Pace of game rules in the AFL saved an average of 10 min off the game time

[geoduck no quahog]

Sorry, I'm just going to repeat myself.
 
If you think baseball is too boring, then you simply don't like baseball.
 
It has no clock. It's comprised of tiny bits of intense action spaced between longer bits of inaction.
 
It's essentially a one-on-one game, stuffed into a team. Every pitch holds the possibility of success or failure. There are 200+ pitches in a game.
 
It's played almost every day. You can recover from a bad game within 24 hours. You can listen to it on background radio at the beach. It can make a long summer drive enjoyable. 
 
It's not as subject to luck or whimsy as other major sports. The good and bad equal out over a long season until playoff races lead to some of the most exciting duels in sports.
 
You can eat hot dogs in the sun. You can talk to your wife or friends during a game. You can read a newspaper between innings. You can post in game threads.
 
I just don't get why all of a sudden the pace or length of a game is an issue. It seems to be more of an excuse for those who really don't like the game, or are in a hurry to get somewhere else.
 
 
{edit: And not to be just a complainer about what is a perfectly valid debate...I haven't heard a single idea for quickening the pace that doesn't have a major flaw...except for commercial breaks...which ain't gonna happen}

 

[mauidano]

Sorry, I'm just going to repeat myself.
 
If you think baseball is too boring, then you simply don't like baseball.
 
It has no clock. It's comprised of tiny bits of intense action spaced between longer bits of inaction.
 
It's essentially a one-on-one game, stuffed into a team. Every pitch holds the possibility of success or failure. There are 200+ pitches in a game.
 
It's played almost every day. You can recover from a bad game within 24 hours. You can listen to it on background radio at the beach. It can make a long summer drive enjoyable. 
 
It's not as subject to luck or whimsy as other major sports. The good and bad equal out over a long season until playoff races lead to some of the most exciting duels in sports.
 
You can eat hot dogs in the sun. You can talk to your wife or friends during a game. You can read a newspaper between innings. You can post in game threads.
 
I just don't get why all of a sudden the pace or length of a game is an issue. It seems to be more of an excuse for those who really don't like the game, or are in a hurry to get somewhere else.
 
 
{edit: And not to be just a complainer about what is a perfectly valid debate...I haven't heard a single idea for quickening the pace that doesn't have a major flaw...except for commercial breaks...which ain't gonna happen}

I like this quahog.  baseball is one of those games that can be on TV or radio even as background and enjoyable.  Your trained brain knows what and when to pay attention.  I still listen to the Sox games on the radio frequently in the car.

 

[vintage'67]

From Sumner:  "The biggest problem with baseball is that it isn't football.  The average football game has less than half as many plays, last longer, and has more time between plays than the average baseball game, but it's far less frequent that you hear people complain about the pace of play.  The difference?  More people are football fans, so watching the replay from 3 different angles is "fun" and they put up with touchdown, commercial, PAT, commercial, kickoff, commercial without thinking twice about it.  They're not baseball fans, so watching the replay between pitches is "boring" and they complain about it."  
 
I think this is starting to explain why I find the comparisons to football in this thread to miss the point.  I think more people find a typical football play exciting than many baseball plays.  There are a lot of plays in baseball that just are not interesting to many people--a called strike , a ball, even a swinging strike.  Also, many times when a hitter makes contact, the play is routine. You have enough at bats where you have 2-3 balls, a called strike, a swinging strike and/or a foul ball (maybe dribbler well foul), all while the batter adjusts his gloves after every pitch and the pitcher wanders around the mound, all for a can of corn or a routine grounder to the infield.   Maybe too many people don't have the knowledge, acumen, attention span, etc. to recognize different pitches, pitching patterns etc.  In contrast, in football, you've got the linemen clashing on every play, plus a pass attempt or the rushing attempt.  Many plays result in a tackle.  Even when the nuance is lost on unsophisticated viewers, there is a lot of excitement (or you could say violence).  We diehards marvel at the beauty of the game where (for the batter anyway) failure occurs 3-4 times out of 10.  That there are fewer plays or longer gaps in football misses the point that many people find the actual plays more entertaining. 

 

[tomdeplonty]

Maybe too many people don't have the knowledge, acumen, attention span, etc. to recognize different pitches, pitching patterns etc.

