Saving Baseball - Considering Dramatic Restructuring of the Game

DominicJD

New Member
Jul 23, 2005
23
Vienna, VA
I'm interested in the perspective on whether or not baseball is "regional" or not. Personally, I believe that MLB is trying to become less "regional" by emphasizing and marketing player stars over teams, and using inter-league play to broaden appeal of those stars. I think this emphasis makes the sport less "regional", which doesn't work for me. My list of semi-radical ways to improve the game:

1. Eliminate inter-league play -- makes the All-Star game and World Series more dramatic to me.
2. Go back to 2 divisions per league, but the best 2 teams in each division make the playoffs. Eliminates the non-sensical wild-card, heightens the division races, and still allows for all the playoffs they have today (except for the silly play-in game).
3. Allow a maximum of 2 pitching changes per game.
4. Want more action on balls in play? Eliminate the center fielder and the shortstop.
5. Want more balls in play? Push the mound back, increase the size of the ball.
6. Make up for eliminating positions? Add teams in Charlotte (AL) and Montreal (NL)
7. Tired of playing the Rays 19-20 times a year (I am), balance out the schedule a bit. Play only 14 times against each of your 7 division foes, and 8 times against each team in the other division (162 games) or 12/10 instead of 14/8 (add 2 games to go to 164!)
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,616
Springfield, VA
This is the most asinine thing I have ever heard.

“@ChrisCarlinSNY: Rob Manfred just told us he would consider limiting the number of pitching changes in the game. Thinks it hurts pace of game.”
Here's a better idea. If you bring in a new pitcher in the middle of an inning, the new guy gets no warm-up pitches. The guy has already been warming up in the bullpen, why warm up again just because you're on the mound?
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I'm interested in the perspective on whether or not baseball is "regional" or not. Personally, I believe that MLB is trying to become less "regional" by emphasizing and marketing player stars over teams, and using inter-league play to broaden appeal of those stars. I think this emphasis makes the sport less "regional", which doesn't work for me. My list of semi-radical ways to improve the game:

1. Eliminate inter-league play -- makes the All-Star game and World Series more dramatic to me.
2. Go back to 2 divisions per league, but the best 2 teams in each division make the playoffs. Eliminates the non-sensical wild-card, heightens the division races, and still allows for all the playoffs they have today (except for the silly play-in game).
3. Allow a maximum of 2 pitching changes per game.
4. Want more action on balls in play? Eliminate the center fielder and the shortstop.
5. Want more balls in play? Push the mound back, increase the size of the ball.
6. Make up for eliminating positions? Add teams in Charlotte (AL) and Montreal (NL)
7. Tired of playing the Rays 19-20 times a year (I am), balance out the schedule a bit. Play only 14 times against each of your 7 division foes, and 8 times against each team in the other division (162 games) or 12/10 instead of 14/8 (add 2 games to go to 164!)
#1 makes sense. You're batting .143!
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
#1 makes sense. You're batting .143!
I would have given him half credit on number 7, but he said not wanting to play the Rays 18 to 19 rather than Jays or Orioles.

I know the union hates long road trips, but I've wondered if they'd go for just the one long one road trip out west or east rather than two visits. Get it over with to either start the season or right after the break. I'd try and increase it to 8 games apiece vs the west and 9 vs the central, and then knock off a series or two of intra-divison.

If interleague has to stay, I'd have 4 or 5 of the series vs teams within their time zone or as local as possible and just one or two of the rotated yearly division.

Eliminating interleague still means more travel anyhow since it's more games against the central and west
 

canderson

Mr. Brightside
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
39,428
Harrisburg, Pa.
Pitch clock is coming. Won't stop throws to first, but it will help. Batter already can't step out of the box, but it's not being enforced like it was early last season with warnings being given to players
Have you seen any data from MiLB about how much shorter the average game is this year vs recent years? I haven't, but would be curious how much the clock is helping.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Have you seen any data from MiLB about how much shorter the average game is this year vs recent years? I haven't, but would be curious how much the clock is helping.
Mostly just anecdotal. This article got me a little turgid early last season, but there wasn't much followup. It suggested a savings of up to 15 minutes, depending on league (and only 1 minute in the Texas League).

