Can rules changes save baseball?

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,316
This interesting post from @Red(s)HawksFan in the Spring Training thread got me thinking.
The Ohtani rule is an interesting one. I'm sure I might be missing something, but has there ever been another rule that realistically only affects/benefits one player in the entire league?
The Ohtani rule, just agreed to as part of the new CBA is a permanent new rule that allows a pitcher who starts the game as the DH to remain at DH for the rest of the game even after being removed as a pitcher. Let me start by acknowledging the hyperbole of the thread title. Baseball, judged by attendance figures, local television ratings, and broadcast revenues, does not need saving. It may no longer be the national pastime but it certainly appears to have settled into something that looks to be stable for the medium to long term. Still, there’s no doubt that the game seems to appeal these days to an older, and probably whiter, audience, and even within the game itself you hear a lot of talk about needing to address the challenges of remaining relevant in the marketplace. This effort, of course, has led to a spate of rules changes designed to boost baseball’s appeal. Can this approach work?

I personally hate most of the proposed rules changes that are supposed to make baseball more interesting to the modern fan. That’s because I don’t think things like the length of game actually address baseball’s challenges in connecting with today’s audiences. Someone who finds three and a half hours of baseball boring is simply not going to find two hours and forty-five minutes of baseball exciting. Society has changed, most likely because of smartphones, but also because society changes and popularity comes and goes. After all, horse racing and boxing…blah blah blah.

Having said all that, I am quite intrigued by the Ohtani rule because I think it actually DOES address one of baseball’s challenges in the marketplace. From a NY Post article linked to in the other thread: “This rule is for the life of the new CBA, not just for 2022 and the hope is to promote more two-way players.”

Turn on a Lakers game and you can watch LeBron for two-thirds of the game or more. Watch a Chiefs game and you can see Mahomes for half the game. But in baseball, star players appear for just a fraction of the broadcast. This new rule is an opportunity to better showcase a superstar, and that strikes me as exactly what baseball should be doing. Who knows if we’ll truly get more two-way star players, but I think its possible, and if we do, baseball should be looking to celebrate them in this way—not just because of their talent but because of the very fact that they are different and new. I remember years ago when the Sox had the middling ambidextrous pitcher Greg Harris and he had a special glove that allowed it to be worn on either hand. He always said he wanted to pitch with different hands in the same outing but if I recall correctly, baseball had some rule stipulating that whatever hand you threw with to start an appearance you had to stick with. Boooo!

I REALLY don’t like the expanded playoffs. Baseball is the only sport where the regular season is at least as important as the playoffs. (I suppose the NFL comes close.) But I am now persuaded that baseball needs to find ways to appeal to new fans, and if that is the goal, expanded playoffs probably do help. Playoff races truly do hook casual, gettable fans, and it stands to reason that more playoff spots increases the potential for playoff races in more markets.

Along these lines, I am now reluctantly in favor of the ghost runner in extra innings. I personally hate this rule, but it does inject additional excitement into games in a way that I think actually has a chance to connect with new fans. (I recognize that you have to have made it through nine innings to experience this excitement, which may tend to mitigate its potential.)

Another rule that I’m bullish on is the bigger bases. They’ve gone from 15 square inches to 18 square inches. That doesn’t sound like much but it’s startling when you see it.

View: https://twitter.com/DanClarkSports/status/1501309257496489984/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1501309257496489984%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.audacy.com%2Fsports%2Fmlb%2Flook-new-mlb-base-sizes-are-remarkably-bigger


This rule change is meant to promote safety, giving fielders more room to make plays while staying out of the way of runners, but it’s also meant to promote more aggressive base running, which is one of the most exciting elements of baseball.

So what do you think? Can baseball win new fans by changing its rules? And how do you feel about some of the new rules that have been enacted? And what other new rules would you like to see? Or is all of this unnecessary because baseball is doing just fine? Or, worse, is all of this destined to crash and burn by alienating existing fans while failing to attract new ones?

What does SOSH have to say?
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
22,774
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
I think that baseball keeps addressing the wrong problems insofar as long term support.