 
This is on the money. Without a certain level of knowledge, much of the game will pass completely unappreciated. (For the same reason, most people find a live chess match as exciting as watching paint dry.) It's also why so many of the proposals for things to make the game "more exciting" seem so off the mark - they're either extraneous to the real game, or actually interfere with it.

 

[The Gray Eagle]

Baseball can and should be played at a faster pace than it is now. It's more fun to watch that way. It still would have all the same positive qualities noted above, you should just lose the automatic timeout between pitches, and the inevitable dawdling around on the mound between pitches. 
 
It is more fun for both casual and hardcore fans when the pace is faster. It was played at a faster pace for decades until the past 15 or so years, and it was more enjoyable to watch.
 
No one complained that the game was being played too quickly back when games were played at a faster pace-- hardcore fan, casual fan, no one. And no one would complain if they were again played at that pace.
[SIZE=14.3999996185303px]You can see this on those rare occasions when a game is played at a faster pace, like a Mark Buehrle start. Nobody is sitting there saying "I wish this game would slow down! Why is Buehrle pitching so quickly? I don't have any time to read the paper or talk to my friend or look at my phone. I only have 18 commercial breaks plus lots of pitching changes to do those things! I wish Buchholz was out there instead so I could go get in the beer line and hit the bathroom and still not miss any at-bats."[/SIZE]
 
No rule changes are needed, the umps just need to take control of the pace of the game and enforce the rules that already exist.
 
To be fair to the players, the league needs to tell every team and player before the spring training games begin that things will be moving faster from now on, that there will be no automatic timeout between pitches. And pitchers have 12 seconds to throw the pitch. Start enforcing it in spring training. 
 
Just not granting batters timeout for no reason would alone improve the pace by a bunch. If the batter stays in the box, the pitchers could still take their time and pitch within 12 seconds. What happens now is the hitter leaves the box and takes a couple practice swings, adjusts the batting gloves, looks around, etc. So the pitcher slows down too, because he can't even get ready to pitch until the guy is back in there, so he takes a break too. The whole process is slowed way down when the batter leaves the box. 
 
Pitchers are to blame too of course. They do decide when to pitch. A league-wide ultimatum before spring training, backed up by umps reminding them and warning them would speed up the game a lot too.
 
One starting pitcher on his own can noticeable increase the pace of games. Not every pitcher is going to work like Buehrle, but they all could work faster, and every little bit helps. No automatic timeout for the hitter and pitchers knowing they don't have forever out there between pitches would combine to speed things up a lot, with no new rules. 
 
The league and the umps have the control and power to improve this right now, they don't need any rule changes. Just the will to improve it.

 

[glennhoffmania]

Dear lord.
 
Some excerpts:
 

“The batter shall keep at least one foot in the batter’s box throughout his at-bat, unless one of a series of established exceptions occurs, in which case the batter may leave the batter’s box but not the dirt area surrounding home plate. (Exceptions include a foul ball or a foul tip; a pitch forcing the batter out of the batter’s box; “time” being requested and granted; a wild pitch or a passed ball; and several others.)
 

 
This will lead to disputes about what qualifies as an exception.
 

There shall be a maximum 2:05 break between innings. Hitters must enter the batter’s box by the 1:45 mark. When batters violate this rule, the Umpire may call an automatic strike. When batters are set by the appropriate time and pitchers fail to throw a pitch before the conclusion of the 2:05 period, the Umpire shall call a ball.
 

 
It's a good thing the AFL doesn't rely heavily on tv commercial revenue.
 

Each team shall be permitted only three “Time Out” conferences per game (including extra innings). Such conferences shall include player conferences with the pitcher (including the catcher), manager or coach conferences with the pitcher, and coach conferences with a batter. Conferences during pitching changes, and time outs called as a result of an injury or other emergency, shall not be counted towards this limit. A manager, coach or player will not be permitted to call a fourth time out in violation of this Rule. In such cases, the game will continue uninterrupted, and offenders may be subject to discipline.
 

 

As for the pitching clock — which will be an actual clock on the wall of the outfield, behind home plate and in each dugout, operated by an independent time-keeper
 

 

[soxhop411]

Dear lord.
 
Some excerpts:
 
 
This will lead to disputes about what qualifies as an exception.
 
 
It's a good thing the AFL doesn't rely heavily on tv commercial revenue.
 
 

Hate it.