This article I hadn't seen before, it's from after the season and has some good numbers for the whole year suggesting a 6 minute (4% or so) time savings. Lower leagues times were less affected (some went up!), while AAA had the best savings :)16 for International, :13 for PCL), almost a 10% reduction in game length!

This week in the Texas league they actually called 2 pitch clock violations in a game:

In a rarely enforced rule, a pitch clock violation was called twice. Springfield reliever Chandler Hawkins was issued a ball to prior to his matchup against Mauricio Ramos for taking longer than the allowed 20 seconds to throw a pitch. Then in the bottom of the same inning, Naturals' reliever Evan Beal was also hit with the same penalty for breaking the 20-second barrier to begin the inning.
That "rarely enforced" phrase bothers me, of course.

Another recent article, quoting the Steamer
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
I'm not seeing batters staying in the box anymore either. I don't even know why they bother trying to tinker with small stuff like that if they aren't going to enforce it.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,416
Not here
This idea football is more fun to than baseball baffles me. There is so much standing around and many commercials and replays that it's maddening.
 

Dehere

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2010
3,143
This idea football is more fun to than baseball baffles me. There is so much standing around and many commercials and replays that it's maddening.
Every play in a football game, even the penalties, advances the narrative of the game in an obvious way. Every play results in a change of down or distance or both.

Only about a quarter of pitches thrown in a baseball game result in either an out or a new baserunner. The rest only change the count and two-strike fouls don't even do that. When you're really into a game and you feel like every pitch matters baseball is incredibly compelling - what's more absorbing than watching your team play in October? - but I think that to the average sports fan watching a typical regular season game baseball just has too few payoffs. When a guy turns on Sunday Night Baseball in July the pitch that takes the count from 2-1 to 3-1 doesn't feel like it means much.

The essential pleasure of watching baseball on TV IMO isn't in watching one individual game it's in watching a team's story unfold over an entire season. The appeal is in watching your team's 162-game story, which is largely played out on RSNs. One of the reasons FOX and ESPN national baseball ratings are lackluster is that the game just isn't built to reward viewing of one game between two (not quite) random teams. Baseball is all about having a favorite team and following it all year and it competes extremely well in this way. The game doesn't need a major overhaul.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,416
Not here
Every play in a football game, even the penalties, advances the narrative of the game in an obvious way. Every play results in a change of down or distance or both.

Only about a quarter of pitches thrown in a baseball game result in either an out or a new baserunner. The rest only change the count and two-strike fouls don't even do that. When you're really into a game and you feel like every pitch matters baseball is incredibly compelling - what's more absorbing than watching your team play in October? - but I think that to the average sports fan watching a typical regular season game baseball just has too few payoffs. When a guy turns on Sunday Night Baseball in July the pitch that takes the count from 2-1 to 3-1 doesn't feel like it means much.

The essential pleasure of watching baseball on TV IMO isn't in watching one individual game it's in watching a team's story unfold over an entire season. The appeal is in watching your team's 162-game story, which is largely played out on RSNs. One of the reasons FOX and ESPN national baseball ratings are lackluster is that the game just isn't built to reward viewing of one game between two (not quite) random teams. Baseball is all about having a favorite team and following it all year and it competes extremely well in this way. The game doesn't need a major overhaul.
Every play comes after a lot of standing around, watching replays of boring plays and god help me, the fucking commercials. Touchdown, commercial, extra point, commercial, kickoff, commercial, It's insane.
 

