powered by Google  
CBSSports.com New Rules: Welcoming in four, saying goodbye to one - MLB Sports News   Track your favorite teams and players.
Free membership, Register Now
Already a member, Log In
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Home   Fantasy     NFL  |  MLB  |  NBA  |  NHL  |  College FB  |  College BK  |  Golf  |  More CBS College | MaxPreps | Mobile | Shop  
MLB Home | Scoreboard | Standings | Schedules | Stats | Teams | Players | Transactions | Injuries | Video | Fantasy News
 

New Rules: Welcoming in four, saying goodbye to one

 

 
1/39: The official end to Neil Diamond on diamonds outside of Boston. (Graphic: Roland Liwag)

If this week the New Rules of Baseball were an action movie, say, involving an Octagon or kumatae, the slogan would be: Four will enter, one will leave.

In order to keep things ... what's that word the kids use? Ah yes, "fresh," ... we're going to kick a rule out -- and never let it back in. We'll also introduce the four rules that will be added to the New Rules of Baseball. More on that shortly.

Poll
Which rule should be revoked?
  15% Rule 30: The salary cap
 
 
  30% Rule 22: No more throwbacks
 
 
  34% Rule 10: Pointing to the sky
 
 
  20% Rule 31: Wins determine W.S. homefield
 
 
 
Total Votes: 2076

Onto the first order of business. We've selected four rules that caused a bit of a stir, pitted them against one another with the weakest link getting the boot. This is a true battle royal between rules involving the big guy/gal upstairs, tacky throwback uniforms, the salary cap and the All-Star Game.

The rules up for removal are:

No. 10 by Scott Miller:

"There will be no more pointing to the sky upon crossing home plate following a home run. We have -- or supposedly have -- separation of church and state in this country. The least we can do is have separation of church and baseball."

Kay: Removing this rule would allow players to point, salute, curtsy, etc. following a home run however they see fit.

Will the Astros be allowed to wear these gems again? (Getty Images)  
Will the Astros be allowed to wear these gems again? (Getty Images)  
No. 22 by Scott Miller:

"No more alternate uniforms. This one especially goes out to the Houston what-were-you-thinking Astros. No ... more ... orange ... and ... red ... rainbow ... uniforms."

Kay: Removing this rule would allow those tacky '80s uniforms to be worn at a team's leisure.

Rule No. 30 by superstar harrynd: "Let's see baseball put in a salary cap. I'm tired of only seeing big-market teams buying up any player they want. These small-market teams have great farm systems and when they call these guys up, they keep them until they can't afford them. The come the Yankees or Angels or any other big-market team to throw a ridiculous amount of money at them."

Kay: Removing this rule would allow teams to spend whatever they want to attract players -- as is the style these days.

Rule No. 31 by superstar chibearsfan:

"Let's forget about this whole All-Star Game determining home-field advantage and instead make the regular season count for something. If you had more wins during the regular season than your opponent in the World Series, you get home-field advantage."

Kay: Removing this rule would mean the All-Star Game continues to dictate which team gets home field in the World Series.

One of those four rules will be stricken from the New Rules of Baseball. Voting ends Thursday at 6 p.m. ET .

Rules entering the Book

So while we taketh, we also giveth four new rules.

And I dislike 75 percent of them.

Let's get the one I like out of the way. I like the no late starts for playoff games by our repeat rulemaker doc-man. I shouldn't have to suffer through Tim McCarver's voice past midnight living on the East Coast and people on the West Coast now get a reason to skip work just a wee bit earlier than normal. We can probably leave it at that, right?

The other three. Ah, yes, the other three. Where to start. How about that I like the foundation of all three.

I like the concept of ensuring there's as little bias as possible when electing members into the Hall of Fame.

No more Hall of Fame votes for ESPN's Peter Gammons, and scribes like our own Scott Miller. (Getty Images)  
No more Hall of Fame votes for ESPN's Peter Gammons, and scribes like our own Scott Miller. (Getty Images)  
I like the concept of having a first-round playoff series that doesn't reward the team that's simply hotter at the moment.

I like the concept of being able to recapture some money from big contracts gone awry.

But in all three cases, it's a matter of dancing with the devil I know.

If it's not sportswriters who elect Hall of Fame members, who will? Fellow players, coaches or managers? Oh how we have so much trust in our co-workers. While sportswriters surely carry a bias, and this whole nonsense surrounding the aura of first-ballot members makes me a bit nauseous, entrusting them with the vote is a flawed, but hardly broken process.

History, for the most part, hasn't been written by the winner or losers. It has been written by those on the sidelines who survive to tell the story of what they witness. Baseball scribes still serve that function today. Their distance from the playing field, albeit much less than a fan's, is important. While they have access, they can make an effort to be impartial. And that's what matters.

If you have to ask the people who battled with or against a certain player to then vote on that player's worthiness, it will be impossible to separate one's bias from either loyalty or disgust. The wallfly hanging around the clubhouses, collecting quotes and watching players play night in and out is still the best means to this end.

Having a seven-game opening-round series makes sense. What's the point of playing good ball for 162 games to secure a lesser first-round opponent only to play a five-game series that could go either way? Heck, since the '94 strike the wild card team is 8-5 in both the ALDS and the NLDS. Why not make it seven games, so the typically better-built team can almost always pull out with the series win?

After all, don't we want to see the best teams, not the flavors of the past two or so months, ala Colorado last season? Sure. But nobody said things had to be fair. A good team should withstand whatever challenges presented to it. Really, though, I have no interest in the baseball season extending into November.

New Rules Rewind
  • Scott Miller: Commish for a day
  • Eric Kay: The first installment
  • Week 1: Submitted rules | Results
  • Week 2: Submitted rules | Results
  • Week 3: Submitted rules
  • As for a new approach to contracts? I love it. I really do. What an opportunity to lock up young talent to a rich, long-term deal without the heavy risk that comes with the usual escalator contract. But again, why are we attacking players for earning as much as they can while they can? Owners continue to pocket large sums of income off of publicly financed stadiums, and we still don't come after them with the same vigor we do players.

    I don't want to muddy the argument so I'll leave this rule with this thought: instead of punishing the players, why not punish the executives. Let the fans vote on the tenure of their GM instead of taking back money from the players. That way, general managers will know that being reckless has great consequences. If you want to change a behavior, start at the top of the process, not the bottom.

    Don't forget to post your New Rules to Baseball in the message board below. Just because your rule hasn't been used so far doesn't mean it never will so repost good ones we might have missed.

     

     
     
     
     
    Eric Kay
    Recent Columns
     
    Headlines
     
     
     
    CBS Sports Store
    Chicago Cubs Authentic 2009 Stars & Stripes Performance 59FIFTY On-Field Cap
    MLB Stars and Strips Gear
    Get your team today Shop Now
     
     
     
     
     
    Fantasy Baseball