FEB. 8: Another rule change being weighed by Major League Baseball is more radical and would put a runner on second base at the onset of extra innings, reports Jeff Passan of Yahoo Sports. The league is planning to test the scenario in the lowest levels of the minor leagues, according to Passan, and there’s already at least one proponent of the idea among the league’s top decision-makers: MLB chief baseball officer Joe Torre.
“Let’s see what it looks like,” Torre told Passan. “It’s not fun to watch when you go through your whole pitching staff and wind up bringing a utility infielder in to pitch. As much as it’s nice to talk about being at an 18-inning game, it takes time. … What really initiated it is sitting in the dugout in the 15th inning and realizing everybody is going to the plate trying to hit a home run and everyone is trying to end the game themselves. I don’t know what inning is the right inning. Maybe the 11th or 12th inning. But there are a number of reasons.”
Passan notes that any implementation of this type of radical change to the course of play would likely take years, adding that adoption would be an easier sell to players that have become accustomed to the shift throughout their minor league career. Nonetheless, there figures to be strong opposition to a change of this magnitude, which could have far-reaching impacts ranging from scoring decisions to in-game strategy to actual roster construction.
FEB. 6: Major League Baseball has made formal proposals to the MLB Players Association for two rule changes, ESPN’s Jayson Stark reports. The proposed changes would affect the size of the official strike zone (raising the lower part of the zone to the top of the player’s knees from its present location at “the hollow beneath the kneecap,” as per the official wording) and allow a team to simply signal if it wants to intentionally walk a hitter, letting the batter advance to first base without the pitcher having to lob four balls wide of home plate.
The latter change would be largely symbolic of MLB’s efforts to increase the pace of play, as Stark notes that the actual time saved by eliminating the four tosses per intentional walk is fairly negligible. Reducing the size of the strike zone is also technically a time-saving proposal, as the move would theoretically cut down on strikeouts and produce more balls in play, and thus more action.
The MLBPA is weighing both rule change proposals with membership, with Stark reporting that the intentional walk elimination is the more likely of the two to be approved for this season. An automatic intentional walk is a cosmetic change, whereas altering the strike zone obviously has much more impact on the game itself. According to Stark, the new zone would be roughly two inches higher than the old one, as umpires have been calling strikes below the knees with more regularity.
There are “mixed feelings” amongst players about the strike zone proposal, Stark reports, and thus it could be difficult for a decision to be reached in time for the new regulation to be implemented for the start of the 2017 season. Since Spring Training is so close, a decision on either proposal for 2017 will need to come “sooner rather than later,” according to one Stark source.
I don’t agree with automatic intentional walks. I think the potential for making a mistake needs to remain. It might be rare, but it happens and could still impact the game.
Agree.
Totally agree
Absolutely totally agree.
100% agree
Agreed
I’ve been watching baseball for over 50 years, and while I’ve seen a wild pitch on an intentional walk come close to happening a few times, I’ve never seen it actually happen. While I’m sure it has happened and can happen again, it seems the incidence of it is SOOOO low as to be a non-factor.
I saw a guy get a hit off of an IBB pitch once. And I don’t mean in Bad News Bears (but that’s another example).
And I remember at least one guy getting a hit off of an IBB-thrown ball once. I can’t remember who it was, I want to say it was Beltre.
Edit: I actually just looked it up. It was Miggy when he was with the Marlins, and it happened in the 10th inning and his IBB-hit actually ended up scoring the winning run for the Marlins.
Sorry, I thought you said “get hit”, not “Get a hit”, so I basically repeated what you said.
But yes, the scenario is above, and it resulted in a win.
Me too. Vlad Guerrero did this multiple times. Others as well.
Gary Sanchez hit a sac fly to the track last year off an intentional walk pitch.
johnny bench was struck out on a fake intentional ball in the world series
catfish hunter!
I loved watching Vlad on pitch outs. That guy could hit the wildest pitches.
Actually it was Rollie Fingers……but don’t feel bad, nobody remembers A’s moments correctly, if at all…….but those of us that do care a lot Go A’s !!!
It probably is a non-factor, but the incidence of intentional walks in general is not common enough to slow the pace of play any significant amount.
There were 932 intentional walks in baseball in 2016. Over the course of 2,430 games, that’s just under 0.4 intentional walks per game. Let’s say intentional walking someone takes 30 seconds…you’re saving about 12 seconds per game. Not enough of a benefit to change the rule if you ask me.
Great point! These proposals are getting old and seem to be of the token nature anyway.
That’s about 8 hours per year of saved time. Assuming each game is covered by 2 broadcasters, that would be 16 hours of saved TV time for MLB broadcasters over a full season. That would have some value overall.
Also, small changes can make big differences if there are a lot of them.
Has major league baseball actually asked the fan what they think about these rules to speed up the game? A lot of these fans in the stands have paid $50 or $75 or $100 a piece for their family of four to maybe come to one or two games the entire year and maybe the fans want to make it last as long as possible. If you’re going to spend $75 a piece for for tickets and be out of there in an hour and 45 minutes or 2 hours then I don’t think they would be very pleased spending that kind of money for two hours of entertainment.
If you’re a loyal fan who watches most games, I almost guarantee you want faster games. If you’re a fan who only watches or goes to one or two games a week, it’s easier to say, “I want longer games, don’t speed them up, I want to enjoy the experience”, because you’re not fully invested in every game being that long.
I get it from your perspective, you don’t want to run around doing different things all day with your family, you want to be able to settle into something and veg out, but there are millions of people for whom the games aren’t some big event, they’re just watching them at home every night and they don’t want to have excess time wasted, they want to watch a game and do something else.
I think you’d be surprised about the “loyal” fans wanting shorter games. People watch and enjoy baseball differently. Some people get totally emotionally invested in every game (which it sounds like is you ), some love the grind of a long season of long games to enjoy as the backdrop of every summer night (like me), others can live off just reading the box scores in the paper the next day.
I totally understand where you are coming from about length, but enjoying watching the game play out in real time doesn’t make anybody any less of a “loyal” fan. There are also tons of options for ways to artificially shorten games – you can DVR to fast forward through commercials, and MLBTv’s condensed games are amazing for seeing every pitch rapid fire.
Don’t get me wrong, I wasn’t suggesting all diehard fans want faster games, but, I believe many do. It’s not like we’re talking about a game a week here, in which case it’s no biggie, your team plays nearly every day, and that’s a huge time commitment. If they could shave even 15 minutes off every game on average, that’s 40 hours a season. That’s nearly like saving an entire NFL season’s worth of watching time.
I watch almost every game of my team every year and I also watch a decent handful of other teams games. I am an extremely loyal fan and I don’t want faster games. I would argue that loyal fans would in fact like games to last as long or longer. I hate when it’s all over. When I used to go to games with my dad years ago he would always say “Free baseball!” if the game went to extra innings. That’s the way people who honestly love baseball should feel!
DVR has changed everything for me as a fan. I know longer care at all about the length of a game since I don’t watch a single commercial anyhow.
A loyal fan, or a die hard fan should not want faster games.
Yes, but some of these “non factor” plays that rarely happen end up to be some of the biggest most exciting plays ever. Think about some of the greatest plays that have happened in the playoffs throughout history. Many of these plays were a first of their kind. That doesn’t mean we should get ride of them however. Keep intentional walks like they are!