Hagios

New Member
Dec 15, 2007
672
The essential pleasure of watching baseball on TV IMO isn't in watching one individual game it's in watching a team's story unfold over an entire season. The appeal is in watching your team's 162-game story, which is largely played out on RSNs. One of the reasons FOX and ESPN national baseball ratings are lackluster is that the game just isn't built to reward viewing of one game between two (not quite) random teams. Baseball is all about having a favorite team and following it all year and it competes extremely well in this way. The game doesn't need a major overhaul.
Agreed 100% except for the last sentence. For a game that is about the marathon, they should play a more balanced schedule. I'd ideally like to see baseball do what soccer does: play a completely balanced schedule and crown the champion the team with the best record. Then have an "MLB Cup" tournament based on a traditional playoff format. But specifically sell the game such that winning the table is the real prize and the MLB cup is the consolation prize.

Every play comes after a lot of standing around, watching replays of boring plays and god help me, the fucking commercials. Touchdown, commercial, extra point, commercial, kickoff, commercial, It's insane.
That's a feature, not a bug. Most fans don't want to study the game. They want to tune in and out as the tension rises and falls. They want to be able to go to the kitchen or the bathroom, or play some video games on another monitor, or talk trash with their buddies while the game is on. Most fans watch the game with an implicit red zone channel mindset and asking them to concentrate all the time is a turnoff.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,416
Not here
That's a feature, not a bug. Most fans don't want to study the game. They want to tune in and out as the tension rises and falls. They want to be able to go to the kitchen or the bathroom, or play some video games on another monitor, or talk trash with their buddies while the game is on. Most fans watch the game with an implicit red zone channel mindset and asking them to concentrate all the time is a turnoff.
I have a hard time believing people who like watching football actually prefer a shit-ton of replays. Sure, there are some plays where that's appropriate. There are also an enormous number where it's not and they show it six times anyway.
 

Rice4HOF

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 21, 2002
1,887
Calgary, Canada
Every play in a football game, even the penalties, advances the narrative of the game in an obvious way. Every play results in a change of down or distance or both.

Only about a quarter of pitches thrown in a baseball game result in either an out or a new baserunner. The rest only change the count and two-strike fouls don't even do that. When you're really into a game and you feel like every pitch matters baseball is incredibly compelling - what's more absorbing than watching your team play in October? - but I think that to the average sports fan watching a typical regular season game baseball just has too few payoffs. When a guy turns on Sunday Night Baseball in July the pitch that takes the count from 2-1 to 3-1 doesn't feel like it means much.

The essential pleasure of watching baseball on TV IMO isn't in watching one individual game it's in watching a team's story unfold over an entire season. The appeal is in watching your team's 162-game story, which is largely played out on RSNs. One of the reasons FOX and ESPN national baseball ratings are lackluster is that the game just isn't built to reward viewing of one game between two (not quite) random teams. Baseball is all about having a favorite team and following it all year and it competes extremely well in this way. The game doesn't need a major overhaul.
I'm going to disagree that every play in football advances the narrative in an obvious way. Typical situation: team is trailing 21-10 early in 2nd half. 2nd and 10 on own 40. RB runs for 6 yards to bring up 3rd and 4. Was that a win for the offense or the defense? Both teams might be able to feel happy with that outcome. Until there a 1st down or failed conversion, it's often not that obvious how that play helped which team. In baseball every single pitch has a definite winner and loser. Even if casual fans aren't excited by it.
 

Hagios

New Member
Dec 15, 2007
672
I have a hard time believing people who like watching football actually prefer a shit-ton of replays. Sure, there are some plays where that's appropriate. There are also an enormous number where it's not and they show it six times anyway.
I'll agree with you on the case of replays. Once upon a time I believed that replays would give us the objective truth of what happened, but instead we're wasting more and more time on increasingly esoteric metaphysical football questions (how many football moves can dance on the head of pin?)
 

