Empirical evidence regarding MILB rule changes & the length of games

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,278
https://www.mlb.com/news/abs-system-pitch-timer-bigger-bases-tested-triple-a
MLB has a pretty good writeup here about the rule changes being tested in the most minors

Re the ABS challenge system; How it works: In the challenge system, the home-plate umpire calls balls and strikes in the traditional manner, but teams can appeal to the Hawk-Eye “robot ump” on certain calls they deem to be incorrect.
The video in the above article notes that the only people who can challenge the balls and strikes are the BATTER, CATCHER & PITCHER.

the manager cannot challenge the balls and strikes but many managers are barring the pitcher from being the one to challenge the call and leaving it up to the catcher (given that many pitchers think everything is a strike and would waste the challenges on calls that were correct)

The pitch timer and enlarged bases are also explained in the article linked above

now regarding the pace of play and its impact on the length of games
MLB network did a segment on this today during MLB Tonight
(See the full segment below)
https://www.mlb.com/video/00u7m87mcjVtEhScn356/reels/pace-of-this-play

They key point is this chart below comparing multiple aspects of MILB games from last year vs this year

both the article and video linked above are well worth a watch/read when you have the time
 
Last edited:

czar

fanboy
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
4,312
Ann Arbor
The fact that this is getting so much traction recently (MLB Network even broadcast a minor league game seemingly with the sole purpose of discussing the rule changes for 2 hours) seems to imply many of these are coming to MLB ASAP.

The stat analysis is useful. Interestingly, one of the hypotheses re: the pitch clock was that it would reduce pitch velocity and K% because pitchers wouldn't have as much time to recover to max effort between pitches. This would at least disprove that hypothesis, if not imply the outcome could be slightly worse for batters (although I probably wouldn't read into year-to-year variations of 1% in K% even across an entire league).

I'm quite bullish on said changes -- one of the most obvious issues regarding length of game remains increased commercial breaks but obviously that's a non-starter from a revenue standpoint, so I'll take what I can get.
 

CoffeeNerdness

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2012
8,718
All told, the challenge system played out as advertised -- adding a strategic and entertaining element that does not exist with traditional umpiring, while retaining the art of calling balls and strikes and the art of catcher pitch-framing.

“It has a strategic element, and a lot of that falls on the players, which is interesting because you have to understand the game situation,” Epstein said. “Obviously, a pitch might be really important to you, but if it's a nothing-nothing game in the second inning, it's not quite as important as big picture of saving it for later in the game when you may really need it. It promotes a team approach with how you use your challenges and intelligent decision-making. And it also promotes accountability for the players on the field and for the umpires, as well.”
Seems like a half-measure designed to appease the precious umpires and "human element" fans. If you can get all the calls right, get'em right.

This system also creates a new lane for teams that may be prone to skirting rules. If the dugout has access to a game feed w/ a robo zone they could win 100% of their challenges (lose a couple here and there to obfuscate the cheating) if they set up a system where the batter, catcher, or pitcher could be signaled in time to challenge a pitch. After the trash can debacle, anything is possible.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,770
Pittsburgh, PA
The fact that this is getting so much traction recently (MLB Network even broadcast a minor league game seemingly with the sole purpose of discussing the rule changes for 2 hours) seems to imply many of these are coming to MLB ASAP.

The stat analysis is useful. Interestingly, one of the hypotheses re: the pitch clock was that it would reduce pitch velocity and K% because pitchers wouldn't have as much time to recover to max effort between pitches. This would at least disprove that hypothesis, if not imply the outcome could be slightly worse for batters (although I probably wouldn't read into year-to-year variations of 1% in K% even across an entire league).

I'm quite bullish on said changes -- one of the most obvious issues regarding length of game remains increased commercial breaks but obviously that's a non-starter from a revenue standpoint, so I'll take what I can get.
I'm bullish as well, and particularly so on the pitch clock. There's two competing effects: the pitcher not having as much recovery time between pitches, but also the batter not being able to step out and either reset the pitcher's concentration, or better prepare for what he thinks is coming. If the batter has to keep his ass in the box, it's not clear to me which side has a net advantage from the change, or even whether there is one.

And I would suspect, or call it a hope, that if indeed pitchers have less pitch velocity, that it would lead to some % of fewer injuries. Maybe that's a non-factor and most of what causes ligament damage is breaking balls or something, it's not something I know much about. But there's at least a chance, and that alone would make it worth trying.

Seems like a half-measure designed to appease the precious umpires and "human element" fans. If you can get all the calls right, get'em right.
It's a half-measure that will build acceptance for the authoritativeness of the automated calls. Get people used to the challenge process, and it'll be a lot easier to get them to trust it going fully-automated in the future.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,406
around the way
It's a half-measure that will build acceptance for the authoritativeness of the automated calls. Get people used to the challenge process, and it'll be a lot easier to get them to trust it going fully-automated in the future.
Love this approach. People clearly have to get used to the idea, because of the "human element" lobby.