You want to "save baseball"? Get kids and Gen Z'ers invested. Create games that are watchable. I've been saying this since I was a teenager. Now, I have teenagers who, predictably, dont care about baseball.
  • Have playoff games on weekday afternoons again. Yes, sacrifice ratings for one game per series for the benefit of your sport's future.
  • Have start evening playoff games no later than 8pm on the east coast. Period. Not 8:38, or 8:21. 8pm is first pitch. I'd prefer 7, but that's not fair to the west coast.
  • The replay system is a problem. I am so sick of every single even remotely close play on the bases the runner, even called out, just stands there looking at the dugout while the manager does that stupid thing where he puts his hands over his ears. I don't know what the answer is but we need to find the sweet spot between getting it right and creating these ridiculously long delays
I actually happen to hate the Ohtani rule as it heavily favors one player and one team. Would other teams have been more aggressive in trying to sign the guy if they knew they could use him like this?
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,715
Would other teams have been more aggressive in trying to sign the guy if they knew they could use him like this?
Heh, no, everyone tried as hard as they could to sign a guy for $200M under his free market value (not an exaggeration). He might make more on his next deal this way, though.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
22,774
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
Heh, no, everyone tried as hard as they could to sign a guy for $200M under his free market value (not an exaggeration). He might make more on his next deal this way, though.
Perhaps. I still hate changing a rule that so specifically helps one guy mid-stream
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,878
Boston, MA
  • Have playoff games on weekday afternoons again. Yes, sacrifice ratings for one game per series for the benefit of your sport's future.
  • Have start evening playoff games no later than 8pm on the east coast. Period. Not 8:38, or 8:21. 8pm is first pitch. I'd prefer 7, but that's not fair to the west coast.
The entire first round of playoffs has game start times from 1pm through 10pm. Even the ALCS/NLCS have 4 and 5pm start times. It's just the World Series that starts late, but that's been the case for literally 40 years. The 1986 World Series games started at 8:30.

  • The replay system is a problem. I am so sick of every single even remotely close play on the bases the runner, even called out, just stands there looking at the dugout while the manager does that stupid thing where he puts his hands over his ears. I don't know what the answer is but we need to find the sweet spot between getting it right and creating these ridiculously long delays
The easiest way to fix this is to limit the replay officials to being able to watch 50% speed replays for 30 seconds at most. If they can't make a decision, the call stands. That makes it so managers know only the most egregious blown calls will be overturned and they won't challenge other ones.

You can also have a rule that lets a runner come off the base as long as his body is in the area above the base. Then the pop-off out calls are eliminated.

The pitch clock is the biggest change the game can make. The obvious change would be a better pace of the game, but it should also lead to fewer strikeouts since pitchers don't have time to rest up and throw every pitch with max effort.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
22,774
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
The entire first round of playoffs has game start times from 1pm through 10pm. Even the ALCS/NLCS have 4 and 5pm start times. It's just the World Series that starts late, but that's been the case for literally 40 years. The 1986 World Series games started at 8:30.
10pm is too late. No game should ever start at 10pm on the east coast. And Every World Series should have one of its first 4 games as a weekend matinee. Start the rest no later than 8pm ET.

The easiest way to fix this is to limit the replay officials to being able to watch 50% speed replays for 30 seconds at most. If they can't make a decision, the call stands. That makes it so managers know only the most egregious blown calls will be overturned and they won't challenge other ones.
I also believe that the replay standard should be changed. It should not be "call stands unless there is unequivocal proof". It should be call can be changed if there replay shows the original is more likely than not to be wrong. But this is a global complaint I have for ALL reviews. We give so much deference over the bang bang call vs. the one that can be carefully reviewed. it makes no sense to me.

You can also have a rule that lets a runner come off the base as long as his body is in the area above the base. Then the pop-off out calls are eliminated.
Wondering it the larger base may help with this at all. More space to connect to body. Maybe allows for runners to stay the tiniest but more in control.

The pitch clock is the biggest change the game can make. The obvious change would be a better pace of the game, but it should also lead to fewer strikeouts since pitchers don't have time to rest up and throw every pitch with max effort.
This is all about enforcement. I've yet to see it enforced when it was experimented with.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
I think that baseball keeps addressing the wrong problems insofar as long term support.

You want to "save baseball"? Get kids and Gen Z'ers invested. Create games that are watchable. I've been saying this since I was a teenager. Now, I have teenagers who, predictably, dont care about baseball.
  • Have playoff games on weekday afternoons again. Yes, sacrifice ratings for one game per series for the benefit of your sport's future.
  • Have start evening playoff games no later than 8pm on the east coast. Period. Not 8:38, or 8:21. 8pm is first pitch. I'd prefer 7, but that's not fair to the west coast.
  • The replay system is a problem. I am so sick of every single even remotely close play on the bases the runner, even called out, just stands there looking at the dugout while the manager does that stupid thing where he puts his hands over his ears. I don't know what the answer is but we need to find the sweet spot between getting it right and creating these ridiculously long delays
I actually happen to hate the Ohtani rule as it heavily favors one player and one team. Would other teams have been more aggressive in trying to sign the guy if they knew they could use him like this?
- Speed the game up. Not only a pitch clock but also a batter clock or something to keep the batters in the box and not stepping out after each pitch.

- Robot home plate umps. It's super easy technologically. The HP ump hears a beep in an earpiece when it's a strike, and then makes the call. To the fan, all we see is the ump making the call, but they're going to get the calls right.

- Limit time for replay, as you suggest. What I think is that you run replay at real speed, let the replay ump see it 5 times max, and then he overturns the call or affirms it. It should be done in real time, not super slo mo, because the game isn't played in super slo mo. 5x seeing it over again gives you a much better chance of getting the call right, without having to resort to examining individual pixels for 5 minutes.

