Watching the National Football League playoffs, I wondered what Major League Baseball could do to come up with gimmicks for extra innings that would be as inane as the N.F.L.’s new overtime format.
In my ignorance, I was not familiar with the new rules, and I wasn’t listening closely enough when the television announcers and the referee in the Pittsburgh-Denver game explained them before those teams began overtime recently.
As a result, I went into overtime thinking each team would get a chance on offense before the game could end. So when the Broncos, after taking the kickoff, scored a touchdown on an 80-yard pass play, I expected that now the Steelers would have their chance to match the Broncos’ touchdown.
On the television screen, however, there were the Broncos celebrating as if they had just won the game. The cameras showed an exuberant John Elway, the Broncos’ former quarterback and now top executive, and players jumping up and down and excitedly embracing each other.
What kind of behavior was this? How can the Broncos celebrate like this when they have to stop the Steelers on this possession to win the game?
The realization then struck me that the game must be over, that the Steelers wouldn’t be getting a chance to match Denver’s touchdown, that I obviously didn’t know the new rules.
When my grandson explained them to me, I was incredulous. How could a first-class organization like the N.F.L. have a two-bit way of deciding a game whose outcome would have a serious impact on the determination of the league champion?
If the team that receives the overtime kickoff scores a touchdown on its initial possession, it wins the game, as the Broncos did against the Steelers. However, if that team kicks a field goal, it takes the lead but not the game. In that circumstance the kicking team has to have the ball for one possession.
The rationale behind the new format is the league’s desire to eliminate cheap wins via first-possession field goals. Complete a couple of passes to get into field-goal territory and in minutes the game is over.
Now if that team kicks a field goal, the game doesn’t end. The other team gets an opportunity to tie the game with a field goal or win it with a touchdown. If it doesn’t score, the game is over.
If it scores a game-tying field goal, the game continues until either team scores in any manner on any possession.
There’s a lot more to the rules – the league sent out a seven-page memo explaining them – but they already sound like something we would have made up for schoolyard games in our youth.
What I think merits study is what baseball could do to concoct a format for post-season games that go into extra innings that would be as silly as the N.F.L.’s new format.
The way extra innings work now, whether during the regular season or in the post-season, both teams get to bat. Even if the visiting team scores 10 runs in its half of an extra inning, the home team bats in its half of the inning and keeps batting until it has made three outs.
But of course everyone knows that, and no one has suggested changing the system. But if we were to bring in those N.F.L. guys who did such a brilliant job on the new N.F.L. format, I’m sure they could come up with something equally mind-spinning for Major League Baseball.
For example, what if we decided that if a visiting team used a sacrifice bunt leading to a run in the 10th inning, the run couldn’t win the game. The same stipulation would hold true if the tie-breaking run scored on a sacrifice fly. An error couldn’t end a game either.
Emphasis would be on the ability of the visiting team’s offense to score runs with hits. Errors or sacrifices or walks, especially intentional walks, couldn’t help the visiting team win in the 10th inning. Maybe advancing a runner from second to third base with a ground out to second would be legitimate. But no wild pitches or passed balls or reaching base on catcher’s interference.
The visiting team, however, could gain an instant victory if one of its batters hit a home run. That would be the equivalent of the Broncos’ first-possession 80-yard touchdown. Hit a home run, and the home team doesn’t get a chance to bat and tie or win the game.
The home team, on the other hand, could win on a sacrifice fly or after a runner was sacrificed to second or third. Walks and errors and other errant defensive plays could contribute to decisive runs.
After all, if the team that gets possession second in the N.F.L. playoffs can win on a field goal when the first team can’t, there shouldn’t be any reason why the team batting second in the baseball playoffs couldn’t win on plays not available for the first team.
But how about this idea for matching or outdoing the N.F.L.’s new gimmick? Instead of the visiting team automatically batting in the top half of the 10th, have a coin toss, a la the N.F.L. before overtime, to determine which team bats first.
Under that system, the home team could win the game with a home run without the visiting team having a chance to bat.
In the N.F.L. system the defensive team can win in overtime with a pass interception or a fumble recovery. I haven’t thought of a way that the defensive team could win a post-season baseball game. If anyone has an idea, feel free to let me know.