How about Gary Sanchez???? He was a few feet away from a home run on an “intentiona ball pitched. Check the tape.
It’s rare. Also, Miggy slapped an RBI single years ago on a IBB pitch once.
More so, it doesn’t actually take that much time, so what’s the point in trying to save 4 tosses that take 30 seconds?
I don’t understand this need to shave 7 minutes off MLB games. That isn’t going to affect casual fans watching the games.
Agreed. It’s not super frequent, but anything can happen in the course of making 4 balls intentionally, and the opposing team deserves the chance at that possibility. Like you said, it can impact the game. Look at Gary Sanchez hitting a sac fly during an intentional walk attempt last year! Two completely different outcomes.
I agree. I remember during the 1972 WS when the As struck out Johnny Bench on an intentional walk play. I also remember seeing Rod Carew reach out and get a hit during an intentional walk by a Tigers pitcher.
Agree completely. Happens multiple times per year, and is often crucial. For some Ps, it’d be akin to allowing Jon Lester to just yell “out!” rather than throw the ball to 1st on a bunt (something he is notoriously – and unusually, compared to most – bad at, & it’s a disadvantage for the Cubs).
Not to mention, it’s 4 extra pitches in an era of strict pitch counts. Not high stress, but something.
Do you count lobs back to return balls to the umpire in pitch counts too? Pick offs? Warm ups? Do you count fielded balls by the pitcher in their count?
You are being ridiculous here.
No, because none of those things are actually recorded as pitches. Actual IBB are. YOU are the one being ridiculous.
No, he’s not. It may count in the “official” pitch count, but I can guarantee you that no manager is counting those for their “strict pitch counts.”
Dude, pjcmnu, they just toss it like 70 mph with no desire to get it near the strike zone. It’s not going to cause you to have chronic elbow pain.
Yup. Stuff happens when the defense doesn’t execute and hilarity can ensue. Another example not cited here was Joe Ferguson getting a hit for the Dodgers on IBB and I want to say it was a Series or playoff game (against Oakland?).
Nope, it was against the Phillies in August of 1980, against Tug McGraw.
You are talking about something that has a 0.1% chance of happening, its totally not worth it.
Disagree. Even a small chance (and when the pressure is on, like the playoffs, it’s more likely to happen) is worth it, considering the few seconds that are saved. If it saved 10 minutes a game, there would at least be an argument for it.
Imagine game 7 in the World Series, 9 th inning, second and third -one out. Trout up. What kind of ball of nerves is in that pitcher’s stomach when the manager says to pass him.
What can happen is priceless and isn’t limited to the W.S.
DON’T SCREW WITH THIS RULE.
Wait, how is Trout in the WS? Did he get traded and I don’t know about it?
Lol, my thoughts exactly.
It IS worth it when you’re only talking about shaving 12 seconds off of an average game. If Intentional BBs happened every game or even most games, then maybe, but they don’t.
Couldn’t agree more. A pitch is a pitch
Agreed and that bs runner on second is crap. So you have a reliever with a low era and he is penalized for a run that never got a hit.
It’s a plate appearance. You still have to have 4 balls to draw a walk and the pitcher should have to throw them. So we can just speak a pitch into existence based on intention? Why can’t I signal that I want to intentionally strike out a batter? Obviously there is no such thing as an intentional strike out because a pitcher can largely control if he throws a blatant ball vs a strike. But intentional walks ARE live ball plays. Things can and some times do happen during a IBB. All this tinkering to speed up the game usually doesn’t (replay). What it does do is remove drama and nuance.
Joe Torres is wrong and making the game less fun
No to strike zone
Yes to IBB
There’s my 2 cents
Mixed feelings on the strike zone… Hitters: “Yes! Yes! Yes!” Pitchers: “No! No! No!”
Glavine & Maddux would be on a ledge at MLB HQ in NYC threatening to jump!
Would changing the strike zone even change that much tho. Most of the umps already mess up the zone anyway so I’m sure the bottom part of the zone would remain mostly
A great start would be to find 15 crews of umpires that could call an actual consistent strike zone. Have to try that rather than change the official size of it. Some pitchers make their living at the bottom of the zone
Some like HOF Glavine made theirs on the outside corner.
Agree! One day we will have a world series decided by a bad ball/strike call and there will be a knee jerk reaction to solve that problem by having pitches called electronically. We are a reactive society, so those things will be slow to be implemented until someone royally screws up.
I don’t ever want to see an electronic strikes and balls. What I would like to see however, is having umpires having an assigned position for the season rather than alternating through a series. In theory, that would mean a better strike zone as the ump behind the plate would be calling the same zone everyday.
you know how worn down those home plate umpires would be by july? eeiisshhh… you gotta rotate through…
You wouldn’t say that if you did 9 innings of any level behind the plate. I’ve done 4 American Legion games in a day 2 bases 2 plate and could hardly move the next day. After a week the HP guy would be dead. They rotate for a reason.
That would wear down good umpires so fast. It’s draining to be a MLB home plate ump.
I’m all for electronic strike zones.
Give the players the calls they earn, both hitters and pitchers.
Not what an umpire decides with their fallable eyes and feelings. The human error concept is so ridiculous. I hate that argument. People want to reward flaws and call the human error the umpires. I’m sorry, I thought the human error we were interested in was the players.
1 rule they should consider getting rid of is advancing to first base after striking out. If pace of play is a problem, this would help.
Are you talking about a dropped 3rd strike? I guess it would kind of make sense getting rid of them, but there is no real good reason. But idk if your even talking about that.
Original poster clearly a lobbyist for the knuckleball industry! : )
Yes, dropped 3rd strike
It’s apart of the game. If a bad throw happens, which is actually fairly common, it adds a base runner.
The strike zone when I grew up was from letters near your chest down to your knees….not no knees to your belly button it’s stupid…hitters are so big whiners that they get a high strike above their belt….make the strike zone correct for peak sake.
My feelings exactly. If the umps would call the strike zone as its written in the rule books, it would be a better game. Prevent batters fom stepping out of the batters box if you want the game to speed up. Baseball players are spoiled.
They already implemented a rule to prevent batters from stepping out of the batters box. Though I saw it all the time still. I think they became pretty lax on it.
Eliminate velcro batting gloves and the pace of the game increases dramatically
HA! this exactly
Rule changes across all major professional sports have there pros and cons. The NFL has ruined some of its authenticity by making the game softer. Yes it is in place for player safety, however the NFL violates safety protocols on a regular basis anyhow. Replay is a good thing to have but slows pace of play down. My point is rule changes will always be met with resistance.
I was just going to post something similar but it seems you’ve taken the words out of my mouth. Today’s zone is a joke.
If they do the strike zone thing you do not want to get stuck with a bunch of sinker ballers on your staff. If umps actually call it, sinkers will be harder to throw effectively.
The difference between the hollow of the knee and the top of the knee is what, like 1 inch maybe 2?
Harry Chiti, a Cubs catcher in the 1950s.
No more home run trots. Hit it out. Bat flip. Back to dugout.
If they ever do this, I’d be pissed.
And while not the exact same situation, Fred Merkle would be rolling over in his grave.
I would be too. For the most part. Gets the fans going, and more time for them to celebrate. Plus, walk off homers just wouldn’t be the same. Could implement some sort of time limit to round the bases though?