 

[cromulence]

I fucking love it. It's what I've wanted for years. I truly think the haters will come around when they see how much more fun it will be to watch the game when it's played how it was meant to be played (specifically, a clock on throwing a pitch and batters staying in the box), but if not, whatever. This is great news and even if some of the experiments don't work out it's a step in the right direction.

 

[8slim]

Love the attempt.
 
Absolutely love it.
 
I just found this thread because I saw the news about what will be tried in Arizona this fall and wanted to discuss it.
 
Baseball is a wonderful game, but the MLB game experience takes far too long, and the pace is becoming glacial.  Baseball is facing a multitude of challenges, demographically, generationally, and the like.  But it's slow pace of play is a self-inflicted wound.  Addressing it is long overdue.

 

[Tangled Up In Red]

Applaud the effort and desired results. Look forward to the quality of the implementation.

 

[CarolinaBeerGuy]

I really hope the experiment works. Shortening the time it takes to play a game at the MLB level is something that needs to happen.

 

[glennhoffmania]

For fun:

 
This looks like game times have basically plateaued from 1992-2013; some dips and some peaks, but pretty much in the 175-minute range.  
 
2014 looks to be significantly higher, but that graph was made in early August; I have no idea if that's mostly SSS and we'll see some regression, whether it's a biased sample (e.g. late season games tend to be shorter or something), or whether it's a legitimate change.
 
The biggest spike was from 1978-1986, where games got about 20 minutes longer.  I believe that coincides with the extra time between innings being added for televised games.

 
To all those applauding this brilliant plan, I wanted to quote Sumner's helpful post earlier in this thread.  As you can see, the length of a game has been basically the same since about 1986, until this year when it "skyrocketed" almost ten minutes.  The whole notion that games are taking longer and longer is a myth, especially when you consider how many more commercials there are today that waste far more time than players stepping out of the box or coaches visiting the mound.

 

[Couperin47]

Keith eviscerates this entire charade.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX1TiWeaQW8&list=UUdJtV6wXT6lnrvldU_urowQ
Starting at 3:05

 

[8slim]

1-2 count, man on 2nd, 2 outs, 2nd inning... Volquez takes 32 seconds from getting the ball to throwing a pitch.

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.

 

[canderson]

The biggest hiccup in timing pitchers to a clock is when holding runners on. Varying delivery speeds is a big part of controlling a running game, I hope that doesn't become a big issue.

 

[glennhoffmania]

1-2 count, man on 2nd, 2 outs, 2nd inning... Volquez takes 32 seconds from getting the ball to throwing a pitch.

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.

 
Perhaps, but again, the length of games hasn't really changed in many years.  So why is this an issue all of the sudden?  Is it the length of the game or the behavior of players (ie., Volquez taking too long to throw the ball)?

 

[vintage'67]

I think that increasing pace of play is necessary to increasing the broad appeal of the game in today's world.  Shaving 5-10 minutes off the length of games won't hurt, but getting viewers to feel like more is happening during the game is the real key IMO.  According to the chart, length of games has not increased a lot since 1986 but a lot of other factors that effect whether people watch baseball sure has changed since 1986.  I see pace of play efforts as a way to modernize for today's audience.  It is unlikely to be successful in generating more fans on its own, but think it's important part of that. 

 

[johnmd20]

I'm confused about how people are saying the pace of play is unchanged over the years. The three slowest paced years ever are 2012, 2013, and 2014. This is like saying climate change isn't happening. The chart is right there. It's slower. Considering the number of games played every year, it's significantly slower.

 

[glennhoffmania]

I'm confused about how people are saying the pace of play is unchanged over the years. The three slowest paced years ever are 2012, 2013, and 2014. This is like saying climate change isn't happening. The chart is right there. It's slower. Considering the number of games played every year, it's significantly slower.

 
The way that I'm reading the chart the three slowest years were 2001, 2013 and 2014.  And except for this season we're talking about a difference of about ten minutes or less.  The main reason that games take longer now is because of the increase in the number of commercials.  It's not because all of the sudden batters are stepping out of the box or pitchers are throwing over to 1B more often.  You can throw replay in there too.  So the two main causes of slightly longer games have absolutely nothing to do with the players.
 
Your climate change analogy would work if it was more like this: we're putting tons of carbon into the atmosphere and it's causing the temperatures to rise.  We don't want to stop doing this because it would cost us money.  So let's complain about climate change and find other ways to stop it besides the most obvious, but most inconvenient, way to do so.
 
