Jump to content

New Pace of Game Rules


TonySoprano

Recommended Posts

I don't see any evidence that this is a need.

I think most of us would like to have it happen. I don't think the future health of the sport is necessarily predicated upon it happening.

Need maybe too strong of a term. The future health of the game depends a little bit on a lot of things.

But I don't think it helps baseball's case when most of the other popular sports have well-defined, shorter games and baseball is slower paced, often takes 3+ hours, and once in a while takes five or six hours.

That's another I was thinking about watching the Nats' 18-inning affair... does any other sport allow this to happen? Is it even possible to have a football/hockey/soccer/basketball game that lasts 6.5 hours? I know I've heard of hockey games going into 4, 5, 6 overtimes in the playoffs, but I doubt those were that long (I really don't know). Soccer, at the longest, has 120 minutes plus maybe a half hour of intermission(s). I guess basketball and football could theoretically go an infinte number of overtimes, but what's the longest a real game has gone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 45
  • Created
  • Last Reply
How many of those games were on television? Obviously pace of play could be sped up but I don't think it's fair to point out 2 hour game times back before stadium lights and regional sports networks.

TV timeouts do help drive up the length of game, sure. But I also think there are ways around that. If you shorten the commercial timeouts you make them more scarce and more valuable. Soccer has one timeout at the half, but it's not like EPL teams are hurting for media revenues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Need maybe too strong of a term. The future health of the game depends a little bit on a lot of things.

But I don't think it helps baseball's case when most of the other popular sports have well-defined, shorter games and baseball is slower paced, often takes 3+ hours, and once in a while takes five or six hours.

That's another I was thinking about watching the Nats' 18-inning affair... does any other sport allow this to happen? Is it even possible to have a football/hockey/soccer/basketball game that lasts 6.5 hours? I know I've heard of hockey games going into 4, 5, 6 overtimes in the playoffs, but I doubt those were that long (I really don't know). Soccer, at the longest, has 120 minutes plus maybe a half hour of intermission(s). I guess basketball and football could theoretically go an infinte number of overtimes, but what's the longest a real game has gone?

I don't watch the NFL anymore but don't their games come in at around three hours? Don't MNF games last closer to four?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't watch the NFL anymore but don't their games come in at around three hours? Don't MNF games last closer to four?

Probably. I know it's always jarring to watch an NFL game on Sunday afternoon after watching an EPL game in the morning. The soccer game is over in two hours with commercials only at the half. The NFL game is much longer, and can have a commercial every three minutes.

I don't know. Maybe baseball can convince people that 3-4 hours for a game is fine. I just know I'd be happier if an average game was played at a faster pace and was closer to two hours than three+.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a feeling that unusual injuries in key moments will be heavily scrutinized.

And if you don't think 2:30 is enough time for Joba to gather up the wheelbarrow, hoist his beard and substantial girth into it, and haul it out to the mound... well, maybe he needs to find his way to the dugout prior to the official pitching change. Or bring back bullpen carts. Or just not change pitchers every eight pitches.

Sure it is enough time to get to the mound, but not to have a few words of strategy with the manager and/or catcher and also complete 8 warm-up pitches. This time clock will result in fewer warm-up pitches on numerous occasions, IMO. My opinion is that this could create a safety issue. Just no reason to hold that time so low, in my view. Three minutes and 30 seconds seems more reasonable and safer to me. In the broad view, this factor has no real bearing on the length of game problem. You would be talking reducing a game that is chock full of pitching changes what... five minutes, maybe? Tops. Not worth the risk of injury, IMO.

Reducing the ridiculous time between pitches with certain pitchers and batters in MLB is the key, and the other rules changes cover that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

o

Perhaps the most famous intentional walk ever, from the 1972 World Series.

Johnny Bench was at the plate, with a count of 3-2. 1st base was open, and runners were on 2nd and 3rd. Athletics manager Dick Williams visited the pitcher's mound. He yelled at his pitcher (Rollie Fingers), and motioned furiously by pointing to 1st base, and then to the on-deck circle ...... a seemingly obvious reference to intentionally walk the batter.

Athletics catcher Gene Tenace went back behind home plate, and stood up and held his hand out to catch what everybody (including Bench) thought would be ball four ...... but at the last instant, Tenace crouched back down into his usual catcher's position, and Fingers threw a fastball on the outside corner for strike three, sending an embarrassed Bench back to the dugout.

[video=youtube;xw0w9rhNtCk]

42 years after the Fingers-Tenace-Bench incident, something else exciting happened on an intentional walk play.

With the bases loaded and 1 out in the bottom of the 7th inning, the Giants scored the go-ahead run on a wild pitch, which also allowed the other 2 baserunners to advance to 2nd and 3rd base, respectively.