Victor Martinez could never get around in the time limit tho
That means your dead. If you are rolling over in your grave.
All parrot’s would riot
I think these changes are meaningless. Is there really anyone not going to games now, that is going to say :”wow, games are 5 minutes shorter than they used to be. I guess I’ll start going again?” A more meaningful change would be to move playoff and World Series games to an earlier time slot, so the games will end around 10pm EST. Baseball’s concerned with drawing younger fans, and has tried to say the game doesn’t have appeal to them because the game is too slow. I grew up being able to watch the playoffs as a kid. I could watch them before going to bed (sometimes getting to stay up a little bit to see the end). Some teachers would turn on the radio for the afternoon games, or even bring in a TV. It was the only time I got to see the NL play the AL.
Now interleague play is constant so its no big deal, and Playoffs and World series matchups start at 8:30 pm. While I know the proposal I offer means the West Coast won’t get prime time coverage, they won’t be asleep while its happening and can choose to watch. Even the SuperBowl started at 6:30 pm EST, and I doubt that cost it ratings. If they want to attract the younger fan, get them while they are kids!!! Don’t make the playoffs for Adults only.
Adults are the ones buying tickets/merch/paying the cable bill. That’s probably why most playoff games are during prime time and not right when the kids get out of school.
The thing is, if they cut out a bunch of things that are only 30 seconds, eventually that adds up to a pretty significant difference.
Well I can tell you this, none of my teachers turn the game on our “smart” boards. Why can’t they just use those for something students actually care about. I find that my grades get lower in April because that’s when I sit in the back and start watching the games on my phone. Moral of the story, I wish I had your teachers.
More balls in play would increase playing time. More balls in play = more hits and that = more playing time.
Another fail by Manfred and MLB. Let’s hope the MLBPA says no.
pace of play doesn’t just = game times though. I think the argument is that the pace is faster if there are more balls in play and stuff going on than if batters are just watching pitches and k-ing
Exactly. They’re not referring to the time from a beginning of a game to the end. Just the amount of action and the pace of play. Pitchers taking forever between pitches, occasionally long commercial breaks, 7th inning stretch etc. All stuff that makes the time spent at the stadium even longer, and is redundant to the pace of play.
I do understand what they are trying to do with pace of play. But they really haven’t made a dent in the game time so far, for all their trying.
My main point is getting overlooked. You don’t take the most exciting time for your sport, and play it when “future paying fans” can’t watch it.. That’s a major reason why they don’t end up becoming “future paying fans.”
game times = length of game, not hour at which the game is beginning*
I dont understand this idea. Watching a 10+ strikeout game by a starter is more exciting to me than anything else. Less strikeouts is a bad thing imo. How much less exciting would it be to have batters leaving a Kershaw curveball for a ball???
because fans (apparently) don’t enjoy that.
Not everyone wants slugfests every game. I know I like pitching duels better.
Pace of play should be measured as PA per hour. It isn’t about game times it’s about instant gratification and ADD of today’s generation of fans. I’m love pitchers duels and relievers that walk from the bullpen and slow HR trots. It’s all part of the game but pace of life has moved faster. Baseball must too. The IBB rule change and guy on 2nd is dumb. Messes with integrity of the game but, the k zone change is fair, has precedent and will increase PA per hour. No to electronic K zones but let’s get better tech for TV games. Base cameras catcher’s mask cams etc.
That’s not right. More balls in play equals more outs. A groundout takes a lot shorter than a strikeout. A hit takes a shorter time than a strikeout. A strikeout or a walk takes pretty much the longest time possible of any at-bat outcome.
But this change would increase both hits and walks, and thus would not actually accomplish anything as far as pace. All it will do is increase offense and reduce strikeouts. Games will probably be longer if anything.
It will just turn all games into how the Yankees and Red Sox games used to be when both teams were notorious for drawing a ton of walks. And man was that painfully boring.
If MLB is trying to make baseball more exciting and less drawn out, they are going in entirely the wrong direction.
I don’t see how shrinking the zone is supposed to cut down on time. In theory, you’ll get more walks, which gives more at-bats, which lengthens the game.
These rule changes don’t get rave reviews.
Oh I remember that joke
So you’re not into the whole brevity thing?
+1
Hard to imagine they’d try to implement a strike zone change only a couple of weeks before spring training opens.
Merkles’ boner!
Make the strike zone wherever you want as long as “robo-umps” are calling it.
It’s just stupid that everyone watching the game sees the box on TV and knows the calls are wrong pitch after pitch.
Also, “pitch framing” AKA fooling the 60 year old man standing behind you should NOT be a skill.
I think it’s kind of stupid to assume that the box on TV is always right. For one thing the box is two-dimensional but the strike zone is three-dimensional. It might also be stupid to assume that pitch framing is a real skill.
If you don’t trust Statcast, PitchFX, etc., fair enough, but based on what? I’ve seen zero evidence they are inaccurate.
And GM’s are certainly valuing pitch framing as a skill. Arizona just got rid of a catcher who could hit to bring in a guy who can’t because he can “frame”. So, now Dbacks fans can watch him ground out all year but be super entertained by his “framing”.
Pitch framing does zero good for baseball and a lot of bad.
Some value it, some not. Some value it far more than others. Pitchers and catchers are hardly of one mind on the subject of whether this is a measurable skill. More to the point, I have yet to hear a single, plausible theory for why one catcher would be better at this than another. In fact I haven’t even heard a weak theory describing the substance of this supposed skill. In reality pitch framing is a relatively new concept and remains controversial. It isn’t a settled science just because someone says so.
How about MLB and the MLBPA discuss something that would forever put an end to this discussion…like implementing laser technology with a pre-programmed strike zone for every batter?
That would be a pretty impossible endeavor. Hitters could just pull a Rickey and crouch way down in their stance, stand further or closer to the plate, stand up straighter in their stance, etc. At that point why even have pitchers at all. Just go back to pre-1884 baseball and let the batter tell the pitcher where they want the ball to be thrown.
Uh, what?
Approximately 0% of this makes sense. Can I have what youre on?
Having an automated strike zone for each batter would be easily circumvented, right? Theoretically there would still be umpires and a ball thrown over a batter’s head wouldn’t be a strike, right? And yes, before 1884 batters told the pitchers where they wanted the ball thrown.
-To my understanding, “roboumps” like Pitch F/X and the Zone Evaluation system use constantly updating historical data of each hitter’s specific batting stance to define a baseline/preset of each hitter’s individual strike zone. Adjustments to a hitter’s defined strike zone are made on a pitch-by-pitch basis, as necessary, which should prevent/deter hitters from intentionally varying their stance to “trick” or throw off the roboump strike-defining mechanism.
-It’d do a hitter no good to move closer to/farther from the plate because the horizontal (and depth) boundaries of the strike zone are absolute, defined by the edges of home plate (which obviously remains static in dimensions and location for all hitters).
-Not to nitpick, but batters could call for a “high” or “low” strike zone until 1887 (not 1884). That roughly halved the strike zone, but it only showed a batter’s preference on the vertical axis of the strike zone.
The pre-programmed strike zone for each batter eliminates the possibility of any batter trying to alter their individual zone during the course of a game. All players would have already been pre-measured for their individual strike zones, standing at a normalized erect position, with the information stored at put into use when they come to bat. The inside and outside corners would be standard vertical lasers in accordance with the three-dimensional home plate. The knees and letters (or whatever reference is deemed appropriate) would be individualized horizontal lasers based on each each players body.