FWIW, the first Wimbledon was 1877. A lot of people here are old enough to remember McEnroe yelling at chair ups and linespeople. I suppose that there's some perverse joy in watching ups screw up, but I'll never understand why anyone has a problem with getting the calls right. Tennis today doesn't have any of that line call nonsense, and everyone loves it. We'll always need base ups, humans to call catcher interference and tag plays and make other judgment calls. The computer is already better at strike/ball though. Let's phase that in.
 
Last edited:

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
16,725
I love the pitch clock. I've been to a couple minor league games this year, and the pace of play is SO much better because of the clock.

I hate the stupid challenge rule. More challenges make games worse, not better. Even though these challenges won't individually take that long, there will be up to 6 of them in each game. That will needlessly slow things down.

Any game that ends on a called third strike will likely have a challenge-- "Struck him out! Yes, we win!! Dirty Wa.... Oh wait, there's a challenge... did we win? Is the game over? Can we celebrate yet? Let's all look at a replay a few more times. Wait ten more seconds... okay, looks like we did win after all, hooray."

More importantly, it's stupid to be charged with a challenge if you are RIGHT and the call was missed. If they have to have challenges, then you should be allowed only ONE missed challenge per game, but get as many as you need as long as you are right and the call was missed each time. If the call was wrong and you were right, why should you lose an opportunity to challenge the next bad call?

Used 3 challenges and been right each time because the ump is terrible? Well guess what, if he keeps missing calls against you after that, there's nothing you can do about it.

The better system would be to not have challenges and give umps an earpiece that signals when a pitch hits the zone. Then use that to crack down on umps that don't call the correct zone. The good umps will end up calling it as signaled almost every time. The terrible umps will need to do that too, or there will be data that they should use to replace them.
 

jose melendez

Earl of Acie
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2003
30,975
Geneva, Switzerland
In general, I hate the introduction of clocks into the wonderful clockless game.... but we need it. Watching a guy take 30 seconds between pitches is just excruciating and completely unnecessary. Ideally, I'd lock the clock to be unnoticeable to fans, but anything that keeps games under 3 hours is the way to go.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,770
Pittsburgh, PA
In general, I hate the introduction of clocks into the wonderful clockless game.... but we need it. Watching a guy take 30 seconds between pitches is just excruciating and completely unnecessary. Ideally, I'd lock the clock to be unnoticeable to fans, but anything that keeps games under 3 hours is the way to go.
Note the affordance given to situations with higher drama and potential: "Between pitches, there is a 14-second timer with the bases empty and a 19-second timer (18 seconds at the Double-A level and lower) with runners on base."

I could see the latter being largely abandoned for playoff games or moments of high tension. Like, perhaps the ump should be able to have the clock turned off for key at-bats in the game, at his discretion. Might add a bit of signaling to the audience, too - look guys, everyone agrees that the next thing that happens is really important.

I also think this aspect is just as important as the rules for pitchers:

- The batter must be in the batter's box and "alert to the pitcher" with at least 9 seconds remaining [on the pitch clock]
- Batters are permitted to request "time" once per plate appearance

Music to my cranky, aging ears.
 

MetSox1

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2007
719
I love the pitch clock. I've been to a couple minor league games this year, and the pace of play is SO much better because of the clock.

I hate the stupid challenge rule. More challenges make games worse, not better. Even though these challenges won't individually take that long, there will be up to 6 of them in each game. That will needlessly slow things down.

Any game that ends on a called third strike will likely have a challenge-- "Struck him out! Yes, we win!! Dirty Wa.... Oh wait, there's a challenge... did we win? Is the game over? Can we celebrate yet? Let's all look at a replay a few more times. Wait ten more seconds... okay, looks like we did win after all, hooray."

More importantly, it's stupid to be charged with a challenge if you are RIGHT and the call was missed. If they have to have challenges, then you should be allowed only ONE missed challenge per game, but get as many as you need as long as you are right and the call was missed each time. If the call was wrong and you were right, why should you lose an opportunity to challenge the next bad call?

Used 3 challenges and been right each time because the ump is terrible? Well guess what, if he keeps missing calls against you after that, there's nothing you can do about it.

The better system would be to not have challenges and give umps an earpiece that signals when a pitch hits the zone. Then use that to crack down on umps that don't call the correct zone. The good umps will end up calling it as signaled almost every time. The terrible umps will need to do that too, or there will be data that they should use to replace them.
You have to limit the challenges, even the successful. We can't have 5 hour games with Angel behind the dish.
 

effectivelywild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
466
I love the pitch clock. I've been to a couple minor league games this year, and the pace of play is SO much better because of the clock.