DourDoerr

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2004
2,937
Berkeley, CA
I'm going to disagree that every play in football advances the narrative in an obvious way. Typical situation: team is trailing 21-10 early in 2nd half. 2nd and 10 on own 40. RB runs for 6 yards to bring up 3rd and 4. Was that a win for the offense or the defense? Both teams might be able to feel happy with that outcome. Until there a 1st down or failed conversion, it's often not that obvious how that play helped which team. In baseball every single pitch has a definite winner and loser. Even if casual fans aren't excited by it.
I think this is fairly obvious. Win for the O. A 3rd and 4 is a good position to be in for the conversion. Running the ball if time's a factor would be win for D but that's not case here.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,367
How about this: a pitcher can't be taken out in the middle of an inning unless he has already faced a minimum of three batters.
I really think this is the way to go. You bring a relief pitcher in, he's facing a minimum of 3 batters or getting the 3rd out, whichever comes first.

Verducci has a piece up at SI on revising baseball in the CBA negotiations:

The modern methodology of keeping the ball out of play—more pitchers throwing harder and being used more often in shorter bursts—works. In fact, it works too well. Teams used 557 pitchers in 1998; last year, they used a record 735, a 32% increase. We're not even through July, and teams have already used more pitchers this year than they did in the entire 2010 season (635). We are headed for a record number of pitchers for a fourth straight year.

The use of specialized bullpens impacts not only on each game but also baseball's declining pace of action overall. Every other sport holds its audience with the anticipation that the endgame is the most exciting part. Football promises no-huddles, two-minute drills, more passing and onside kicks. Basketball promises more three-point shooting and full-court pressure defense. Hockey promises goalies getting pulled for an extra skater. Things get more frantic.

The opposite happens in baseball because bullpens are so good and relievers throw so hard. Mound visits, jogs from the bullpen, warmup pitches ... the game literally slows down, and so does offense. As compared to the first six innings, scoring drops 15% in the final three innings and the rate of strikeouts goes up 14%. Take a look at this list—paying attention to the years listed—of the seasons with the worst on-base percentages in innings seven through nine since 1974, when such records are available on baseball-reference.com.

1. 2014: .310
2. 2015: .311
3. 2013: .312
4. 1989: .312
5. 2012: .313
6. 2016: .316

In the past five seasons the end of a game has become Dead ball Era baseball—only worse. In those pre-1920 days, hitters actually put the ball in play. This year, 23% of all plate appearances from the seventh through ninth innings end with a strikeout—no defense or base running needed in what is a glorified game of catch between the pitcher and catcher.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
The use of specialized bullpens impacts not only on each game but also baseball's declining pace of action overall. Every other sport holds its audience with the anticipation that the endgame is the most exciting part. Football promises no-huddles, two-minute drills, more passing and onside kicks. Basketball promises more three-point shooting and full-court pressure defense. Hockey promises goalies getting pulled for an extra skater. Things get more frantic.
Or: Basketball promises a shit-ton of time outs and a parade to the free throw line. And football has more than it's share of late timeouts and clock stoppages as well. But not as bad as basketball
 

Hagios

New Member
Dec 15, 2007
672
1. Pitch clock.
2. Make mid-inning pitching changes count as a balk.
3. A limited number of timeouts.
4. No instant replay.
5. It's never going to happen but you can dream, limit the number of commercials.
 

MakeMineMoxie

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
722
The floor of Punter's Pub
Hagios, you have this curmudgeon's vote!

#1 Whatever happened to the rule that the batter had to keep one foot in the box? The umps just don't feel like enforcing it this year? Same thing will happen with a pitch clock unless MLB grows a pair & tells the umps "These are the rules, enforce them or find another job"

#2 Interesting proposal. Just the lead runner or all runners move up one base? What about a runner on 3rd? Giving them a run seems a bit too much.

#3 Limit the number of catcher visits to the mound.

#4 Instant reply is both a boon and a bane to televised sports. On the one hand, it's fascinating to see plays slowed down so you can appreciate the the player's talents but on the other hand, now games are being slowed down as every fraction of a millimeter has to be analyzed from multiple angles to see if that long fingernail on the runner's right ring finger contacted the bag before the tag. It's one of the many things I find unwatchable about NFL games. No play really happens until there is either no challenge or the review upholds the call. Talk about suffocating all the excitement out of a game. The one that drives me crazy is the bang-bang play at first, a perfect example of the kind of call that evens out over the course of a season. I was hoping that replay & challenges would be an option of last resort to fix the most egregious missed calls, not every single close play that can legitimately go either way.

