Extra Innings Rule

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,687
Miami (oh, Miami!)
• An extra-innings rule will begin each extra inning with a runner on second base. The batter (or a substitute for the batter) who leads off an inning shall continue to be the batter who would lead off the inning in the absence of this extra-innings rule.
• The runner placed on second base at the start of each half-inning shall be the player (or a substitute for such player) in the batting order immediately preceding that half-inning’s leadoff hitter. By way of example, if the number five hitter in the batting order is due to lead off the tenth inning, the number four player in the batting order (or a pinchrunner for such player) shall begin the inning on second base. However, if the player in the batting order immediately preceding that half-inning’s leadoff hitter is the pitcher, the runner placed on second base at the start of that half-inning may be the player preceding the pitcher in the batting order. Any runner or batter removed from the game for a substitute shall be ineligible to return to the game, as is the case in all circumstances under the OBR.
• For purposes of calculating earned runs, the runner who begins an inning on second base pursuant to this rule shall be deemed to be a runner who has reached second base because of a fielding error, but no error shall be charged to the opposing team or to any player.
What do we think an optimal strategy should be with the bullpen and pinch hitters/runners?

Cora seemed to burn through the bench pretty quickly - is this the right approach?
 

bosockboy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
19,863
St. Louis, MO
The rule is growing on me.

I think you need to be cognizant of saving a strikeout pitcher when your opponent will have a runner on 2nd that can either tie or win a game.
Barnes is the ideal pitcher for us in this scenario.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Probably not what you're looking for, but wouldn't the strategy be mostly the same as it would be if you were faced with the same situation in the ninth inning of a tied game? At that stage of the game you're always at the mercy of roster decisions made earlier in the game. The idea that the game might be over with sooner rather than later might influence decisions, so some managers might be inclined to empty the bench and pen sooner rather than later, but is that more a result of the game being on the line sooner rather than being premature? Would the home team have any sort of advantage in knowing that if the other team scores they will have a man in is scoring position with no one out? I'm mostly thinking out loud here.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
What do we think an optimal strategy should be with the bullpen and pinch hitters/runners?

Cora seemed to burn through the bench pretty quickly - is this the right approach?
I thought he handled it pretty well given he only had a two man bench in the first place (assuming Renfroe was unavailable even in an emergency). Having the top of the order up was the right time to be aggressive and upgrade the free runner, and it paid off. Ideally, Cora's working with a 4 or 5 men bench later in the year so he has a bit more flexibility if it comes to extra innings.

Pitching-wise, I think he did it right again. I don't like the idea of saving your best pitcher/closer for a lead you might never get, so using Barnes in the ninth worked for me. Andriese wouldn't have been my first choice for the save but he's arguably the most experienced guy left at that point.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,687
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Probably not what you're looking for, but wouldn't the strategy be mostly the same as it would be if you were faced with the same situation in the ninth inning of a tied game?
In a way, but with a runner in scoring position, each team could advance them to third with one out, and then have a chance to sacrifice fly the run in. I don't know how that breaks down percentage wise, but it seems that you'd want to either pitch to negate your opponent doing that, and/or try to score more than one run yourself. (It's not like you can use a "pitch to contact" guy for a couple of innings.)

Compare their first game this year with extras to the second (and look at those win probability charts - I don't know if the math is correct but it looks volatile to me.)

https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/BOS/BOS202104060.shtml

https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/BAL/BAL202104100.shtml


(PS - thinking out loud is all I'm looking for. :))
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,687
Miami (oh, Miami!)
I thought he handled it pretty well given he only had a two man bench in the first place (assuming Renfroe was unavailable even in an emergency). Having the top of the order up was the right time to be aggressive and upgrade the free runner, and it paid off. Ideally, Cora's working with a 4 or 5 men bench later in the year so he has a bit more flexibility if it comes to extra innings.

Pitching-wise, I think he did it right again. I don't like the idea of saving your best pitcher/closer for a lead you might never get, so using Barnes in the ninth worked for me. Andriese wouldn't have been my first choice for the save but he's arguably the most experienced guy left at that point.
I agree on both these points, broadly re: Cora's choices last night. I'm thinking more of a situation where you're tied in the 7th or 8th. . .what might one want to do generally to plan ahead? (Assuming that we identify some better-than-random way to approach extra innings.)
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
I agree on both these points, broadly re: Cora's choices last night. I'm thinking more of a situation where you're tied in the 7th or 8th. . .what might one want to do generally to plan ahead? (Assuming that we identify some better-than-random way to approach extra innings.)
I don't know if there's a generic best strategy to it because it is dependent on so many variables: who's on your bench, who's available in your pen, who's available for the opponent's bench/bullpen, etc.

