there is no problem with baseball in itself. If they want to speed the game up have the umpires call strikes that are strikes instead of squeezing pitchers and forcing them to throw it right over the plate, leading to hits extending the inning and the game time
I seriously hope you didn't think that was an original idea.... Â
You can nap during a game, have beers, talk, have lunch, it's relaxed and slow. No need to change. It's not overly exciting but to me that's the draw for seeing a game. If you want fast paced excitement it's not your sport.
there is no problem with baseball in itself. If they want to speed the game up have the umpires call strikes that are strikes instead of squeezing pitchers and forcing them to throw it right over the plate, leading to hits extending the inning and the game time
Over the past decade hits, walks and runs have declined while average game time has increased. So that's clearly not the cause.
How about going the soccer approach and getting rid of commercials, and just have the advertisements in the corner of the screen. I believe the Baltimore-Chicago game last season, without any fans in attendance, was not broadcasted on television, and the game was roughly 2 hours.
It would never happen, but it would shorten the game.
has a minimal impact on baseball. You'll still need to have the infielders and pitcher warm up.
It would never happen, not because of TV, but because it is a pretty shitty idea.
Fatman - The commercials absolutely do contribute. They add an extra 1-2 minutes between every half inning, which equates to an extra 20 minutes at a minimum. If that chart is correct, you can see how TV impacted the time. Now, on top of TV you have all the extra time pitchers and batters take, more pitching changes. It all adds up.
Fatman - The commercials absolutely do contribute. They add an extra 1-2 minutes between every half inning, which equates to an extra 20 minutes at a minimum. If that chart is correct, you can see how TV impacted the time. Now, on top of TV you have all the extra time pitchers and batters take, more pitching changes. It all adds up.
Commercial breaks for a regular MLB game are 2 minutes and 5 seconds. But on average, the first pitch doesn't come until more than 3 minutes after the last half inning ended.
Fatman - The commercials absolutely do contribute. They add an extra 1-2 minutes between every half inning, which equates to an extra 20 minutes at a minimum. If that chart is correct, you can see how TV impacted the time. Now, on top of TV you have all the extra time pitchers and batters take, more pitching changes. It all adds up.
Commercial breaks for a regular MLB game are 2 minutes and 5 seconds. But on average, the first pitch doesn't come until more than 3 minutes after the last half inning ended.
That's interesting. So, even if it isn't the commercials themselves, the charts show increases in average game times from the 50s on, as more games became broadcast on TV.
I bet even in HS, the breaks between half innings were at least two minutes. You figure, we ran out on the field, the pitcher would take about 8 pitches or so and playing third base, I'd usually get three throws over to first and then turn to get the throw from the LF. By the time the umps got a drink, talked to random people near the dugout and started play, it wasn't a whole lot faster than a MLB game.If any sport is made for commercials, it is baseball.
What are they going to do between innings, just have dead air when they can get $$ for it and not really slow the game up by much?
Steve Phillips thinks that going to 3 ball and two strikes might work Â
I don't like the idea but it is an interesting one.
Quote:
Phillips proposes a change that would speed up games and also get to the heart of baseball’s most pressing concern these days -- protecting pitching arms.
Rather than four balls and three strikes, his format would have three balls for a walk and two strikes for a strikeout.
The idea sounds a bit too radical at first blush, but when you think about it, in today’s game it would be like starting every at-bat with a count of 1-1 on the batter. Would that really be such a bad thing?
The worst games, after all, are the ones that seem to have endless 3-2 counts, with hitters taking pitches trying to work counts and pitchers nibbling at the corners, trying to make the perfect pitch when ahead in the count.
​Playing by the Phillips rules, 2-1 would be the new 3-2.
​“Nothing would really change as far as the outcome," Phillips said by phone on Friday. “You’d just get there more quickly.’’
​Phillips speaks from some experience on the subject. As a high school player in Michigan, his Catholic School League played its games by those rules. And he recalls it feeling quite normal, with nothing out of the ordinary about the numbers of either walks or strikeouts.
“It worked," he said. “It shortens games but it’s more about pace of game than time of game: how quickly a form of action follow the previous action. With shorter counts, there’s a lot less time between the action."
shorter counts, there’s a lot less time between the action."
That’s part of the appeal, but Phillips says the biggest incentive is how it would reduce workloads for starting pitchers while still allowing them to go deeper in games. Importantly, then, the highest-paid players, starting pitchers, could pitch longer and be bigger factors in determining outcomes, the way they were before pitch counts ruled the game.
“It would protect young pitchers, which is what everyone is looking to do now,’’ Phillips said. “Because it would take fewer pitches for a starter to get through each inning, he might be able to go deeper.
“And if you’re spending $30 million a year on a starter, that’s what you want from him.’’
Indeed, it’s likely that on many a night, a starter could throw a complete game, or at least hand the ball directly to the closer for the ninth inning, without approaching the 100-pitch mark.
To me, that’s a better way of eliminating some of the down time than making new rules limiting the number of pitching changes per game, which affects a manager’s strategy in a completely contrived way.
So Phillips’ idea is intriguing, though he admits it’s unlikely Major League Baseball is anywhere near being ready for it.
“I can’t see Tony La Russa or Jim Leyland saying, ‘yeah, let’s do that,’ ‘’ Phillips said with a laugh. “But at the very least, why not try it in the minor leagues.
“To me it’s really more about protecting pitchers than anything else. In the minor leagues it would give pitchers the repetitions of facing more batters, which is what you want, without asking them to throw too many pitches.
“And from the offensive side, you’re not messing with the numbers players can put up. Maybe guys who never swing at the first pitch would have to change their approach, but that wouldn’t take much adjusting.
“Everybody talks about how the 1-1 pitch is so critical in an at-bat, one way or the other, so now you’d be starting at that 1-1 pitch.’’
That's interesting. So, even if it isn't the commercials themselves, the charts show increases in average game times from the 50s on, as more games became broadcast on TV.
From the mid 50s to the mid 80s, the length of the game stayed about the same at around 2:30 despite the increase in televised games. What's changed since then (besides the wasted after the commercial break ends).
1) Time between pitches has increased
2) Time between batters has increased
3) Number of pitching changes has increased
4) Average pitches per batter has increased
5) And most recently: replay reviews
How about the umpires use the authority that they already have to keep batters in the box between pitches and keep the pitchers working at a pace, especially with no runners on base.
The last thing we need is for baseball to become the NFL from a rules standpoint.
Do not allow batters to leave the batter's box once they enter. The only exceptions are for team time-outs, a swing, or to avoid being hit by a pitch. If a batter steps completely out of the batter's box, it's a strike.
Do not allow batters to leave the batter's box once they enter. The only exceptions are for team time-outs, a swing, or to avoid being hit by a pitch. If a batter steps completely out of the batter's box, it's a strike.
Agree, you can't really implement a pitch clock if you are going to allow batters to drag things out between pitches.
If umpires start enforcing that hitters stay in the box, Â
if they did enforce a pitch clock when no runner was on base.. if you limited mound meetings (includes just catcher and pitcher)... and i actually like the rule of limited mid innings relief changes in one game...
you'd see a big decline in time of games while simultaneously improving the viewer experience (especially on TV where most people dont have 3.5 hours to spare every day)
Agree with above that the breaks between innings is a non-starter- guys need to warm up and 3 commercials doesnt seem excessive to me. Besides its the pace of the action itself that needs to improve.
Replays and intentional walks - while fun to debate - also dont happen often enough to move the needle.
don't allow players to leave batter's box (or maybe an allowance of just one time to step out). Gotta think that this alone would save at least 5 seconds per pitch thrown.
I don't have any numbers, but imo one problem is the advent of specialized relief pitchers. Back in the 70's you had Sparky Lyle and Gossage getting multiple inning saves; you rarely see that today.
The first issue is a team purposely slowing the game down so they can get a relief pitcher ready. To counteract this delay limit the number of visits to the mound from the dugout to 2 per inning (not the 2 per pitcher like they have today). Also, limit the number of visits to the mound per inning by positional players and have a different limit for the catcher.
Second, limit relief pitchers to 3 warm up pitches. After all, they have already been warming up in the bullpen why do they need more than a few pitches to get used to the mound on the field? An alternative is to put relief pitcher on a clock; if they want a lot of warm up pitches then get yourself from the bullpen to the mound asap.
They experimented with a 2min 30sec pitching change clock in the Arizona Fall league a few years back, but i'm not finding anything on google that says it was implemented in the MLB.
They experimented with a 2min 30sec pitching change clock in the Arizona Fall league a few years back, but i'm not finding anything on google that says it was implemented in the MLB.
What about the clock I mentioned in LF at Yankee Stadium? I believe it reset after each pitch.
What about the clock I mentioned in LF at Yankee Stadium? I believe it reset after each pitch.
It's not reset per pitch. It's for the changeover between innings. (I don't think they use it to time the warmup of a relief pitcher, though as MAB said, there is technically a clock on that too, just one that's not really enforced).
How about people just enjoy a game instead of trying to shave a few minutes off?
Also, if there's a guy on base, how do you get around pitchers throwing phony pickoff attempts because they aren't ready to throw a real pitch?
Over the past decade hits, walks and runs have declined while average game time has increased. So that's clearly not the cause.
I'd be all for using one and enforcing the automatic ball rule.
It would never happen, but it would shorten the game.
It would never happen, not because of TV, but because it is a pretty shitty idea.
It would never happen, not because of TV, but because it is a pretty shitty idea.
Commercial breaks for a regular MLB game are 2 minutes and 5 seconds. But on average, the first pitch doesn't come until more than 3 minutes after the last half inning ended.
Quote:
Fatman - The commercials absolutely do contribute. They add an extra 1-2 minutes between every half inning, which equates to an extra 20 minutes at a minimum. If that chart is correct, you can see how TV impacted the time. Now, on top of TV you have all the extra time pitchers and batters take, more pitching changes. It all adds up.
Commercial breaks for a regular MLB game are 2 minutes and 5 seconds. But on average, the first pitch doesn't come until more than 3 minutes after the last half inning ended.
What are they going to do between innings, just have dead air when they can get $$ for it and not really slow the game up by much?
Phillips proposes a change that would speed up games and also get to the heart of baseball’s most pressing concern these days -- protecting pitching arms.
Rather than four balls and three strikes, his format would have three balls for a walk and two strikes for a strikeout.
The idea sounds a bit too radical at first blush, but when you think about it, in today’s game it would be like starting every at-bat with a count of 1-1 on the batter. Would that really be such a bad thing?
The worst games, after all, are the ones that seem to have endless 3-2 counts, with hitters taking pitches trying to work counts and pitchers nibbling at the corners, trying to make the perfect pitch when ahead in the count.
​Playing by the Phillips rules, 2-1 would be the new 3-2.
​“Nothing would really change as far as the outcome," Phillips said by phone on Friday. “You’d just get there more quickly.’’
​Phillips speaks from some experience on the subject. As a high school player in Michigan, his Catholic School League played its games by those rules. And he recalls it feeling quite normal, with nothing out of the ordinary about the numbers of either walks or strikeouts.
“It worked," he said. “It shortens games but it’s more about pace of game than time of game: how quickly a form of action follow the previous action. With shorter counts, there’s a lot less time between the action."
shorter counts, there’s a lot less time between the action."
That’s part of the appeal, but Phillips says the biggest incentive is how it would reduce workloads for starting pitchers while still allowing them to go deeper in games. Importantly, then, the highest-paid players, starting pitchers, could pitch longer and be bigger factors in determining outcomes, the way they were before pitch counts ruled the game.
“It would protect young pitchers, which is what everyone is looking to do now,’’ Phillips said. “Because it would take fewer pitches for a starter to get through each inning, he might be able to go deeper.
“And if you’re spending $30 million a year on a starter, that’s what you want from him.’’
Indeed, it’s likely that on many a night, a starter could throw a complete game, or at least hand the ball directly to the closer for the ninth inning, without approaching the 100-pitch mark.
To me, that’s a better way of eliminating some of the down time than making new rules limiting the number of pitching changes per game, which affects a manager’s strategy in a completely contrived way.
So Phillips’ idea is intriguing, though he admits it’s unlikely Major League Baseball is anywhere near being ready for it.
“I can’t see Tony La Russa or Jim Leyland saying, ‘yeah, let’s do that,’ ‘’ Phillips said with a laugh. “But at the very least, why not try it in the minor leagues.
“To me it’s really more about protecting pitchers than anything else. In the minor leagues it would give pitchers the repetitions of facing more batters, which is what you want, without asking them to throw too many pitches.
“And from the offensive side, you’re not messing with the numbers players can put up. Maybe guys who never swing at the first pitch would have to change their approach, but that wouldn’t take much adjusting.
“Everybody talks about how the 1-1 pitch is so critical in an at-bat, one way or the other, so now you’d be starting at that 1-1 pitch.’’
Steve Phillips' proposal of two strikes you're out could work as MLB rule change - ( New Window )
From the mid 50s to the mid 80s, the length of the game stayed about the same at around 2:30 despite the increase in televised games. What's changed since then (besides the wasted after the commercial break ends).
1) Time between pitches has increased
2) Time between batters has increased
3) Number of pitching changes has increased
4) Average pitches per batter has increased
5) And most recently: replay reviews
The last thing we need is for baseball to become the NFL from a rules standpoint.
you'd see a big decline in time of games while simultaneously improving the viewer experience (especially on TV where most people dont have 3.5 hours to spare every day)
Agree with above that the breaks between innings is a non-starter- guys need to warm up and 3 commercials doesnt seem excessive to me. Besides its the pace of the action itself that needs to improve.
Replays and intentional walks - while fun to debate - also dont happen often enough to move the needle.
The first issue is a team purposely slowing the game down so they can get a relief pitcher ready. To counteract this delay limit the number of visits to the mound from the dugout to 2 per inning (not the 2 per pitcher like they have today). Also, limit the number of visits to the mound per inning by positional players and have a different limit for the catcher.
Second, limit relief pitchers to 3 warm up pitches. After all, they have already been warming up in the bullpen why do they need more than a few pitches to get used to the mound on the field? An alternative is to put relief pitcher on a clock; if they want a lot of warm up pitches then get yourself from the bullpen to the mound asap.
They experimented with a 2min 30sec pitching change clock in the Arizona Fall league a few years back, but i'm not finding anything on google that says it was implemented in the MLB.
Lacrosse
Quote:
for relief pitchers entering a game
They experimented with a 2min 30sec pitching change clock in the Arizona Fall league a few years back, but i'm not finding anything on google that says it was implemented in the MLB.
Lacrosse
"Those who can't hit play Lacrosse"
It's not reset per pitch. It's for the changeover between innings. (I don't think they use it to time the warmup of a relief pitcher, though as MAB said, there is technically a clock on that too, just one that's not really enforced).