First, make the manager call for a challenge within 10 seconds of the call. No talking to your video guy. If the call was that bad, it should be fairly obvious. Second, give NY 60-90 seconds to review the play. If it's an obvious miscall, it will show right up & the game can continue.

#5 You're right, they won't cut back on commercials. I'm just glad they haven't begun to stop play in the middle of an inning to show commercials.
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,667
Mid-surburbia
Give all umpires an iphone in a wrist/forearm wearable and have the home office beam them instant instant replays for every play in a dedicated interface.

Also give them earpieces or headphones in a standing conference bridge, NFL-sideline-style, so they can talk without convening.
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
What I would like to see is the addition of two more teams so there could be four 8-team leagues. Regular-season play would be within your own league with play-offs between pairs of leagues to see who goes to the World Series. The regular-season would go back a 154-game schedule; the play-offs could be best 3 out of 5. That could cut down on travel and make the All-Star Game more meaningful. Back when I started watching the game, I only saw the other league in the World Series and some of their players in the A-S Game. The thrill of the All-Star Game to me was seeing the players I had only read about. I think the rules should be the same in all four leagues.

They already have rules in the book to speed up games but they don't enforce them so their solutions is to make silly rules that really don't have much impact (there were 932 intentional walks last season in the two leagues...say that the automatic IBB rule saves one minute per walk that is ~15.5 hours in 2427 games or about 23 seconds per game).

There has to be time between halves of innings, simply to let the two teams change sides. In the earlier days, the commercials were done on radio and were made to fit within that time (and there may have only been one). Even when television entered the picture, the commercials were short and few. Owners made their money through attendance and low salaries to players. As time went on, television commercials became a greater source of income and more were packed into the time between innings. Players' salaries started to soar and television money became more important...and here we are.

There is not a lot that can be done except give the batter a limited amount of time to be ready for a pitch (otherwise call it a strike) and give the pitcher a limited amount of time to make the pitch (otherwise call it a ball). If a batter wears "body armor" at bat, he wears it until he gets back to the dugout. Have a limited time between innings and if the batter is not ready when the pitcher is, call it a strike (and vice versa). Figure out a better way to handle replays or do away with them entirely. Knock off the players going to the mound, followed by the pitching coach, followed by the manager as a ploy to gain time for the reliever to warm.
 

Hagios

New Member
Dec 15, 2007
672
Back in the old days the infields were not groomed and the grass was not perfect. I suspect that altered the incentives of hitting, because infielders would face more bad hops and make more errors. I think baseball would be a better game if the current batters had an incentive to swing away rather than try and take a walk.

I don't think they're going to go back to ungroomed infields, but perhaps MLB could take a page from hockey and make the mitts smaller.

It really is odd if you think about. Could you imagine if the incentives of basketball were such that you'd want LeBron James to not take the shot?
 

HangingW/ScottCooper

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
2,493
Scituate, MA
I didn't want to start a new thread for this, but I've got a few drastic suggestions that I think can be rolled out.
  • Expand to 32 teams. This is going to be required with the potential loss of jobs resulting from the other suggestions. I'd also like to see the return to two divisions per league and this will allow for that.
  • Reduce the regular season to 154 games. I only picked that number to appease the purists that I'm about to piss off with the next two bullet points. I'd like to see the Regular Season reduced in length with additional off days added and potentially extending the Division series to 7 games and/or the wild card games to 3.
  • Reduce the game to 8 innings. It's been suggested before, and the argument is largely that 9 makes sense. There are 9 positions on the field, 9 guys in the lineup, it's a multiple of 3, etc.
  • Reduce the lineup to 8 hitters. There are a few ways to do this, the most obvious one would be eliminating the DH and Pitcher hitting. I'd prefer to allow each team to pick 8 hitters of the potential 10 on any given day (8 position players, pitcher, DH).
The end result here would be a shorter game with increased offense. The purist in me hates the idea of moving from 9 to 8 innings, but I really think something drastic is needed.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
Anything having to do with decreasing player roles is not going to sit well with the players union, nor is a decrease in games by the owners unless the wild card round is expanded.

