Ranking MLB's proposed rule changes

While there's some truth to the old adage "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," change is as inevitable in baseball as it is in life. In some cases, changes to how the game is played or some basic structural tweaks can result in improvements.

Major League Baseball and its players' association have recently exchanged proposals for various alterations to the rules that govern the game. Purists and traditionalists will likely balk at the mere suggestion of making further changes, sullying the sport's history, but baseball has been evolving since its creation.

Some new changes are long overdue, others make a modicum of sense, while a few are either unnecessary or otherwise confounding. From best to worst, here's a rough ranking of these proposals.

1) Universal designated hitter

It's high time that the designated hitter is adopted by the National League to ensure a better chance at having the best possible product on the field at all times. Pitchers across the board combined to slash .115/.144/.148 in 2018. Basically, for every Michael Lorenzen (.290/.333/.710 with four home runs), there were many examples like Aaron Nola (.048/.063/.065). Every time a pitcher comes to the dish, you have an overwhelming chance of seeing an out, sacrifice bunt, or substitution. It's bad.

Watching pitchers flail at the plate may have some schadenfreude-related delights, but it gets old pretty fast. Designated hitters, on the other hand, combined to slash .254/.329/.457 last season. American League teams wouldn't be forced to choose between playing a DH out of position or benching him during Interleague play. The game is better when Nelson Cruz gets to play every day.

The rule change could also offer more opportunities for one-dimensional players. As it is, an individual who can still wield a bat but has become a liability in the field - Jose Bautista, for example - is limited in his choices. Perhaps, if 30 teams can roster the DH, aging players will still latch on somewhere and maintain relevance, despite their eroding defensive skills.

2) Draft benefits for winning teams, punishments for tanking

As currently constructed, the team that finishes the regular season with the worst record gets the first overall pick in the following year's draft. This is fine if all teams are acting in good faith and entering the season with the intent to contend. But there are too many teams that appear content to pursue a rebuild while leaving winning to chance.

Look at the American League. How many teams are actively trying to put forward a competitive squad for 2019? Five? Six? The Cleveland Indians could probably waltz to another AL Central title, but they were reportedly looking to jettison two-time Cy Young winner Corey Kluber to slash payroll instead of pushing toward sustained contention.

Incentivize winning. Punish losing. Fans want their teams to be competitive above all else. It's unclear what this change would look like, but a possibility could include teams getting a lower draft position if they lose 90-plus games in consecutive seasons. That might not be enough, but it's a start.

3) Roster expansion from 25 to 26 players

This would include a maximum of 12 pitchers. It's a good change as it gives teams more options and greater flexibility while creating an extra job on every squad. It could result in added rest and help prevent injuries and is a perfectly fine adjustment that fans probably wouldn't have noticed anyway.

4) 3-batter minimum for pitchers

While constant pitching changes within a single inning slow down the game, forcing pitchers to face at least three batters seems more like a knee-jerk reaction to the shenanigans pulled by the Milwaukee Brewers last postseason. The Brewers announced Wade Miley as the starter for Game 5 of the NLCS. He was promptly pulled after facing one batter and throwing a total of five pitches in that outing. Miley then started Game 6 at Miller Park.

Whether this is legitimate gamesmanship or expert trolling, this tweak wouldn't likely be up for discussion had the Brewers not done that. However, it's not a bad change due to the exceptions included. If a pitcher finishes an inning and hasn't faced three batters, he won't be required to open the following frame. Without that caveat, this would feel wholly arbitrary or reactionary.

This rule will happen fairly seamlessly and teams will adjust, but it's not a world-changer by any stretch - unless you happen to be a LOOGY.

5) Major-league contracts for 2-sport athletes

Also known as the Kyler Murray rule, this is a fine change that may not make much of an impact. Legitimate two-sport athletes are rare when it comes to the pros, and few have had a lasting impact. Deion Sanders, Bo Jackson, and Brian Jordan each spent substantial time in MLB and NFL, but it's not common enough to make a massive difference.

That said, why impose a barrier? If someone like Murray wants to try his hand at both sports and the teams involved are supportive, it's worth creating a clause allowing it to happen. Maybe players lean a certain way eventually, but at least this way, they have the option to make a more informed decision on what makes for a better fit.

6) 20-second pitch clock

Whatever. Commissioner Rob Manfred can unilaterally impose a pitch clock for the 2019 season, so this seems like a formality to curb any negative reactions from players. There's a possibility that the clock would be turned off with runners on base, which could wind up being a reasonable compromise, but it would also make the change rather toothless.

The clock has already been operational in the minor leagues for several years, so it seems like a matter of when and how it's added as opposed to if. After implementing a 20-second pitch clock, minor-league games saw their average length drop from 2 hours, 49 minutes in 2014 to 2:29 in 2017.

7) Single trade deadline before AS break

There isn't anything inherently wrong about a single trade deadline, as there's really only one hard deadline now. The waiver deadline only determines if a player is eligible for the postseason, and trades can technically still occur after Aug. 31.

Moving the trade deadline up before the All-Star Game feels like a change for the sake of making a change. The union apparently thinks this would put pressure on teams to push harder in the first half of the season and, in turn, pursue free agents with greater fervor. That could happen, but will the two weeks be enough time to ensure more teams are convinced they're still in the race?

A bad losing streak at the wrong time or rattling off a few solid weeks will always impact a team's decision making. The Pittsburgh Pirates went on a tear in July last season and made a slight run by acquiring Chris Archer from the Tampa Bay Rays. They won six straight leading into the break and followed that by winning five more immediately after. Had that winning streak come in August instead, maybe that trade doesn't happen.

You don't have to make the deadline earlier. Just make a hard deadline for non-waiver trades and eliminate waiver trades thereafter. A compromise to encourage more activity among contenders would be to move the actual deadline to mid-August.

Note: the league is also looking to implement a study to see if they should lower the pitcher's mound. This isn't even a rule change proposal. It's a suggestion that could lead to a rule change. Let's cross that bridge when we come to it.