaning you're just waiting on a solo homer that might not come until the 19th inning.
Those marathon games ruin the next several days for each team, too, in terms of their pitching situation. The reverberations might even be longer than that. Yes, there are minor-league teams that can be used to shuttle pitchers back and forth and I'm well aware that teams should have relievers who can work multiple innings instead of just loading up on one-inning pitchers.
Also, though, what's the harm -- the actual, true-to-life harm -- in putting in a mechanism to help end extra-inning games sooner for the sake of nearly everyone involved. Most players love it. Many fans like it. All fans will get to see the conclusion of the game sooner, in all likelihood, though there will always be outliers. I don't see any harm here, save for the annoyance to the die-hard fans who have funky job hours (like me) and believe everyone who doesn't agree just isn't a true baseball fan.
It's just not baseball.
That's the argument that seems to be the conversation ender. It's the closer. It's meant to be like Prime Mariano Rivera walking out of the bullpen to shut your ass down.
Only it doesn't make sense to me. It is baseball. It's the rule now. Other levels have it, too. Sports evolve over time. There are still some people who claim "it's not baseball" to use a designated hitter or to have "openers" on the mound or to avoid bunting runners over. But all that stuff is baseball now.
Every sport has different rules once regulation ends in a tie to ensure the athletes -- who are real people, not robots being used for our perverse enjoyment -- don't overwork themselves all night. And in the case of baseball, marathon extra-inning games means the recovery lingers to the night after that. And after that. And after that, in some cases.
Preventing the marathon games that ruin weeks makes sure the product is played at the highest level possible, both on that particular night and the ensuing several nights.
As a counter to that, I've seen this argument peddled: "Well, how many 15-inning games are there?"
The implication being that there were so few of them, it shouldn't bother anyone. It's an easy argument to counter, because the answer is: If the number of games that used to go that long was so few, how does it hurt you to lose them from the schedule?
I'm trying hard to avoid becoming that guy and thinking everyone agrees with me, but I just can't imagine it's fun for anyone to sit through, say, innings 13-16 where there are zero baserunners.
Most of all, though, I just keep coming back to how many people you lose throughout the game when it goes deep into extra innings. It's the argument clincher for me. That's ultimately what matters most and though a large number of fans love to talk about how much they hate the rule, nearly all of those people stop watching games in extra innings just to go to bed. Wouldn't they rather, deep down, in places they don't talk about at parties, just see the end of the game? Knowing who wins and who loses is the hallmark of watching any sporting event.
This is why I'm in favor of the rule.