- Let players celebrate and have FUN playing the game. Don't necessarily *encourage* bat flips and such, but don't *discourage* it either. Let the players be THEMSELVES out there. It makes the game way more fun.

- Agree fully on the time of games. Enough with the late starts already. Kids simply can't see the end of these games because they run so late.

- Have corporate sponsors somehow invest more to reduce the price of going to games. No idea how to pull this off but for me to take my family of 6 to Fenway costs me a fortune. Find a way to make ballpark tickets more affordable.

- Reduce the season from 162 games. Sometimes less is more.

There have to be other ideas out there as well.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,715
The rule change that is fantastic is eliminating the single game/coin flip/Wild Card game bullshit, teams have to lose 2 out of 3 to be eliminated at least.

But the seeding system is still fundamentally flawed (1 vs 4/5 on one side, 2 vs 3/6 on the other, 4 will very frequently be better than 3 and occasionally better than 2 also), which I hate.
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,715
And Every World Series should have one of its first 4 games as a weekend matinee.
Day games (in the fall especially) invariably have around 3 innings ruined by shadows on the field, I truly hate daytime postseason baseball.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
22,774
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
- Robot home plate umps. It's super easy technologically. The HP ump hears a beep in an earpiece when it's a strike, and then makes the call. To the fan, all we see is the ump making the call, but they're going to get the calls right.
Agree 100%. It's insane we can't figure out a fool proof computerized balls and strikes system




- Limit time for replay, as you suggest. What I think is that you run replay at real speed, let the replay ump see it 5 times max, and then he overturns the call or affirms it. It should be done in real time, not super slo mo, because the game isn't played in super slo mo. 5x seeing it over again gives you a much better chance of getting the call right, without having to resort to examining individual pixels for 5 minutes.
I want the slow mo. I want to use technology to get as many calls as right as possible. But. I want the decision to go to replay to be more deliberate in nature. Perhaps creating more of a penalty for replay attempts that fail. I dont know.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,878
Boston, MA
10pm is too late. No game should ever start at 10pm on the east coast. And Every World Series should have one of its first 4 games as a weekend matinee. Start the rest no later than 8pm ET.
10pm is 7pm on the west coast. Children live there, too.

The league is never going to have an afternoon World Series game. It's their biggest TV event and they're not going to start it when most of the country isn't home watching TV. They've been starting the games at the same time for two generations and I don't see how it's suddenly an issue. The rest of the playoffs have plenty of games that start earlier and kids can watch.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
22,774
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
But the seeding system is still fundamentally flawed (1 vs 4/5 on one side, 2 vs 3/6 on the other, 4 will very frequently be better than 3 and occasionally better than 2 also), which I hate.
I struggle with this constantly. I've heard much about the schoolyard pick of 1st round opponents by the top seeds. Thats intriguing to me. But I also then think it has the potential to give too much power to the top seeds.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
22,774
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
10pm is 7pm on the west coast. Children live there, too.

The league is never going to have an afternoon World Series game. It's their biggest TV event and they're not going to start it when most of the country isn't home watching TV. They've been starting the games at the same time for two generations and I don't see how it's suddenly an issue. The rest of the playoffs have plenty of games that start earlier and kids can watch.
This is literally my point. They are consistently sacrificing tomorrows fans, and tomorrow's dollars, for todays. I get what you are saying. What i am saying is the fact that we have for 20 years been talking about the ever-shrinking fan base and decline i popularity among younger people is tied directly to this mentality. I suppose it's a hard discussion to tell owners, we need to eat x% today for x+ % tomorrow. But most of them invest. It shouldnt be that hard to understand.

Regarding your first point, west coast kids are awake at 5pm local. But you lose half the country's youngest fans for probably half the game if you have a game running into midnight ET
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,715
I struggle with this constantly. I've heard much about the schoolyard pick of 1st round opponents by the top seeds. Thats intriguing to me. But I also then think it has the potential to give too much power to the top seeds.
I just want the teams ranked by wins from 1-6, I find it ridiculous to give the weakest division winner another advantage by giving them the automatic 3 seed. It was insane to not have the possibility of a Dodgers/Giants NLCS last year.
 

Marceline

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2002
6,441
Canton, MA
The 8pm start times are much less of an issue if you can get the average time back below 3 hours. The extra long inning breaks in the playoffs so they can stuff in more ads don't help.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,878
Boston, MA
This is literally my point. They are consistently sacrificing tomorrows fans, and tomorrow's dollars, for todays. I get what you are saying. What i am saying is the fact that we have for 20 years been talking about the ever-shrinking fan base and decline i popularity among younger people is tied directly to this mentality. I suppose it's a hard discussion to tell owners, we need to eat x% today for x+ % tomorrow. But most of them invest. It shouldnt be that hard to understand.

