Brainstorming Extra Inning Alternatives

The most hotly debated topic in baseball right now is not who the best young hitter is, whether instant replay takes too long or why the National League does not have a designated hitter. It is not even pitchers using foreign substances, though that is the newest hot button issue. What fans and analysts get most riled up about is how they feel about the current extra-inning rule.

Introduced as one of the temporary rule changes before the 2020 season and brought back this year because of the ongoing pandemic, every half-inning during extra innings begins with a runner on second base. The apparent purpose of this is to make games end quicker so that pitching staffs are not depleted by throwing 15-plus innings in a single game.

If this is all that matters, then the rule is undoubtedly working. According to an ESPN article, the average number of extra innings has decreased from 2.14 to 1.57, but fans are still split. Opponents say it is not “real baseball” starting with a runner on base, and teams should have to earn their runs. Those in favor of the rule like the promise that the game will not drag on for an eternity.

I love the new rule. Each half-inning is exciting, and it is nice to see bunting return to competitive games at the highest level. But given how many people absolutely cannot stand the rule, let’s brainstorm some alternatives for extra innings that will please a higher percentage of fans.

Put A Runner On First

I think this would be the simplest change and the most reasonable one. Starting with a runner on first would still be an advantage for the offense, but not nearly as much as starting on second. Plus, it would not seem quite as weird to viewers. Seeing a runner trot to first base in between innings would still be weird, but leadoff hitters reaching first happens far more often than them reaching second.

The main drawback of this, if you can call it that, is the lack of creativity. Starting with a runner on first might not change the game enough to be meaningful, and a double play can easily erase them. Additionally, some fans will still grumble that a runner is starting on any base.

Start The Rule Later

This rule has been floated around as a compromise, but I think people might get more upset at this. Instead of placing a runner on second to begin the 10th inning, the rule would only affect the 11th or 12th inning. Teams would have the chance to score the same way as the rest of the game, but it could end in a somewhat timely fashion.

The rule would have the desired effect, but opponents would complain an inning later, and the rest of us would wonder why there is no runner in the 10th. Let’s move on to the more drastic measures.

Home Run Derby Every Night

As drastic as this sounds, this is a rule already being used in certain places. The newly independent Pioneer League, for example, adopted a rule this season where each team would pick one batter to take five swings and see who hits more home runs, and the winner gives their team the win. Regardless of the specifics, a home run derby would be uniquely different from the rest of a baseball game.

I have mixed feelings about this one. A glorified batting practice would not seem to be a fair way to end a competitive game at first glance, but hockey can reach a shootout, and soccer can go to penalty kicks in tournaments. Seeing footage of the Pioneer players and the crowd get fired up by a walk-off home run derby makes me think this is a viable option in the stadium, but the standings would still be slightly skewed.

The home run derby is a unique All-Star Week tradition, but it would be cool to see it more than once a year. Every night might be a little much, but DH J.D. Martinez and OF Aaron Judge going head-to-head would be a must-watch. This is worth testing in the minor leagues or even spring training. Perhaps points could be marked in the standings where a game won via derby is worth less than a regulation win.

Four-Out Innings

I will say straight away that this will never happen, but it is worth a ponder. Three outs and nine innings are part of the immortal premise of baseball, but moving to four outs in extras would give offenses more chances to score. Of course, no runner would start on base in this case.

If there were four outs, managers and batters would feel much more comfortable sacrificing an out. The leadoff hitter reaches base, and the next batter can bunt him over. Then the offense would have the same advantage they have now; it just would not be guaranteed. With four outs, we would hopefully see more bunting, given that each team would have more opportunities to drive in a run. We all want to see more stealing in the majors, so I would not dismiss this idea outright.

Choose Who Bats

This idea is my favorite, and it would hardly hurt the game. The manager chooses who leads off in each extra inning instead of strictly following whoever made the last out. OF Juan Soto could lead off three innings in a row, or SS Trea Turner could lead off, so Soto has someone to drive in. Better hitters will lead to quicker runs over time, and the value of good hitting will be even higher. Clutch hitting would become an essential characteristic if it is not already, and teams will play for that.

Going against the batting order might sound extreme, but we would get to see the better hitters more often, and baseball would be more exciting without sacrificing any game integrity. Isn’t that what the league wants?

Cover photo courtesy of Ted S. Warren/AP Photo