You've provided a very interesting analysis on this hot-button topic. While it is very interesting from a hypothetical perspective, I don't believe the rule change will happen for two main reasons: 1. Despite the argument to the contrary, baseball is doing just fine, especially financially. Giancarlo Stanton, perhaps the games best young player, signed the richest contract in baseball history at 13years and $325 million. Yes 325 Million. No one in American Football or the NBA has a contract any where near that close. It's about profit, just like anything else, and MLB has plenty of it. I think it is certainly fair to say that MLB has dropped off below the NFL and NBA in popularity. The point you make about the popularity of baseball players in the world market is a very good one. I will admit I'm a bit surprised by that. But the point is, from a financial perspective, baseball is doing just fine. Take the Yankees for instance, their payroll is going to be somewhere around $157 million for this upcoming season. The Dallas Cowboys of the NFL at $169 million. The Golden State Warriors of the NBA - $137 million. All very healthy payrolls. The difference? Baseball plays such a long, tedious schedule that professional baseball teams get 81 home games throughout a season. Compare that to the NBA - 41 home games and the NFL 8 home games. While you can argue the popularity is dwindling, the revenue is not.
According to a Forbes report from Nov 22 of this past year, Major League baseball set a record revenue for industry revenues for the 15th consecutive year, passing $10 Billion for the first time. Both the NBA and NFL were around the $7 Billion mark. The money is still there, and as long as the owners are continuing to generate record amounts of income, they are not going to make a drastic change that will change the game fundamentally. Which brings me to my second reason this change won't happen. 2. Traditionalists/Strategy : Baseball has built into its very fabric an intricate strategy to it. Think of all the "situational" happenings of a single game. Left-handed pitcher vs left-handed batter? Leadoff hitter draws a walk in the 7th. He's the best base-runner, do you try to steal second? Bunt him over to second? Hit and run? If you start playing with this rule change, all of the strategy goes out the window. Anyone can be a manager of a team when you get the option of sending out your three best hitters to start the 9th inning. But what happens if the opposing pitcher has a no-hitter going or a perfect-game? The hardest accomplishment of any in all of the professional sports and now they effectively get penalized. It's not going to "fix" the game. Most people's argument against the current state of baseball is how long it takes. Using teams' best hitters in the 9th inning won't speed up a 4-hour long game, if anything, it's going to make it longer because of the possibilities of more batters reaching base in the 9th inning.
If baseball makes such a drastic change like this, it may attract new fans, and more youth to the game, but it would be a HUGE risk of alienating all of the die-hard "traditionalists". If you lose that large following, it doesn't matter how many new viewers you bring in. That is your bread and butter. Baseball has issues, I agree, but I don't think this will be the answer. Would more people tune in for the 9th-inning of games? Sure they would. But that doesn't guarantee that they are going to tune in for the previous 8-innings.
I do agree that the lack of youthful interest is a problem going forward. But if anything, baseball's problem is the lack of a salary cap. If you look at the popularity spikes of the NBA and NFL a lot of it can contributed to the implementing of the salary cap. In baseball, the teams with the largest and richest markets always have the highest payrolls. New York, Boston, Los Angeles Dodgers, Chicago Cubs are always right at the top in salary. Baseball is a constant cycle of "big" market clubs spending lavishly, and "small" market clubs having to home-grow their talent and then carefully trade them for other young prospects at the fear of losing them for nothing in free agency to one of the "big" market teams. A change in the salary cap, would level the playing field, and help invigorate new enthusiasm and hope into a large portion of the franchises. If your an Oakland A's fan whose team is sitting with a payroll of $30 million, while your division rival the Angels has a payroll of $140 million, how excited are you for the prospects of the coming season? I would start with the salary cap first. The salary cap has done wonders for the NFL especially, and I believe it could do the same for baseball.
Thank you for your article, it was well thought-out and researched and I appreciate the fresh perspective. I love the sport, I appreciate a fresh analysis. Sorry for the long response lol.
Upvoted and resteemed thanks again for the insightful article!
You've written a full post here. Thanks for the analysis! It's doing well regionally, but the future does not bode well without some changes.
I know right lol, very long-winded. You're welcome! I do agree that regionally it is doing well, but the future well-being of the sport does need some changes.