Regarding your first point, west coast kids are awake at 5pm local. But you lose half the country's youngest fans for probably half the game if you have a game running into midnight ET
Is there evidence that baseball is much more popular with kinds in the Pacific time zone than the Eastern?
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
22,774
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
The 8pm start times are much less of an issue if you can get the average time back below 3 hours. The extra long inning breaks in the playoffs so they can stuff in more ads don't help.
I can live with 8pm. But a REAL first pitch being thrown at 8pm start. Not, broadcast starts at 8pm and first pitch is 8:22 or something.
 

Yelling At Clouds

Post-darwinian
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,405
I think I said this elsewhere, but I do support most of the rule changes. I don’t think too many people under 30 (or so) care about baseball unless they have some really specific connection to it. I don’t know if these rules will make it more appealing. But I think they’re worth trying.

To me, though, a larger issue is just the general attitude of Baseball Was Better Before that always surrounds the sport. That’s what I think baseball needs to lose. How does the institution of baseball stop people from waxing nostalgic about the old days and/or insisting that the best players who ever played the game are all dead or elderly? I have no idea!
 

loshjott

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2004
14,943
Silver Spring, MD
This is literally my point. They are consistently sacrificing tomorrows fans, and tomorrow's dollars, for todays. I get what you are saying. What i am saying is the fact that we have for 20 years been talking about the ever-shrinking fan base and decline i popularity among younger people is tied directly to this mentality. I suppose it's a hard discussion to tell owners, we need to eat x% today for x+ % tomorrow. But most of them invest. It shouldnt be that hard to understand.

Regarding your first point, west coast kids are awake at 5pm local. But you lose half the country's youngest fans for probably half the game if you have a game running into midnight ET
I think kids are less likely to watch afternoon WS games than adults are. Kids in the fall are in soccer leagues, playing fall baseball, swimming lessons, etc etc all weekend. 7pm ET games on Saturdays and Sundays rather than 8:20 first pitch would be a vast improvement, however.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,840
I think that baseball keeps addressing the wrong problems insofar as long term support.

You want to "save baseball"? Get kids and Gen Z'ers invested. Create games that are watchable. I've been saying this since I was a teenager. Now, I have teenagers who, predictably, dont care about baseball.
  • Have playoff games on weekday afternoons again. Yes, sacrifice ratings for one game per series for the benefit of your sport's future.
  • Have start evening playoff games no later than 8pm on the east coast. Period. Not 8:38, or 8:21. 8pm is first pitch. I'd prefer 7, but that's not fair to the west coast.
  • The replay system is a problem. I am so sick of every single even remotely close play on the bases the runner, even called out, just stands there looking at the dugout while the manager does that stupid thing where he puts his hands over his ears. I don't know what the answer is but we need to find the sweet spot between getting it right and creating these ridiculously long delays
I actually happen to hate the Ohtani rule as it heavily favors one player and one team. Would other teams have been more aggressive in trying to sign the guy if they knew they could use him like this?

Doesn't keeping Ohtani in the game make it more watchable?
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I also believe that the replay standard should be changed. It should not be "call stands unless there is unequivocal proof". It should be call can be changed if there replay shows the original is more likely than not to be wrong. But this is a global complaint I have for ALL reviews. We give so much deference over the bang bang call vs. the one that can be carefully reviewed. it makes no sense to me.
- Speed the game up. Not only a pitch clock but also a batter clock or something to keep the batters in the box and not stepping out after each pitch.

- Robot home plate umps. It's super easy technologically. The HP ump hears a beep in an earpiece when it's a strike, and then makes the call. To the fan, all we see is the ump making the call, but they're going to get the calls right.

- Limit time for replay, as you suggest. What I think is that you run replay at real speed, let the replay ump see it 5 times max, and then he overturns the call or affirms it. It should be done in real time, not super slo mo, because the game isn't played in super slo mo. 5x seeing it over again gives you a much better chance of getting the call right, without having to resort to examining individual pixels for 5 minutes.
Just to add my agreement to the first bolded bit. If I were Emperor of the World, I would simply decree that all sports would use these same basic principles of replay:
  • All replays are initiated and done in the booth/studio/corporate office.
  • The reviewer has 30 seconds to review the call at full speed. If there is an immediately recognizable error in the on-field call, it gets overturned.
  • Anything can be reviewed, including penalties missed. (Basically the New Orleans/Minny pass interference call or that awful mistake by the 1st base ump that cost a pitcher a no-hitter in the 9th inning.)
As for the second bolded bit, about robot umps. My only tweet to this rule would be to make it so that the robot ump automatically triggered a scoreboard indication of ball/strike in the stadium and on TV. I don't want an ump, trained over 20 years in calling pitches, to raise his arm out of reflex because his eyes/mind say "Strike" even when the robot beep doesn't happen.
 

