Manfred: Golden At-Bat Idea Has Gotten “A Little Buzz”

December 6: Jesse Rogers of ESPN followed up with Manfred about the golden at-bat idea. The commissioner emphasized that there’s “a very long road” from an idea being considered before it can be implemented and that he’s not personally in favor of the change, though he does encourage things like this to be discussed.

December 2: MLB hasn’t shied away from considering rule changes over the past few seasons. The league has unilaterally implemented a pitch clock, a three-batter minimum for pitchers (barring injury), shift limitations, and incentivized base stealing with pickoff limits and larger bases. MLB and the Players Association also agreed to implement a universal designated hitter in the 2022 collective bargaining agreement.

That hasn’t dissuaded commissioner Rob Manfred from considering other changes. Perhaps the most extreme suggestion that the commissioner has publicly floated would be the possibility of implementing a “golden at-bat” rule. Jayson Stark of The Athletic published a lengthy piece on Monday detailing potential variations of that concept.

At its core, the golden at-bat idea is to allow a team one opportunity to call upon a hitter who is in the lineup but not due for the upcoming at-bat. It’d be somewhat akin to pinch hitting with a player who is already in the game. As Stark notes, the rule could be narrowed to limit when teams could use the golden at-bat (e.g. after a certain inning, only when they’re trailing, etc.)

In October, Manfred suggested there could be some support within the league for exploring that concept. In an appearance on The Varsity podcast with Puck’s John Ourand (X link), Manfred said at the time “there was a little buzz around” the concept at a recent owners meeting. The commissioner said that idea is “in the conversation-only stage right now.”

It’s worth stressing that there’s nothing to suggest MLB has any plans to test this idea. There’s a significant gap between it surfacing in casual conversation and its appearance in any of Spring Training, the minors, or at the All-Star Game — much less in meaningful MLB contests.

The purpose would be to increase the number of high-leverage plate appearances that go to top hitters. That’d create more drama in close games, but it’d be a radical change to the sport. The fixed nature of the batting order often leaves huge at-bats in the hands of less heralded players. One could argue that’s a flaw in comparison to other sports where teams can choose to turn the ball to their stars when games are on the line. At the same time, many of baseball’s most magical moments come when players at the bottom of the order rise to the occasion with key hits.

While implementing one golden at-bat wouldn’t entirely eliminate those opportunities, it’d reduce them. It’s also an inherently artificial measure that’d represent a fundamental change from the way baseball has been played throughout its history. That’s arguably true of some other recent rule adjustments, but the golden at-bat would probably have a much bigger effect than any of the other changes.

Stark’s column goes into much more detail about the strategy implications that would be at play, as well as concerns about tradition and inflated record totals that’d come with allowing teams to give their best hitter an extra at-bat every game. Stark speaks with players, front office personnel, and longtime skipper Joe Maddon (many of whom express their disapproval for the concept) about the idea in a piece that’s worth a full read.