I mean, if it's tied in the 7th, and I've got 8-9-1 due up, and the first guy gets on, I'd consider pinch hitting for my #9 hitter if I think I've got a better match-up on the bench. Maybe I can get the run home right there, maybe I can get two runners on for the top of the order. I think I'd play for the run and the big inning right there rather than hold out my best bench bat on the off-chance we need him in the 10th or 11th. Basically the same principle as not saving my best reliever or closer for extra innings. Use your resources in the best way you can to win the game when the opportunity presents itself.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,878
Boston, MA
All strategy has to flow from assuming that the home team is always going to score in the bottom of the inning. The visiting team has to do everything they can to get the automatic runner in, and if they happen to score a second one, so much the better. Both teams should use their best remaining strikeout pitchers as quickly as possible to try to stop the automatic runner from coming in, but that seems to be a natural bullpen usage these days anyway.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
22,774
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
the only change I would like to see is to allow the home team, based on who is coming up, to choose whether to go first or second each extra inning. There may be times it’s more advantageous to let the road team be the one having to tie or go home
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
the only change I would like to see is to allow the home team, based on who is coming up, to choose whether to go first or second each extra inning. There may be times it’s more advantageous to let the road team be the one having to tie or go home
I'm not sure I follow you. Are you suggesting the home team make that decision for the road team? Doesn't that steer the rule in the direction of influencing the game.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
22,774
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
I'm not sure I follow you. Are you suggesting the home team make that decision for the road team? Doesn't that steer the rule in the direction of influencing the game.
Maybe I am thinking too much on this.

There is a perceived advantage for the home team to go 2nd, right?

But it feels like given the relative ease of scoring from 2nd, it dramatically increases the chance that the home team will enter their half of the inning down a run and now with the pressure on them to tie, which has the potential to nullify that advantage. If the intent of the home team batting 2nd is to give them the "advantage" of last licks, and it bears out that the odds of scoring are high enough that it lends to the home team much more often than previously being down, I'm just thinking out loud about how to restore the perceived home field advantage.

As I am talking this out I think its probably not a fully baked idea. I feel like its 2/3 logical but the other 1/3 is probably bogus.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Maybe I am thinking too much on this.

There is a perceived advantage for the home team to go 2nd, right?

But it feels like given the relative ease of scoring from 2nd, it dramatically increases the chance that the home team will enter their half of the inning down a run and now with the pressure on them to tie, which has the potential to nullify that advantage. If the intent of the home team batting 2nd is to give them the "advantage" of last licks, and it bears out that the odds of scoring are high enough that it lends to the home team much more often than previously being down, I'm just thinking out loud about how to restore the perceived home field advantage.

As I am talking this out I think its probably not a fully baked idea. I feel like its 2/3 logical but the other 1/3 is probably bogus.
If the pressure on hitting in the bottom of the inning is a potential disadvantage, doesn't it apply to the 9th inning of every game in which the team is trailing, let alone extras? I would think if that were the case, the home team would want to be able to choose hitting first or last for each game, not just default to batting last.
 
@bsj I think hitting last is clearly advantageous. The ability to know what you have to do to win far outweighs any pressure from being down a run. As others have alluded to upthread, there are distinct strategies that teams might employ depending on how much they need to score. It's hard to commit to a sacrifice plan when you don't know how many runs you will need to win. But if you do know that you only need one run to win in the bottom and you have the right players available you can then execute a very high percentage plan to win the game. Running this strategy in the top of the inning is much more risky as it will dramatically reduce the odds of scoring more than one run.

Basically, if you are hitting in the top of the inning you are probably forced to just try and score as much as you can. But if you go second then you get to optimize your strategy to a fixed known goal.