Also why does the number of games being played matter here?
 
To be clear, I don't really care if MLB wants to keep adding more commercial time.  Watching baseball for 3:10 instead of 2:55 or whatever doesn't matter to me.  But if they want to increase the bottom line with more ad revenue, don't bitch about the fact that doing so makes the games longer.

 

[glennhoffmania]

Here's a decent article from 2010 with some points for both sides of the debate:

 

The average time to complete a nine-inning game in the 1970s -- not including on-field delays -- was two hours and 30 minutes. That increased to an average of 2:57 in the 10-year span from 2000-09. Through Thursday, this year's league average was 2:51, according to the Elias Sports Bureau.
 
In the playoffs, game times have been longer. Last season, nine-inning regular-season games lasted an average of 2:52, while in the postseason, that number jumped to 3:30, according to STATS LLC.
 

 
What's the biggest difference between a regular season game and a playoff game?  I'd guess it's the length of the commercial breaks.
 

Among several factors, the increased use of relievers is a significant contributor to the time increase. Instant replay, which counts as part of the time of a game when used to review home runs, is a lesser factor, but could become a bigger one if the use is expanded in future seasons.
 

 
Expanded replay just started.  Is it fair to talk about how the length of games jumped this year while ignoring the impact of the replay system?

 

So MLB is trying to target less-constructive evolutions like the between-pitch routines that some believe have become longer and more time-consuming as the years go by.
 
"The games have become longer, in part because of good baseball," said journalist George Will, a Pulitzer Prize winner who has written two best-selling baseball books and is also part of Selig's 14-member committee.
 
"The running game has made a bit of a comeback, there's more throwing over to first base; teams ... understand that batters going deeper into the count will wear down the starting pitcher and get into the other team's middle relief sooner. These are all good baseball reasons, but there are also other reasons. Particularly, too much time between pitches, which is sometimes a fault of the pitcher and sometimes a fault of the batters stepping out of the batter's box."
 

 

Speeding up the pace of games has been an issue in baseball for about a half-decade. But it was brought to light again at the beginning of the season when umpire Joe West was critical of two of the game's most recognizable teams, the Red Sox and Yankees, for their slow pace in their opening series, calling them "a disgrace to baseball."
 
Because their games are so often on national TV -- leading to longer commercial breaks -- and because their games frequently come down to the wire and many of their hitters are patient, taking more pitches than most teams, the average time for Yankees-Red Sox games has been longer than the league average by at least seven minutes -- and up to 40 minutes -- every year since 2000.
 

 
Bolded is mine.  Does the fact that there are more nationally televised games now factor in too?

 

"You can't really control pace of games," veteran umpire Jerry Crawford said. "The players control pace of games. If they play with enthusiasm, they run to their positions, that helps control pace of game."
 
But the cooperation needs to come from both sides, and, as Crawford added, "I don't know that ... there's any urgency for the players to play the game faster. ... They don't care."
 

 

[Spacemans Bong]

 
I'd guess it's the length of the commercial breaks.

 
Unlikely. I don't know what Fox does, but TBS commercial breaks are 2:30. I think during the regular season most breaks at 2:00.
 
If you do that every half inning (so 16) plus four mid-inning pitching changes, that's 10 minutes. Quite a bit, but that's barely a quarter of the nearly 40 minute increase in game time.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's abundantly obvious to anybody who has watched 60s or 70s baseball that the pitchers and hitters take way more time to do their job than before.
 

 
"You can't really control pace of games," veteran umpire Jerry Crawford said. "The players control pace of games. If they play with enthusiasm, they run to their positions, that helps control pace of game."
 
But the cooperation needs to come from both sides, and, as Crawford added, "I don't know that ... there's any urgency for the players to play the game faster. ... They don't care."

 
Well part of good umpiring is telling the players to get a move on. Don't give them a fucking timeout and enforce the 12 second rule, douchebag. They may want to slow things down but they depend on your consent to do it.
 
Those 60s and 70s umps and ballplayers grew up in a time when they had to get games in before darkness, and it showed.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

No additional (or extensions to existing) commercial breaks have been added in the past 5 years
 
The typical game has 1 or fewer replay reviews, and those reviews average a very small part of the increase in the length of the games
 
There are not more nationally televised games -- MLB TV and ESPN games (other than the preexisting Sunday Night games) don't get the extra timeouts that national broadcasts get.