Completely disagree with either rule change. Stop altering the game for the sake of speed. Batters need to stop crying about the strike zone that people have been able to hit fine in for years. And there are many things that can happen on a IBB that can alter a game, especially late in the game (wild pitch with runners on, hit, etc.). Neither should happen.
Uh, this zone is tiny and hitters barely hit 50 anymore where up until the mid 00’s it was a regular thing.
Watching a guy get IBB sucks to witness as a fan. It’s definitely one of the most boring and useless things to watch happen on a sporting field, definitely. If there’s a way we don’t have to watch it anymore, we should do things that way.
That is your opinion, he gave his.
I’m against auto IBB. Sure the chances of the pitcher misfiring those 4 pitches is small. I think it’s a bit of a challenge for the pitcher to recover and get back in the strike zone with the following batter. The more skilled pitcher, the lesser the challenge.
Does the pace of play take importance over the 0.1% chance of this happening though?
MLB is going to say it does.
1. IBB = increasing pace of play, MLB says yes
2. Strike zone = pitchers say no, hitters and MLB say yes, because now theres no ‘roids, these guys have got to hit 60 homers somehow!!
I think this whole pace of play crap is stupid.. it’s baseball! It has always been a long game. If you don’t like it quit watching it. If I’m paying an arm and leg for a ticket/beer/hotdog/candy and souvenirs, I want to get my money’s worth and it lasting 3-4 hours is perfectly fine by me. The Super bowl lasted long last night, but ya don’t see anybody complaining do ya?!
I’m with you, I actually want a longer season and a balanced schedule, which would be 14 teams 6 home 6 away so 14×12=168, argh, we are so close and these clowns won’t add a week of games! More baseball is best!
I don’t understand the “we want a shorter season” arguments, I want more baseball! Let the season and postseason run from beginning of March-end of November!
because players don’t want to be playing the most important games of the season in the east/northern cities when it’s 30 degrees
Yea I’m on the other side of the fence about season length.. I think it should be cut down by about 10 games. Don’t get me wrong, I love baseball and breathe it. Heck my 18 year old kid breathes it and constantly has to have a bat in his hand. But I think it would cut down less injuries. These players are having to fly around the country sometimes from east/west coast back and forth. I’m tired just driving for an hour lol. I think the all star break needs to be longer. Let the players enjoy family times a little longer, especially the ones who play in the game.
I hate seeing the last out in the World Series.. that means just football(college for me). And boring basketball. I’m itching to see spring training and for opening day. But that’s part of it, there’s an offseason in every sport. Heck if I was just a football fan I’d go nuts having to wait as long as football fans have to lol.
I think they should get rid of that stupid regular season series in October. October is for the playoffs, not Reds at Brewers.
Agreed! The game of baseball hasn’t changed, the viewers have. Everybody wants constant action, and that’s not what watching baseball is about. I savor the three hours, and watch it to relax. My biggest fear is losing the game’s integrity and meaning to appeal to the masses of “I want it now” viewers, and these little changes all head in that direction.
I honestly think one of the biggest reasons the games take forever are the amount of relief specialists and pitching changes throughout the game, especially mid-inning. I remember watching so many games where heading into the 7th inning it’s only been an hour and a half and I’m thinking “this game is flying by!” And then there are two pitching changes over the course of the top of that inning, and another in the bottom half of the inning, and by the end of the seventh we are back on track for a 3+ hour game.
Sure, that doesn’t happen often, but even just one mid-inning pitching change adds a good 5-6 minutes to the game. I don’t know what MLB could do to curb this, but I’ve noticed that to be the biggest pain in the ass.
Amen
Forgot to ask, how much money would be lost at concessions if the game was 17-18 minutes shorter?
Obviously, neither of these changes would really increase the pace of play much. There aren’t enough intentional walks in baseball to make it matter, and the extra outs from putting the ball in play more is probably negated by the extra hits from putting the ball in play more. The elephant in the room is the commercial breaks between innings and the 13-man pitching staffs that allow for so many pitching changes, which also are accompanied by a commercial break. But I don’t know how you fix that without fundamentally altering baseball strategy.
Eliminating LOOGY’s by making a rule that each relief pitcher must get at least 3 outs might be feasible.
Do you really think the MLBPA would ok something that is going to eliminate jobs/value of some of it’s members?
So if a guy comes in and gives up three straight homers he has to stay in until he gets three outs? That would probably increase the time of games.
What a stupid rule that would be. What if he couldn’t anyone out in the first hour?
If you want an answer, go right to the source. Ask Jeff Locke. He can tell you.
Just limit managers to one pitching change per inning.
One thing that I haven’t seen mentioned is how an intentional walk can affect a pitcher. Especially if a pitcher is just getting into a groove, if they have to intentionally walk a batter, it’s not unheard of for them to be unable to get back in the strike zone (at least effectively) to the next batter. Intentional walks can help or hurt you in more ways than just allowing the batter who is currently in the box to get on base.
I find it hard to believe that a pitcher “getting into a groove” will have to intentionally walk a batter, unless prime Barry Bonds steps up to the plate…
Perhaps I worded it poorly. My point is, have you ever seen a game where a reliever was brought in and on the first or second batter was asked to walk a batter intentionally and then couldn’t get back into the strike zone? I remember it used to drive Bob Brenly crazy when a Cub reliever was brought into a game to intentionally walk someone before facing anyone.
I agree with this. Why force a new pitcher to perform a negative outcome with his first batter. If I were managing, the pitcher being lifted should issue the intentional walk in most circumstances. If it was the starter or a reliever who began the inning, it was his pitching that created the scenario for the IBB in the first place.
Absolutely hate both of these ideas. They already took away the play at the plate and breaking up the double play. What next? No sliding boys we don’t want you to get your pants dirty. Geeesh
Agreed.
What do those two have to do with pace of play changes? They did those to protect players.
Protect the players. When we were kids we practice those moves daily. It was the fun part of the game we loved. You had to learn how to play hard and not get hurt. Now it’s like a bunch of sissies.
Baseball doesn’t need violent contact. If you want that, watch football.
It’s not violent when done correctly.
2 points. First, guys aren’t striking out a ton now because the zone is too big. It’s because they don’t care. They’re not embarrassed by K-ing 150 times per year if they go 30-100, & more importantly, don’t get shipped to AAA. Second, all these POP changes don’t help. Baseball will never be basketball or football (thank god!), & any potential fans who need that aren’t going to be brought around by piddling time savers/pace “improvers” such as this.
This is what i don’t understand. Baseball mentions time between plays, how much time in a football game consists of players standing around between plays? I don’t watch football much at all, but is the NFL trying to fix that too, or is this just an issue that baseball thinks is impeding their viewership?
No, the NFL is not trying to fix that. But football teams only play once a week for 16 weeks, so football fans don’t have any reason to complain. There’s a huge difference between dealing with it 16 times compared to 162.
That being said, I absolutely hate going to NFL games because the commercial breaks are awful.. So boring.
Guys are striking out because they don’t care? Seriously?