Regarding the general thread topic I think it's almost always if not always going to be the best strategy to try to win in regulation even if that means being at some disadvantage if the game goes to extras. Reducing your odds of a sure win in order to improve the odds in a hypothetical future scenario that very well may not happen seems no better under these rules than it did under the classic ruleset.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,687
Miami (oh, Miami!)
Regarding the general thread topic I think it's almost always if not always going to be the best strategy to try to win in regulation even if that means being at some disadvantage if the game goes to extras. Reducing your odds of a sure win in order to improve the odds in a hypothetical future scenario that very well may not happen seems no better under these rules than it did under the classic ruleset.
Well, it might more be a matter of putting in your "pitch to contact" guy with a slightly unfavorable split in the 9th, and so reserving your "strikeout" guy for the 10th, especially if you think your team might not be scoring in the 9th, but has a decent chance of bringing in a man from second.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Well, it might more be a matter of putting in your "pitch to contact" guy with a slightly unfavorable split in the 9th, and so reserving your "strikeout" guy for the 10th, especially if you think your team might not be scoring in the 9th, but has a decent chance of bringing in a man from second.
It's a tough call mostly dependent on whether or not you're the home team. If you're the road team, then pitching the ninth in a tie means you have to shut them down to get another chance at bat. In which case, you probably want to go with the pitcher most likely to get the shut down inning to ensure you get to the 10th (like Cora did last night using Barnes in the 9th). If you're at home, no matter who you use on the mound in the ninth, you're going to have at least one more chance at the plate. So using the contact guy in the ninth and saving the strikeout guy for the 10th might be the better play. Also, you would still have the ability to bring in that strikeout guy if the contact pitcher gets into trouble.
 
Well, it might more be a matter of putting in your "pitch to contact" guy with a slightly unfavorable split in the 9th, and so reserving your "strikeout" guy for the 10th, especially if you think your team might not be scoring in the 9th, but has a decent chance of bringing in a man from second.
Yes, I do think you are right about this although I think it's perhaps more of an edge case than one might initially think. If you happen to have two relievers who are basically equivalent in terms of likelihood of giving up runs, but one is a strikeout guy and the other a contact guy, then yes you probably save the former in case of extras.

I don't think this situation will come up very often though. Between rest and situational factors like matchups I doubt teams will have two equal guys with different outcome profiles all that often.

And in the case where they aren't equal, I'd stick to trying to win in 9 and put my best pitcher out there even if it means using my best strikeout thrower.
 

brs3

sings praises of pinstripes
SoSH Member
May 20, 2008
5,200
Jackson Heights, NYC
I read somewhere(SI maybe?) that this rule will not be used in the postseason. I have a big problem with that. If it's okay for the regular season. why isn't it okay for the postseason? They really should be consistent.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,440
I read somewhere(SI maybe?) that this rule will not be used in the postseason. I have a big problem with that. If it's okay for the regular season. why isn't it okay for the postseason? They really should be consistent.
Ad revenue
 

jon abbey

Shanghai Warrior
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
70,715
I read somewhere(SI maybe?) that this rule will not be used in the postseason. I have a big problem with that. If it's okay for the regular season. why isn't it okay for the postseason? They really should be consistent.
Hockey has long played ties in the regular season and played until there is a winner in the playoffs, seems fine to me.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
32,620
I read somewhere(SI maybe?) that this rule will not be used in the postseason. I have a big problem with that. If it's okay for the regular season. why isn't it okay for the postseason? They really should be consistent.

Because a regular season game is less important. This isn’t rocket surgery
 

brs3

sings praises of pinstripes
SoSH Member
May 20, 2008
5,200
Jackson Heights, NYC
Because a regular season game is less important. This isn’t rocket surgery
Is there any other rule that exists in the postseason that doesn't exist in the regular season? Why not use it in the postseason?

edit: I know the reason is the 'more important' postseason, but I find it unnecessary. Long extra innings games aren't the problem with baseball. Less than 5% of games in 2019 went beyond the 11th inning. They're fixing a thing that isn't broken.
 
Last edited:

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
32,620
Is there any other rule that exists in the postseason that doesn't exist in the regular season? Why not use it in the postseason?

edit: I know the reason is the 'more important' postseason, but I find it unnecessary. Long extra innings games aren't the problem with baseball. Less than 5% of games in 2019 went beyond the 11th inning. They're fixing a thing that isn't broken.
Posted prior to reading edit:
I think you’re posing rhetorical questions you know the answer to. It is ok to simply say you don’t like the rule and its implementation instead of pretending you don’t know the arguments in favor of the rule.

I cannot get that worked up about the rule either way. I prefer traditional but don’t mind the experimentation.
 

