MLB's consideration of putting a runner on second base for extra innings would be a "sharp departure for baseball, which tends to change only incrementally and slowly," according to Victor Mather of the N.Y. TIMES. The change likely would be "effective in increasing scoring in extra innings," as "speeding up the pace of play has been a preoccupation of baseball in recent years as games have crept longer and longer." However, only about 8% of MLB games "go into extra innings, and most of those do not stretch deep into the night." Last season, 43% of extra-inning games were "over after the 10th." Additionally, many fans who deem themselves "baseball purists ... were predictably outraged" at the proposal (N.Y. TIMES, 2/10). USA TODAY's Jorge Ortiz notes several studies have "shown baseball’s audience skews older, with the average age of its TV viewers over 50." MLB officials "reason that to attract younger fans in the digital age, the game needs to provide more action and fewer lulls." But achieving that "without alienating the core of the fan base ... represents a huge challenge, especially considering MLB can’t implement changes in the big leagues without consulting first with the players union" (USA TODAY, 2/10).
TOO MUCH TOO SOON: In N.Y., Kristie Ackert writes MLB is "certainly right to look at ways to improve the pace of the game, but completely changing the rules of the game and the season in clutch time is not the answer" (N.Y. DAILY NEWS, 2/10). In Boston, Michael Silverman writes the runner on second idea "certainly qualifies as one very creative approach to solving" the pace of play problem. Silverman: "But this idea, this brainstorm of inserting artificial baserunners into scoring position sounds like, tastes like, looks like and smells like fake baseball" (BOSTON HERALD, 2/10). In San Diego, Jeff Sanders writes, "Give baseball credit for venturing outside the box. Perhaps some ideas are just a bit too outside" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 2/10). ESPN's Israel Gutierrez said, "I don't think you need to change the game that drastically." The L.A. Times' Bill Plaschke said that changes are not "even worth considering" ("Around The Horn," ESPN, 2/9).
ON THE FLIP SIDE: In N.Y., John Harper admits the idea is an "artificial way to get to a speedier result," but it "wouldn’t change the authenticity of the competition." It would "create instant drama, put immediate pressure on the pitcher and the defense, and set up a strategy decision ... that all but ensures some level of second-guessing of the manager." Harper: "Is any of that bad for the game?" (N.Y. DAILY NEWS, 2/10). In Boston, Peter Abraham notes MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred is "likely floating the idea to make a point that he is serious about changing the game and increasing its attraction to fans in the park or watching on television." Abraham: "Baseball should not be afraid of making changes. There are plenty of ways to improve the game and nobody would miss seeing a utility infielder throw 75-mph fastballs in the 17th inning" (BOSTON GLOBE, 2/10). In Cleveland, Doug Lesmerises writes, "Tinker in the minors and in spring training, but don't fear changing the game at the major league level. The best plan may be one gigantic overhaul, a line in the sand for the purists who can talk about the game before the change and after" (Cleveland PLAIN DEALER, 2/10).