Strike4

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,895
Portland, Maine
I don't think there's any rule change that can "save" baseball. There has been a decline participation in organized team sports and baseball benefited the most from this pipeline, as the legacy sport, more than the NFL or others. (The NFL is successfully marketed as an event or show, rather than as an extension of an athletic activity you personally take part in.)

Until this is addressed, which is likely never, the perceived decline will continue. It's out of their hands.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I personally hate most of the proposed rules changes that are supposed to make baseball more interesting to the modern fan. That’s because I don’t think things like the length of game actually address baseball’s challenges in connecting with today’s audiences. Someone who finds three and a half hours of baseball boring is simply not going to find two hours and forty-five minutes of baseball exciting. Society has changed, most likely because of smartphones, but also because society changes and popularity comes and goes. After all, horse racing and boxing…blah blah blah.
Great thread. Can't have too much discussion on how to make this game better.

I don't find 3 1/2 hour games to be any more or less boring than 2 3/4 hour games. I just don't have the time to watch a 3 1/2 hour game. You tell me that 7PM game should be over before 10PM and I will be much more likely to watch it than if I expect it to be creeping up towards 11PM. Same with a weekend day game. I can allot 3 hours or so at the ballpark and have time to do other things. But much more than that and now it's the only thing I am doing all day.

Pitch clock is the easiest answer. Limit to foul balls has been discussed now and then and I'm willing to listen.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
22,774
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
Pitch clock is the easiest answer. Limit to foul balls has been discussed now and then and I'm willing to listen.
a) How can we ensure that this is enforced? How can we ensure umps are motivated to enforce it?
b) 100% agree with what was said upthread about batters. Batters can't be allowed to step out, do elaborate batting glove adjustments between every pitch. That needs to be streamlined as well. At the very least, only allowed between swings. Taken pitch means you stay in the box.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,238
Another rule that I’m bullish on is the bigger bases. They’ve gone from 15 square inches to 18 square inches. That doesn’t sound like much but it’s startling when you see it.
Small nitpick (I think). Isn't it 18 inches square not 18 square inches? The latter would be a base that about 4 1/4" x 4 1/4"
 

brs3

sings praises of pinstripes
SoSH Member
May 20, 2008
5,200
Jackson Heights, NYC
The changes that need to be made are fundamental. I'm not sure if it's specifically small ball, as that isn't necessarily thrilling, but it sure beats W-K-or-HR ball with an emphasis on working counts. Strikeouts are up, number of pitches thrown are up, runs scored have risen since the 60's but have been up & down for 20 years.

I love analytics, but am curious if removing the individual choice is the best approach to winning. It kind of sacrifices the enjoyment of a hitter who might be a free swinger or a runner who feels lucky, or both who think a squeeze play might work in a given moment. Hitting oppo may not result in runs compared to waiting on a fat pitch or working a walk because the next guy has better numbers, but putting the ball where the fielders aint can amp up a crowd if the team is behind, and isn't that a contributing factor to momentum?

Robo umps, time clocks, etc, aren't addressing the issue that the game professionals play is entirely different from the beer leagues and little leagues, but it's by choice.
 

VORP Speed

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
6,633
Ground Zero
If a batter steps out of the box, he should be a live runner and be able to be tagged out. This would dovetail nicely with the stealing first base rule being tested in the independent league.
 

jercra

No longer respects DeChambeau
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
3,147
Arvada, Co
On pace of play, you could just remove inning breaks all together and save 30-40 minutes (2-minutes for the actual breaks + whatever the additional ad time is after the break but before play resumes). Obviously it's a challenge for revenue purposes, but soccer is pretty popular and lucrative globally and they manage. There are plenty of places to insert unobtrusive advertising in the game without 2-3 minutes between every inning and pitching change.

Foul balls are also a problem, not because there are too many of them, but because it's roughly 30 seconds from the time a foul ball is hit until the next pitch is thrown. I watch every game on DVR and fast-forward after a foul ball is a go to move to watch games in 2 hours. If there's a possible play on the ball, fine, that's baseball happening. But when it's 30 rows deep or trickled way off the line, get in the box, get on the mound, get throwing.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,494
The changes that need to be made are fundamental. I'm not sure if it's specifically small ball, as that isn't necessarily thrilling, but it sure beats W-K-or-HR ball with an emphasis on working counts. Strikeouts are up, number of pitches thrown are up, runs scored have risen since the 60's but have been up & down for 20 years.

I love analytics, but am curious if removing the individual choice is the best approach to winning. It kind of sacrifices the enjoyment of a hitter who might be a free swinger or a runner who feels lucky, or both who think a squeeze play might work in a given moment. Hitting oppo may not result in runs compared to waiting on a fat pitch or working a walk because the next guy has better numbers, but putting the ball where the fielders aint can amp up a crowd if the team is behind, and isn't that a contributing factor to momentum?

