why not let BB call in the instructions. we all know it will happen eventaully.

as smart as i'd like to think i am, i don't manage the big leagues for a reason.  imagine a pitcher, already pressured to get outs (remember his mistakes are printed in the newspaper the next morning), seeing a vote of no confidence on a 40 foot screen.

thanks, but digital (and institutionalized) heckling just isn't my bag.

Majority voting always tends toward mediocrity.  Votes of the people who really know what they're doing tend to get marginalized by even larger numbers of votes from people who don't -- or people who are deliberated trying to crash the system.

I've watched some online chess matches where a
grandmaster plays against 1000s of people on the
internet by majority vote.  Almost invariably, the
grandmaster wins.  Even when other grandmasters
are involved in the voting!  The far larger
number of incompetent players tends to outweigh
the expert advice.

I think the same is true of baseball.  Sure,
coaches and managers sometimes make mistakes.  
But they do have more (and often better) information about the pitchers and batters than most fans.  And they work with them every day.  Plus, when it comes down to it, they're the ones responsible for the game.

Let's just get a laptop computer and a trained monkey to replace Billy Beane.

is a pain in the ass and always yields mediocre results.  Gimmicks like this are somewhat amusing...but given that the stadium will vote to watch grass grow over sports highights, I don't take this idea too seriously.

interactive with non fans in Borneo, Malaysia, luxembourg, monaco, Azores, all countries, ...people who never even heard of baseball are allowed to activate the interactive options. One day you could have the Vatican control one team and Taliban the other. The next day a Civil war in the Sudan could be decided on the MLB playing fields instead of a bloody war! Baseball could be the game that brings peace to the countries of the world. "In Abner We Trust" could be the Global beacon!

But excitement can be gained by these simpler modifications too; the pitching mound is actually a hole forcing the pitcher to jump up to deliver the pitch to the plate. Embedding bats with spoolies and large rivits is also bound to add excitement when the defense responds. (Let"s see defenders get the jump on those hits! ... could set zone ratings back a bit though).

But what would really juice baseball (Sorry, bad choice of words) is the MLB Tackle.

Drum roll please...

What we call Catcher today should be the Tackle. When the ball is hit the Catcher, oops! the Tackle, can chase down the the batter on his way to first base. If the Tackle takes him down before he reaches 1B it counts the same as a strike. If it is over the fence (home run) and the Tackle can take down the runner before he can touch all the bases and homeplate, sorry charley, ...it's just a strike!

Of course, ...the runner has the right to defend himself. He can stop, square off, and demand a round of kickboxing for a decision if it's a hit or strike. Of course they will have to wear boxing gloves to keep it civil. If the runner knocks out the tackle it's a home run, if the tackle knocks out the runner, he is an out. (pun intended)

Player traits will evolve a bit and bidding will be high for Rangers bullpen relievers, ...this is also great news for X-boxers, can you imagine Tyson as a pinch runner? ...and martial arts enthusiasts!

Gotta go!

   Let's 1st start off by quoting our intrepid Manager, "the players write the lineup card..." or something to that effect. So how hard is that decision? Not too difficult, I'd say. But as BB plans out 3 years+ ahead, so does Ken Macha, for most of the season. From pitching rotation to R vs L issues in the lineup, Everyday takes on new meaning. We're not even talking about in game decisions that potentially occur at a moment's notice. In all of these areas, we realize, Ken Macha has his input.
   So by what criteria do we measure our manager's track record. Wins and losses are not the whole story either. It's far too simplistic to say that he had the Big3 plus some great players and that's why he won. Saying that is doing him the same disservice as it is to say that BB is brilliant b/c of the Big 3. Macha maxed out the team's abilities, and he also, through his lack of diplomacy weeded out some of the players eg Terrence Long, that turned out ploblematic.He's a straight talker and some players delicate psyches can't handle that. Too bad.
   Decision making by consensus frankly shows lack of leadership. Ken Macha isn't afraid of losing his job. He's well respected by his peers, and while we may criticize some of his decisions, we don't always get the full picture of all that transpires. I say let's judge him at the end of the year and determine, then and only then, if he's worthy an extension.

but not for baseball.

The group size simply isn't large enough or diverse enough or informed enough to make the 'right' decisions.  For the small market teams, you wouldn't have enough people voting for the positive group decision factor to really come into play.  For the large teams, you'd have all the guys who call into talk radio voting... ever heard the sports talk radio in Boston?  Trust me, you don't want those guys voting on things that will actually impact the game.

Would fans really put in players who walked more than players who hacked at the ball?  Maybe fans around here, but not in an open fan voting system.  If the Red Sox fans had had their way, Mark Bellhorn would never have played in the postseason, and we all saw how that worked out.

Besides, if such a scheme was implemented and the team sucked, who would the fans blame?  A vital and timeworn tradition (that of ripping the manager/GM/owners/take your administrative pick at the end of a less-than-successful season) would no longer be able to take place.  Where's the fun in that, eh? ;)