Between innings pitching changes don't add 5 minutes.This season the MLB teams with the best and worst ERAs have used about 2.9 relievers per game. These would all be pitching changes. Fir simplicity, let's say there are six pitching changes per game on average. If each one takes five minutes, that would account for thirty minutes of extra game time. If PITCHf/x data were still available for games, it would be easy to figure out the actual time for each pitching change. Now, someone could start timing them as they happen to get a more accurate approximation than the value of five minutes I guessed at.
But the fact is that in today's game, the starters are not going as far into games as they once did and the bullpen use (i.e., pitching changes) has increased and this does not take into account those mound visits that are basically made to give the relievers more time to warm.
Between inning pitching changes add nothing to the equation.Between innings pitching changes don't add 5 minutes.
https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/what-a-smaller-strike-zone-can-do-for-pace-of-play/Making the strike zone smaller would almost certainly just lead to more walks, and while I am all for a hardfought walk, that is the last thing we need more of in baseball.
Interesting, although I think average velocity is up a couple miles since then, and control may be down.https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/what-a-smaller-strike-zone-can-do-for-pace-of-play/
This recent article concludes that more pitches would end up as mistakes and thus be put in play at a higher rate with a smaller zone. More walks too but at a lower increase rate than the decrease in strike outs.
There's also the pitching change clock that is set to 2 minutes. Even if you add 30 seconds for the manager to make the call, it's not 5 minutes.Between inning pitching changes add nothing to the equation.
Inter-inning changes also don't add 5 minutes. It's essentially another ad break... So 2.5 minutes tops.
I think the reduced innings pitches are as likely to come out of the starter’s workload than a relievers but the rest is still true.I’ll say it again. 8 inning games. No DH and pitcher doesn’t hit.
8 man lineup. Batter stats stay pretty close to the same as plate appearances don’t really change. You lose the worst pitched inning out of your bullpen. A three-hour game is now twenty minutes shorter.
I've been saying the same, but I would keep the DH, and have him hit for a position player, with the caveat that he couldn't hit for the same position or player in back-to-back games.I’ll say it again. 8 inning games. No DH and pitcher doesn’t hit.
8 man lineup. Batter stats stay pretty close to the same as plate appearances don’t really change. You lose the worst pitched inning out of your bullpen. A three-hour game is now twenty minutes shorter.
I don't know why people are willing to move around the pitching mound, play with the strike zone, institute pitch and other clocks, or even chop an inning off a game but they aren't willing to consider going to 3 balls and 2 strikes.I’ll say it again. 8 inning games. No DH and pitcher doesn’t hit.
8 man lineup. Batter stats stay pretty close to the same as plate appearances don’t really change. You lose the worst pitched inning out of your bullpen. A three-hour game is now twenty minutes shorter.
No evidence that this is true and they wouldn't just continue to shorten the starters' outing. Crappy middle relievers are still better per inning than the second time through the order for a 5th starter, right?I don't know why people are willing to move around the pitching mound, play with the strike zone, institute pitch and other clocks, or even chop an inning off a game but they aren't willing to consider going to 3 balls and 2 strikes.
Baseball was great when people needed to kill three hours on a summer night because there was nothing else to do. Well, there are other things to do and there's no reason why people need to sit around and watch a ball go back and forth between catcher and pitcher.
Games would be shorter; you'd eliminate the need for crappy middle relievers; and there would be a lot less dead time in the game.
I think you mean the third time around the order, not the second.No evidence that this is true and they wouldn't just continue to shorten the starters' outing. Crappy middle relievers are still better per inning than the second time through the order for a 5th starter, right?
Second time through is still worse than first time through. You're more likely to see starters expected to go all out over a smaller number of pitches.I think you mean the third time around the order, not the second.
But at any rate, 100 pitches would get starters deeper into games. Thus, they'd be able to get to their relief aces and closers without using middle relievers. Also, starters might not have to show as much of their stuff in the early innings so maybe a starter is better equipped to face a lineup three times.
Fans might start paying more attention to the pitching too since each ball and strike would be more important. "Bases are loaded; the count is full at 2-1; here's the payoff pitch . . . ."
Well, since the sixties started the number of teams playing has almost doubled, and the number of games each one played increased from 154 to 162. I think both of those things would increase the chances of having a 100 game winner in a given season by quite a bit. Is the rate from 1998 to now that much higher than from 1961 until then when adjusting for league size?The Royals and Orioles would have to play better than .500 baseball the rest of the season to avoid losing 100 games. The Whitesox would need to play at a 45% clip. 3 teams losing 100+ would be the 2nd most ever, as 4 lost 100+ in 2002.