 

[loshjott]

 
"You can't really control pace of games," veteran umpire Jerry Crawford said. "The players control pace of games. If they play with enthusiasm, they run to their positions, that helps control pace of game."
 
But the cooperation needs to come from both sides, and, as Crawford added, "I don't know that ... there's any urgency for the players to play the game faster. ... They don't care."

 
This is an unbelievably stupid statement. He apparently doesn't know about TV. I coach my son's 12U team and the umps are always hustling teams between innings, but with 2:20 of commercials between each MLB inning, guys running to the OF makes no difference.

 

[glennhoffmania]

No additional (or extensions to existing) commercial breaks have been added in the past 5 years
 
The typical game has 1 or fewer replay reviews, and those reviews average a very small part of the increase in the length of the games
 
There are not more nationally televised games -- MLB TV and ESPN games (other than the preexisting Sunday Night games) don't get the extra timeouts that national broadcasts get.

 
And in the last 5 years, the length of a game hasn't really changed until 2014.
 
Re: replays, sure, but how about all of the manager/ump discussions that are basically stall tactics while the team reviews the replay and signals the manager to not challenge?  Or how about the Girardi's of the world who make 4 pitching changes per inning?  Maybe MLB should limit pitching changes then.
 
There aren't more nationally televised games in the last few years, but compared to the 70s, 80s and 90s? 
 
I'm just amazed that people are so concerned about the fact that a baseball game takes 10-15 minutes longer today than it did, say, 15 years ago, especially considering the change in reliever usage, the change in television revenue, the replay system, the focus on taking more pitches, etc., and that this is such a huge issue.  But apparently I'm in the minority around here.

 

[tims4wins]

I think you guys are arguing separate things - the length of games isn't nearly as much the issue as pace of games.
 
Edit: at least, that's the issue for me as a viewer

 

[glennhoffmania]

I think you guys are arguing separate things - the length of games isn't nearly as much the issue as pace of games.

 
True, and that article makes that distinction.  But I don't see how you separate the two.  If the pace increases, wouldn't games be shorter all things being equal?

 

[tims4wins]

 
True, and that article makes that distinction.  But I don't see how you separate the two.  If the pace increases, wouldn't games be shorter all things being equal?

 
Yes, but I think the point is that viewership isn't threatened due to the games being 3 hours and 10 minutes instead of 3 hours. It's that the pace has slowed to the point where it is difficult to watch. I get why the NFL analogy is bad, but in between plays you get a replay or whatever. Whereas when the pitcher holds the ball for 30 seconds there is basically nothing happening.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Maybe they need a pitcher's box...

 

[8slim]

 
Perhaps, but again, the length of games hasn't really changed in many years.  So why is this an issue all of the sudden?  Is it the length of the game or the behavior of players (ie., Volquez taking too long to throw the ball)?

 
 
It's not an issue all of a sudden.  It's been an issue for years, one that MLB has steadfastly ignored.  And it has become exacerbated in recent years because of technology.  
 
We now live in an era of ubiquitous, on-demand entertainment.  At any time, practically anywhere I am, I can stream nearly the entire output of 60+ years of TV shows, movies, etc.  I have a supercomputer in my pocket at all times that gives me instant access to every bit of info I could possibly desire.
 
I heard someone say at a media conference recently that the "age of least objectionable content" is over, and I believe that's true.  
 
There are a couple of factors that make pace of play a particular issue for MLB, in my opinion:
 
1) The game has become remarkably local.  Teams still draw big crowds and strong TV ratings in their market.  But there are now only a handful of teams that have truly national appeal.  
2) The technology issue I detailed previously.
 
So if you have a game that appeals less and less to a national audience, and there are almost limitless entertainment opportunities available to a viewer, it's simply terrible to produce a product that takes 3+ hours to watch beginning-to-end on a nightly basis, and has a glacial pace within those 3+ hours.  And it's getting longer and slower!
 
Years ago someone in Boston might have watched a random Tigers-Indians game on ABC Monday Night Baseball because there were nationally recognizable stars and there was simply nothing else better on TV.  Today the only baseball player in the top FIFTY of most popular American athletes just retired, and there's ALWAYS something better on.
 
Anyway, I'm not arguing that increasing the pace of play is a panacea and will cure all of baseball's ills.  But I think it will help.

 

[glennhoffmania]

 
 
It's not an issue all of a sudden.  It's been an issue for years, one that MLB has steadfastly ignored.  And it has become exacerbated in recent years because of technology.  
 
We now live in an era of ubiquitous, on-demand entertainment.  At any time, practically anywhere I am, I can stream nearly the entire output of 60+ years of TV shows, movies, etc.  I have a supercomputer in my pocket at all times that gives me instant access to every bit of info I could possibly desire.
 
I heard someone say at a media conference recently that the "age of least objectionable content" is over, and I believe that's true.  
 
There are a couple of factors that make pace of play a particular issue for MLB, in my opinion:
 
1) The game has become remarkably local.  Teams still draw big crowds and strong TV ratings in their market.  But there are now only a handful of teams that have truly national appeal.  
2) The technology issue I detailed previously.
 
So if you have a game that appeals less and less to a national audience, and there are almost limitless entertainment opportunities available to a viewer, it's simply terrible to produce a product that takes 3+ hours to watch beginning-to-end on a nightly basis, and has a glacial pace within those 3+ hours.  And it's getting longer and slower!
 
Years ago someone in Boston might have watched a random Tigers-Indians game on ABC Monday Night Baseball because there were nationally recognizable stars and there was simply nothing else better on TV.  Today the only baseball player in the top FIFTY of most popular American athletes just retired, and there's ALWAYS something better on.
 
Anyway, I'm not arguing that increasing the pace of play is a panacea and will cure all of baseball's ills.  But I think it will help.

 
Fair points.  But MLB has been talking about this for years.  They just never actually do anything about it.  Also, revenues seem to keep going up so this idea that baseball is dying seems questionable.
 
The bottom line is I don't think the pace of play will determine whether someone becomes a fan or not.  I could be wrong.  I just can't see someone saying, I love this sport and I'd watch it all the time if the pitchers threw the ball in 12 seconds instead of 20 seconds.
 
And as I said earlier in the thread, I think the lack of flow to NFL games is far worse, and I definitely watch less football now because of it.  The commercials have become ridiculous.  I remember a long time ago I could watch a 4pm game on CBS and 60 Minutes would still start on time.  Now we don't even bother recording 60 Minutes because half of it is the end of the NFL game, since the guide still has it starting at 7.

 

[8slim]

 
Fair points.  But MLB has been talking about this for years.  They just never actually do anything about it.  Also, revenues seem to keep going up so this idea that baseball is dying seems questionable.
 
The bottom line is I don't think the pace of play will determine whether someone becomes a fan or not.  I could be wrong.  I just can't see someone saying, I love this sport and I'd watch it all the time if the pitchers threw the ball in 12 seconds instead of 20 seconds.
 
And as I said earlier in the thread, I think the lack of flow to NFL games is far worse, and I definitely watch less football now because of it.  The commercials have become ridiculous.  I remember a long time ago I could watch a 4pm game on CBS and 60 Minutes would still start on time.  Now we don't even bother recording 60 Minutes because half of it is the end of the NFL game, since the guide still has it starting at 7.

 
I don't think it's instructive to compare anything to the NFL.  That league exists in its own orbit.  It is not just the most popular sport in America, but its the most popular TV content, of any kind, in the country.
 
And I wouldn't look at pace of play in a binary fan/non-fan way.  If someone hates baseball the game being 20 minutes shorter or faster paced won't change that.  But there are tens of million of existing fans who simply do not watch many nationally televised games, and in combination with other fixes I think increasing the pace of play could help with that.
 
In terms of revenue its not as simple as saying "revenue up, game fine".  Like I said earlier, baseball has become a local sport and a huge chunk of revenue comes from local sources.  The national TV deals are lucrative because sports has become perhaps the only content that isn't DVR'd (advertisers love this) and helps cable companies with customer retention.  So MLB is paid through the nose for that, without regard for the long term health of the sport.

 

[glennhoffmania]

I just meant for me personally, the NFL is a bigger problem.  I didn't mean to try to equate the two leagues.  The rest of your post is fair and I see your points.

 

[Infield Infidel]

The one comparison with the NFL, and NBA, are the usage of play clocks and shot clocks. Imagine if the NFL didn't have a play clock, and everyone just sat and waited for the center to snap the ball, for however long the center wanted to wait. Or back in the old days the NBA just dribbling endlessly, with few shots. That is essentially what you have in baseball with the pitchers walking around the mound and rubbing the ball and then holding the ball for 30 seconds or more, or with batters adjusting their gloves or cups or sleeves or whatever. 

 

[8slim]

I would have to think that game times and certainly pace of play has been affected by the LaRussa-ing of pitching.  Is there data on the number of pitching changes that occurs in the average game?  Anectdotally it would seem to have greatly increased, but I wouldn't want to claim that without proof.

 

[Harry Hooper]

 
 
It's not an issue all of a sudden.  It's been an issue for years, one that MLB has steadfastly ignored.  And it has become exacerbated in recent years because of technology.  
 
 

 
 
Nicely said. MLB wants to jump out of the pot before the water is at full boil. 

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

 
And in the last 5 years, the length of a game hasn't really changed until 2014.
 
Re: replays, sure, but how about all of the manager/ump discussions that are basically stall tactics while the team reviews the replay and signals the manager to not challenge?  Or how about the Girardi's of the world who make 4 pitching changes per inning?  Maybe MLB should limit pitching changes then.
 
There aren't more nationally televised games in the last few years, but compared to the 70s, 80s and 90s? 
 
I'm just amazed that people are so concerned about the fact that a baseball game takes 10-15 minutes longer today than it did, say, 15 years ago, especially considering the change in reliever usage, the change in television revenue, the replay system, the focus on taking more pitches, etc., and that this is such a huge issue.  But apparently I'm in the minority around here.

 
Looks like 2013 was an increase over the prior few years, and 2014 again.  Some might call that a trend.
 
I don't think there's an average of one of those stall tactics/game in 2014 and there weren't any last year.  And I remember a guy named Captain Hook (Sparky) who used to use 4 pitchers in an inning: No one is calling for basic rule changes.
 
The problems are twofold:

1) Games take too long (end too late) so you lose interest from the kids
2) Time between pitches is too long.  Whether it's the batters' fault or the pitchers' fault, you solve that problem and you've solved the other one.

 

[glennhoffmania]

The one comparison with the NFL, and NBA, are the usage of play clocks and shot clocks. Imagine if the NFL didn't have a play clock, and everyone just sat and waited for the center to snap the ball, for however long the center wanted to wait. Or back in the old days the NBA just dribbling endlessly, with few shots. That is essentially what you have in baseball with the pitchers walking around the mound and rubbing the ball and then holding the ball for 30 seconds or more, or with batters adjusting their gloves or cups or sleeves or whatever. 

 
There's a difference though.  In the NBA and NFL, that would be part of a strategy to win the game.  In MLB the pitcher has to eventually get 27 outs.  I honestly don't know why a batter has to take 30 seconds to adjust himself at times, and I agree it's annoying. 
 

 
 
Nicely said. MLB wants to jump out of the pot before the water is at full boil. 

 
Like KO said in his rant, they've been talking about jumping out for 20 years and have done nothing about it besides bitch and moan.  What's taking so long?  The rules are on the books for some of these issues but they're never enforced.  If they start to do so, my guess is it'll be temporary.  Just like you're not supposed to argue balls and strikes, everyone does it to a point and nothing happens. 

 

[geoduck no quahog]

I just don't get any of this. Baseball's on TV/Radio almost every night of the week from April through September. Let's think about what viewership is:
 
1. SOSH-type fans. Die-Hards. The kind of people that will watch a baseball game above anything else on TV, particularly if its an interesting series.
 
2. Bar-stoolers. People who like to keep an eye on the TV while they're drinking and figuring out how to get a raise or a date.
 
3. Casual fans. Will watch a game if there's nothing else to do...or will only watch specific rivalry games, or season-critical games.
 
4. Kids. On this I have no idea.
 
You can't compare baseball to other sports. It's not only about the clockness...it's also about the number of games in a season. Most games don't become important to the casual fan until September, and I contend that once they're interested - they won't stay away because of lack of action between pitches. Die-hards couldn't care less...but like to complain, even though not a single one will stop watching because of annoyance with balls adjustment.
 
I just don't see how length of game is really impacting market share or viewership. Maybe it's the kids. It's always the kids.

 

[The Gray Eagle]

"You can't really control pace of games," veteran umpire Jerry Crawford said. "The players control pace of games. If they play with enthusiasm, they run to their positions, that helps control pace of game."
 