With 1st base now open, the Nationals decided to intentionally walk Pablo Sandoval.

But on the 1st pitch of the intentional walk attempt, pitcher Aaron Barrett threw the ball clear over catcher Wilson Ramos' head, which prompted Buster Posey to try to score from 3rd base.

Posey was just barely thrown out when Ramos fired the ball back to Barrett at home plate, just in the nick of time.

So, regardless of how routine the intentional walk is ...... even if it is ordinarily even more automatic than extra point kicks in the N.F.L. are ....... maybe they should not get rid of the formality of going through with it. :cool:

Wild Pitch on Intentional Walk Leads to Nats-Giants Controversy

(By Dayn Perry)

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/24742788/video-wild-pitch-on-intentional-walk-leads-to-nats-giants-controversy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, regardless of how routine the intentional walk is ...... even if it is ordinarily even more automatic than extra point kicks in the N.F.L. are ....... maybe they should not get rid of the formality of going through with it.

Or even better, just get rid of the intentional walk altogether. You can have more fun with wild pitches and passed balls on normal pitches than with soft tosses to a standing catcher. Especially if you're trying to execute an unintentional/intentional walk to conform to new rules banning explicit IBBs.

(Yes, I know the last inning the O's played turned on an intentional walk.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or even better, just get rid of the intentional walk altogether. You can have more fun with wild pitches and passed balls on normal pitches than with soft tosses to a standing catcher. Especially if you're trying to execute an unintentional/intentional walk to conform to new rules banning explicit IBBs.

(Yes, I know the last inning the O's played turned on an intentional walk.)

Hey, I'm open to all suggestions ...... even George Carlin's proposal that if the pitcher hits the batter with a pitch, the batter is out.

You hit 27 batters, you've got yourself a perfect game.

That would certainly speed up the game (although with all of the fistfights and brawls that would probably ensue, it might actually make the game longer.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Resurrecting this old thread because of an idea that came to me while reading Tango's blog... He's talking about starting all mid-inning pitching changes with a 1-0 count. To disincentivize the delay that comes from mid-inning changes and speed up the game. But I have a related idea - change how they enforce the rule already on the books that requires the pitcher to deliver a pitch within 20 seconds: make it apply to the reliever, too. In other words, if you want to change pitchers mid-inning you have to do it within 20 seconds or he gets an automatic ball called. So you get your LOOGY to run down to the dugout during the prior batter, and you make what would today be the world's fastest pitching change. No warmup tosses, you just go. I think I really like that idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Resurrecting this old thread because of an idea that came to me while reading Tango's blog... He's talking about starting all mid-inning pitching changes with a 1-0 count. To disincentivize the delay that comes from mid-inning changes and speed up the game. But I have a related idea - change how they enforce the rule already on the books that requires the pitcher to deliver a pitch within 20 seconds: make it apply to the reliever, too. In other words, if you want to change pitchers mid-inning you have to do it within 20 seconds or he gets an automatic ball called. So you get your LOOGY to run down to the dugout during the prior batter, and you make what would today be the world's fastest pitching change. No warmup tosses, you just go. I think I really like that idea.

This makes sense to you?

Do you really hate baseball this much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This makes sense to you?

Do you really hate baseball this much?

I love baseball and I think it's awesome. I really don't get the people who think LaRussaing the heck out of the game with three or four mid-inning pitching changes and the attached five minutes of warmups and commercials is awesome. I just want to get back to time-tested, traditional baseball where two hour games were the norm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love baseball and I think it's awesome. I really don't get the people who think LaRussaing the heck out of the game with three or four mid-inning pitching changes and the attached five minutes of warmups and commercials is awesome. I just want to get back to time-tested, traditional baseball where two hour games were the norm.

Me too, but bizarre changes to basic rules that create a novelty act out of changing pitchers is certainly not the way to do it.

Enforcing the rules that are already in place would be a good start, don't you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me too, but bizarre changes to basic rules that create a novelty act out of changing pitchers is certainly not the way to do it.

Enforcing the rules that are already in place would be a good start, don't you think?

Sure, but that rarely works without other changes. The rule to have a pitcher keep up pace has been on the books for many decades and people have talked about pace for at least as long, and the time has continued to creep up with no limit.

I don't see how having the pitcher ready to go in the dugout prior to the change is "bizarre". If you were designing the game from scratch today which do you think makes more sense: a) interrupting the flow of the game so that a pitcher can walk in from a bullpen 400 feet away then take some warmup pitches before resuming play five minutes later, or b) have the pitcher warm up in the pen, make his way to the dugout while play continues, and be ready to go when called on? Is there any other sport where a simple substitution requires play to be stopped for several minutes? Even the NFL, where commercial breaks happen every few minutes, do subs within the normal pace and structure of the game. Can you imagine if kickers were allowed eight warmup kicks before each field goal? Or if every NBA sub got to take eight practice free throws?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, but that rarely works without other changes. The rule to have a pitcher keep up pace has been on the books for many decades and people have talked about pace for at least as long, and the time has continued to creep up with no limit.

I don't see how having the pitcher ready to go in the dugout prior to the change is "bizarre". If you were designing the game from scratch today which do you think makes more sense: a) interrupting the flow of the game so that a pitcher can walk in from a bullpen 400 feet away then take some warmup pitches before resuming play five minutes later, or b) have the pitcher warm up in the pen, make his way to the dugout while play continues, and be ready to go when called on? Is there any other sport where a simple substitution requires play to be stopped for several minutes? Even the NFL, where commercial breaks happen every few minutes, do subs within the normal pace and structure of the game. Can you imagine if kickers were allowed eight warmup kicks before each field goal? Or if every NBA sub got to take eight practice free throws?

Each mound is different, and each pitcher is different. The prior pitcher's landing spot may well have created a hole in a bad spot for your landing. This is a safety hazard. Taking eight warm-up tosses and making sure the mound is right and safe is NOT what is causing 4 hour baseball games.

Far, far more time is wasted with the silly cat and mouse games between pitchers and hitters. Umpires used to enforce those rules, and, for the most part, still do in amateur baseball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Each mound is different, and each pitcher is different. The prior pitcher's landing spot may well have created a hole in a bad spot for your landing. This is a safety hazard. Taking eight warm-up tosses and making sure the mound is right and safe is NOT what is causing 4 hour baseball games.

Far, far more time is wasted with the silly cat and mouse games between pitchers and hitters. Umpires used to enforce those rules, and, for the most part, still do in amateur baseball.

I'm all good with umps actually making pace a priority. And I think the safety aspect has probably saved tens of minor injuries over the past century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • Posts

    • Thank you.  Not sure how easy for someone who may have been doing it for years and someone who’s been talented enough to make it work.   Someone posted a video of Freddie Freeman and Holliday to show similarities but, to me, it just showed how different their lead foot was.  Freeman’s was closed and perfectly in line and parallel to his back foot.  Hollidays foot pointed out and the foot towards 2B position.  I questioned it.  Other guys, who admittedly know more, said it was no problem.  Again, he might be able to become a HOF with those mechanics.  I’ve just never seen a good ML hitter hit that way. From that early January thread “I guess it depends on your definition of “step in the bucket”.  His stride foot definitely doesn’t go straight.  Pretty easy to see where his foot is in relation to the batters box and how much further away it is when it lands.  It doesn’t seem to affect him negatively though.  Interestingly enough, Freeman’s stride foot goes perfectly straight.” Edited January 6 by RZNJ
    • He allowed only one batted ball over 95 MPH, commanding his cutter particularly well in this one. I think the cutter is the most critical pitch for Povich to take the next step. He’s never had issues getting punch outs, he needs to be able to pitch in the zone without relying too much on his fastball. It’s also a key weapon against RHP - if you don’t have a true plus breaking ball or fastball that can overcome the platoon splits (which I don’t think Povich does), you can only make it as a LHP SP through the strength of your cutter and changeup, which are more reverse/neutral splits.  His changeup is probably not good enough to carry him on its own, so it’s the cutter that brings the whole pitch mix together.  
    • Agree he steps in the bucket. In theory should be a relatively easy fix. 
    • His back or shoulder might give out first. Hardly any talented pitcher retires without some sort of serious injury recorded.
    • Plus Member  30.8k Posted January 24 Aram Leighton from Just Baseball on Holliday “He has the tendency to pull off of the ball a bit with his front side, which can minimize his ability to use the ground and his lower half to generate more power, especially on pitches on the outer half. The move does not impede his ability to consistently make contact thanks to his adjustability and feel for the barrel. Holliday projects as an easy plus hitter with more juice to tap into.“ https://www.justbaseball.com/prospects/baltimore-orioles-top-15-prospects-for-2024/
    • I guess my point is that the difference between 91 and 93 at the MLB level is probably negligible.  I would put significant emphasis on pitch sequencing, command and control, and the ability to land his secondary pitches.  If I am recalling his repertoire correctly his most important pitch is his change up.  And it was his ability to effectively throw a breaking pitch, I think it was a Slider, that really ushered in his pre-injury success.  Now you can make the case that 2 miles per hours of fastball velocity may make the change up an even more effective pitch.  I would not argue with you about that aspect, however I am not certain it explains much about his previous success.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...