The only innings change that makes sense to me is with double headers being 7 each like they do in the minors. Dome/warm weather teams play fewer double headers on average, so it seems like it would relieve the strain on teams that play them more often at least a little bit.

Expanding to 8 divisions of 4 teams seems inevitable and Manfred is for it too.

If realignment happens, I would do away with interleague and would simplify the schedule to:

64 games vs the west and central (two four game series vs each team).
11 or 12 games (46 total) vs each team in the south division or whatever it is renamed to with two series in each venue.
13 games vs each east team (52 total) with 6 or 7 games in each venue

As far as pace of play, the pitch clock seems the least gimmicky.
 
Last edited:

HangingW/ScottCooper

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
2,493
Scituate, MA
Anything having to do with decreasing player roles is not going to sit well with the players union, nor is a decrease in games by the owners.

The only innings change that makes sense to me is with double headers being 7 each like they do in the minors. Dome/warm weather teams play fewer double headers on average, so it seems like it would relieve the strain on teams that play them more often at least a little bit.

Expanding to 8 divisions of 4 teams seems inevitable and Manfred is for it too.

I would do away with interleague as well. If you keep it, you're playing against at least 19 different teams after realignment (compared to 15 now) which is too many.

64 games vs the west and central (two four game series vs each team).
11 or 12 games (46 total) vs each team in the south division or whatever it is renamed to with two series in each venue.
13 games vs each east team (52 total) with 6 or 7 games in each venue

As far as pace of play, the pitch clock seems the least gimmicky.
I'm definitely in favor of 7 inning double headers. I think that will be a much easier sell to the masses.

I'd also like to see mid inning pitching changes be quicker. Set a shorter time or cap it at 2 pitches. You can probably shave 2 minutes a game right there.
 

schillzilla

New Member
May 11, 2006
122
I would love to see a minimum batters faced rule for relievers within an inning. Barring injury, a reliever entering the game after the inning starts has to face minimum of two batters. I think this would potentially INCREASE strategy, as now you can't just "play it by the book" and matchup for a series of 3 to 4 batters.

This would help to reduce specialization in the bullpen. These are supposed to be the best pitchers in the world, if you can't be reasonably effective at retiring hitters on both sides of the plate - I am happy to see someone else get the major league job.
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
There are suggestions like:
eliminate CF & SS
push mound back
increase size of ball
reduce games to 8 innings
reduce lineup to 8 batters

Are there really people who have so little care for the history of the game that they would entertain such thoughts? I'd prefer the game just to cease existence rather than change the record book because of those sort of changes. They can easily speed up the game with a few simple changes to the rules and enforcement thereof: keep the batter in the box and if he isn't ready when the pitcher is, call a strike; give the pitcher so many seconds to throw and if he doesn't, call a ball. Don't keep granting time outs to batters or pitchers. The players might not like it but they will soon start obeying the rules to avoid being ahead/behind, respectively, in the count. Saving five seconds a pitch would cut 25 minutes off a game (based on 300 pitches).

You could cut more time off by limiting mound visits by the catcher and other infielders. You could limit how thin the handle of a bat can be, which would cut down on broken bats. And as I said earlier, adding two teams and expanding to four 8-team leagues with no inter-league play would cut down on travel and allow a little more breathing room in schedules.
 

glasspusher

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
9,973
Oakland California
Count me in as one of the folks who say the best and only changes that need to be made are speeding things up a bit and cutting down on "human rain delay" tactics. I can think of great pitchers like Eck and Pedro who used getting the ball back and quickly making the next pitch an advantage.
 