Maybe it has more to do with the fact that there lucky to face the starting pitcher more than two or three times in a game before a swarm of relievers come on around the 5th or 6th inning. They’re all fresh with a differing assortment of pitches and velocity. Many of those relievers in the current era throw 95-10o mph fastballs with low 90 sliders, especially the late inning setup men and closers.
I am in a 10 team keeper league. I can keep 6: Gary Sanchez, Pujols, Bryant, Correa, Betts, Aledmys Diaz, Cueto, Gerritt Cole, Urias, Aaron Sanchez, Carlos Martinez, and Byron Buxton. Who should I keep?
If you have all those guys, you don’t need our advice. Get rid of Bryant, Sanchez, Correa, and Betts.
It was actually pretty competitive. I don’t even have the best team. One dude’s rotation was Syndergaard, Jose Fernandez, and Madison Bumgarner. It’s custom points based. I even had Harper and Arrieta to start the year, but traded them after the break for Carlos Martinez, Pujols, Maeda, and Betances because Cole went down and I had a black hole at first base. Right now, I plan on keeping Cueto, Urias, Bryant, Betts, Correa, and Buxton. I’m taking the gamble that Buxton carries over from his hot finish from last year. I am big on Diaz, but seems silly to keep two SS.
Get rid of Diaz or buxton
It’s time for the MLB to put the DH in both leagues. It allows players to stay in the league longer. Also changes the way bullpens are used.
Strong agree. Hate seeing legends like Ryan Howard have to retire early due to some scrub 5th OF taking up his role on an NL team.
You just used Ryan Howard and legend in the same sentence. Precious.
I’m not really saying Ryan Howard is a legend. But I think your confusing legend with all time great. I can’t think of any examples right now but let’s say a random utility player hits a walk off homer in game 7 of the World Series winning the team there first World Series ever or at least awhile. I would say he’s a legend but he’s definitely not a hall of famer. Travis Ishakawa kind of fits in there for his NLCS walk off. But all time great is different than that. So is Ryan Howard an all time great? No, but he could be a legend to Philly fans.
No thanks. I hate AL baseball.
The current setup is perfect. Utility men and LOOGY’s need jobs, too.
No no no no. I love the strategy of the NL. Huge decision making. And I’m sure most hard core baseball fans agree with me. Baseball players were meant to be able to run hit and throw the ball. Not sit on the bench and go try to blast the ball 4 or 5 times a game.
The NL strategy is highly suspect system. In the AL, managers have a much harder time actually deciding when to sub in a reliever. In the NL, it’s determining by the lineup.
Also, I like watching professional hitters bat.
3-2 games with the occasional 9-7 game is more interesting than 9-7 games with the occasional 3-2 game.
I hate AL baseball.
I hate it when a pitcher gets hurt on the base paths.
Nothing like using a false, exaggerated statement to make a point. The discrepancy between actual runs scored in a typical Al contest compared to an NL game is nowhere near what your comment claims.
It can be argued that a great pitchers duel between starters has a better chance of lasting longer in the AL because the manager might not be forced to lift the one on the short side of the score because he’s due up in the latter stages of a game. The DH not only affords great pitchers to remain in the game longer, it also gives fans a chance to see professional hitters bat 4-5 times a contest instead of pitchers who, for the most part, embarrass themselves at the dish.
Btw-Perhaps the DH rule can be tinkered with so as to not penalize a team that actually has an excellent hitting pitcher. It’s not stated that a pitcher (one who actually takes the mound) can’t bat in the AL, but if he does the team forfeits their use of the DH for the remainder of the game.
I hope they leave the strike zone alone. I don’t think there’s a problem with It. The problem is some umpires don’t seem to know the zone.
I don’t like automatic intentional walks either. I know it’s just going through the motions, but those motions are a part of the game.
Nay, to both. I mean seriously start squeezing pitchers more and you’ll have higher scoring affairs. It reduces the amount of good pitchers because keeping it down in the zone isn’t going to be good enough when players can easily get to balls just below the zone too. I mean hell if we just want to end the careers of guys like Dallas Keuche go for it, because his borderline calls and swings he was getting won’t happen anymore. All this will do is hurt groundball pitchers and lead to more balls in the air. If you want to get guys like Kershaw to 40 million a year faster this will do it.
Make steroid use mandatory so we get 10 guys hitting 50 bombs a year. That’ll bring back the casual fan
Quit messing with the game. It’s already been screwed up enough by the likes of Selig, etc.
So, we need to make the games higher scoring but shorter? The baseball math does not add up… Don’t change the game for the interest of those who do not care. Most fans love baseball because it has always been, well, baseball. Bird in the hand… And easy ways to make it better… No plate collision, no DP breakup, no IBB, but still no NL DH? C’mon man…
Bottom line is, they are adjusting the strike-zone to try and counter the ineptitude of the Umpires. Unless you’re fixing the root cause – bad calls – the problem will rear its head again soon enough.
In saying that, I’d be inept if I was trying to figure out where a 95mph fastball passed over an imaginary box, with two blokes moving in front of me as a distraction.
Robot umpires, please.
Robot umpires is the only answer. It’s ridiculous that anybody disagrees. The NFL nailed it, its a sport made for TV because everyone knows they get the calls right, integrity. Easy for fans to understand and see what happened. I’m so sick of watching 10-15% missed balls and strike calls a night.
Pitch framing is a garbage stat… how about a strike is a strike not sometimes a strike if the catcher moves his hand slightly as he catches it or catches it with a different part of his glove. Talk about impossible to get new fans to understand a game.
Fighting meks in case any manager or player tries to argue balls and strikes!
I was at a game in Anaheim between the Angels and the White Sox. Angels pitcher threw a wild pitch over the catcher to allow the tie run to score. The Sox eventually won the game. Leave the intentional walk as is. Leave the strike zone as is.
I propose that to increase the pace of play, we reduce the number of bases to three. Henceforth all baseball diamonds will be referred to as baseball triangles.
I’m lost on the correlation between a smaller strike zone and balls being put in play more often. When hitters don’t have to swing at as many pitches, is there not less probability the ball will be put in play? Am I crazy?
one way to reduce intentional walks would be to give them two bases instead of one
Ha
I think if the umpires just applied the strike zone as the rule is written, it would sort itself out.
I don’t care either way for both cases. The only way they’re going to speed up the game realistically is by limiting pitcher changes/mound visits, and I still really haven’t heard a perfect solution for that either. You either cripple the strategy or don’t do enough to speed it up, so it’s a pickle.
Doesn’t matter if they change the strike zone. Umpires will still call what ever strike zone they like on any given day.
You right there hard headed sometimes lol
There is a solution to many of the pace of play issues that would also make baseball much more TV friendly….
Bluetooth.
Let the managers, catchers, pitchers, etc. all talk to each other AND then make that audio (edited by each team for strategy concerns, of course) available to TV after the games. It could be used the same way the NFL uses the video/audio of coaches talking to players on the sidelines to provide after the fact insight.
The catchers would have to use a series of code words (like football) since the batter is standing right there but he could put his finger down to let the pitcher know which code word is the real one.