Robo umps, time clocks, etc, aren't addressing the issue that the game professionals play is entirely different from the beer leagues and little leagues, but it's by choice.
Thinking about this, it seems to me that a lot of the most athletic plays in the sport - and after all, people are going to watch competition and athleticism - have left the sport. Sure there's athleticism to throwing pitches and hitting home runs but plays like stealing, taking the extra base, and throwing guys out on the basepaths - those have fallen by the wayside. And with the reduction of baserunners, it also seems that a lot of the action has been reduced too.

But maybe that's just me.
 

jercra

No longer respects DeChambeau
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
3,147
Arvada, Co
If a batter steps out of the box, he should be a live runner and be able to be tagged out. This would dovetail nicely with the stealing first base rule being tested in the independent league.
You can't do this without a pitch clock though. The pitchers will just wait out the hitters. So much of hitting is about timing. Having to stay ready to hit for a long time is too much of an advantage to the pitchers.

Another idea is to give the pitchers and catchers earpieces so the coaching staff can call the games directly. Having to flash multiple signs with all kinds of deception between each pitch is just pointless with today's technology. That time really starts to add up.
 

allmanbro

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
362
Portland, Maine
If a batter steps out of the box, he should be a live runner and be able to be tagged out. This would dovetail nicely with the stealing first base rule being tested in the independent league.
This idea is pretty wild, but I love it.

Thinking about this, it seems to me that a lot of the most athletic plays in the sport - and after all, people are going to watch competition and athleticism - have left the sport. Sure there's athleticism to throwing pitches and hitting home runs but plays like stealing, taking the extra base, and throwing guys out on the basepaths - those have fallen by the wayside. And with the reduction of baserunners, it also seems that a lot of the action has been reduced too.

But maybe that's just me.
I think this is 100% right - and the attempt to get more balls in play is not just about small ball, but about OF ranging way into the corner to catch a liner, or singles into the gap that the hitter tries to stretch into a double. Even those relatively mundane plays are exciting, and allow the players to show off that they are actually the most athletic players in the history of the game. So I agree that more balls in play is the biggest on-field issue. I think the bigger bases and (to a lesser extent) the shift ban are fine. But there is a lot of "nudging" for fear of going to far, and I think they should be less risk averse on this. The key combo is 1) deaden balls and/or bats. Make bat handles thicker, require that they be made of wood composite that has legislated bounce (like in college). and 2) make it easier to make contact. This one is harder. I don't know if you move the mound back, lower the mound, make balls heavier or something like that. The stiky ban is a good idea, but I don't know how much difference it makes. Combine those and you have more contact that is more likely to stay in the park. Hitters will adjust back to hitting liners, and you have more on-field action.

I get the OP claim that shorted games don't necessarily make "excitement", but there are two important responses. Frist, shortened games are a big step in the right direction. A big part of what makes baseball boring is the long time between plays. Second, the sales pitch for baseball should not just be excitement; it is routine, familiarity, and comfort. Baseball is ALWAYS on in the summer, and you see these players every day, if you want to. This has value, even to GenZ. Bob Ross has made this big comeback lately because people see the value of comforting, reliable, non-exciting semi-entertainment. Cutting the games below 3 hours is a huge step in making that possible.
 

BringBackMo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
1,316
I just don't have the time to watch a 3 1/2 hour game. You tell me that 7PM game should be over before 10PM and I will be much more likely to watch it than if I expect it to be creeping up towards 11PM. Same with a weekend day game. I can allot 3 hours or so at the ballpark and have time to do other things. But much more than that and now it's the only thing I am doing all day.
This is an interesting point that I hadn't considered. One thing I've noticed about my own experience with following games in the digital age is that I often wind up watching three or so innings on the TV, listening to two or three on the radio while running errands in the car, and using an app on my phone to keep track of the action during the other innings. Unless I'm at the ballpark, it's rarer and rarer that I'll actually "watch" the entire game...but I still feel just as connected to what's happening inning to inning.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
The two-way player makes perfect sense now that there's a universal DH. Once the AL instituted that rule, a decision was made to allow offensive players 1-9 in the lineup...and once that became codified, baseball should have allowed anyone to pitch/hit in the former pitcher's spot. Now that it's in both leagues, the divorce of the "pitcher" from the "hitter" is complete and the options should be independent - let anyone pitch or hit without cross-contamination.

I also agree that pace of play is an issue. There's no reason a pitcher should be able to read the front page of the NYT between each pitch. I have sympathy for the hitter, since if he's handicapped in any way (say dust or other distraction) he can end up in the hospital. I welcome any new rules about throwing to 1B that eliminate that excrutiating sequence of non-events and stalling tactics. Automated balls/strikes will move the game along and at least make it appear to be more fair. Electronic communicatons between the catcher and pitcher will also eliminate the annoying re-cycling of multiple signs and is almost mandatory with a pitch clock.

