Ties in Baseball?

MLB: New York Mets at Philadelphia Phillies
MLB: New York Mets at Philadelphia Phillies

Last week the Mets and the Marlins played a game that went 16 innings. It lasted 5 hours and 38 minutes. The teams combined to use 17 pitchers. And oh yeah, the Mets won 9-8.

This morning I came across a column by Joel Sherman, of the New York Post, in which he argues that the MLB should have ties if the score remains deadlocked after 12 innings. After much deliberation, I think I agree with him.

Think about it: the baseball season is 162 games long. Exhausting one's bullpen to the extent that a game of 16 innings, or maybe even more, will do is quite taxing. If you were say Terry Collins, the manager of the Mets, would you rather lose a game in 9 innings, or win in 16 innings, but in doing so you would tire your entire bullpen to the point that they would be deemed useless, or ineffective, for the next couple of games? I think most people would take a win ten times out of ten, but the added stress that extra-inning games put on a pitching staff unquestionably hampers a team in their next few games, and thus I would not be shocked if when mangers were asked this same question that they responded that they would rather lose in 9 innings than come out victorious in 16. It seems crazy, but extra-inning games really do have a negative impact on a team in the coming days. By shortening MLB games to a maximum of 12 innings, a bullpen would never get completely decimated as is often the case these days. Would ties make baseball more interesting? Maybe. Would it piss off traditionalists who want to see the same bland, non-celebratory game? Certainly. But so what? It's best for the game. MLB should adapt this rule. It will add an interesting element to the game while keeping arms out from under the knife.