Are they doing this because of pace of game or to protect their pitchers? It seems like the latter so any rules to speed up the game are missing the point, no?
Judging by the TV ratings and crowds in the stands for marathon extra-inning games, you are not in the minority.I am clearly in the minority here, but I dislike extra-inning games and hate the really long ones with a passion. They become wearisome attrition exercises and mess up pitching staffs for days afterward. I get why this particular proposal is drawing scorn, though I don't hate it as much as most of you. But I think the problem is real, and I'm glad they're thinking about ways to address it.
I might be in favor of a 12-inning cap, with any game that doesn't have a winner after 12 ending as a tie and not counting in the standings (though the players' individual stats for that game would still count). This would make ties fairly rare, but still get rid of the ridiculous, staff-shredding marathons.
Agree. If you watch any game from the 70s, it's amazing how snappy the games were.I mentioned the 3-2 thing not because I like the idea, just to note that baseball hasn't always been played with 4 balls and 3 strikes. In fact, here in Michigan (maybe elsewhere) some Catholic school leagues play with a 1-1 count to start an at bat. I've coached scrimmages where we've done that, precisely to speed the games up, get batters swinging and save pitcher arms.
But now that I think about it, it might not be such a bad idea for the MLB. Sure, purist will scream, but hear me out. The weekend before the Super Bowl, my son and I watched the Sept. 30, 1967, game between the Red Sox and the Twins. It was supposedly the first color TV broadcast of a baseball game. Anyway, what was interesting was how different the game was played then. It was a lot faster, for one thing. Batters swung at first-pitch strikes nearly every time. They were hacking. Starting off with a 1-1 count gets batter hacking. It might make game play more like it was 50 years ago.
Joe Posnanski's take, which made me reconsider (or, at least, make me think that baseball has to appeal to other audiences besides me)
http://joeposnanski.com/extra-innings/
How would games not counting in the standings work when there is a tie for the last playoff spot and one team is 86-75 and the other is 85-74? Percentage points? The games have to count so that every team had the same "total outcome" of games. The 1 game playoff they play now seems like the logical answer but the gap between games in extra innings last year was 18. LAA played 4, the Braves played 22. Granted, most of those games probably ended in 12 and under but that could make for some weird hypotheticals. A 88-70 record vs a 79-61record. Tie.I am clearly in the minority here, but I dislike extra-inning games and hate the really long ones with a passion. They become wearisome attrition exercises and mess up pitching staffs for days afterward. I get why this particular proposal is drawing scorn, though I don't hate it as much as most of you. But I think the problem is real, and I'm glad they're thinking about ways to address it.
I might be in favor of a 12-inning cap, with any game that doesn't have a winner after 12 ending as a tie and not counting in the standings (though the players' individual stats for that game would still count). This would make ties fairly rare, but still get rid of the ridiculous, staff-shredding marathons.
Right - most games start at 7, are on weeknights, and go 3+ hours. When you start tacking on extra innings, you're talking about people getting home very late, and having to work in the morning.They leave because most have work or school the next morning. Does this guy really think that people only like baseball when it's played in innings 1-9?
I didn't get that either. Why is fans leaving extra-inning games before they're over a problem?They leave because most have work or school the next morning. Does this guy really think that people only like baseball when it's played in innings 1-9?
It's 2017, people go looking for problems.I love that like four people, Posnanski and Torre included, have said ominously, "this is a problem."
What is the problem?!
Judging by the TV ratings and crowds in the stands for marathon extra-inning games, you are not in the minority.
If this rule ever sees the light of day in The Show, it will be regular-season only, and probably won't kick in until the 12th or 13th inning. Frankly, I'll be surprised if it even gets that far -- I think this is strictly an idea to shorten minor-league games, and in that context, I think it's worth testing. Who the fuck stays to watch the end of a 15-inning minor-league game??
Are you 12?It's 2017, people go looking for problems.
I hate the term, but this really is "First World Problems"
Are a few extra innings of baseball affecting anything in your day to day?Are you 12?
Hey look a troll.Are a few extra innings of baseball affecting anything in your day to day?
When we have people bitching about a fucking 90 year old baseball logo or a 100 year old NFL team name, yeah, people need to get a life.
Like I said, people have way too much time on their hands.