I hate the stupid challenge rule. More challenges make games worse, not better. Even though these challenges won't individually take that long, there will be up to 6 of them in each game. That will needlessly slow things down.

Any game that ends on a called third strike will likely have a challenge-- "Struck him out! Yes, we win!! Dirty Wa.... Oh wait, there's a challenge... did we win? Is the game over? Can we celebrate yet? Let's all look at a replay a few more times. Wait ten more seconds... okay, looks like we did win after all, hooray."

More importantly, it's stupid to be charged with a challenge if you are RIGHT and the call was missed. If they have to have challenges, then you should be allowed only ONE missed challenge per game, but get as many as you need as long as you are right and the call was missed each time. If the call was wrong and you were right, why should you lose an opportunity to challenge the next bad call?

Used 3 challenges and been right each time because the ump is terrible? Well guess what, if he keeps missing calls against you after that, there's nothing you can do about it.

The better system would be to not have challenges and give umps an earpiece that signals when a pitch hits the zone. Then use that to crack down on umps that don't call the correct zone. The good umps will end up calling it as signaled almost every time. The terrible umps will need to do that too, or there will be data that they should use to replace them.
I believe that you do not "lose" a challenge if it is successful. Per the article:
"• Each club starts the game with three challenges.
• A correct challenge is retained; an incorrect challenge is lost. "

It may differ at the MLB level but my read is that if you correctly challenge an incorrect ball/strike call, it doesn't cost you one of the three challenges. As a result, you can have as many "correct" challenges as you want until you have had three incorrect ones.
 

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
16,725
I believe that you do not "lose" a challenge if it is successful. Per the article:
"• Each club starts the game with three challenges.
• A correct challenge is retained; an incorrect challenge is lost. "

It may differ at the MLB level but my read is that if you correctly challenge an incorrect ball/strike call, it doesn't cost you one of the three challenges. As a result, you can have as many "correct" challenges as you want until you have had three incorrect ones.
Thank you, that would be a much better rule!
 

AlNipper49

Huge Member
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 3, 2001
44,855
Mtigawi
In general, I hate the introduction of clocks into the wonderful clockless game.... but we need it. Watching a guy take 30 seconds between pitches is just excruciating and completely unnecessary. Ideally, I'd lock the clock to be unnoticeable to fans, but anything that keeps games under 3 hours is the way to go.
Funny enough I agree with you in theory. In practice it makes it way better. Not only does it move along but the existence of the clock gives (a very small bit) of excitement to an otherwise really boring moment in the game. I have never seen one expire, so this may just be a passing bit of fun once the reality of it never being hit becomes more of a certainty.... but for now it's kinda fun
 

SocrManiac

Tommy Seebach’s mustache
SoSH Member
Apr 15, 2006
8,634
Somers, CT
I stopped watching baseball when my first kid was born. I couldn’t stay up late enough to see a meaningful number of games finish, and it’s difficult to stay invested just reading the score in the morning.

I think I could be sucked back in with the shorter game and the possibility of hearing Dirty Water at Fenway again.

I have no romantic ideas about the human element. At the professional level, the correct call is far more important to me than tradition. I want to see players decide games, and something as simple as a single blown strike call can change the outcome. Coupled with an uptick in celebrity umpires (we should never know their names) and I’m done with them. Fully automate and be done with it. There’s no competitive rationale to have a somebody not on one of the teams influence the outcome.
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,401
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
Love love love the pitch clock. The thing is, in two years it won’t even be necessary as everyone will be used to the new rhythm of the game. 26 minutes in the minors .. has to be 30+ in the bigs due to all the grandstanding.

Like the challenges too. Although three seems kind of excessive. I suppose they would alway want to keep one in the bank so it’s effectively two - which is enough if you want to waste a borderline one in an important game situation.

Giddyup.
 

OCST

Sunny von Bulow
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
24,483
The 718
I stopped watching baseball when my first kid was born. I couldn’t stay up late enough to see a meaningful number of games finish, and it’s difficult to stay invested just reading the score in the morning.
Yup, and that's how I became a Premier League fan - taking care of the baby while my wife slept in on Saturday mornings, what sports are on at 8am on a Saturday? Well, there's this...

And tbh it's user-friendly because the game is over in two hours (unless some weirdo anti-capitalist protester zip-ties himself to the goalpost or something).

MLB is borderline unwatchable start to finish at its current game length, and the NFL is getting there too with the challenges, etc.

I'd much rather the pitch clock than any changes to the game-play rules, because it just gets the game back to the way it was customarily played. I would guess that the time taken by pitchers and hitters both started to grow in the Moneyball era, as they adjusted their game to the data-driven approach (and as their salaries grew accordingly).
 
Last edited: