Seeing this thread for the first time. Read the first 100 or so posts. Some funny takes, in hindsight.

Turns out Austin Jackson and Mark Trumbo were not, in fact, better than Mike Trout

SE doesn't produce takes like these anymore

nailed it

Not sure if that nails it. Different stuff matters in MLB and NBA. Trout doesn't offer pg to 5 flex.

The Miguel Cabrera Defensive Wizard/HOT CORNER take is an all timer

Mike Trout and other superstar MLB players make me think of something that has bothered me about MLB. It wastes it's talent in a way no other sport does. The reason, batting lineups.

I know they've been around forever and it'll never change. But the batting lineup rules of baseball are a complete ripoff to the talent in the game and to the fans.

If you pay for a ticket to an NBA game to see Lebron James play, you'll see him handle the ball dozens of times, make several drives, jump shots, dozens of passes, and be involved in more than 50 offensive and defensive possessions. The amount of action you get from a star player in the NHL or NFL also dwarfs what we get from MLB.

I remember being a big Barry Bonds fan, but many games, he'd get intentional walks, maybe get a couple of pitches in the entire game to swing at, and make only a couple of plays in the field. On a lucky day, you get to see an MLB hitter bat 5 times. 4 is more typical.

How much more exciting would baseball be if the batting lineup reset for every inning? Those best 4-5 hitters on a team would bat every inning, and the weaker hitters at the bottom of the order would never hit, or would sometimes get 1 or possibly 2 plate appearances in a game. Superstar players actually could carry a team. How much more exciting would MLB games be if we watched the best hitters every inning.

Now, one adjustment that would probably have to be made due to the increased offense from this is that innings in total would have to be cut. 9 innings of regulation would probably be cut to 7, and this would probably be beneficial to the game anyways. Another benefit of this is you could have defensive whiz players at positions like SS, 2B, CF and catcher, that could bat at the bottom of the lineup and thus we'd truly get the best fielders at those positions. Thus we'd watch a game where the best hitters were batting much more, and the quality of fielding would go up considerably also.

Batting lineup structure reminds me of childrens games where everyone has to get a turn. It's lame. Basketball or hockey you get to see the best athletes make the most plays and play the most minutes. I wish baseball was structured the same. It would be a much more exciting product that would feature it's superstar players 2-3x more.

With Mike Trout batting every inning, perhaps he could've made his team contend.

Interesting post! I've never thought of that, but it makes sense. I have a hard time imagining that ever being implemented though.

Last time I was regularly watching games, the bottom of the order coming to bat was seen as a great time to walk the dog, or take a shower, etc.

It just seems so unnecessary that that has to happen. Let the best players play! There's absolutely no question that MLB would be a better product if every inning started from the top of the order.

Really interesting concept that will probably never be actualized.

That is the best idea I've seen on the internet that I haven't heard before somewhere else possibly ever.

Of course I just searched for it on reddit and it's posted every couple months and downvoted heavily by idiot traditionalists.

Idk, liking the depth part of baseball doesn't sound totally idiotic to me. But if we're opting to let every player's talents shine as much as possible:

-5 to 7 inning games
-Hitters can bat again as soon as they're out or off the bases
-designated hitters and fielders (players can obv do both but don't have to)

See I think the structure of having the batting order for every inning still does reward depth. Just in a more appropriate way. Role players should be role players. They should not hit as often as star players. I do think having more than one DH would be an improvement to baseball. More like how the NFL has separate offensive and defensive teams. I dislike the idea of an entire lineup of DH's, but if baseball insists on having a 9 man lineup, I think perhaps 3 men in the lineup should be DH's. It would also help with another problem MLB has. The season is so long that star players routinely take days off. This is bad for the game. But if they had more opportunities to DH, those days off would be less necessary. And again, it would allow for fielding specialists, and we would get to see a level of defense we've never seen before. Guys who are 140 lbs and would never make MLB because being a slight guy is so crippling as a hitter could be showing us stunning plays in the field, and we'd never have to watch guys like Prince Fielder or Adam Dunn or Mo Vaughn have to play the field. They're good at hitting, we'll watch them hit, then we'll watch someone good play in the field. We'll watch the best hitters and fielders all the time.

Having one player be a "DPH" also could be a fun idea. Designated pinch hitter. This batter can bat once per inning (or perhaps 3 times per game is better and more strategic), as a pinch hitter, that simply inserts himself at any spot and then is out of the lineup again, ready to be inserted at whatever high leverage spot the manager chooses.

Those bottom of the lineup would be true role players, in the game primarily because they are great defenders, but if you ever want to have a really big inning, it'll only be possible if the bottom of the order has some ability to produce. At least the 6 and 7 guys will still matter. It sucks that baseball's rules force the role players to play just as much in every way as the star players, like some sort of equal opportunity kids league. Nobody wanted to see Dennis Rodman take as many shots as Michael Jordan, but that's effectively what baseball's rules force upon us. The DH is great for the game, I'm always shocked that anyone wants to see a guy who isn't in MLB because of anything to do with his hitting skill have to take a turn in the order, or that anyone likes seeing a great SP get removed from a game because his lineup spot is coming up. The new rule change to extra inning games is horrible, but the DH was one of the greatest rule changes to a sport in modern times. If they wanted to make extra inning games more exciting and fast, they could've instituted the batting line-up reset rule as discussed here, and it would definitely shorten games (and make them more exciting). Maybe all tie games starting in the 7th inning or later should start from the top of the order, would've been a way better adjustment than the garbage of putting a guy on 2nd base who did nothing to belong there. The NHL wanted to get rid of ties, so they made some changes to how overtime works and added shootouts, these were well thought out changes, that increase action and increase the value of star players.

I dislike the idea of any hitter being able to bat at any time (other than when on the bases, as this creates managerial decisions that would slow the game. I would support a 7 man batting lineup also as an improvement to the game (lets the better hitters hit more) with 2 players being designated fielders. 7 is the minimum so a player never goes immediately from being a runner on 3rd to being a hitter in the box. Just think of the defensive whizzes we've probably missed out on because they were guys who couldn't hit.

I've been a big baseball fan for 30+ years, grew up watching the Blue Jays with Tony Fernandez, Fred McGriff, and Dave Steib. I'm not quite old school, but at least I've loved the game for a long time. I don't miss seeing guys like Alfredo Griffin or Manny Lee hit. A game where McGriff and Bell and Gruber batted more, and Griffin and Lee batted less, would be a better game. And I'm glad I didn't have to waste my time watching Steib hit.

MLB needs to get with the times and make the sport more exciting, in ways that showcase the talent better. Or it'll be left behind by sports like the NBA. Mike Trout may be just as impressive an athlete as Steph Curry, but if I want to watch one of these players perform, I'm getting about 30x or maybe even 50x the bang for my buck and time if I choose to watch Curry. Mike Trout spends too much of the game waiting around while lesser players are forced to perform.

And that's why this discussion is relevant in this thread. Mike Trout is an incredible athlete wasted on a sport that doesn't showcase his talent.

You really make a compelling case.


I think the biggest obstacle, is all statistical data and records would have to be like a BC/AD type of deal.

I say take it a step further. You walk Barry Bonds...ghost runner on first. Barry is back at the plate again.

Yup. But if a great hitter hits 2000 home runs because we get to see him bat 26000 times, is that really a bad thing in any way?

Update time!

Justin Upton: 33.3 WAR
Mike Trout: 75.7 WAR

I'll follow up in 11 years to collect my dollar.

2nd best behind vladito

ohtani >>>>> trout

Shohei ****ing up my Barry Bonds argument for GOAT has me in head asplode mode.

Cant be the best player in all of baseball when you're not even the best player on your own team.

true, lol labald