The Pace of the Postseason Drives Me Nuts

[Rich Mac]

The commercial breaks are too much, but I also think MLB should seriously look at a way to stop batters from extending appearances with 6 or 7 foul balls. I don't think anything slows down a game more than a 10-12 pitch at bat. To further complicate matters, those at bats then up the pitch counts which lead to more pitching changes ... thus leading to more commercial time.

I think a batter should get one two-strike foul and the second should be a strike. End of story.

[malkusm]

The commercial breaks are too much, but I also think MLB should seriously look at a way to stop batters from extending appearances with 6 or 7 foul balls. I don't think anything slows down a game more than a 10-12 pitch at bat. To further complicate matters, those at bats then up the pitch counts which lead to more pitching changes ... thus leading to more commercial time.

I think a batter should get one two-strike foul and the second should be a strike. End of story.

What? Those extended ABs late in the game with a resilient hitter against one of the other side's best pitchers, with men on base that represent the winning runs....those are the best parts of the entire game!

[Orioles4Life21]

The commercial breaks are too much, but I also think MLB should seriously look at a way to stop batters from extending appearances with 6 or 7 foul balls. I don't think anything slows down a game more than a 10-12 pitch at bat. To further complicate matters, those at bats then up the pitch counts which lead to more pitching changes ... thus leading to more commercial time.

I think a batter should get one two-strike foul and the second should be a strike. End of story.

I really hope that this is a joke.

[Rich Mac]

I really hope that this is a joke.

Nope...if you want a faster game ... something more marketable, that would do it.

Go ahead ... hate me.

[Rich Mac]

Actually, there used to be a time when batters had unlimited bunt opportunities. We all know what baseball did to stop that.

[Orioles4Life21]

Nope...if you want a faster game ... something more marketable, that would do it.

Go ahead ... hate me.

There are ways to do it without so drastically changing the fundamentals of the game. You're essentially eliminating quality at bats.

[Rich Mac]

I don't think it fundamentally changes the game. You aren't eliminating foul balls ... this only happens when the batter gets to two strikes. They've had 2 chances to put the ball into play and then a third with the extra foul. They would only be out on the fourth chance. Some guys have made an art out of slapping away pitches to drag out at bats.

I agree that they are quality at bats under the current rules, but I think MLB should consider it for alacrity and, frankly, entertainment purposes. If you find 5 straight emergency hacks and foul balls exciting, then all the power to you.

I know that my opinion isn't that popular, but I also am not one that is big on those who call themselves baseball "traditionalists". If you were a "traditionalist", you'd be watching cricket. Baseball has constantly evolved over the past century and a half and I think it should be open to further evolving.

[Old#5fan]

All of you are dead wrong on placing blame here on pickoff attempts, extra commercials, etc. it's the dang KC hitters fouling off pitch after pitch after pitch until somehow they get on base. They never seem to go three up three down either unlike the Orioles. Their hitters also seem to step out and call time a lot. If you take notice it seems to take forever for the Orioles to get the 3 outs in an inning on them even when they don't score any runs!

[Emory Eagle]

Nope...if you want a faster game ... something more marketable, that would do it.

Go ahead ... hate me.

Heck, why not just have them suit up in full-pads and start tackling each other, that's evidently more marketable.

[Rich Mac]

Heck, why not just have them suit up in full-pads and start tackling each other, that's evidently more marketable.

So, you recognize that the NFL has done a better marketing job than MLB. At least we are now on the same page.

[LoyalBirdFan]

If a person doesn't have cable or satellite and everything they watch is over-the-air, they can still follow NFL football without lifting a finger.

That isn't true for baseball.

[Emory Eagle]

So, you recognize that the NFL has done a better marketing job than MLB. At least we are now on the same page.

Guardians of the Galaxy did pretty well at the box office, maybe they'd get better ratings if they just aired that instead of putting on the game.

The point is, marketing isn't everything. Substance counts, especially with a "traditional" product like baseball. That's not to say MLB couldn't be doing a better job (and I suspect on this we agree), but it is to say that a ploy such as limiting the number of pitches per at-bat isn't a great idea. It would have dubious value when it comes to attracting new fans, but would most assuredly put-off baseball die-hards (i.e. your best customers) - a New Coke moment of sorts.

[Rich Mac]

If a person doesn't have cable or satellite and everything they watch is over-the-air, they can still follow NFL football without lifting a finger.

That isn't true for baseball.

I am a Ravens and Orioles fan living in the North Philly Suburbs. In this one area, I defend MLB and blame the NFL for falling short. I can easily watch every O's game on MLB.tv and I rarely get to see a Ravens game live. If I want, I can spend too much money for a ridiculous satellite system that I don't want or need. I could also mask my internet IP and make said satellite provider think I'm from Europe, then I could get a live internet feed. However, I admit that I am not quite savvy enough to figure it all out.

[Rich Mac]

Guardians of the Galaxy did pretty well at the box office, maybe they'd get better ratings if they just aired that instead of putting on the game.

The point is, marketing isn't everything. Substance counts, especially with a "traditional" product like baseball. That's not to say MLB couldn't be doing a better job (and I suspect on this we agree), but it is to say that a ploy such as limiting the number of pitches per at-bat isn't a great idea. It would have dubious value when it comes to attracting new fans, but would most assuredly put-off baseball die-hards (i.e. your best customers) - a New Coke moment of sorts.

I do get your point, but I don't think your are taking away substance. Again, what happens when you bunt a ball foul with 2 strikes? MLB limits pitches in that event. I feel that under my sick, twisted rules batters would still have plenty of opportunity to hit strikes and see plenty of pitches. I just don't think that foul balls are exciting and do much to add to the game. If, by the fourth strike pitch of an at bat, you can't put the ball into play, then take a seat on the bench.

[Emory Eagle]

I do get your point, but I don't think your are taking away substance. Again, what happens when you bunt a ball foul with 2 strikes? MLB limits pitches in that event. I feel that under my sick, twisted rules batters would still have plenty of opportunity to hit strikes and see plenty of pitches. I just don't think that foul balls are exciting and do much to add to the game. If, by the fourth strike pitch of an at bat, you can't put the ball into play, then take a seat on the bench.

Certainly would have been a helpful rule against those monster Red Sox and Yankees lineups during the lean years, that's for sure. Those guys would stand there fouling off pitches for ages.