THE CHEAP SEATS with STEVE CAMERON: Change some baseball rules, but let's be careful still

Baseball is awash with changes.

The pitch clock, ghost runners in extra innings, bigger bases and rules on pick-off throws all were designed to put more action in play — and most of all, to shorten games.

MLB gets applause for everything done so far.

More fans are showing up and enjoying themselves.

We’re almost certainly going to see an electronic umpire calling balls and strikes very soon.

(That one should be named after former ump Angel Hernandez, who proved that a blind man could call you out on strikes.)

Commissioner Rob Manfred has hinted at another possibility, a change that would dramatically alter the game itself.

He was batting things around as podcast guest when he came out of left field with this: “There are a variety of (rule change ideas) that are being talked about out there,” Manfred said.

“One of them — there was a little buzz around it at an owners’ meeting — was the idea of a Golden At-Bat.”

So, you’re asking: “What on earth is that?”

Longtime reporter Jayson Stark at the Athletic offers an explanation.

READY?

“First off, it’s not to be confused with the Golden Goose, the Golden Retriever or even the Golden Arches,” Stark wrote.

“It won’t set you up for life, bark at the mail truck or add 1,500 calories to your digestive system in the next seven minutes.

“But it is an idea that would change everything about how baseball — the ultimate team sport — has always worked.

“So, what the heck is it? I’ve been asking that question — and others about this rule idea — for months.

“Let’s try to explain every golden little thing about it … not to mention how it’s likely to be received, by players, front offices and the baseball gods.

“What if a team could choose one at-bat in every game to send its best hitter to the plate even if it wasn’t that guy’s turn to hit?

“That’s the Golden At-Bat concept in a nutshell.”

Stark used an actual baseball moment to show how the Golden At-Bat might work.

Cleveland and New York were tied in the 10th inning of an ALCS game.

The Yankees’ Juan Soto ripped a three-run homer to send New York to the World Series.

That really happened last season.

But as Stark mentions (and Manfred dreams): What if the bottom spot in the Yankees order was due up?

With the Golden At-Bat, assuming the Yanks had saved their one GAB, they could have sent up Soto to hit in that spot – and you would have a classic baseball moment.

Baseball traditionalists will no doubt object to a concept like the Golden At-Bat, arguing that unlike the pitch clock or limits to pick-off throws, this would change the very nature of baseball.

They’re correct.

The game has been altered dramatically in the past, however.

Old-timers still wince at the idea of a designated hitter.

IF THE Golden At-Bat had existed last year, would the Mariners have benefitted from picking out a hitter in a crucial situation?

Ahhh.

Maybe.

There were a couple of months near the end of the season when Julio Rodriguez finally got hot, and you’d want him at the plate with the game on the line.

Most of the year, it would have been Cal Raleigh, with his low batting average but routine power.

Cal would be the obvious choice if the Mariners were behind and you needed a bomb. Unfortunately, the lineup wasn’t exactly filled with the likes of Juan Soto or Shohei Ohtani.

Still, baseball’s progressives insist it would be interesting to fiddle with sending up your best hitter in a key situation.

Presumably, there would be strategy involved.

If your Golden batter were already on base, would someone have to run for him?

What if the Golden hitter took his cuts, and then his real spot in the order came up?

The puzzles involved are fun, but with apologies to Rob Manfred, I can’t get behind this particular change.

It feels a little like slow pitch softball.

For what it’s worth, Manfred was hinting about something else the owners have discussed: unlimited substitution.

Baseball is the only sport where you’re finished for the day if you come out of the game.

Being able to sub at will would also change the whole nature of the game.

You could use a defensive wizard at shortstop, but have a power-hitting brute batting in his position.

No, I don’t think I’m ready for that.

So far, the changes have really made baseball better, without damaging the soul of the game.

The electronic umpire will work, but otherwise, let’s be careful.

Keep baseball special.

Email: [email protected]

Steve Cameron’s “Cheap Seats” columns appear in The Press four times each week, normally Tuesday through Friday unless, you know, stuff happens.

Steve suggests you take his opinions in the spirit of a Jimmy Buffett song: “Breathe In, Breathe Out, Move On.”