(Finally - baseball should have limits on the amount of artificial noise pumped into a ballpark - get off my lawn)
 

Spelunker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
11,862
On pace of play, you could just remove inning breaks all together and save 30-40 minutes (2-minutes for the actual breaks + whatever the additional ad time is after the break but before play resumes). Obviously it's a challenge for revenue purposes, but soccer is pretty popular and lucrative globally and they manage. There are plenty of places to insert unobtrusive advertising in the game without 2-3 minutes between every inning and pitching change.

Foul balls are also a problem, not because there are too many of them, but because it's roughly 30 seconds from the time a foul ball is hit until the next pitch is thrown. I watch every game on DVR and fast-forward after a foul ball is a go to move to watch games in 2 hours. If there's a possible play on the ball, fine, that's baseball happening. But when it's 30 rows deep or trickled way off the line, get in the box, get on the mound, get throwing.
Removing inning breaks (while not really doable because the teams need to switch fields anyway) would impact length, but not pace. It's not about making the game shorter, per se, it's about making it faster. The only real way to do that- and the closest thing baseball has to a magic bullet- is reducing time between pitches.

As others have mentioned, that also would likely have downstream effects leading to more balls-in-play, which would also be more interesting/fun.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
On pace of play, you could just remove inning breaks all together and save 30-40 minutes (2-minutes for the actual breaks + whatever the additional ad time is after the break but before play resumes). Obviously it's a challenge for revenue purposes, but soccer is pretty popular and lucrative globally and they manage. There are plenty of places to insert unobtrusive advertising in the game without 2-3 minutes between every inning and pitching change.
The inning breaks aren't really there for ads though. Sure they've gotten longer over the years to accommodate more TV ads, but those breaks have always existed for the teams to switch places and the pitcher to throw his warm-ups. You can't remove the breaks entirely, but they can probably be shortened further. They reduced the time a few years ago to 2 minutes for regular season games. 90 seconds might be as short as they can go, but even then you're only saving about 10 minutes.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
So if Ohtani was yanked for a pinch hitter in the 9th, could he still pitch the bottom of the 9th? I know that will never happen, but amuse me.

I think adding more 2 way players to the game would be a very good thing, though.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
8,469
New York City
I don't think there's any rule change that can "save" baseball. There has been a decline participation in organized team sports and baseball benefited the most from this pipeline, as the legacy sport, more than the NFL or others. (The NFL is successfully marketed as an event or show, rather than as an extension of an athletic activity you personally take part in.)

Until this is addressed, which is likely never, the perceived decline will continue. It's out of their hands.
I agree with a lot of the rule changes discussed in this thread but the above hits the nail on the head. IMO, baseball is losing popularity now for the simple reason that there are too many games. Think about the sports that are already either really popular, or growing in popularity - NFL, soccer, even F1 to a lesser extent. What do they all have in common? They occur at most once a week or so - as Strike4 says, they are weekly events, not a daily occurrence.

When people had fewer options on a weekday night, this wasn't an issue, but given the multitude of other options now there has to be some "game scarcity" for people to really set aside time to watch. Or, if baseball continues to want to put out a daily as opposed to weekly product, there would have to be a dramatic reduction in amount of time - I'm not talking about 3.5 hours to 3 hours, I'm talking about 3.5 hours to 2 hours or thereabouts (roughly the length of an NBA game). NFL games are longer, of course, but since they occur mostly on weekends and only on weekends people are more willing to devote that extra hour to them.

So at some point in the future, I think one or more of the following will need to happen:
  1. Baseball dramatically cuts the number of games that get played. Something like one 3-game series each week from Friday to Sunday.
  2. Baseball dramatically cuts down the time a game lasts, which could probably only happen by reducing the number of innings from 9 to 6 or something like that.
  3. Baseball accepts its status as a niche sport along the lines of golf and hockey.
I think #3 is the only realistic outcome in the short term, but if interest ever drops to the level where the owners think they could make more money by reducing number of games/number of innings they will at least have to consider it. To be clear, I'm not suggesting these are changes that are going to happen anytime soon, I just think they are ultimately inevitable further down the road.
 

Phil Plantier

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 7, 2002
3,419
Unless I'm at the ballpark, it's rarer and rarer that I'll actually "watch" the entire game...but I still feel just as connected to what's happening inning to inning.
Or, if baseball continues to want to put out a daily as opposed to weekly product, there would have to be a dramatic reduction in amount of time - I'm not talking about 3.5 hours to 3 hours, I'm talking about 3.5 hours to 2 hours or thereabouts (roughly the length of an NBA game). NFL games are longer, of course, but since they occur mostly on weekends and only on weekends people are more willing to devote that extra hour to them.