Meanwhile, 4 teams in the AL are on pace to win 100 games. Seattle is falling off the pace but if Houston, NY and Boston all win 100, it'll be the first time 3 teams in the same league have done so. If Seattle wins 100 as well, it'll be the first time ever 4 teams have won 100. 3 teams have won 100+ games on 6 separate occasions with the last time being last year, 2017. Four of those seasons have come since 1998, with the other 2 happening in back to back years in 2002 and 2003.
Interesting. 24 of the 102 teams to win 100+ games have happened since 1998. Not sure if that really tells us anything though.
35 teams won 100+ games from 1961 to 1997, so it's not even higher. It's lower. No adjustment even needed.Well, since the sixties started the number of teams playing has almost doubled, and the number of games each one played increased from 154 to 162. I think both of those things would increase the chances of having a 100 game winner in a given season by quite a bit. Is the rate from 1998 to now that much higher than from 1961 until then when adjusting for league size?
A few teams have won the division with 82 or 83 games. The Padres won their division in 2005 by 5 games despite going 82-80.The AL central might have the 4 of the worst records in all of baseball by the end of the year....
Wonder when the last time that happened was (1 team above .500 in one division)
Pitchers are also taking an extra 2.7 seconds per pitch as compared to 2008, 24.3 seconds per pitch now as compared to 21.6. Almost 3 seconds per pitch is gonna add up.Dave Smith, founder of Retrosheet, presented a paper at SABR48 on things that may affect the length of games. While there is too much for me to cover, one of the things he studied was mid-inning pitching changes. He notes, "However, the surprising results to me are the mid-inning changes. These have increased by more than a factor of two since 1939, but essentially not at all since 1994," and that the use of additional relief pitchers does not have that much effect on games. His major conclusion is "the single biggest factor contributing to the longer games is the number of pitches.
It's worth a read in its entirety: http://retrosheet.org/Research/SmithD/WhyDoGamesTakeSoLong.pdf
Just out of curiosity, what technology? One of the problems with trying to develop an automatic strike calling system is that the strike zone is three-dimensional. Technically speaking, a high pitch that drops just in time to catch the back end of the strike zone is a strike; similarly pitches wide of the plate that bend back in at the last moment are, too. Are you looking for perfection or just "better"?Pace of Play:...
Strike Zone:
- It's inevitable so let's just do it. Make strikes electronic....
I had an inside introduction to PITCHf/x at the St.Louis ballpark during the 2007 SABR convention, which was before it was in all parks (maybe 22). There was one immediately noticeable problem: There was an operator setting the boundaries for each batter as they came to the plate. One, the operator didn't always set the points at the right moment and two, a different operator might set the points differently for a batter. It was PITCHf/x's plan to have an automated database built from a compilation of the settings for every batter. While this sounds good, what happens when there is a new batter, a call-up? What happens when you have a batter who changes his stance depending on how he wants to hit the ball (say Rod Carew) or by the pitcher he is facing? What if the human setting the bounds is sloppy? It's not cut-and-dried.That 3D Questec graphic that ESPN uses looks great...if it's accurate. I think the technology is available to identify a ball's track in great detail, with a human setting the upper and lower boundaries for each hitter before the game. Don't know for sure, but it seems do- able.
I’d like to think they could use some sort of sensors on the uniforms, one at the letters/top of the zone and one at the knees/bottom of the zone. I don’t know how feasible this would be, but I’d imagine the technology wouldn’t be that difficult to implement if MLB wanted to do it.I had an inside introduction to PITCHf/x at the St.Louis ballpark during the 2007 SABR convention, which was before it was in all parks (maybe 22). There was one immediately noticeable problem: There was an operator setting the boundaries for each batter as they came to the plate. One, the operator didn't always set the points at the right moment and two, a different operator might set the points differently for a batter. It was PITCHf/x's plan to have an automated database built from a compilation of the settings for every batter. While this sounds good, what happens when there is a new batter, a call-up? What happens when you have a batter who changes his stance depending on how he wants to hit the ball (say Rod Carew) or by the pitcher he is facing? What if the human setting the bounds is sloppy? It's not cut-and-dried.