The audio you get from sidelines isn’t the coaches radio, the entire sideline is wired for sound. The actual radio link is a completely different setup and isn’t Bluetooth. They run on closed frequencies controled by the NFL. It’s also illegal to have a two way radio signal in the NFL. You’ll never see that in MLB, you’d have to strap a pack on the catcher and the pitchers and find a way to put receivers in their ear, which no pitcher will willingly do as it would throw off their equallibreum having different noises going into each ear. They’re also imperfect, signals get crossed and can be picked up on accident. Not to mention it would actually slow the play even further as the pitcher and catcher would sit and wait for calls to come in before even progressing to the next play. The pitcher and catcher being able to communicate only compounds the problems more as its more likely to cause mix signals if you’re throwing hand signs down with it.
Strike zone should be from the bottom of the letters on your shirt to the knees
Definitely not a fan of the proposed starting extra innings with a runner on second rule.
Completely agree.
That would be the worst rule change in the history of the game. The commissioners office has become a joke. No intergtry in the game anymore.
ban the shift
The shift is a great strategic element of the game
Starting an extra inning with a runner on base is a cute idea… for a video game. I cannot believe that anyone is seriously considering doing that for real baseball, at any level. Just, no.
Agree
Agreed. What an awful proposal. They need to stop trying to “fix” non-existent problems.
Didn’t think it would be possible, but Manfred is actually making me miss Selig.
Is there a single person who likes he runners on first and second. Terrible idea. MLB is changing rules that true fans love in order to make the game shorter for fans who follow and care less and just want a fast game. Fast games are not baseball. Plus, I don’t even think the less analytical fans want this either, extra innings are not just part of the game but they’re really fun, even in a long game! Some of my favorite TV baseball memories are those late 20-inning games.
If I followed the update right, my opinion is a firm: NO.
Wow, that automatic base runner in extras rule has to be the dumbest thing I’ve heard in a looooooong time.
Agrees. Football games last like 4 plus hours and include literally nothing in the middle of it for 30 minutes. Leave baseball alone.
Football is COMPLETELY different. Teams only play 16 games in the regular season, not 162. Fans can, and do, easily deal with it.
Doesnt mean its not a chore to sit through what is like 17 minutes of actual action and 3 hours of people standing around.
It’s a “chore” you only have to do 1/10th of the time compared to baseball’s 162+ times. It’s a gigantic difference. Not to mention that most people couldn’t call it a “chore.” Football is MUCH more “appointment tv” than baseball for the heavy majority of America. If you miss a game, you only have 15 more opportunities to see your favorite team (minus playoffs), and you have to wait a week in between. If you miss a baseball game, all you have to do is turn the TV on the next day. Worst case scenario, you have to wait 2 days.
It is interesting that football is seen as being so exciting (at least for Americans) while baseball is perceived as boring, when they essentially have the same pace of play. Shorts bursts of play punctuated by 15-30 seconds of nothing. Someone just did a study that showed there’s like 12 minutes of action in a football game; there is more time spent showing replays of action than actual action. And don’t forget the hour of commercials to watch 12 minutes of gameplay.
It’s more fun watching a position player pitch than it is watching a pitcher hit.
Ok now! This isn’t the NFL or College Football. They’re trying to find new ways to speed up the game in order to draw younger fans. This is baseball and it doesn’t work that.
So baseball should just give up on young fans and do nothing but cater to the people who already like it? That’s not a recipe for success in any business. You have to constantly seek to improve your product. Not saying runners on base in extra innings is an answer, but it’s worth exploring new ideas.
Maybe we should educate young fans on the strategy of the game instead of allowing the NFL and ESPN to tell them baseball is boring. Those 2 entities have have indoctrinated this generation that baseball is slow and behind the times for 20 years and the MLB run by Selig allowed it. It was out marketed out positioned and focused internally while NFL was focused on increasing market share and marketing to the next generation of fans.
It is interesting how football and baseball kind of have the same pace of play, yet football is considered exciting and people don’t seem to care about all the downtime between plays, yet some people can’t watch a baseball game for a few minutes without feeling bored because of that same downtime.
I don’t know what the solution is, but maybe it boils down to TV presentation and announcing more than actual changes to the game. I think that if announcers got a little more excited about every pitch and play, that would translate to the viewers and make them feel like the action is more exciting. Many baseball announcers are just plain dull, and that can influence what viewers think of what they’re watching.
A play or penalty occurs after each NFL snap and the downtime between plays is generally filled with multiple replays. This isn’t the case with MLB where the result after a pitch doesn’t usually result in a ball put in play. Most result in strikes, balls and fouls and generally don’t merit a replay afterward.
After 11 innings, why not you use hits or total bases as a tiebreaker?
I fear they might actually consider something like that later if they’re thinking about this.
Why not have the managers play rock-paper-sissors? That’d get it over quickly.
Isn’t that a softball thing?
No thanks.
Why don’t they just change the name to MLB slugfest and let the players fight? They make roughly the same amount of sense
amazon.com/MLB-Slugfest-20-04-Pc/dp/B00008BR9Q
Finally a proposal I could get behind.
Obviously this proposal ruins the statistical integrity of the game, right? I mean, as it is baseball is a zero-sum game. A run scored is a run allowed. So if you put a random runner on second to start an inning, he hasn’t gained that base, nor has any pitcher allowed that advance. And then, does the pitcher on the mound take the loss if that runner scores? He didn’t allow that runner. And is the runner credited with a run scored despite having never reached base officially? I really detest this simply because one of the things that attracts me to baseball is the purity of the numbers.
And also, what if a team has exhausted its bench before extra innings? Who becomes the mystical runner who appears on 2nd?
What stupid progressive idiot came up with this extra innings idea.
Some of the most interesting games are the ones (like last year’s Astro game) where the the bullpen is gone, starters brought in and they’ve got to do it all over again in less than a day.
Then the next day watching the strategy in who’s called up to start, whos available in the pen etc.
It was Joe Torre, not a “progressive idiot” at all but a totally old-school guy.
He’s one “old-school guy” that ought to be scanned for dementia. Seriously!
Torre is old school? Old Fool is more appropriate.
He needs to move on to a new career.
I love it. Great idea. Maybe they should also make it so after 13 innings all the infielders have to take their gloves off and field blindfolded. 13 because that’s the number of beers I have to drink before any of this makes any kind of sense.
Lol
A lot about Notting. Play the game.
I am so tired of this pace of play junk every year. Baseball is baseball for a reason. Don’t forget what brings people to the park and why they turn on the games day in and day out. The NFL has forgotten their fans and weakened the product trying to find mass appeal. The only people who complain about pace of play are sportswriters looking for a narrative.
NFL has actually done the opposite of try to find mass appeal. They’ve made their sport worse by every definition.
But I’m just commenting here so I don’t get fined.
Have the managers jello wrestle at home plate if still tied after 12…
i know this article doesn’t mention it, but the proposed extra innings thing where someone starts on second base is just disgraceful. horrible idea and would completely RUIN extra innings. 2 sacrifices wins a game?? ridiculous. I try not to go on a rant but i just hate the fact that this is even proposed and i’m scared of what else may come.
I can’t believe any true fan of MLB would be in favor of such an asinine rule. Shame on Joe Torre for even attaching his name to this proposal. Fans need to start a petition to stop this kind of kind of “progressive” thinking. If this is adopted, who knows what may come next?
Three balls and two strikes to shorten games?
Two outs per inning?
7-inning games?
Slaughter rules?
