Braves Beat Writer Blasts Proposed Rule Change

It wouldn't be accurate to say MLB pundits and fans either love or hate the proposed "Golden At-Bat" rule change. That would require finding someone who actually loves the idea.

But scanning the internet, there appears to be pundits who loathe the idea and others who don't hate it but aren't fans either. Count The Athletic's David O'Brien among those in the former group.

The longtime Atlanta Braves beat writer absolutely ripped the proposed rule change on social media late Wednesday night.

"That Golden At-Bat idea is the worst possible rule change I've ever heard seriously mentioned by the commissioner or any sport, not just baseball," O'Brien wrote on X. "Remarkable that they're actually serious about it.

"That's Savannah Bananas exhibition-ball circus bull****."

That Golden At-Bat idea is the worst possible rule change I’ve ever heard seriously mentioned by the commissioner of any sport, not just baseball. Remarkable that they’re actually serious about it. That’s Savannah Bananas exhibition-ball circus bullshit.
— David O'Brien (@DOBrienATL) December 5, 2024

According to O'Brien's colleague at The Athletic, Jayson Stark, Manfred said there "was a little buzz around" the Golden At-Bat rule at the owners' meetings. With the new rule, teams would be permitted to have any player bat at any moment one time during each game.

"Say there are two outs in the 10th inning in October. The Yankees and Guardians are tied. Does this ring a bell at all? But in this alternate October universe, it’s not Juan Soto who is due up. It’s, say,Oswaldo Cabrera. Except the Yankees say:No, no, no. We’re going to use our Golden AB here … and send up Soto. Then home run magic happens," wrote Stark.

The problem is, the rule seems to go against the very fabric of baseball. It changes that thing that's been in the sport since it's creation -- the batting order.

It's the equivalent of allowing an NFL team to begin one drive a game at, say, the 50-yard line. Or permitting a basketball team to play with six players for one minute each contest.

Those ideas sound luduacris. But so does the Golden At-Bat to most of baseball's loyal followers.

I get the intention of the rule. Baseball wants more moments where stars such as Juan Soto and Freddie Freeman hit big home runs in playoff games. But the reason those moments will live in history is they happened organically.

One of the great things about baseball is it also gives every player a chance at immortality with a big home run. Does Bill Mazeroski or Rajai Davis get to hit if the Golden At-Bat rule existed when their major moments happened?

I guess you can include me in the "I loathe the idea" group, along with O'Brien.