Why would a batter-runner who made it to first EVER try for second if you were King?Or more conservatively, BBs and singles start on 2nd, doubles and triples stay the same.
The weird thing to me is just sticking a player on second. I could understand giving hitters an extra base on hits. Like singles become doubles, doubles become triples, triples become homers. Heck even a BB goes to 2nd. Or more conservatively, BBs and singles start on 2nd, doubles and triples stay the same. Not sure if I'd like these ideas but at least they earned it buy getting a hit or a walk
Edit: a fast guy who never hits homers ending a game on a triple might be cool
Unless I'm missing some irony, you not only ascribed my opinion to a single sentence pulled out of a paragraph-length post, you also omitted the following sentence where I said I'm not sure I'd like the idea. Impressive posting. Remarkable stuff.Why would a batter-runner who made it to first EVER try for second if you were King?Infield Infidel said: ↑
Or more conservatively, BBs and singles start on 2nd, doubles and triples stay the same.
TV friendliness is skating to where the puck used to be, honestly. If they want to attract young fans, they need to be encouraging, not discouraging, the sharing of highlight videos. Every time Bradley throws a rope to catch a runner stretching, or Trout pulls back a HR, or Simmons does some shortstop wizardry, or NRI Wily Mo Peña comes off the bench and hits a ball into Lake Erie on two bounces, they should blow up Facebook and Twitter. Remind people how awesome baseball is. Think about ways of engaging with baseball other than *watching entire games,* but that might escalate casual fans into fans who want to watch entire games. The NBA is great at this.Agree. If you watch any game from the 70s, it's amazing how snappy the games were.
if baseball wants to be TV friendly, they do need to do something. Refusing balls and strikes is one easy way. It would also have some unintended consequences, such as eliminating some middle reliever spots and making #1 starters even more valuable.
Why don't they just start any extra-inning games an hour earlier?Right - most games start at 7, are on weeknights, and go 3+ hours. When you start tacking on extra innings, you're talking about people getting home very late, and having to work in the morning.
People don't leave because its boring - they leave because real life intrudes.
Miss Cleo died so who would be Commissioner?Why don't they just start any extra-inning games an hour earlier?
(still a better idea than ghost-runner on 2nd)
I nominate this post for best everWhy don't they just start any extra-inning games an hour earlier?
(still a better idea than ghost-runner on 2nd)
Eddie Andelman laughs at you stealing his concept of UndertimeWhy don't they just start any extra-inning games an hour earlier?
(still a better idea than ghost-runner on 2nd)
These games only go to 11.Why don't they just start any extra-inning games an hour earlier?
(still a better idea than ghost-runner on 2nd)
Starting before 7 would be worse. That's about as early as you can start and still allow most working people to get home and have dinner or get to the park and get seated and still catch the first pitch. If anything, a 7:30 start would be the way to go. There's a reason major dramas don't start until 8.Right - most games start at 7, are on weeknights, and go 3+ hours. When you start tacking on extra innings, you're talking about people getting home very late, and having to work in the morning.
People don't leave because its boring - they leave because real life intrudes.
Not the players' uniforms, though. Just the umpires'.Reduce the between innings commercial break by 60 seconds and put ads on uniforms to make up for the lost revenue.
Yeah I hate that they don't sell food at the stadium.Starting before 7 would be worse. That's about as early as you can start and still allow most working people to get home and have dinner or get to the park and get seated and still catch the first pitch. If anything, a 7:30 start would be the way to go. There's a reason major dramas don't start until 8.
It's hard to eat stadium food from home.Yeah I hate that they don't sell food at the stadium.
I know enough not to take comedy advice from someone who thinks that the 20th iteration of a stale robot joke that wasn't funny the first time is the height of hilarity.Maybe humour does. I mean, you're a cyborg who doesn't accept humour but you should be able to recognise it by now.
It's hard to eat stadium food from home.
Maybe "or" means something different in Oz?
The context I brought up food in was explicitly not related to going to the ballpark. Syd's the one who brought stadium food into the discussion, for reasons of relevance I'm still struggling to grasp (hence the tongue-in-cheek mention of hot dogs).Adam Selene jokes aside, the food thing is a weird comment by you. Stadium food is a lot more than hot dogs these days.
