So, I was watching a YouTube video with Dan Patrick discussing how the modern NBA is losing fans. Ratings have plummeted by about 50% just this year, and this decline has been ongoing for several years. The excitement of Magic and Bird in the late 70s and early 80s, and Jordan in the 90s, has vanished. Now, it seems like no one is particularly interested in watching a bunch of crybabies who don't even play hard and instead just throw up three-pointers every time they get the ball.

But I digress.

Patrick suggested that the NBA needs to try some bold ideas to attract fans back. He mentioned the Golden-at-Bat rule in baseball as an example of the kind of bold new rule the NBA needs to try. I had never heard of the Golden-at-Bat rule so I immediately looked it up; it's a doozie of an idea.

It's not a rule yet, just an idea that has been floated by the baseball commissioner. The basic idea behind this rule is that a team would be allowed to insert a batter of their choice (presumably their best home run hitter, but it could also be their best singles hitter or whoever was best suited for the situation) to hit. The idea is that this could create instant epic matchups, similar to the final of the World Baseball Classic where Ohtani pitched to Mike Trout.

There are a few different ways this rule could be implemented:

1. Each team would be given one golden-at-bat to call upon at any time.
2. Each team would be given one golden-at-bat that could only be used from the 7th inning onwards.
3. The team trailing in the 9th inning would be given one golden-at-bat.

There are a few potential wrinkles that haven't been discussed yet, such as what would happen if the golden-at-bat hitter strikes out but is the next hitter in the rotation. Would they bat twice in a row? It seems a bit strange, eh? But I'm sure the details of such a rule would be worked out before it was implemented, so it's not worth getting hung up on them right now.

Of these ideas, I find the second one the most intriguing. It adds a touch of drama by introducing it later in the game while still ensuring fairness by giving each team their chance. However, I must admit that I'm not entirely convinced about this idea. While I'm open to hearing more about it, my initial impression is somewhat negative.

One aspect of baseball's charm lies in the rarity of perfect matchups. This rule could potentially disrupt that magic by making them more frequent. Doesn't that diminish the excitement and unpredictability of the game? I don't know. Maybe?

Furthermore, this rule could pose significant challenges for pitchers. Imagine being a reliever who spends all their energy pitching Ohtani out in the 8th inning, only to face him again in the 9th. It would be a tough pill to swallow.

While I understand the desire to maintain the momentum of baseball's growing popularity, I'm not entirely convinced that this rule is necessary. Unlike the NBA, which has been losing fans for several years, MLB has been experiencing an upward trend in viewership and game attendance for the past few years. This trend has accelerated in the past two years.

I'm not sure if this rule is necessary. Bit I don't know... I'm old and am somewhat traditional in my sports. I'm not opposed to change—I was okay with the larger bases and the pitching clock this past season—but I do question the magnitude of this change.

So, I'm curious to know your thoughts. Would you be interested in this new rule?

❦

David is an American photographer and translator lost in Japan, trying to capture the beauty of this country one photo at a time and searching for the perfect haiku. He blogs here and at laspina.org. Write him on Twitter or Mastodon.