Why is length of games so important?

[mdbdotcom]

I was 7-years old when I hurriedly walked home from school, turned on the TV, and saw this:

[video=youtube;FE1nYMg-jU4]

This moment has stayed with me my whole life. Earlier today I was remembering Game 1 of the 1966 World Series, calling out to my mother in the kitchen, "Hey Ma, Frank Robinson just hit a home run." And moments later, "And Brooks just hit one, too!" It's such a shame that kids don't get to see these moments when they happen live anymore.

btw - That's the NBC radio coverage behind the video, and if one of those voices sounds familiar, that is indeed Chuck Thompson.

[DrungoHazewood]

You can argue what you want.

But, with today's generation, kids (anybody under 30) are bored easier and do not have a desire to devout four hours to a game.

The same kids, can sit and watch a full football game, I guess because there is more action for them.

There's one game a week in football. An average O's week you have 24+ hours of baseball. An average Ravens' week has four hours of football. I think the universe would be ok if the O's gave back 3 or 4.

[DrungoHazewood]

Totally agree weams. One of the beautiful things about baseball is there's no clock - that's why we have records for shortest and longest games ever, just adds to the lore of the game.

I think it would be a tragic mistake for baseball to install some type of clock between pitches.

I'd be fine if the umps just yelled at everyone to keep the pace up like in the old days and maybe gave batters strikes for stepping out.

[Malike]

I really don't care as to the speed of the games. I don't buy its about kids short attention span, they'll sit in front of a Playstation and mash buttons for 16 hours if you let them.

[OFFNY]

I really don't care as to the speed of the games. I don't buy its about kids short attention span, they'll sit in front of a Playstation and mash buttons for 16 hours if you let them.

It was a different era, but when I was a kid (the early 1970's through the early 1980's) you couldn't get me away from the TV set if it there was an exciting game on, ESPECIALLY if the Colts, the Orioles, or the Bullets were playing ...... unless I had a game (or a race) myself.

[Redskins Rick]

I really don't care as to the speed of the games. I don't buy its about kids short attention span, they'll sit in front of a Playstation and mash buttons for 16 hours if you let them.

Correct, because its entertaining to them and they are engaged in it and participating.

Kids now a days are different than how I was raised and you was raised.

Sit back and watch them watch a baseball game and with the power of the remote control in their hands, they flip away, and not just doing commericals.

[LA2]

Totally agree weams. One of the beautiful things about baseball is there's no clock - that's why we have records for shortest and longest games ever, just adds to the lore of the game.

I think it would be a tragic mistake for baseball to install some type of clock between pitches.

A clock between pitches is not the same as putting a clock on the game. The length of the game would still be nine innings, howsoever they are completed. A pitch clock wouldn't even determine how long a single at-bat lasts.

[DrungoHazewood]

Correct, because its entertaining to them and they are engaged in it and participating.

Kids now a days are different than how I was raised and you was raised.

Sit back and watch them watch a baseball game and with the power of the remote control in their hands, they flip away, and not just doing commericals.

People are not significantly different now than they were in 1960 or 1910. Or 1789. They just have different stimuli to react to. When you were growing up you could watch the baseball game (and probably a majority of games weren't on TV) or what was on the other two channels or the radio. Kids today are accustomed to having orders of magnitude more choices. You wouldn't react the same if you'd grown up in today's environment.

[Why Not?]

You can argue what you want.

But, with today's generation, kids (anybody under 30) are bored easier and do not have a desire to devout four hours to a game.

The same kids, can sit and watch a full football game, I guess because there is more action for them.

Not mine. Just this weekend, my 10-year-old commented that NFL games are too long.

And you know there are about 11 minutes of "action" in an NFL game. For every second of action, there are 10 seconds of inaction.

[DrungoHazewood]

Not mine. Just this weekend, my 10-year-old commented that NFL games are too long.

And you know there are about 11 minutes of "action" in an NFL game. For every second of action, there are 10 seconds of inaction.

It really is a jarring contrast to watch a soccer match, two hours long, no commercial breaks except the half and the clock runs continuously, and then move on to a 4-hour NFL game where there's a huddle every minute and commericals every few minutes.

[Why Not?]

It really is a jarring contrast to watch a soccer match, two hours long, no commercial breaks except the half and the clock runs continuously, and then move on to a 4-hour NFL game where there's a huddle every minute and commericals every few minutes.

My son will watch soccer for just that reason. It's the opposite of the common narrative that soccer is too boring and American football is exciting. Though I haven't really steered him in that direction, I am glad he is enjoying soccer more than football. We want his brain to continue working properly.

[MdSooner]

Not mine. Just this weekend, my 10-year-old commented that NFL games are too long.

And you know there are about 11 minutes of "action" in an NFL game. For every second of action, there are 10 seconds of inaction.

There isn't a lot of difference of actual play time between mlb and the nfl.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/449125-how-much-actual-playtime-occurs-in-a-baseball-game/

[Yardball85]

I'd be fine if the umps just yelled at everyone to keep the pace up like in the old days and maybe gave batters strikes for stepping out.

Haha. That would be better than a clock - kind of a "um, let's get moving" tsk tsk from the umps. No formal clock though - very unbaseball-like.

[Yardball85]

A clock between pitches is not the same as putting a clock on the game. The length of the game would still be nine innings, howsoever they are completed. A pitch clock wouldn't even determine how long a single at-bat lasts.

But that's just not how baseball is played. Making a pitcher deliver before he is ready puts him at a competitive disadvantage. And what happens if there are runners on? You can't just remove controlling the run game, vis a vis holding the ball and throwing over, just because people think it lasts too long.

[DrungoHazewood]

But that's just not how baseball is played. Making a pitcher deliver before he is ready puts him at a competitive disadvantage.

Lots of things put various players at a competitive disadvantage. The batter is at a huge disadvantage in not knowing what kind or location or speed of pitch is coming. In the early days he could call for a high or low pitch, and the pitcher couldn't deliver the ball overhand, or even with a snap of his wrist. The pitcher is at a competitive disadvantage when he sees the runner going in the middle of his delivery and he can't stop and throw him out. The batter was put at a competitive disadvantage when foul balls were declared strikes in 1903-04. The pitcher is at a disadvantage because of the gradual acceptance of the walk as a thing in the 1870s and 1880s; prior to that he could just throw balls out of the reach of the batter until he got fed up and swung.

It's a sport. At some level all the rules on how the game is played are just made up, with no real logic to them beyond someone thinking that was good enough and tradition overcame the desire to tweak.