I must have lost the plot. I read you as saying: get home, eat, go to park (post 78)The context I brought up food in was explicitly not related to going to the ballpark. Syd's the one who brought stadium food into the discussion, for reasons of relevance I'm still struggling to grasp (hence the tongue-in-cheek mention of hot dogs).
Now I'm confused, I just reread it and it looks okay to me: "That's about as early as you can start and still allow most working people to get home and have dinner or get to the park and get seated and still catch the first pitch".I must have lost the plot. I read you as saying: get home, eat, go to park (post 78)
That would really depend on your job and where you live (commute, traffic, etc) no?I must have lost the plot. I read you as saying: get home, eat, go to park (post 78)
Syd: why not just eat at the park
I see later you clarified the "or" to get home, eat, watch tv, but I don't see how that is really a big problem.
I mean... if that isn't the best answer ever...I know enough not to take comedy advice from someone who thinks that the 20th iteration of a stale robot joke that wasn't funny the first time is the height of hilarity.
I know what your point was... it truly wasn't that intellectual... I think it's, at best, inconsequential to the entire discussion. Sort of like the 'save the curtains, end daylight savings argument.' I mean, yes, there certainly are people who enjoy their meatloaf at home with the family. I'm sure it's all very convenient for those people. And that's a nice little by-product of a 7pm start. I'm sure it helps them get changed into their gear and maybe, if they duck out of work a little early or right on 5 they can even hit the gym first. But all that stuff is so completely irrelevant as to be ridiculous.My point was that between either getting home and settled in with the family (dinner, etc) before putting the game on TV, or getting to the stadium and getting seated, 7pm is about as early as you can comfortably push game starts for people who have work and lives. Having a hot dog at the game is one of life's great pleasures, but I'm not sure it matters in this context.
Figuring out how to win even when your plan gets blown to hell...that's kind of the point of sports. And life, and so forth.The reality is keeping pitchers healthy is hard, it's gotten a lot harder, and nobody's really sure how to do it right in the first place. It's in nobodies best interest for years of solid team-building to get tossed to the wayside by a couple years of bad injury luck, and the beloved 18-inning games are brutal outliers that blow workload management plans to hell for days if not weeks. I don't love the rule but it's absolutely time to figure out how to put a cap on extra innings.
This was my first thought. Is there any data to show that this radical change will actually make games shorter? Won't it prolong as many games as it shortens?Also help me out--how does this change anything? If the run expectancy for each team is "x" going into each extra inning without the fake baserunner, how is it not just "x+1" for both teams with it? Understanding some teams will have a Dave Roberts, and others won't--is it that when you increase the chance that runs are scored, you're decreasing the chance that the score is a tie at the end of an inning? Genuinely curious.
Doesn't the DSL and the AZL allow 30 active players on a roster?I can understand doing this in the low minors where the rosters are smaller than the 25 we have in MLB (and I *LIKE* Chris Davis pitching, even if we lose), and the pitchers are younger and fans are young families with kids with bedtimes and maybe you need to speed things up there. But I don't like this in AAA or the big leagues at all.
When I started watching baseball the players left their gloves in the outfield and trotted/ran into the dugout after the third out of an inning and an out to their defensive positions. Relief pitchers ran in from the bullpen. You didn't have players putting on body armor and taking it off when they got on base, changing batting gloves for sliding gloves or stepping out of the batter's box after every pitch to adjust the Velcro on their gloves; you didn't have as many pitching changes with the associated stalling at the mound to give the reliever more time to warm; you didn't have the challenges that required umpires to don headphones.Agree. If you watch any game from the 70s, it's amazing how snappy the games were.
if baseball wants to be TV friendly, they do need to do something. Refusing balls and strikes is one easy way. It would also have some unintended consequences, such as eliminating some middle reliever spots and making #1 starters even more valuable.
The point being made is that it's a problem for baseball.Are a few extra innings of baseball affecting anything in your day to day?
When we have people bitching about a fucking 90 year old baseball logo or a 100 year old NFL team name, yeah, people need to get a life.
Like I said, people have way too much time on their hands.
There is no commandment that there has to be 4 balls and 3 strikes. As I'm sure you know, baseball has been played with different rules with regards to balls and strikes.If MLB is intent upon doing something"Gimmicky," then how about home field advantage? The home team wins the ties.