Let’s start with balls. Here’s my proposal: count balls cumulatively.  NEW BASEBALL RULE: Each defensive team will be permitted to have its pitcher(s) throw a total of nine (9) balls out of the strike-zone (referred to hereafter as "balls") in each inning of play, none of which will be counted against any batter UNTIL the tenth ball is thrown, which will result in the current batter being awarded first base. All balls subsequent to that ball will also result in the current batter being awarded first base, until the third out of the inning is made. Each new inning shall begin with 9 more balls not counting against any batter, and the tenth and subsequent balls resulting in the immediate awarding of first base to the current batter.

So here’s how a typical inning might go:  First batter takes two pitches outside and two in the strike zone, but instead of the count being 2-2 as it would be now, instead it’s 0-2.  He flies out to centerfield on the fifth pitch. Next batter singles after three balls and one strike (for an 0-1 count) are thrown. That’s five balls thrown so far in the inning. (Imagine an addition to the scoreboard, a gigantic numeral tracking the number of balls thrown so far in each inning.)

The third batter takes five pitches, four for balls, one for a strike (again, 0-1) and then pops up. That’s two outs, cumulatively, and nine balls thrown in the inning. From this point on, every ball results in a walk, so now it starts to get interesting:

The next batter takes a strike and then a ball. That’s the tenth ball of the inning, and the batter takes first base.  The situation is the same as it would be right now, men on first and second, two outs, the number-five hitter coming to the plate, normally described as "a bit of a jam," but normally not a terribly perilous situation. Except, this way, the pitcher is now in a very tough spot. From here on in (until he starts the second inning with another nine free balls to give), he cannot throw another pitch outside the strike zone without putting the batter on first base.

The next ball he throws (outside the strike zone, that is) will load the bases and another ball will bring in a run, so you know the pitcher is very reluctant to miss the center of the plate by very much.

And since every pitch must be a strike, the batter knows he needn’t swing at anything he doesn’t like, so not only will it be dangerous for the pitcher to throw a borderline strike, the batter is correctly waiting on a pitch he knows will be close to the center of the plate. What we’ve created here (or the pitcher has created for himself) is, in effect, every batter past the ninth ball starting out with a 3-0 count in his favor.

The advantages for the offense of doing it this way may not be obvious, but I think they are in many ways fairly great: 

This will obviously increase run-scoring in several ways.  Pitchers will no longer be able to nibble the way they can today, with three free balls to throw to every batter. From the outset of the game, even ball one to the leadoff batter will be dangerous, because the pitcher can’t know how sharp his control will be, can’t know what the rest of the inning will be like, and he can’t know when later in the inning he may need to pitch to a batter carefully, so he will be throwing strikes from the get-go.

More pitches in the strike zone means more hittable pitches, which means more hitting.

This means fewer pitches will be thrown overall. A pitcher who has good control and good stuff can probably throw a complete game with fewer than 80 pitches. A winning game might look like 100 pitches, 15 hits, no walks, 10 runs, and a complete-game victory. The number of pitches each batter will face would drop considerably, by at least one pitch per at-bat, probably more. Many at-bats will be completed within two or three pitches.

This makes for greater tension in every inning. Nowadays, a pitcher is cruising if he’s got two outs, no runners on base, and he’s thrown only ten pitches, five balls and five strikes, but under this system he’s under great pressure to get that third out before he throws another five balls. Today, he might pitch around that third batter, particularly if he’s a good hitter, but under this system if he walks him, he’s at nine balls for the inning and now he’s in big trouble. Now every pitch he throws must be in the strike zone or else he puts himself in an impossible situation.

The fans will be rooting for every pitch to be a strike or a ball. Instead of "Ho-hum, the count is 2 and 2" every pitch will contribute to that inning’s 9-count, and that will generate a ton of offense. IOW, there are no more ho-hum innings. Every inning, even a good one, will be close to reaching 10 balls before the third out is made, and of course many innings will go over that 9-ball point, after which the offense will have a great advantage. With every ball after 9 in the inning resulting in a walk, the pitcher will need to throw strikes and the batters will have good balls to swing at. I don’t know exactly what will happen to the offense, but I’d guess that scoring only two or three runs in an inning after the pitcher exhausts his 9-ball limit will be a mild disappointment.

No game will ever be out of reach. If one team is ahead eight runs by the fifth inning, the other team will still be very much in the game.

The games will be much faster, in addition to being much more action-packed. IOW, we will have both more scoring AND a faster pace.  No more nibbling, no more waste pitches, far fewer intentional walks and far fewer intentional unintentional walks. Every single pitch will have fans on their feet, cheering and booing every pitch.

The game will be more of a team-game, I suspect. That is, a batter will make a genuine, tangible contribution to a big-scoring inning even if he strikes out, IF along the way he’s managed to take four or five balls before striking out.

Relief pitching will be different, too. Since the 9-ball limit applies to a team, not a pitcher, during a given inning, when relievers come in and inherit the previous pitcher(s)’ ball-count total,  relievers will no longer have a few pitches in which to settle themselves down. A reliever who is wild at first will, instead of going 3-0 on the first batter, walk the first three batters to face him, so relievers will require incredible control because they will usually be coming into innings that already have reached the 9-ball count.  A reliever who can be relied on to throw strikes will be a very valuable player.

It will be dangerous to put in relief pitchers, I suspect as well, since they often need to settle down. There will certainly be fewer casual single-batter substitutions of pitchers since the odds multiply that some pitcher will not be able to find his control right out of the box.

This would really change our understanding of what an inning IS. The structure of an inning, offensively and defensively, would change from a roughly equal emphasis on each batter to a heavily end-loaded emphasis. The first few batters’ job would remain roughly the same, to get on base (and to draw balls and drive up the pitch-count) with an added emphasis on refraining from swinging at bad pitches (which would be less numerous), but the new strategy would focus on the end of the inning: can the pitcher operate efficiently with no margin for error? Can he get men out while throwing only strikes? Can he reduce the damage looming at the end of most innings? I think this would separate the sheep from the goats: most pitchers could not operate throwing overwhelmingly in the strike zone, but some, I think, would do okay. ERAs would soar all around, but Kershaw and Arietta would give up only a run or two more than they do now, while less talented pitchers would perhaps give up an extra five or ten runs per game.

Even 1-2-3 innings will be fairly dangerous, and anything except a 1-2-3 inning will be very dangerous. One downside is that you will no longer be able to walk to the fridge for a beer while an inning is in progress, because every pitch will be more meaningful, and every pitch after 9 balls will be extremely exciting. 

I should mention a possible advantage for the pitcher, if he can retire a batter or two without throwing a ball. Suddenly the balance of power, it seems to me, would shift over to him, rather than to the batters, since he would be able to throw borderline pitches at will (assuming he can) without a risk of putting the batter on base.  Imagine the first two batters in an inning are retired without a ball being thrown—the third batter could be pitched to very tough, the pitcher could then nibble away, and the batter, knowing he needs ten balls to work out a walk, will be swinging at borderline strikes.   It will be rare, it will be difficult, but when a pitcher puts away the first two batters without issuing a ball, he’s got much more power than he ordinarily would have.

It seems to me that pitchers would be rewarded for having good dominating stuff even more than they are now. Pitchers who can throw 96 MPH for strikes are going to prosper even more than they do now. Pitchers who can change speeds effectively in the strike zone will also do well. Throwing strikes would be rewarded, and throwing balls would be discouraged, which (in my view) would only help the game, make it more exciting, make it faster, make it more competitive.

Of course (need I remind you?) this proposal is only a thought experiment. I have no doubt I could never have it even considered seriously by any body that might be in a position to enact it, and I wonder if perhaps there is some fatal drawback here that I haven’t considered. But just on the merits I have described here, I think it would have a dramatic effect on MLB, and a largely positive one.