So at some point in the future, I think one or more of the following will need to happen:
  1. Baseball dramatically cuts the number of games that get played. Something like one 3-game series each week from Friday to Sunday.
  2. Baseball dramatically cuts down the time a game lasts, which could probably only happen by reducing the number of innings from 9 to 6 or something like that.
  3. Baseball accepts its status as a niche sport along the lines of golf and hockey.
I think about the success of Twenty20 cricket, something that reduced game time from [some long period of time, I don't know anything about cricket] to 3 hours. I wonder: if baseball games were 3 innings long, what would happen?
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,840
I hadn't heard of this one. Any details on how stealing first works? Pretty interesting as a theory.
Basically it means you can take off for first on a passed ball or wild pitch--any ball not caught cleanly by catcher.

 

Import78

Member
SoSH Member
May 29, 2007
2,091
West Lebanon, NH
I think games should be easier to access, rule changes, especially limiting the dead time will help, but I'm a sox fan in NH. I don't have cable, and its a 2+ hour drive to a game. I'm blacked out of any way to watch the games except paying for an expensive monthly cable/online package that I wouldn't use for anything else. I like the sox, but $70+ a month to watch them isn't going to happen.

I make do with radio (also sometimes difficult because of blackouts/poor reception, and I don't actually own a radio anymore so this is really a car only option) and internet highlights, I used to watch 100+ games a year, go to a couple and pay a lot more attention. The last several years I just haven't been able to because it's such a pain. As a result my son never got interested and now focuses on other things.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
I think about the success of Twenty20 cricket, something that reduced game time from [some long period of time, I don't know anything about cricket] to 3 hours. I wonder: if baseball games were 3 innings long, what would happen?
A lot of extra inning games?

The object of cricket is to score as many runs as possible before all of your batters (10 in all) are put out, while trying to put out the other team's batters before they can outscore you. Baseball's effectively the same...score more runs than your opponent before 27 outs are recorded. How Twenty20 cricket changed things is by putting a limit on the number of pitches thrown in the game regardless of how many outs are recorded. Each side gets a maximum of 120 pitches (divided into 20 6-pitch intervals called overs, hence Twenty20) to score their runs or record their outs.

The baseball equivalent would probably have to be a limit of the number of pitches thrown by each team rather than limiting innings. The biggest change seen in Twenty20 versus traditional cricket is batters tend to more aggressively swing for the fences. When you have unlimited pitches, as long as you don't make an out, you can keep scoring on little dinker hits all day long. With the limit, they go more for the auto four (over the boundary on a bounce) and six (over the boundary in the air) run hits. Maybe baseball would have to tie a pitch limit to strikes (or penalize balls more) in order to encourage more offense.
 

Phil Plantier

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 7, 2002
3,419
A lot of extra inning games?

The object of cricket is to score as many runs as possible before all of your batters (10 in all) are put out, while trying to put out the other team's batters before they can outscore you. Baseball's effectively the same...score more runs than your opponent before 27 outs are recorded. How Twenty20 cricket changed things is by putting a limit on the number of pitches thrown in the game regardless of how many outs are recorded. Each side gets a maximum of 120 pitches (divided into 20 6-pitch intervals called overs, hence Twenty20) to score their runs or record their outs.

The baseball equivalent would probably have to be a limit of the number of pitches thrown by each team rather than limiting innings. The biggest change seen in Twenty20 versus traditional cricket is batters tend to more aggressively swing for the fences. When you have unlimited pitches, as long as you don't make an out, you can keep scoring on little dinker hits all day long. With the limit, they go more for the auto four (over the boundary on a bounce) and six (over the boundary in the air) run hits. Maybe baseball would have to tie a pitch limit to strikes (or penalize balls more) in order to encourage more offense.
Thanks, that makes a lot more sense. My broader point is that I don't think the kinds of things discussed, even a pitch clock, are going to restore a large chunk of the fanbase.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,921
Baseball is the only sport where those in charge of continuously talk about how long and boring the games are, and then act surprised when fans say the games are long and boring? Baseball leaders should do a better job of actually promoting the game and those who play it and what makes it great. If they are going to make changes, just make them instead of debating them endlessly. They also need to stop obsessing over trying to appeal to the people who don’t actually like baseball. There’s a lot of people who do- it has the #2 most fans of any US sports property for a reason.
 

BornToRun

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 4, 2011
17,312
Baseball is the only sport where those in charge of continuously talk about how long and boring the games are, and then act surprised when fans say the games are long and boring? Baseball leaders should do a better job of actually promoting the game and those who play it and what makes it great. If they are going to make changes, just make them instead of debating them endlessly. They also need to stop obsessing over trying to appeal to the people who don’t actually like baseball. There’s a lot of people who do- it has the #2 most fans of any US sports property for a reason.
Pitch clock and I grew to like the extra innings man on second. That’s it. Stop moaning about ”three true outcomes” and how boring it all is and stop screwing with the sport I love. It’s deliberate and slow paced with tension that builds up over time often before leading to incredible single moments.