Teams with corporate logos on their uniforms like we had in little league?
exactly my thoughts. i know this will probably never happen, so the worst part of it to me is not knowing what other destructive rules they might think of
I’ve got a fix, instead of even playing baseaball, each manager will take out their “duel disk” and one will yell “prepare to battle”, while the other declares that it is your move, yu-gi-oh. Prepare to du-du-du-duel.
And when you take a player out of the game they are sent to the graveyard
Putting a runner on 2B to start an extra inning? This has to be the most asinine rule consideration I have ever heard in my 61 years of being a die-hard fan of MLB. It’s even worse than the college football overtime rule.
Who thinks of this crap? The same geniuses that want to abolish shifts when there are so many things out there that could actually improve this great game, like pre-programmed laser strike zones for every batter? How about solving the DH controversy one way or the other instead of having two separate rules for each league, something no other professional sports has with their conferences? WTF!
If MLB was serious about implementing an extra inning rule like this why don’t they instead focus on something that could really help and potentially bring long lasting labor peace and financial sanity to it’s game. Increase roster sizes to 27 in exchange for some sort of salary cap. Better yet, do that and also expand MLB with the addition of two more teams bringing the total number to a more workable 32, 16 in each league. They could even set up 4-four team leagues similar to the NFL conferences, something which could help solve their postseason dilemma with the silly one and done wild card elimination game.
Adding two more franchises would bring an enormous amount of extra revenue to MLB with the entrance fees for each new team, two more media markets for TV/radio and would also create 114 new jobs for the MLBPA along with the roster size increase to 27. This is the kind of progressive thinking that should, at the very least, lead to a soft cap in MLB rather than the ineffective revenue sharing/luxury tax system currently in place that does little to alleviate the gap between the big and small market clubs. Who know’s, this might be something that might actually help the average fan down the road, not that the powers at be would ever care about that?
College football OT is way better than the pros though. Not saying I agree with the proposed idea, but you’re way off.
Wow, I wish I would have read the rest of your post commissioner. First of all, I don’t think anyone should even consider expanding roster size until they curtail september callups. Since that’s a give and a take between owners and players, it should have happened at the bargaining, but now will take years. Second, as much as everyone might want two new teams, you have to fix the two broken ones right now, that being oakland and tampa bay. Most logical markets to go to are montreal and, hell, vegas, but you can’t just pop up new teams there when two that you already have would be better suited moving. It might soon be possible, because with the raiders leaving that city should build them a new stadium, but Tampa, even after finally getting the right to move out of st. Pete, still seems at an impass.
Of course, the A’s and Ray’s situations need to be addressed, regardless of expansion. Their stadium issues need to be resolved in their current cities or by moving them to another metropolitan area.
Both expansion and the resolution of the current ineffective revenue sharing/luxury tax in favor of some form of salary cap, would undoubtedly aid the state of all small marker franchises. Each team would get an equal share from the expansion entrance fees and the salary cap, along with a salary floor, should help with short AND especially long term competitive balance in the sport.
Sports leagues are an industry unto themselves and need some form of competitive balance to be more viable and to thrive long term. MLB used to be the national pastime but has, unfortunately, been passed over by the NFL for any number of reasons, including the fact that a market like Green Bay has the same opportunity for success as one in New York city.
agreed..
if they put this idea out there, what did they reject, making pitchers in extra innings throw with their opposite arms to increase scoring? maybe go with 5 fielders instead of 9? 5 strikes for a strikeout? maybe make it like a celebrity soft ball game and have a few targets sitting around the field and if a hitter can hit one, the game is automatically over?
Salary caps don’t really bring parity. The NBA and NFL have salary caps and there is no parity in those sports (at least not in AFC for football).
Exactly. In the last 15 Super Bowls these are the QBs for the AFC: tom Brady, Peyton manning, ben roethlisberger, joe flacco. That’s it. Salary caps don’t increase parity or reduce ticket prices – NFL tickets are by far the most expensive of the big 4 Sports.
I purposely never used the word “parity’ in my comment. I just feel it is important for each team to be on a more level playing field in MLB when it comes to spending money on their ball clubs. It may lead to some needed long term form of “competitive balance”, but that should be dictated by the excellence of each clubs front offices, player development staffs, managers, coaches and players….not necessarily because some organizations have the ability to outspend the competition.
I’m all for businesses to have the ability to make money and not necessarily have to share it all with other clubs They can keep the majority of their profits from local media, advertising and concessions and spread it out among their investing partners and shareholders. They can reinvest it in their stadiums, minor league systems, international facilities or even, God forbid, give their fans a break at the ballpark. They just shouldn’t be allowed to spend 2-5 times as much as any other franchise for their product on the field. As I said before, some sort of salary cap that has both a ceiling and floor, the closer the gap the better.
I’m also all for an equal splitting of national MLB revenues between owners and players, similar to what is already occurring in the sport. No return to the “Golden Era” of baseball where the owners had total control of players before the onset of a strong union and free agency. The current system doesn’t seem to working all that well for a decent number of veteran MLB players, especially the ones who have produced in the past and are now having to settle for minor league contracts with an invite to spring training. Is it really necessary for the owners and players to have a small percentage of players earning the highest percentage of dollars in salary? I’m not proposing union scale wages based on seniority and not production on the field, just something a little more balanced and sensible that would benefit a greater number of players without taking away the incentive to perform to the best of their individual abilities.
This might be the worst idea in the history of sports.
The fact that Joe Torre allowed those words to escape his lips is stupefying.
Don’t know about the worst idea. In one year in the 1800s, baseball had a rule that a ball would be fair if it hit in fair territory first, regardless of whether it went beyond 1b or 3b in fair territory. Some guys became proficient at chopping balls into the stands for ground rule doubles, so much so that the 3b of some teams waited in foul territory.. They changed the rule for the next year.
Gotta say, I don’t know if this is the best idea ever, but boy, it’s times like these where you really understand why everyone says that baseball uses “tradition” as a crutch more than any other sport. People really are afraid of change I guess.
California tie breaker at the MLB level would be such a sad sad outcome. Baseball games are long because of extended commercial breaks. That’s it. A pitch clock makes sense, I guess. I don’t love it, but, fine, free pass on IBB. But these are all bandaids. It’s still confounding to me people believe a younger audience will like baseball more if games are 5 minutes shorter. That’s insane. If MLB wants to compete with NBA/NFL it needs to get rid of its insane copy right rules and open the game up to the masses like the NBA does. They get so much free publicity every single night. It’s a shame they are so short sided with short term profits over long term solutions.
less commercials between innings.- show 10 second ads between batters if you need to instead to make up for the revenue.
instant replay reviews can’t go beyond 30 seconds; if they cant see the call was wrong in 30 seconds, it stands.
enough of this other stupidity.
Oh, no… oh god no.
Do people ACTUALLY think that younger fans ACTUALLY don’t watch baseball because it’s boring? It’s because casual youth baseball has almost completely disintegrated and baseball has become a pay-to-play industry. They don’t watch baseball because they don’t PLAY baseball. Just google it, little league baseball is shrinking like crazy. How on earth are anyone going to actually love the game of baseball if they only see it on TV?
Great post. You are so right.
I’m much more of a hockey fan than baseball and grew up playing hockey in a non-traditional market with few rinks and few opportunities to play.
It was only when the number of rinks and chances to play things like roller hockey increased that the game grew in the US. The top pick in the last NHL draft was from Arizona.
NFL casuals aside, not many people watch sports they didn’t play. They have to get kids playing and find ways to make it accessible and affordable.
Because of its nature football is conducive to TV which is why it’s so popular. It’s a low commitment level to follow your team a day a week and if you know nothing about it the commentators are always there flapping their gums explaining everything.
Aside from that, in my area as far as team sports go, hockey, soccer, and the last 10 years, lacrosse are what draw youth athletes. Baseball is a specialized sport pretty much after age 7, whereas there’s a million different levels of competition for soccer and hockey especially.
These things won’t affect pace of play significantly. If they want to speed games they need to reduce the crazy number of pitching changes that happen in today’s games.
Back in the 70s and 80’s, teams typically carried 9 or 10 pitchers. Today teams carry 12 or 13, and they are playing matchups out of the bullpen all night,
Mandate that teams can only carry 10 pitchers on a roster and you will see fewer pitching changes, The pitchers in the players union may grumble, but teams will still carry the same number of players…just have a deeper bench for position players (like they had in the past)..so it may not be a terribly hard sell.
“Pace of play” is weaselspeak for trying to make the game more of a polished media product.
I’m not sure whether or not I agree with your reasoning, I’d have to think about it, but as a 15-year-old I can say that none of my friends or myself dislikes long games. People assume that we’re impatient, but we love the game of baseball in full time. Taking out some extra innings will not only hurt adult fans, but it will have the same negative impact on the teen or child like myself.
Some MLB teams are concerned enough to actually address this issue on a local basis. The White Sox are a great example with a strong commitment to local amateur baseball, including in their own ballpark’s neighboring inner-city communities where the opportunity to participate is limited due to city resources. They are actively encouraging the inner-city young to play baseball and also to attend MLB games for little or no cost.
A runner on second base? Why don’t we just save reliever’s arms and shorten the games by having extra innings games decided by tee-ball?
Because that would be totally preposterous. The only way to resolve extra inning games in a fair manner is Rock-Paper-Scissors.
I think Joe has it wrong.. as much as we like to talk about 18 inning games.. It is fun to watch. a manager… you know actually manage.
I like long extra inning games… makes me feel like i’m getting my monies worth.. Eventually if a game goes on too long the umps will speed it up… ask Michael McKenry and Jerry Meals.
JOE TORRE IS AN IDIOT! This is the same moron that managed to a tie game at the 2002 All Star Game. He needs to go before he does any more damage to baseball
All these rule changes and we will be playing Blernsball in no time
i’d rather have tie games than mystery runners
i say after 3 xtra innings call it a tie
No changes. Outside of lowering the mound and slightly altering the strike zone, baseball has remained the same game for 100 years. If MLB made the same kind of changes the NFL makes on a nearly yearly basis, the the pitching mound would be near 2nd base. Or perhaps have a runner start at 2nd base in extra innings.
I like how Torre claims that it’s “not fun to see a utility guy pitch” I personally love when position players take the mound late in games or in blow outs, I don’t know about other people, but it brings a whole new element to wanting to win a game. These proposed rules are some of the worse yet., but that’s just me.
Easy to me,simply call the strike zone as it is written in the rule book,letters to the knees,over the plate not 3 or 4 inches outside,those pitchers who nibble around the corners hoping to get a call slow the game down,simply force them to throw the ball in the strike zone.
It’s pretty well established that pitchers getting calls equals fewer walks, fewer deep counts, fewer runs and faster games.
Enforcing the pitcher’s clock or preventing hitters from taking leisurely strolls after every swing would do more to speed up the pace of the game. They could also limit the total number of mound visits a coach could make in an inning (aside from injury visits). This IBB and runner on 2B nonsense won’t make any significant difference.
All that said, I don’t think pace of play is the game’s biggest problem. I think the season is a little too long and not enough kids are playing it anymore. When I was growing up, almost all of my friends played baseball and collected baseball cards. We felt more vested in the seasons. If you’re doing neither, baseball becomes easier to ignore.
Why is it necessary to “speed up the pace of the game” at all? As you said, it’s not MLB’s biggest problem, which is lack of attendance, caused by the enormous overhead that prevents a lot of fans from attending games.
Not sure it’s the overhead. Baseball is still making money and last year, attendance was over 73M. According to Forbes, baseball had its 13th consecutive year of record revenue in 2015. So whatever they’re charging, fans are willing to pay. The cost may keep some people out, but the game is still thriving and stadiums are still getting plenty of seats filled.
I never said it was necessary to speed up the game. I said if they’re going to do it, there are much better ways than the crap proposals currently being considered.
When you have a World Series team in Cleveland pulling in about 19,000 per game, they obviously they’re not “willing to pay”.
When it comes to new stadiums and rule changes, MLB has always treated the fans as if they’re a non-entity. Tax subsidized parks are built for the sportswriters and owners, while it’s the sportswriters have been at the forefront of changing the pace of the game, for no other reason than making their time on the job shorter. Few are fans of the game, but a bunch of condescending, politically correct wannabe journalists. They’ve had an influence on the game that far exceeds their numbers or importance.
I find that hard to believe. What makes you believe that?
Read the sports columnists whenever there’s a promotion for a new stadium. If it was up to them, Fenway and Wrigley would have been gone years ago. Influencing public opinion is what it’s all about, and a lot more of a rush for them than doing a boring column or game wrap. All they want is to put in their hours and go home. Most MLB fans don’t care where they watch a game or whether or not there’s a half dozen restaurants and bars in the park, pushing overpriced heartburn, or an exploding scoreboard. It’s not a good thing to be so naive.
I guess times are just changing if we need to compromise the integrity of the game itself to make it easier to package up as a media event. If this is what the league and union are discussing, the inmates are now administrating the prison. MLB and MLBPA seem to care exclusively about generating more money for them to argue about divvying up at the next CBA negotiation.
Of course they’re trying to get more money. It’s a business. And it’s the fans who give them more money, either directly through ticket, concession, and merchandise sales or indirectly through driving TV ratings up and forcing companies to pay more for commercials and the network to pay more for the rights to broadcast. Trying to speed up the game is just marketing to your audience.
The pace of the game isn’t baseball’s biggest problem, but whether you like it or not, the integrity of pretty much any game erodes the more money is involved.
And here I thought my liking it or not liking it was a major factor
Stop trying to speed up the game! Don’t change the game at all. You wanna speed it up, eliminate or reduce commercials. Otherwise leave it alone. Manfred needs to resign immediately.
Making the strike zone smaller isn’t going to speed up the game. It will produce more base runners, though, as there will be more walks. Three outs and the inning is over so a bigger strike zone (more strikeouts) speeds the game up. A smaller strike zone will cause games to be longer.
I think they should do a rule reset back to 1990, 1970? More and more rules are NOT making the game better.
Leave extra innings alone. Putting a man on at second at the beginning if an inning is gimmicky to me.
Leave IBB alone. Do they really think that will speed the game up at all? Let’em play.
As a ball player myself, I love the extra innings and the feeling of hitting in that winning run. It would be taking away from the game to a runner on second. You need to work for the win, not given it. And the intentional walk can be used as a fake to really throw a strike (its happened before) or they throw the pitch inside too much and the batter hits it (its happened before) and even a wild pitch to move a runner (most likely happened before). Baseball is a long, mental game and if you want to change that then leave the sport.