Philip Jeff Frye

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 23, 2001
10,229
The major reason games are so much longer today is television, mostly in the form of more commercials. IT would be easy to shorten the game by reducing the number of commercials shown. I think we would all agree that MLB is never going to do that. So why would they decide to get rid of commercials by shortening the game to 7 or 8 innings?
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,482
The end result here would be a shorter game with increased offense. The purist in me hates the idea of moving from 9 to 8 innings, but I really think something drastic is needed.
There is an easier way to shorten the games than shortening innings (which would reduce scoring). Go to 3 balls and 2 strikes. And for the purists out there, note that the Balls and Strikes have changed over the course of the years.

Most of the interest in the game is when the ball is put in play (or when the batter is struck out or walked). Going to 3 balls and 2 strikes gets to the action more quickly.

Plus the added bonus is that it keeps pitchers healthier for longer. And you would have less need for pitching changes - in fact less need for pitchers, of which there are clearly not enough good ones.

I would love to see an exhibition games played like this. I can imagine how much quicker and more interesting the game would be and you wouldn't really have to change anything else.
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
There is an easier way to shorten the games than shortening innings (which would reduce scoring). Go to 3 balls and 2 strikes. And for the purists out there, note that the Balls and Strikes have changed over the course of the years....
The NL and American Association went to a 4-ball walk in 1889 and strikeouts required 3 strikes from early, on, except for 1887 when it was changed to 4 strikes. From 1888 on it has been 3 strikes. In 1880 the rule was changed to say that the third strike had to be caught in the air but that was later changed to the modern rule that allowed the batter to run if first base was not occupied, etc.

Yes, there were changes but the current rules have been in place for around 130 years (for you non-purists).
 

gryoung

Member
SoSH Member
- Any visit to the mound by any member of the team counts. 2nd visit in an inning requires pitching change
- 3 warmup pitches for pitcher entering the game
- Batter must remain in box once 1st pitch to him is thrown (exception is a foul ball)
- No replay except for home runs

Let's start with these and see how it goes.
 

Sad Sam Jones

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2017
2,494
I think the problem with games dragging on is twofold: The first is the actual amount of time, but probably the bigger problem is pace… that's not just the time wasted between pitches, but the number of at-bats that end without any action. I'm fairly certain that 3 balls and 2 strikes would completely backfire regarding pace. An entire generation of players who have been taught to embrace taking pitches and downplay striking out aren't going to change overnight. The amount of walks and strikeouts would make the game completely unwatchable.

*
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
- Any visit to the mound by any member of the team counts. 2nd visit in an inning requires pitching change
- 3 warmup pitches for pitcher entering the game
- Batter must remain in box once 1st pitch to him is thrown (exception is a foul ball)
- No replay except for home runs

Let's start with these and see how it goes.
These are good.

I would keep replay but have people in the NY headquarters monitor games more closely so they have the jump on close calls. It needs to take less time. Taking replay away will just increase arguments again.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,482
I think the problem with games dragging on is twofold: The first is the actual amount of time, but probably the bigger problem is pace… that's not just the time wasted between pitches, but the number of at-bats that end without any action. I'm fairly certain that 3 balls and 2 strikes would completely backfire regarding pace. An entire generation of players who have been taught to embrace taking pitches and downplay striking out aren't going to change overnight. The amount of walks and strikeouts would make the game completely unwatchable.
Sure there would be an adjustment period but after you get by that (perhaps by instituting it in the minors first) I think you'd see the pace - and entertainment value - of the game increase dramatically. Each pitch would mean more. You'd also see the best pitchers face the best hitters more often.

Sitting around a radio and listening to a broadcaster say, "And here's the 2-1 pitch / It's a strike / The count runs to 2-2" may be entertaining in a day and age where there's nothing to do at night and people are sitting on their porches waiting to go to bed but these days, people don't have the attention span. Frankly, how many people just watch a baseball game these days even at the park? Everyone I see is always multi-tasking because devoting 3, 3.5, or even 4 hours to a single thing isn't possible anymore.