You would have to keep the sensor level to the plane of the plate and that might be difficult it it were attached to the uniform, especially when the batter checks a swing.I’d like to think they could use some sort of sensors on the uniforms, one at the letters/top of the zone and one at the knees/bottom of the zone. I don’t know how feasible this would be, but I’d imagine the technology wouldn’t be that difficult to implement if MLB wanted to do it.
So, Dustin Pedroia should have the same strike zone that Aaron Judge has, or vice versa?They don't raise and lower the hoop in the NBA for taller and shorter players, do they?
Strike zone is now 20 to 40 inches off the ground. Ball passes thru that zone it's a strike .
Only partially kidding.
Because that's neither the letter nor spirit of the rule. The letter: the rulebook explicitly says the top and bottom of the zones are determined by the hitters' bodies. The spirit: "strikes" are pitches that can be hit and "balls" are not.Why can't the strike zone be the strike zone regardless of the batter's stance? If a diminutive player bats from a deep crouch, the high strike (or low strike for that matter) ought to be in the same location as it is for Aaron Judge.
That's another thing about baseball today. No more Bill Veecks (who brought in Eddie Gaedel) Casey Stengels, Leo Durochers, Bill Lees, Earl Weavers. No more gas house gangs, tobacco juice, take out slides, chin music. Its all sterile and corporate, with the post game interviews orchestrated by media-savvy managers who say absolutely nothing. It might as well be a video game.Still curious why no team has tried a really fast midget at DH. Eddie Gaedel would have walked every single time. I don't think terminating a contract of a player just because he is a midget would fly in 2018.
Pretty sure every single person mentioned there is white, which is funny because the influx of Latin players and all of the flair they bring to celebrating etc. has made the game much more fun to watch IMO than it was back when it was all-white. You can keep your disgusting chaw spitting, I'll take this:That's another thing about baseball today. No more Bill Veecks (who brought in Eddie Gaedel) Casey Stengels, Leo Durochers, Bill Lees, Earl Weavers. No more gas house gangs, tobacco juice, take out slides, chin music. Its all sterile and corporate, with the post game interviews orchestrated by media-savvy managers who say absolutely nothing. It might as well be a video game.
Stengel said about Bobby Richardson: "He doesn't drink, he doesn't smoke, he doesn't chew, he doesn't stay out late, and he still can't hit .250." I think that's a pretty good metaphor for baseball in 2018.
Its more difficult for an ump to determine height when they are set up directly behind the plate (which is the optimal spot to determine where the ball crosses the plate). Some umps will set up slightly off-center which allows them to more accurately see the vertical axis, at the detriment of accuracy of the ball crossing the plate.Correct me if I'm wrong.
The situation is that Umpires cannot easily see the height of a ball as it crosses the plate. They rely on where the ball is caught* and then extrapolate back to the plate to determine if it crossed high or low. On top of that, the top and bottom of the strike zone changes with out-of-norm batters (Altuve, Judge). It's interesting that the stuff umpires can actually see (inside/outside) involves boundaries that never change.
Given that, it's still amazing that umps get as many high/low calls correct as they do.
This didn't matter as much (to the fan) until video boxes came along and games were changed on the perception that a call was incorrect. The players always knew and were often infuriated.
If there's a fix, it should be considered. What other boundary call in sports is left up to partial whim these days (considering the strike zone is essentially a defined prism)? A team losing game 7 of a series on a bad pitch call is only slightly less awful than a world cup team winning on penalty kicks. If there's a fix, shouldn't it be considered?
Edit: *I've been told that a catcher's knees are generally the height of strike zone bottom, and the catcher's eyes (mask-ish) are generally the top...does that sound right?
It's not the real culprit, that's why. The current time is 2 minutes and 5 seconds, it was 1 minute and 45 seconds in the 80s when games were half an hour shorter. The extra ad time is responsible for something like 5 minutes and 40 seconds of the increase. No, not nothing, but it's not the real culprit (extra pitching changes aren't the culprit either).Pace of Play:
- No one will address the real culprit: 2 to 2-1/2 minutes between half-innings for commercials. Shorten the break and charge more. How many of us let games get ahead on DVR just so we can FF through the commercials? Perhaps more than you think. (And get rid of the 4 minute 7th inning God Bless America stretch)
And who among us did not love Koji Uehara celebrating the last out of an 8th inning in August like he just won a playoff game? I like seeing guys have fun. I like seeing emotion.Pretty sure every single person mentioned there is white, which is funny because the influx of Latin players and all of the flair they bring to celebrating etc. has made the game much more fun to watch IMO than it was back when it was all-white. You can keep your disgusting chaw spitting, I'll take this: