And you know it's coming...

Eventually there is going to be a smart GM who is going to build his team to play for overtime and win shootouts (and there are players who are shootout specialists, like Erik Christensen). The ONLY thing standing in the way of this is that the strategy becomes useless in the playoffs. Still, a franchise with financial issues can absolutely determine whether it makes or loses money based on making the playoff and collecting the revenues associated with a few extra home dates. Some ****ty team should take this Moneyball-esque approach if they haven't already.

I used the "call-out" system in a fantasy league I ran and it was great.

For one thing, it ensures that the top seed actually gets the advantage in round two. If there's a red hot team, or a team who is better than its seed due to a return from injury for example, the top seed will avoid them.

And the top seed DOES have to call someone out for lack of a better phrase. The disrespect factor is great. If they pick wrong and lose its on them. In fantasy this added a fantastic dynamic to the whole thing. In real life, maybe it's a bit tacky. But so is the hot-dog gun, right?

You could also give the fouled team the option:

Do you want to shoot free throws? Or do you want to inbound the ball again?

This would have been pretty cool, and I'm a fan of big innovations, but I think this is too fundamental of a change. We don't want to reinvent these games (imo at least), just tweak rules in the way the founders would have had they foreseen certain tactics.

Fouling in basketball is a good example. When they invented the game they penalized fouls with the idea of deterring fouling- not with the idea of providing a desperation option for the losers that mucks up the end-game.

I'm intrigued by the base paths idea though-

When do you suppose runners would choose to run to third?

-Grounders to the right side are an obvious example. This would be nice for fast, left-handed batters. They could still look to pull the ball for power, and if they swung over the top and hit it on the ground (more likely when pulling the ball; it's easier to hit the ball in the air going the other way) they'd have a better chance to leg it out.

-Balls ripped down a foul line would be the opposite. A triple is more likely if the ball ends up in the corner opposite the third base.

-Similarly, a runner may prefer to be on third with a right-handed pull hitter coming up, because it's easier to go third-to-first on balls hit to left (I wonder if they'd stop putting the strong arms in right).

-It would depend on the pitcher too. Lefties have an advantage in the pick-off department which could be neutralized by leading off from third instead of first. Conversely, it would be better to be on first against a RHP.

-Anything else?

Baseball: The Yankees win the first two games of a series against the Red Sox. Do you think your idea makes that third game more or less exciting

NCAA Football: I totally agree. I'd run it like the EPL....the bottom X teams get relegated to the lower division next year, and the best X teams from the lower division get promoted. Boise St, Utah, TCU would all have been promoted in the last decade while terrible teams like Syracuse and Indiana could have been dumped. It would be great.

I don't understand why batters are allowed to step out of the box (essentially) anytime they want. Why is this such a sacred right?

Everyone wants to speed up the game but all the other ideas, like a pitch clock, are complicated. Not stepping out of the box (and potentially not stepping off the rubber) is very simple and totally reasonable.

Imagine if a football or basketball defender could say "hey wait a sec....I'm just gonna adjust my pants and look at me sneakers for a bit....aaannndd okay, I'm ready.....No wait! My pants again......Okay. Go."

Make the mound higher again

that still doesnt solve the problem and if they inbound the ball it will just lead to more fouls

the answer is just call intentional fouls what they are - intentional. two shots and the ball. no one seems to mind when a football team kneels out the last 1:30 but for some reason theres a perception that it would be an ungodly crime in basketball if the leading team had the ball with 20 seconds left and the other team couldnt get it back.

I think you'd need a pitch clock for this. If batters can't step out of the box, it makes it advantageous for pitchers to hold the ball even longer since hitters don't like having to stand there for a long time, which is usually why they step out in the first place.

The NBA wants to keep the results of the game in doubt. They sell lots of commercial time during the final two minutes.

i know why they do it. i dont understand why fans accept ending games like that

Yeah the basketball foul a thon is easily the biggest dumb thing in major sports period. It's like the rules have been fundamentally and obviously broken for decades and people have just gotten used to it because the broken rules make the game more exciting.