BTW, I do know it's never going to happen. But I guess I don't understand why people put so much emphasis on pitches that don't really matter. I mean when they were adjusting the rules in the 1800s, they reduced the number of balls and strikes (at first it was unlimited pitches) in order to make the games shorter and more watchable. Maybe it's time to do that again.
 

HangingW/ScottCooper

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
2,493
Scituate, MA
There is an easier way to shorten the games than shortening innings (which would reduce scoring). Go to 3 balls and 2 strikes. And for the purists out there, note that the Balls and Strikes have changed over the course of the years.

Most of the interest in the game is when the ball is put in play (or when the batter is struck out or walked). Going to 3 balls and 2 strikes gets to the action more quickly.

Plus the added bonus is that it keeps pitchers healthier for longer. And you would have less need for pitching changes - in fact less need for pitchers, of which there are clearly not enough good ones.

I would love to see an exhibition games played like this. I can imagine how much quicker and more interesting the game would be and you wouldn't really have to change anything else.
Also drastic, and in line with the type of thinking that needs to be done.
 

HangingW/ScottCooper

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
2,493
Scituate, MA
Here is an idea: Give pitchers a earpiece like quarterbacks and don't allow mound visits unless you are pulling the pitcher.
Yeah, I've thrown that idea out there as well. I think there are some no brainer changes that should happen like the earpiece, a pitch clock and reducing the time for mid inning pitching changes. I just don't think it's drastic enough.
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
BTW, I do know it's never going to happen. But I guess I don't understand why people put so much emphasis on pitches that don't really matter. I mean when they were adjusting the rules in the 1800s, they reduced the number of balls and strikes (at first it was unlimited pitches) in order to make the games shorter and more watchable. Maybe it's time to do that again.
When they first started, pitched were throwing underhand from 50 feet and were no allowed to snap their wrist. Not only that, batters could call for the height of the pitch: high/low/middle. Why not just go to tee ball?
 

the1andonly3003

New Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,371
Chicago
Cricket found ways to change what could be multi-day games into something that NBCSN and ESPN would carry now. Baseball can learn from cricket.

People should really re-consider the concept of a season. There could be multiple short, long and classic versions played at the same time. Have a 5-inning tournament, 7-inning tournament and 9-inning tournament. Same rules. Enforce pace of play rules. No wacky changes except length. Money will still be there, if not more.
 

HangingW/ScottCooper

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
2,493
Scituate, MA
Reviving this thread on the heals of the sign stealing b.s.

Some sort of clickable/vibrating device for the catchers in the glove, transmitting audio or vibrations to the pitcher would solve a lot of the catcher mound visit problems.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
4,711
But the sign stealing bs is about using technology to gain an unfair advantage, and that would be using technology to gain an unfair advantage.

If you want to stop the mound visits, just make a rule that limits them.
 

wiffleballhero

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 28, 2009
4,528
In the simulacrum
1. Move fences in, but...
2. Radically soften the balls so that...
3. You can re-institute "soaking" to get outs.
4. Allow no more than 4 pitches between inning, no around the horn either. Also, eliminate between inning commercials and make the ad revenue come via banner/ on field ads only. Just get on with the F-ing game.
5. Eliminate all coach and manager mound visits. Screw the catcher going out there too.
6. Stop the relentless combination of North Korea style nationalism and Vegas entertainment that is pervasive in every park and also a total waste of time.
7. Since ball parks now look like they are going to start to be netted like the county iceplex, eliminate foul territory. I want to have seats about where the third and first base coach are standing and I want other seats as close to home plate as I am standing behind the chain link fence at my local little league field. Foul pop outs are about as exciting as sitting at a traffic light.


If you really want to mix things up:
1. Get rid of having nine hitters and, more to the point, have a 4 person batting order that is all DHs. This will get rid of the intentional walk really quickly and almost certainly make for both very high scoring and a pattern of outs coming on batted balls almost all the time. With #2 above you could get rid of the HBP and maybe just count that as 2 balls.