[Alberta's Child]

The most intriguing idea I've ever heard for adding excitement and offense to the game of baseball was a topic of discussion here in the NYC area on sports radio a few weeks ago:

Eliminate the batting lineup.

It sounded preposterous at first, but as I learned more details it began to make more sense. The general idea is:

1. There is no set order for a team to send its batters to the plate. The manager sends up his leadoff hitter, and then selects each batter after that however he sees fit.

2. This would make each inning very unpredictable, and it would be much harder for a pitcher to work through a "weak" part of a lineup.

3. Every player has to bat in a normal "batting cycle." That is, a player can't bat for a second time until everyone in the lineup has batted at least once, and so on. It's just that the order can change from one inning to the next.

4. This forces managers to weigh risk-reward options at every step of the game. If it's the top of the first inning and your first two batters are out, why send up a #3 hitter who is usually one of the best hitters in your lineup with the bases empty and two outs? Save him for the second inning! Send up your weakest hitter instead. In the National League, this might be the ideal spot to send your pitcher up to the plate instead of waiting until he becomes a rally-killer in the second or third inning.

5. The "Earl Weaver Rule" would still be in effect. That's the rule MLB adopted to deal with a bizarre lineup strategy the old manager deployed a few times back in the 1970s. Under this rule, every player in the starting lineup must bat at least once unless the opposing team changes pitchers.

6. This "open-lineup" concept would be a great weapon to diminish the effectiveness of relief pitchers late in the game. It's impossible for a manager to set up left-right relief pitcher sequences late in the game if he doesn't know which hitters are coming up next!

Any thoughts on this, baseball fans? LOL.

[LakeEffectLad]

Whoa.
That just reignited last night’s scotch buzz.....I’m a little dizzy now....

[Mariner]

“Any thoughts on this, baseball fans?”

Who leads off the second inning? Anyone who didn’t bat in the first?

[Mr. Jeeves]

Any thoughts on this, baseball fans?

I think it's a very good idea. Probably way too radical, especially for National League fans. But really worth trying out in some Spring Training games to see what happens.

[Ransomed]

It would devalue relief pitching as it is used now. It would put more value on relief pitchers that can get both righties and lefties out. Runs scored would go way way up, as would era’s. This would be more drastic than lowering the mound as far as increasing offense. It would devalue bench players, especially pinch hitters in NL. Complete games, no hitters and perfect games would become even more rare.

I might be OK with it. The problem I see is it might actually cause teams to carry less extra bench players and more pitchers. If it made the game faster with less pitching changes I would be for it, the problem is what if they actually start use more pitching changes because they can carry more pitchers on a staff?

Freegards

[a little elbow grease]

"Eliminate the batting lineup."

Wow.......... that is a thought! It would at least be entertaining.

[a little elbow grease]

"This "open-lineup" concept would be a great weapon to diminish the effectiveness of relief pitchers late in the game. It's impossible for a manager to set up left-right relief pitcher sequences late in the game if he doesn't know which hitters are coming up next!

Any thoughts on this, baseball fans? LOL."

____________

I like it.