Why MLB designated runner rule one rule change too many

It doesn’t take a traditionalist to see that MLB introducing a designated runner rule would be a terrible idea for baseball.

In case you missed it, MLB has recently made some rule changes.

Pitch clocks. Bigger bases. Fewer pickoff throws. An expedited format for extra innings. Specially engineered baseballs to increase or decrease offense as the commissioner’s office sees fit.

Okay, that last one hasn’t exactly been substantiated. As for the rest of them? Those are only among the most recent and prominent in a series of rule changes that have been introduced over the past few seasons in the interest of making the game more exciting for the next generation, or at least more expeditious for existing fans to sit through on any given night. Some of the changes have admittedly been very effective. Others? It would depend who you asked.

But one of the latest potential rule changes being experimented with in the minors, a designated pinch runner, would be a terrible idea for MLB.

Now before diving in on why a designated pinch runner would be so terrible, a few more words on all those other rule changes. If you support and have enjoyed those changes, you are a savvy fan and should consider buying more tickets. On the other hand, if you disagree with any of them, you are generally labeled as a traditionalist, too set in your ways for your own good, and certainly too set in them for the good of MLB. At any rate, that’s the narrative MLB and much of the Twitterverse seems to be pushing these days.

Personally? I’m somewhere in the middle, having no real issue with the 2023 changes while simultaneously hating changes to extra innings and the universal DH. So … that probably does put me in the traditionalist camp. However, at least in terms of how MLB views the paying public, I would throw out another definition of “traditionalist”:

Someone who is still going to watch anyway.

Because make no mistake — all these changes are not being made in the interest of serving fans with clear memories of things like the summer of 1998, or the strike of 1994, or Kirk Gibson’s famous homer. They are being made in the interest of fans who grew up with social media accounts and multiple streaming platforms. Either them, or fans who grew up ignoring MLB for the NFL, but find themselves checking out on America’s Game more and more with every concussion. In short, the rule changes are meant to bring in more fans, more dollars. Not retain or reward the base.

Which, in most cases, is just fine. If most of these changes lead to more dollars being generated by my favorite team, and said team spending more on payroll, then it was probably worth it. Again. many of them have produced positive results already. It’s hard to fault any of the newly introduced changes.

That designated pinch runner though? Excessive, shortsighted, and foolish for two reasons.

MLB teams will abuse this

Primarily though, there is the problem that MLB teams are not going to use this rule as innocently as the league is intending by trying this rule out in the first place.

Theoretically, when a either slower player reaches base, or a player that seems to be a statistical certainty to ground the ball to the left side of the infield comes up to bat, or both, the designated pinch runner can ride to the rescue to keep alive the prospect of an exciting inning. Sounds great. After all, who wants to watch Daniel Vogelbach run the bases? Hilarious TV commercial aside, of course.

The thing is, the most likely outcome of this rule being introduced isn’t going to be having a permanent pinch runner for Daniel Vogelbach.

No, the most likely outcome is having a permanent pinch runner for Fernando Tatis.

Or Ronald Acuna. Or Jose Ramirez. Or Aaron Judge. Or Jose Altuve. Pick a highly paid superstar. If MLB passes this rule, that player is never running the bases again.

Why? Because despite bigger bases, injuries happen. Baserunning is a strained shoulder or broken finger waiting to happen. MLB is trying out this rule in the Atlantic League in the hopes of determining that it increases excitement and scoring during the game. But how much does excitement increase if the players fans are most invested in watching are spending less time on the field?

Think about eliminated rules like the shift. Think about adopted rules like the universal DH. Think about the last 10 years of bullpen management. MLB teams are very smart, looking for every advantage allowed by the rules. But there isn’t anything more advantageous to those teams than protecting a valued asset.

Now, while I would argue that any time a team takes a star off the field is a loss for the fans, there are certainly some star players fans won’t weep to never see run the bases again. Pete Alonso? Rickey Henderson, he is not. The thing about those dynamic stars mentioned above though, is that they are stars because they are great at stealing and hitting. Fun to watch the entire time. Trea Turner isn’t Trea Turner because he can acquit himself on the basepaths better than Billy Hamilton or Jon Berti. He’s Trea Turner because he can also hit .300 and club 20 to 30 home runs.

So there’s no reason to believe that a team wouldn’t frequently chose to avoid letting a superstar do something as risky as slide into second, when countless minor leaguers are capable of posting a similar sprint speed from first.

Bottom-line, there are rule changes that accent and enhance the game, and rule changes that fundamentally change the character of it. The ones introduced in 2023 have all done the former.

This latest Atlantic League experiment though? Unquestionably the later. It’s just one change too many.