The Raccoon

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 24, 2018
935
Germany
Is there any other rule that exists in the postseason that doesn't exist in the regular season? Why not use it in the postseason?

edit: I know the reason is the 'more important' postseason, but I find it unnecessary. Long extra innings games aren't the problem with baseball. Less than 5% of games in 2019 went beyond the 11th inning. They're fixing a thing that isn't broken.
Postseason is already different to the 162 games before: Much more off days, 2 additional umps, an additional challenge...

It is not unusual to have different rules regarding ties in the KO-stage in other sports. Hockey has been brought up, also soccer (no ties anymore), NFL (no ties) etc.

I'm not saying, I'm a huge fan of this new rule, but this is not the part I have a problem with.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
The new extra inning rule has grown on me to the point where I actually like it, but not sticking during the playoffs seems a bit disingenuous. They have to play the games out to completion because they are more important, yet a one game wild card game is deemed exciting when every other match up during the post season is played out in series format.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,687
Miami (oh, Miami!)
I don't think this situation will come up very often though. Between rest and situational factors like matchups I doubt teams will have two equal guys with different outcome profiles all that often.
True, but the point is to identify what we can in terms of strategy and choices, rather than saying "Oh, it's probably all good."
 

HriniakPosterChild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 6, 2006
14,841
500 feet above Lake Sammammish
Is there any other rule that exists in the postseason that doesn't exist in the regular season? Why not use it in the postseason?
In the regular season, a game is official after 5 innings.

Postseason games will be delayed by bad weather and finished later if 9 innings are not completed.

There was no rule for this in the Philly/Tampa Bay World Series, so Selig was prepared to make one up on the spot. They edited the rule book later.
"There is no way I would have let a World Series game end that way," said Commissioner Bud Selig, who was on hand for the game, fretting nervously about the bad weather. "I would have delayed it till Thanksgiving if I had to."
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
In the regular season, a game is official after 5 innings.

Postseason games will be delayed by bad weather and finished later if 9 innings are not completed.

There was no rule for this in the Philly/Tampa Bay World Series, so Selig was prepared to make one up on the spot. They edited the rule book later.
Is that the case anymore? The Mets-Marlins game that was postponed by rain yesterday is going to be resumed in August. The game was stopped in the top of the first inning. Used to be a game like that would have been started over when it was made up.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
Is that the case anymore? The Mets-Marlins game that was postponed by rain yesterday is going to be resumed in August. The game was stopped in the top of the first inning. Used to be a game like that would have been started over when it was made up.
Yes, that whole situation was bizarre. I don't recall games being resumed at that point in the past. Is there a provision to the new 7 inning double header rule that games started will be completed as regulation 9 inning contest? If so I'm not sure why it would matter.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
Fun, or simply assuring that a tied game won't go on forever and ever?

I'm no fan of these rules, but I understand the motivation behind them and why Cora would propose something like he did. I bet a lot of managers are torn between wanting to win an extra inning game and not wanting to blow out their pitching staff as the game drags into the 13th or 15th inning.
 

VORP Speed

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
6,633
Ground Zero
Fun, or simply assuring that a tied game won't go on forever and ever?

I'm no fan of these rules, but I understand the motivation behind them and why Cora would propose something like he did. I bet a lot of managers are torn between wanting to win an extra inning game and not wanting to blow out their pitching staff as the game drags into the 13th or 15th inning.
I doubt managers are torn, because the rule doesn’t advantage one team over the other. It universally benefits managers and players and umpires to get games over with quicker.
 

Sin Duda

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
818
(B)Austin Texas
I'd think that the smarties the Red Sox have at Manager and President will figure out a way to maintain an advantage in these situations, e.g. leveraging data for the 3B stealing success for every pitcher-catcher combination they face (I know that's not very smart, it's an example and I don't work for the Sox). Or knowing the history of the percentage of time the visitors score with a runner at 2B and no outs in extras. It will be telling when we see the Red Sox' extra innings record in 5 years.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
I doubt managers are torn, because the rule doesn’t advantage one team over the other. It universally benefits managers and players and umpires to get games over with quicker.
I meant torn while in the midst of an extra inning game, i.e. torn between trying to win that game no matter what it takes vs sacrificing one game to preserve the pitching staff for the next X games. I think they all prefer the extra runners rule to burning out their staff.