We have an interesting and alarming piece of journalism on espn.com today, as one of the site’s baseball writers projects 20 years into the future, and what the game might look like.

For long-time fans of the game, nearly all the changes foreseen by a dozen people closely involved in the game … are appalling.

The way ahead for baseball is not by changing the basics. It is by embracing the game’s deep traditions and tweaking the game around the edges. And by keeping it more human and less data driven.

To wit:

Writer Tim Kirkjian’s sources foresee …

–A runner placed on second base at the start of the 12th inning of a extra-inning game. If a game lasts till the 13th inning, the innings begin with a runner at third base.

This is heresy. Never in the history of Major League Baseball has something like this been broached, and I remained convinced that fans want winning in the regular fashion (starting all innings with no runners on base) to continue. Even if it means a handful of 15-plus inning games in a season. Those games are fascinating in their own long, grueling way.

–The end of the leagues. The National League and American League will cease to exist.

Again, awful. What is wrong with having two leagues? Has it hurt the development of the game over the past 110 years? This should be resisted forever. The World Series should be between representatives of each league.

–The end of MLB being divided by the designated-hitter rule. I agree, but not in the way Kirkjian foresees, with the National League embracing the DH. No, this is wrong; it should go the other way, with the AL abandoning it. Any serious baseball fan knows the existence of the pitcher in the lineup leads to more strategy, more decisions made by managers. We want that — and the controversy created. Also, the AL should be forced to get rid of fat, slow and aged DHs; if you can’t play with leather on one hand, get out of the game.

(Also, interleague play should be abandoned. It has been around long enough now that the novelty is gone. Only a handful of teams and rivalries are fueled by interleague play. We can do without them; this is not the pre-television era, when fans never saw teams from the other league.)

–Reducing MLB to 28 teams, apparently folding teams in Tampa Bay and Oakland. Again, why? Are those clubs losing money? And if their owners think they ought to be able to move to a new market, let them. The game does not need more than 30 teams, but it does not need to shrink.

–A requirement that all stadiums built from 2030 forward have roofs. Well, if a city and its team feel like it … OK. But it should not be a requirement. Baseball is meant to be played in less-than-perfect weather; climate-controlled domes are unnecessary and make the game less authentic.

–Advertising all over uniforms. No, no, no, no. Unis should be about a city name, a number and the players’ name. We never want to see ballplayers looking like walking billboards — as Nascar drivers are.

Other potential changes recommended, pertaining to speeding up the game, I mostly am OK with. A 20-second clock on pitchers, with a “ball” called for violations; a ban on batters leaving the box, with violators called for a strike. A ban on visits to pitchers by fielders. Games are too long, yes, and those changes ought to reduce them back under three hours.

(It seems to me a two-hour game would be a good target; that is the length of the typical soccer game, and it seems to be about as long as a high fraction of fans can concentrate.)

Those moves would get players thinking of the penalties and should, shortly, push everyone into naturally playing at the new rhythm.

The bottom line here?

Baseball is not broken. Attendance is not in decline. It does not need significant change. Not now, anyway. And for many of these half-baked, tradition-trashing suggestions … let’s hope they never are needed or even suggested.