But the cooperation needs to come from both sides, and, as Crawford added, "I don't know that ... there's any urgency for the players to play the game faster. ... They don't care."
 

 
That right there sums up the problem with the slow pace of the game. An umpire, who already has all the power and tools needed to speed things up, blames the players and abdicates all responsibility for keeping the game moving briskly.
 
If MLB really wants to get rid of the dead time when nothing is happening, then they need to tell the umps to take control of it.

 

[Lowrielicious]

The biggest hiccup in timing pitchers to a clock is when holding runners on. Varying delivery speeds is a big part of controlling a running game, I hope that doesn't become a big issue.

This is an interesting point, but the article suggests its only enforced when there are no base runners?
 
"20-Second Rule [AT 17 SALT RIVER FIELDS HOME GAMES ONLY]: A modified version of Rule 8.04, which discourages unnecessary delays by the pitcher, shall apply. Rule 8.04 requires the pitcher to deliver the ball to the batter within 12 seconds after he receives the ball with the bases unoccupied. The penalty prescribed by Rule 8.04 for a pitcher’s violation of the Rule is that the umpire shall call “Ball.”"
 
I can't see this being enforceable with baserunners. Otherwise, does a pickoff reset the clock? If not it would get very interesting as the clock runs down.

 

[DJnVa]

Yes, a pickoff resets the clock. I mean, no it doesn't specifically say that, but it's obvious that it does because otherwise you could never attempt a pickoff.

 

[SumnerH]

Yes, a pickoff resets the clock. I mean, no it doesn't specifically say that, but it's obvious that it does because otherwise you could never attempt a pickoff.

Read the rule again. A pickoff implies that the bases are not unoccupied. The clock doesn't reset because there is no clock to begin with when a runner is on.

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

Keith eviscerates this entire charade.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX1TiWeaQW8&list=UUdJtV6wXT6lnrvldU_urowQ
Starting at 3:05

 
I wouldn't really call that an evisceration of the notion of speed-up rules.  I'd call that an evisceration of MLB's historical commitment to these rules beyond trying them in the AFL, in both 2004 and 1992.  KO does make a good point that when this gets to the postseason and the eyeballs and sponsor dollars get bigger, they're likely to go out the window.  I'd be OK with tossing these rules aside for the postseason (or at least some of them), so long as the bulk of the season was played with less BS and downtime.
 
I do wonder what the problem with implementing them was in 1993, though.  Union?  TV negotiations?  It was before my time.

 

[Infield Infidel]

 
There's a difference though.  In the NBA and NFL, that would be part of a strategy to win the game.  In MLB the pitcher has to eventually get 27 outs.  I honestly don't know why a batter has to take 30 seconds to adjust himself at times, and I agree it's annoying. 

 
Pitching slowly is certainly a strategy, the longer the pitcher takes, the more uneasy it may make the batter. That's why batters call time out when a pitcher takes long. 

 

[curly2]

I think you guys are arguing separate things - the length of games isn't nearly as much the issue as pace of games.
 
Edit: at least, that's the issue for me as a viewer

 
Yes, the time itself is not the issue. "The Godfather Part II" was 3 hours and 20 minutes, and I love every second of it. "The Blair Witch Project" is 1 hour and 21 minutes and I couldn't wait for it to end.
 
I love baseball and stayed up for every pitch of the A's-Royals the other night, even though I had to get up very early the next day. There is no way I was turning that off. But sometimes I'l watch Buchholz working at s snail's pace and think "GET A SIGN AND MAKE A PITCH."
 
I think some younger fans look at "normal" pitchers the way I look at Buchholz. More pitchers working like Buehrle would be a VERY good thing and it might get a few more younger people to give the game a chance and find out that at its best, baseball blows the doors off football.

 

[BoSox Rule]

Stop granting every time out. That time out in the NLDS while Peavy was halfway through the windup was ridiculous.

 

[DJnVa]

Read the rule again. A pickoff implies that the bases are not unoccupied. The clock doesn't reset because there is no clock to begin with when a runner is on.

I didn't read it in the first place

I was responding to the post above that asked about it. Clearly we both should have read it.

 

[soxhop411]

here is the "pitch clock"
 

 
https://twitter.com/BertDbacks/status/519662173610467329

 

[soxhop411]

it 100% is a shot clock look-alike 

 

[soxhop411]