And another ridculous thing is that most of the time the foul a thon doesn't change the outcome that often. A team down say 6 or 7 with under a minute begins fouling, because if they didn't their win % would be 0% and with the fouling it's what, like maybe 5% at most? Teams of course do it because a small chance at winning is infinitely better than an assured loss.

But what do you expect from the NBA, who brings you the "time out instantly advances the ball to half court for no particular reason other than it will give you a better chance to make a buzzer beater"

I'm on board with calling the intentional fouls at the end of the game. An alternate solution would be to make baskets worth more points as the game gets closer to the end.

i know as much about hockey as dusty baker does about baseball
how many extra wins would this be worth?
each team gets 3 shots first so you would need 3 specialists like this to be optimal correct?

i rememver seeing a game from the late 60s or early 70s where a team was down by 2 with about 20 seconds left and they never fouled- they just kept trying to steal the ball
im not sure if this was standard back then and if it was when foul a thons became standard

I like Oak Bull's suggestion about letting the fouled team just inbound again. They're still taking a calculated risk, because if they keep doing this over and over, there's a good chance the other team will eventually pick off the inbounds or make a clean steal.

Well, just one incremental goal in the shootout would be worth a fair amount to your equity — when you get to that shootout.

But he's overstating it. If an incremental goal is worth maybe 25% of a shootout win (which I suspect is high; I may be able to figure it out later), that's cool and all, but the specialist isn't worth an automatic goal. The best penalty shot/shootout specialists score no more 40% of the time¹; the player that specialist replaces would score at least 20%, and usually more. (The league average is something around 30%.) So if my assumptions are right, that means your specialist is worth 0.05% of a win (worth only one point in the standings) every time you get there.

A typical team will get to around ten to fifteen shootouts per season. Be generous and call it fifteen. Now our specialist is worth 0.75 points per year in the regular season (remember that there's only one point in play when you get to this stage — it's not the same as a regular win), and exactly zero in the playoffs. If this is really all he can do, that's not worth a roster spot.


¹ There are players whose shootout record is better, but first, just looking at their numbers after the fact is cherry picking the data, and second, most players who are really good at shootouts also have substantial value as skaters, so we're not talking about them.

this is still terrible because the losing team will keep fouling to force another inbounds

In the present state, the offense knows that the defense is going to foul them. With this rule, they'd be unsure. It'll create more 10 seconds backcourt violation calls, because the offense didn't exert enough urgency to move the ball up court in time to cross half court before the violation. It'd create more turnovers with the offense realizing the defense isn't going to foul and them hopelessly trying to pass the ball past half court in a last second desperation attempt.

NBA clearly has the worst rules of all major sports. Here is a list.

- Too many time outs..
- Change the spot of an inbounds pass the last minute of a game...
- Its +EV to foul the opposing team if you are behind...

Here's another. Why do you need to check in at the scorers table to come into a game?They call TO or wait for a dead ball to change players on the court. They should change players like NHL. Just do it on the fly. If you get caught a man down because you miss time your exchange too bad.

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say "play for overtime", but it seems like "carry a shootout specialist guy or two on your roster" seems like it could be a pretty useful play.

NFL in the last 30 years. They are getting bigger and stronger at an exponential rate. May need to change the rules on tackling to stop them from killing each other. No leaping and throwing one's entire body onto the opponent. Require using hands for tackling. No more smash mouth football.
Life expectancy is about 75 in the U.S. Too many ex-NFL players are dead before 60. Far too many are walking cripples in their late forties and fifties. Change the rules on tackling and save lives. Also avoid lawsuits.

I'm sure steroids are a massive part of the early deaths. Get ready for a **** ton of baseball players to die 2020's.

well its a tough spot when the players think its perfectly fine to intentionally injure other players under the guise of "playing hard". and then they complain about not getting medical benefits.

We'll know if you're right in 10 or 15 years.